Yesterday Auckland Transport quietly announced that they were finally ending the silly tradition of incentivising people to drive at the time of the day when the roads are at their busiest. Even better is they’re being quite blunt about the reasons.
From 1 December 2014, early bird parking is being discontinued in Auckland Transport’s Downtown, Civic and Victoria Street car park buildings. Our daily rate of $17 will apply to all day parkers.
- Historically AT has subsidised people to drive into the city at peak times, which is adding to congestion.
- Our prices are increasing to dis-incentivise people to drive during one of the busiest times of the day (am peak).
- Moving forward that money will be used to put into public transport, which is our number one priority.
- View public transport options.
- See what AT is proposing with the new public transport network.
This is a good move from AT who have been cheaper than the rest of the market for many many years, something they confirmed in their recent Parking Discussion Document which also hinted that these changes were on the way.
AT is currently charging less than commercial operators for long stay parking – $13 early bird versus $14 on average. Early bird parking encourages commuter trips and generally applies prior to 8:30am in AT car parks and 9:30am in commercial operated car parks. AT can influence a shift commuter demand away from the morning peak by reducing the amount of long stay parking, increasing prices to achieve parity with commercial operators, changing the conditions for early bird parking and moving toward more short stay parking.
They mention they want to focus on short stay parking and the discussion document highlighted the mismatch that exists between long and short stay parking availability. It also highlights how little of the cities off street parking is provided by AT with their parking being dwarfed by the private sector.
Not even all of AT’s carparks are part of this change and in total only around 2,500 carparks in the city.
- Downtown car park– 890 spaces
- Civic car park – 828 spaces
- Victoria St car park – 850 spaces
One of the issues that AT’s carparks have had due to their low prices is that they’ve been too popular and I’ve heard they average over 95% occupancy during the day. The carparks fill up in the mornings with commuters and later in the day when people try to use them – say for a meeting in town or to visit town for shopping – they are often unable to find a space. It’s partly for this reason I suspect that Heart of the City have come out in strong support of the changes.
We’re supporting @AklTransport discontinuing earlybird parking, freeing up parking spaces for short term visitors = better for business
— Heart of the City (@hotcity_akl) November 17, 2014
Of course not everyone will be happy. I expect the Herald and many other outlets give the changes plenty of coverage and there’ll be a steady stream of people ready to complain. Unsurprisingly one of those is the AA (who have been much better of late).
The AA says that if Auckland Transport (AT) wants to reduce the number of private cars commuting to Auckland’s CBD, the focus needs to go on making public transport a more realistic option, not raising parking charges.
AT today announced that Early Bird parking (priced at $13) would be removed from Auckland Council-owned parking buildings from 1 December 2014, and replaced by an all-day rate of $17. Prices for leased parking spaces would also be raised.
“For a lot of people, this change will be a kick in the teeth,” says AA spokesman Barney Irvine.
“Most Auckland AA Members who drive to work in the CBD do so out of necessity. Nearly half use their cars for work during the day, and many others live a long way from the public transport network or have household responsibilities that just don’t fit with taking the bus or the train.”
Public transport in Auckland had come a long way but was still not a viable alternative for many people, said Mr Irvine.
A recent AA survey showed that more than two-thirds of Auckland AA Members opposed an increase to parking charges to encourage greater public transport use.
Changing commuter behaviour would require positive incentives rather than punishing motorists.
“That means delivering real improvements in terms of frequency and quality of public transport, and doing more to find out what factors other than price might encourage people to change how they travel to work,” Mr Irvine said.
In any case, the proposed changes would do little to ease congestion.
“AT only controls about 16% of the off-street parking market, and only around half of that is long-stay,” he said. “So all this is going to do is hurt a small group of motorists financially, and open the door to private providers jacking up their prices.”
I wonder how many of those AA members are parking in AT parking buildings compared to other parking options in the city, probably not all that many.
So how does our parking rates compare with other cities. This graph shows the number of spaces per worker compared to their cost between NZ and the major Australian cities.
Sources: Transport Planning Solutions Ltd, Houghton Consulting Ltd and Urbanismplus Ltd (2012) Number of Parking and Loading Spaces Required for the City Centre. Colliers International (2011) Global CBD Parking Rate Survey. Colliers International (2012) Australian CBD Car Parking – The Next Decade.
While Colliers International conduct a parking survey every few years of a huge range of international cities and Auckland doesn’t even rank in the top 50, again well below many of our comparator cities. Auckland is listed with a daily average of $22 (USD $17) which I assume hasn’t taken early bird rates or daily caps into account.
Lastly we also know that improved public transport is working. Over the last 14 years the number of people arriving in the CBD during the morning peak (7am – 9am) via PT has risen from 20k to 35k and combined with active modes have seen the number of people driving to the city falling. Now during the morning peak fewer than 50% arrive in the CBD by car. In fact my biggest concern with these changes is that many of our PT routes are already very full and need extra capacity
I support AT on these changes however it will be interesting to see how they react to the inevitable backlash from those who feel entitled to cheap/free parking.
Processing...
Good move by AT, finally. They should just match the commercial rates. I wonder if they will see any change in their income.
Earlybird actually applies from 6am. So, again, if someone wants to start work at 6am – they either have to:
1. Catch a 5:10am bus (from where I live)
2. Pay $17 a day
… despite the fact they are not creating “congestion” driving in at 6am. Also, whereas the drive in is around 15 minutes, the bus is around 45-50.
Why not just have TRUE earlybird parking before 7am?
Go to the places still offering earlybird then. Auckland Transport will be selling off or redeveloping their parking buildings soon enough so the debate should go away.
Maybe, but at $17 it’s still a considerable discount on the market.
That bus service needs fixing/replacing; where you coming from?
While I agree with what AT are doing, I do wonder if a staged approach would have been better. End early bird at 6.30 or 7am (and maybe require exit prior to 2.30 pm to miss the school rush)?
Still lots offering early bird including ATs Fanshawe St carpark. I’m also aware of one private operator who does $14 + free coffee so look around to see what else is out there
I hate how the AA are considered to be some sort of experts and always asked for opinions when it comes to anything to do with cars. The same happens in the UK. They are not an association / club for motorists, they are just an insurance company. Why don’t Tower or AMI get asked for their opinion?
Apparently paying a fair price for your parking is the same as having your teeth kicked in. Hyperbole much? http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11360093
Also typical Herald, the byline on the electronic edition picks up on matts one comment on how it might put strain on public transport, but quietly ignores the bit about reducing traffic congestion. Never miss a chance to take a dig at PT no matter how insignificant, eh Herald?
I’m an AA member, primarily because AA are a pretty good insurance company and having callouts is helpful. I support removing early bird parking rates. Does anybody know the best way to give feedback to AA to tell them to represent my views?
Move to another insurance company that also has a call out service. Let AA know why you did.
I quit it and went to AMI/IAG who now have roadside assist as part of their car insurance. I have used ita couple of times and it is as good as the AA service – at least in Auckland.
I told them exactly why I was leaving as well – the fact that they consistently advocate against PT and cycling projects.
I must say since then they have got better with their attitude to both.
Ditto. Never used the new service from State so can’t comment on that. Cars don’t really break down anymore…
I don’t agree leaving is the answer. I am a member and fill in all there survey’s with good public transport support and more people need to as well. You note the AA say that 2/3’s of members want to keep the reduced parking, that means 1/3 don’t !
It would not take to much to get it to 50/50 and that will tell them.
Change sometimes has to happen within and if all people who get annoyed leave the AA, it will never change.
I don’t agree leaving the AA is the answer. I am a member and fill in all there survey’s with good public transport support and more people need to as well. You note the AA say that 2/3’s of members want to keep the reduced parking, that means 1/3 don’t !
It would not take to much to get it to 50/50 and that will tell them.
Change sometimes has to happen within and if all people who get annoyed leave the AA, it will never change.
The Automobile Association isn’t an association??? LOL
Well Ari it’s not really. An association would normally be something along the lines of a trade organisation, that represents the interests of its members, or some sort of club for people with a particular hobby or sporting interest. Historically the AA would have started out like this, but now to all intents and purposes it is just an insurance company with roadside assistance, just like AMI for instance.
Good move but I do wonder if AT will be able to react quick enough with more PT. Integrated ticketing and the PTOM roll out (they are still negotiating the master contract with operators) is taking far too long so I do wonder how they are going to increase bus numbers/frequency/capacity in the short term (especially to true early birders but also to those arriving in peak time).
This should really have been timed to co-incident with a major PT push. Announce higher frequency buses to try and mitigate the pushback. Or maybe another HOP card push with new cards preloaded with $20 (and priced at $20) available from the driver – the first thing a new user does is hand over a $20 note they just got from a cashflow machine.
If Len wanted to be really mean (sensible?) he would also introduce a targeted rates on CBD carparks (and warn other areas might be included in future too?) rather than the certain to fail motorway tolls he wants. They both address the same issue (cars going into the city) and differentiated rates are already allowed (residential v business) so surely another category could be added.
Targeted rates on carparks would result in all Carpark operators having to increase their pricing.
Agree entirely-targetting carparks. Auckland Council control rates should be a direct transport levy on all carparks-be it buildings or otherwise. All of a sudden car mode is looking less and less attractive and funding for imperitave other modes has just been given a kick start. .Im sure the Bus Association, Rail Association, Cycle Association, Ferry Association, Walking Association would be in favour sorry Automobile association outnumbered.
Prices should move up across the board, as other operators have no longer have the need to compete with AT’s underpriced product.
A very good move. A pity though that AT did not make a big splash about the improved train services announced yesterday. More trains more regularly from 8 December, hence providing an alternative to the removal of early bird parking. See here for the announcement.
https://at.govt.nz/about-us/news-events/more-train-services-from-december/
They put it a fairly large press release about the trains but it wasn’t picked up by the herald
So it is not really a newspaper then is it? It is really just an ideological mouthpiece.
A newspaper doesn’t pick and choose from the information given to it – it publishes everything that is in the public interest.
It would be great to live in a country that had real journalists and media.
I thought I found out about it via an article on the Herald website
Would have been wither that or stuff. Can’t find the article on either site using the search function which seems to prioritise articles from 2 years ago.
Nothing on the herald. Stuff did report it. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/63282109/Auckland-gets-more-train-services
Where’s the realmatthew to complain about the “mob” “attack” on poor motorists, and the “hysterical” cancellation of earlybird rates?
I was just saying yesterday that those AT parking buildings would make a terrific site for apartments. How come Quax/Brewer don’t advocate for those assets to be hoiked off? There must be a pretty penny tied up in there. I’m all for retaining necessary public assets but I just don’t see car parks as meeting the definition of ‘necessary’.
I’m here Harry!!
I don’t believe there is a strong argument for this action. The idea of the Earlybird parking is to moderate the time at which drivers arrive/depart in town so they don’t all arrive at once thus relieving congestion. By removing the discount it removes the incentive for commuters to go to work early (aside from faster travel time). The result is likely to be increased congestion at peak hour, the question is to what extent.
The notion that removing a discount will see scores of vehicle commuters moving to Public Transport is fanciful.
There does appear to be a level of profit focus in this decision. The carparks do charge higher amounts per hour for shorter stays and are no doubt hoping their dollars per hour per space will rise as a result.
The issue is the early bird weren’t really early. If it ended at 7am, then I would agree with you.
T3 down Onewa starts at 6.30 so early bird should be those going before that time.
I don’t buy the argument that thousands live in such far flung places and have absolutely no choice but to drive into the cbd. They can drive to an inner suburb and catch a more frequent bus or train one or two stages. Maybe not quite as quick but still cheaper. In many big cities you wouldn’t even consider driving into the cbd. It is sheer laziness, habit, or resistance to change from sendentary office workers.
I cry few tears for people that live in rural areas 50km out of town, but expect to be able to drive in and park cheap with a ratepayer subsidy on council owned parking.
Probably the same people grinding their teeth on rates rises!
I had to drive into the city for a meeting in the middle of the day last week, and it was so hard to find a carpark. Technically I could have caught a bus but my employer doesn’t offer Hop cards, but they do have pool cars so that was my only real option. Very frustrating.
That is exactly the type of trip the parking should be targeted towards and it’s an experience I’ve had myself.
It is long overdue! The carpark buildings regularly have the full sign up during the day as they have leased out too many spaces and charged too little for all day parking. That is despite the Council’s District Plan which since 1987 says they are supposed to give priority to short stay over commuters. As for the people complaining – well they have been living in a fools paradise, no wonder they are annoyed to lose it.
Changing commuter behaviour would require positive incentives rather than punishing motorists.
Curt answer: informed debate depends on carefully considered statements rather than glib talking points.
Considered answer: Evidence suggests that both positive and negative incentives are the most effective way to achieve behaviour change. In this context, major sustained improvements to public transport in Auckland can be viewed as a “positive pull”, whereas removal of early bird parking can be considered a “negative push”.
P.s. Removal of early-bird parking is “negative” only from the motorists’ perspective. For rate-payers it’s a positive, i.e. increased ancillary revenue reduces pressure on rates.
And only a sub set of motorists at that. As has been said above, there are mainly motorists that come to the city for short stay only. For them this policy is better.
Nonsense. Money talks – pricing is the most effective way to change commuter behaviour. Unless you are of the faction that argues that cheap car parking is a birthright?
Funny how everyone feels that Council rates should be low, low, low, and how some argue that Council should get out of things like subsidised housing – but are happy to call for them to subsidise car parking costs.
Maybe the over investment and poor decisions the last 40 years has punished and still do (airport rail being deffered -looking at trams what a joke) ferry,train,bus and with congestion even car commuters ,have you thought about it that way.Not to mention the impacts of over wide corridors,pollution etc.
The AT car parks have made poor financial returns and so something had to change. This is a good move. If the ROI is still not sufficient then they should moved again, as it seems that the market has been restrained by low AT pricing. I have noticed already that at least one other car park has moved their early bird rate to $17 and it would seem logical that others will do the same -why would you compete when you don’t have to?
So the AA mentions people who use their cars during the day as a reason to keep earlybird parking.
Clearly the spokesperson saying that has never used earlybird, or would realise that buying an earlybird ticket only gets you into the carpark once.
Was wondering if others had picked up on that flaw in the argument as well.
If you are the ‘50%’ that need to pop in and out during the day, then early bird parking is not what you need but short term parking; which is exactly what will become more available.
No-one’s being forced to pay $17. I pay $7 per day on parking and have a healthy 10min walk before and after work, how’s that for a viable alternative for the AA spokesperson in the article above.
AT should address weekend parking prices if they haven’t already. They have led the market down by offering parking at $2 per hour and promoting it heavily.
What about stimulating weekend public transport uptake (where there is relatively little revenue to risk) to de-clog roads by having a single stage fare of a maximum of $2 for the summer?
As I normally walk to work, the removal of so called ‘early bird’ parking will not impact me too much.
Parking before 8.30 has never struck me as being early for most office workers they need to be at work before 8.30. Early parking should really have been before 7.30 when it would help reduce congestion. Removing it may lead to some increase in congestion before 9, but that may be part of the plan.
The likely losers are probably shop staff who work late and for whom public transport is not suitable. The cannot vary their hours, are paid minimum wages and working long hours they want to get home quickly and not wait for an infrequent evening service. So these will be stuck with a increase in costs with no benefit. However, there are plenty of people in hospitality who are in a similar position and cannot get early bird rates as they start work much later.
Correct me if I am wrong…
I have always seen early bird parking as an incentive used by parking vendors as a way of encouraging commuters to park at their site and not a competitors. As a commercial operator will always try and maximise their profit, there must be good business sense in offering the early bird discount. It likely means that you will be able to fill your building quickly and operate closer to full capacity.
Thus it has absolutely nothing to do with reducing congestion.
Not quite Nigel. The problem is that AT owns a significant proportion of the parking buildings and hasn’t always acted in commercial interests. With council/AT undercutting the market to provide cheap all day earlybird parking, the private operators are obliged to follow suit to avoid losing too much market share. Traditionally councils have been nervous about people not working in the CBD at all and losing all their trade to suburban centres, so they’ve subsidised parking effectively. However it doesn’t look like we are in any risk of the CBD becoming a wasteland, so it’s great they are pulling out those ratepayer subsidies on commuter parking.
A private operator won’t maximise their profit by being full. That shows their prices are lower than they could be. Rather they’ll aim for 80-90% occupancy so there is plenty of turnover of short stay parking which is much more lucrative. I predict we will have very little if any earlybird specials come this time next year.
As Nick has pointed out, you have to compare the interests of commercial operators (profits) vs council owned (highest revenues but also factoring in all costs such as congestion, PT, road maintenance).
For some commercial operators, they charge as much in 2 hours of parking as they get for early bird. So if they could work it perfectly, they would prefer a shopper to park up for 2 ours in the morning, a diner to come in for 2 hours over lunch and another shopper to come in for 2 hours of shopping in the afternoon. But the easy option is to fill your carpark up at the morning, then send the staff home and let the machines take over the carpark.
How will AT now incentive all day parkers to use less desirable floors of the buildings now? better for an all day commuter to wind there way to the top of the building freeing a park on a closer floor for several short term parkers.