Following our post on Wayfinding Forum in January, the parking landscape in the ACT’s Parliamentary Triangle is about to change forever, but it may not be to everyone’s liking.

In last week’s budget, Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan announced 9,000 pay-parking spaces will be introduced in Parkes, Barton, Russel and Acton from July next year. At an estimated cost of $6m, the initiative will return $73m over the next three years. In the government’s plan, one hour on-street parking will remain free but short pay parking will cost $2 an hour and previously free all day parking will now cost $11.

The National Capital Authority is providing public consultation through its website, but says paid parking in the parliamentary zone is needed because a lack of parking spots is affecting visitor numbers to Canberra's national institutions. Meanwhile, the public service union isn’t happy about the change, initially complaining that the ongoing closures of parking spaces in the area, they view the latest developments as effectively delivering workers a $2,500 per annum pay cut. Many public servants that say they have no alternative but to drive to work will now be charged more than $50 a week for the privilege.

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has called for funds to be funnelled back into the cultural institutions affected by the change, but perhaps a concurrent goal of improving public transport options might help quell the fears of the local working population.

One thing is certain, Canberrans have enjoyed free parking for a long time and this move simply brings the capital in line with all of Australia’s other major cities.

 The Grattan Institute has this month released a report entitled, Productive Cities: Opportunity in a changing economy offering solutions to help increase economic productivity and efficiency in Australian cities.

The report analyses housing, income and transport data in Australia’s four largest cities to show that while highly paid and qualified workers are living close to city centres, workers with trade skills and low skills, and people on low incomes, are living further from the centre.

Amongst its recommendations, the institute advocates building more homes in established areas of cities and improving urban transport. Wayfinding Forum wrote about the benefits of transport oriented developments in established urban areas last month.

However, of most interest to our subscribers, the report also recommends consideration of road-user charging to ensure that road space is preserved for the most productive uses and as a way to raise funds for public transport.

According to the report “in order to address traffic congestion, it is not enough to rely solely on building new roads without also paying attention to managing the demand for road space. A more efficient use of road space could be achieved by introducing a pricing system such as road user charges, congestion charges or time-of-day tolling.” It notes that this was a recommendation of the 2010 Henry Review into Australia’s Future Tax System.

Recent research by our PTC team relating to the time-of-day tolling introduced a couple of years ago on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel had practically no impact on congestion and use of these roads. The reduction of vehicles between 2008 and 2009 of 1.6% was more than compensated by the increases in cars using the Ryde Bridge ( 5.2%) and Gladesville Bridge (+2.7%) with an overall result of +0.7%.

CBD parking levies are still a hot topic of discussion around Australia following last week’s blog reporting on the Victorian government’s plans for an increased parking tax.

This week has seen South Australia’s Opposition ramping up its fight against their state government’s planned parking levy for Adelaide’s CBD. The controversial plan is fast becoming a key election issue ahead of the March 2014 vote.

As we reported on Wayfinding Forum in March, several influential industry groups have attacked the plan as a slug on locals and businesses. The levy, purportedly a $52m injection for ‘transport development’ projects over two years, will be charged at $750 per space and most likely affect property owners who are sure to pass on the increase to their customers.

The opposition leader Steven Marshall has gone to the extraordinary length of releasing a television commercial almost a year out from the election slamming the plan and vowing to scrap the tax should he win government. View ad here:

Mr Marshall said, "At a time when cost of living pressures are rapidly rising, the Labor Government is reaching into the pocket of South Australians to repay the debt."

The Property Council has welcomed the opposition's promise, which it said recognised the concerns of city’s retailers. The PCA has since released a survey showing the levy could scare off “almost 60 per cent of motorists” from the CBD.

A good result for congestion says the SA Premier, but at what cost? At PTC we conducted some research as to how the parking levy revenues in NSW and VIC had been spent and what correlation could be found to prove or disprove its impact on congestion. Sadly neither question was able to be answered satisfactorily.

Earlier this week the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the State Government’s imminent plans to extend clearways on Sydney’s most congested roads to include weekends.

The report tells us that there are up to 200,000 more cars on Sydney’s roads on Saturday mornings when compared with weekday mornings, and less people are using public transport. This has led to traffic chaos across the weekend on some of Sydney’s key arterials such as Victoria Rd, Parramatta Rd, Military Rd and Bondi Rd, to name a few.

The proposal to remove on-street parking will anger local businesses that insist their customers need a place to leave their cars while they shop. Pre-empting this backlash, the Roads Minister Duncan Gay has already slated plans to construct parking facilities using a combination of tax payer revenue, parking levies and contributions from the local businesses; an approach that is sure to enflame tensions with the local provedores.

Predictably, Opposition Leader John Robertson has criticized the strategy, suggesting that it is a ‘half-baked’ plan. He pointed to the desperate need to improve NSW transport network.

The NSW Coalition will have thought long and hard about this potentially unpopular, but ultimately necessary parking ban. Their Victorian colleagues reversed a similar decision taken by that state’s previous government to extend clearway conditions to weekends. In a 2010 media release, the new government described their decision to reverse the weekend ban as much needed relief from “onerous and damaging clearway restrictions”.

We have personally experienced the improvements to the trip from the Spit Bridge up to Mosman on weekend afternoons in the summer months when clearways apply!

Time will tell.

Phase two of the Federal Government’s study to construct high-speed rail (HSR) spanning from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra was released this week to a lukewarm reception.

The ambitious infrastructure plan would be the largest investment of any national project, eclipsing the NBN many times over. The HSR network, comprising over 1,700 kms of track, could be completed between 2056 and 2065 at a cost of $114 billion, but it is more likely to be delivered in stages... assuming it is delivered at all. The report can be found here.

However, criticism towards the project has been leveled at the Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese. The Daily Telegraph says it’s too expensive and cheekily intimates the technology may be superseded ‘by flying cars’ midway through the century, while a transport reporter from The Sydney Morning Herald mocks the government suggesting they are more interested in paying for multi-million dollar reports than committing to hundred billion dollar projects.

The theory is great: Sydney to Canberra in just over an hour; Sydney to Melbourne and Brisbane in around three hours. Commuters would embark and disembark at the city centre without having to worry about airports, taxis, queues, etc. The Pacific, Hume and Federal Highways would experience a reduction in traffic. Road safety and the environment would be winners too. But is this just a pipedream that has no chance of being realised?

Whilst the federal government’s high-speed rail project caters specifically to passenger transport, it is worth noting that the conveyance of freight by road contributes significantly to congestion on our highways and greenhouse gas emissions. See this piece published by the ABC on the case for improved rail infrastructure for freight.

Should the commuter rail project proceed, it could change the way Australians think about interstate travel, where we live and where we work. 

This change in mindset may also impact how we use our cars and where we choose to park. The government will need to think more about planning for this eventuality, including improved park-and-ride facilities with access to railway stations. Perhaps another feasibility study is required?

Both the State Government and the City of Sydney agree that light rail from Circular Quay to the city’s east along George Street will be a great thing for Sydney. The vision is for an integrated transport network able to move large groups of commuters quickly and effectively around the CBD and out to major sporting and educational precincts. The good news is that it is going to happen. We blogged about the announcement on Wayfinding Forum in December.

Many see the project as an opportunity to create an environment along George Street similar to that of Times Square in New York or Paris’ Champs-Élysées, turning the thoroughfare into "one of the world's great plazas". The City and the NSW Government are aiming to finalise a development agreement by August, but the sticking point may come when deciding how much of George Street will be reserved for pedestrians and light rail exclusively.

The City of Sydney is currently exhibiting their Draft George Street Concept Design at Customs House, which involves “pedestrianising” a much larger section of the city’s spine than the 40% initially planned by the NSW Government.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore says “by slightly extending the pedestrian area to the north and south, we believe there are significant additional benefits for pedestrians and traffic management''. Renowned Danish urban designer Jan Gehl, weighed in to the debate as the City’s key consultant on the project saying he would have wanted the street's pedestrian zone ''to be as long as possible''.

However, desire and reality may be two vastly different things with NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian down-playing the suggestion, stating that the government intends to deliver the project as it was announced last year.

Whatever the result of no doubt spirited negotiations, this type of urban development is what the Sydney CBD is crying out for, and we cannot wait for the start of construction in 2015.

More on the NSW Government’s blue print for public transport expansion can be read here.

According to a recent survey of selected cities conducted by the Economist, Shanghai is the most expensive in the world to own and drive a car, and Sydney isn’t far behind due to relatively high purchase costs.

This is not quite the famous Big Mac Index where researchers can compare apples with apples (or burgers with burgers) so this comparison has stirred up debate amongst subscribers. One pointed out that the survey considers the cost of imported cars only. The graph would look distinctly different for Shanghai if locally manufactured vehicles, which are not subject to import tariffs and in fact attract government subsidies, were used. Moreover the survey does not factor the often exorbitant costs of obtaining licence plates just for the right to drive a car.

Cities with high permit rates, road taxes and licensing fees left off the survey include Singapore, and even our friends from Scandinavia. In Copenhagen for example, drivers pay 180% car tax on top of a 25% VAT. Oslo suffers in much the same way.

However, those included or not are ultimately unimportant. Of course the elephant in the room is relative CBD parking costs. One blogger has commented ”Living and working in the city of Chicago the cost of parking at home and the office could easily amount to more than the monthly payment on a new vehicle.”

Importantly, for some cities on-street parking is not an option due to competition for space or security concerns. Therefore the search for safe, economical and convenient parking solutions will always need to be part of the debate whether comparing international cities or making decisions of investment and development opportunities.

Let’s not get started on the relative costs of public transport, that’s for another day.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is not a new concept in urban planning.

DNAinfo.com has published a story about the latest mixed development taking advantage of local public transport hubs in Chicago. The Wicker Park building contains 99 residential units but only 15 car spaces, supposedly reserved for visitors only. Whilst ratios vary around the world, a requirement of 2 car spaces per dwelling is not uncommon.

However the trend towards residential and commercial development with minimal parking is also becoming more common. Curbed Chicago lists another six examples in that city.

So, whilst TODs would appear to be helping the fight against congestion and pollution in major cities, it is also becoming clear that if executed poorly, these developments can fail spectacularly.

Australia’s Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF) lauds the benefits of TODs but warns that “coordinated planning and delivery arrangements are essential to ensure transport not only responds to past and present use patterns but is an active contributor to the shaping of the urban form.”

An example of what Kaid Benfield has called an ‘epic fail’ of urban design can be seen in his article written for The Atlantic Cities about a TOD near Miami. The author says, “there’s lots of development around, just not near the station, unless you consider parking lots and garages to be development.” He continues to emphasise his point by stating, “The station is oriented to cars, not people.” If you need another example of a TOD’s failure to orient people with the transit they require, take a look at this article written about a development in St Louis.

But how do we ensure the goals of TODs are met? TTF tells us the answer lies in a working partnership between the government and the private sector. We can only agree and hope that such cooperation becomes reality.

A coalition of South Australia’s most influential property owners have joined forces to fight the State Government’s Transport Development Levy planned for Adelaide's CBD. We posted about this levy earlier this year. 

Led by the SA branch of the Property Council of Australia, the State Coalition to Repeal the Parking Tax (SCRPT, or ‘SCRaP iT’) is calling on the Premier to abandon the annual tax of $750 per space.

Adelaide Now has reported the Premier has already said he will not agree to scrapping the parking levy, planning its implementation from July 1, 2014, conveniently AFTER next year’s election.

The government claims that the estimated $25m per year in revenue will be used to deliver public transport infrastructure such as improved ‘Park-and-ride’ facilities.

North Adelaide, residential and disabled parking spots will be exempt.