Nominate deadwood routes for review!

[Jonas Jade]

I'm not against park + ride but, I think park + ride sucks.*  





*not actual opinion

[SurfRail]

I think saying that Park and Ride provides coverage is tantamount to saying "don't provide buses in certain areas".

That's your interpretation, and I think it is wrong.

Does the park and ride at 8 Mile Plains stop buses feeding into the busway? Or the park and ride at Nerang stop buses going there?
Or the park and rides at all stations along the Mandurah and Joondalup lines stop feeder bus services? Nope.

Park and Ride has a place in a integrated transport system. Of course many people have a problem
saying that. They may well hate the car for whatever reason, but that's not my problem.

Cue comments beginning with "I'm not against park and ride, but..."

The Mandurah and Joondalup line feeders are actually quite lame outside of peak (usually hourly), stations are next to a freeway (limited walk-up patronage except at Leederville) and there is lots of parking provided, so it is no surprise so many people still park and ride.  (I would appreciate seeing figures on the breakdown between the different modes of station access if anybody has them.)

As for Nerang, considering the car park is usually half-empty even 14 years on, I do consider that the funds spent by the government of the day on its construction could have been better used to upgrade local feeder services to the west of the station.  The Joondalup line and its interchanges already existed by then, so there is no real excuse.

I do not hate cars.  I hate the excessive imposition they make on the system's budget, for very limited advantage and largely for political reasons.

[#Metro]

The Mandurah and Joondalup line feeders are actually quite lame outside of peak (usually hourly), stations are next to a freeway (limited walk-up patronage except at Leederville) and there is lots of parking provided, so it is no surprise so many people still park and ride.  (I would appreciate seeing figures on the breakdown between the different modes of station access if anybody has them.)

As for Nerang, considering the car park is usually half-empty even 14 years on, I do consider that the funds spent by the government of the day on its construction could have been better used to upgrade local feeder services to the west of the station.  The Joondalup line and its interchanges already existed by then, so there is no real excuse.

I do not hate cars.  I hate the excessive imposition they make on the system's budget, for very limited advantage and largely for political reasons.

Here you go: about half come from bus other half come from park and ride.
For 2% of the project's cost, it brings in around 50% of the passengers. Walk up - negligible.

Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement, Peter Martinovich, Public Transport Authority, WA.

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/18/Files/Peter_Martinovich.pdf

[SurfRail]

Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement, Peter Martinovich, Public Transport Authority, WA.

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/18/Files/Peter_Martinovich.pdf

It's not lost on me that the stations with the highest boardings are those with a much higher proportion of bus transfers than park'n'riding, and the stations which rely most on parking are those further out from the city.  (Compare the figures between Murdoch and Mandurah.)

Perth is also a lot more car dependent than any other major Australian city, so park and ride is more logical than it would be in other cities.  The sources cited make it clear that you bung your park and ride facilities out in woop-woop where people have to drive because buses are not feasible.  There aren't that many places within TransLink's service area (by definition) where you would really need this.

Everywhere through the report I see implicit assumptions about bus feeder patronage.  So many of the feeders in Perth run at crap frequencies that this is unsurprising.  If you had even a handful of BUZ type feeders running, it would change the nature of the game.  (Even still, the basic assumption it makes for an average station is that bus patronage is the highest single means of access, following by park'n'ride, walking and kiss'n'ride).

It also suggests walk-up patronage is limited to around 500 people per station.  This is no surprise given that the 2 busiest railways are in a freeway median with nothing nearby.  If there is no walkable transit-oriented development, then of course all the patronage will be coming from elsewhere.  Plenty of Perth stations offer opportunities for good development and redevelopment (Joondalup, Clarkson, Leederville etc), and there would be even more if there wasn't so much tarmac in the way.  Squandered opportunity, particularly since the land is all in common (government) ownership and could be alienated to developers to put to good use.

[#Metro]

Perth is also a lot more car dependent than any other major Australian city, so park and ride is more logical than it would be in other cities.  The sources cited make it clear that you bung your park and ride facilities out in woop-woop where people have to drive because buses are not feasible.  There aren't that many places within TransLink's service area (by definition) where you would really need this.

"More logical" That doesn't make sense.

I

t also suggests walk-up patronage is limited to around 500 people per station.  This is no surprise given that the 2 busiest railways are in a freeway median with nothing nearby.  If there is no walkable transit-oriented development, then of course all the patronage will be coming from elsewhere.  Plenty of Perth stations offer opportunities for good development and redevelopment (Joondalup, Clarkson, Leederville etc), and there would be even more if there wasn't so much tarmac in the way.  Squandered opportunity, particularly since the land is all in common (government) ownership and could be alienated to developers to put to good use.

I don't agree with that at all, and I don't think Peter Martinovich's position is in agreement with that at all.
The rail system gets decent patronage and boardings right now, not waiting for some TOD to pop up everywhere.
And that's the key thing - we don't wait until the city looks like Paris before we do anything. If you wait around, it's not gonna happen.

There are sections in that paper that make this very clear:

To make a transit system productive when homes are not intensely concentrated, facilities such as park and ride lots should be provided to encourage people
to get themselves concentrated, but on their time, not the transit system's. In this way, a transit system can start out well loaded, offering reasonably
fast, quality service that will be productive even in low density areas.

They also talk about chained trip making - school/shops/gym whatever, that makes park and ride important. For a PT system to be useful it has to be convenient,
of course people's ideologies about what an urban place "should" look like and ideas about access and mobility are offended when that access and mobility
involves using a vehicle with four wheels to access PT.

You can see in the diagram of the Warick Park and ride that they have feeder services but there are local areas off the main road where PT access is going to be difficult.
It is the same situation in many parts of Brisbane.

Edenbrooke Brisbane http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.550704,152.952572&spn=0.007429,0.014559&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=17

Forest Lake - impossible to get a bus through that area bounded by the freeway http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.632479,152.963247&spn=0.007423,0.014559&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=17

Pullenvale - such low density, park and ride makes total sense
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.523191,152.889819&spn=0.029724,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

The Gap - buses are confined to main roads, can't penetrate into the hilly parts or the finer urban streets.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.443125,152.942648&spn=0.029745,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

Bracken Ridge- its going to be difficult to penetrate into this area using a bus without becoming slow and windy
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.321755,153.031483&spn=0.029778,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

Even if Transit Oriented Development happened around each station, that would still leave people without decent access to PT.
If every single busway and every single train station had towers of development on top of them, transit system patronage would increase
but it would still leave people who live in the suburbs, outside the walkable catchment without a means of access to PT other than the bus
(which might not go or be able to reach them or provide an attractive service purely for geometric reasons to do with the street layout).

Park and Ride allows these people the coverage to access public transport as a last resort option. The only other option is for them to head down the freeway with their car.

[#Metro]

Clarkson Perth - a TOD
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Clarkson,+Perth&ll=-31.69075,115.737909&spn=0.003565,0.00728&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&hnear=Clarkson+Western+Australia&gl=au&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=-31.69075,115.736886&panoid=iGbBjCp6uAXFL9rV1B0Rqg&cbp=12,277.89,,0,3.16

and around the corner - massive park and ride
http://g.co/maps/t7t6z

[achiruel]

I think if a large P&R is to be built along the NCL, Woombye would be a better choice.

Why?

• There is a lot more nearby close-to-vacant land
• The land would probably be a lot cheaper
• It's served by a better road (Maroochydore Rd vs Petrie Creek Rd) to Maroochydore
• Less increase of traffic congestion which is already pretty bad around Nambour CBD

Ideally, I'd like to see an express bus between Woombye and Maroochdyore servicing every train & railbus via Nambour Connection Rd & Maroochydore Rd starting at Sunshine Plaza & stopping at Maroochydore High School, Kuluin, Kunda Park, Big Pineapple (only if it becomes a viable tourist attraction again).

[Arnz]

Woombye already has the half-hourly 610s.  I don't think they need another Maroochydore service when they are already well-serviced, and most rail passengers to Maroochydore are fed via the Route 615 from Landsborough anyway.  

I would think removing the Woombye diversion from the 610s (they will still be serviced via Pine Grove Road which runs beside the the old highway with a short walk) and connecting the town centre to Palmwoods via a separate route (My 638 proposal thread: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7462.0) would be a better fit.  Palmwoods is slightly larger than Woombye in population yet they get few local services a day (639), apart from the 649 Railbus which follows the railway.

As for P&R, I'd be working on removing the remaining cars off the streets of Landsborough.  Fortunately for the shopkeepers, the street parking in front of their shops have a parking time limit which is enforced by council parking inspectors during the week.

[Jonno]

Park n Ride not needed next to a TOD.  If it is then transport planning mistake has been made.  You should not need a car to catch fast frequent public transport!!!

[david]

In Sydney X97 and X99 only run twice a day, inbound only, but serve quite a number of passengers.  Who is to say that doesn't apply here?  Probably doesn't, but my point is that just because there aren't many trips on a rocket isn't a reason in and of itself to get rid of it.

Sounds like a fantastic reason to get rid of it.  Just convert it to another 435.

I thought you wanted to truncate the 435 at Indro?  Then (as far as we know) a full bus emptying and then getting on a different bus?

I assure you, the 435 NEVER gets close to being full. Just sit at Indooroopilly one day and observe it. There is a reason why it gets truncated at Indooroopilly on weekends...
Similar situation with the 460.

As for the 430, I think it needs to stay. There are a surprising number of tourists who catch it to Lone Pine from the City...

[SurfRail]

"More logical" That doesn't make sense.

Perfectly obvious I would have thought.  I don't feel the need to explain this further if you are going to be cryptic.

I don't agree with that at all, and I don't think Peter Martinovich's position is in agreement with that at all. The rail system gets decent patronage and boardings right now, not waiting for some TOD to pop up everywhere.
And that's the key thing - we don't wait until the city looks like Paris before we do anything. If you wait around, it's not gonna happen.

You don't wait around.  You design urban plans that encourage densification, high quality transit and local activity.  Very much lacking in Perth, I am sorry to say.  Perth is an example of an excellent solution to a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with, and one we have the opportunity (at least in Brisbane and the Gold Coast) to steer clear of.

There are sections in that paper that make this very clear:

To make a transit system productive when homes are not intensely concentrated, facilities such as park and ride lots should be provided to encourage people
to get themselves concentrated, but on their time, not the transit system's. In this way, a transit system can start out well loaded, offering reasonably
fast, quality service that will be productive even in low density areas.

They also talk about chained trip making - school/shops/gym whatever, that makes park and ride important. For a PT system to be useful it has to be convenient,
of course people's ideologies about what an urban place "should" look like and ideas about access and mobility are offended when that access and mobility
involves using a vehicle with four wheels to access PT.

In other words, it caters to bad planning.  Rather than trying to rectify the mistakes that have been made, they are encouraging low densities and energy inefficient sprawl instead of focusing on concentraing population around rapid transit and upgrading transit capacity to deal with both situations.  The SEQRP largely stops this kind of thinking here - even the new developments are all planned to be provisioned for rail or rapid bus feeders and for more than just residences, and are not intended to be dormitories like Ellenbrook or suburbs to the south of Mandurah and north of Joondalup.  Perth just encourages more sprawl all the way out to Two Rocks over a vast flat plain.

You can see in the diagram of the Warick Park and ride that they have feeder services but there are local areas off the main road where PT access is going to be difficult.
It is the same situation in many parts of Brisbane.

Edenbrooke Brisbane http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.550704,152.952572&spn=0.007429,0.014559&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=17

Forest Lake - impossible to get a bus through that area bounded by the freeway http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.632479,152.963247&spn=0.007423,0.014559&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=17

Pullenvale - such low density, park and ride makes total sense
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.523191,152.889819&spn=0.029724,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

The Gap - buses are confined to main roads, can't penetrate into the hilly parts or the finer urban streets.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.443125,152.942648&spn=0.029745,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

Bracken Ridge- its going to be difficult to penetrate into this area using a bus without becoming slow and windy
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Edenbrooke,+Brisbane&hl=en&ll=-27.321755,153.031483&spn=0.029778,0.058236&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=59.764259,119.267578&vpsrc=6&hnear=Edenbrooke+Dr,+Queensland+4073&t=h&z=15

No one is arguing with the notion that you need a critical mass to sustain bus services, or that you can't fit a bus down every street (for that matter why in God's name would you want to?)

To take the examples in turn:

- You can go around Edenbrooke quite easily
- The streets identified in Forest Lake are all within walking distance of the 100 BUZ
- Pullenvale falls outside the 7 dwelling per hectare threshold identified in the PTA paper, and was TransLink's justification for not funding the Southern Cross Transit service between Indooroopilly and Ipswich, which later folded.  These people can park at a number of locations before hitting Indooroopilly to access bus services - there is a park'n'ride at Misty Morn for instance.  These are the people park and ride should be intended for, and it should be limited to that, and on a paid basis.
- Most of The Gap is quite walkable to a bus service, and services can be redesigned for efficiency (particularly when they end up going through suburbs in the inner city and carry heavy loads)
- Bracken Ridge is also quite walkable to numerous bus routes, which only really need frequency upgrades.

You can walk to a bus stop that is not just outside your porch, and if you physically can't you probably need access to community transport, a Council Cab or something like that.  Service planning is based on notions of what an acceptable distance is to walk to quality transit, and most of the examples you have identified are pretty much strawmen for the "we can't put a BUZ down every street" non-argument.

Even if Transit Oriented Development happened around each station, that would still leave people without decent access to PT.
If every single busway and every single train station had towers of development on top of them, transit system patronage would increase
but it would still leave people who live in the suburbs, outside the walkable catchment without a means of access to PT other than the bus
(which might not go or be able to reach them or provide an attractive service purely for geometric reasons to do with the street layout).
Park and Ride allows these people the coverage to access public transport as a last resort option. The only other option is for them to head down the freeway with their car.

Exactly.  You put most of your population where they can be served with PT, or in fact do not need to use anything other than shank's mare for most of their needs.  Problem?

By this point the system is operating more efficiently, and you can afford to spend more on feeders and park and ride for people who choose to live in areas not adjacent to nearby rapid transit.  By locating more residences near transit, you create that choice.  By not doing this, you entrench situations where people still drive for 50% of their journey from a sea of dormitory suburbs.

[morb]

UQ 427 / 428 - what is with the way it splits into parallel streets when it gets off Swann Road? What is the purpose of that.

Too difficult to turn out of Clarence Road into Swann Road.  Limited sight lines.

[#Metro]

SurfRail, if you want to turn Brisbane into Paris, go right ahead.
We've got the city we've got and it is going to take a while to change that. Trying to undo the last 150+ years of development is going to be quite a challenge. And particularly so when its people's private property at stake. I am reminded of a time I went to a neighbourhood planning thing run by BCC - first thing that went up on the slides was what council could do and not do

- Can't make development happen
- Can't stop development from happening

My approach is give me the development pattern you have and I'll see what PT can be designed into that. No value judgements about "good or bad". You have what you have. The job of the transit agency is to provide access and service, not make pontifications about people's homes or how they "should live" etc.

There's a reason why 80% of trips are by car and that's because it is fast, convenient and has instant frequency.
Meanwhile, park and rides are entirely appropriate at places like Bracken Ridge, Nambour etc and should be rolled out. A bus that spends its time winding around is going to be slow. That's a geometric fact. People don't like slow services- something else that doesn't change.

[Gazza]

SurfRail, if you want to turn Brisbane into Paris, go right ahead.

Who said Paris.

What about Vancouver. Ever been there?

I have.

The point is that it is full to the brim with apartment towers, across the city, not just in the CBD, but in several concentrated centres too. And these aren't old apartment buildings like what many European cities have lining their narrow streets. Many of these towers were built in the 90s or later, and you can really see the "newness" of it all:



Skytrain only began in 1985, It's 2nd line in 2000, so they have been able to turn it around reasonably quickly. Not hundreds of years.

TT, why is it when you give a counter argument, it always has to be one at the very extreme.
You can never just take what others have posted and understand the spirit of what was written as intended, can you?

[Mr X]

Btw TT, you're wrong. Council CAN stop development from happening. Ever heard of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009? IDAS? Cityplan 2000?

Development doesn't fit the performance criteria? APPLICATION DENIED.

The truth is, we CAN have the city we want. Why should we live by mistakes past? We can have density, not everywhere but at key nodes. Saying we should give up, let it sprawl and make park n' rides at every station is complete bullsh%t.

Secondly, as Gazza said, stop being so hysterical. Paris? We could argue that wanting park n' rides everywhere makes us the next Houston, Phoenix or Detroit.

[#Metro]

Hardly hysterical,

Last time I looked at Google Maps, the city looked like this
http://g.co/maps/yk8kq

Not this http://g.co/maps/n3eby
Or this http://g.co/maps/hu73v

Even if you get towers of TODs at stations, you still have the suburban spaces that may not have decent access to useful (fast, frequent, direct) PT services due to purely geometric reasons.

NONE of this is saying that you can't go ahead and density, but do that on their own time not the transit system's. Nowhere have I said that I don't want to see intensification happen. I'm merely describing what's present and what is to be worked with.

As the BCC neighbourhood planning team and rivercity blueprint teams explained to me (i've been there!) BCC can't make development happen (its a market driven process) and can't stop development happening (you can't ban detached dwellings). They can only regulate it. You also can't retrospectively ban things that have already been done. A transit agencies job is to provide service, whatever the urban form, not pontificate about things that are totally outside its control.

If that means park and ride needs to be instituted, then so be it.

This approach has been pursued in Perth and it works. Now do we design a system that people can use today that matches the form we have or deny access because we don't like the fact they have to use a vehicle with four wheels?

[somebody]

UQ 427 / 428 - what is with the way it splits into parallel streets when it gets off Swann Road? What is the purpose of that.

Too difficult to turn out of Clarence Road into Swann Road.  Limited sight lines.

Both turn in to York St for this reason.  He's talking about the way they split between Clarence Rd and Central Ave, which I fully agree is daft.  I don't really see a good reason for the 427.  Extra runs along the 432 route seem to be the answer.

[Mr X]

Hardly hysterical,

Whenever someone mentions density, you have a whinge and say we're trying to turn Brisbane to Paris. Have you actually been to Paris? I've seen you compare density to Paris twice in this thread and countless times across the forum. Do you even know what high density IS? (And it's not necessarily a whole heap of skyscrapers plopped in the ground!).

Have a read.

Last time I looked at Google Maps, the city looked like this
http://g.co/maps/yk8kq

I am well aware what Brisbane looks like, thanks.

Not this http://g.co/maps/n3eby
Or this http://g.co/maps/hu73v

Again, what's with the Paris references?

Even if you get towers of TODs at stations, you still have the suburban spaces that may not have decent access to useful (fast, frequent, direct) PT services due to purely geometric reasons....

I understand that and we can't retrospectively change what has happened in the past, I agree. But we can stop it from happening in the future, developing better planned connected neighbourhoods that are easily permeable by buses through main routes.

Look up what a TOD IS. Some might have taller "towers", some might not. The role of a planner is to pre-empt development. Guide it. Done through strategic plans, neighbourhood plan and the cityplan. Richlands, for example, isn't "there" purely to serve as a park n' ride. For the meantime, yes, but in the future significant residential development is planned around that station. "Skyscrapers"? No. "Towers"? No.

As the BCC neighbourhood planning team and rivercity blueprint teams explained to me (i've been there!) BCC can't make development happen (its a market driven process) and can't stop development happening (you can't ban detached dwellings). They can only regulate it. You also can't retrospectively ban things that have already been done. A transit agencies job is to provide service, whatever the urban form, not pontificate about things that are totally outside its control.

I've been there too- in 2 more years I'll be one of them (). Of course development is market driven. While you might not be able to stop development that has already been put in place, built, you can change what is to be built in the future. You'd appreciate that it's far better to have your citizens living closer to transit in denser neighbourhoods with permeable, legible street layouts, close to employment than it is to have sparse sprawl, big backyards with everyone driving to either a park n' ride or straight to the city itself.

This approach has been pursued in Perth and it works. Now do we design a system that people can use today that matches the form we have or deny access because we don't like the fact they have to use a vehicle with four wheels?

I'm not saying we deny transport access to anyone, don't put words in my mouth. As others have said, Perth is not necessarily an urban form we want in Brisbane. If we have to provide park n' rides to get 50% of our patronage, than that's a big fail in urban design and planning. Sure, place park n' rides in areas where it's simply not feasible to run buses to everyone, but don't just plop a park n' ride because it's too hard to plan bus routes through the area. Hence why park n' rides are banned within 10km of the CBD- with that distance, you should have access to a bus, train or ferry.

We can't have development appear instantly, I agree. It's a process that takes time. That's why we plan ahead.

[#Metro]

There is a difference between prescription and description.

Cities which have urban form A need to have a transit system designed to work with urban form A
Cities which have urban form B need to have a transit system designed to work with urban form B

It takes time for places with urban form A to change into something more like urban form B.

Services need to be fast, direct and frequent to be attractive. Whether you want Brisbane to be like
urban form B because you don't like urban form A is beside the point - the transit agency needs to
provide access (can I get to the station) and mobility (where can I go) using the current urban form
they have to work with. They don't really have much choice, because services need to be provided today
and not wait around until the city changes to be more like urban form B.

See where I am going with this? It would be more than revealing to query TransLink on why they do and don't build
park and rides. I understand there is a park and ride under construction in the centenary suburbs as well...

None of what I have said is to say makes a judgment about the relative goodness or desirability of urban form A over urban form B.
As a transport agency, you have to work with what you have got. Park and Ride, and back to the question - at Nambour - is entirely appropriate as it would expected to be from an integrated transport system that allows connection to all modes, including the car. It would also be entirely appropriate for stations in new developments at Yarrabilba and Ripley (as much as I cringe at the thought of these developments in la la land) at places like Richlands and areas where a bus service penetration is going to be very disadvantaged in terms of speed and frequency due to the geometric layout of streets (i.e. Bracken Ridge, Parts of Forest Lake).

[#Metro]

A reminder that this thread is about deadwood routes for review. 

[#Metro]

And for the record, Vancouver also provides park and ride.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Driving/Park-and-Ride.aspx

Park and Ride

Park your car at one of many safe and convenient Park and Ride lots and hop on transit. You'll not only avoid the hassle of dealing with rush-hour traffic, but you'll also reduce the wear and tear on your car - and your carbon emissions too!

Signs at each location indicate rates, hours of operation and liability notices. Unless otherwise noted, none of the locations permit overnight parking.

Burnaby

Production Way - University Station
Spaces: 220 parking spaces

Coquitlam

Coquitlam Station
Spaces: 614 parking spaces

Delta

Ladner Exchange
Spaces: 200 parking spaces


South Delta Recreation Centre
Spaces: 75 parking spaces

Langley

Walnut Grove
Spaces: 186 designated parking spaces at SportsPlex parkade

Lions Bay

Spaces: 9 parking spaces

Maple Ridge

Maple Meadows Station (West Coast Express)
Spaces: 467 parking spaces


Mission

Mission City Station (West Coast Express)
Spaces: 254 parking spaces

North Vancouver

Phibbs Exchange
Spaces: 40 parking spaces

Pitt Meadows

Pitt Meadows Station (West Coast Express)
Spaces: 140 parking spaces

Port Coquitlam Station (West Coast Express)
Spaces: 280 parking spaces

Port Moody

Port Moody Station (West Coast Express)
Spaces: 300 parking spaces

Richmond

Sexsmith
Spaces: 400 parking spaces

Bridgeport Station
Spaces: 1200 parking spaces
Surrey

Scott Road
Spaces: 1563 parking spaces; 27 priority carpool spaces*

*All carpool priority spaces have been allocated for 2012. The next lottery takes place Sept., 2012. Visit our  Carpooling page for more info.

South Surrey
Spaces: 481 parking spaces; 13 priority spaces*

*Priority carpool spaces sitll available. Visit our Carpooling page for more info.

East Guildford
Spaces: 86 parking spaces

King George Station
Spaces: 815 parking spaces

West Vancouver

Park Royal
Spaces: 166 parking spaces

Westmount
Spaces: 30 parking spaces

Gleneagles
Spaces: 120 parking spaces

[Gazza]

. A transit agencies job is to provide service, whatever the urban form, not pontificate about things that are totally outside its control.

But transport planning and urban planning are intrinsically linked, so they should be actually.

[#Metro]

http://translink.com.au/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/jindalee-park-n-ride

A park 'n' ride at Jindalee is needed to improve access to public transport for commuters and reduce traffic congestion.

The location of the Jindalee site is in line with our plans to develop these facilities outside the CBD and inner-fringe.

Park and Ride is an access (coverage) improving measure. None of this is mutually exclusive for improving buses in that area, but the
two measures are complimentary (and would be more so if they charged a fee).

http://translink.com.au/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/capalaba-park-n-ride

The existing park 'n' ride near the Capalaba bus station at Noeleen Street is at capacity. Many bus customers are currently parking on local streets and within the Capalaba Central and Capalaba Park shopping centre car parks to access public transport. The new Capalaba park 'n' ride will cater for commuter parking needs in the area - providing a safe, central, and convenient facility for commuters to park their car and transfer to a bus - while minimising parking demand on local streets and facilities.

http://translink.com.au/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/enoggera-reservoir-park-n-ride

TransLink is making do with what the urban form that they have got. That said, I don't think Park and Ride is a total loss either here or in Perth, as the city continues to grow, I think that land can be released again and sold. And I think that's a key thing - I think if there is market demand for that the developers will make an offer and buy that land for that purpose.


Indeed, this may be ultimately one way of making the car park pay for itself and over time being cost neutral. The value of land on which it sits on is going to increase in capital value over time.

It comes back to this:

To make a transit system productive when homes are not intensely concentrated, facilities such as park and ride lots should be provided to encourage people to get themselves concentrated, but on their time, not the transit system's. In this way, a transit system can start out well loaded, offering reasonably fast, quality service that will be productive even in low density areas.

Which is what is happening here

Clarkson Perth - a TOD
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Clarkson,+Perth&ll=-31.69075,115.737909&spn=0.003565,0.00728&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&hnear=Clarkson+Western+Australia&gl=au&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=-31.69075,115.736886&panoid=iGbBjCp6uAXFL9rV1B0Rqg&cbp=12,277.89,,0,3.16

and around the corner - massive park and ride
http://g.co/maps/t7t6z

and here in Perth (Wellard). The park and ride allows people to access PT right now, not wait around until the developers at Wellard have got their development done.

http://g.co/maps/ewggd

and, yes, even here http://g.co/maps/rmk2m (Nerang Station- and the car park still brings in more pax than that little development).

[#Metro]

And I think this might even be true at Mandurah
http://www.landcorp.com.au/project/mandurahjunction/

Mandurah Junction will transform a 15ha site located next to Mandurah train station into a high quality residential development for up to 2,000 people, offering a vibrant community with a distinctive laid-back Mandurah vibe.

The development will be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly and retain significant public open space featuring creative public art.

funnily enough http://www.landcorp.com.au/project/mandurahjunction/feature/?nid=3&type=90

What is the site's current use?

The majority of the site currently has no formal use. Portions of the site are (or have been) used for informal recreation such as walking and cycling, and for illegal waste disposal. A separate site adjacent to Palmer Way at the site's western edge is currently set aside as public open space and some of the site is used as parking for the Mandurah 'park and ride' facility.

"If there is market demand for that the developers will make an offer and buy that land for that purpose."

Provided there are laws and mechanisms that allow this to happen, I don't see why the full cost of park and ride (and probably some profit) can be recovered at a later date simply by selling the land off when there is sufficient demand for that.

Maybe one day this will be the case at Richlands...

[BrizCommuter]

A reminder that this thread is about deadwood routes for review. 

77 and 88? 

[#Metro]

P88 is quite useful, though that said, what to you think about converting it to just more 111's?
Same with 160. Cut that route and convert to more 111s. 150 already goes to Garden City

[Golliwog]

The park n ride at the gap has very little to do with the urban form of the suburb. Most of it is an easy walk from a bus route. The location of the new pnr is the end of the 385 where a lot of pax already park on the side of the road, and the locals were complaining about safety in the area. As I understand it, many of these are coming from out at Mt Nebo. This is just formalising something that already occurs there, and adding a bus turnaround to allow bigger buses to be used on the 385.

I have no problem with park n rides being built were they are needed and it makes sense (ie at the end of corridors and the like). That said, too many new developments seem to go in with little or no provision or allowance for anything but the car. No council and government can't force changes, but they can with hold approval until certain conditions are met and put in place policies to encourage the type of redevelopment that is wanted. This can be seen in things like BCC's neighbourhood plans for places like Mitchelton and indooroopilly, where they are focusing on bigger buildings around the station and shopping precincts. They can also try and get Translink involved in the process to allow some input from them on where likely bus routes would run.

[#Metro]

I have no problem with park n rides being built were they are needed and it makes sense (ie at the end of corridors and the like). That said, too many new developments seem to go in with little or no provision or allowance for anything but the car. No council and government can't force changes, but they can with hold approval until certain conditions are met and put in place policies to encourage the type of redevelopment that is wanted. This can be seen in things like BCC's neighbourhood plans for places like Mitchelton and indooroopilly, where they are focusing on bigger buildings around the station and shopping precincts. They can also try and get Translink involved in the process to allow some input from them on where likely bus routes would run.

Agreed. I think that so long as TransLink is open to selling off the park and ride land when development begins to encroach on it and developers start making $$$ offers, there should be little issue. If it is possible to knock down government buildings such as will happen at Wooloongabba for TODs or knock down power stations (tennyson) or sell air rights above busways (Mater Hill) or train stations (Milton) then I see no reason why a flat piece of ashphalt with no buildings on it would be so hard to reclaim when appropriate. This is one reason why I don't buy the line 'it stops TOD from happening' - if the market wanted a TOD there, it would buy the car park off TL and redevelop it.

That said, I *do* have bones to pick with Yarabilba and Ripley. None of these are 'on the way' and there seems to be good land around the Rosewood line which could be developed.

[Gazza]

see no reason why a flat piece of ashphalt with no buildings on it would be so hard to reclaim when appropriate

Because people don't like their park and ride being taken away once they have it, even if its not really theirs.

[Golliwog]

They might not be on the way for an existing PT route, but if/when a new one goes in for them, there will be more places "on the way" between them and where ever that PT link ends up going. Just because the link doesn't exist now, doesn't mean you can't build a new one.

[SurfRail]

Agreed. I think that so long as TransLink is open to selling off the park and ride land when development begins to encroach on it and developers start making $$$ offers, there should be little issue. If it is possible to knock down government buildings such as will happen at Wooloongabba for TODs or knock down power stations (tennyson) or sell air rights above busways (Mater Hill) or train stations (Milton) then I see no reason why a flat piece of ashphalt with no buildings on it would be so hard to reclaim when appropriate. This is one reason why I don't buy the line 'it stops TOD from happening' - if the market wanted a TOD there, it would buy the car park off TL and redevelop it.

TransLink is not going to just sell off park and ride land.  There is also plenty of market for transit-oriented development, otherwise projects like The Milton would not be built.  All you are doing by installing park n ride anywhere other than the urban fringe is subsidising people's inefficiencies instead of releasing the land to developers to do something useful with it.

The best way to encourage appropriate development is to get it right from the start, by releasing the land.  Why even bother with intermediate steps?

That said, I *do* have bones to pick with Yarabilba and Ripley. None of these are 'on the way' and there seems to be good land around the Rosewood line which could be developed.

How do you propose this occur when the land is virtually all in (multiple and separate) private ownership?  The government is not, and should not, be in the business of forcibly relocating people to develop their land commercially for profit.

[#Metro]

Because people don't like their park and ride being taken away once they have it, even if its not really theirs.

The gov't just needs to grow some balls. So this is a non-reason. It's not a geometric or mathematical reason, its a cultural one, and one that can change.
When there is market demand for development the sale of the land would generate cash, more than enough to compensate to put frequent buses on and have the surrounding density
to support.

TransLink is not going to just sell off park and ride land.  There is also plenty of market for transit-oriented development, otherwise projects like The Milton would not be built.  All you are doing by installing park n ride anywhere other than the urban fringe is subsidising people's inefficiencies instead of releasing the land to developers to do something useful with it.

The best way to encourage appropriate development is to get it right from the start, by releasing the land.  Why even bother with intermediate steps?

If the market for TOD were that strong, a developer would simply buy it, just as is proposed for government land at other locations such as the GoPrint site at Wooloongabba, Tennyson Power station, Long Pocket etc. Hell, government has even sold off Telephone Companies, Airlines, Banks, Airports, Freight Railways against huge public opposition and it got done nevertheless. Park and Ride reclamation by developers, provided they stump up the cash, would be a walk in the park. Buildings get demolished and sold all the time. It makes it even easier that it is in gov't hands beacuse there is no need to negotiate with multiple property owners.

[#Metro]

The best way to encourage appropriate development is to get it right from the start, by releasing the land.  Why even bother with intermediate steps?

Because there might not be market demand right now?
Because people need access to the station now and not in 10/20/50 years?
Because it takes time to build stuff?
Because local feeder buses might not be enough by themselves?

and here in Perth (Wellard). The park and ride allows people to access PT right now, not wait around until the developers at Wellard have got their development done.

http://g.co/maps/ewggd

TransLink is not going to just sell off park and ride land.

What is the site's current use?

The majority of the site currently has no formal use. Portions of the site are (or have been) used for informal recreation such as walking and cycling, and for illegal waste disposal. A separate site adjacent to Palmer Way at the site's western edge is currently set aside as public open space and some of the site is used as parking for the Mandurah 'park and ride' facility.

[SurfRail]

If the market for TOD were that strong, a developer would simply buy it, just as is proposed for government land at other locations such as the GoPrint site at Wooloongabba, Tennyson Power station, Long Pocket etc. Hell, government has even sold off Telephone Companies, Airlines, Banks, Airports, Freight Railways against huge public opposition and it got done nevertheless. Park and Ride reclamation by developers, provided they stump up the cash, would be a walk in the park. Buildings get demolished and sold all the time. It makes it even easier that it is in gov't hands beacuse there is no need to negotiate with multiple property owners.

People need to be able to choose whether they want to live close to transit or out in woop-woop.  The "market" has determined that there is plenty of interest in both, hence Yarrabilba and Flagstone.  (Market forces are hardly the best way to organise a city.)

There is also a pretty big difference between a graded car park and a disused government facility lying fallow.  TransLink is not going to be selling something like an active park and ride site, and developers do not buy sites that are not on the market - particularly when the ULDA and SEQRP encourage more infill development in places like Bowen Hills where there is government land available for that purpose.

[#Metro]

People need to be able to choose whether they want to live close to transit or out in woop-woop.  The "market" has determined that there is plenty of interest in both, hence Yarrabilba and Flagstone.  (Market forces are hardly the best way to organise a city.)

Never made a comment about market forces being better or worse to organise a city. Simply stated that if a developer wanted it, they could stump up cash and buy it.
I didn't pass a judgment on what urban form A or B was better - simply said that services need to be designed to work in the current urban form.
Land use needs to be regulated for social reasons (i.e can't just open a nuclear powerplant or mine in Toowong) and also because gov't network services need to extend
to areas (power/water/roads/sewerage/communications/PT/health services) as well.

There is also a pretty big difference between a graded car park and a disused government facility lying fallow.  TransLink is not going to be selling something like an active park and ride site, and developers do not buy sites that are not on the market - particularly when the ULDA and SEQRP encourage more infill development in places like Bowen Hills where there is government land available for that purpose.

I didn't argue that a graded car park or gov't facility (which is still in use I believe by DERM as office space) were the same. I simply argued that I don't see, why the gov't can't sell it off at some point in the future, provided there was some compensatory measure in place (development/services/buses) and the surrounding urban area had caught up with that. Again, its not a geometric reason, unlike poor street layouts, low density and slow inconvenient services that arise from geometry. Can't and Won't are different things. There are many examples of more difficult things that have been sold off against huge opposition.

[somebody]

Cut all the 461.
475 - I'd chop of the City-Valley-W'Gabba-PAH bit, but I do see value in a similar service Valley-PAH.

Don't really agree with your other proposals.

Mine:
133 cut to either Mains Rd park 'n' ride or re-route to Garden City.
151 - cut completely
153 - cut out Nemies Rd loop
136 - cut out Garden City deviation
232?
115 - cut completely, convert to 110s
457 - cut completely and most definitely
458/459 - combine with 455/456 by having those use Charlotte/Margaret
476 - no brainer - convert to 475s
435 weekday extension to the CBD.
142 - convert to 546s or similar

Adding to this:
113 - Run more 112s
217
222 (ooh, controversial*)
124/125 - Consolidate to a single route via Evans Rd to Sunnybank
121 - Run more 116s, and re-align the 116 along the 121 route from Sarah St to Salisbury East removing the need for the 124 to cover this.  Area around Rocklea is served by other routes/train stations!
129/131/138 - review
156/157 - review
103/451/468 - review
88
135 - why's this run to Parkinson when the 130 already covers that?  This route should be reviewed.

* - Controversy isn't based on any logic

[Jonas Jade]

Re: 135 I say upgrade the frequency (maybe full BUZ levels not needed) BUT cut it back to Sunnybank Hills - this will serve the Hellawell Rd section and Griffith Nathan - City corridor.

And the 155 can be folded into a crosstown route that has been discussed here previously.

[#Metro]

There are too many bus routes in Sunnybank.
I don't even know where all the rockets go in the mornings.

I'd agree and suggest that most all day services need to run through Sunnybank to finish at Browns Plains where possible, not just terminate suddenly in whoop whoop or a random suburban street. This makes PT in this area more useful because it has an anchor destination at both ends.

The other thing is that some direct running services to the CBD probably don't need to run all the way to the CBD except in peak hour. CUT!!
A turning loop is installed at Griffith Uni Station, perhaps these buses could use that.

Through routing to Carindale may also be possible for selected routes which would fill in the east-west grid roads of Creek Road etc.

[SurfRail]

I think we should emphasise in a future release that the vast majority of the BT network was designed before TransLink started up the integrated ticketing system in 2004, meaning things which would have made sense under a fractured system (for a given value of "made sense") are completely stupid now.

In 2005 they massively rewrote the Sunshine Coast and outer metropolitan region timetables and networks to create the basic structure we have today in those 5 regions, which has only been tweaked since then.  Gold Coast has been through some major restructures since then as well in 2006 and 2007 (with the exception of the 12 remaining legacy routes).

BT's basic network design has escaped largely unscathed...

[somebody]

BT's basic network design has escaped largely unscathed...

Which is yet another reason for it to come under state control.