POLL: Park and Rides- Your opinion

[#Metro]

Three day poll

[ozbob]

TT is the poll correct?  I think you mean pay for park n' ride??

[#Metro]

Groan. I meant PAY for park and ride.
Oh well.

[ozbob]

Edited the poll.

[HappyTrainGuy]

If travel to and from the park and ride was included/discounted/not that expensive to park then I'm all for it. If its a separate fee on top of the ticket depending on price then I'd have to say no and park on a side street near by. I'd rather walk for a few minutes than to pay an extra fee just to park closer to the station. I use the Zillmere park and ride so I don't know if the same will apply to other locations.

[somebody]

If travel to and from the park and ride was included/discounted/not that expensive to park then I'm all for it. If its a separate fee on top of the ticket depending on price then I'd have to say no and park on a side street near by. I'd rather walk for a few minutes than to pay an extra fee just to park closer to the station. I use the Zillmere park and ride so I don't know if the same will apply to other locations.

If it's not a separate fee, then I don't see the point.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with people parking who are willing to pay the full cost of doing so, it is the expectation of subsidised parking which gets up some people's noses.

[Golliwog]

I slightly disagree somebody. There are always going to be people who live too far away from PT that if they are to use PT would have to drive to it. To that end I would think having a set parking fee of say $5 (for examples sake only) which is charged via go card but counts as a fare already paid, so traveling anywhere where the ticket would cost $5 or less is technically "free" but if they travel less than that, then they are paying extra to park at the station.

Just a point though, are people who drive to the station and park there the worst? If you think about it, those who have someone drop them off and pick them up are ultimately "worse" as they have generated 4 car trips instead of just 2.

[somebody]

Just a point though, are people who drive to the station and park there the worst? If you think about it, those who have someone drop them off and pick them up are ultimately "worse" as they have generated 4 car trips instead of just 2.

I see your point, but the problem is that the public isn't paying for someone to drop them off.

[Golliwog]

True, but I also suppose that depends on the traffic at the station. If everyone was dropped off and picked up, can you imagine the traffic around the station that would cause? Maybe not costing directly, but certainly can cause a waste of time.

[HappyTrainGuy]

If it's not a separate fee, then I don't see the point.

I don't think anyone here has an issue with people parking who are willing to pay the full cost of doing so, it is the expectation of subsidised parking which gets up some people's noses.

I'm still going to disagree a little but what Golliwog said was a great example of how it could be implemented. All though I reckon people living past Caboolture wouldn't back it. If it was implemented by 2014 using the 2014 translink price lists with a $5 per day parking fee a weekly adult trip from Gympie return using the park and ride would be $282.30 ($25.73 x 2 = 51.46 x 5 = 257.30 + 25 = 282.30) or from Nambour it would be $210.50 (18.55 x 2 = 37.10 x 5 = 185.50 + 25 = 210.50). Great if you car pool, an extra burden if its just you.

[Jonno]

Don't support a pay for parking as I don't support Park and Rides either free or pay.

[johnnigh]

Park & Ride can be seen as an intermediate solution, given that virtually door-to-door PT in Brisbane is a pipedream for the coming decades. Some P&Rs are just otherwise wastelands, while some purpose built ones are multistory buildings designed to be converted into office (or industrial) space when travel habits have changed sufficiently. Once a household is habituated to PT via P&R, the change to active or local bus solutions is easy and the once-P&R is converted to its higher value activity.

[somebody]

Don't support a pay for parking as I don't support Park and Rides either free or pay.

Really?  That's a bit of an extreme viewpoint isn't it?

[Derwan]

Jonno's solution is to stop making cars altogether.

Unfortunately if you charge for park'n'rides, it will only make the congestion in the streets around stations worse - as people will try to park in the street to avoid the charge.

Likewise, if you provide feeder buses with the end result of costing no more than the fare from the station (i.e. same zone), you disadvantage people who aren't serviced by those feeder buses if they have to pay to park at the station.

Charging is not the solution.  Adequate feeder buses are.

[#Metro]

I disagree.

Park and ride is necessary, depending on how the system is designed and the location.
The residents of Upper Brookfield, for example, are not going to catch the bus- I cannot see how a bus service up that way could get even close
to any significant proportion of people who live there, the suburb is so spread out.

Car parks are not free. They are not free to construct, maintain or operate. Many, but not all should be charged for.
If you provide things for free, they one can expect to run out of supply. If you put a price on it, people know upfront and factor that in
when they think about making a PT trip. Some may say that this will encourage people to spill into the streets, although I
doubt this would be much different to the current situation where this happens anyway.

I think people will pay for parking so long as it is made clear, that the cost of these carparks is something like $20 000 - $40 000
per space to construct and they are given a choice by putting extra feeder buses are put on. The government has no obligation
to giveaway carparks for free, when they cost money to build and maintain. I think people will pay a reasonable amount $2 perhaps,
after all, they pay $10 + for parking in the CBD.

Just putting more feeder buses on will increase pax I think, but I think feeder bus patronage will still suffer because you are allowing mode
share to go to the car by encouraging people to drive to the P+R, and if the P+R is big (600 spaces or so), that's a lot of empty buses.

[somebody]

Charging is not the solution.  Adequate feeder buses are.

While I see what you are saying, a number of places, such as inner suburbs have limited street parking.  I don't see what the problem would be with further parking restrictions where this may be required.

Most people are fairly reluctant to use feeder buses, and may need some encouragement.

[Derwan]

I can see your point Tramtrain, but as you say, as long as...

they are given a choice by putting extra feeder buses are put on.

This has to be the first step.

I think you'll still get the whingers who say, "If the bus doesn't come down my street, why should I be disadvantaged by having to pay for the Park'n'ride?"

A nominal fee of $2 sounds good, but the cost of maintaining the equipment to let vehicles in/out and apply the cost to Go Cards, etc, may mean that there is not much left over to fund other initiatives.  Also, who will be responsible for looking after faults?  (E.g. gate broken - no one can get out of the car park.)

Most people are fairly reluctant to use feeder buses, and may need some encouragement.

Yes - I thought of this too.  I was just worried about the people who would be disadvantaged if these new feeder buses went down every other street but theirs!

[#Metro]

More bicycle spaces!

This has to be the first step.

I agree. Bus frequencies to rail and on rail must be increased. Inevitably some direct routes would become feeder buses at higher frequency. I can hear TL wince at this thought. But if you put on feeders AND don't reorganize the direct routes the whole exercise will be futile and blow up the budget.

Park and ride should generally be charged for IMHO, unless there is some exceptional reason preventing this (i.e. disabled parking spaces, no feeder bus viable or possible). All that maintainence, construction cost and surveillance costs money, money that would be better spent on actual services.

A lot of money marked for "Public transport" has been spent on car parks. This is the least useful and least beneficial thing to spend money on IMHO because it could be spent on better bus services which can run all day and pull in more patrons overall than a car park that is used once, occupied through the entire day, and then vacated at night.

I think I am getting a clearer picture of why PT is so subsidized, and it's not because we are getting a lot of services, quite the opposite!!!

[#Metro]

A nominal fee of $2 sounds good, but the cost of maintaining the equipment to let vehicles in/out and apply the cost to Go Cards, etc, may mean that there is not much left over to fund other initiatives.  Also, who will be responsible for looking after faults?  (E.g. gate broken - no one can get out of the car park.)

What if there is no gate?

For example, you could mount a camera with Automatic Vehicle Number Plate recognition.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And that wouldn't be a cheap option over the whole PT network. Not to mention if it gets constantly vandalised.

[Jonno]

Jonno's solution is to stop making cars altogether.

Unfortunately if you charge for park'n'rides, it will only make the congestion in the streets around stations worse - as people will try to park in the street to avoid the charge.

Likewise, if you provide feeder buses with the end result of costing no more than the fare from the station (i.e. same zone), you disadvantage people who aren't serviced by those feeder buses if they have to pay to park at the station.

Charging is not the solution.  Adequate feeder buses are.

I have a "Zero Policy" on car park spaces not cars...or car park spaces limited to those "really needed".    PS. I love my car. I just don't want to have to use it for every single trip.

Park and rides are expensive and they reduce development around transit stops and thus encourage further sprawl. It also allows the transport planners to claim the transit stop catchment is 3-4km rather than focusing on providing stops.  Charging also gives politicians ideas for commercial car parking rather than transit provision.

We have to build a city that has urban development focused around a network of tranit stops. Thus each neighbourhood should be truely walkable to a transit stop (700-800m).  Feeder services would be cross-town services that create the network spider-web and also all for those who find the walk hard (elderly, ill, etc.).

If we want to truely design the transit network for this city we need to do the following:

1. identify each walkable neighbourhood and its centre;
2. link/arrange them into a commercial heirarchy (neighbourhood, district, town centre/CBD);
3. create a network of trunk and cross-town routes that links all the neighbourhood centres/transit stops to the commerical heirarchy.

Thus no need for park and rides and no need to take the car our of the garage unless you really really have to.