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.

Why PRT is not the answer

Another commonly suggested solution to the problems of our current cars is PRT (Personal Rapid Transit), where small rail vehicles offer direct journeys not shared with others. They are usually very light and can operate very frequently, so some think of it as being better for the environment and having more capacity than public transport beating it at its own game. However, I would disagree.

If a PRT vehicle comes every second (very optimistic), then 60 vehicles will come in a minute and 3600 per hour. Single occupancy in cars is normal, so if there is single occupancy in PRT that would be a paltry 3600 passengers per hour. Even with 6 per vehicle (PRT-pooling?), the capacity is 21 600 per hour. If a railway line has trains that carry 1000 people every 2.5 min 24 000 passengers can be carried in an hour, and more is possible. If trains for 1500 come every 2 min, 45 000 can be carried, in which case PRT vehicles would need to carry on average 12.5 people, even with a nearly impossible one min headway.

If PRT can be made lighter than trains, why can’t trains be made even lighter? In addition, PRT infrastructure on every street (necessary for it to be useful) would be very expensive.

In conclusion, while PRT could work in an expensive private community, it is not suitable for serious transport needs in large cities.

Why electric cars aren't the answer

An often-touted solution to the pollution of cars is electric cars. However, these may not be as good for the environment as they are thought to be.
While electric cars definitely have less pollution, most of our power sources are still fossil-fuel based. Power plants are more efficient than individual engines, but it isn't enough.
Also, cars contain large amounts of steel, and their manufacture can produce pollution. The batteries also require lithium, most if which is in China and restricted, and rare earth materials like neodymium, terbium and dysprosium, and cab cause environmental damage on disposal.
Electric cars still cause congestion, and pollution from road-building. They also require a large network of charging stations to be practical, but most proposed charging stations would be located in inner-city areas, where driving distances are short and there are plenty of alternatives.
On the other hand, there are some people who will drive no matter what, so by all means, get an electric car, but don't ask for government subsidies and charging stations.