Flikr user Eric Kieboom uploaded a great aerial photograph of Groningen Central Station that shows what a balanced transport system looks like:

The station manages to join up two efficient, high-capacity urban transport systems – cycling and rail – and even provides some space for parking.

Kieboom’s photo really illustrates the spatial trade-offs in transport. Notice how the bike racks take up about the same amount of space as the carparks. (In fact, once you factor in all the space that cars need to back in and out of parks, the cars need quite a bit more space!) But while the bike racks can accommodate over 6,000 cycles, the parking lot only has space for 20 cars.

In other words, bicycle parking is over 300 times more efficient than car-parking. If a city where land prices are high – like Auckland – there should be extremely strong market pressures to use space efficiently. Having an urban transport system that doesn’t expend space in profligate fashion would be a good start.

And think – what would it mean for housing costs if we freed up some of those oceanic swathes of carparking for housing?

Share this

40 comments

    1. And if, one day in the distant future, the cars shown here were driverless, it wouldn’t change the picture at all.

    1. You mean the parking that appears to have nothing to do with the station and has no obvious pedestrian connection? Looks more like parking for staff associated with the freight yards and/or the neighbouring housing area and at most is a few hundred not thousands. But it does once again nicely illustrate how much land is wasted storing cars c.f. bikes.

      1. But there are free park ‘n rides around the city, linked to the station by bus. How many cars are in those?

        Still, it shows how infrastructure is developed according to travel culture. Same as NZ.

        1. Up to the 1950s, Auckland had a really strong culture of public transport and walking. Data from 1954 shows that the overwhelming majority (58%) of motorised trips were taken on public transport. Auckland had a popular, frequent, and well-patronised tram system that covered the existing urbanised area.

          So obviously our preexisting culture of using public transport to make the majority of trips must have meant that we proceeded to invest in more and better public transport options. Oh wait…

          The point I’m trying to make is that people’s actions are shaped by the infrastructure that’s available to them. Auckland has made driving ludicrously easy, as I showed in a recent post (http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/10/08/how-congested-is-auckland-really/). And so people drive. If we made it easier to use other modes – which means safe cycling infrastructure, frequent bus services, and good rapid transit infrastructure – Aucklanders will happily use them. In fact, Census data shows that we already are (http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/11/03/what-does-the-next-aucklander-want/).

        2. “So obviously our preexisting culture of using public transport to make the majority of trips must have meant that we proceeded to invest in more and better public transport options.”

          The trams were replaced by buses, and the routes extended and made more comprehensive. But people still embraced the car. I guess nobody saw how it could be problematic a few decades down the track, in Auckland anyway.

          “The point I’m trying to make is that people’s actions are shaped by the infrastructure that’s available to them”

          Are we sure the infrastructure didn’t follow the actions? The Netherlands have always been big on cycling and PT use. The more interesting case studies for me are of places where a significant change has taken place in travel culture. It’s also not quite as simple as shaping actions through infrastructure. There are far broader social and political aspects necessary for such a different travel culture.

          Realistically, NZ will never replicate the Netherlands, because our travel culture is by and large not condusive to PT. But we can do our best to make sure we provide options wherever possible. Situations such as having a railway and station at Kumeu remaining disused while the government and Auckland Council plan mass development and motorways in the area should be totally unacceptable.

        3. “The more interesting case studies for me are of places where a significant change has taken place in travel culture.”

          Then you should find 1950s NZ very interesting indeed. The ripping out of the tram lines was followed by an immediate dive in PT patronage, because the replacement options weren’t as good. Paul Mees (RIP) wrote some excellent articles on the topic. Here’s one in particular that I recommend: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cthombor/Pubs/AKtransportMees.rtf

          Furthermore, the Netherlands, has _not_ always been a cycling paradise. Until the 1970s, they had extremely car-based transport policies. However, the deaths of many children on the roads prompted a public backlash, which was followed by a political change in the direction of investment. Here’s a brief summary of the history: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/we%20are%20n%20years%20behind

        4. Except for the 1970s when cycling wasn’t as popular in the Netherlands and they decided to invest and then people chose to cycle.

        5. “The ripping out of the tram lines was followed by an immediate dive in PT patronage, because the replacement options weren’t as good”

          Auckland had an extensive bus network though, and introduced electric trolley buses as well, in place of trams. I think you’ll find the dive in PT use was more to do with the fact that mass car availability was enabled in that era, and people made their choice. Some other NZ cities ditched trams even earlier. Gisborne scrapped its tram network following huge uptake of cars in the late 1920’s.

          But forward to the future, we live in a different era now, and the future is about choice. We were heading in the right direction in regards to transport and land use in the 1990’s and 2000’s, in which the Rail Development Plan was a key aspect. But that has ended with formation of the new council and AT. The lessons learned have been forgotten, and there’s now very little thought put into how land use and transport relate. Case in point: Establishing new industrial areas away from the rail network. Establishing housing developments away from the rail network. Ring-fencing the rail network to an area that doesn’t reach where all the development is happening.

          Botany Downs used to be regarded as the last big auto-centric development for Auckland. Now, under the new council and AT, it is seen as an example of Auckland’s future. Westgate-Kumeu is to be auto-centric, it’s to get its big box developments and car parks, its to be criss-crossed with arterials, and the railway station at Kumeu is to remain covered in weeds. Even some PT advocates have been coerced into backing this, aligning their views with officialdom. But don’t worry they say, there’ll be a busway in 2045! I well remember the promise in 1997 than Botany will have light rail in 2017. Don’t worry they said, it won’t be all about cars!

          Time for PT advocates to stand up against the roading lobby. Otherwise what is the point of this blog or articles like this one? Who cares what’s happening in the Netherlands. That’s not Auckland, and Auckland’s development is happening now.

        6. I don’t see how rail to Kumeu is even vaguely relevant to this picture.

          But for what it’s worth, in 2009 they trialled a rail service all the way to Helensville. AT’s station survey data from that year shows that the trial attracted a whopping 12 weekday boardings (3 at Helensville, 1 at Waimaukau, and 8 at Huapai). There’s a reason for that: it wasn’t a very useful service.

          This blog is not interested in ideas that have been proven not to work.

        7. “I don’t see how rail to Kumeu is even vaguely relevant to this picture.”

          Your picture shows a railway station, central to a system of people using rail in/out of the city.

          “This blog is not interested in ideas that have been proven not to work”

          So in your view, a once-a-day, poorly timed, often cancelled train from Helensville is exactly the same as a regular rail shuttle to Kumeu, and therefore it will not work, so Auckland’s northwest should be auto-centric around a motorway instead? Impeccable reasoning!

          By the way, which station has more car parks? Groningen or Britomart? An aerial photo of Britomart would pretty much provide the same context as this photo.

        8. Britomart itself has no carparks apart from the drop off at rear, but it also basically has no bike parking and literally no bike lanes leading to it c.f. Groningen, however, in the area around Britomart there are thousands and thousands of carparks in publicly accessible parking garages – with more planned. OTOH I don’t know of any planned cycling improvements to allow people, as is common in Europe, to leave their bikes securely at Britomart overnight for the final leg of their journey once in town. So really an aerial shot of Britomart doesn’t show the same thing at all, it shows a station surrounded by a sea of parking and car dominated roads. They can’t even bring themselves to install zebra crossings on a single road anywhere around Britomart such is the importance of car priority at all costs.

        9. “however, in the area around Britomart there are thousands and thousands of carparks in publicly accessible parking garages”

          Yep, that’s my point. The aerial photo of Groningen station showing its 20 carparks is as out of context as would be an aerial photo of Britomart station showing its 10 car parks. The photo excludes all the parking available elsewhere.

        10. ‘The ripping out of the tram lines was followed by an immediate dive in PT patronage, because the replacement options weren’t as good.’

          Indeed. People will flock to quality PT. At the end of the day you get what you pay for. PT planners and engineers often do an incredible job with limited funds.
          But, if the competing mode, the private car, benefits from vast amounts of cash splashed out on lavish roads, then PT over the long term just won’t be competitive.

          In the 1950s, Auckland was on the one hand replacing frequent trams with infrequent second rate buses. On the other hand, they were ramping up roading investment to its present level of dominance.

        11. “In the 1950s, Auckland was on the one hand replacing frequent trams with infrequent second rate buses.”

          Correct. It’s all good and well to say that trams were replaced by buses, but people gravitated toward the car, but there was a definite drop in quality between the trams and the subsequent bus services. The trams were easy and quick to board, often had right of way, and operated at a frequency of 5 minutes on most lines. Buses are comparatively infrequent, take absurdly indirect routes and often get stuck in traffic along with everyone else. Is it any wonder why Aucklanders lost faith in PT?

        1. Just as this blog has repeatedly called for there are park and rides available on the urban periphary at public transport stops.

  1. So Mrs Auckland has to drop off one preschooler, and one primary schooler and then get to work. Why don’t we recognize this and have chreches handy to rail stations?

    1. That’s me. Fortunately my children are at a school and kindergarten close to a train station and bus stop and after dropping them off I jump on public transport. There are a lot of childcare centres near us and I think the proximity of public transport is a factor. I tried with my eldest child having him at a childcare centre onsite but half an hour commute each way by public transport is challenging for small children on crowded Auckland buses and trains.

  2. I agree absolutely with you last sentence. Take away all of the parking and sufficient people would leave Auckland and live somewhere else leading to a decline in property prices.

    1. Since the 1990s, there has been a net reduction of around 5,000 parking spaces in the city centre. By your logic, that simply _must_ have destroyed its attractiveness for residents and businesses.

      Oh wait: There are more people living and working in the city centre than ever.

      1. using space more efficiently is likely to result in 1) higher population/employment densities and 2) higher land values.

        Neither of which are likely to reduce the economic viability of a location; in fact quite the opposite.

        1. I am not being a smart arse but I just don’t follow your argument. Are you saying that by stopping people providing parking will increase land prices? Because I dont get it. Land will only be used more efficiently if the owner uses it for a higher value activity. If it is private land that is being used for parking then presumably the owner has decided that is the highest value use. If it is public land then so long as they charge a market value then the same must apply. Surely you are not suggesting that owners are leaving money on the table by providing parking and they are overlooking a higher return that only a few transport planners are smart enough to see? That hasn’t been my experience. Even with minimum rules if the parking isnt needed then a dispensation takes care of it.

        2. No, removing the _legal requirement_ to provide parking on sites, whether or not it is needed, would allow property owners to construct larger buildings. At the moment, floorspace sells for quite a lot, while parking has a very low value. (For example, try charging people to park in Albany or Pakuranga. You can’t do it, because there is a regulated oversupply of parking.)

          Stu wrote an excellent paper on this based on an empirical analysis of property sales data. He found that (a) larger parking lots didn’t increase the value of a property and that (b) surface parking crowds out floorspace, which is worth quite a lot.

          I recommend you read it in full and then get back with any further questions. It’s available online at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Documents/Section32report/Appendices/Appendix%203.9.13.pdf

        3. Thanks I will read it. But parking only crowds out offices if the owner wanted to build more office and less parking but couldn’t. I have not seen that occur. The parking rules just compel you to make a discretionary activity application.

        4. OK Peter I have read the report and I can now set out for you why you are wrong. First it is not a legal requirement to provide parking. The rules apply to any permitted activity but anyone can make an application as a discretionary activity to do anything that meets the assessment criteria or a non-complying activity application to do anything that meets the policies and objectives or avoids, remedies or mitigates effects. Second parking is not a substitute for commercial buildings. It is a complement. Your micro view is back to front. That is why all major owners want parking. They want public transport and cycling too because it all adds value to their investment. Parking is the sauce on the chips. It doesn’t have much value on its own. Finally if you put a maximum on parking in town centres as the PAUP currently has then you will just shift development to other areas. Yes the CBD has lots of apartments now but that is just filling sites that could have been offices but instead the offices went outside the CBD to avoid maximum parking rules.

        1. Fewer people, because the space requirements and/or cost of providing massive car parks would crowd out office and retail floorspace.

          You do understand that parking a car requires, at the absolute minimum, 30 m2 of space, right? And that land in the city centre costs many thousands of dollars per square metre?

        2. Efficiently done it can be 25sqm but in the CBD you choose to provide it or not and in the outer areas you either provide it or apply not to. Where are there vast areas of parking no one wanted?

  3. I agree having 6000 (apparently now 10000) bike parks at one station is pretty impressive, but your photo and text is a bit misleading – that building in the photo probably has about 1000 parks. Most of the bike parks are in a neighbouring larger building about 10x the size- see https://www.google.com/maps/place/Groningen,+The+Netherlands/@53.2109343,6.5641752,198m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c83286b462cca7:0xcb4b5086f9a6c8dc

    Also have a look at this video for some idea of the scale of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxslImhdHM I was a bit sceptical how the double-stacked parking would work, but the video shows they’ve made it pretty easy.

  4. http://search.knightfrank.co.nz/10524

    Greenlane Station could get a bike park next to the station with a very small part part the land currently up for lease. Its on a cycleway that runs through Green Lane East and West Rds. Along with a drop off area for the station would be ideal.

    They need to do something rail transport related for this site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *