Why Park n' Ride isn't the answer

Park n’ Rides, or stations with large amounts of car parking, are usually considered good public transport policy. They encourage public transport usage in low density regions. Perth has them at most new stations, and we’re not doing too badly from them. However, maybe we could be better off with a different strategy.

Park n’ rides consume large amounts of land and discourage walk-up patronage. While our Park n’ Rides are mostly at freeway stations on the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines, where walking to the station is already hard, the large parking lots surely aren’t helping. There is also insatiable demand for them, just like roads. They often fill up in the morning peak, so they encourage peak usage over off peak usage. Instead of replacing car usage with PT usage, it lets car usage continue along with PT, which is an easy and fairly good outcome for now but not optimal.

In place of these alienating Park n’ Rides we could allow residential and commercial development, or TOD (Transit-oriented development), buildings that will generate much more traffic that is also more balanced than in Park n’ Rides, while earning money rather than costing money. To compensate for the loss of the car park feeder buses should be run much more frequently.

We could also place Park n’ Rides just beyond walking distance of the station (about 400m for most people) where the attraction of the station is lesser and so land cheaper, with links to the station by feeder bus. This would be the best of both worlds, but it would be difficult to get the land in our existing suburbs because it would probably be housing, and new suburbs should be optimised for walking, cycling and taking a feeder bus to the station, so large Park n' Rides aren't necessary.

In conclusion, we should reduce our dependence on Park n' Rides, although the idea suggested in the last paragraph of car parks beyond walking distance of the station deserves consideration.

Why widening and building more roads is not the answer

The usual ‘solution’ to a congested road network is to widen roads or build more freeways. However, it has been proven that building more road space does not relieve congestion in the long term. It just encourages longer or extra trips, with demand for even more roads, or induced demand. Building lots of roads makes cities bland and alienating, and difficult to walk, bike or take PT in, unfair to people who can’t or don’t drive. Also, the amount of roads needed to satisfy every possible travel need is impractical, consuming large amounts of land, and, unbelievably expensive

On the other hand investment in public transport or active transport (walking and biking) are cheaper and carry more passengers than road investments. They also take up less land and are future-proof; they not only can cater for population growth but will stay useful with global warming and peak oil.

In conclusion, building lots of roads will not solve congestion problems, which reminds me of a good quote by Orlando, Florida traffic engineer Walter Kulash, “Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity”. If drivers want more roads then at the very least they should pay for them.

The case for road pricing

Congestion charges, congestion taxes, tolls, road pricing – whatever you call it, it’s often a no-go zone for politicians – see the PublicTransport For Perth in 2031 FAQ -  even, if not especially, Liberals. You may be asking, What? Liberals? You expect them to support another tax?, but there is logic behind that statement, and road pricing is needed.

The government has been subsidising the construction of our road network for decades (rego and excise don’t even come close to paying the full costs), so we need to charge properly for the use of roads. We need to charge market rates for roads, more for congested roads and times, and less for quieter roads and times, so that roads are uncongested, benefiting people who need to be on the road, like tradies and emergency services (road-based businesses should be able to get exemptions) If it makes lots of money, so be it. We can use it for essential services, like health, education and police, or cut income tax to offset the extra cost, or even both.

We would have to make sure alternatives like public transport can take the extra load, and if need be we could make it so that half the road lanes are priced and half free, so the toll lanes can be considered express lanes.

Where does this go back to the Liberal statement? Well cutting subsidies and embracing the free market is in line with the Liberal Party’s conservative foundations.