Melbourne’s rail network already has some huge car parks, up to 1000 spaces at some stations, as many as a medium-sized shopping centre. There are more than 40,000 spaces across the Metro network, and thousands more on V/Line. Unlike in some cities, they’re all free.
The common complaint is that all station car parks fill up between 7 and 8am each weekday.
Presumably because car parks are so visible and politically popular, the politicians love building more. Here’s Labor’s pledge:
The problem is that building big suburban car parks is not an efficient way to get more people onto public transport.
- It takes away valuable land around stations
- It adds to local traffic congestion
- It undermines more efficient alternatives by slowing down buses and trams, and making walking and cycling less pleasant
- It requires that users can drive and have a vehicle that want to leave there all day, meaning it’s expensive for commuters
- Like all solutions involving individual motor vehicles, it doesn’t scale due to the space required
- It’s really, really expensive. The 1600 planned spaces for western suburbs stations will cost an average of $14,000 each, but at Tarneit it’s an eye-popping $37,500 per space (presumably multi-storey).
- And worst of all, it’ll STILL be full by 8am (because demand always outstrips supply — Tarneit is a station that didn’t even exist 4 years ago, and it already has 1000 spaces) — so it won’t actually fix the problem
- This means it only caters for (some) peak commuters, and undermines the efficiency of the whole train system by providing poor access for the rest of the day
I’m not going to tell you to vote for the other guys, because they want to do the same thing.
For example the Coalition has pledged $30 million for an additional 450 spaces, an amazing $66,000 per space. That’s about 7,600 daily fares, or more than 30 years of Monday to Friday commuting — almost 40 years if using a Yearly fare.
It’ll never even come close to recouping its costs. How is this seen as a sensible investment?
The Greens notably have policies around better buses, rather than more car parks, but are unlikely to be running the government anytime soon.
Sure, bigger car parks will get a few more people onto trains, but it’s far from the most efficient way of doing it. What about finding a method that’s cheaper, causes fewer problems, is more scalable, and doesn’t assume train passengers have a car?
Park and ride has its place. It’s appropriate for urban fringe areas where land is cheap and not suited to other uses such as residential or commercial development, walking and cycling distances for people are too far, and density doesn’t support good bus services.
Perhaps it’s time to consider applying a small fee to help offset the cost and discourage those with alternatives, combined with a rebate for those driving to the station from areas with no other options?
There is one arguable benefit from big car parks at stations that someone well-connected pointed out to me the other day: it’s a method of land banking for future development.
Elsternwick might be an example. Some years ago, the decades-old ground level parking got converted to multi-storey, freeing up space for apartments and retail. I don’t think the retail has been a raging success, but the theory is good… though in practice, given the cost of multi-storey, I’m not surprised it doesn’t happen very often.
Alternatives to driving to the station
The mystery to me is: in suburban areas, when the walking/cycling and bus options are all crap, but could be viable with a little more investment, how come the answer from both sides is always “spend $$$ on more parking”, given it doesn’t solve the problem, and creates others?
“But Daniel, nobody wants to use the bus”. Nope, completely untrue. Here’s a crowd at Tarneit who are more than willing to catch a bus home, but they’re left waiting. Route 167 only runs every half-hour. Apparently the solution is to pay millions to get them to drive to the station instead.
“But Daniel, most people drive to the station!” No they don’t. Even in zone 2, a minority of people drive to the station.
The stats for 2013-14 show 27.9% of weekday access to stations (excluding the CBD) was by car. It was higher in zone 2, lower in zone 1, but driving to the station is a minority mode in all areas, with only some individual stations having a majority of arrivals by car.
It just looks like most people drive, because the car parks take up so much damn space.
(This graph is from the 2015 post, which used slightly older figures. Unfortunately there are no figures after 2015 showing the effects of zone changes, and none for V/Line stations like Tarneit and Wyndham Vale.)
Now, I’m not about to tell people they should go and walk along terrible unlit footpaths, or use a second-rate bus service.
People will use what’s most convenient. Remember, transport is supply-led.
But the infuriating thing is that every time the government has tried upgrading connecting buses, people have flocked to them. Even my local 703 route, which is okay during peak but very poor after the PM peak, gets a crowd every morning and every night.
Other stations with feeder buses running at good frequencies also get lots of people connecting by bus.
- Bayside City Council is currently trialling a free commuter bus service, running every ten minutes each morning and evening peak to/from Middle Brighton station. Details
Some stations also have substantial levels of bicycle access, often outstripping capacity of bike cages. At Newport, where the Parkiteer cage is regularly full, locals resorted to the Pick My Project initiative to try and get another one… it wasn’t selected. Given one cage storing 26 bikes takes the space of about 2 cars, and is something like an eighth of the cost, why isn’t government just routinely installing more bike parking, either cages or another design, as demand grows?
And at almost all stations, more people walk to the station than drive, despite often adverse walking conditions.
All these can be improved at far less than $37,500 per car space. Why are these modes not getting more investment?
Public transport shouldn’t require that users own a car. There are proven fixes that are cheaper, can get people to the station even if travelling after morning peak, that don’t take up lots of space around stations, and don’t contribute to local traffic congestion.
If only the politicians could see it.