An article in the NZ Herald today notes that North Shore City Council is looking to utilise the park and ride spaces the feed the Albany busway station a bit more effectively by giving priority to those who arrive at the station in a “carpool” with two or more people sharing the car. Here’s part of the article:
Commuters’ cars with two or more occupants will get parking spots nearer to the Albany Station on the Northern Busway, under a trial starting on October 1.
Most weekdays, the 555 spaces at Albany are full from an early hour and latecomers have to make a 10-minute walk.
This had been the case for three years during which the station recorded a 60 per cent increase in peak-time use by people catching the Northern Flyer across the Harbour Bridge to downtown Auckland.
North Shore City Council is designing an extension to the parking spaces, and is considering a $4 million option to fill in a pond and double the parking.
I generally think this is a good idea. Park and rides are a bit of a vexed issue for public transport advocates like myself: certainly they are effective at making it easy for people to use public transport and they have been very effective in making the Northern Busway become the huge success that it has been over the past couple of years. But on the other hand, apparently around half of those using the park and ride previously caught the bus for the whole of their trip, while at the same time park and rides can use up valuable urban space: particularly in a future town centre like Albany.
Here’s the current park and ride, with (I presume) the proposed expansion area to the north:
I suppose with all these considerations in mind it’s quite good that efforts are being made to utilise the space set aside for park and ride areas as efficiently as possible. It will be interesting to see what happens if the council decides to expand the existing park and ride, because from what I’ve heard it can be struggle getting on buses at some of the station to the south during peak hours because the buses are so jam packed with people. Another 500 odd parking spaces is quite a few more full buses.
Which really makes me wonder, why didn’t we get articulated (bendy) buses to run Northern Express services?
Processing...
According to the economics if there is a shortage the price should be increased until the market reaches equilibrium. If there was a small charge (i.e. $2 a day) people who put low value on there time will park at happly at the free area 10mins walk away,or bike/bus/get droped off at the station. Meanwhile those who pit a higher value on there time will enjoy the increased chance of a nearby park being available. In my mind its a win-win. Some people will chose to drive to the city instead, but as long as the price is set at equilibrium others will take their parks.
With the articulated buses i understand there is not a large cost saving per passenger capacity. There are operational savings however due to better fuel economy and less drivers than the equivalent number of standard buses. When the route started somebody must have decided the additional operational cost was worth it to increase frequencies. However now giant articulated buses are looking more attractive.
I have always wondered why high density bus routes dont have double decker busses, ie the bline routes. Is it because of height restrictions? If not, then surely it is starting to make real sense.
ARTA didn’t specify bendy-buses as, like most PT projects in Auckland, their modelling suggested it wouldn’t be very popular….
The carpark has been at capacity pretty much from opening day. I am sure it would be worth it to put up a lightweight single story parking structure to significantly increase the capacity. Maybe this would add too much permanence to the site when ultimately we would want to see TOD though.
The problem with parking buildings is that they can’t really be done “on the cheap”. They’ve got to support loads of at least 1T/sqm, which is a lot of concrete and structural steel.
I think the better idea is a minimal charge for parking close to the station, capturing the market effects of time-value-of-money.
I’m not averse to it. But I’d like to see the predicted outcome of even $1 per day on usage. Even a small amount of discouragement could eat up significant economic gains given by those PT users.
Maybe not, but it is what is proposed on a scheme I am working on in Manchester, UK. Many of the park and rides (for a light rail line) are being designed so that a ‘double-decker’ can be put up if and when demand justifies it.
On Waiheke Island we have commuter carparking issues too. Since you are forced to use carparking as you can’t drive to town, the Council has recognised this is a captive market and started charging for parking close to the ferry terminal when it bought the land off a developer at an outrageously inflated price and needed to recoup that cost (it had sold the land to the developer for a song some years earlier, and in ancient times parking was free everywhere)
Reference: http://www.waihekepedia.org/Matiatia
Bendy buses and even double-decker buses should be possible to be introduced retroactively on many routes – sure, checking will be needed first, but I don’t think we have somehow shut the door on future improvements of that kind.
Double-decker buses could be a significant problem, given that the maximum allowed height for an ordinary vehicle is 4.25m. Even allowing for a mere 1.8m of headroom along the aisles (which in NZ would be an absolute service killer, given the prevalence of people who’re at least that tall. I’m 1.85m, and I’m hardly a giant), that’s 3.6m gone just in empty space. Toss in ground clearance, floors, roof, suddenly your 4.25m doesn’t add up to much. Remember that we had someone killed on an open-top double-decker bus when he stood up as it went under a bridge on the motorway. That’s a bus without a roof and still too high for a teenager to be able to stand up and be lower than a bridge that’s got at least 4.26m clearance.
There are definitely big restrictions on routes, but that doesn’t mean we should throw them out. The upside is that our bridges are significantly cheaper and easier to build 5-6m of elevation is quite a bit more than 4.25
Apart from the clearance issues, double deckers have problems with dwell times for loading/unloading, surveillance/security (drivers can’t see up top easily) and of course the top level wouldn’t be compliant with accessibility standards.
On something like the NEX some modern double or even triple articulated buses would be a good idea, if they are already running and fast headways and experiencing congestion.
@ Matt
Intercity run double decker coaches between Auckland and Wellington – so it can be done in NZ.
@Nick R
CCTV should address the surveillance issue. If the bottom deck was accessible, why would the top deck need to be?
Agree on the dwell time issue and on artics for the NEX – particularly if they had all door boarding.
Gah, not all this CCTV guff again!
Kegan, who is going to monitor the CCTV, and what would the do if they saw something?
Does the driver watch the screen… or do they drive and deal with passenger tickets? Or do we pay someone else to watch the screen, and what do they do if they see something?
The key is passive direct surveillance, i.e. one public space where people (and the driver) can see and hear each other directly during normal use… not creating a separate space up top where no one can see you except if the driver happens to be watching the screen instead of driving.
In regards to the accessibility issue, all parts are supposed to be accessible, otherwise you’re segregating based on physical ability. There is plenty of existing examples of that of course, but you’d have a hard time getting it past the standards with a new type of vehicle.
I agree with Scott, they should initiate a review of the decision made not to charge for parking.
And then if there is still need to more parking after it is priced, they can fund the $14mil parking increase through hypothecation.
Charging might also increase patronage on connecting services and allow more services to be offered.
I don’t want articulated buses, I want these beauties – the New Bus for London. We may not get these exactly, but I see no reason why buses shouldn’t receive decent attention, and we get high quality and visually attractive transport. After all, we spend huge amounts collectively on cars with better design and comfortable features. Why not a little in PT?
Three double doors per side, and a design for hop-on-hop-off travel. Insightful, more so that Auckland buses which insist on a single rear door for some reason.
As with any rapid transit network the idea is that stations are placed far apart and a lot of people board or exit at each station. The narrow staircases and limited number of doors (max 3, normally 2) on a double decked bus make it less desirable for this task than articulated units. Particularly for dedicated busway running the space issue isn’t such a big deal.
Really articulated buses win hands down for the NEX route.
Nick R, Single articulated buses we we could do easy, Double articulated buses require a law change and possibility would have trouble running in mixed traffic. Triple articulated would need some kind of trailer guidance system I would think and would need to be custom designed etc.
Car parking charging would be pretty easy once the Thales card in up and running, and you could credit back some of that charge for actual PT use to discourage abuse – something like charge $7 per day for park and ride for casual users, then have bus/train/ferry use credit valid for that day of up to, say, $5. For weekly/monthly pass holders just charge $2 to give them the same equivalent.
@ Nick R
How does a driver keep any eye on things at the back of a very long bendy bus (say a double artic) while collecting fares etc? Mirrors or live CCTV feed to a small monitor (replacing mirrors) – either way it involves taking eyes off the road …
“In regards to the accessibility issue, all parts are supposed to be accessible … but you’d have a hard time getting it past the standards with a new type of vehicle.”
If that’s so wouldn’t a brand new a Matangi EMU be non-compliant as only the low floor area is wheelchair accessible (and from one pair of doors only). Ditto for whatever Auckland orders. Also “low floor” buses – only the designated spot is wheelchair accessible while the rest of the bus isn’t (aisle either too narrow and back of bus raised over wheels, engine, etc.
I am absolutely furious about this. Once again Auckland has managed to create something with no vision as to future growth. In order for both my husband and myself to work he starts late and drops the kids off at school so therefore is not able to finish in time to pick up our kids from after school care. I arrive earlier than necessary just to get a carpark so that when I dash from the bus to the car I can make it to after school care to pick up my kids before it closes. Please explain to me how carpooling would work for me!!! All this carpooling will do is make people realise that the bus system does not work and go back to driving into town. Good result for those concerned about emissions!
Bite the bullet and expand the parking facilities now. It will never cost less than now and ample parking would incentivise more people not to drive into town.
Hi Jacky
The idea of giving priority parking to carpoolers is that in some situations 3 people will chose to share a car rather than each drive there own. This is a really cheep way to expand the capacity car park capacity. In theory, on average this is better for everybody. It not like they are going to change the entire carpark, rather they are only going to change a small portion.
I think the best solution would be a small charge for park and ride car parking. This would allow economic market forces to allocate the parking, rather than the current system where the people who get up eairlist get it. That would incentive’s the likes of students etc to find other ways of getting to the station such as feeder buses, walking, cycling, flatmates dropping them off etc. These actions would all make it more likely for a person such as yourself (to whom the parking is very important) to find a free park in the mid morning.
I am very concerned about air quality. However park and rides are a complicated from this perspective. It is important to note that car emissions are much dirtier when the engine is cold. As such two short trips when the engine is cold is much worse than a single trip of double the length. The issue with (free) park and ride is it promoted mode shift from feeder buses, walking, cycling etc to private car use. Due to this high degree of mode shift it is not safe to conclude the addition of park and ride spaces will reduce pollution overall. Park and Rides do however have great congestion reduction benefits.
Building carparks costs serious money (mostly due to the land cost). It is up to the ARTA to choose which where this money is best spent.
Also a note, building “ample parking” (especially if its free) for the entire of the north shore is an almost impossible goal. I believe the ATRA should charge say like $1 -$2 (a day) for parking and then only expand parking lots if it was deemed to be profitable to them.
Jackie, it doesn’t have to work for everyone to be useful, just for some people. If a few people who used to drive there separately decide to carpool to get a priority space, that means you have a better chance of getting one of those spots they aren’t using anymore.
The carpooling spots will mean that more people can access the busway via the park and ride. That will make the bus system more efficient and result in less emissions.