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

[Karthik Rao Cavale]

I think one key point of disagreement is the reason for building new Public
Transport in the third world. One way of looking at it is that we want to
get people using personal vehicles to use public transport. The other is
that we want to improve the lives of those already dependent on public
transport. At times, these two goals take us in opposite directions.

Here, if one were to be motivated by the first goal, one would go for PnRs.
If motivated by the second, one would not see much value in it. For Indian
cities, I am convinced that the second goal is way more important than the
first.

In many of the Mumbai suburbs (which are denser than the "central city" of
Bombay), the roads in the vicinity of the train station tend to be really
congested because the local market typically situates itself around the
station. Andheri, Mulund and Thane are all classic examples of this type of
urban arrangement. In such places, PnRs will increase traffic on the
streets, thereby having a definite negative impact on the lives of those who
are transit-dependent.

http://mumbai.thecityfix.com/creating-streets-for-walkers-and-hawkers/

In this blog, writing about Mulund, I proposed a network of NMT-only streets
around the station so as to reduce vehicle traffic and making walking/biking
a pleasant and safe experience. Along the main roads, two lanes were to
allow PT and autorickshaws access to the station, but otherwise the entire
area surrounding the station would be closed for traffic. Parking will have
to be built on the perimeter of the market area, but it was to intended for
shopkeepers and residents of the vehicle-free area, not for commuters of the
suburban rail.

For Indian cities, looking from the POV of improving the lives of
transit-dependent people, I think such solutions could offer a lot more than
PnRs.

karthik

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Jains <alok.priyanka at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ashok,
>
> Probably an additional piece of information - the developers in Mumbai have
> to handover the public parking to Municipal Corporation (MCGM/BMC) and has
> no say in its operation. So technically, if the Govt. wishes, they could
> still charge "full-cost" fee and use the surplus for other improvements.
> Whether that will actually be done is the big question but certainly the
> opportunity exists.
>
> Cheers
> Alok
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Ashok Sreenivas
> <ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Yes, FSI and TDR (transfer of development rights - where you're given
> > rights
> > to develop land elsewhere in return for doing something with it here) are
> > commonly used tools in Maharashtra (including Pune, where I'm based).
> > Though
> > the FSI route means that parking has now moved to private land, I find it
> > still has the following problems:
> >
> > a) As stated, the additional FSI more than compensates the developer for
> > the
> > land lost to parking. Hence he has no incentive to charge a fair price
> for
> > parking in his premises and is likely to only charge enough to recover
> his
> > *
> > operational* expenses in terms of parking attendants etc. This defeats
> the
> > purpose of using fair parking prices as a TDM mechanism.
> >
> > b) Perhaps an even bigger problem is that often the additional FSI is
> used
> > to build up commercial space which acts as a traffic attractor by itself
> > and
> > therefore consumes all or most of the parking provided by the developer,
> > leaving little or nothing for park-and-ride. This, of course, defeats the
> > purpose of encouraging the car users to use transit. So, at the end,
> you've
> > just developed a new commercial space with ample parking for its visitors
> > next to the railway station with very little benefit for the transit
> > service
> > itself. And the chuckling sound you hear is the developer laughing all
> the
> > way to the bank.
> >
> > Ashok
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jains <alok.priyanka at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did not realise that my emails had stored an outdated email address
> for
> > > Sustran. This bounced back and hence sending it again.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Alok
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Jains <alok.priyanka at gmail.com>
> > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM
> > > Subject: Fwd: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian
> cities?
> > > To: Sustran <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Posting this on Sustran list on Paul's request.
> > >
> > > Paul, you may wish to add your comments too.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Alok
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Jains <alok.priyanka at gmail.com>
> > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian
> cities?
> > > To: Paul Barter <paulbarter at nus.edu.sg>
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > No further arguments, just additional information.
> > >
> > > In context of subsidy, Mumbai has following scheme.
> > >
> > > "To relieve the parking scarcity in the city and to improve the public
> > > amenities BMC introduced a scheme whereby landowners who construct
> public
> > > parking lots on any stretch found suitable for the Corporation will be
> > > given
> > > an additional incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) equivalent to 50
> percent
> > of
> > > the built up parking area. In addition, under this scheme, when a
> > landowner
> > > constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost, he may
> be
> > > granted a further DR in the form of FSI equal to the area of the
> > > construction / development done by him."
> > >
> > > The inner city parking lots are built by developers to avail extra FSI
> > > anyway. So the parking lots are on private land and built out of
> private
> > > funds (obviously they get more than compensated by the extra saleable
> > FSI).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Alok
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Barter <paulbarter at nus.edu.sg>
> > > 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').
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 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').
>