[sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities?

[Paul Barter]

I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well.



The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far).



I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog (http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html).



1.   My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas).



It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest.  Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build public transport ridership than P&R.



Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the newest 'suburban areas'.  P&R seems least defensible in these high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia.



The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density suburban context.



2.  My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget.



P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns the land).



[BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian cities. That's another issue!]



These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership rates.  For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to the stations of the Delhi Metro?



3.  Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more effectively by other means.



This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R subsidies.  [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?]



Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that too.]



Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them.  For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens?



4.   Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there will not be any parking near mass transit stations.



As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is rather low or possibly zero.



By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it would be very expensive.





A final thought:



If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities.  Mass transit stations are still pretty attractive without P&R.



I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, the minibus businesses serve stations well.  I wonder if valet-parking businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself.



Now back to those exam papers. Sigh.



Paul



Paul A. Barter

http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx

http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/