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

[Michael Replogle]

As the author of a 1983 book, "Bicycles and Public Transportation: New Links to Suburban Transit Markets," which looked at 100 years of evolution of access to public transport in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and coauthor of a follow-up 1991 study, "Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit," published by the US Federal Highway Administration, and various related articles (see for example: http://www.edf.org/documents/2294_BikesJournal.pdf or http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5483 or http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.html or http://www.environmentaldefence.org/article.cfm?contentID=2407) I want to support Carlos Felipe Pardo's comments on this subject in their entirety, as well as Paul Barter's comments. Building park-and-ride lots at public transport stops is justified at times. But parking spaces should always be priced to recover at least their full capital and operating costs. Time-of-day market pricing to ensure 85% average occupancy, as Donald Shoup advocates for parking management, should be encouraged. 

Parking should be a lower priority use for space in locations with high public transport accessibility. There may be occasions and places when park-and-ride lots serve as land banks awaiting conversion to higher value uses. But in general, high quality pedestrian and bicycle access should be given first priority for access to public transport, as these are the least cost access modes. Park-and-ride spaces should be in higher cost structured parking (above or below ground), so that high access land area near public transport stations can be developed as soon as possible to their highest and best use, as high density housing, commercial uses, and employment centers. If there are transit access subsidies to be offered, they should go to bike access and pedestrian access, encouraging low carbon travel. Subsidies should not be targeted to higher income motorized travelers for transit access. But that said, it can be valuable to offer motor vehicle dependent travelers an option to drive to transit and park for a reasonable fee, to expand their travel choices. Lack of appropriately priced car parking near public transport will reinforce the car dependence of those who might be willing and able to pay for a park-and-ride trip, but for whom walking or biking to transit may be impractical or inconvenient, given the value they place on their time.

Michael Replogle
Global Policy Director and Founder
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
1225 Eye Street NW, Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20005 USA
+1.202.534.1604
+1.301.529.0351 mobile
mreplogle at itdp.org




On May 17, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote:

> This is a nice discussion. I reiterate the priority that was mentioned 
> for bike-and-ride integration because the catchment area is much higher 
> and the cost of building the parking spaces, operating them and 
> maintaining them is very (incredibly!) low when compared to other 
> alternatives. This Friday TransMilenio will inaugurate its fifth bicycle 
> parking station (covered, guarded, etc), which is integrated into the 
> (flat) fare. This one and the others are located at the terminal 
> stations or key interchange stations, and they've reduced the use of 
> feeder buses (which is very good because those are pretty expensive and 
> are also integrated into the fare). We tried to talk them into doing 
> more of these in other stations, but for various reasons we couldn't get 
> through to them... pity. Ah, Guangzhou's BRT has very nice integration 
> both for regular bikes and public bike stations. They have bike parking 
> in every station.
> 
> It's also useful when you're thinking about cities in the South (which 
> is what Sustran is all about) because car ownership is low (and that's 
> good!) so you don't want to give people additional reasons to go into 
> debt to buy a car or motorcycle and some years later go live in a 
> suburb. I think someone already pointed this out in another email. I 
> think that is a very important issue: it's not about getting everyone 
> into public transport at any cost, but about thinking what you really 
> want (access, etc) and then planning for it. Having park and ride 
> everywhere may end up generating longer trips for many people because 
> they feel they can live farther away. I guess it's very difficult to 
> prove this but it's important to reflect upon it.
> 
> Further, the cost of land for park-and-ride that Paul mentioned is most 
> important because that will generate a very high capital cost for a 
> system, especially in dense areas and moreso in CBDs! However, in 
> Guatemala they have been able to get private developers to pay for 
> (underground) park-n-ride plus the entire station of the BRT system. But 
> I think they charge for parking additionally.
> 
> So if you'll do park-n-ride, charge it. If not charging, then forget it 
> and put your money into bike-and-ride.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Carlosfelipe Pardo
> 
> 
> On 14/05/2010 03:20 a.m., Paul Barter wrote:
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>> 
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
>> 
>> 
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').