Ironic

[worzel]

I guess that urban planner from Canada must have left Perth, maybe in tears of frustration? After two weeks of stories about the importance of prioritising public and sustainable transport like Vancouver did, in particular that building infrastructure for cars only encourages more car use, I read today that CoP wants to cut parking fees to encourage more people to drive into the city. Apparently people switching to buses, trains and bikes is bad for the city.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/lates ... h-parking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HappyHumber]

Never mind all that baloney.... Daniel Kerr is out of Prison!!!1!!!1! ZOMG!!!

/s

[ColinOldnCranky]

I guess that urban planner from Canada must have left Perth, maybe in tears of frustration? After two weeks of stories about the importance of prioritising public and sustainable transport like Vancouver did, in particular that building infrastructure for cars only encourages more car use, I read today that CoP wants to cut parking fees to encourage more people to drive into the city. Apparently people switching to buses, trains and bikes is bad for the city.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/lates ... h-parking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw that and, like you, put the two together.

It is an outcome of different levels of Government and the high levels of revenue that CoP make from parking (though I have little faith that the current state turkeys would welcome any change much anyway).

Which poses the question, if the state DOES want to go down the route of cutting parking bays (the obvious method to reduce vehicles) what does the CoP do for the revenue. I expect that the government of the day will have to compensate them heavily. Parkin gis on eof the major sources of revenu I belive.

[flashpixx]

. Parkin gis on eof the major sources of revenu I belive.

all good... I worked it out

[Sinner]

It's not that CoP want MORE people to drive into the CBD, it's the fact that there are LESS driving in affecting parking numbers and thus revenue. So the end of the boom has some benefits to other road users.

Perth's acting chief executive Martin Mileham said an increase in carpooling, public transport use and cycling played a part in declining revenue.

"We actively encourage people to make use of public transport or use healthier travel options when visiting the city - for example, walking, cycling or carpooling - so some impact on parking revenues is a logical outcome," Mr Mileham said. He said the city would not consider raising fees to cover the budget shortfall.

[worzel]

It's not that CoP want MORE people to drive into the CBD, it's the fact that there are LESS driving in affecting parking numbers and thus revenue. So the end of the boom has some benefits to other road users.

Not sure I follow your point. The article didn't say how happy they were that people are getting out of their cars. It didn't say that as the parking bays are not needed they will knock them down. What it did say was that they were thinking of cutting prices to attract more customers.

[toofat]

turn the car parks into parks and replace the revenue with a congestion tax

[Sinner]

turn the car parks into parks and replace the revenue with a congestion tax

I like your thinking. Trouble is, the congestion tax is more likely to go to Barnett than Scaffidi. So CoP would be worse off!

[Sinner]

[quote="worzel What it did say was that they were thinking of cutting prices to attract more customers.[/quote]


Again, it's not more.

They've had a reduction in patronage and what they are trying to do is get some patronage back either by attracting people from other car parks or by making it cheaper to park than get public transport.

[worzel]

Again, it's not more.

They've had a reduction in patronage and what they are trying to do is get some patronage back either by attracting people from other car parks or by making it cheaper to park than get public transport.

Okay, I accept the argument that moving people from one car park to another is not more cars, just the same cars. But surely encouraging more people "to park than get public transport" must mean extra cars in the CBD. Am I missing something???

[CXCommuter]

Again, it's not more.

They've had a reduction in patronage and what they are trying to do is get some patronage back either by attracting people from other car parks or by making it cheaper to park than get public transport.

Okay, I accept the argument that moving people from one car park to another is not more cars, just the same cars. But surely encouraging more people "to park than get public transport" must mean extra cars in the CBD. Am I missing something???

These are car parks in the CBD

[Aushiker]

turn the car parks into parks and replace the revenue with a congestion tax

Interesting to compare this to Fremantle which is removing pocket carparks and the big one, Queensgate goes I think as part of the Kings Square redevelopment. None will be replaced.

Andrew

[Thoglette]

Interesting to compare this to Fremantle which is removing pocket carparks and .... None will be replaced.

A little bird told me that they looking into options for parking at the edge of the local govt area and options for public transport from there into town.

Of course the existing suburban line from Fremantle to Coogee is considered "freight rail" and no-one wants passengers back on that - it might upset the private freight operators.