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

[Jon Visser]

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)

Sydney is experiencing exectly the same types of issues as Wellington, i.e. massive growth in numbers, increased on-road parking bays as much as possible, trialled payment options but found that Pay & Display receipts don't work, problems with motorcycles & scooters parkingon the footpath and commencing with plans to address this behaviour just like Wellington is:
http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/About...anStrategy.PDF

Check out section 9, especially 9.3:
"the City of Sydney has provided more than 500 free and dedicated motorcycle
spaces in the CBD, most of which have been installed in the previous two years in response to rider
requests. The majority of the dedicated motorcycle parking in central Sydney is currently unrestricted.
Motorcyclists are now the only motorists with access to dedicated on-street commuter parking. All other
on-street parking spaces available to general drivers are timed pay parking spaces for short stays. Car
drivers wishing to commute to central Sydney must use off-street spaces. Despite the provision of more
than 500 on-street commuter spaces, demand for further motorcycle parking is high and growing. Riders
wishing to rely on on-street parking to commute are having to arrive earlier each morning to secure a
space. It is not however feasible for the supply of on-street motorcycle parking to continue to grow at
recent rates. Given the competing demands for the allocation of the limited kerbside parking and the
growth in motorcycle usage, it is not possible to continue to increase the supply of parking and to remain
ahead of demand for free unrestricted parking on the streets of central Sydney."
"The physical conditions which allow footpath parking in Melbourne differ from those found in Sydney.
Whereas Melbourne’s road reservations are 30-40m in width across much of the CBD, most reservations
in Sydney are 20m, and footpaths are generally no more than 3.6m wide. In Melbourne, the Victorian
Motorcycle Advisory Council recommends that motorcycles are parked at least one vehicle length from
the building line, and at least one wheel diameter from the kerb. This maintains access to the building line
for vision-impaired pedestrians. A motorcycle parked in compliance with these guidelines on a typical
Sydney footpath would frequently obstruct the main travel path for pedestrians, or obstruct secondary
pedestrian spaces such as near street trees or street furniture.
Footpath motorcycle parking also has the potential to conflict with the strategic goals outlined in the
Sustainable Sydney 2030 plan. Improving the public domain and the experience of outdoor life in the CBD
will require increased pedestrianisation, reduced footpath clutter, higher standards of urban design and
measures to reduce the noise and amenity impact of motor vehicles. The City has already begun working
to achieve these goals by rationalising signage on the footpath and developing a trial system of on-street
markings for parking controls.
The City’s proposed changes to ticket parking will provide a convenient alternative to footpath parking,
and will reduce the incidence of unauthorised footpath parking in central Sydney. In addition, the trial of
secure anchor points in inner neighbourhoods will provide motorcyclists with a safe alternative to locking
bikes against poles or fences."

[huff3r]

So in order to ensure our footpaths are free for people to walk on, you require more people to walk further on our footpaths? (i.e from a far-away parking building, or similar)
The biggest issue here is not the number of bikers, but the number of pedestrians :P

[Jon Visser]

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

My claim is based on extensive research conducted by the New Zealand Transport Agency:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rashfacts.aspx

"Motorcycle Crash Facts
Last updated on 28/05/2009 10:03 a.m.

Motorcyclists face a number of risk factors that do not affect car drivers. The main risk factors are decreased stability and a much lower level of occupant protection than is provided by a car. In addition, a motorcycle is less visible to other road users than a car or a truck. These factors together give motorcycling a higher level of risk per kilometre travelled than other modes of transport.

Motorcycle Crash Facts 2008 contains the latest summary of motorcycle crash data including graphs and tables.

Download a copy of Motorcycle Crash Facts 2008 (PDF v7.0, 287kb) or email info@MOT.govt.nz."

Further information about road safety in NZ can be found here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/

Although you can argue about the detailed statistics as they relate to fatalities, serious accidents or all accidents for each mode of transport, the facts speak for themselves - motorycles are the most risky mode of transport in New Zealand.
"The New Zealand Travel Survey indicates that, on average, the risk of being involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 18 times higher for a motorcyclist than for a car driver over the same distance travelled (2003-2007 data)"

The data sheet goes on to say that the recent trends are that motorcycle accidents are occurring more frequently to older age groups and lower CC ratings, especially scooters, and that in most cases the rider was at fault. The statistics correlate scarily with the increase in inexperienced riders using 50CC bikes (with no motorcycle licence required) during rush hour commuter traffic (i.e. the experienced riders with the large bikes are actually getting safer).

Sobering reading for riders...? Everything in the world is in a balance, typically between dollars and risk - while riding a motorcycle may be a lot cheaper and much better for the environment, this is offset by increased risk to the rider (i.e. while most benefit financially, others pay the ultimate price). For some people that risk, living life on the edge, may be entirely acceptable to them (for me that was certainly the case and why I rode bikes when I was younger, though I never graduated to a real bike :-).

[Jon Visser]

So in order to ensure our footpaths are free for people to walk on, you require more people to walk further on our footpaths? (i.e from a far-away parking building, or similar)
The biggest issue here is not the number of bikers, but the number of pedestrians :P

We're talking about Wellington here, where the parking buildings are only a few steps away from where most people work...

[Leseid]

In an ideal Wellington City we would have separate moped and motorcycle parks as each requires a unique parking formation. Moped parks can be placed on narrower roads as they aren't all that long and can all park perpendicular to the curbing. Motorcycle parks can be left where they are if all the mopeds left the motorcycle parks, then all the motorcycles can park in a more uniform formation requiring less space.

There's little money to be made from motorcycle parking so if I where the council I wouldn't really do anything about it. All the mopeds parked in motorcycle parks are good for the cafes that pay rates.

There's human progress for you, it all comes down to money.

[davereid]

My claim is based on extensive research conducted by the New Zealand Transport Agency:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rashfacts.aspx

Its still wrong !.

That data compares motorcyclists to cars and trucks.

My comparison was with pedestrians and cyclists.

I have researched it, and I simply can't find any N.Z. data to compare motorcyclists to cyclists or pedestrians on a comparable basis. If you can, I'd love to read it !

But, its actually a diversion from the real topic - I was merely attempting to introduce the idea that a transport planner for a council had no place using council policy to reduce the number of users of a particular transport class in the interest of "safety".

I completely agree that as a transport planner you have to make things as safe as you can for any user of the road or footpath, its clearly an important part of your role.

The key fact, at least for me, is that your own data shows people are choosing motorcycles, over cars trains and trams. But the council has not introduced viable parking options to meet the demand.

The problem appears to be simple....

a) Council has chosen pay-and-display over simple parking meters, as pay and display makes much more money.

b) Motorcycles were not considered, as they can't pay-and-display.

c) Council has dealt with this by banning motorcycles from pay and display, but now don't know how to actually go about generating revenue from bikes.

But its all OK. Ratepayers will easily find millions of dollars to subsidise environmentally unsound, unsuatainable public transport, in the public interest.

And motorcylists will be carefully considered in future planning.

Yeah Right.


[EDIT - I found some N.Z. data ...

30% of road deaths in urban areas are pedestrians and cyclists
[*]- Source NZ Government http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...Final_ISBN.pdf
]

[sinned]

We're talking about Wellington here, where the parking buildings are only a few steps away from where most people work...

My observation and conjecture is that, Wellington pedestrians will mostly be those who arrive and leave the CBD by public transport. Those using public car parks probably don't walk very far.

[Clockwork]

But, its actually a diversion from the real topic - I was merely attempting to introduce the idea that a transport planner for a council had no place using council policy to reduce the number of users of a particular transport class in the interest of "safety".

+1

10chars

[James Deuce]

My claim is based on extensive research conducted by the New Zealand Transport Agency:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rashfacts.aspx

"Motorcycle Crash Facts
Last updated on 28/05/2009 10:03 a.m.

Motorcyclists face a number of risk factors that do not affect car drivers. The main risk factors are decreased stability and a much lower level of occupant protection than is provided by a car. In addition, a motorcycle is less visible to other road users than a car or a truck. These factors together give motorcycling a higher level of risk per kilometre travelled than other modes of transport.

Motorcycle Crash Facts 2008 contains the latest summary of motorcycle crash data including graphs and tables.

Download a copy of Motorcycle Crash Facts 2008 (PDF v7.0, 287kb) or email info@MOT.govt.nz."

Further information about road safety in NZ can be found here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/

Although you can argue about the detailed statistics as they relate to fatalities, serious accidents or all accidents for each mode of transport, the facts speak for themselves - motorycles are the most risky mode of transport in New Zealand.
"The New Zealand Travel Survey indicates that, on average, the risk of being involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 18 times higher for a motorcyclist than for a car driver over the same distance travelled (2003-2007 data)"

The data sheet goes on to say that the recent trends are that motorcycle accidents are occurring more frequently to older age groups and lower CC ratings, especially scooters, and that in most cases the rider was at fault. The statistics correlate scarily with the increase in inexperienced riders using 50CC bikes (with no motorcycle licence required) during rush hour commuter traffic (i.e. the experienced riders with the large bikes are actually getting safer).

Sobering reading for riders...? Everything in the world is in a balance, typically between dollars and risk - while riding a motorcycle may be a lot cheaper and much better for the environment, this is offset by increased risk to the rider (i.e. while most benefit financially, others pay the ultimate price). For some people that risk, living life on the edge, may be entirely acceptable to them (for me that was certainly the case and why I rode bikes when I was younger, though I never graduated to a real bike :-).

It's not sobering at all. What's sobering is the implication that other road users rely on the protection of a crash cell and are quite OK with hitting another road user with their vehicle, either through a lack of skill or deliberate action.

Pedestrians and cyclists have always had the roughest deal in terms of road users in NZ. They are undertaking by far the riskiest road user activity, not motorcycling. I hear no cries to enforce safety clothing for pedestrians, nor do I see traffic planners banning pedestrians and cyclists or even enforcing a ban on jaywalking.

New York reduced pedestrian injury and death with the simple expedient of beat cops who are willing to shoot you for jaywalking.

I'm not giving you carte blanche to shoot motorcyclists by the way, though I do regret planting the seed.

[bezajel]

(...) We are currently trialling a new technology like SmartPark (...) Wardens simply scan the barcode and their hand-held gadget shows whether the barcode has been activated for the correct area and they have not exceeded the maximum limit.

This doesn't seem to get past the problem of how two motorcyclists can use the same park without both paying. Unless by "activated for the correct area" this means the 'system' knows the park is paid for for a certain amount of time, and a second motorcycle arriving could simply pay for any excess time they intend to stay. In fact, having a bar-code for each bike would be redundant, if the park had a code, and the user sent a text (or something) to pay for that park until a certain time, they would only be charged for time that has not already been paid for (i.e. it doesn't matter who pays for the park). Wardens could then use their thingie to check whether the park had been paid for. This would be like a metered system without a physical meter - just done automagically through whatever technology SmartPark would use. (Then the only problem is the technology failing, but that's another issue..)

(...)You will see on-street parking for bikes disappear very shortly.(...)

None of the car parking companies will let you share a park with other bikes. I've already asked Wilson Parking if I could do that with my employer paid for carpark, but they'll only do it if the other guys pay the same monthly rate for the park.

As far as I can remember, this first point hasn't actually been suggested by Jon at all. Jon - can we get some sort of words around the Council's commitment to maintaining the on-street parking we currently have?

As for the second point - this seems to be contrary to the Council's intent. Can you use some sort of sway in communicating to the car-parking companies that this is unacceptable? In fact, I suspect it is not legal to charge more on a per car-park basis for motorcycles than for cars. I.e. if my partner and I come in together in the car, we pay once for one space; however if we come together on our bikes, we would have to pay for the same space twice.

(...) 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).(...)

(...)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".

I understand the dilemma in the first point - however I don't see how it's not legally possible to CONTINUE - i.e. you've managed to legally apply discretion in the past, but it's no longer legal to apply discretion?

As for the second point, this is really really important. I'm a bit concerned with suggestions that green spaces should be converted to parking.

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 might have missed this somewhere, but what are the time-frames we are talking about for different stages of this project/these reviews? For example, when might we expect to see bylaws changed, new motorcycle parks created in identified spots, etc.? Obviously you're consulting at the moment, but it's hard from this end to know whether our input has actually been considered, if we don't see any suggestions implemented in a certain timeframe - so my question is, what should the expected timeframe be and what steps are there between you thinking something is a good idea and us seeing it happen on the street? I hope you will keep us updated on these issues as we go through.

It's not sobering at all. What's sobering is the implication that other road users rely on the protection of a crash cell and are quite OK with hitting another road user with their vehicle, either through a lack of skill or deliberate action. (...)

I know it's getting off-topic, but this I think is one of the key issues for motorcycle (and cyclist and pedestrian) safety, especially in urban areas where car drivers are more often at fault for accidents, and there's some great research out there about risk cultures and perceptions of threat. What I don't know is how/if this can be changed. I'm sure it won't have anything to do with parking, so the topic for another thread I suspect.

[BMWST?]

i think all this is getting completely over the top.... we are talking about a coupon or sticker...the infrastructure already exists for coupon parking...get a coupon printed up valid say for a month or whatever....Make it of a size like a warrant of fitness or registration sticker,we already have holders for those,and they would be easy to mount on a handlebar, triple clamp, or mirror mount or even stick on a number plate...any bike parked in a pay and display spot (or wherever ) without a coupon...bang ticketed.It would have to be legal of course for ONE bike to be in a pay and display spot,but once one bike is there four or five bikes could join it there.In fact the above solution would work for the current pay and display coupons..

[James Deuce]

i think all this is getting completely over the top.... we are talking about a coupon or sticker...the infrastructure already exists for coupon parking...get a coupon printed up valid say for a month or whatever....Make it of a size like a warrant of fitness or registration sticker,we already have holders for those,and they would be easy to mount on a handlebar, triple clamp, or mirror mount or even stick on a number plate...any bike parked in a pay and display spot (or wherever ) without a coupon...bang ticketed.It would have to be legal of course for ONE bike to be in a pay and display spot,but once one bike is there four or five bikes could join it there.In fact the above solution would work for the current pay and display coupons..

Do you commute and is commuting on a motorcycling made at least partially financially possible due to free parking?

Coupon solutions for motorcycles aren't supported by WCC because of the "ease of tampering" defence. I have pointed out during the last round of "get the hell out of our city you greasy freeloaders" parking consultation that very few people have things like WoFs or Rego or even license plates removed from their motorcycles, so it is unlikely that a coupon holder similar to a WoF holder will be fiddled with.

Not supported by WCC.

Though that may of course be viewed differently now and it would be a welcome change of policy.

Since this discussion has come up, one of the tenants (a Govt Dept) in the building where I work has made moves to remove motorcycles from the under building carpark as "cars are being damaged", and they are citing concerns about over crowding "because the Council told them that most of the bike parks near here will be removed in the near future".

It may be over the top, and I'm sure that what I was told above is hearsay, but it concerns me that rather than make more parks available in response to reportedly being told that on street parking will be limited soon, at least one Government department is making moves to prevent their staff commuting via motorcycle, or at least make it more difficult to do so.

I know Mr Visser thinks that parking 1km fromwork is acceptable, but the reality is that for motorcyclists, walking a kilometer in boots that aren't designed for it, carrying the clobber you need for a day at work, can prove to be awkward to the point of dissuading some from bothering. Like me.

[BMWST?]

Do you commute and is commuting on a motorcycling made at least partially financially possible due to free parking?

Coupon solutions for motorcycles aren't supported by WCC because of the "ease of tampering" defence. I have pointed out during the last round of "get the hell out of our city you greasy freeloaders" parking consultation that very few people have things like WoFs or Rego or even license plates removed from their motorcycles, so it is unlikely that a coupon holder similar to a WoF holder will be fiddled with.

Not supported by WCC.

Though that may of course be viewed differently now and it would be a welcome change of policy.

Since this discussion has come up, one of the tenants (a Govt Dept) in the building where I work has made moves to remove motorcycles from the under building carpark as "cars are being damaged", and they are citing concerns about over crowding "because the Council told them that most of the bike parks near here will be removed in the near future".

It may be over the top, and I'm sure that what I was told above is hearsay, but it concerns me that rather than make more parks available in response to reportedly being told that on street parking will be limited soon, at least one Government department is making moves to prevent their staff commuting via motorcycle, or at least make it more difficult to do so.

I know Mr Visser thinks that parking 1km fromwork is acceptable, but the reality is that for motorcyclists, walking a kilometer in boots that aren't designed for it, carrying the clobber you need for a day at work, can prove to be awkward to the point of dissuading some from bothering. Like me.

I do commute but i go the other way.If i worked in the city i would use the bike,and the free parking aspect appeals,but if i had to pay i would expect a bike parking coupon to be about 1/4 of a car parking coupon.If the council want to start charging then they have to be open to ways to do it,and surely the first step has to be a ticket or coupon system...its the simplest way.The tampering defence on the part of the council is bullshit.Keep the receipt for the coupon...and provide that as proof or purchase if your coupon does go missing and you get ticketed.As far as the other aspect goes "at least one Government department is making moves to prevent their staff commuting via motorcycle, or at least make it more difficult to do so",the people who suggested that to me would get told very firmly to mind their own business,or human rights violations are in order.Damage to cars....prove it.....etc etc

[Squiggles]

Even then, from observation ...

Has the council actually done a count of the number of bikes entering the cbd? and on the length of their stays? I know the Auckland city council had not a clue as to the number of bikes entering and exiting daily.

[StoneY]

In addition, a motorcycle is less visible to other road users than a car or a truck. These factors together give motorcycling a higher level of risk per kilometre travelled than other modes of transport.

Dude- I was a truck driver for 5 years- that statement is utter bullshit

Motorcycles are JUST as visible- assholes in cages just dont LOOK for them, or arrogantly ignore the fact they HAVE seen them and fail to give way

I have had no less than four cars this year alone deliberatly pull out on me and flip me the bird (right they couldnt SEE me im not AS VISIBLE)