There is a recent paper by Genter et al on the effects of minimum parking requirements in NZ, and alternative options to move NZ in a more sustainable direction: http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/Conference/2008/papers/Genter.pdf

The Campaign for Better Transport site has a link to that paper, under the heading “The Cost of Free Parking”.

It’s interesting stuff.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The major contributor to reduced commuter congestion during school holidays is that a large number of mothers (and many fathers) chose to take their leave during school holidays and so do not drive the kids to school or drive to work.
It’s the trip to work that reduces congestion – roads around schools are not normally subject to genuine congestion except around the parking areas.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That would not be Green party policy would it? The market to decide?

If the real cost is internalised, we would agree it is part of the solution.

The market has decided it prefers the private transport option. Yet the Greens insist that it is not so.

Yes and no. Certainly its a preference, but people have shown they want public transport and will use it, again when the full costs are factored in and the PT is convenient. There are bus lines you can’t get a seat on in Wellington. The other reason is that people know what effect emissions is having on the planet and want to do what they can. At the moment many people don’t have a real choice and the govt seems wedded to keeping it that way.

Lets have a campaign to promote kids going to their local school on foot, bicycle or bus, that will halve traffic congestion, easily. Little or no cost with huge rewards.

Now you’re sounding like us. But it needs to be made safe too, which will require investment in Auckland particularly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

splutter, gulp, cough, clears troat

jarbury said

Let the market decide how much parking is required

That would not be Green party policy would it? The market to decide?

The market has decided it prefers the private transport option. Yet the Greens insist that it is not so.

Oh well.

And are school holidays not an amazing time for traffic densities to lessen remarkably. Just shows how many people drive their johnnies and janes to school.

Lets have a campaign to promote kids going to their local school on foot, bicycle or bus, that will halve traffic congestion, easily. Little or no cost with huge rewards.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Embarcadero was an eyesore, and should have been put largely underground through the city (and completed), as modern cities now put major urban highways underground through CBDs (Sydney, Oslo, with Seattle now planning). Sydney of course still has the Cahill expressway overhead along the waterfront, but both it and the railway on that structure should be tunnelled if it could be financially viable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

this is great oppinions

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jezza, there was strong public sentiment both for and against rebuilding the freeway. In the end, common sense prevailed. The area where the freeway used to be is now a lovely public open space.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The story is incorrect, even though I’m a fan of getting people onto public transport in the interest of full disclosure I must point out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarcadero_Freeway

It says after the earthquake a petition of 200,000 people to rebuild the freeway was completed…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jarbury/libertyscott; they have a number of Spanish Mansions on the West and South Sides – destroying these would be a crime – it’s why they’ve opted for freeways – to preserve ‘Old’ San Fransico – Haight Ashbury is still the same – as is the waterfront/downtown area (cable-cars,fairs)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Dare I also mention San Francisco has approved the development of an extensive region wide network of HOT lanes on the highway network, essentially converting existing high occupancy vehicle lanes to also be used by other vehicles paying a toll, and to build new lanes to connect the network so there is a region wide express lane system.

San Francisco congestion charging has faded away and is instead going to be a way for those willing to pay for priority to avoid congestion. This benefits buses (as they will use the lanes), freight and those with time constraints (appointments, flights etc) directly, but all others indirectly as it removes that traffic from the congested lanes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SF does OK. Once you get out of the inner city though it’s just like every other sprawled American metropolis.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

thank you Russel; and isn’t San Francisco a far nicer City to get around than your general car invested smogography? (a la NYC)
A camera is r/q for a SF tour because auto’s don’t own the streets, people do.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen McShane Says:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am

> Intensification in some areas of Auckland (Ponsonly) now means that people find they cannot have a dinner party at home because there is not enough kerbside parking to accommodate the visitors.

some would say that expecting to drive home is evidence that they’re not drinking enough (not that I’m saying that, of course – I’m just putting the statement into other people’s mouths)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen; If people need more car-parks for dinner parties in Ponsonby then couldn’t somebody buy some excruitiatingly expensive land, level it and then turn it over to car parking? That this might actually be “too expensive” is very revealing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

These are US average actuals. Would not be much different here.
Centre City Suburbs Rural
% renters 49% 27% 20%
Workers/household 1.3 1.4 1.3
Vehicles 1.5 2.1 2.5
Housing 35.5% 34.1% 28.6%
Transport 16% 17.9% 21.6
Total 51.5% 52.0% 50.1%

The last three lines are the percentage of household income spent on housing, transport and the total of housing and transport.
NOte that the average central city household owns 1.5 vehicles per household.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

TWO spaces? I’ve never seen a requirement for 2 spaces.

Just wrong. Beyond redemption.

Two spaces is standard practice…..

Intensification in some areas of Auckland (Ponsonly) now means that people find they cannot have a dinner party at home because there is not enough kerbside parking to accommodate the visitors.

Then the visitors should catch the bus there, or a taxi. Means they can have a few drinks too!

Spillover parking can be a major issue and can lead to knife fights etc as Waitakere found when they developed an underparked housing development.

Residents’ parking permit schemes are certainly necessary in some cases.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Intensification in some areas of Auckland (Ponsonly) now means that people find they cannot have a dinner party at home because there is not enough kerbside parking to accommodate the visitors.
Spillover parking can be a major issue and can lead to knife fights etc as Waitakere found when they developed an underparked housing development.

Yea the malls pass on their costs but still provide the cheapest food and the greatest variety. Minority groups in the US complain that they do NOT have large malls and hence have to pay monopoly prices for their basic food.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

TWO spaces? I’ve never seen a requirement for 2 spaces.

Just wrong. Beyond redemption.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thank you for raising the parking issue Russel. Minimum parking requirements are probably the stupidest planning rule that we ever invented. It forces residential developments to provide parking at levels above what might actually be needed, therefore incentivising people to use their cars (well they’ve paid for the parking spot so they might as well own the extra car).

Things are even worse for commercial developments. If you take a shopping mall, like Westfield Albany for example, far more space is used by the parking area than by the actual footprint of the mall itself. This is all valuable space – particularly somewhere like Albany – so therefore the space used for parking needs to be paid for one way or another. Inevitably this means the cost is passed on to people who buy stuff at the mall. This means that if I were to bus or walk to the mall (therefore not use the carpark) I would effectively be subsidising those that drove to the mall. So we end up with those using more sustainable transport methods subsidising those using less sustainable transport methods. Talk about a peverse outcome!

The simple first step in fixing up this problem should be doing away with all minimum parking requirements. If a developer wants to sell a townhouse development with only 1 parking space per unit (and the price reflecting that) why the heck should they be forced to provite 2 parking spaces per unit? Let the market decide how much parking is required, not traffic engineers stuck in the 1950s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)