|
Waitematā
Local Board
10 June 2014
|
|
Auckland
Transport's Draft Parking Discussion Document
File No.:
CP2014/12345
Purpose
1. The
purpose of this report is to consider Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking
Discussion Document and particularly identify feedback relating to the Waitematā Local Board area.
Executive summary
2. The
high level direction for parking comes from the Auckland Plan, together with
the regulatory approach to off-street private parking in the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan. Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document
(Attachment A) relates to the management of on-street and off-street public
parking provided by Auckland Transport.
3. The
Draft Parking Discussion Paper is not a statutory document and is separate from
the Resource Management Act and the hearing process regarding the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland Transport is seeking submissions and feedback
to inform the development of a parking strategy.
4. Parking
provision is a significant component in the shaping of urban form, at the nexus
of both land use planning and transportation. A comprehensive parking strategy
is an important tool to manage parking to achieve transport objectives
(particularly travel demand management, transport mode choice, managing
congestion and adverse impacts), desired land use and compact city as well as
the broader outcomes of the Auckland Plan.
5. Auckland
Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document sets out a framework for the
provision, management and pricing of public parking (on-street and off-street)
and park and ride facilities in Auckland, and outlines nine suggested policy
approaches.
6. High
level feedback, including initial officers’ feedback on the Draft Parking
Discussion Document is set out in Appendix B. The feedback supports the
general approach to parking management in the Draft Parking Discussion Document
and raises issues relating to park and ride facilities, Auckland Transport’s
role in relation to off-street car park buildings in centres, and particular
issues.
7. At
its meeting on 12 June, the Auckland Development Committee will consider
proposed feedback to Auckland Transport. The Waitematā Local Board has
the opportunity to provide feedback in relation to the Waitematā Local Board area.
|
Recommendations
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a) receives this
report, including Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document.
b) identifies any
local issues which the Local Board wishes to draw to the attention of the
Auckland Development Committee in relation to the Auckland Council feedback.
c) supports the
feedback contained in the proposed Auckland Council feedback regarding the
general approach to parking contained in the Draft Parking Discussion
Document, in relation to the parking in the City Centre [or Waitematā
Local Board area].
|
Comments
Strategic
Context
8. Parking
management is a major influence on transport mode choice and a strong
determinant of land use and quality compact city and, as such, underpins the
strategic direction and successful implementation of the Auckland Plan and the
delivery of its outcomes.
9. The
Auckland Plan provides particular direction for growth in employment and people
living and visiting the City Centre. There is a target to increase the
proportion of trips made by public transport into the City Centre during the
morning peak, from 47% of all vehicular trips in 2011 to 70% by 2040.
10. The
City Centre Masterplan provides further direction in relation to the outcomes
sought in the City Centre. Underpinning the plan is a focus on a range of
projects that will make the city centre more family-friendly,
pedestrian-friendly and environmentally-friendly; a place we are all proud of,
feel excited about visiting and where we can do business and be entertained.
Current Situation
11. The
need for a comprehensive parking strategy is underscored by a variety of
emerging conflicts, including conflicts between:
· Residents, businesses
and commuters over limited parking spaces
· Long stay commuter
parking and short stay parking, generally for business or shopping
· On-street parking and
public transport
· The general public and
permit holders using available parking for non-essential purposes.
12. Likewise
a suite of recent trends, including, for instance, changes in travel
preferences (an increase in public transport and active modes), driving
distance (a decline in vehicle kilometres travelled per capita), demands for
public road space and land prices also adds pressure for changes to the current
approach.
Draft Parking Discussion Document
13. Auckland
Transport’s Draft
Parking Discussion Document contains an overview of key issues associated
with parking in Auckland and seeks feedback on nine main policy approaches.
Its comprehensive approach by Auckland Transport to on- and off-street parking
provision, management and pricing strives to address current problems with
parking in Auckland. Auckland Transport’s objectives are to support economic
development, good urban design, public transport patronage and the efficient
movement of people, goods and services throughout the city.
14. The
document identifies a variety of issues and trends and provides suggested
policy responses. The approaches which may directly impact on the
Waitematā Local Board area are highlighted in bold below:
· Managing demand for
parking in the City Centre, metropolitan & town centres
· Consistent approach
to managing parking in centres
· Balancing competing
demands for parking in residential streets
· Managing off-street
parking facilities in the City Centre
· Investing in
off-street parking facilities
· Prioritising access
to on-street parking
· Reducing parking on
arterial roads
· Managing special
purpose parking
· Allocation of
parking permits
· Investment in park and
ride facilities
· Pricing of park and
ride spaces
· Price adjustment for
on-street parking
· Price adjustment for
car park buildings in the City Centre
Auckland Council Proposed Feedback
15. It
is proposed that Auckland Council will provide high-level feedback from the
Auckland Development Committee and detailed comment from staff as set out in
Attachment B. Further detailed staff feedback will be added. The document was
released on 28 May and feedback is required by 30 June.
16. The
Waitematā Local Board has the opportunity to support the Council’s
feedback where appropriate and provide additional feedback.
17. Council
staff are generally supportive of the suggested policy approach outlined in the
document. Establishing a comprehensive parking strategy by bringing multiple
policy approaches into one streamlined, consistent and comprehensive parking
strategy, delivered and overseen for the first time by an amalgamated local
government for Auckland, will enable parking to contribute to a variety of
long-term land use, economic, health and liveability outcomes for Auckland.
Parking management is a strong determinant of quality compact urban form, a key
enabler to economic development and a major influence on increasing public transport
and active modes.
18. The
approach will also help solve emerging conflicts between users, will help
respond to changing travel demand and demographic trends, and will help prepare
Auckland to meet the challenges and opportunities borne by a growing and
maturing city. The suggested policy approaches are consistent with many of the
recommendations made by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute
at an Auckland Conversation presentation on 16 May 2013.
19. It
is widely recognised that performance-based or demand responsive
parking—achieving about 85% target occupancy rate by managing pricing and
availability—is an effective way to optimise a variety of outcomes including
managing demand, increasing turnover, reducing parking-related congestion and
ensuring predictability for consumers.
20. In
Auckland, pricing of on-street parking has been working in the City Centre,
Newmarket, Parnell and Remuera. In centres which rely just on time
restrictions, there is a growing tendency for parking exceeding the allowable
time limits. This results in reduced turnover and availability of parking as
well as significant infringement tickets – Takapuna is an example of this. A
sensible and coordinated roll-out of pricing in centres to manage parking aims
to achieve benefits to users, including the convenience of predictably of
finding a parking space, paying for as much time as needed and avoiding costly
infringement tickets.
21. The
Draft Parking Discussion Document proposes suggested policy approaches which
will help resolve a variety of current conflicts. In residential areas, zones
and time restrictions will prioritise short-stay business trips and parking for
residents, helping to reduce conflicts with commuters. On arterial roads,
removal of on-street parking will help reduce conflicts with more frequent and
reliable public transport service and the safety of active modes. In
off-street parking facilities in the City Centre, a shift from commuter parking
to short-term casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business will
reduce conflicting aims of increasing public transport patronage but providing
below-market commuter parking.
22. The
Draft Parking Discussion Document affirms that, while a coordinated approach is
necessary, each area has unique characteristics and needs and this is reflected
in developing a set of Comprehensive Parking Management Plans and a
case-by-case consideration of removing parking on
arterials.
23. Shifting the focus of
off-street parking in City Centre public car parking facilities from commuter
parking to short-term casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do
business will help increase public transport patronage and active modes and
encourage a more economically prosperous city. Any future investment in off-street
parking facilities will need to meet a rigid set of business case investment
criteria, including divestment if the criteria are not being met. This will help ensure better alignment with outcomes and a transition
of uses that better reflects the best value of land and the land use context.
In this regard, further investigation of Auckland Transport’s role regarding
parking buildings in the City Centre is recommended.
24. As described in Appendix B, a few concerns have
been raised about specific aspects of suggested policy approaches, including:
· Introduction of a 10-minute grace period
· Introduction of a “congestion buster” product
· Provision of free parking for the Santa Parade event
· Providing replacement off-street parking when reducing
on-street parking on arterials
We
offer a number of suggestions for improvement in a parking strategy in Appendix
B.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
25. Local
Boards have been consulted by Auckland Transport in the development of the
Draft Parking Discussion Document through three consolidated Local Board
workshops in May.
26. Based
on the information supplied at those workshops, there was some initial support,
but feedback was mixed and wide-ranging and was recorded by Auckland Transport.
Maori impact statement
27. The
Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance to
Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, Principle Seven (Mutual Benefit), Issue #14
relates to access to infrastructure services, with Māori “empowered,
enabled, respected and recognized as requiring ongoing access to safe,
operational and reasonably priced infrastructure services by a council that
recognizes the importance of infrastructure services as a core council
activity.” To those ends, the Draft Parking Discussion Document and subsequent
Parking Strategy would deliver infrastructure services benefits like improving
public transport frequency and reliability and the safety of active modes. An
85% occupancy policy approach to on-street parking, for instance, would deliver
convenience, time-saving and predictability benefits. Using price over time
restrictions in some areas would also reduce the likelihood of parking
infringements. There would also likely be adverse social impacts from paid
parking which may create financial hardship or discourage vehicle trips to
centres by lower income households.
28. Māori
impacts are being considered as part of Auckland Transport’s wider consultation
process.
Implementation
29. The
Draft Parking Discussion Document will progress into a Parking Strategy, which
is proposed to be incorporated into Auckland Transport’s Integrated Transport
Programme (ITP). Funding constraints and new funding assumptions will likely
play a role in determining the package of investments in parking, including
park and ride provision and comprehensive parking management plans. The effects
of policies in a Parking Strategy would need to input to Auckland Council’s
Long Term Plan 2015-2025, since the first decade of the ITP will likely form
the basis for transport investments in the Long Term Plan.
30. Comprehensive
Parking Management Plans will need to be prepared, the roll out of paid parking
will need to occur when triggers are met and parking removal on arterials will
be addressed on a case-by-case basis as guided by a final parking strategy.
There may be opportunities to reinvest revenue from demand responsive parking
pricing back into centres and/or to use it as a source for Business Investment
Districts.
31. Funding
pressure during the development of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan
2015-2025 will also raise the issue of whether to retain, divest from or
repurpose existing AT-owned off-street parking facilities in the city centre,
especially given the current land value. Exiting off-street parking would
result in lost revenue but may be balanced by repayment of debt or an opportunity
for redevelopment.
32. The
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 states that Council is responsible
for off-street parking facilities under the control of Council. Council
therefore must adopt the off-street elements of a final parking strategy.
Council staff are currently working on a Council traffic bylaw, which will
provide off-street parking controls. Council and Auckland Transport staff are
also currently working towards a full delegation from Council to Auckland
Transport of management, control and enforcement of off-street parking. Both
these pieces of work are due for completion by the end of 2014.
33. Joint
sign off of a parking strategy by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport is
required because it will involve both off-street parking and impacts on land
use.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Draft Parking Discussion Document
|
11
|
|
bView
|
Auckland Council feedback on Auckland
Transport's Draft Parking Discussion Document
|
71
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Kevin Wright - Manager: Transport
Strategy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland
Strategy and Research
Judith Webster - Relationship Manager
|
|
Waitematā
Local Board
10 June 2014
|
|
12 June 2014
Auckland
Transport
Auckland
Transport Parking Review
Private Bag
92260,
Auckland
1142
Dear Sir/
Madam,
Please find
attached Auckland Council feedback on the Draft Parking Discussion Document.
This incorporates the high level direction from the Auckland Development
Committee and detailed comments from Council staff.
We look
forward to working with you in the preparation of a final Parking Strategy
which as indicated in our feedback we are seeking joint sign-off.
If you
require any clarification on the submission please contact me by phone on 09
307 6063, or by email at roger.blakeley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Yours
sincerely
Dr. Roger
Blakeley,
Chief
Planning Officer
Encl.
Feedback on Auckland Transport’s Draft
Parking Discussion Document
The following feedback relates to Auckland
Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document released on 28 May 2014. The
feedback includes the high level feedback from the Auckland Development
Committee and detailed comment from officers from the Transport Strategy Unit,
the Spatial & Infrastructure Strategy Unit, and the Regional & Local
Planning Department. [Further detailed comment to be included from staff in
Economic Development, City Transformation and Built Environment.]
Summary
We are supportive of the general framework
for the provision, management and pricing of parking and park and ride
facilities. The general approach to parking taken in the Draft Parking
Discussion Document is more strongly aligned with the strategic direction of
the Auckland Plan, including moving toward outstanding public transport within
one network, improving the quality of urban living and fostering better
economic outcomes. The Discussion Document is well placed to form the basis of
a Parking Strategy which supports the regulatory approach to parking outlined
in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and provides guidance to a range of
parking issues.
It should be underscored that this is the
first time that the one amalgamated city is proposing to manage parking across
all of Auckland. Change of any kind often elicits strong responses. While
many responses are likely to improve the document, we would suggest that AT
(and the one Council family) focus on the benefits of such a ‘big picture’
approach across all of Auckland and an adherence to the broader strategic direction
of the Auckland Plan.
Because of the impacts on land use and the
interdependencies with Council’s planning, particularly outside the road
corridor, the Council wishes to jointly sign off a Parking Strategy that arises
out of the consultation on the Discussion Document.
We are supportive of a number of
approaches, including:
· Bringing
all of these approaches into one streamlined, consistent and comprehensive
parking strategy, delivered and overseen for the first time by an amalgamated
local government for all of Auckland
· Demand
responsive pricing and a target occupancy rate of 85% for on-street parking
· Development
of detailed Comprehensive Parking Management Plans
· Residential
zones and permits and/or time use restrictions to encourage short stays
· Shifting
off-street parking in the city centre away from commuter parking to short stay
parking
· Off-street
parking investment criteria, including possible divestment when criteria are
not being met
· Prioritisation
of user groups for on-street parking access
· Phasing
out of on-street parking on arterial routes, corridors serving the FTN and
on-road cycling corridors with high current or future use and identified safety
issues
· Clear
and consistent on-street parking restrictions
· Streamlining
legacy council permits and rationalising permits appropriately
· Park
and ride investment in the right locations (e.g., at the urban fringe) guided
by criteria in a Parking Strategy
· At
a future time, using pricing to manage demand of park and ride spaces
We also have concerns about aspects of
specific policy approaches, including:
· Introduction
of a 10-minute grace period
· Introduction
of a “congestion buster” product
· Provision
of free parking for the Santa Parade event
· Proposing
a targeted number (up to 10,000) of new park and ride spaces
· Providing
replacement off-street parking when reducing on-street parking on arterials
We offer a number of suggestions,
including:
· Enabling
a more dynamic demand-responsive parking approach
· Review
of whether Council should continue to own or manage off-street parking
buildings
· Inclusion
of greater detail on the provision of bicycle parking or integration at a later
date
· Strong
case-by-case consideration for the traffic calming and safety benefits of
retaining parking, particularly for walking and cycling
· Mitigating
impacts on businesses from removal of arterial on-street parking by
incorporating the use of side streets for parking
· Removing
reference to a 10,000 space park and ride target and replacing with clear
guidance about appropriate public sector provision of park and ride facilities
for cars and bicycles
We address our concerns and suggestions in
greater detail below, concurrent with each of the nine sections in the
document.
5.1a: Managing demand for parking in the
city centre, metropolitan & town centres
5.1b: Consistent approach to managing
parking in centres
We support a peak target occupancy rate of
85% for on-street parking in town centres and using price to manage demand
through ‘performance-based’ or ‘demand responsive’ pricing. Research
demonstrates that adjusting parking pricing (and/or timing restrictions) to
achieve 85% occupancy has a number of benefits. Demand responsive pricing
reduces vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and congestion from circling cars
searching for parking, particularly at peak times, resulting in better air
quality, climate, and road safety outcomes, as well as improving frequency and
reliability of public transport. Pricing to achieve 85% target occupancy also
provides better predictability and choice for consumers, especially for shorter
trips, which delivers better economic development outcomes. While parking
pricing can be considered regressive, it is not necessarily more so than other
means, particularly if revenue displaces general rates or improves public
transport choices. We support adoption of this approach as detailed in the
Auckland Transport Price Adjustment Policies to ensure consistent and
transparent parking management across Auckland.
We are also supportive of providing a
consistent approach to managing parking in centres. Recognising the importance
of building in some flexibility to reflect the unique circumstances of each
centre, we support the development of sequenced Comprehensive Parking
Management Plans for each centre that analyse current and future issues, supply
and demand and provide implementation plans. Not only will this enable both
flexibility and consistency, it will better link future parking demand to land
use planning and travel demand.
While we are very supportive of the general
approach, we would encourage future investigation into a more dynamic
demand-responsive approach, which allows parking rates to vary in real time by
the block, time of day or day of week. Success in other cities (e.g., San
Francisco’s SFpark) highlights the use of technology to monitor and adjust
parking price, as well as allowing customers to check price and availability
and pay for parking with mobile apps. Payment integration with the AT HOP card
may be a future opportunity, both to increase user convenience and to promote
greater public transport patronage by increasing use and familiarity with AT
HOP.
We have concerns that the introduction of a
10-minute grace period is an unnecessary step that may encourage additional car
use and have impacts on encouraging PT patronage growth. While useful in
substituting for dedicated taxi and loading zone spaces (and adding to
simplicity and on-street legibility), a 10 minute grace period may encourage
drop offs/pick-ups throughout the city, likely inducing additional peak-time congestion.
We suggest removal of the 10-minute grace period so that it does not appear in
the parking strategy.
5.2: Balancing competing demands for
parking in residential streets
We are supportive of appropriate use of
residential zones, permits and/or time use restrictions to encourage short
stays and to reduce conflicts between commuters and local businesses and
residents. This is particularly important in supporting the regulatory
approach outlined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which introduces
maximum parking requirements and reduces some minimum requirements. Aside from
managing current conflicts, such an approach will encourage a shift toward
public transport and improve the safety of residential streets.
5.3: Managing off-street parking
facilities in the city centre
We support shifting the focus away from
off-street commuter parking in public car parking facilities in the city centre
to better align with the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan, including
increasing PT patronage and active modes and encouraging a more economically
prosperous city. This means reducing and phasing out AT-owned/managed commuter
parking in favour of prioritising short-term casual parking for visitors
wanting to shop or do business in the city centre. We suggest further review
of whether Council should continue to own or manage off-street parking
buildings in the city centre, as described in more detail below.
We have concerns that a potential
‘congestion buster’ product would work against the policy to focus on
short-stay casual parking for visitors wanting to shop or do business in the
city centre. Such a product seems generally similar to the current early bird
product. While a congestion buster that focuses outside of the peak may
alleviate some congestion by better distributing peak car trips to centres, it
may also encourage more commuting by car instead of shifting some trips to
public transport, a key focus of the Auckland Plan. Furthermore, while car
trips to the CBD are projected to fall somewhat over the next 30 years,
all-mode trips will increase, so inter-peak congestion will be an issue.
Adding a product that may need to be removed later seems an unproductive
strategy.
5.4: Investing in off-street parking
facilities
We are supportive of not providing
off-street parking to expand the supply of free or low cost parking. We also
support the off-street parking business case investment criteria, including
considering divestment when the criteria are not being met. Along these lines,
we would encourage further analysis of whether or not Council-owned off-street
parking buildings provide sufficient investment return to justify continued
Council ownership or use—as the Discussion Document states, “In larger centres,
it is expected that off-street parking will be provided by private
developers.” Given high and increasing land value, the potential to transition
to better commercial uses or to divest may provide better revenue opportunities
for Council/AT and would likely align better with the desired strategic
direction, including encouraging greater PT patronage and active modes. A
similar exit approach should be considered for park and rides when they no
longer deliver the desired outcomes or where the land use (and value) has
changed substantially over time (see 5.9a, below).
5.5: Prioritising access to on-street
parking
We support the approach to prioritising
user groups for on-street parking access and the associated hierarchy, which
enables better clarity, transparency and consistency. While bicycle parking
shows up on the hierarchy and is meant to be provided in accordance with
existing AT guidelines and plans, greater clarity is required about the extent
of the bicycle parking policy. The Discussion Document has a focus on car parking
and is light in relation to bicycle parking. We suggest either further
expansion of bicycle parking in the Parking Strategy or integration at a later
date of future work into clarifying Council/AT’s role in the supply of bicycle
parking facilities.
5.6: Reducing parking on arterial roads
We generally support phasing out on-street
parking on arterial routes, corridors serving the FTN and on-road cycling
corridors with proven safety issues to encourage more frequent and reliable PT
service, increased PT patronage and increased walking and cycling. As noted in
the Discussion Document, this is dependent on specific context, as in some
cases, parking provides traffic calming and safety benefits to pedestrians and
cyclists. We recommend focussing on the guidance provided by Auckland Plan
Directive 10.6, which calls for parking standards and innovative parking
mechanisms to take into account the promotion of public transport and the
fostering of safe, convenient and attractive walkable neighbourhoods.
We support mitigating impacts on businesses
by incorporating the use of side streets for parking instead of a policy of
replacement provision, since such a policy creates expectations that Council is
unlikely to be able to afford to meet.
5.7: On-street parking restrictions and
events
We are supportive of clear and consistent
on-street parking restrictions and promotion of PT and active modes for
events. Our only concern is with the mention of ‘historical arrangements that
the public expect’ around the Santa Parade event. Since both historical and
current public expectations are likely to be wide-ranging for a variety of
parking-related issues, we would suggest eliminating this one exception for
better policy consistency.
5.8: Allocation of parking permits
We are supportive of streamlining previous
legacy council permits and rationalising permits appropriately to enable
priority access by priority users (like emergency services) and equitable
access by the general public.
5.9a: Investment in park and ride
facilities
We support “park and ride facilities in the
right places,” as stated in the Discussion Document, in accordance with the
criteria in the RPTP, including:
· Park-and-Ride is planned as an integral
part of the public transport network, extends the
public transport customer base
and encourages public transport patronage
· Potential
sites are located to intercept commuter trips from catchment areas that have
high Park--and-Ride potential, based on assessed demand
· Park-and-Ride
facilities are located to relieve congestion by intercepting commuter traffic,
and to ensure that vehicles accessing the facilities do not worsen local
traffic congestion
· New
Park-and-Ride facilities are focused on outer areas where public transport
services are limited, or to serve areas that are beyond the walk-up catchment
of the rapid and frequent service network
· Park-and-Ride
provision is avoided in metropolitan and town centres, except as part of a
staged transition to other uses
· Park-and-Ride
locations take fare zone boundaries into account
We support a Parking Strategy confirming
the criteria for consideration in identifying park and ride sites for Council
investment. We support a Parking Strategy noting the potential role of the
private sector in providing park and ride facilities at locations, where
allowed under the PAUP; and the potential role of informal park and ride on
surrounding streets which may be managed.
As noted in the Discussion Document,
additional analysis is necessary, particularly around land value, availability,
commercial development opportunities, construction and operating costs,
consenting, and details around the public transport network and feeder
services. We advise extending the range of interventions beyond investment, so
that it is clear where park and rides investment should be high, where it
should be minimal, where park and rides should be retained and where park and
rides should be exited, e.g.:
|
|
Park and Ride
Intervention
|
|
Criteria
|
Med-High
Growth
|
Small
Growth
|
Retention
|
Exit
|
|
Existing
Land Use (Primary)
|
· Rural
· Urban periphery
· Greenfield short term
|
· Non centres outside isthmus
|
· Non centres
|
· Centres
· Isthmus
|
|
PT/Active
Networks
|
· Not on FTN
|
· Not on FTN
|
· On FTN
· Otherwise poor access options
|
· On FTN w/ direct competition to feeder networks
· Creates congestion issues
|
|
Value
for Money
|
· Commercial opportunity not contradictory to strategic direction
|
· Commercial opportunity not contradictory to strategic direction
|
|
· Higher investment return from other aligned uses
|
Our most serious concern in this section is
that the policy approach leads with meeting an arbitrary target of new park and
ride spaces (“up to 10,000”) based on comparison with other cities. We
consider this approach to be unwise since a) there may be less expensive
opportunities to achieve patronage gain, like feeder bus services and walking
and cycling infrastructure, b) park and rides located where there are feeder
bus or active mode choices may discourage those modes, c) locating park and
rides in town centres identified for growth may have negative unintended
land-use impacts, including undermining transit oriented development and d)
caution may be required to avoid too great a subsidy for drivers and do not
reflect the true costs of using park and ride (although we are generally
supportive of temporary arrangements with minimal investment that, for
instance, could be leased and then transitioned to other uses, such as transit
oriented development). We suggest removing reference to a 10,000-space target.
The RPTP, referenced in Section 3 (page 8),
mentions criteria to guide investment, including: “New Park-and-Ride facilities
are focused on outer areas where public transport services are limited, or to
serve areas that are beyond the walk-up catchment of the rapid and frequent service
network.” Not mentioned in the Discussion Document is another criterion in the
RPTP that is particularly important: “Park-and-Ride provision is avoided in
metropolitan and town centres, except as part of a staged transition to other
uses.” We have concerns that the location of park and ride facilities at town
centres (including Sylvia Park, Panmure, Avondale, Mt Albert and Papatoetoe)
would undermine planned intensification at those centres and the bus feeder
services. A stronger case could be made for location of park and ride
facilities in the periphery of the metropolitan area, in accordance with the
criteria in the RPTP and which supports the Discussion Document’s suggested
approach to “avoid locating park and ride facilities in metropolitan and town
centres except as part of a stage transition to other uses.”
5.9b: Pricing of park and ride spaces
We support the approach to price park and
ride facilities to manage demand at an appropriate time in the future. While
there may be potential equity impacts of pricing, a demand-responsive price may
help mitigate such impacts, which would reflect geographic differences in park
and ride pricing. Pricing park and rides would not only help recover some of
the potential costs of facility construction, lease and/or operation, it would
make best use of current facilities before investing in additional facilities
and deliver better predictability to users.
