The cars that ate Adelaide

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide

The cars that ate Adelaide

#1 Post by jk1237 » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:12 pm

Guys, I cant stop thinking about this and its doing me head in. And that is ACC enforcement of an oversupply of carparking with the CBD that I believe is environmentally and socially detrimental to our city and contradicts our state govt plan to increase the use of public transport usage by 2020. Basically the ACC is encouraging more cars to enter the CBD to park in the more and more multistorey carparks that is sadly becoming a characteristic of Adelaide. This oversupply is making the cost of parking amazingly low. For example the carpark next to my work in North Tce now offers $7 all day parking, to which lots of my work colleagues have taken advantage of, and have given up on public transport completely.

I am aware that the ACC has a planning regulation that sets quite a high minimum level of parking provision for all new office developments, which I object to. I am trying to find this % figure the ACC sets but I can find it. Does anyone know what the level is. What I have researched from the ACC is that it bloats that Adelaide city contains over 71,000 carparks (off and on street) for a daytime population of 200,000. Is it just me or does anyone else find this unacceptable that there are this many carparks. At the other end of spectrum, urban ecologist Jan Ghel has noted that Copenhagen only has 3000 carparks in total. Sydney I believe can get up to $60 a day to park a car, and its no surprise that an overwhelmly large proportion of Sydneysiders take PT and wouldnt even think about driving.

Nearly all other western cities apart from Adelaide have had dramatic rises in public transport use over the last few years and I cant help thinking that Adelaide CBD's oversupply of carparking is influencing our no growth in PT. Infact, thank god for the huge influx of o/s students that use PT otherwise I wouldnt be surprised if there has been a large drop in PT use to the CBD.

Other than the ACC making more money from parking tickets and collections, I fail to see how encouraging more and more cars to the CBD is a good thing, as it will create more and more traffic congestion.

To be continued, Im tired now

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#2 Post by AtD » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:41 am

The council is acting a bit strangely on this issue. On the one hand they're narrowing major roads such as Grote Street and North Terrace, removing slip lanes, so on and so forth, and on the other hand they're allowing more and more car parks to pop up. So they're contributing to congestion from both ends of the spectrum. Add the tram lines and the bus lanes down Grenfell Street and one has to ask how much more capacity do the inner city roads have?

Now the ACC doesn't really have much of a say on the matter of car park supply, so we might see newer projects being forced to scale back their parking provisions. Then again, we may not - their intentions are unclear. I don't think we've seen any significant car parks go before the DAC yet - the Light Square building only had one level I believe.

$7 all day parking is cheaper than Canberra. :?

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#3 Post by AtD » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:03 am

Now that I've thought about it some more, Conservatory on Hindmarsh went through the DAC, yes? It has a sizable car park considering its location.

One of the reasons parking in Sydney is so expensive is car parks attract significant levy from the state government. This year's state budget increased these to the effect of about $3 to $4 per space per day.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#4 Post by Prince George » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:45 am

I'm with jk1237, the super abundance of free or cheap parking flies in the face of any talk about reducing car-dependence and congestion. Reducing parking is a clear and effective way to introduce congestion pricing - this was a key point from a RAND corporation report into reducing congestion in Los Angeles (notes on that here)

BTW, I was surprised to see in the DAC agenda that approved the Light Square tower, amongst the comments from (I presume) Gabrielle Macmahon of the assessment branch:
COMMENT
The proposal does not incorporate any car parking, which is not required in the Mixed Use Zone of the Development Plan.
...
16 secure bicycle parks are proposed within the building for employee use and there are shower facilities on each level. The Development Plan requires a total of 20 bicycle spaces for employees and 8 spaces for visitors. It is recommended that the applicant extend the bike room to incorporate an additional 4 spaces. It is also recommended that the applicant pursue with Council the provision of bicycle parking on the footpath for visitors to the site (especially given that a retail component is proposed on the ground level).
I'm not a fan of that building, but I do really like these details. Especially that they mean that the option is available for developers to not include parking as part of a development, at least in some circumstances / areas, and that this developer believes that not including parking will not reduce the appeal of the building to tenants. I just want to see this thinking getting reflected in our planning and regulation across the city - ending minimum parking ratios for developments (let the market decide on that) and instead consider maximum parking ratios.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#5 Post by Shuz » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:21 pm

$7 all day parking is cheaper than regular day-trip on Public Transport, which is $8.30. Car-parking should cost at least double, if not triple the rate of a day-trip ticket.

User avatar
Tyler_Durden
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#6 Post by Tyler_Durden » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:52 pm

jk1237 wrote:I fail to see how encouraging more and more cars to the CBD is a good thing, as it will create more and more traffic congestion.
Cars aren't the cause of Adelaides traffic congestion, trams are. :wink:

User avatar
Tyler_Durden
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#7 Post by Tyler_Durden » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:03 pm

Shuz wrote:$7 all day parking is cheaper than regular day-trip on Public Transport, which is $8.30. Car-parking should cost at least double, if not triple the rate of a day-trip ticket.
I know there is probably a good reason against it but I think it would be a good idea to make public transport free or at the very least a lot cheaper than it is. Even buying a multi-trip works out to $2.90 each journey, $5.40 a day if you use it in and out of the city. You're right Shuz, the gap in price is not enough of an incentive.

I can sympathise with the ACC though as they want to make it attractive to people to come into the city and availability and affordability of car parking is a major factor for people. I guess that could be overcome by making all day car parking more expensive while allowing relatively cheaper short term parking to continue.

Another issue is the cost of land in the city. I imagine the price of car parking directly relate to property values.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Adelaide SA

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#8 Post by AG » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:18 pm

Tyler_Durden wrote: I can sympathise with the ACC though as they want to make it attractive to people to come into the city and availability and affordability of car parking is a major factor for people. I guess that could be overcome by making all day car parking more expensive while allowing relatively cheaper short term parking to continue.
Many car parks in the CBD already do make parking longer periods of time increasingly expensive (i.e. each hour adds a greater cost to parking than the previous hour). However, even this isn't really a deterrent to people driving into the city since some also take advantage of the early-bird parking as well and many people who do use those car parks are shoppers who only require 3 hours at most. This is a rather general statement though since each car park has different usage and cost for parking. I'd be interested to see some figures.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#9 Post by Omicron » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:57 am

I'm sure this has been answered in many threads previously, but I need help with memory in my old age. Could the better-informed inform me as to the ownership of multi-storey carparks in the CBD? Are they council-owned but the management outsourced to private operators; are they wholly owned and managed by private operators; or is there some other combination of ownership/management?
Prince George wrote: I'm not a fan of that building, but I do really like these details. Especially that they mean that the option is available for developers to not include parking as part of a development, at least in some circumstances / areas, and that this developer believes that not including parking will not reduce the appeal of the building to tenants. I just want to see this thinking getting reflected in our planning and regulation across the city - ending minimum parking ratios for developments (let the market decide on that) and instead consider maximum parking ratios.
To be fair, though, if you're going to let the market determine how few carparks it will accept, you really should also let the market determine how many it wants. I'm sure the Council does not want to legislate itself into a position whereby private vehicle usage is reduced but there is not a compensating increase in public transport usage. It is not uncommon at all for the various managers of Rundle Mall over the years to name free, all-day, easy parking as one of the key advantages of suburban shopping centres, and the inherent conservatism of the market (to misquote Newton's First Law, people like to keep doing what they're already doing) suggests that any sort of sudden attempt to fundamentally change existing behaviour could harm patronage with shoppers who do have a choice to go somewhere else.

That's not to say that action shouldn't be taken - far from it, in fact, but it does mean that any action should be thought out very carefully. It would make no sense to negatively affect the usage of private vehicles without improving public transport - there has to be some kind of compensating reaction for the initial action (there's that Newton fellow again ;) ).

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#10 Post by AtD » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:37 am

In answer to your "commuters at rest will stay at rest" theory, the action that should be taken is the maximum limits talked about. In the short term it's just maintaining the status quo, car parks aren't being closed. In the long term as the city grows, the demand for the car parks will increase but with supply limited, prices will creep upwards.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Adelaide SA

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#11 Post by AG » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:34 am

Omicron wrote: That's not to say that action shouldn't be taken - far from it, in fact, but it does mean that any action should be thought out very carefully. It would make no sense to negatively affect the usage of private vehicles without improving public transport - there has to be some kind of compensating reaction for the initial action (there's that Newton fellow again ;) ).
The catch here is that those who make decisions about the public transport system are different from those who make decisions about the car parks and most roads in the CBD (the latter two aren't necessarily the same parties either). The ACC doesn't have much influence on public transport usage in the city other than a couple of small bus routes of its own, and so it is left to try and influence people to drive into the city. This is a bit of a quick fix though and isn't really sustainable long term. It may be worthwhile for the ACC to consider other incentives to bring people into the city other than through mechanisms that directly influence commuter behaviour. That isn't to say that public transport shouldn't be improved either, it needs to be to give a practical alternative to driving otherwise what the ACC is currently doing is perfectly understandable even if it isn't the best solution.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#12 Post by Wayno » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:24 am

Thanks for raising this topic Adam. cheers...

I believe the ACC can strongly influence this issue, but their hands are tied - for the moment. The reason is simple, capping CBD parking spaces (and/or reducing CBD traffic) will disadvantage CBD business and traders. Why would they act to their own detriment?

That being said, i would expect the ACC to be acting today by drafting a "30year CBD parking/traffic reduction" policy based on several factors (including those below), in response to the Govts greater adelaide 30 year plan. Both govt policy and ACC policy must walk in lock-step. Public input to such policy would make sense as well.

The solution is obviously multi-faceted. Here's some more thoughts:
  • 1) Thousands of additional CBD residents are required before any real progress can be made. Local residents will help offset the potential decline in business/trade. I believe the ACC already has appropriate population goals, although the building approval process could be hindering progress
    2) 'Real' TODs must first start popping up around suburbia. At that time we will (should?) experience a substantial increase in PT usage destined for the CBD (but then again maybe not, esp if the TODs are done properly - catch 22)
    3) SA population growth must show tangible evidence of heading in the govt stated direction
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Location: Christies Beach

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#13 Post by Aidan » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:43 pm

You're looking at this the wrong way round. Developers don't want to have to supply more parking - they'd rather put the land to more profitable use, but the building's users require somewhere to park. Likewise with the City council - it's essential for then to ensure the City remains the best place for businesses to locate - as there is plenty of competition from suburban and interstate locations.

Getting more people into the City, or building a few TODs, won't help much, and the census data already tells us what we need to know about the population.

What's needed are much better public transport links. With a subway beneath the City we wouldn't need so many parking spaces. I've seen it happen in London - when the Jubilee Line was extended, car parks in the Canary Wharf area were replaced by skyscrapers.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
jk1237
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#14 Post by jk1237 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:32 pm

Omicron wrote:I'm sure this has been answered in many threads previously, but I need help with memory in my old age. Could the better-informed inform me as to the ownership of multi-storey carparks in the CBD? Are they council-owned but the management outsourced to private operators; are they wholly owned and managed by private operators; or is there some other combination of ownership/management?
Done a little more research. Out of the 71,000 parking spaces with in the city centre in 2006, the city council directly governs about 33%. Of this, on street accounts for 24%, while u-park accounts for 8%


Have found that central Perth had 63,000 parking spaces at 2004, of what has traditionally been the most car-dependant city in Oz. After huge investments in rail in Perth, I have a hunch that good old Adelaide may now be the most car-dependant.

I hear what people are saying when we need to make our city centre attractive for people, workers, shoppers and further business investment, but this can also be done by promoting and making better public transport, rather than just providing cheap parking. Its not as if taking public transport lowers the quality of your life, infact it maybe the opposite.

The WA government has now introduced a hefty tax on all parking spaces in central Perth, which apparently has'nt gone down too well with the Perth City Council. Oh well council, its 2009 not the 1960s.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

Re: The cars that ate Adelaide

#15 Post by monotonehell » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:17 am

jk1237 wrote: I have a hunch that good old Adelaide may now be the most car-dependant.
Yep I was shocked to hear the report last year that Adelaide is now the most car oriented capital in Australia. We used to get praise for out levels of public transport. Shows you what over a decade of underfunding can do.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests