Wellington Parking - They are about to clamp down on bike parking

[magicmonkey]

What will happen if you leave WCC or get promoted to a different position?

Wellington bikeoi!!!

[Jon Visser]

Hi Jon, just a couple of questions regarding further plans of WCC.

As a basis of discussion, lets assume the current restructure worked. All bikes are parked in the designated areas either on public property or private sector (with the few black sheep that get ticketed).

What will happen if bike numbers dramatically increase beyond the capacity of parking spaces again resulting in a similar situation as the one that we had?

As has been pointed out by others, motorcycles take up less space than cars, so if the increase is due to people changing transport modes then theoretically there should be more parking space being created and therefore this will be less of an issue as rider numbers increase. The challenge has been to get people to park where they used to park their cars, and WCC will act as a "facilitator" to continue with this strategy.

A much wider question is how the city will cope as the quantities of all modes of transport (including cars, trucks, delivery vehicles and taxis etc) keep growing as the population grows. The physical transport network is finite and pretty much at capacity, so this will create quite a strain on both the road network as well as parking facilities. As demand increases, it is likely that providers (e.g. commercial garages) will respond to that demand by increasing the number and size of facilities. It would be likely that the price to use such facilities would also increase to match the level of demand and cost to invest in that type of property use. However, if you turned all the buildings in Wellington into parking buildings, you would never be able to get that amount of traffic in & out each day (and there would be no reason to come into the city!). Therefore there is a limit to how many vehicles the city can accommodate, so the number of parking garages required is constrained by the network capacity. Based on what has happened in overseas cities, it is unlikely that the buildings of the city will be removed to create wider roads, but it is more likely that private vehicle use will somehow be limited (e.g. congestion charging, removal of vehicle access to inner city roads, investment and improvements to mass transport modes etc). For Wellington City those types of options have certainly been dicussed but at this stage the network is coping and there is no intention to implement these yet (other than the promotion of public transport). We have just finished consulting on "Wellington 2040 - The Future of Our Central City" and this will give us some ideas.

What will happen if the private sector decides that it is not sustainable to keep the bike parks and convert some/all to something else?

Firstly any such change would go through public consultation, and it would be the public (not the "private sector") that would bring about such a change, typically through the elected Councillors. This is a possibility. I can only speculate that because all other major (and successful) cities have a certain number of on-road motorcycle parks, and that Wellington wants to be internationally competitive, that we will also retain a certain number of on-road motorcycle parks. That would assist the transport network to operate effectively. What I cannot predict (long term) is the number of spaces proportional to the number of users (for all types of transport modes, not just motorcycles) or whether these will have time or fee restrictions. One could assume that as long as people have a wish to use a particular type of transport mode, there will be facilities (roads/parking) to accommodate them (public or private) and the key is to plan for these (which we are doing, noting that numbers could go up or down, e.g. if fossil fules ran out and the only available replacement was electric cars).

What will happen if you leave WCC or get promoted to a different position?

I'll take that as a compliment :-). One of my philosophies (being from a private sector consultant background) is to get my teams, as well as the processes, methods, forms & templates etc that they use, to reflect my approach (i.e. to make myself "expendable"). Some of that will remain, and it is always possible that my replacement is even better than me. It is Council's desire that we improve engagement with the community, so it is not by chance that I am in this role and interacting in this way - it is the strategy of the organisation and one that has proven effective and therefore likely to be continued by whomever holds this role.

[atothek]

green ninja has been ticketed on hunter st for what i assume is parking on 'yellow lines'. people have been parking along here in two rows for a while now while the box indicating motorcycle parking only allows for 1 row. 2 rows works fine, it's usually pretty easy to get your bike out from the back and it doesn't disrupt traffic as the two rows finish the same distance out as the angle parks next to it.

the yellow lines are the length of the gutter up to the box on the customhouse quay side. it is a bit stupid to give this one bike a ticket when really all the bikes in this row would be technically parking illegally. i've parked there myself on a few occasions and it doesn't get in the way at all. poor effort here from parkwise. either enforce it for all the bikes or leave the single bike alone which is obviously being ticketed on a stupid technicality

[Chocolate Boy]

What will happen if the private sector decides that it is not sustainable to keep the bike parks and convert some/all to something else?

I think what Bodir meant here was what would happen if the private parking companies decided to decrease/get rid of/massively increase any charges for bikes to park in those places, thus undermining the premise of bikes being able to use those places and forcing them back onto the streets (or footpaths).

John can you please talk to the idiots at parkwise and tell them that the bikes on upper willis street are on private property and are allowed to park there, being on private property also means parkwaise have no jurisdiction...

Couple of days ago I got a warning infringement notice for parking on a footpath (no $$ to pay but looks the same) when I was parked on an area which clearly was not a footpath, it was the area in front of some premises. There was a clear line of difference in the surface between the footpath area and that of the property. If it involved money I would have to waste my time responding and the council, i.e. ratepayers, time and money by checking and ultimately waiving the infringement.

Wouldn't it be better if the parking people we educated on which areas shouldn't be considered as footpaths, i.e. when there is an obvious boundary where the footpath finishes and private property starts.

Parking wardens do have jurisdiction on all roads in the District, including public roads and footpaths on private property.

It seems Jon that you're saying that if I park on the footpath leading up to my house that a parking warden can give me a ticket for that? I thought that if I was parked on private property that was outside of their jurisdiction (the property owner can have me towed or clamped if they want). Please clarify the situation regarding parking my bike on private property that is not the public footpath, i.e. is that private property within the parking wardens jurisdiction or not?

[Badjelly]

It seems Jon that you're saying that if I park on the footpath leading up to my house that a parking warden can give me a ticket for that? I thought that if I was parked on private property that was outside of their jurisdiction (the property owner can have me towed or clamped if they want). Please clarify the situation regarding parking my bike on private property that is not the public footpath, i.e. is that private property within the parking wardens jurisdiction or not?

I'm sure Jon will respond, but I'd just like to point out that an area can easily be public space and private property at the same time. There is a difference between access and ownership. Privately owned areas with public access include supermarket car parks, shops, malls and a lot of walkways and footpaths.

IANAL but the footpath leading to your house probably stops being a public space once you've passed the gate.

[Chocolate Boy]

I'm sure Jon will respond, but I'd just like to point out that an area can easily be public space and private property at the same time. There is a difference between access and ownership. Privately owned areas with public access include supermarket car parks, shops, malls and a lot of walkways and footpaths.

Exactly, so as far as I can tell if I park in a privately owned area that is not the footpath (and that can be clearly seen, e.g. by a change in surface from concrete to paving stones) then I shouldn't get a ticket (regardless of whether it's a warning or a fine) for parking there, but I did get that warning infringement notice in just such a spot.

IANAL but the footpath leading to your house probably stops being a public space once you've passed the gate.

Yep I would have thought so too, and the same for a footpath leading to some other private property, be it a shop or whatever, but Jon stated

Parking wardens do have jurisdiction on... footpaths on private property.

so I'm kinda confused about whether parking wardens can come onto my or someone else's property and give me a ticket for being parked there when it isn't actually a public footpath. Can you please help clarify that Jon?

[Jon Visser]

The following has just been released by WCC. Within all of the proposed changes, the only one affecting motorcycle parks is in Mercer Street. If you have any feedback please direct this towards the project manager whose contact details are included in the attached letter.

[Jon Visser]

Exactly, so as far as I can tell if I park in a privately owned area that is not the footpath (and that can be clearly seen, e.g. by a change in surface from concrete to paving stones) then I shouldn't get a ticket (regardless of whether it's a warning or a fine) for parking there, but I did get that warning infringement notice in just such a spot.

In that case it is highly likely that although the area looks private, it is still public footpath. The Council has done a number of deals with private property owners to allow them to "beautify" the pavement in front of their buildings with pavers of their choice. This is usually done through an "encroachment licence" which requires the private property owner to maintain the pavers, but Council retains the responsibility to manage the space. If you got a warning notice, it would pay to very carefully check the property boundaries and discuss any issues with the building owner and Parkwise if you intend to park there again, as it may turn out to be public footpath on public property.

so I'm kinda confused about whether parking wardens can come onto my or someone else's property and give me a ticket for being parked there when it isn't actually a public footpath. Can you please help clarify that Jon?

Part of the role of the Council (or our warranted enforcement officers) is to protect the safety & rights of public access to the public road. The "road" is defined as any space that is accessible to vehicles, including roads, car parks & accessways on private property. Whether "footpaths" could be argued to be "accessible to vehicles" would be an interesting one to test in court, though if the vehicle was parked on it then they must have got there somehow (i.e. in most cases it has been found to be part of the "road").

Wardens don't usually issue tickets on private property as there is no way of knowing whether the vehicle belongs to the property owner and is entitled to be there, and they need to make a judgement call as to whether the space is reasonably considered to be part of the "public road". However, wardens could respond at the request of a private property owner or after having researched the status of the land.

If public access to the space is controlled (e.g. via a door, fence, gate, barrier or signage such as on private/commercial car parks) then it would not likely be considered a "public road" and it would be up to the private property owner to deal with any vehicles that may be parked there.

[Bodir]

I think what Bodir meant here was what would happen if the private parking companies decided to decrease/get rid of/massively increase any charges for bikes to park in those places, thus undermining the premise of bikes being able to use those places and forcing them back onto the streets (or footpaths).

Hi Jon,

The above is exactly what I was asking. Could you lease comment on this?

[Jon Visser]

I think what Bodir meant here was what would happen if the private parking companies decided to decrease/get rid of/massively increase any charges for bikes to park in those places, thus undermining the premise of bikes being able to use those places and forcing them back onto the streets (or footpaths).

Commercially that would not make sense as the motorcycles now form a valuable part of their customer base and those actions would likely result in a reduction in income rather than an increase. If that situation did occur, the Council's position would be to act as a facilitator to ensure that there is provision of adequate parking facilities (in relation to the quantity of parks available - the commercial fee is market-driven).

Ultimately, if a mode of transport is impractical or unaffordable, then people's decisions should be to not use that mode of transport rather than to break the law. Therefore people will never be "forced to park illegally" - where people park is a conscious choice that each person makes individually, usually knowing what the rules are. Car drivers are similarly finding themselves in a position where it is not possible to park on the street in the CBD all day any more and they either need to park much further away (inner suburbs and even that is becoming more difficult with our decision to increase resident only parking) or pay significant fees. Eventually many will make a decision that taking a car in is either impractical or too expensive and they will choose an alternative form of commuting (e.g. park & ride).

[RusoR]

The following has just been released by WCC. Within all of the proposed changes, the only one affecting motorcycle parks is in Mercer Street. If you have any feedback please direct this towards the project manager whose contact details are included in the attached letter.

Thanks for pointing this out Jon, a quick squiz at the size of the existing M/C park in Mercer Street versus the size of the proposed M/C park shows a glaring space deficit. Thanks to WCC planning staff for once again considering the needs of motorcyclists in the CBD.
I have no doubt the project management will be hearing about this.

[Chocolate Boy]

Thanks for pointing this out Jon, a quick squiz at the size of the existing M/C park in Mercer Street versus the size of the proposed M/C park shows a glaring space deficit. Thanks to WCC planning staff for once again considering the needs of motorcyclists in the CBD.
I have no doubt the project management will be hearing about this.

Excellent point. The current motorcycle park in Mercer St can accommodate 25 - 30 bikes. How many will the proposed area delete from the available motorcycle parks in the city?

See - this is what I meant when I was concerned about spaces decreasing when I was asking what was happening with the College St parks that disappeared due to some planning pleb cocking up, apparently with complete impunity. It's very easy for the parks to be wiped out, but takes ages and piles of resources to get them reinstated even when the council admit they made a mistake in letting be removed.

[Nasty]

Excellent point. The current motorcycle park in Mercer St can accommodate 25 - 30 bikes. How many will the proposed area delete from the available motorcycle parks in the city?

See - this is what I meant when I was concerned about spaces decreasing when I was asking what was happening with the College St parks that disappeared due to some planning pleb cocking up, apparently with complete impunity. It's very easy for the parks to be wiped out, but takes ages and piles of resources to get them reinstated even when the council admit they made a mistake in letting be removed.

But this time is not a cock up but is covered in the consultation ... respond to the PM and make your thoughts heard. This information has been out for a little bit now.

[Swoop]

I just saw 2 bikes get ticketed for being on the footpath in Hunter St. The bike park was full to overflowing and both bikes were parked right at the edge of the footpath next to the bike park.They are not in anyones way - you could drive a truck past them on the footpath.
I see able bodied drivers park all the time in the mobility park next to the bike park, and they never seem to get ticketed.

The problem is that parking wardens do not get stabbed in the chest enough. They will unfortunately survive armageddon along with cockroaches and ants.

[Ratti]

As a Welly rider who uses bike for short-stay trips to CBD, may I suggest a split between large all day, Paid-for parking sites and a series of smaller sites (maybe 8-10 bikes) where it is strictly monitored as short stay? the current 120minute limit might be appropriate?

Is there someone 'official' to whom I can make this a formal submission for consideration?

cheers