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

[davebullet]

Jon,

Is there a minimum safe measurement for unobstructed use of a footpath? If so, we could measure and identify a lot more useful spaces for parking. I have a camera and a tape measure to help this endeavour.

I'd like to resort to warnings and tickets, only when people knowingly park outside allowed areas on footpaths obstructing pedestrians.

Under OSH, we have a minimum (I think it is 90cm) gap between desks / furniture in an office for egress in the event of fire / emergency (and general safety).

Surely some recommended footpath guidelines exist?

[Jon Visser]

Jon,

Is there a minimum safe measurement for unobstructed use of a footpath? If so, we could measure and identify a lot more useful spaces for parking. I have a camera and a tape measure to help this endeavour.

I'd like to resort to warnings and tickets, only when people knowingly park outside allowed areas on footpaths obstructing pedestrians.

Under OSH, we have a minimum (I think it is 90cm) gap between desks / furniture in an office for egress in the event of fire / emergency (and general safety).

Surely some recommended footpath guidelines exist?

Our Footpath Management Policy (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/.../footpath.html) recommends a number of minimum unobstructed widths that we should try to achieve throughout the city, though adds that this needs to be determined by some degree of common sense by officers (e.g. if it requires 3 metres and the footpath is only two metres wide with a postal receiver on it then this could obviously not be achieved and we would need to look at other measures to keep people as safe as they can be). Under the key principles of the Footpath Management Policy it would not be appropriate for officers to allow any motorcycle parking on public footpaths. We could allow items that improve pedestrian access or public amenity (i.e. an object that is useful for the pedestrians using that space, such as seating) only, and a parked motorcycle would conflict with those primary goals.

Our Code of Practice for Working on the Road also allows some narrower guidelines where the site is controlled through traffic management (i.e. any access issues can be dealt with by the contractor if required).

The key principle is that any obstruction on the footpath, in order to be safe and manageable, must be there consistently (so that people with sight impairment can learn where they are) and temporary/managed such that it can be removed to cater for peak demand, e.g. if a parade or protest comes through or if roadworks need to take place etc. With sandwich boards and seating etc these can be instantly removed by the owner, but with motorcycles this is not the case. The obstructions should also be designed so that a cane can detect them before people with sight impairment walk into them, which is not the case with some motorcycles depending on how they are parked. So regardless of whether there is some space available, that does not mean it is appropriate to use it in the manner that is being proposed as it is contrary to our Footpath Management Policy.

Also in relation to enforcement, there is no dispute that there are some really bad examples out there that the Council must address (currently a minority of situations but increasing) which we currently can not do. I reiterate that the way the law works, we must either apply the same rules to everyone or no-one, otherwise any enforcement measures simply get tossed out of court. It would be nice to continue with applying discretion to most and only dealing with the worst, but that is simply not legally possible as it inconsistently "victimises" a minority group of offenders (who also have some legal rights). In order to be able to deal with the worst of the offenders, our responsibility is to ensure that all riders know what the expectations are of them (and that these expectations are reasonable) and then to apply the law consistently. We are currently carrying out that first step by advising people that there are alternative places that people can park instead, and that continued offending will be dealt with.

It is also worthwhile to note that footpaths are not just used for people to get from A to B. We have designed many "eddy" spaces into our footpaths where people (such as tourists, parents with children & elderly etc) can stop, rest, take shelter from the bustle of the main foot traffic, and deal with things like medical emergencies etc. These spaces are deliberately designed to be out of the flow of traffic, and the intention is to have them open and available for when they are needed. If we were to allow those eddy spaces to be used for motorcycle parking, we would only be left with "thoroughfares" for moving pedestrians, and that would only partially cater for all pedestrian needs. For a good healthy urban streetscape we should not be looking to fill all potential gaps with things - having some open spaces is quite vital to make a dense city such as our "liveable".

[sinned]

I can't argue with any of the points Jon has made. We actually need more eddy spaces around motorcycle parking to allow those of us who want to review, admire and drool over the nice machinery to stop and have time out without impeding the flow of foot traffic.

[Jon Visser]

But, I don't think council should be considering accident statistics in its transport planning, that is the job of other agencies.

As the Road Controlling Authority, it would be completely and utterly irresponsible for us to ignore safety in the management of our roads. Almost everything that we do is primarily focussed around safety.

And, if accident rates were to be considered, walking and cycling would have to discouraged well before motorcycling, as they both have higher accident rates per passenger km than motorcycling.

That is absolutely incorrect. You are six times more likely to have a serious accident on a motorcycle (per kilometre travelled) than any other mode of transport. Also the accident statistics don't mean that any particular mode of transport should be "discouraged", but that everything we do should aim to reduce the likelihood of accidents and injuries happening to those choosing their preferred mode of transport.

You argue that providing a motorcycle park removes a car park.

No, we are saying that a commuter that shifts from car to motorcycle does not free up on-road space but off-road space. We cannot accommodate them on the road so therefore they need to park off the road where the additional parking capacity has been created.

We are also saying that the on-road car parks cater to a specific number of vehicles that have a short-term parking need. Unless there is a change to that need we are not considering modifying the amenity that is currently provided to cater for that need unless it can be shown that there is an over-supply of that amenity. Our occupancy statistics suggest that there is an under-supply in the centre of the CBD (100% occupancy in some areas) with some flexibility around the periphery. For public parking facilities, 85% occupancy is considered "healthy" meaning that people have a reasonable chance of finding a park. Our occupancy figures are on average well over 90%, so it would be extremely difficult to argue that we should be reducing that amenity.

The two types of parking demand are mutually exclusive and both are lobbying for an increase in peak areas. In the CBD, we provide about 3,500 car spaces for about 40,000 short-stay cars (i.e. 8.75%) with fees ranging from $1 to $4 per hour. We provide about 450 motorcycle spaces for 1,000 bikes for free, mostly all-day parkers (i.e. 45%). Those statistics already indicate a massive preferential treatment towards motorcycles. As for cars, any demand in excess of what we can accomodate on the road will need to utilise off-road parking, and that is not an unreasonable expectation given the above statistics and in comparison to other cities.

(e.g. Sydney has about 600 on-road spaces for about 4,500 bikes so only cater for about 13% and expect the rest to park off the road - for many cities they cater for around 10% of motorcycles on the road, so Wellington already has one of the highest percentages and that is therefore not likely to increase much, certainly not to 100%).

[Ixion]

(e.g. Sydney has about 600 on-road spaces for about 4,500 bikes so only cater for about 13% and expect the rest to park off the road - for many cities they cater for around 10% of motorcycles on the road, so Wellington already has one of the highest percentages and that is therefore not likely to increase much, certainly not to 100%).

But does Sydney have this perverse ban on parking anywhere OTHER than a (free) motorcycle park? I don't think so (And BTW, I have seen a SHIT load of bikes parked on footpaths in Sydney)

What that amounts to is , you are saying "You can only park in the free motorcycle park areas , even if you were willing to pay the same fee as a car. But there aren't enough motorcycle parks, and aren't going to be. So you are totally fucked"

It is the refusal to allow motorcycles to use paid street parking, even if they are willing to pay for it that totally destroys the credibility of your arguments. Nor incidentally, can you take a position that motorcyclists are a greedy lot who expect free parking. Obviously, there are a significant number of motorcyclists who ARE willing to pay for parking. Otherwise the bylaw would be unnecessary.

[Ixion]

Sure it may be the cars that take out the rider, but if the rider had been riding in line with the cars in the first place they would have been much less likely to be hit (this discussion has probably been had on other bulletin boards already). While an individual rider may get to their destination quicker than they would if they had been driving a car, this does not mean everybody else does. Some never arrive :-( Unless people have been in an accident or had to deal with the consequences of a rider having an accident they really have no idea what the real cost of such accidents on our community truly are. Some laws really do exist to protect, not to annoy...

As I have said before, it would be great to see a reduction in motorcycle accidents which would make all of their other benefits a lot more compelling as reasons to encourage their use.

Firstly "but if the rider had been riding in line with the cars in the first place they would have been much less likely to be hit" is quite incorrect . You are MORE likely to be hit sitting in line pretending to be a two wheeled car. I'm speaking with over 40 years experience on this. If you sit in line in stagnant traffic (a) you will quickly be rearended (b) you will quickly be sideswiped by some moron who just sees a gap without a car in it and moves into it SMIDSY.

But I think this quote actually strikes to the real WCC agenda.

Motorbikes are evil, dangerous things and we , WCC, are going to do all we can to discourage them. Right?

(BTW Jon, you say that you rode a VT250. Yet you seem notably ignorant of things that bikers with a few years experience all learn. How long did you actually ride?)

[CDFloss]

I think its pretty cool that there's this (parking related) discussion going on. I have free off-street parking provided at work, but if I moved to another CBD-based job, I would have no problem paying a reasonable amount for parking - and by reasonable I mean if a car costs X to park, and we agree that at least 3 bikes can park in the same space (we easily manage more than this at work btw), then I'd expect to pay no more than X/3. Realistically though the Wilson/Tournament/etc will probably see this as an opportunity to charge more than X/3 and thereby increase their return per sq.meter of parking space. I hope not though.

And now for something slightly off-topic...

... In reality, public transport has to lie somewhere in the middle, managing to be neither fuel efficient, or transport efficient...

...The future is personal transport, not public transport. We simply arent rich enough to keep pouring millions and millions of dollars into that black hole.

I totally believe that public transport has its place, and should strive to achieve this mythical "efficiency balance" as far as practically possible. But public transport should not be put forward as an eco-alternative to personal transport, because that is not its place.

I'm all for developing more efficient small cars, motorbikes, etc - as well as other emerging "personal transport" vehicles, but the key to realise is that people will always prefer the independent transportation option (why else are mobility scooters so popular with the grey-brigade once they lose their licenses? The answer is INDEPENDENCE). I used the trains for years, but always resented having to wait for them to arrive on THEIR schedule (pfft!) which was a waste of MY time.

Dave

PS: Where's my f'ing flying car!

[scracha]

If they ride safely (i.e. in line with traffic as they are supposed to do) there is no discernable improvement in traffic flow.

"as they are supposed to do" - says who? You?

I know it's a terrible inconveniece to others when some selfish biker lands on their arse through lane splitting but the fact of the matter is that legally, the car driver is often at fault. Perhaps if you really wanted to see a reduction in motorcycle accidents in Wellington you could distribute pamphlets and posters up to educate all the silly car drivers who deliberately obstruct the path of motorcyclists going about their lawful business.

I won't go into how daft some aspects of the law in NZ is regarding filtering but bikes are supposed to filter (a.k.a. lane split). I take exception to WDC not planning for and including a perfectly legal activity in their traffic management plans. Perhaps if they thought more about motorcyclists and lane splitting when planning and designing the road system in cities there would be less accidents and more discernable improvements in traffic flow. Again, without soundling like a broken record....have a look at how it's done in other cities around the world (and don't cherry pick examples like Frisco that just happen to suit WDC's agenda)

It's also perfectly safe when done properly. On a motorcycle, it's much safer than moving in stop-start bumper to bumper traffic. In fact, in the UK you will fail your driving test if you don't filter in traffic where appropriate.

never arrive :-( Unless people have been in an accident or had to deal with the consequences of a rider having an accident they really have no idea what the real cost of such accidents on our community truly are. Some laws really do exist to protect, not to annoy...

So the real agenda is about reducing Wellington's accident statistics and improving revenue by having the nanny state "protect us" by effectively pricing out and/or making it difficult to park a motorcycle.

My bad, I mistakenly believed it was about improving Wellington's traffic flow?

Ban all bikes, that'll reduce accident statistics. Best reduce the speed limit in town to about 30 and whilst you're at it, ban anyone under 21 from driving.

[davereid]

You are six times more likely to have a serious accident on a motorcycle (per kilometre travelled) than any other mode of transport.

Your statistics placing motorcycles as 6 times more likely per km than walking or cycling do not stack up.

I searched and searched but could not find kiwi figures, but the UK should be at least representative, if not directly comparable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/08/cycle-accidents-road-deaths-rise


646 pedestrians and 136 cyclists killed in 2007.

But the average commuter mileage undertaken by a pedestian is only 200 miles a year, and 36 miles for a cyclist.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/factsheets/walkingfactsheet.pdf
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/factsheets/cyclefactsheet.pdf


609 motorcyclists died in around the same period.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1145589.ece


Clearly, per km, walking is the most dangerous form of transport, and cycling is not far behind.

[Badjelly]

As the Road Controlling Authority, it would be completely and utterly irresponsible for us to ignore safety in the management of our roads. Almost everything that we do is primarily focussed around safety. ... You are six times more likely to have a serious accident on a motorcycle (per kilometre travelled) than any other mode of transport.

I don't want this thread to get diverted more than it already has onto safety (because I think it is a diversion) but I have to ask, can you point me to some references to back up that statement? Specifically in comparison with cycling.

[davebullet]

Our Footpath Management Policy (http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/.../footpath.html) recommends a number of minimum unobstructed widths that we should try to achieve throughout the city....

Thanks for your reply Jon. All your points make sense.

I had a quick skim of the policy (will read in more detail later). It is good to see some numbers provided for minimum footpath widths.

I understand the need for "eddies", but I am sure there are places where the footpath is sufficiently wide, that some motorcycle parking can be accommodated, whilst allowing for space for a flow eddy.

The policy also states that "Retail display stand may extend up to 800mm from the building facade". Assuming the footpath minimum width is not compromised, then many motorcycles or scooters would be about that wide if parked hard against a building. I know you have pointed out that such displays can be immediately removed if required (protests, emergency service work etc...) which is a downfall. However, I would argue that should a car be parked in a way that obstructs protests or emergency service work (since cars would obstruct flow more), the Council would have provisions for towing and the same could be applied to bikes parked on the footpath in these extreme circumstances (all risk on the rider).

I will submit areas using Google maps where I believe some more motorcycle parking could be accommodated, whilst still maintaining the minimum widths and allowing for foot traffic eddies.

[Jon Visser]

What that amounts to is , you are saying "You can only park in the free motorcycle park areas , even if you were willing to pay the same fee as a car. But there aren't enough motorcycle parks, and aren't going to be. So you are totally fucked"

As per one of my previous posts I have added to our list of items to review when we next review the Traffic Bylaw that the ban preventing motorcycles from using Pay & Display spaces for short term parking (i.e. up to two hours) should be removed and replaced with some smarter clauses on how this could be permitted. I am still interested in hearing ideas on how such spaces can be equitably shared between riders so that we: do not end up giving tickets to riders because the one with the reciept has ridden off; charge all riders the full fees for sharing the one space; or only allow one bike to take up a whole space and pay a fraction of the amount due (none of these are sensible or fair to all concerned). Even then, from observation it appears that most of the motorcycles park in the CBD all day and very few come & go. We will carry out some research to verify the ratio a bit more accurately after this campaign is complete, but it is unlikely that allowing motorcycles to use P&D car spaces for up to two hours will address our current problems.

It is the refusal to allow motorcycles to use paid street parking, even if they are willing to pay for it that totally destroys the credibility of your arguments. Nor incidentally, can you take a position that motorcyclists are a greedy lot who expect free parking. Obviously, there are a significant number of motorcyclists who ARE willing to pay for parking. Otherwise the bylaw would be unnecessary.

Again, if people are genuinely willing to pay for parking their motorcycle then it would make an infinite amount of sense that if a commercial parking garage charges $2.50/day for a good space (protected, lit & guaranteed etc) and the cost of using an on-road car space is $4/hr up to 2 hours only then the garage option (for commuters needing all day parking) would be much more appropriate and that is what we are promoting - this would free up on-road space for casual parkers so that they wouldn't need to use car parking spaces.

[Ixion]

..
Again, if people are genuinely willing to pay for parking their motorcycle then it would make an infinite amount of sense that if a commercial parking garage charges $2.50/day for a good space (protected, lit & guaranteed etc) and the cost of using an on-road car space is $4/hr up to 2 hours only then the garage option (for commuters needing all day parking) would be much more appropriate and that is what we are promoting - this would free up on-road space for casual parkers so that they wouldn't need to use car parking spaces.

So, how many of these garages are there in Wellington? And how many square miles does Wellington cover. I'm not going to be impressed by the idea of an hour's trudge in full gear from the nearest parking building to my work place.

Maybe Wellington has hundreds of parking buildings, I don't know. In Auckland , there aren't that many and as you get away from the CBD they get rarer real fast. And I gather that the footpath ban and the can't park in a car space even if willing to pay, extend across the WHOLE of Wellington.

I guess an interesting question would be, if you announced that all CAR on road parking was to be abolished and all car drivers would ave to park in parking buildings, do y' reckon you'd have a riot on your hands?

[Jon Visser]

I understand the need for "eddies", but I am sure there are places where the footpath is sufficiently wide, that some motorcycle parking can be accommodated, whilst allowing for space for a flow eddy.

Agreed, and that is why we have been able to use discretion for some time while only a few bikes were parking in this manner. Due to the sheer magnitude of the numbers now doing so and the rising level of complaints from the public, building owners and retailers, we appear to be reaching a point where the amount used is in excess of what the public consider acceptable.

The policy also states that "Retail display stand may extend up to 800mm from the building facade". Assuming the footpath minimum width is not compromised, then many motorcycles or scooters would be about that wide if parked hard against a building.

Just a note on the retail display dimensions: displays may not extend more than 500mm onto public footpath. Sometimes there is a strip of public footpath that is actually owned by the adjacent private property owner, so the actual building facade may be set back from the property boundary. It has been raised that this space is "private property" that could be used for parking. Technically it is still public road and can be managed as such (i.e. infringement notices could be issued and building owners can get bikes towed etc). There are quite a few places like outside the police station and the example someone raised in Willis Street where it is OK to park like that and also some like outside ANZ that are not OK with either the building owner or the Council). Therefore to use it for motorcycle parking, you would need to:
1) Get building owner permission before starting to use it
2) Building owner would need to clear with us whether this was appropriate (as such spaces are still considered as "public footpath" and usually there is a requirement under various easements, encroachments or laws to keep such spaces clear of obstructions, especially "corner splays" - the 45 degree sections of building removed at intersections typically for sight lines).
3) If considered appropriate we would usually require installation of things like planter boxes or bollards etc so that the area is clearly defined, people with sight impairment can reasonably find their way around that location regardless of whether bikes are present, and only the approved area is used and does not spread to un-approved areas thereby blocking accessways etc.

When looking for suitable spaces to propose, you should only consider such "private property" spaces and ideally where there is a vehicle crossing adjacent. As previously advised, it is extremely unlikely that we will be marking any sections of footpath as suitable for motorcycles to park on, as this would be contrary to the Council's Footpath Management Policy.

I know you have pointed out that such displays can be immediately removed if required (protests, emergency service work etc...) which is a downfall. However, I would argue that should a car be parked in a way that obstructs protests or emergency service work (since cars would obstruct flow more), the Council would have provisions for towing and the same could be applied to bikes parked on the footpath in these extreme circumstances (all risk on the rider).

We don't particularly want to tow if we can avoid it, in emergency situations that may not even be possible or practical (or may even make it worse) and legally we cannot tow for many situations (i.e. planned events/activities) unless there was a 48-hour prior notice provided to vehicles in the way of signs etc. For defined parking spaces on the road this is easy as we simply put up a sign by the car park and barrier it off in advance of the works or activity taking place. With the footpaths we cannot do that, as firstly we would not know where to put the signs, secondly there is very limited space to put up any traffic signs on the footpath, thirdly it makes no sense to put up "no parking" signs on a public footpath where it is already illegal to park anyway, and lastly it would be unreasonable to barricade off the fooptath for the entire day on the offchance that people may be parking illegally there if we're not going to be carrying out the work until later in the afternoon etc. Sure we could go to significant lengths (at ratepayers' expense) to try and find clever work-arounds to all of these issues, but the bottom line is that if people were not parking illegally in the first place then that would not be required.

[magicmonkey]

I searched and searched but could not find kiwi figures, but the UK should be at least representative, if not directly comparable.

You really can't apply UK crash figured to NZ in any way shape or form. To start with people drive very differently in the UK, the environment is vastly different, the level of training completely different...