Car parking - solutions?

[hU0N]

Just putting a building in the carpark will not solve everything. Why? People tend to move house only very slowly and while transit access is great for those new units/apartments/houses near the stations, it still leaves the question on how practical it is for people who do NOT live near the station are going to get to the station.

And, for Brisbane especially, how to get to the station given the fact that BCC is hellbent on running it's high-waste direct bus network style and avoiding train stations at all costs. Cycling can be slow, dangerous and not for everyone (i.e a mother with two young kids, needs to drop them off at kindy/school and then head to work).

If I live out at Inala, no amount of TOD around Ipswich line stations is going to help me get to the station. If I live at Yeronga, no amount of TOD is going to get me to the station in the morning. For that you need more than access, you need mobility. Car currently fills that gap (Thanks to the BCC - Brisbane Car Commission).

I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I really think that buses need to be treated as being of secondary importance.  I mean, look at Transperth, where they have done everything imaginable to encourage people to use public transport.  We can make the following observations

Over the past ten years:

- Public transport initial boardings per capita has increased by more than 36%. (It is hard to say exactly how much because transperth no longer include CAT and FTZ initial boardings in their reported figure for initial boardings).

- Train Total boardings per capita has increased by 52%.  (This indicates how many people use the train, regardless of whether they are walk up, drive up or transfer from a feeder bus).

- Bus initial boardings per capita has increased by only 1%.  (This is important because it represents the number of people catching the bus BEFORE catching the train, which makes it a much better indicator of feeder bus performance than Total Boardings per capita).

These figures capture the opening of the Mandurah line.

It shows that opening a new high frequency trunk route spurred significant growth in transit ridership, which was especially concentrated on the new route.  All of which is to be expected.

What it also shows is that conversion of a large slab of the direct service bus network to a feeder network design had very limited impact on the number of people catching the bus BEFORE they caught the train (ie people catching a feeder bus).  This implies that the only people who were attracted to the feeder buses were people who were shifting from the old direct service buses.  That is, people who were already transit dependent.

All the growth in the Mandurah corridor has come from people for whom the train is the first or only leg of their journey, that is people who walk or drive up to the station.  And a key component of encouraging and supporting this growth has been the provision of expansive park and ride facilities at almost every Mandurah line station.  I think it is fair to say that, even with excellent feeder buses, the car park has been the number one most critical piece of the puzzle in understanding the success of Transperth rail.

In Brisbane, I guess that this means that BCC could route all it's buses to the stations, and the likely scenario is that bus passengers (who are already transit riders) would be funnelled onto the train.  This outcome delivers little in real benefits, except that Translink might or might not save some money (Transperth figures suggest it would not, as feeder buses cost to operate per passenger ACTUALLY carried is around 90% of what it was for the old direct service buses they replaced).

If you want to maximise the real benefits of your transit system, you'd be much better off putting feeder buses to one side (as a "nice to have" not an essential), and focus on improving trunk service frequency and car accessibility at the major stations.

[ozbob]

Have you sources for your data?.

From memory there around 70 feeder bus routes overall to the Mandura line.  They are are very important part of the mix.   The problem with not supporting properly with feeder bus is that park n' ride is very finite, and increasingly swamped early. This then means others eg. shift workers, later starters and so forth cannot access the stations at all.  If peak commuters can use a bus particularly it does lessen the parking load.

There are many rail stations that do depend on feeder buses in SEQ.  Continued expansion for park n' ride is not possible.  Better feeder bus options must be provided as well as park n' ride.  Some direct service routes in SEQ would be better directed as feeders, either to rail or HF bus. The feeders can then be ramped up in frequency and span.  This works.

http://chartingtransport.com/2010/11/13/public-transport-patronage-trends/

Perth's bus patronage is an interesting story. Between 2007-08 and 2009-10, patronage increased by 14%, while timetabled kms only increased by 2.8%. When the Mandurah line was opened in late 2007, buses that previously travelled into the city were converted into rail feeder buses. This significantly reduced the bus trip lengths and hence passenger trip lengths for people who now transfer onto trains (the introduction of transfers might also have increased total boardings more than the total number of "journeys"). Presumably it meant that bus frequencies could be improved and/or buses were reconfigured to meet travel demands that were not well catered for previously.

[ozbob]

For interest ..  Melbourne

Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail
http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news/news-promotions/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/

Page  24
Quote

    Convenient and frequent intermodal connections are a key feature of a metro-style system. A
    significant number of Melbourne's public transport trips involve such transfers – 50 per cent of all
    bus trips, 40 per cent of tram trips and 35 per cent of train trips.

[hU0N]

For sure.  Numbers come from PTA annual reports (http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/PublicationsandPolicies/AnnualReports/tabid/106/Default.aspx), which give total boardings and total initial boardings for the entire network and by mode.  I've converted these to per capita figures using population data from ABS.

I think that per capita is a much better way of looking at the data because Perth's population has increased by 25% in the last decade.  Using per capita figures helps identify changes in commuter behaviour as distinct from changes in population size.  In other words, if 5% of the population were transit dependent in 2003, then you'd expect a similar percentage to be transit dependent in 2013.  In a growing population, this fact alone would lead to a growth in passenger numbers on the network that would not imply anything meaningful about changing commuter behaviours.

As I noted, I focussed on the total initial bus boardings.  This number represents the number of journeys that either start with a non-free bus leg, or are completed in their entirety on a non-free bus.  I know that this isn't a perfect analogy for the actual feeder bus performance.  But at the same time, it isn't too bad.  It is the sum of all direct bus journeys plus any inbound or crosstown journeys that start with a feeder bus leg.

There are two potential confounding factors.  Firstly, this approach is vulnerable to equal and opposite swings in the patronage on feeder buses and direct service buses. If this occurred, the two would cancel each other out.  For this to occur, there would need to be a rapid decline in patronage on the direct service buses.  I think this is unlikely because there have been no particular changes to the direct service bus routes in Perth that would account for this.  It would be very odd if the populations of the suburbs served by direct service buses had suddenly and uniformly decided to abandon public transport for no good reason, especially when the population of virtually all other suburbs of Perth were embracing public transport with equivalent enthusiasm.  Secondly, this approach ignores the popularity of outbound feeder bus services.  I am comfortable that this is not a problem, because I would expect that most commuters who catch an outbound feeder bus on the way home in the afternoon also caught the inbound feeder bus on the way out in the morning.  In the absence of better data I think it is reasonable to assume that outbound feeder bus performance roughly mirrors inbound.

As for the operating costs, this is based on the boardings per bus vehicle kilometer of the bus network (also from the annual reports).  I have assumed that, in real terms (ie after taking inflation into account) the cost of operating a bus for 1 km hasn't changed much in a decade.  In 2003 the boardings were 1.23/vkm, in other words, for each passenger, the operator had to pay the operate the bus for 810m (regardless of how long the passenger stayed on the bus).  In 2012 the boardings were 1.39/vkm, ie. for each passenger the operator had to pay to operate the bus for 720m.  This amounts to a bit more than a 10% saving for the operator over this timeframe.

If you will permit me a criticism of the quote that you posted, it uses absolute ridership and not per capita ridership.  As mentioned above, this means that more than half of the observed increase represents nothing more than population change and should probably be ignored.  Secondly, it uses the total boardings rather than the total initial boardings.  Total boardings includes (among other things) boardings on the popular CAT services that, according to the most recent survey of CAT boardings carried out by PTA, have been growing at 11% year on year.  It's hard to say what would happen to this 14% growth if you took out the contribution of population growth and growth of CAT services.  I suspect it would be much closer to the growth in total initial boardings per capita that I quoted above (ie close to zero).

All that said, this is something that really interests me.  Although lots of research has been carried out about the relative merits of buses vs trains vs LRT vs BRT, not much seems to have been done about the performance of various components within a heterogeneous transit network.  If you know of any good research comparing feeder bus with direct service with out-running BRT (a la the SE Busway) and other types of mixed mode, I'd love to get a hold of it.

[ozbob]

See what I can find.

The problem we are facing in Brisbane is simply physically no more buses can fit into the CBD.   A connected network has to be developed properly from this point.  SEB is at bus capacity, but not yet pax capacity as well.  A lot of the buses are carrying small pax loads.

Peter Newman waxes lyrical about the role of the feeders, he also recognises that park n' ride is needed as well. 

[Jonno]

Whilst undoubtably our train network could be moving far more people far more frequently, Brisbane's true transport problem is that significant % of the city are not within cooee of a rail line or busway, are traveling across the city (i.e. the don't want to go to or through the CBD) and we have not designed our cities as walkable, compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods. 

A bus route should not feed a rail station. It should connect to a railway station as part of cross-city frequent transit network (i.e operate like a rail line except its on a major road and the vehicle is a bus - would require bus lanes, wider spaced stops and signaling control).

Ultimately it is the connectivity and ability to move around a city that gets ridership up.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Can't say much about other regions but a majority of the northside has access to a nearby railway line be it in the form of the Shorncliffe, Caboolture lines and Doomben/Airport lines. Personally I think and I'm sure I've said it numerous times before that the Northside (so your Aspley, Chermside, Carseldine, Bridgeman Downs, Bracken Ridge, Boondall, Taigum, Geebung, Wavel Heights, Toombul, Nundah, Nudgee, Northgate, Stafford, Kedron, Clayfield, Ascot, Grange etc) has the potential to have one of the best PT setups in Brisbane due to the road layout and close proxmity of multiple railway lines and bus interchanges within a very short distance of each other. Problem is that to access it you have to travel in a V formation and put up with the awful bus connection times and the resulting bus frequency (I think its Simon that always argues with me that the train has to be 15 minutes to make it worthwild but I desagree considering the northside only has hourly or even worse route frequency - pre buz of the 330/340 and still to this day the 680, 310, 315 are really the only routes that have a 30 minute or better frequency. 2hrly 336, 337, 354 still remain) to access it due to the old bus vs train designed routes (remember a 2hrly bus is still the fastest route from the Aspley Interchange to Geebung Railway station at about 10 minutes but despite the Carseldine heading detour it connects with the railway line and stops on the platform doorstep unlike the 325 which stops a few hundred metres up the road although that will change when the overpass goes through). Its also exactly what Translinks bus network review for Brisbanes northside did. They put emphsis on minimal key routes and then secondary route the hell out of the area where as these routes would normally continue onto the city but instead they now fed into the railway line or a high frequency route. Access to railway stations for areas was improved along with routes set up in a way that they could be modified and rerouted in the future when new housing estates, mixed commercial areas and new roads/infrastructure was made available. It also looked like Translink had publicly put support into the railway (without actually saying it) and really wanted to drive futher demand to the existing network which really really needs it until that all went belly up when once again by someone higher up stepping in and undoing all that hard work.

[ozbob]

The proposed HF bus route 25 in the TransLink Bus review was a good one Jonno.  Connecting Mount Ommaney to Forest Lake with connections at Darra and Oxley rail, it would have been great relief to parking pressures, whilst providing good connectivity and frequency, cross suburban.  I would be surprised if it survives the BCC review, because it was supporting rail in part.

[Jonno]

The proposed bus review routes were a great step forward and their demise will cost our city dearly.  Brisbane has the potential to create a web of high frequency transit routes be it rail, busway or bus lane.  It's all there ready to be done. Just no leaders!!!!

[ozbob]

Sunshine Coast Daily --> Paid up with nowhere to park - uni students have had enough

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Workers battle Westfield pay parking fees through Fair Work legal action

[somebody]

This link: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm
Is about the most thorough answer to the question I could imagine.

[ozbob]

This link: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm72.htm
Is about the most thorough answer to the question I could imagine.

Thanks, quite a comprehensive effort indeed.  Certainly looks at the issues is some depth ...   not sure if the Queensland bureaucratic attention span will do it justice!

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Westfield Shopping Centre announces paid parking date at Garden City, but stays non-committal on North Lakes

[ozbob]

National Times --> Long free park had to come to an end

Canberra

Editorial

Treasurer Wayne Swan's announcement in Tuesday's budget that parking fees will be introduced in the Parliamentary Triangle from July 1 next year will not appear on his political epitaph but it surely deserves the inclusion of a footnote.

For years, the National Capital Authority fielded complaints about parking in the Parliamentary Triangle: that because it was free it encouraged public servants to commute by car and often to occupy spaces set aside for visitors to cultural institutions and departmental offices and that this was fundamentally inequitable in a city where office workers at Civic, Woden, Belconnen and Tuggeranong are obliged to pay for parking.

Unions representing public servants working in the triangle were critical too: not of paid parking per se but of the closure of car parks, and the lack of consultation surrounding such closures. Not surprisingly, the unions were resolute in defending the status quo, arguing that free parking was justified because the triangle was poorly served by public transport and because it lacked the kind of facilities (shops and banks) taken for granted by workers in the town centres.

The NCA issued discussion papers but never appeared to form a view as to whether a continuation of free parking was an appropriate policy in an area where traffic volumes and visitor numbers were rising inexorably. Or if it did, chose not to make it public. Instead, it opted to delegate the matter to higher authority.

While several federal parliamentary committees obliged by looking into paid parking, their conclusions wound up on the vast pile of other committee reports gathering dust in the parliamentary library. The federal government was the one authority that could resolve the matter but for many years appears to have considered it unworthy of discussion.

That the Gillard government has taken this fateful step may be viewed as a measure of its desperation (and determination) to tap all potential revenue sources to fund future spending commitments. However, the introduction of paid parking is expected to raise just $74 million over three years, the equivalent of loose change for the Commonwealth. Moreover, the costs of installing meters and upgrading car parks will be close to $10 million. Annual operating costs have been estimated at $1.9 million.

The ACT government, which has long advocated the introduction of paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle, is arguing that the money be funnelled back to the NCA, or used to augment the budgets of the national cultural institutions. There is merit in this thinking: the cultural institutions and the NCA have been hard hit by federal austerity measures, and diverting some or all of the expected parking revenues to redress this would be a worthwhile initiative.

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher might also argue the federal government should hand over a portion of that money to the ACT to enable it to upgrade bus services to the affected areas. Or the ACT government could cash in on the introduction of paid parking in the triangle with its own car parks on the edge of the zone offering park-and-ride services.

The triangle is a striking anomaly in Canberra's car parking landscape, and can be traced back to the split in administrative functions between the ACT and Commonwealth after self-government in 1989.

For many years Canberra was blessed with abundant free parking, but population growth was always going to see this luxury dwindle with time. Ironically, it was the Hawke government that introduced long-stay paid parking in 1984-85 as a means to get more Canberrans to catch the bus to work - and to finance extra parking areas.

Those arguments - and the fact land in the ACT is now too valuable to be given over for the exclusive use of car-driving commuters - were always likely to result in the introduction of paid parking across the entire territory.

Provided that bus services in the area are made satisfactory, commuters to the Parliamentary Triangle should have no difficulty in adapting. They will, after all, be paying no more than workers in other areas. The upside is that parking will be freed up, for which the cultural institutions and their visitors will be thankful.

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Paid parking will start at Westfield Garden City Shopping Centre on Monday

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Paid parking back in spotlight

[minbrisbane]

FFS It's really ridiculous that people are so up-in-arms about this.  Westfield is a private company, who as far as I see it can do what it likes regarding it's car parking. 

Just because 'it's always been free' isn't a good enough argument.

[#Metro]

Just because 'it's always been free' isn't a good enough argument.

Just be glad that petrol isn't free! Imagine that! What, we have to pay!?!?

[techblitz]

FFS It's really ridiculous that people are so up-in-arms about this.  Westfield is a private company, who as far as I see it can do what it likes regarding it's car parking. 

Just because 'it's always been free' isn't a good enough argument.

westfield are cunning with good business sense in that they built up supersized centres which attract customers for hours on endmthen slug them with charges without a hint ofguilt.
They also have an ability to attract suckers in the form of mom& pop retailers who think they can actually run a business at a profit even after paying the riciulous rents. Oh well.....Im always a fan of closing down sales....saw one just last week at Indooroopilly.

[Jonno]

Meanwhile in the "land of the car"

http://www.alexblock.net/?p=2989

Parking is in the news: the trend of cities rolling back zoning requirements for off-street parking
Jul 11th, 2013 @ 09:51 pm › Alex Block

It's hard to miss the discussion these days about parking, from sources as varied as Grist and the Wall Street Journal. Some links and brief discussion:

Matt Yglesias writes about the negative consequences of mandatory parking requirements. Matt's headline editor takes the same Shakespearian tack as Aaron Weiner in the Washington City Paper; Matt also builds off of a paper documenting the impacts of removing parking requirements I've written about previously.
Boston is looking to reduce their on-site parking requirements, and cites the experience of other cities doing the same as well as the trend of less and less driving. The proposed reduction is significant, but also only drops to 0.75 spaces per unit; still a burdensome requirement.
Tyler Cowen links to the above Boston article, but also notes an earlier column of his in the New York Times: "Free Parking Comes at a Price."
In the midst of New York's mayoral race, Stephen Smith notes that Anthony Weiner "casually" opposes parking requirements. When told that this is a big deal, Weiner brushes it off as the "conventional wisdom now."
At the same time, in Brooklyn, city officials are looking to an automated underground parking garage to help finance a new park above it.
Each article highlights the challenges parking presents in an urban environment, and the additional challenges of inflexible rules requiring it. Matt Yglesias makes the case for the straight-up removal of all parking requirements as the simplest option, rather than the selective reductions in certain districts or reductions in the numerical requirement itself. He writes (quoting extensively):

First on a concrete level, this is a form of compromise that really fails in its goal of de-mobilizing opposition. If you are a street parker and your priority in parking policy is to defend your access to cheap street parking, then any reduction in parking mandates should spark opposition. Watering the reform down doesn't lead to any genuine reconciliation of interests. What you need to do is recognize that street parkers have a real reason for wanting to keep mandates in place and find a way to buy them off. I think what I propose at the end of the column would do that. But once you've managed to configure reform as a win-win, then you should go whole hog.

The second is that gradualism, by focusing reform on the places that are most indisputably well-served by transit and pedestrianism, actually denudes parking reform of its main promise—transforming neighborhoods. If you imagine a neighborhood that doesn't have great bus frequency or amazing neighborhood-serving retail and add some housing with less than one parking space per adult, then you're going to get the additional customers that would be the basis for more frequent buses or new stores. Why would anyone in a neighborhood like that want a unit with no parking space? Why would a couple want a unit with just one space? Probably most people wouldn't. But some non-zero quantity of people would do it for the main reason people everywhere put up with sub-optimal housing situations—to save money. But those initial people with fewer cars than adults become the customers for the services—whether that's carshare or the bus or a walking distance store—that make the neighborhood more attractive down the road.

The way things work right now is that parking minimums risk destroying existing walkable neighborhoods through the reverse dynamic where subsidized car ownership leads to excessive car ownership leads to further auto-oriented development. Selective liberalization of parking rules can break that vicious cycle, which is nice, but only citywide liberalization drives the virtuous process forward.

The partial reductions in requirements are certainly due to political opposition to the idea. Even in places like Portland that had no requirements in some areas of the city have since re-instated limited requirements, ostensibly due to political pressure. However, while removing the offending language is unlikely to win any supporters, keeping it in might rile up even more opposition due to the inherent asymmetry to the procedures of changing regulations such as zoning codes.

On the merits of policy, removing the requirements would be a simple solution. Given that there is no 'right' answer to the number of spaces that should be required given the diversity of market segments a developer might build for, and given that in many cases, the 'right' number of spaces for a site and market segment could be zero, selecting any one number as the requirement (and getting it 'right') is an impossible task – unless that number is zero.

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Staff at Westfield Garden City struggle to find parking while customer spaces remain empty

[ozbob]

612 ABC Brisbane Breakfast with Spencer Howson

City Plan series part three of five - unit block parking near public transport

24 July 2013 , 8:22 AM by Spencer Howson

You have six days left to have your say on the draft new Brisbane City Plan.

This week on 612 Breakfast, we're highlighting what the Labor opposition sees as the most worrying changes to the document.

And we're giving the Liberal Planning Committee chair Amanda Cooper the right of reply, a chance to explain the change to you. One topic per day, one minute per speaker.

Then it's up to you whether you feel strongly enough to lodge a submission.

So far this week, we've covered building on land that floods and allowing houses up to 9.5 metres. Here's part three on unit block parking requirement relaxation around public transport hubs:

Click --> here!

[Jonno]

'Transit' Might Not Be Essential to Transit-Oriented Development
ERIC JAFFEJUN 10, 2013COMMENTS
Shutterstock
The first thing that comes to mind with transit-oriented development, and sometimes the only thing, is proximity to a busy rail station. The term begins with transit for a reason. But of course that's not the only component of effective TOD: density, a mixture of residences and services, walkability, and the general built environment all play key roles. What if some of these other factors proved as important as rail proximity when it came to TOD's sustainable impact?

In other words, what if TOD doesn't rely on the T?

That was the question asked by planner Daniel Chatman of the University of California-Berkeley for a study published in the winter 2013 issue of Journal of the American Planning Association. His answer may come as a bit of a surprise. Chatman found that proximity to rail was not the essential TOD element it's typically thought to be — and, in fact, that it's importance vanished in the face of other factors:

In these data, the lower auto ownership and use in TODs is not from the T (transit), or at least, not from the R (rail), but from lower on- and off-street parking availability; better bus service; smaller and rental housing; more jobs, residents, and stores within walking distance; proximity to downtown; and higher subregional employment density.
Chatman reached his conclusions after analyzing the areas around 10 rail stations in New Jersey. Using self-report household surveys and on-site area observations, Chatman collected information on station proximity, parking availability, and local bus stops and grocery stores. He added Census and general research on housing age, commute time to Manhattan, and population, retail and employment density.

What if TOD doesn't rely on the T?

After modeling all the material, Chatman found that transit-oriented development did indeed have a positive impact on several measures of car dependency. When he drilled deeper into what TOD elements were most responsible for this benefit, however, proximity to rail didn't carry its expected weight.

Take car ownership. Chatman found that it was 27 percent lower per capita in new housing near a rail station compared to new housing far from one. But once he controlled for housing type (rented or owned), neighborhood parking, and area bus stops, the significance of the rail station disappeared. Rail proximity was no longer linked to car ownership; instead, the scarcity of off-street parking was a powerful predictor.

Same thing with car commuting and car trips to the grocery store. Before controlling for other variables, Chatman found that each mile away from a rail station increased a household's odds of driving to work by 74 percent. Likewise, before considering the controls, he found more weekly car trips to the store with every mile from the station a household was located.

But in the face of housing type and parking and built environment, the significance of rail once again slipped away. Off-street parking, job density, bus stop prevalence, and distance to Manhattan were stronger links to car commuting. Similarly, supermarkets within a quarter mile of one's home reduced car trips to the store, and scarce neighborhood parking cut them by a quarter.

So transit-oriented development does indeed seem to reduce car use, concludes Chatman, but that benefit may not have as much to do with proximity to a rail station as most people presume. Other factors — from parking to mixed-use development — may have just as valuable a role. On the whole, writes Chatman, the data suggest that rail's role here is an "indirect" one at best.

The results may be a little jarring, but Chatman actually sees them as encouraging. After all, developable area around rail stations is limited. If factors other than rail proximity can be emphasized and still produce decreases in car reliance, then the spirit of TOD can extend far beyond the T, he writes. At the very least, recognizing a potential limited role of rail proximity should remind planners that there's much more to the TOD job:

Current sustainability policies are often quite focused on investing in rail and developing housing near rail stations. ... Such a focus primarily on TODs to reduce greenhouse gases could miss the boat. These results suggest that a better strategy in many urban areas would be to incentivize housing developments of smaller rental units with lower on- and off-street parking availability, in locations with better bus service and higher subregional employment density.

Now it's important to remember that there are many variables in play here and their relationships are all extremely complicated. Until the results are replicated in other areas, and perhaps with a more consummate car use metric like vehicle miles traveled, the finding is probably more intriguing than game-changing. So it may not be time to remove the T from TOD quite yet, but it seems worthwhile to reconsider whether or not it's truly a capital letter.

[Jonno]

COMMENT: Car-free streets fuel retail boom

Northumberland Street, in my home town of Newcastle on Tyne, is the most expensive location in the UK to rent a shop, outside of London. The streets throng with pedestrians and it's been car-free since the 1980s. Suggest opening it to cars and there would be uproar.

Yet, from 1928 to 1975, it was part of the A1, the main road from London to the north. The street was choked with motorised traffic. A footbridge had to be used to span the busy street.

The bridge; the tramlines; the cars; the kerbs; all were swept away to make Northumberland Street the prime retail location it is today. Buskers and performers entertain crowds where before most of the room was given over to the infernal combustion engine.

Look at Britain's streets and roads and it's hard to imagine them sans cars. But Northumberland Street –and many similar streets – show that it's possible for a town or a city to thrive without providing through access to cars.

To many retailers – except bike ones, of course – this seems counterintuitive. Bikes are for poor people; cars are expensive so motorists must be more affluent. In fact, many studies have shown the opposite is the case.

A report for Toronto found that only 10 per cent of patrons at local businesses arrived by car and those arriving by foot and bicycle spend the most money each month.

In the 1960s, Copenhagen –despite resistance – created the world's longest pedestrian street. Providing better access to cyclists and pedestrians resulted in a boom in business.

Recent studies from Bern, Switzerland, show that parking space devoted to bikes generates more business than an equal amount of space for cars. A study in Munster, Germany, found that cyclists buy fewer goods on each trip but spend more overall over a greater number of trips. A motorist that spends through the nose for the upkeep of a car – and parking – has less money to spend.

Actor Matthew Modine, founder of Bicycle for a Day which encourages people to use bicycles more, believes cycling puts money in pockets. Bikes can be parked for free:

"Imagine how wonderful life would be if you don't have to [pay to] park to watch a musical; you have an extra $30."

So, exactly what are you doing to encourage cycling to your shop? Do you provide for bike parking? Do you lobby your local council for more car-free areas in your town or city? Get on the case, you'll benefit from increased sales.

[Jonno]

4 Reasons Retailers Don't Need Free Parking to Thrive
ERIC JAFFENOV 26, 2012COMMENTS
Shutterstock
A major rationale for the supply of parking spaces in city shopping centers is that customers won't come without them. The anecdotal argument makes sense — retailers believe that most consumers arrive by car and believe free or cheap parking plays a major role in choosing a destination — but the actual evidence is scant at best. A new review of commercial centers in Greater London, released late last month (via David King), concludes that retailers vastly overestimate the role free parking plays in their success.

The review was conducted earlier this year by the cross-party policy group London Councils. The group performed a thorough meta-analysis of the existing academic and public agency research on the role of parking in urban commerce. It also sent parking questionnaires to all 33 London boroughs (comprising the city center, as well as inner and outer areas) and conducted market research with shoppers at three commercial centers in the outer regions. The findings can be reduced down to four main reasons retailers don't need free parking to thrive.

1. Free, plentiful parking often hurts more than it helps. Retailers prefer an abundance of cheap or free nearby parking because they believe that given the choice between a store with parking and one without, drivers will choose the one with it. In some respects they're right, particularly as one moves away from the central city and established lines of alternative transport. However free commercial parking, especially in the city, has several downsides too.

For starters, according to the London Councils report, it's not really free. A true "free" parking spot can be quite expensive, and when it's offset by higher retail prices, those who drive get a subsidy and those who don't get an additional cost. This incentive to drive pressures local authorities into shifting resources and space toward roads (instead of transit) and parking (instead of additional retail developments). It also creates congestion, particularly when on-street parking is involved.

Above all, concludes the new review, free parking often hinders the shopper turnover it's meant to entice. Recent research has found that available spaces are often used by nearby workers and not by shoppers, and that shoppers given free spaces tend to stay for long periods of time, which means fewer visitors arrive each day on average. A 2012 Dutch study of 80 urban shopping centers found that higher parking rates led to higher parking-space turnover and therefore higher retail potential — except in outer areas where car access is a determining factor.

2. Shopkeepers overestimate how many customers arrive by car. If you ask retailers why they want free parking, they will answer that most shoppers drive to their stores. However that perception doesn't square with the numbers. On the contrary, available evidence suggests that more people reach town centers by transit, walking, or biking than by car, according to the London Councils review.

One recent study of the British city of Bristol shows the gap between retailer perception and shopper reality [PDF]. That survey of 840 customers and 126 shopkeepers found that the retailers believed that only 12 percent of their customers lived within a half-mile when in fact 42 percent did; believed cars were the most frequent mode of arrival when in fact walking was; believed parking would elevate the shopping experience when in fact shoppers said less traffic and more area improvements would.

When the researchers compared their results to a similar study in the Austrian city of Graz, they found the same trend of misperception:

[img]

The findings also extend to a city as large as London, says the new review. A 2011 survey [PDF] of nearly 5,000 London visitors found that those who walked were most likely to visit a town shopping center at least five times a week (50 percent). Those who biked (37 percent) or took a bus (27 percent) were also more frequent shoppers than those who drove (14 percent). Despite those figures, retailers continued to believe more people drove than actually did; a 2008 study of the Camberwell district of London overestimated car shoppers by more than 400 percent.

3. They also overestimate how much car customers spend. When people reach a shopping center by car, they do tend to spend more on that single visit than people who get there by other modes. The 2011 survey found they spent, on average, 41 pounds per visit, compared to 26 pounds for walkers. Over the long term, however, those figures favor non-drivers: in an average month, car shoppers spent 226 pounds, while walkers spent 373 and those who arrived by transit (239 for train, 282 for bus) also spent more.

4. A mix of retailers is more important than parking supply. When you actually ask shoppers what brings them to a particular commercial center, as one recent survey of 2,000 London customers did, they rate mix of stores and general atmosphere more highly than parking and accessibility. An interview of visitors to 15 major town centers found that the range of shops and amount of traffic were the most important shopping factors, with only 6 percent citing parking — and this for outer London.

The irony here, as the authors of the London Councils review point out, is that additional parking might increase congestion and thereby reduce the attractiveness of a retail center.

Some things to keep in mind. For starters, London is a very transit-friendly place, perhaps more than most cities. Additionally, several of the studies considered by the council did find that outer shopping centers need parking to entice shoppers who might otherwise visit similar outer shopping centers. Still the axiom "no parking, no business" seems much less of a no-brainer than many retailers hold it to be.

[newbris]

4 Reasons Retailers Don't Need Free Parking to Thrive
ERIC JAFFENOV 26, 2012COMMENTS
Shutterstock
A major rationale for the supply of parking spaces in city shopping centers is that customers won't come without them. The anecdotal argument makes sense — retailers believe that most consumers arrive by car and believe free or cheap parking plays a major role in choosing a destination — but the actual evidence is scant at best. A new review of commercial centers in Greater London, released late last month (via David King), concludes that retailers vastly overestimate the role free parking plays in their success.

The review was conducted earlier this year by the cross-party policy group London Councils. The group performed a thorough meta-analysis of the existing academic and public agency research on the role of parking in urban commerce. It also sent parking questionnaires to all 33 London boroughs (comprising the city center, as well as inner and outer areas) and conducted market research with shoppers at three commercial centers in the outer regions. The findings can be reduced down to four main reasons retailers don't need free parking to thrive.

1. Free, plentiful parking often hurts more than it helps. Retailers prefer an abundance of cheap or free nearby parking because they believe that given the choice between a store with parking and one without, drivers will choose the one with it. In some respects they're right, particularly as one moves away from the central city and established lines of alternative transport. However free commercial parking, especially in the city, has several downsides too.

For starters, according to the London Councils report, it's not really free. A true "free" parking spot can be quite expensive, and when it's offset by higher retail prices, those who drive get a subsidy and those who don't get an additional cost. This incentive to drive pressures local authorities into shifting resources and space toward roads (instead of transit) and parking (instead of additional retail developments). It also creates congestion, particularly when on-street parking is involved.

Above all, concludes the new review, free parking often hinders the shopper turnover it's meant to entice. Recent research has found that available spaces are often used by nearby workers and not by shoppers, and that shoppers given free spaces tend to stay for long periods of time, which means fewer visitors arrive each day on average. A 2012 Dutch study of 80 urban shopping centers found that higher parking rates led to higher parking-space turnover and therefore higher retail potential — except in outer areas where car access is a determining factor.

2. Shopkeepers overestimate how many customers arrive by car. If you ask retailers why they want free parking, they will answer that most shoppers drive to their stores. However that perception doesn't square with the numbers. On the contrary, available evidence suggests that more people reach town centers by transit, walking, or biking than by car, according to the London Councils review.

One recent study of the British city of Bristol shows the gap between retailer perception and shopper reality [PDF]. That survey of 840 customers and 126 shopkeepers found that the retailers believed that only 12 percent of their customers lived within a half-mile when in fact 42 percent did; believed cars were the most frequent mode of arrival when in fact walking was; believed parking would elevate the shopping experience when in fact shoppers said less traffic and more area improvements would.

When the researchers compared their results to a similar study in the Austrian city of Graz, they found the same trend of misperception:

[img]

The findings also extend to a city as large as London, says the new review. A 2011 survey [PDF] of nearly 5,000 London visitors found that those who walked were most likely to visit a town shopping center at least five times a week (50 percent). Those who biked (37 percent) or took a bus (27 percent) were also more frequent shoppers than those who drove (14 percent). Despite those figures, retailers continued to believe more people drove than actually did; a 2008 study of the Camberwell district of London overestimated car shoppers by more than 400 percent.

3. They also overestimate how much car customers spend. When people reach a shopping center by car, they do tend to spend more on that single visit than people who get there by other modes. The 2011 survey found they spent, on average, 41 pounds per visit, compared to 26 pounds for walkers. Over the long term, however, those figures favor non-drivers: in an average month, car shoppers spent 226 pounds, while walkers spent 373 and those who arrived by transit (239 for train, 282 for bus) also spent more.

4. A mix of retailers is more important than parking supply. When you actually ask shoppers what brings them to a particular commercial center, as one recent survey of 2,000 London customers did, they rate mix of stores and general atmosphere more highly than parking and accessibility. An interview of visitors to 15 major town centers found that the range of shops and amount of traffic were the most important shopping factors, with only 6 percent citing parking — and this for outer London.

The irony here, as the authors of the London Councils review point out, is that additional parking might increase congestion and thereby reduce the attractiveness of a retail center.

Some things to keep in mind. For starters, London is a very transit-friendly place, perhaps more than most cities. Additionally, several of the studies considered by the council did find that outer shopping centers need parking to entice shoppers who might otherwise visit similar outer shopping centers. Still the axiom "no parking, no business" seems much less of a no-brainer than many retailers hold it to be.

They have a great little metro system in newcastle that delivers most people to northumberland st. They still have through roads on the edges of the city centre and a gateway style bypass road for the A1. A bike scheme has been installed there in recent years but I'm not sure how it is going. Great little city.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Retailers keep up the fight against Brisbane's paid parking changes

[Jonno]

That's an article from 1970, Right? Right!!!! Our city is so out of touch with currrent urban design and vibrant city planning it is not funny! 

[ozbob]

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Disability parking crack down

The Newman Government will increase fines in an effort to crack down on people illegally parking in disabled parking bays.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said fines will be increased for anyone found to be misusing car parks designated for people with a disability.

"Later this year anyone without a valid disability permit parking in a disabled area will be hit with a fine of up to $220," Mr Emerson said.

"The sad fact is in order to get a closer park and save themselves a few extra minutes some motorists are parking in designated disability parking bays.

"There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour particularly when it can have such a negative impact on our disabled community.

"Earlier this year a number of groups raised concerns with me about this issue particularly if people have a condition that limits how far they can walk and need access to closer car parking.

"Every year we receive complaints from people who uncover drivers misusing car parks and from 2008-2012 more than 5800 tickets were issued by the Queensland Police Service."

A disability parking permit is granted to anyone when their ability to walk is severely restricted by a medical condition or disability.

Mr Emerson said the increase will bring the State Government into line with several local councils.

"The Brisbane City, Fraser Coast and Barcaldine Regional Councils already impose a $220 penalty for anyone stopping in a disabled parking area," he said.

"While the changes we have announced will bring our penalties closer to these councils, it is difficult to be completely consistent across the entire State.

"As councils retain the power to impose set parking laws and fines we see a disparity across Queensland which is frustrating for motorists and authorities.

"While these changes will help to reduce the disparity between fines for disability parking, my department is currently reviewing all parking penalties to achieve better consistencies between state and local laws."

[ENDS] 27 August 2013

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Indooroopilly Shopping Centre renovation introduces 'sardine' parking - spaces for small cars only

[James]

Couriermail --> Indooroopilly Shopping Centre renovation introduces 'sardine' parking - spaces for small cars only

The reason why Indooroopilly is parked out is because the bus network is p%ss awful. Paid parking will come to Indro once the renovations are done, I can guarantee it. Toowong shopping centre will do it once Indro does it. UQ traffic combined with the three schools doesn't help things either in that general area.

The other issue is this mentality that one's ego/p***s size is directly linked to the size of one's 4WD. It's pathetic, most of the drivers in Brisbane don't need a 4WD, but insist on one just so they can have something shiny. I think the 'small car' slots are a nice idea, but in theory they won't work because people are too stupid to think 'oh, that space isn't large enough, I'll go and find another one'.

[red dragin]

We have a Renault Koleos (Nissan XTrail) and a small car park at home. Not exactly a medium sized car, we use it for camping, towing boat. Been on the beach and off road. Couldn't justify a large 4WD let alone afford to feed it.

To park it -> Drop wife off, fold mirrors in, get kid out of other side of car (walkway).

Small car spaces aren't a bad thing. If I can get the missus out I'll park it wherever I can 

[Jonno]

http://bit.ly/12HnZ9l

When parking is king, a city is poor.

Aug 27, 2013 Posted by Queenseyes In City Comments 17

Want to see more buildings in Downtown Buffalo and less surface parking lots? BRO readers have been saying it for years. Start taxing the parking lots the same rate as buildings. A BRO reader just sent along this informative post from DC.StreetsBlog.org that paints parking lot pictures of Pittsburgh and Detroit – one rust belt city that is making a comeback and another that has declared bankruptcy. Guess which one is letting parking lot owners skate by virtually tax free, while the other is socking it to the owners?

Detroit taxes parking lots as if they were simply vacant properties. Pittsburgh charges accordingly, as if there were buildings on the parking lots. Think about it for a second. Owners of parking lots don't have much as far as expenses go, yet they make a killing (depending on their locations).

Parking lots encourage more people to drive, even when public transportation is available. They limit the amount of goods and services by taking away needed urban density. They're ugly and give the illusion of a vacant areas within a city when the lots are empty (think Cobblestone District in Buffalo). All told, they create less walkable neighborhoods.

In the end, higher taxes on parking lots helps to increase the tax base for the respective city. Just think if the additional tax funds were to be dedicated to the exact areas where the parking lots are located – the benefits would be enormous. Then think of the parking lot owners that might consider getting out of the game, in order to find developers willing to turn the lots into mixed use projects with value added parking. Now that would be a real win for Downtown Buffalo...um... I mean Detroit.

[skippy]

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Disability parking crack down

The Newman Government will increase fines in an effort to crack down on people illegally parking in disabled parking bays.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said fines will be increased for anyone found to be misusing car parks designated for people with a disability.

"Later this year anyone without a valid disability permit parking in a disabled area will be hit with a fine of up to $220," Mr Emerson said.

"The sad fact is in order to get a closer park and save themselves a few extra minutes some motorists are parking in designated disability parking bays.

"There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour particularly when it can have such a negative impact on our disabled community.

"Earlier this year a number of groups raised concerns with me about this issue particularly if people have a condition that limits how far they can walk and need access to closer car parking.

"Every year we receive complaints from people who uncover drivers misusing car parks and from 2008-2012 more than 5800 tickets were issued by the Queensland Police Service."

A disability parking permit is granted to anyone when their ability to walk is severely restricted by a medical condition or disability.

Mr Emerson said the increase will bring the State Government into line with several local councils.

"The Brisbane City, Fraser Coast and Barcaldine Regional Councils already impose a $220 penalty for anyone stopping in a disabled parking area," he said.

"While the changes we have announced will bring our penalties closer to these councils, it is difficult to be completely consistent across the entire State.

"As councils retain the power to impose set parking laws and fines we see a disparity across Queensland which is frustrating for motorists and authorities.

"While these changes will help to reduce the disparity between fines for disability parking, my department is currently reviewing all parking penalties to achieve better consistencies between state and local laws."

[ENDS] 27 August 2013

This needs to be a two-way arrangement. The other day at my local station there was a car with a diabled sticker parked in one of our spots.  How about a $220 fine for this clown?

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Brisbane City Council parking inspectors hitting Sunday drivers hard

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Cheap private parking lures meter-shy motorists

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Car parks go short term

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

Commuters brace for car parking chaos

Commuters brace for car parking chaos
Kieran Banks 30th Oct 2013 5:00 AM

SPRINGFIELD commuters are set to be caught in parking chaos when the new station opens for the first service in December.

A limit of 100 park and ride spaces is expected to see many train passengers miss out in the battle for parks.

The lack of park and ride spaces has forced Orion Shopping Centre to lock the mall's car park outside of trading hours to prevent commuters using car parks intended for shoppers.

The parking crisis won't ease until an additional 400 car parks to be built at Springfield Central are finished early next year.

The first service will leave the two new Springfield stations when the long awaited train line opens on December 2.

Commuter lobby Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said commuters who attempted to try their luck would be left disappointed and frustrated.

He expects the majority of the 100 park and ride spaces to be snapped up by 6.30am.

Mr Dow said the 650 car parks at Richlands station are usually filled by 7.30am.

He said commuters should use alternative means of getting to the station rather than driving.

"I think some people will be frustrated," he said.

"Catch a bus if you can to the station, walk or cycle if that's an option and if you are going to park and ride be aware the facilities are limited."

Mr Dow said the parking shortage highlights the need for high frequency feeder bus services. "That's what it's like in Ipswich City Square. It was always going to be a problem with park and ride. It's a limited facility that's why we've been pushing for frequent bus feeder services."

A spokesperson for Orion Shopping Centre said parking control measures would be implemented over the coming weeks.

The measures include locking the car parks at night until the centre opens for trade.

The move is to ensure customers can find a park close to where they want to shop, and to discourage crowding by commuters or local workers.

"The parking control measures will ensure Orion car parking is provided for the convenience of the retail customers and is not intended for all day commuter parking," the spokesperson said.

Councillor David Morrison said the parking situation was expected to be testing for commuters.

"There are not a lot of places on the street to park. The obvious place is Orion, but they will be looking at that as a bit of a positive as well," he said.

Cr Morrison said the congestion may be eased due to school holidays.

He said the true test would come when workers return to work after Australia Day.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Scott Emerson encouraged commuters to use the bus exchange at Springfield Central to access the station. Bus routes 522 via Goodna, 526 from Redbank and 534 from Browns Plains take passengers to the new station.

[longboi]

Grr...

"bus exchange".