Car parking - solutions?

[ozbob]

Some photographs of the ' mega ' Park 'n' ride at Springfield Central















































Access path flooded, workers placed some temporary ' stepping stones '.



Photographs R Dow 6th May 2022

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Coast is being ripped off on rail car parking compared to Brisbane $

The northern Gold Coast is being "short-changed" on the number of parking places planned for a new rail station compared to a five-level, $44.5m facility west of Brisbane.

Photographs showing the completed Springfield park 'n' ride, lit up like a super sports stadium, has stirred up Coast councillors and MPs. ...

 

[#Metro]

The northern Gold Coast is being "short-changed" on the number of parking places planned for a new rail station compared to a five-level, $44.5m facility west of Brisbane.

Just ask for a contribution from the local councillor / council. At $80,000 per car park space, they will drop the proposal VERY quickly.

I think it is fair to say that we are all weary of having enormous amounts of money spent on 'Non-Service Expenditure" in the name of PT.

[Jonno]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr "You have entered the Twilight Zone! Another time. Another Dimension"

[ozbob]

Gather around, pour yourselves a  have a  I will tell you a short yarn.

I attended the sod turning for Springfield Central station (https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=72045)



Photograph R Dow 23rd October 2011  more photographs at the above link ..

At the sod turning there were some TransLink staff.  We had a chat and I recall in particular that they said there will be 100 car parking spaces. My comment was that the feeder bus services will have to be very good.



526 Arriving at Springfield Central.  Note the numerous bus bays, which are not used. This was to support the feeder bus network that never really eventuated.

Photograph R Dow 6th May 2022

Well we have seen what has happened since.  Feeder bus network far from optimal, rampant over parking and pressure to build more and more car parking.

Springfield Central was never really designed to have anything other than a token car park.  This is why it is now a shambles of car parks, with the latest ' mega ' car park quite a distance from the station (500m) with complicated access to the car park and pedestrian movements.

You have done it again Queensland!!  Another GIANT CLUSTER FUK to add to the ever-growing collection ... 

[ozbob]

Sent all outlets:

History repeating - more park 'n' ride failure on the way ...
8th May 2022

Good Morning,

On Friday 6th May 2022 I journeyed out to Springfield Central by rail and had a look at the new Park 'n' Ride facility.  Yet another parking capacity increase in a long line of such increases ( photographs https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=258094 ) .
A little bit of history.

I attended the 'sod turning' at Springfield Central on the 23rd October 2011 ( more photographs > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=72045 ). What I particularly recall from 2011 was some discussions I had with TransLink staff present about the proposed 100 cars park 'n' ride capacity.  I said at the time that the feeder bus network must be optimal from day one.



Sod Turning Springfield Central. Photograph R Dow 23rd October 2011

Well we have seen what has happened since.  Feeder bus network was far from optimal, and there was rampant over parking, and illegal parking, and pressure to build more and more car parking. It is now just a congested disconnected mess basically.

Springfield Central was never really designed to have anything other than a token car park.  This is why it is now a shambles of car parks, with the latest ' mega ' car park quite a distance from the station (500m) with complicated access to the car park and difficult pedestrian movements.



526 Bus Springfield Central Station.  R Dow 6th May 2022

526 bus arriving at Springfield Central station.  Note the numerous bus bays, which are not used. This was to support the feeder bus network that never eventuated.

We note that the Gold Coast is now using the new Springfield Central car park as why they need more parking at the new railway stations being constructed as part of the Cross River Rail project.

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Coast is being ripped off on rail car parking compared to Brisbane
https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/northern/coast-is-being-ripped-off-on-rail-car-parking-compared-to-brisbane/news-story/030b53468a811718c6d98c62735f5a9d

" The northern Gold Coast is being "short-changed" on the number of parking places planned for a new rail station compared to a five-level, $44.5m facility west of Brisbane.

Photographs showing the completed Springfield park 'n' ride, lit up like a super sports stadium, has stirred up Coast councillors and MPs ... "

They have a point, these stations need to be given proper feeder bus networks or park 'n' rides with a 1000 car capacity or greater.  If they are not, we will again see the Springfield Central scenario played out once more, overflow and illegal parking, congestion leading to even more expensive car park upgrades draining the public transport budget once again.

Do we learn from past blunders in Queensland?  No we don't it seems, political interference in sound policy begets expensive failures.  I am sure our transport planning staff know what is really required, but politics gets in the way and we end up with mediocre outcomes, and very frustrated transport planning staff.  Public transport enthusiasts are dismayed and appalled with the constant botched outcomes.

Happy Mother's Day!

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

5th May 2022

Paid parking ... (Re: Springfield Mega Park 'n' Ride Wrong Solution in Wrong Century - a mega flop!)

Good Morning,

The  Department of Transport and Main Roads' Park 'n' Ride Strategy at https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Public-transport/Park-n-Ride-Strategy makes for interesting reading.

Quote from the PDF document :

" Park 'n' ride facilities are
expensive to construct and
maintain. Costs for surface car
parks can range from $10,000 to
more than $30,000 per space.
Multi-storey or underground
facilities can cost significantly
more. Land acquisition and
ongoing maintenance costs, for
example, landscaping, lighting
and CCTV surveillance can also
be substantial... "

^ https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/aboutus/corpinfo/Publications/Park-n-Ride-Strategy-summary.pdf?la=en

In case of the Springfield Mega Park 'n' Ride the cost of each car space gained was in the order of $86,000.  This is not sustainable and is a massive drain on the public transport budget.  This ' mega ' park 'n' ride at Springfield Central has increased the car parking capacity from 580 to 1100. For a cost of $44.5 million for a gain of 1100-580=520 spaces. Which is $44,500,000/520 = $85,600 cost per car parking space increase.

There will never be enough park 'n' ride car spaces at Springfield, or most other greater Brisbane locations, while there is no attempt to properly  support park 'n' ride by some nominal user pay charges, and better implementation of feeder bus and active transport.

Transperth WA has paid parking during the week at their railway stations ( https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/parking ) .  They have much better feeder bus support as well. "When you park at a Transperth train station it'll cost you $2 on weekdays and is free on weekends and public holidays." Passengers can pay the parking fee using their SmartRider (equivalent of our go card) and cash options.  The effect of this user charge is that there is an effective rationing of the park 'n' ride, people can choose to pay for parking or use the feeder buses or other options.  Shift workers who start later in the day can find a parking space.  It helps to ameliorate local congestion. The revenue helps the public transport budget and defray the ongoing maintenance costs of the car parks.

TMR/TransLink need to introduce paid park 'n' ride for SEQ, particularly at these so called ' mega ' park 'n' rides within greater Brisbane.
More attention needs to be given to TMR's Park 'n' Ride strategy, update it and introduce paid parking. Smart ticketing provides the perfect opportunity to do this. Politics should not override sound policy, which unfortunately is often the case at present.

We need to be, and act smarter!

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

Springfield Mega Park 'n' Ride Wrong Solution in Wrong Century - a mega flop!

4th May 2022

The back-patting over yesterday's official opening of the Springfield multi-story park 'n' ride demonstrates just how out of touch our Governments are with what a carbon-neutral city looks like (1). Park 'n' rides were a 1970's idea when car-first planning was thought to be the 'Way of the Future'.  Over 50 years on, the planning and transport professions know this was the biggest misconception ever made.  Those cities who realised this mistake early on are now light-years ahead on creating healthy, vibrant, resilient, low or carbon neutral cities.  Even the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) recognises that car-dependent cites are failing everyone. Transport strategies for net-zero systems by design ( https://youtu.be/TkNmv6LHVrI ).

Park 'n' rides simply increase congestion and are the most expensive and least efficient way to increase public transport usage.
RAIL Back On Track highlighted in December 2021 that Park 'n' Rides only cater for a small percentage of passengers using any station with the majority of passengers arriving by foot, bike and public transport or dropped off at Kiss 'n' Ride (2). Rather than penalising passengers who sensibly use buses, kiss 'n' ride drop off, active transport to and from stations, free parking is a free ride. It costs and should be paid for in part at the user level. It is time that the Queensland Government and its transport agencies introduced paid parking at these expensive congestion inducing testaments to transport failure.  Again Transperth Western Australia shows the lead on this. If you park at a Transperth train station on weekdays it costs $2 (3).  They also have excellent feeder bus networks, something missing in SEQ.

With affordability and cost of living well and truly in the spotlight at the moment there is a fantastic opportunity to use the valuable Government-owned land around our stations for affordable housing that is the heart of 15min Neighbourhoods where people can access all of their most basic, day-to-day needs within a 15-minute walk of their home. Neighbourhoods that also reduce traffic congestion, noise and pollution, have higher retail turn-over and healthier communities, all the while minimising the burden on the Queensland Government Budget.

RAIL Back On Track again calls for the Queensland Government's Park 'n' Ride Program, Railway Station Upgrade and Accessibility Projects plus Cross River Rail Station Works Program to urgently:

1. convert existing and future urban park 'n' rides into transit-oriented, mixed-use developments primarily delivering affordable/social housing;

2. invest in additional bike parking and the creation of active, vibrant, safe public spaces around our stations including converting adjacent streets to 'shared pedestrian streets;

3. work with SEQ Councils to build safe, separated bike-lanes on roads around stations;

4. initiate Planning Schemes amendments to deliver "greater diversity of housing" within 15min Neighbourhoods around all urban SEQ stations; and

5. improve feeder bus networks so that passengers don't need to drive!

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

References:

1. Mega park 'n' ride now open at Springfield Central Station https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95070

2. Missed Opportunity to Address Housing Affordability and the Cost of Living https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14481.0

3. Transperth Parking https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/parking

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1523077779038011392

====

[ozbob]

Been booked for an interview on ABC Radio Brisbane Drive Show this afternoon around 3.45pm, on Park 'n' Ride ...

[ozbob]

Been booked for an interview on ABC Radio Brisbane Drive Show this afternoon around 3.45pm, on Park 'n' Ride ...

Interview 9th May 2022 ABC Radio Brisbane Drive with host Rachel Mealey and Robert Dow RBoT discussing Park 'n' Ride in SEQ

here > https://backontrack.org/docs/abcbris/abc_drive_rd_9may22.mp3 MP3 13.1 MB

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Translink_QLD/status/1523892428092043266

[#Metro]

Wow. Literally there have been radio broadcast of how adopting a Perth style nominal car park fee is a good idea, and they post then how the car park is FREE. It isn't free at all - It cost $86,000 per space!

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/MarkBaileyMP/status/1546978490410762240

[#Metro]

40 new car spaces near station, accessibility upgrades, 5 motorbike spaces, kissNride, new bus shelter, bike racks, secure bike lockers, new pathways, CCTV cameras, security lighting - well done @donbrownmp

I wonder what the off-peak train frequency is? No improvement to that!  

[verbatim9]

40 new car spaces near station, accessibility upgrades, 5 motorbike spaces, kissNride, new bus shelter, bike racks, secure bike lockers, new pathways, CCTV cameras, security lighting - well done @donbrownmp

I wonder what the off-peak train frequency is? No improvement to that!  

I think there that park and ride is here to stay. Even the Greens support it and didn't believe a charge is viable due to affecting low income groups.

As for in improving frequency, it's not viable until the network or part of the network goes driver only.

[nathandavid88]

As for in improving frequency, it's not viable until the network or part of the network goes driver only.

I think the single track is much more of an immediate issue here than DOO.

[Jonno]

40 new car spaces near station, accessibility upgrades, 5 motorbike spaces, kissNride, new bus shelter, bike racks, secure bike lockers, new pathways, CCTV cameras, security lighting - well done @donbrownmp

I wonder what the off-peak train frequency is? No improvement to that!  

I think there that park and ride is here to stay. Even the Greens support it and didn't believe a charge is viable due to affecting low income groups.

As for in improving frequency, it's not viable until the network or part of the network goes driver only.

Greens don't support park n rides! They're just not interested in putting a charge on them!

They would prefer them as walkable, low car mixed-use centres with social/affordable housing!

[ozbob]

Gaythorne train station park 'n' ride, design and land acquisition

Have your say on the upgrade

> https://www.yoursay-projects.tmr.qld.gov.au/gaythorne-station-park-n-ride

[Gazza]

Gaythorne station shouldnt have money spent on it in its current location due to the severe curve.

Also, its taking up green space next to a creek!
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gaythorne+QLD+4051/@-27.4201222,152.9860187,186m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b91570f558c0ba9:0x502a35af3de8990!8m2!3d-27.4177567!4d152.982847

[#Metro]

station removal?

[Gazza]

I would just move it onto the other side of Pickering St where the track is straight....No sure about grades though.

[Cazza]

When the local bus route to the surrounding area/catchment is the 361, then of course people are going to drive to the station... I'm also not sure how many more cars you want turning right out of the car park at an unsignalised intersection, especially during the PM peak

A relocated station (to the northern side of Pickering St) would make so much sense:
-Allows it to be fully DDA compliant (literally physically impossible with it's current location)
-Increases the natural walk-up catchment (reducing the number of people needing to drive in the first place)
-Would be much closer to the big industrial site on Bellevue Ave, being zoned as Medium density residential with a 6 storey height limit in the neighbourhood plan (https://cityplan.brisbane.qld.gov.au/eplan/#/Property/1RP18791), so its days as industry are definitely numbered (see Brickworks Newmarket on Mina Pde type re-development)
-Can be considered "Stage 1" as a package of works to introduce a Skyrail type thing to remove the 4 crossings through Mitchelton.

Are we able to send in some formal correspondence to them about this, or even possibly have a meeting? Money should be put into relocating and upgrading the station first, rather than expanding a wasteful PnR. Isn't 2024 the deadline for all the stations to be upgraded for DDA compliance, so why aren't we putting resources into that first?

[#Metro]

I agree with Gazza.

Strongly reconsider spending money on it if the actual right solution is to move the entire station to comply with DDA. Can reclaim some of the costs back through compensatory TOD development.

Are we able to send in some formal correspondence to them about this, or even possibly have a meeting? Money should be put into relocating and upgrading the station first, rather than expanding a wasteful PnR. Isn't 2024 the deadline for all the stations to be upgraded for DDA compliance, so why aren't we putting resources into that first?

Analysis
In this case the total amount of car parks is 140 existing (From TL website) + 140 new.
= 280 car parks new.

Assume we want the same number of car parking spaces (or all passengers generated from car park replaced with TOD-generated passengers).

The TOD equivalent at PT=10%

280 car parks x 1.2 load factor x (1/0.10) x (1/2.53 average household)
= 1328 dwellings (PT=10% General Use Scenario)
= 531 dwellings (PT=25% Maximum Use Scenario)

As Carpark > TOD for this station, some TOD should be built (test market for interest) but the remaining balance as car park spaces. This will maximise patronage.

Agree with Cazza about formal correspondence.

[Jonno]

Apply % assumption to predict and provide has proven to do nothing but support car-dependent development! Our stations should be the mixed-use heart of an urban, walkable, cycling safe, diverse-housing Neighbourhood. 200m around the station should be a min of 4 stories/max 6-8. There is not maths to apply! It's just good planning. The numbers come after to show how successful!

[#Metro]

Apply % assumption to predict and provide has proven to do nothing but support car-dependent development! Our stations should be the mixed-use heart of an urban, walkable, cycling safe, diverse-housing Neighbourhood. 200m around the station should be a min of 4 stories/max 6-8. There is not maths to apply! It's just good planning. The numbers come after to show how successful!

Some (quantitative) questions for you to think about 🤔:

1. What is a reasonable value for PT=% between 0% and 100% in this case? Does using that value change the outcome? (e.g. From Carpark > TOD to Carpark < TOD)
2. What is your evidence to support your value in the Brisbane context? (e.g. PT mode shares in existing TOD developments)
3. How many 5-7 storey buildings would need to be constructed within the walk-up zone / on car park land to match or exceed the number of PT users generated by the car park (280 spaces?). Is there a developer who is willing to build at that scale at that location, now?

If the aim is to maximise PT patronage, we should compare expected PT trips generated from TOD versus how much a car park would generate. If appropriate, we could also pick an optimal combination of both. Any non-optimal combination would be by definition patronage-reducing.

[Jonno]

The question that is important to ask is "what is the design and form of the cities that are leading the way in active and public transport usage"...amongst a whole range of better outcomes for their cities.

They are not low-density, sprawling cities, with park n rides, large car parks at shopping centres and a long list of freeway and road expansions being planned or constructed. There are business cases and strategies and studies that say this form of development is the "right thing to be doing" Or "getting the balance right". Yet it fails everyone on a whole range of measures..if not all measures.

We need to look at what these cities are doing and learn form them. They have they runs on the board.

Leading Cities and these are only a handful we should be emulating.

[#Metro]

^ But Jonno, the first four cities in that graph clearly show PT mode share below PT=25%. One of those cities is Paris which has an extensive metro. How do you explain that?? Clearly it did a lot for walking and cycling, but much less so for actual PT mode share.

For our Brisbane example, it means in many locations Car > TOD.

And we are in Australia.

If a car park generated substantially more patrons than a TOD in the same location, should we reject the car park and build TOD instead, and wear the patronage loss? For what purpose?

[Gazza]

But Jonno, the first four cities in that graph clearly show PT mode share below PT=25%. One of those cities is Paris which has an extensive metro. How do you explain that??

Because those cities have a lot more cycling and walking!

Jonno isn't saying build TOD for TODs sake, he's saying build a more walkable community in general.

It's not a binary choice between Driving and public transport.

On a citywide level it's probably going to be hard to get European levels of walking and cycling because of how damn sprawling it is.

But if you build a denser walkable community around a station (What you are terming "TOD") then you naturally end up with more walking and cycling as a side effect because people can do more day to day errands by bike/scooter/walking.
But to achieve that, there has to be enough of a critical mass of shops and amenities to allow a wide variety of needs to be in walking distance.

There's not really many good examples to point to in Brisbane.
For example the 8MP "TOD" is useless because its just some units in isolation with a BWS and a doctors clinic.
There's no supermarket, no school, no childcare, no library, no variety of local eateries.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.575843,153.1026159,3a,86.9y,215.41h,104.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2irGi10bmAt9LmUM7B-6oA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's good if you specifically catch the 111 into the city, but not well located or set up for any other purpose.

The area around Mascot station is a better example, has all the above
https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9229564,151.1857031,3a,75y,53.53h,96.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5FT7egL0Mas6ETQfCc8AFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[JimmyP]

It's not a PT vs Car question. It's a question of what makes the city better and more livable overall. That, in a developed city, is almost universally < car dependancy. And that is generally achieved by a mixture of walk, cycle and PT. More and more carparks are not the answer to that.

[#Metro]

It's not a PT vs Car question. It's a question of what makes the city better and more livable overall. That, in a developed city, is almost universally < car dependancy. And that is generally achieved by a mixture of walk, cycle and PT. More and more carparks are not the answer to that.

But it is if the goal is patronage maximisation. At the general or macro level you can argue that, but with a specific case at a more local level it is much harder to argue. When questions about quantity and testability become involved, the case is more difficult still.

If the car park at say Station X brings in more passengers by car than a TOD would generating walk-ins on the same land parcel (e.g. the TransPerth approach), haven't you reduced patronage overall at the station if you remove the car park and build a TOD on the car park land instead?

Jonno has indicated that large P&Rs built around TransPerth rail stations are a failure. On closer inspection, I'm actually not sure that they are. If there is no developer who would build a TOD on that land on a scale that at least replaces all patronage generated by car park users, then how can it be a failure?

What do people believe the PT=% trip generation rates are for TODs in the Brisbane or SEQ context?

[achiruel]

I would definitely like to see a fee of $2 full, $1 concession for Park & Ride. Maybe an exception for PWD permits, if that can be linked to go cards somehow.

[Gazza]

The goal is not patronage maximisation, its reducing car usage, because accommodating cars is what takes up all the land and harms the environment and causes sprawl. A variety of modes are needed to reduce car usage.

You're saying a TOD potentially might not "generate" as many boardings at the station as the car park.

However, if the development around the station itself is done right, the people living there will hopefully  do a bit more walking/cycling/scootering than your average Brisbanite because the environment can be built to be conducive to that.
In short, its a "multiplier effect".

Wherea's a car park wont have a positive multiplier effect.


Just a non scientific example

Scenario 1 – Suburb with a station, and a large park and ride.

10% PT
80% Car
5% Walk
5% Cycle


Scenario 2 – Suburb with station, no park and ride, but is walkable  and denser.

9% PT
66% Car
15% Walk
10% Cycle

You can see the lack of a car park has deterred some users (In SEQ about 1 in 10 people arrive at their PT stop as a driver) Hence mode share of PT dropped from 10% to 9%
But because the suburb has less traffic coming into the station, better development, walkable, good range of amenities in walking distance, walk and cycle skyrockets.
People have to leave their local area less often if more amenities are available locally.

As a result, car use in this suburb drops from 80% to 66%, which is a good effort!
Getting people to walk more is actually a bit easier than major infrastructure projects.

[JimmyP]

Exactly Gazza.
The ultimate goal is to minimise the amount of vehicle based travel that is required in a city (or larger towns even), with active transport taking up the bulk of the load.
The next goal is to have a high PT modal share for the remaining travel that does require a vehicle, with car based transport becoming the 'mode of last resort' as much as possible.

[Jonno]

Exactly Gazza.
The ultimate goal is to minimise the amount of vehicle based travel that is required in a city (or larger towns even), with active transport taking up the bulk of the load.
The next goal is to have a high PT modal share for the remaining travel that does require a vehicle, with car based transport becoming the 'mode of last resort' as much as possible.

       

A very interesting read below.  I do believe that transit does benefit from TOD/Higher density, mixed-use Neighbourhoods as it become a cultural/sociateal  norm to not take the car...or not have one. The mode mix and actual % might range depending on a whole range of factors but the key is the size of the drop drop in mode share by car.   We already know that every trip by active or public transport is saving us money.
 

https://www.governing.com/archive/transit-oriented-development-doesnt-need-transit.html

[#Metro]

Firstly, I'm really grateful for the points raised in the discussion. It opened up some new ground.

I'm going to share some thoughts/comments on a few things.

If I am hearing this right, RBOT members are happy to reduce or sacrifice PT mode share if it results in a higher overall non-car mode share? I think we are aligned on that one.

On a citywide level it's probably going to be hard to get European levels of walking and cycling because of how damn sprawling it is.

Yes I agree with that Gazza. One cannot just cut and paste a policy used elsewhere into the current context and expect it to work the same way. There are local factors, for example in NSW it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the footpath (in most cases). So you would expect much less return from TODs done in NSW than say a jurisdiction that didn't have that.

Much of Europe was built-pre car, whereas here it was not. A key difference in Europe is that most of their cities are residential-core, people live in the CBD, many above shops. Wheras here it is business-core. When I was in Copenhagen, I didn't any skyscraper towers.

But if you build a denser walkable community around a station (What you are terming "TOD") then you naturally end up with more walking and cycling as a side effect because people can do more day to day errands by bike/scooter/walking.

But to achieve that, there has to be enough of a critical mass of shops and amenities to allow a wide variety of needs to be in walking distance.

True. Again, what would that critical mass be at a station/local level? Getting estimates around this / minimums are a good place to start. Projects are generally local, they are not citywide (unless we are talking about Minneapolis upzoning to the next increment).

There's not really many good examples to point to in Brisbane.
For example the 8MP "TOD" is useless because its just some units in isolation with a BWS and a doctors clinic. There's no supermarket, no school, no childcare, no library, no variety of local eateries.

Hmm - what about Buranda? South Bank Station? Toowong, Milton?

True. And in many cases there cannot be, at least for the forseeable future. This is the fishing pier problem Jarrett Walker talks about. There are minimum patronage requirements for a doctors and supermarkets, etc because they have to generate a net positive return. You're not going to put in a Woolies to serve a TOD that has just say 200 people in it. It would go broke in the first month.

The theme here is minimum viable quantity or threshold (I've referred to this as determining Point X).

The Fishing Pier Problem in Public Transit Equity
https://humantransit.org/2020/02/the-fishing-pier-problem-in-public-transit-equity.html

In the transit business, when a cool new thing is created somewhere, you always hear the rest of the city say: when do we get that cool thing?

A question that flows from say, the Gaythorne Station example is then what is the Bike=% and Walk=% estimation methods for that. This would allow us to construct credible estimates for car vs non-car mode share, and link that to the minimum development or density required.

I would definitely like to see a fee of $2 full, $1 concession for Park & Ride. Maybe an exception for PWD permits, if that can be linked to go cards somehow.

I definitely agree with this one. Charging for parking allocates parking to those who need it (think no good bus nearby, locations deep within cul-de-sacs etc) rather than those who want it. Equity consideration can be extended using access controls (e.g. 50%, free etc). Perth already does this for ALL stations that have car parking.

[#Metro]

"Parking With TransPerth"

[Gazza]

True. And in many cases there cannot be, at least for the forseeable future. This is the fishing pier problem Jarrett Walker talks about. There are minimum patronage requirements for a doctors and supermarkets, etc because they have to generate a net positive return. You're not going to put in a Woolies to serve a TOD that has just say 200 people in it. It would go broke in the first month.

Well no, because its not as if the Woolies has a Brick wall around it that prevents people from outside the TOD from using it. It would draw from the usual supermarket catchment.

Hmm - what about Buranda? South Bank Station? Toowong, Milton?

Buranda i think is getting there. South City SQ opened 400m away, the area is building up, Langlands park pool is nearby.

South Bank, again I think this gets a pass because it got so much available in walk distance.

Toowong i think has been a natural TOD for decades now, and even a lot of 6 packs etc further beyond.

Milton Im mixed on because it doesn't have a full sized supermarket, you have to go up to the Barracks, and the area is not that walkable, particularly around milton rd.

[#Metro]

Well no, because its not as if the Woolies has a Brick wall around it that prevents people from outside the TOD from using it. It would draw from the usual supermarket catchment.

There isn't a brick wall, but there is an intangible isochrone with a boundary on it.

If there is no parking there (because its a TOD), then the catchment is greatly reduced. Most people put the groceries in the boot and do a decent shop that they can't carry comfortably. "Access" is the wall around your life:

Basics: Access, or the Wall Around Your Life
> https://humantransit.org/2021/03/basics-access-or-the-wall-around-your-life.html

[Gazza]

^Even in Copenhagen (Was there in July) supermarkets in Dense walkable areas still have a little bit of parking.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6428725,12.6308518,3a,41.1y,127.29h,98.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF4TuxIwBc8v5Nn1-0aRsjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6202318,12.573081,3a,58.6y,134.32h,100.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw1onRZP7cX5kxDYnT9r4Qw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I imagine the same would be true in Brisbane, it just wouldn't be acres and acres of parking like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.5589493,152.9516274,3a,60y,306.49h,92.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scIOLwg1q2gp-rYD9myDZSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Jonno]

The key point to make with regard to creating walkable, mixed-use, dense 15 min Neighbourhoods is that out City Plans enforce the dead opposite.  Even the handful of site discussed above enforce massive car parking minimums.  E.g South Bank stations has 2 massive over-engineered car parking entranced right net the station entry!!!    We say we will never achieve European levels of density.  We not even going in the right direction so we need to at least start the journey. Any higher density we are doing is car-oriented.

Given the poor planning around our current station and the small park n rides available at most stations I can see how replacing them with urban development will harm patronage at all in fact the dead opposite.