48: The Forgotten Triangle
What if the forgotten triangle behind Shortland Street was more than a parking lot?
Continuing the series on forgotten or underutilised spaces within the city, the steeply rising wedge of land between Shortland Street, Albert Park and Princes Street is certainly a stand out example of well-located land that should be valued and utilised for much more than just parking. Certainly, when one looks at historic photos of this part of the city, it is obvious that this area used to packed quite densely with a much more diverse array of buildings and activities than can be found there now.
Looking west over the Chancery Street area from the former Grand Hotel in Princes Street, 1902. (Auckland Council Heritage Images Online).
It is actually quite crazy that this forgotten corner of the city has not been developed for more intensive and higher value uses, if you think about the location, just one block from both the A-grade office space of the corporate towers on Shortland Street and the high value retail of High Street, and bounded by what is a beautiful historic central city park.
The following is a simple four-point plan that is just a start to indicate how the potential of this part of the city could be reconsidered:
- Improve the legibility, crossing opportunities and attractiveness of walking links through the area to Albert Park and the universities on the hill;
- Develop high rise residential towers fronting Kitchener Street similar to the Metropolis tower and Precinct Apartments between Lorne and Kitchener Streets that capitalise on the outlook over the park and up high gain light, air and relative serenity above this quiet part of the city;
- Rediscover and develop the forgotten laneways of Fields and Bacon Lanes, Chancery Lane, Bankside Street and Cruise Lane as back street extensions to the High Street District with opportunities to open out and activate the backs of Shortland Street towers into a gritty but interesting neighbourhood;
- Make more use of the Bowen Park extension of Albert Park as a great public open space in its own right, reflecting its north-facing qualities and great views back to this part of the city skyline.
Stuart Houghton 2014
*For a bit more on this area there is this previous post -PR
Lone Commuter Passes Lines of Private Property Stored on Public Land
A useful, if somewhat earnest, little video from Streetfilms about how we can manage parking in better ways to contribute to nicer cities.
The Unitary Plan and Auckland Transport’s parking strategy make important steps towards managing parking a lot smarter in the future in Auckland.
6: Making Better Use of Rooftops on Parking Buildings
What if we made better use of rooftops on our parking buildings?
There is an ongoing debate about whether it is possible to dispose of and redevelop some of the publicly-owned parking buildings in the city centre and elsewhere. This is a good discussion to be having.
In the meantime, wouldn’t it be good if we made better use of some of the most valuable space for better, higher value uses? This sentiment could equally apply to making better use of the ground floor space fronting shopping streets.
Franks Campari Bar opens every summer on the rooftop of a parking building in Peckham, London.
Example of an Urban Allotment Garden.
Auckland Transport have had their Draft Parking Discussion Document (2mb file) out for consultation over the last couple of months, but this closes at midnight on Thursday. This covers the full range of parking issues around the city, including on-street, off-street and park and ride. The aim is to have a more standardised approach around Auckland, and simplify the large range of legacy rules in this area. It also should be noted that this is an overarching discussion document, with detailed consultation to be undertaken on individual and local proposals once the strategy has been finalised.
No life but lots of free parking. Shaddock St, Eden Terrace.
Feedback on the parking strategy can be made on the Auckland Transport website here. Today AT announced that over 2000 submissions have already been made. However I suspect a large amount of these would have been made by vocal local residents groups, so it would be great to have a wide range of submissions, so I encourage our readers to submit.
Albany Mall – Aucklands most modern Metropolitan Centre…
The feedback form asks people to rank each of the 7 issues identified, then ask for specific comment if people like or dislike any issues. There is also the option on the final page of adding any supporting documents with a full written submissions.
The 7 issues identified are as follows:
Managing demand for parking in the City Centre, metropolitan and town centres
Competing demands for parking in residential streets
Managing off-street parking facilities
Inconsistent on-street parking restrictions across Auckland
The conflict between parking on arterial roads and improving public transport provision
Managing the demand for parking permits amongst competing users
Addressing the shortage of park and ride facilities to support public transport patronage.
Things I will be writing about in my submission include:
- ensuring inner city parking buildings are not undercharging or encouraging people to commute to the city at peak times
- issues with free on-street parking for local residents
- need to remove parking on certain roads to allow for bus lanes and cycle lanes
- supporting charging of park and rides once feeder buses and integrated fares rolled out
- questioning need for major investment in new parking and rides in the urban areas, and ensure new park and rides
Albany Park and Ride – bus station hidden behind sea of parking. Is this what we want in our urban areas?
The blog has already covered some of the issues in depth is if you are writing a submission may be worth reading over some of these posts.
Please submit online here to ensure a wide representation of voices are heard, you have until midnight Thursday to do so.
A good little video from Streetfilms and the non profit Institute for Transportation Development Policy on the issues of parking, particularly parking minimums.
Streetfilms is proud to partner with ITDP to bring you this fun animation that’s sort of a cross between those catchy Schoolhouse Rock shorts and a 1960s-style, Saul Bass film credits sequence.
For too long cities sought to make parking a core feature of the urban fabric, only to discover that yielding to parking demand caused that fabric to tear apart. Parking requirements for new buildings have quietly been changing the landscape of how people live. Chipping away at walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods has been a slow process that finally turned cities across the U.S. into parking craters and a few in Europe into parking swamps.
Many cities around the world are now changing course by eliminating the requirements while also investing in compact walking, cycling and public transit oriented neighborhoods. Soon cities in the developing world will follow, providing many new lessons of their own.
At Streetfilms, we realize that while parking is a difficult topic for most to comprehend, it is at the core of the transportation problems of most cities. We all hope this film helps change some minds and enlighten others
Perhaps this is something the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board need to watch after they had the Council submit this on the Unitary Plan.
This weekend the NZ Herald’s motoring correspondent Matt Greenop published an article denouncing the “insult” of parking fees. Now, at Transportblog we’re always up for a good debate over the merits of different parking policies, but this doesn’t add much to the conversation:
Parking used to be a doddle. Now it’s just another cost of car ownership that makes us feel we’ve committed a heinous crime against humanity by daring to buy and use our own vehicle.
Every little bit that gets added on to the cost of driving a car in the city is an insult — and the next insult we’re facing is another hike in parking fees.
From an economic perspective, this is a totally absurd statement. It completely ignores the supply and demand dynamics at play in urban areas. Parking takes up space, and as anyone who’s been downtown in the last decade has noticed, there’s a limited amount of space in the city centre. Demand for commercial and residential space in the city centre is increasing. The residential population tripled from 10,200 to 31,300 between the 2001 and 2013 Censuses; over the same time period, employment in the city centre rose by a quarter, from 81,000 to 100,100.
Using prices to manage demand for scarce resources is an efficient and sensible response. This is basic Econ 101 material, and we accept it in most areas of life. City centre office space is priced, and priced highly, due to the fact that a lot of people want to locate there.
It would be ridiculous if companies leasing space in the city centre to complain that a rent increase was an “insult”. And if they insisted on paying no rent at all, we’d recognise it as special pleading for a market-distorting subsidy.
It’s the exact same thing with parking. Essentially, the Herald’s using emotive language to demand a costly, distortionary subsidy for a small number of people.
If the Herald wants to avoid printing such embarrassing nonsense in the future, I strongly recommend that they run their articles by an economist first.
The top of High Street is interrupted, dominated, and devalued by the double-laned exit from the Victoria St car parking building.
The footpath on the east side is frequently blocked by impatient drivers….
…while on the west side it is so narrow that the high numbers of people there are forced onto the oversized carriageway with the jammed traffic.
A classic example of the prioritisation of the driver over the walker. Some traffic engineer has greedily taken way too much of this public resource for only one type of user.
Furthermore the floods of traffic that this sadly over-expanded vehicle store generate lead to gridlock at the intersection as it is really too close to both the Queen St and Kitchener St intersections for the sudden volumes that this exit at times produces [people still tend to head out all at once].
At the very least the cars could be rationed out the exit by taking it down to one lane, but much better would be to move the exit up the hill onto Kitchener St where the entrance is.
No problem adding an exit to this entrance here with a bit of reworking, the left hand space used to be the entrance before it was doubled. And AT would then have to sort out this intersection and its poor pedestrian phasing.
And best of all the High St ground floor could be repurposed for a human use: It’s the kind of hip industrial concrete interior that Prada love, but failing that: A pool hall, dingy nightclub, dungeon? ….. PingPong centre!
Anything would be better than that gapping maw and adjacent pissoir, and on the street that has pretensions to being the country’s preeminent fashion shopping strip. Well I suppose it did have those pretensions until the retailers there threw their coat hangers out of the cot and stopped it becoming a shared space, and now the action has gone elsewhere….
Note how wide those lanes are at the intersection; really they could be car width, and the rubbish truck could just hog one and a half lanes occasionally. Until of course the car park exit is gone and High St becomes the Shared Space it obviously ought to be.
I’m proud of Auckland in particular and New Zealand in general. The city has come a long way in a short time, even if much work remains to be done to become the “world’s most liveable city.” One area where Auckland is doing relatively well, but might potentially do even better, is parking policy.
Here are some local examples of what I would consider to be “good” parking initiatives:
- In the late 1990s, Auckland City Council removed minimum parking requirements (MPRs) from the city centre (discussed in Chapter 2 of this report). By lowering the costs of development in the city centre this policy change is likely to have contributed to increased residential and employment growth, as well as the trend towards lower vehicle ownership.
- In 2009, Papakura District Council consulted on charging for park and ride at the Papakura train station. This was in response to the excessive demand for P&R, which was an understandable response to improved rail services. Part of the P&R revenue was reinvested into finding lighting and security improvements for the P&R.
- In 2012, Auckland Transport announced new initiatives for managing parking in the city centre. These initiatives identified demand-responsive prices are the primary management tool. Time-limits for on-street parking have been progressively removed, and people can now park for as long as they want – provided they are prepared to pay for the privilege.
- In 2013, Auckland Transport opened the McCrae Way car-park in New Lynn. This car-park is intended to support consolidation of parking in New Lynn and also provide P&R access to the adjacent PT interchange. This P&R, however, is not free, with daily prices of $4 being charged. Anecdotally it seems that people are using the facility for P&R.
These initiatives have collectively demonstrated:
- Removing minimum parking requirements does not cause the sky to fall on our heads;
- On-street parking can be effectively managed with prices, rather than time-limits; and
- Charging for P&R generate revenue to improve/expand parking facilities.
They also support abandoning the “predict and provide” approach to parking that has characterised the last 50 years. This approach has sought to shield drivers from paying for parking and, in the process, resulted in highly inefficient transport and land use outcomes (NB: If you’re interested in knowing more about these outcomes then I recommend starting with this presentation by Donald Shoup). For this reason, Auckland – and indeed many other cities around the world – are increasingly choosing to charge drivers for the parking they use, just as they pay for the cars they drive and the roads they drive on.
Over time we can expect Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to implement policies that “unbundle” parking costs from the wider economy, with drivers, households, and businesses paying directly for the parking they use. Ultimately, these explicit price signals can be expected to stimulate a market for parking resources, in which people who have parking make it available for those people who need it. A nascent market for parking already exists in Auckland; my quick look at TradeMe found 20 car-park listings.
Earlier this year, Auckland Council’s draft Unitary Plan (dUP) took the first (tentative) steps towards better parking policies, by proposing to remove MPRs from some parts of the city. Under the dUP, the proportion of Aucklanders living in areas *not* covered by MPRs would increase from 0.2% (i.e. just the city centre) to approximately 12% (c.f. page 9 of this report).
More recently Auckland Transport have come to the parking party with their “draft Parking Discussion Document”. In general terms, the PDD seeks to generate discussion on how Auckland Transport might manage parking more consistently and effectively. The PDD (rightly) acknowledges prices are the most effective tool for managing on and off street parking, including P&R.
The PDD is, in my opinion, a small step for Auckland Transport but a giant leap for Aucklanders. It wipes away a rag-tag collection of parking management policies that had been pursued by the previous Councils. It recognises parking, whether it is on-street, off-street, or park and ride, is a valuable resource that should be priced so as to ensure it is used most efficiently.
However, I believe there is one key weakness in the PDD as it currently stands: It falls into the trap of seeing (heavily subsidised) residential parking permit schemes as an enduring policy. For reasons I discuss here and here, I don’t believe this is the case. But does this mean there is no role for residential parking permits to play in the new parking paradigm?
Not quite. Instead, my suggestion is that residential parking permit schemes are a useful *transitional policy*. They can help us shift from where we are now, i.e. social expectation that parking will in general be free, to the situation where we want to be, i.e. widespread acceptance that parking will, in situations of consistently high demand, be priced.
The key policy change to the PDD is this: Auckland Transport only offers residential parking permits to those residents who live in the area at the time it transitions from free to pay parking. These are the people who are potentially the most negatively affected by the change, as they made their decision to live their prior to the implementation of pay parking.
Over time the number of (heavily discounted) residential parking permits will decline as people move out of the area. New people moving into the affected area do so in full awareness that on-street parking is priced and can adjust their locational decisions accordingly, i.e. choose to live somewhere that has sufficient off-street parking for their needs.
Voila. Problem solved.
As it stands, Auckland Transport proposes making residential parking permit schemes a permanent feature of Auckland’s parking landscape. This would, I believe, be a grave and unnecessary mistake. If you agree with me, then I’d encourage you to not only comment on this post, but also submit your feedback to AT here.
Of course feel free to comment on other aspects of the Parking Discussion Document; I’m sure AT appreciate all the informed and considered feedback they can get.
For those who have not heard, AT recently released a draft parking discussion document (PDD). The PDD has stimulated considerable discussion on parking issues in general and residential parking permit schemes (RPPS) in particular. In this recent post I outlined four reasons why I consider resident parking permits to be unwise, specifically:
- RPPS are unfair, insofar as they prioritise a public resource for a particular group of people based simply on where they live;
- RPPS are inconvenient, insofar as they make it easy to park your car in the area where you reside, but less convenient in other areas where you might travel;
- RPPS create poor incentives, insofar as they subsidise residential parking and thereby encourage residents to make inefficient use of on-street parking; and
- RPPS are not an enduring solution, insofar as they do not tackle the underlying problem (excess demand) and instead ration demand based on location (and often first-mover advantage).
In this post I will now list some of the opposing views which emerged in the comment thread to my earlier post. Ultimately, these arguments haven’t swayed me from my original position: I still consider (heavily discounted) residential parking permit schemes to be unwise. Nevertheless, I think it’s worth paraphrasing opposing views, if only so we can confront them head on. In the following sub-sections I present the most common opposing views.
View #1 – Respecting different definitions of fairness
Perhaps the most surprising opposing view was the suggestion RPPS were in fact “fair” because they provided inner-city residents with the same opportunity as suburban residents to park on-street for free in the area where they live. One commentator, for example, argued thusly:
” … They [RPSS] allow inner suburb residents the same option as residents in suburbs further away – a park outside your house.”
There’s a couple of interesting issues here, most importantly how one defines “fair”. In my previous post, I suggested RPPS were *unfair* because they restricted access to a public resource based solely on a person’s place of residence. Hence, I have defined fairness as everyone having the same opportunity to access on-street parking, irrespective of where you live and where you want to park.
In contrast, the comment above suggests an alternative definition of fairness, specifically paying the same price to access on-street parking close to where you reside.
So in essence, the fairness debate boils down to one of subjective values: If you think that everybody should have equal access to on-street parking across the city, no matter where they happen to reside or drive, then you will likely agree with me that RPSS are “unfair”. On the other hand, if you think everybody should pay the same (zero) price for on-street parking in the area where you live then you might support RPSS. Respecting different definitions of fairness is important, if only because it helps us to understand what people value (image source).
Personally I think the suggestion that everyone should pay the same (zero) price for on-street parking in the area where they live is somewhat unworkable. It would require on-street parking permits schemes in the city centre, for example, for which demand would quickly exceed supply. More generally, it rides roughshod over natural spatial variation in supply and demand and also ignores the potential for people to choose the area where they reside, and indeed the house they live in, based on their need for on-street parking. More on this below …
View #2 – Limited off-street parking
Several commentators suggested RPPS were warranted in areas with limited off-street parking. This argument goes something along the lines of:
- Premise: Suburb A has limited space for off-street parking
- Conclusion: Residents of Suburb A should have a parking permit scheme, which allows them to park their cars on-street for free.
The sheer weakness of this argument is overwhelming. Let’s try this for size:
- Premise: Suburb A has limited space for bedrooms
- Conclusion: Residents of Suburb A should have a bedroom permit scheme, which allows them to “park” their children on-street for free.
Imagine how popular that would be?!? I can see all the parents out there jumping up and screaming “right you little turd burgers – there’s no space for you here tonight. You’re out on the street.”
More seriously though, why are we prepared to cover for people’s inability to find somewhere to park their car? We don’t do that in a range of other areas of life. For example, if someone decides to save money and rent a house with three bedrooms when they actually needed four, we don’t turn around and say “hard luck Jim, why don’t we let you put a shipping container on the street for you to sleep in”. Seriously: Why are we prepared to dedicate space to provide subsidised car-parking, rather than subsidised housing? Surely there’s more need for the latter? As the infographic below suggests, the costs of providing free parking (on and off street) are enormous (image source).
I’m generally flabbergasted by the temerity of the people who argue for residential parking permit schemes and minimum parking requirements. More on this in the following section …
View #3 – The eleventh commandment: Let there be parking
This is really a collection of “views”, which ultimately culminate in “more free parking reserved for me”. First I would like to quote from Oscar Wilde:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
In Auckland the “eleventh commandment” views are most clearly articulated by a group with the rather eloquent name “Auckland Inner City Suburb Parking Alliance” (AICSPA, which is pronounced with a hacking sense of disdain). Now when I first heard of this group I presumed it was the the new company resulting from the merger of Wilson’s and Tournament’s off-street parking businesses. But alas no, it’s a far more serious treat than a rapacious corporate monopoly. According to this recent presentation to Auckland Council, AICSPA is actually …
The AICSPA presentation lists the following issues with commuter parking:
- Destroying community amenity
- Stressing heritage streets not designed for public parking
- Reducing safe access/egress to homes
- Stressing elderly and young who don’t have access to off-street parking
- Compromising the economic viability of local commercial/shopping areas
Let’s tackle these issues in turn:
- Community amenity – This has absolutely nothing to do with commuter parking. If cars parking on-street are detracting from amenity, then reduce the amount of on-street parking. Cars owned by residents will reduce amenity just as much as cars owned by commuters (although I do acknowledge that members of AICSPA are likely to have fancy new European cars).
- Inadequate street design – Again, this has nothing to do with commuter parking. If the street is unsafe for parking, then remove on-street parking. You cannot argue one type of car is more dangerous than another. That’s just silly.
- Reducing safe access/egress to homes – same as above. If lack of on-street availability is the issue, then we can solve that with pricing. We don’t need to ban commuters to increase availability.
- Stressing elderly and young who don’t have access to off-street parking – pricing parking would free up spaces for everyone, including elderly and young. Again, this issue arises in instances of too much demand, where old/young people can’t park close to their house. In which case pricing is the answer.
- Compromising commercial/shopping viability – Seems to presume that commuters don’t contribute to commercial/shopping viability, at least not as much as residents. At the very least this argument is not supported by surveys of relative expenditure levels. My experience is that commuters (more commonly known as “employees” or “workers”) do spend quite a lot of money.
Too easy. In terms of underpinning principles, AICSPA seek: “Agreement that commuters to the inner-city must bear the full cost of taking their vehicle to the city …” Let’s replace the two words in bold in that sentence: “Agreement that residents and commuters in the inner-city must bear the full cost of taking their vehicle to the city …”
And a couple of slides later they start to be more explicit, and it’s not looking good:
The last two points provide the most significant insight into how these people “think”. AICSPA argue for securing “residents” rights, without acknowledging that commuters are residents too. The only difference is that the latter originate from other parts of Auckland. Their rights as residents of Auckland Council are no less relevant than yours.
Indeed, the dispersed, inter-connected nature of travel patterns in large cities like Auckland is one of the very reasons why AC/AT were formed (rightfully I think too). AICSPA need to realise that, from a transport planning perspective, integration across space is more important than integration across planning documents. In fact, I’d argue AT’s parking discussion document is, almost by definition, better integrated than what we have: Because what we currently have is a rag-tag collection of parking policies created by the former councils which is disintegrated across space.
And then the Moses punch: AICSPA want “sufficient on-site parking” in the city centre. What the flaming koala hell? Why?!? I live in the city centre and have done so for almost a decade. I live in a building with zero off-street parking. I have sufficient parking, i.e. none, because I DON’T OWN A FLAMING CAR. Requiring parking in the city centre is forcing people like me to live like AICSPA people. And I don’t want to. You people are crazy. That aside, my apartment was *cheaper* because it did not have parking. That enabled *me* to buy it. If not then I’d likely still be renting.
Again to quote Oscar Wilde:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Anyone who advocates for minimum parking requirements needs to read that quote over and over and over and over again until it sinks in. Some people argue that removing minimums is actually removing choice. To which I say balderdash. Removing minimums does not prevent developers from providing parking if people want it. Hence, in a situation with no minimums people who don’t want parking don’t have to pay for it, while people who want parking can still get it. Everyone gets what they want, and what they pay for.
The moral of the story is that residential parking permit schemes and minimum parking requirements are unwise public policies. In the next post I’ll outline what I think is the better direction for Auckland to head in with regard to on-street parking policy … just so y’all don’t start thinking I’m an overly negative Noddy.