Parking Study Research Report - City of Subiaco Study Research Report 223694 Final | 12th September...

City of Subiaco

Parking Study Research Report

223694

Final | 12th September 2012

This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied

upon by any third party and no responsibility

is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 223694

Arup

Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup

Level 7

Wellington Central

836 Wellington St

West Perth WA, 6005

Australia

www.arup.com

223694 | Final | 12th September 2012 | Arup

J:\223000\223694\WORK\2 - REPORTS\SUBIACO PARKING STUDY RESEARCH_FINAL.DOCX

Document Verification

Job title Parking Strategy Development Job number

223694

Document title Parking Study Research Report File reference

Document ref 223694

Revision Date Filename Document2

Draft 1 15 Jun

2012 Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name

Danya Alexander,

Hugh Gardner,

Andrew Finch

Danya Alexander Su Groome

Signature

Draft 1 30 Jul

2012 Filename Subiaco Parking Strategy_draft issue.docx

Description Second draft


Name Hugh Gardner Danya Alexander Su Groome

Signature

Final Draft 5 Sept

2012 Filename Subiaco Parking Strategy_Final Draft.docx

Description Incorporates feedback from City of Subiaco officers


Name Ikumi Nakanishi Danya Alexander Danya Alexander

Signature

Final 12 Sept

2012 Filename Subiaco Parking Study Research_Final.docx

Description Incorporates final feedback from City of Subiaco officers.


Name Ikumi Nakanishi Rachel Crockett Danya Alexander

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

City of Subiaco Parking Study Research Report



Contents

Page

Glossary of Terms 1

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Study Background 2

1.2 Purpose and Objectives 2

1.3 Study Area 2

2 Methodology 4

2.1 Literature Review 4

2.2 Site Investigations 4

2.3 Stakeholder and Community Engagement 4

3 Context 10

3.1 Current Parking Management Approach 10

3.2 Land Use and Key Features 10

3.3 Parking Needs 11

3.4 Future Trends 12

4 Outcomes and Findings 15

4.1 Core Issues 15

4.2 Aspects for Review 16

5 Longer Term Considerations 36

5.1 On-Site Parking Provision 36

5.2 Off-Street Public Parking 36

5.3 Patersons Stadium 37

5.4 Light Rail 38

5.5 Moving to a More Sustainable Future 38

6 Recommendations 39

7 Conclusions 50

8 References 52

Appendices

Appendix A

Engagement framework




Appendix B

Parking survey form

Appendix C

Stakeholder engagement

Appendix D

Stakeholder workshop feedback survey responses

Tables

Table 1 Workshop dates and attendance ................................................................ 8

Table 2 User groups and parking needs ............................................................... 12

Table 3 Aspects for review and core issues ......................................................... 16

Table 4 Current time controls ............................................................................... 17

Table 5 Comparison of parking charges across metropolitan Perth ..................... 21

Table 6 Parking systems used in other jurisdictions ............................................ 21

Table 7 Key recommendations ............................................................................. 40

Figures

Figure 1 Study area ................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2 Collaborative map interface .................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Overview of collaborative map responses across the city ....................... 7

Figure 4 Annual rail boardings tram and train ..................................................... 14

Figure 5 Zone 1 - Summary of time controls ....................................................... 18

Figure 6 Zone 2 – Summary of time controls ...................................................... 19

Figure 7 Zone 3 – Summary of time controls ...................................................... 20

Figure 8 Collaborative map feedback on „shorter restrictions‟ ........................... 23

Figure 9 Collaborative map feedback on „paying for parking‟ ............................ 23

Figure 10 Collaborative map feedback on „more enforcement‟ .......................... 26

Figure 11 Examples of parking availability information ..................................... 31

Figure 12 Parking on both sides of streets and on verges causes traffic safety issues ...................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 13 Correlation between visibility, carriageway width and vehicle speeds ............................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 14 Demand cycles various land uses with differing peaks ....................... 37




Page 1

Glossary of Terms

ABS: Australian Bureau of Statistics

AFL: Australian Football League

CAT: Central Area Transit. Free and high frequency bus services run by PTA that operate in

areas of high activity, including Perth city and Fremantle.

CBD: Central Business District

CPP: City of Perth Parking

PTA: Public Transport Authority, Western Australia

QEII Medical Centre: Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre

TOD: Transit Oriented Development

UWA: University of Western Australia, Crawley campus

WAPC: Western Australian Planning Commission




Page 2

1 Introduction

Arup was appointed by the City of Subiaco to undertake research, analysis and consultation to inform development of a parking management strategy covering the entire local government area. Integral to the preparation of the strategy was an extensive community and stakeholder engagement process in order to understand the nature and scale of issues to be addressed by the strategy. Arup‟s report will inform development of a strategy by the city for Elected Members‟ endorsement.

The scope of the strategy includes parking now and over the next ten years.

1.1 Study Background

In 2010 the city embarked on the Think2030 community visioning process which involved extensive engagement with the community as a prerequisite to the development of the city‟s Strategic Community Plan and subsequent Corporate Business Plan.

During this process, parking was revealed as a high priority issue facing the community including visitors and workers. Comments reflected the challenges being experienced in many inner city areas throughout the Perth metropolitan area, Australia and internationally – a desire for more readily available and cheaper car parking but a desire for less traffic on the city‟s streets.

In response to this feedback, the city instigated this study to inform development of a parking management strategy. This study is the first in recent years to cover the entire city and builds on various background parking studies that have concentrated on particular issues or areas within the city. A full list of the background documents is provided in Section 8: References.

The study does not include comment on parking provision rates for development applications as these rates are under review as part of the town planning scheme update which is taking place concurrently.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

This report provides an overview of current parking characteristics, identifies key issues and recommends ways to address these issues. It is a reference document for developing a parking programme for the next ten years. The key objectives of this study are as follows:

Engage with all aspects of the community – residents, workers, students and visitors - to identify the nature and scale of parking related issues, building on the feedback provided as part of Think2030.

Draw on local and international leading practice on techniques to address parking management issues.

Develop a strategic document to shape the programme for parking management for the next ten years.

1.3 Study Area

The study has considered the entire City of Subiaco local government area. For the purposes of simplifying the data gathering and analysis exercise, the city was split into three zones (as shown in Figure 1) with the following characteristics:




Page 3

Zone 1: predominantly residential areas with some mixed use around Hay Street. Also includes Patersons Stadium which draws large crowds on AFL match days.

Zone 2: mostly residential land use throughout with recreation uses along the Swan River foreshore. Includes two large institutions – Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Medical Centre and the University of Western Australia Crawley campus (UWA).

Zone 3: Subiaco town centre with surrounding mixed use. The town centre has been identified as a secondary activity centre in current planning strategic document, Directions 2031 and Beyond.

Figure 1 Study area




Page 4

2 Methodology

This section outlines the approach to undertake the research phase of the study.

2.1 Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to gain an understanding of current parking characteristics including supply and demand issues, the procedures for parking enforcement and previous recommendations for the management of parking supply in various locations.

The literature review also encompassed a review of international leading practice to provide context and ideas for parking management approaches that may be appropriate in the City of Subiaco.

A full list of the documents and studies used in the literature review can be found in Section 8: References.

2.2 Site Investigations

Site visits were undertaken throughout the city at various times across the day in order to observe peak versus non peak conditions, parking hotspots and signage and controls. Notes and photos were recorded with a geographical reference. A short intercept survey was undertaken which is discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.3.

2.3 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

2.3.1 Approach

Engagement has been a central focus of this project. The City of Subiaco explicitly required that Arup seek community input to the problems and possible solutions, rather than simply provide technical advice. Use of Arup‟s specialist web-based engagement software – Collaborative Mapping – was an essential and successful tool in achieving this outcome.

In the inception stage of the project Arup developed an engagement framework that was reviewed with city staff. This framework informed development of engagement activities across the project. It is attached at Appendix A. Throughout the project Arup worked very closely with the city‟s community engagement team to plan and conduct the engagement activities. Arup acknowledges and appreciates the support and expertise generously offered by this team.

Integral to the consultation approach was the notion of gathering inputs from the community in advance of hosting interactive workshops. This enabled the project team to have a good grasp of the issues and develop preliminary ideas on solutions to table with workshop attendees.

The key engagement activities are summarised below. The findings and outcomes of the engagement activities are detailed in relevant sections of the report.

2.3.2 Information Dissemination by Subiaco Project Team

The city took responsibility for dissemination of information about the project to community members, which included:




Page 5

Newspaper items and updates throughout the project

Display at the city‟s library

Flyers, posters at the city‟s civic offices

A flyer distributed to all households and businesses

Emails to targeted stakeholders

Information and links on the city‟s website.

2.3.3 Intercept Surveys

A very small number of intercept surveys were conducted by Arup staff during the site investigation phase. These consisted of asking people who were leaving or approaching their parked car a small number of questions designed to understand why they were parking in that location, whether the parking bay/location met their needs and their overall impression of parking in Subiaco.

Time constraints limited the number of intercept surveys completed.

2.3.4 Collaborative Mapping

The City of Subiaco utilised Arup‟s Collaborative Mapping tool to invite community input to parking issues and possible solutions across the city (refer to Figure 2). The mapping survey tool was online from 11

th April to 9

th May and was open to any person, regardless of where

they lived. It was advertised on the city‟s website, in the media and in project materials sent to residents and businesses.

In total the site collected 772 comments. It attracted 1,349 visits, of which 67% (863) were unique. Users were able to comment on multiple locations if they wished.

A mail out to all households in the city also provided basic information on how people could provide comment through the online survey. People without access to a computer could request a hard copy form. The form was the same format as the collaborative map and data from the form was transferred to the online map by staff at the city. This meant that there was a single database of information.

A copy of the survey form is provided at Appendix B.

Figure 3 shows the locations where comments were received during the collaborative mapping process. This includes feedback provided from the online survey and hard copy forms. Each individual comment is mapped by user type and concentrations of activity highlighted in orange-yellow. The greatest concentration of comments occurred in Subiaco town centre (along Rokeby Road), Subi Centro and a number of streets in Shenton Park.




Page 6

Figure 2 Collaborative map interface




Page 7

Figure 3 Overview of collaborative map responses across the city




Page 8

2.3.5 Institutional Stakeholders

Arup met with representatives of WA Health and the University of Western Australia to discuss current parking issues adjacent to their properties and the possible impact or benefit of proposed projects. Notes from these discussions are attached in Appendix C.

2.3.6 Community Workshops

A series of community workshops were planned to engage with the community about the project findings and the proposed solutions. The city was divided into three zones (refer to Figure 1) and initially people who had responded to the collaborative mapping exercise were invited to the workshops for these zones. There was quite a low level of response and so an open invitation was extended via the local newspapers.

In total, four community workshops were conducted and each was attended by between ten and twenty people, with a total of 57 attendees (refer to Table 1). The workshops were structured to gain community views on a number of options that were being considered and enabled attendees to add other ideas. The workshop schedule is shown in Table 1.

The overall response to the workshops by attendees was very positive. A total of 46 of the 57 attendees completed an evaluation form and all respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the workshops were well run. The sessions were interactive and the success of the sessions centred on the ability for people to contribute. The vast majority (99%) of respondents felt they were able to express opinions and provide feedback on topics. Some attendees felt that more time was warranted to sufficiently cover the topics. The feedback form summary is provided in Appendix D.

Table 1 Workshop dates and attendance

Zone Date of workshop Number of

attendees

Zone 1 Thursday 31st May

6.00 – 8.30pm

11

Zone 2 Thursday 7th

June

6.00 – 8.30pm

22

Zone 2 Saturday 9th

June

10.00 am- 12.30pm

Cancelled due to

poor response

Zone 3 Saturday 9th

June

2.00 – 4.30pm

12

Zone 3 Rescheduled from Tuesday 12th

June due

to severe weather warning

Wednesday 20th

June

6.00 – 8.30pm

12




Page 9

2.3.7 Drop-in Day

A Drop-In Day was also scheduled, initially intended to be at the conclusion of all workshops, to summarise workshop feedback and allow people who could not attend the workshops to review the feedback and provide their own.

This was conducted on Saturday 16th

June between 10.00am and 2.00pm. Approximately 16 people attended.

2.3.8 Staff Consultation at City of Subiaco

A specific staff workshop was conducted on 20th

June. This workshop was conducted in the same format as the community workshops and provided staff with an opportunity to add operational perspectives to the options review.

Approximately 20 staff attended from the development services directorate, including staff from Field Services, Planning and Building and Health branches.

Briefings were also held with the rangers throughout the project to keep them informed.

2.3.9 Consultations with Elected Members

A workshop was held with the Elected Members on 3rd

July. This was designed to summarise the feedback of community consultation and provide a forum for the Elected Members to discuss and evaluate the various options in a similar manner to the workshops held with the community.




Page 10

3 Context

This section provides the context for preparing a parking strategy for the City of Subiaco.

3.1 Current Parking Management Approach

The city‟s current approach to parking management can be summarised as follows:

Short term parking is concentrated in Subiaco town centre and neighbourhood centres.

Longer term parking is located more remote from and on the periphery of centres.

Restrictions are in place in streets to prevent all day parking in residential precincts around key areas of activity. In most cases a two hour restriction applies.

Special restrictions apply to on-street parking on match days within 1.5 km of Patersons Stadium.

Residents can apply for a permit exempting them from time controls (certain conditions apply for qualifying for a permit).

Commercial parking permits are available to assist trades.

Off-street paid parking (first hour free shopper parking).

Bay detection technology and guidance system are in place in certain locations (e.g. Rowland Street‟s car station 13).

Public and private providers of parking operate in Subiaco.

A number of acts, regulations and policy statements control the provision, management and enforcement of parking as follows:

Local Government Act 1995

Parking Facilities Local Law

Road Traffic Code

Australian Standards

Policy and Management Procedure

Fines, Penalties and Infringement Enforcement Act 1994

Local Government (Parking for Disabled Persons) Regulations 1994.

The Swan River Trust manages parking contained within the land reserved under the planning scheme „Swan River Trust Area‟ along the Swan River to the east of Hackett Drive. UWA manages their own onsite parking and have a system in place so that they can match parking pricing with those set by the City of Subiaco without going through the University‟s Senate (which can be a lengthy process).

3.2 Land Use and Key Features

As an inner city locality, Subiaco is host to a number of key land uses and features as follows:

Patersons Stadium

Lords Recreation Centre

QEII Medical Centre




Page 11

Princess Margaret Hospital

King Edward Memorial Hospital

University of Western Australia Crawley Campus and associated residential colleges

Swan River foreshore

The Subiaco town centre and various neighbourhood centres

Subiaco train station and adjacent Subi Centro.

The city experiences parking pressures from adjacent local government areas particularly to the west (e.g. Hampden Road in Nedlands, QEII Medical Centre and Hollywood Hospital), north (e.g. St John of God Hospital in Town of Cambridge) and east (e.g. City of Perth and in particular access to the Free Transit Zones which traverses from East Perth to Thomas Street).

The predominant R-coding for residential areas is R20 however there are places of higher density (R50 or greater) including along and north of Hay Street, Subiaco, along Thomas Street/Winthrop Avenue, Shenton Park/Nedlands, sections of Onslow Road, Shenton Park and pockets around the UWA). Higher levels of parking activity are therefore expected in these locations.

3.3 Parking Needs

There are a number of different parking user groups in the City of Subiaco, each of whom has different parking needs. These groups have been summarised as:

Residents: defined as requiring parking in and around dwellings.

Business owners: who have concerns about parking for staff, client and service providers/deliveries.

Workers: people who work or study in the City of Subiaco and have long term parking requirements.

Short stay parkers: including shoppers, visitors to local businesses, delivery vehicles, tradespersons, diners, football supporters, school parents doing drop-offs, hospital visitors and the like.

Individuals may fit a number of these categories, but their needs vary at different times and places depending on the activity that is generating their need for parking. Some community members consulted in the course of the project identified with several user group at different times in their day or week.

The needs of these four user groups are summarised below.




Page 12

Table 2 User groups and parking needs

User Group Needs

Residents Safe and immediate access to house

Convenient access for visitors

Sufficient unrestricted parking

Safe access/egress to property

Amenity and safety in street

Business Owners

Long term parking for staff

Convenient, flexible and affordable customer parking (between one and three hours)

Access/parking for delivery vehicles

Workers (including students /long stay)

Long term parking

Affordable

Convenient

Safe

Trades: flexibility to park near job as needed

Shoppers (including short stay)

Options for short term parking

Convenient (close to their destination(s))

Affordable (some free)

Safe

Accessible

Easy to find/understand

Very short term bays for drop-off, etc.

3.4 Future Trends

The City of Subiaco is seeking a management strategy that has relevance over the next ten years. It is therefore necessary to consider what the near future could hold in terms of economic growth, development activity, land use and traffic. This outlook is informed by current published research regarding growth in Perth (Committee for Perth, 2012).

The 2011 census highlights unprecedented growth of 14.3% in Western Australia over the past five years (ABS, 2012). Perth is expected to continue to grow rapidly over the coming decades, towards a projected population of between 3.5 – 4.2 million in 2050 (ABS, 2008).

Whilst a significant portion of this growth will be accommodated in the suburbs, Perth city and inner city suburbs will continue to transform with higher density living options. The residential population of the City of Subiaco grew by 6.5% in the census period which is high for an established suburb. Ongoing in-fill development across existing residential areas in Subiaco is likely to see continuing growth and to increase parking demand in streets that are already at capacity. The city will need to manage both expectations and supply to address this issue.




Page 13

It also reasonable to assume resurgent commercial growth in the city within the next ten years, as escalating land (and parking) prices in Perth city improve the viability of development sites in the city. Such development will create additional demand for worker and visitor parking within development sites and/or at centralised sites. The development would also result in a loss of supply at lots currently used for parking.

The city is soon to embark on an activity centre structure planning exercise for the Subiaco town centre that will examine and provide the future direction for activity and urban form including zonings and height limits. Changes in height, density and site cover controls in the city that may result from this exercise could also drive more commercial development.

Retail activity in the Subiaco town centre is reportedly slow at the moment, with a number of traders struggling and several businesses closing during the course of this study. This is consistent with a national trend, which is widely attributed to a combination of the consumer nervousness about global markets and the rise of online shopping (Ernst & Young, 2012). For the purposes of this study it has been assumed that there will be no significant growth in retail floor area over the next ten years. However a growing population should improve patronage of the existing businesses, particularly those providing services to local residents, with a corresponding increase in traffic and demand for parking.

The QEII Medical Centre site contributes significantly to parking issues in the city. There are 5,500 parking bays currently under construction across the site which should achieve a progressive easing of parking tensions. Legislative changes over the past three years place an onus on the hospital to meet parking demand on site in line with new development. It is therefore reasonable to assume that future development of the site will be accompanied by more on-site parking provision.

Since the year 2000, a cap on the overall supply of parking for UWA has been in place. The University controls 3,283 parking bays under the cap. Other bays surrounding the Crawley Campus are contained within the cap (763 bays) but are under local government control. The parking cap is monitored by the WAPC and applies to all parking except residential. UWA has plans to have more students living closer to Crawley in order to reduce car dependence. As the campus land area expands the associated parking provisions for teaching and research buildings will be maintained.

A number of key sites in the city may become available for potential redevelopment within the planning period, including Princess Margaret Hospital, Kind Edward Memorial Hospital and Patersons Stadium. These three sites all contribute to parking issues in the city and so a change of use could provide immediate relief to surrounding streets.

It is unlikely that full redevelopment of all three sites would happen in the ten year planning horizon but it is prudent to assume some development will occur. It is envisaged that development on any of the sites would be a mix of residential and commercial activities. If carefully planned, development of these sites has the potential to reduce parking issues by providing extra supply for the city.

The past ten years has seen a small but significant trend in mode shift away from private car travel towards public transport (refer to Figure 4). This trend is most likely influenced by rising fuel costs and growing congestion on roads. It is anticipated this shift will continue to escalate over the coming decade, however in order for this trend to be sustained; the public transport system must keep up with demand and expectations.




Page 14

Figure 4 Annual rail boardings tram and train (‘000) (Newman, 2012)

This trend has two possible implications for the city. Firstly, it should result in increasing use of public transport by local residents and by workers, with some reduction in per capita car use and parking demand. On the other hand it may also increase the attractiveness of the City of Subiaco as a “Park and Ride” area, with workers looking for all-day parking near public transport services.

The draft document „Public Transport for Perth in 2031‟ identifies two light rail services through the city. A service operating from Perth city to UWA via Thomas Street, QEII Medical Centre and Broadway is proposed as a Stage 1 project, to be implemented pre-2020. Concept design for this service is underway but funding is yet to be committed. The significance of this project is that it is expected to see a mode shift to public transport for people accessing QEII Medical Centre and UWA. A Stage 2 light rail project would see a service connect from Stirling and Glendalough through Subiaco, QEII Medical Centre and terminating at UWA. This service would travel via Subiaco but a route is yet to be defined. The PTA is also exploring improved bus priority access from Perth city to UWA.

The significance of these public transport improvements is a shift from private vehicle travel, however demand for park and ride around transit stops will need to be managed.




Page 15

4 Outcomes and Findings

4.1 Core Issues

Three core issues have emerged from the consultation and situational analysis that are attributed as the root of most issues raised in the collaborative mapping, site investigations and workshops.

The three issues are described below. The ideas and solutions explored in Section 4.2 are primarily directed towards addressing these three issues.

4.1.1 Worker Parking

Demand for free or cheap worker parking is causing many of the impacts on residents, businesses and shoppers in the City of Subiaco. It creates congestion in quiet streets, damages verges and uses short term bays. In addition, for many workers finding affordable all-day parking is a significant problem and barrier to efficient work.

The primary causes of this problem are listed below:

On the whole there is insufficient long term parking across the city to meet the needs of workers (and tertiary students). This is particularly acute around the three hospital sites and UWA. It is also a problem around Rokeby Road, Subiaco town centre and Subi Centro.

Shortage of affordable all-day parking around the Subiaco town centre area.

Workers who are looking for free parking in residential streets or short term parking bays to avoid paying for parking. This includes town centre local workers, hospital staff, students and workers from Perth CBD/West Perth who park and ride (using the free transit zones) or park and walk instead of paying for parking closer to their workplace.

As a result of the above, workers are parking illegally on verges, over-staying time controls and “bay-hopping” (periodically moving their cars between short term parking to meet their long term parking needs). These practices impact on road safety and on parking supply for other users.

The construction works at QEII Medical Centre are creating a particular parking crisis, which should ease in the new year as the on-site parking capacity increases. However Shenton Park residents will continue to be impacted by hospital staff who do not want to use the on-site paid parking unless the city intervenes with management responses.

4.1.2 Congestion and Traffic Safety on Residential Streets

Congestion and traffic safety on residential streets was a major issue to emerge from the collaborative mapping and consultation workshops. Residents‟ concerns include safety, amenity and difficulty finding convenient parking for themselves and their visitors. Illegal verge parking or over-staying of time limits, often by workers, causes congestion and impacts on safety and amenity. This is most acute in streets near the hospitals, streets without time controls, narrow streets and streets on a public transport route. This is a major source of frustration and anger for residents in many parts of the city.

Addressing this issue is at the heart of delivering a traffic management strategy that will ease the dissatisfaction of residents.




Page 16

4.1.3 Meeting the Needs of Visitors

The third core theme is the provision of short term parking across the city that meets the needs of users. Shoppers and business owners have identified that parking in shopping and business areas should be more flexible to meet the diverse needs of visitors to the city. Parking is very restricted and unsafe near schools. Short term parking near the hospitals is not long enough for many out-patient visits. Residents in some areas advise their visitors cannot find parking.

4.2 Aspects for Review

This section summarises the outcomes and findings of the research, analysis and consultation activities. The section is presented as five aspects for review (expanded from four themes in the workshops). The five aspects for review reflect the findings of the initial literature review but also correlate with the outcomes of the consultation process.

Table 3 lists the five aspects for review and its correlation with the three identified core issues.

Table 3 Aspects for review and core issues

Aspects for review

Core Issues

Worker Parking Congestion on Residential Streets

Visitor Parking

Time controls and cost

Enforcement

Residential permit scheme

Match supply with demand

Safety/traffic engineering

Final recommendations are not included in this section of the report. They are provided in Section 6.




Page 17

4.2.1 Time Controls and Costs

Current Situation

Time controls are in place for many streets across the city as shown in Figure 5 to Figure 7 for each of the three zones. The general approach to time controls is summarised below.

Table 4 Current time controls

Location Time control

Streets in and immediately adjacent to local centres and activities centres

Generally half hour or one hour free parking

City managed off-street parking adjacent to local centres and activities centres

Two and three hours paid parking, varies according to distance from centre

On-street parking within walking distance of a local centre, activity centre, major employer, transit stop or other parking generator.

Two hours unpaid parking

OR

Residential permit parking only

Residential streets without non-residential demand for parking

No controls

Verge parking No time controls, however, controlled by attendance after resident complaint




Page 18

Figure 5 Zone 1 - Summary of time controls




Page 19

Figure 6 Zone 2 – Summary of time controls




Page 20

Figure 7 Zone 3 – Summary of time controls

All paid parking options are pre-paid rather than pay-on-exit. The cost of paid parking varies between $1 and $2 per hour (at May 2012) depending on length of stay and distance from activity centre.

It is noted that streets between Rosalie Street and Excelsior Street in Shenton Park that do not have parking controls are heavily used by workers, creating frustration for residents. Further, photographs provided by residents in the course of this project combined with the inspections undertaken by the project team, suggest that workers regularly park all-day in streets with timed controls with some examples including the stretch of streets between Derby Road, Shenton Park and Smyth Road, Nedlands.

Leading Practice Review

The time controls and cost of parking managed by the City of Subiaco is comparable to that of other inner city municipalities, such as City of Vincent and Town of Cambridge. It is notably lower than the cost of parking within the City of Perth. However the next ring of municipalities, including Town of Claremont and City of Nedlands offer free, time-limited parking. Charges in the surrounding areas are summarised in Table 5.

Review of parking times around other hospitals suggests that time controls are more often set at three hours to meet the needs of hospital visitors (e.g. St John of God Hospital, Town of Cambridge).

Parking in local government is commonly paid up-front via a ticket issuing machine as is the case in City of Subiaco. The Town of Claremont operates some pay-on-exit multi-deck car parks.




Page 21

Table 5 Comparison of parking charges across metropolitan Perth

On-street Off-street (public parking)

City of Perth

$2.80- $3.40/hour

depending on zone and

time

$2.40-$4.50/hour OR 12

hour max $13.60-$26

(motorcycle parking fees

=33% of cars)

City of Vincent $1.20/hour Some free, others

$2.10/hour, $14 per day

Town of Victoria Park Free

Free but parking charges

are planned to be

introduced.

City of Melbourne $4/hour (approximately)

$5-6/hour or weekday

$40/day, weekend

$12/day

City of Yarra $2.80-3.30/hour $2.80/hour or $8/day

It is commonplace for short term parking to cost more on an hourly basis compared to all day or long term parking. People are paying for convenience when it comes to short term parking. Long term parking tends to be located on the periphery of city centres or less busy locations.

Table 6 lists the various systems used in other jurisdictions to manage the cost of parking.

Table 6 Parking systems used in other jurisdictions

System Description

Parking validation/rebate systems

There are various parking validation schemes in use across Australia and internationally. It tends to work in conjunction with off-street car parks where the parking is paid for upon exit. The parking ticket collected upon entry to the car park is then validated (e.g. stamped) at a participating retail or entertainment outlet which entitles the bearer to a discounted parking rate. Melbourne Central shopping centre in the Melbourne CBD has had a long standing scheme in place. The usual rate for parking is $10/hour. The parking rate drops to $5/hour for every $10 spent within the centre (and the ticket is validated at the retail outlet cash register each time you make a purchase). At some locations in Perth the ticket machine prints two tickets, one for the dashboard and one which is presented to a retailer who then provides a discount on the purchase.

Pay by phone

This enables motorists to pay for parking over the phone, using a credit card and avoids the need to have coins on-hand. The mobile phone needs to be pre-registered via the internet (one-off set up). Once having informed their phone parking account of the ID of the space and how long they wish to park, they will be charged against their credit card




Page 22

accordingly and by arrangement between the Council and the phone parking system provider, Council will collect its fee. This technology can run parallel with existing parking.

Parking cards

Parking cards work in a similar way to the Smartrider card used for public transport travel. Credit can be added to the card via a parking kiosk or via the phone using a credit card. Parking in the City of Perth‟s CPP off-street and on-street ticket machine controlled car parks can be paid for using the CPP card. A 5% discount applies to parking paid for using the card. Credit can be added to the card by phone, using a credit card.

Discounted rates for car pooling

The City of Perth provides a discount to vehicles arriving in the morning peak where there are at least two vehicle occupants. Car poolers are to park in designated bays in particular car parks where the scheme applies. The Roe Street car park offers a discounted rate of $11.40 as opposed to $14.90 for ten hours. This system could assist in managing supply of worker parking.

Collaborative Mapping Responses

Collaborative mapping comments on time controls and costs of parking varied significantly for different user groups and in different parts of the city. The pie charts in Figure 8 demonstrate the differences of opinion when it comes to time restrictions however; views were more aligned on preparedness to pay for parking (refer to Figure 9).

Nonetheless some recurring themes did emerge from the website. A selection of comments that are representative of these common themes is provided below.

Increase parking times by up to a further two hours close to facilities that take longer than two hours to complete the visit, e.g. films, theatre, dining or medical specialist visits.

Why must the cost be a set amount per hour and not the amount you wish to stay.

Longer term bays could be pay-as-you-leave so visitors have a choice of extending parking time.

Free one hour parking is very handy and should be available near all shopping areas in Subiaco.

I think that on Sundays Subiaco should have free parking and get a competitive edge on Claremont.

Scooter/motor bike parking should be free.

Short term parking on Rokeby Road and Hay Street, Subiaco is great.

Ridiculous that parking near the Village after 6.00pm is not FREE- patrons park in the streets instead- while acres of empty bays.

All streets on bus routes through Subiaco and Shenton Park should be restricted to two hour parking EXCEPT for residents and their visitors.




Page 23

Figure 8 Collaborative map feedback on ‘shorter restrictions’ as a possible solution

Figure 9 Collaborative map feedback on ‘paying for parking’ as a possible solution

Workshop Discussion

Three of the issues tabled for review at the workshop considered time and cost. They were:

1. Increase the time controls to three hours in some areas

2. Make some on-street parking around activity centres two or three hours with the first hour free (like off-street parking)

3. Create options for workers to purchase parking on a monthly basis.

No clear consensus was provided on the first idea to increase time controls. On the negative side it was seen that this would reduce turn-over and so make it harder to find a park and




Page 24

would be subject to more abuse by workers. On the positive side it was considered that this option would meet some needs in some locations. It was generally not considered to be appropriate for the main streets such as Hay Street and Rokeby Road, Subiaco.

The second option did attract a level of support but again was not considered appropriate for main streets such as Hay Street and Rokeby Road, Subiaco, where the high turnover bays work well.

The concept of allowing workers to purchase parking on a monthly basis received mixed support. While there are efficiency advantages through a worker being provided with a guaranteed bay it results in a decreased number of general parking (through shifting some of the general parking to worker parking) which would disadvantage other user groups. There were also mixed views on whether one month was long enough or too long. Locations where it was seen to have merit were commercial areas (e.g. close to Hay Street, Subiaco), Hampden Road, Nedlands, and underutilised sites such as the Subiaco Market‟s car park (on non market days) and the Coles upper level car park. Residential streets or near Subiaco station were not seen as appropriate locations for parking to be dedicated for workers.

The issue of more free parking was raised by some at the workshops. But the general feeling was that rates in the city‟s car parks were reasonable and first hour free was sufficient.

More flexible parking arrangements, particularly pay-as-you-leave, were also raised at the workshops and were well supported. This will be challenging to achieve in off-street car parks given that many are operated privately and therefore difficult for the city to influence their operations.

Finally at some workshops residents who live on streets without time controls gave evidence of the problems experienced in these streets due to all day worker parking. This includes hospital staff, tradespeople working at the hospital, local workers and even workers from Perth/West Perth who park and catch the free bus.

Summary

The City of Subiaco‟s regime for time controls and parking charges is generally equivalent to neighbouring municipalities and appropriate for an inner city locality. The first hour free option is highly popular and the short term parking bays within busy activity centres is perceived as working well.

Attitudes to parking time restrictions differ markedly between user groups. Business owners and workers want longer term parking. Businesses in particular do not want visitors to have to watch the clock. There appears to be a case for providing more three hour options in some areas, such as within a reasonable walking distance of the hospitals and activity centres. There is however a risk with this parking that it may be abused by workers who are able to move cars every three hours. This highlights the need for added enforcement.

Underutilised off-street car parks are the best options for providing parking for workers to purchase monthly passes however again, some of these sites are privately operated where the city has no control.

Other solutions to offer greater parking flexibility require investigation. This might include pay-as-you-leave car park configurations, or longer stay ticketed area with high rates to deter all day parking (as in City of Perth).

Some time or residential parking controls (and combined with enforcement) are required on the following streets to limit parking by workers:




Page 25

Derby Road, Shenton Park

Gloster Street, Subiaco

Troy Terrace, Daglish

Evans Street, Shenton Park

Morgan Street, Shenton Park

Onslow Road, Shenton Park

Keightley Road, Shenton Park

In most cases, these streets are located in areas where most surrounding/adjacent streets already have controls in place to deter all day parking.

4.2.2 Enforcement

Current Situation

Parking management and enforcement is undertaken by the Field Services team, which comprises management, administrative and field staff. The team includes 7.3 full-time equivalent parking officers, plus 21 additional staff on event days. The operational hours of the parking enforcement officers is seven days per week: weekdays 7.00am through to 7.00pm; 7.00am to 10.00pm Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights; and Sunday to 4.15pm. In total, 400 hours per week.

The team issues 25,000 infringements per year. This equates to a budgeted income of $1.5m in 2011/12. A further $2.08m is budgeted in ticket machine fees for 2011/12. The value of parking penalties varies between $40 and $90, depending on the nature of the infringement.

Enforcement is largely undertaken by foot patrol with parking enforcement officers checking vehicles for compliance with signed requirements (e.g. display of permits, pay and display tickets, etc.) and using chalk marking to detect over-staying. Although the city has invested in some bay detection technology this is used for parking guidance and resource management, not for enforcement. Enforcement generally focuses on known hot spots, and may also occur in response to a complaint about illegal parking.

Unpaid fines are referred for collection under the Fines, Penalties and Infringement Enforcement Act (1994).


Parking fines are set at a local government level and the leading practice review shows that fines for overstaying, not having a parking ticket, parking illegally, etc. vary from location to location. As an example, the value of penalties in the City of Melbourne ($61 - $122) is much higher than in the City of Subiaco ($40 - $90). However the value of penalties in many comparable local government areas in Perth metropolitan area is similar to the City of Subiaco.

Traditional methods of parking enforcement – chalk marking tyres or visual inspections of parking meters („flashing red‟ expired display) or pre-purchased ticket (with expiry time shown) are increasingly being replaced by other technologies in order to streamline the process. Approaches and technologies used elsewhere are described below.

Parking tickets - use of tickets to be displayed on the vehicle windshield even where parking is free in order to make it easier to regulate length of parking stay.




Page 26

Parking sensor technology - sensors buried beneath parking bays designed to alert parking inspectors seconds after a meter expires. Locations using this technology include the City of Melbourne (where it is used as a tool for enforcement), San Francisco and Ottawa. In Ottawa, a photograph of the car‟s licence plate is taken when the meter is expired. The driver has the ability to pay the fine on the spot using a credit card. In some cases, the driver is given the option to pay for the expired time.

Number/license plate recognition - Infrared LED cameras are fitted to enforcement vehicles. The camera reads and records the number plate of parked vehicles as it drives by. On subsequent drive-bys, the length of stay of the vehicle can be recorded and if the vehicle has overstayed the limit, an infringement notice is sent in the mail. This technology is fully automated, not requiring an enforcement officer to leave the vehicle and thereby reduces the number of enforcement officers required. Number plate recognition was formerly used in the City of Melbourne. However it was later withdrawn, with the city citing that the technology „did not meet expectations‟.

Ticket-less parking - the driver enters the registration details of the vehicle into the parking meter and then enters the parking fee/duration they wish to pay for. Bay status information is available to parking officers at the machine or via hand-held devices (via infrared).

There is not yet a legal precedence for the use of these technologies for enforcement in Western Australia. The Courts cite concerns about failure to meet the requirements of the Evidence Act (1906). This is due to questions of accuracy of data as the sensors can suffer from interference which distorts the magnetic field. Examples include passing cars or shopping trolleys causing interference and affecting sensor reliability. This issue has gained media coverage and a number of appeals in the City of Melbourne where it is estimated over 40,000 fines have been issued using this technology.


City of Subiaco residents sent a very clear message, throughout the consultation process, that enforcement is inadequate. Workers, business owners and shoppers unsurprisingly do not necessarily share this view (refer to Figure 10).

Figure 10 Collaborative map feedback on ‘more enforcement’ as a possible solution




Page 27

A selection of relevant comments captured in the collaborative mapping is provided below.

• Substantially increase enforcement as motorists park illegally on verges and in restricted parking areas. Infrequent parking enforcement encourages motorists to take the risk of getting caught.

• Any changes in parking times are utterly futile. The current two hour parking limit is constantly ignored by students and pool users, they park on my no parking verge, my crossover and anywhere they want.

• We need to continuously move our cars to avoid infringements. We don't share these spots with anyone else, besides those who work here.

• I know a lot of people park in the one hour spots on Hay Street all day, and work on the assumption that if they get a ticket every month or so it‟s cheaper than using paid parking.

• Parking rules are confusing - so haven't shopped at Subiaco for ages.

• Paid parking and over-eager parking inspectors discourage shoppers, which is turning Subiaco into a ghost town.

• Better policing of misuse of drop off/pick up bays and all day parking in time restricted parking.

• People are happy to pay the fine to be able to park so close and leave easily.

Workshop Discussions

Workshop participants discussed three key ideas in relation to this issue:

1. Increase enforcement/employ more rangers

2. Increase the cost of penalties

3. Introduce more ticket parking, including for free parking.

Overall the provision of more enforcement was supported. Residents in particular stated that without more enforcement any other changes would be ineffective. It was noted that employing more rangers was only one way to increase enforcement. The use of technology, such as wider use of pay and display, could improve the efficiency of rangers. Reallocating hours so that more rangers were working in the peak day-time period was also identified as a means to improve efficiency. Some workshop participants also suggested that rangers be paid on a bonus system. It was also noted that short-term blitzes of particular areas may be sufficient to create behaviour change.

On the other side of the debate, other users are concerned that increased enforcement could deter shoppers and penalise the local workers who are critical to activity centres.

There were mixed feelings about increasing the value of penalties - some were strongly in favour but many were reticent – knowing that everyone will incur a parking ticket from time to time. There was a general sentiment that more infringements would have the same effect as higher cost. However, a number of participants raised the possibility of increasing fines for repeat offenders.

More widespread introduction of ticket machines had limited support, with many residents not in favour of them being installed in residential streets.




Page 28

Summary

Increasing the level of parking enforcement in the city is required and expected by residents. Initial focus areas would be residential streets where workers are over-staying and causing congestion and safety issues.

Increasing enforcement in non residential and mixed use areas should only follow an overhaul of timed controls and parking supply to ensure the needs of workers, shoppers and businesses can still be met.

There is no strong support at this time for an increase in the cost of penalties.

4.2.3 Resident Permit Schemes

Current Situation

Depending on their circumstances City of Subiaco residents may be eligible for up to five free parking permits per dwelling. These are allocated as follows:

All residents living in streets that have time controls are eligible for two free visitor parking permits.

Residents in streets with timed controls may also be eligible for up to three resident parking permits depending on the number of car bays on the property and the number of cars registered at the property.

The permits are renewed automatically on an annual basis. When displayed they exempt the vehicle from time restrictions which may apply. The permits are valid only on the street to which they are registered and within 300m of the dwelling.

Permits are not required for verge parking, which is not governed by time controls.

There is evidence that permits are subject to illegal use, including copying, re-sale and fraudulent use by home businesses. Further, in some streets there are more permits issued than available kerbside parking.


A review of the resident permit system in various inner city municipalities in Perth and Melbourne revealed that it is commonplace for councils to charge for parking permits. Permit fees varied notably from location to location indicating that the fees are not purely designed to cover administrative charges but in some cases fees are set to deter demand. Key findings in relation to parking permit systems included:

It is commonplace for councils to charge for resident permits. For example: City of Perth - $35 for three to six months, $70 for seven months to one year, Town of Victoria Park- $40 p/a.

Some councils charge for permits on an escalating scale, charging extra for the second and third permit. For example, the City of Yarra in inner Melbourne charges $28 p/a for the first, $61 p/a for a second, $94 p/a for a third permit.

Provision of permits in some cases is contingent on meeting set criteria for example:

City of Yarra (Melbourne): Not eligible if home built after December 2003 and that construction increased number of dwellings per site.




Page 29

Town of Cambridge: Two permits for single house with no parking on property, no permits for complexes of more than six units/flats/apartments.

Town of Victoria Park: If no parking is provided on property: one resident and one visitor permit; if one bay on property: one visitor permit, otherwise no permits are available.

Use of voucher booklets for single use visitor permits. Vouchers can be torn out of the booklet, and the date scratched on the panel, then displayed on the vehicle dashboard. The booklets can be purchased from the council, ordered online, and issued with rates notices, etc.

It was also found that the exemptions that apply for the permit bearer varied with respect to:

Geographical application: whether it applied to a single street, zone/area or distance (i.e. 400m radius from property).

Control exemption: whether the bearer is exempted from all restrictions, all restrictions but only at certain times of the day (e.g. after 5.00pm weekdays) or entitled the bearer to park in a permit only section of the road.


There were a small number of comments posted on collaborative mapping, a selection is provided below.

Monitor illegal use of residents parking permits (very common).

Ensure permits are not used by "resident‟s friends".

Residents with Permits park all day in the one hour bays; this makes it hard for visitors to the offices to park.

People who work in the area should get free street parking permits, like residents do.


Workshop participants had the opportunity to discuss and evaluate options for reducing the number of permits issued over time. The four ideas presented by Arup were:

1. Attach a sliding cost to residential permits, as occurs in other jurisdictions.

2. Replace the annual visitor permit with a book of single use visitor permits.

3. Providing a mix on some streets of permit only parking and small areas of time controlled parking for other users.

4. Making verge parking permit only.

In general workshop participants agreed the permit system needed review to reduce the potential for abuse and to better align demand with supply.

There was mixed support for the first idea. Some participants commented that rates should cover the cost of permits. Other participants agreed that an order of cost may be appropriate for say the second or third permit. There was concern raised by some that this cost could be an unreasonable penalty to some, such as students or families with adult children living at home.




Page 30

There was strong overall support for the second idea. As this was seen as a way to reduce abuse of visitor permits, yet provide residents with flexibility to meet the needs of their visitors.

The third idea was generally not supported by residents of primarily residential streets who believe those streets should be resident parking only. However some residents living around commercial areas identified that this idea would be worth trying, as it would ensure a supply of resident only parking, whilst also meeting the needs of other users.

There was widespread community support for the idea of managing verge parking via permits as the current system is onerous for residents. Staff identified this problem would generate more work for rangers but would remove ambiguity regarding verge parking. It was also acknowledged that verge parking is inappropriate in some locations where it restricts sight distance or blocks footpaths. There was concern for visual amenity with a proliferation of signs to control parking on verges.

Summary

There is strong precedence and community support to undertake a review of the permit system. The focus of such review should be to better manage supply, to provide more clarity for residents and enforcement staff and to ease congestion on residential streets.

4.2.4 Match Supply with Demand

Current Situation and Future Considerations

Site investigations and observations undertaken during the project indicate that at present demand for parking in the City of Subiaco, on the whole, does not exceed supply. This is supported by city‟s occupancy data for off-street parking. It is not clear the extent to which reduced parking charges might generate increased demand.

This observation does not deny that in some parts of the city there is insufficient parking, for example, inadequate supply at UWA and hospital sites impacts on supply, safety and amenity on surrounding streets. Short-medium term changes on the hospital sites, including construction of 5,500 on-site bays at QEII Medical Centre and closure of the Princess Margaret Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital sites will mitigate these problems to some extent. In the longer term public transport solutions are proposed to ease parking demand at both QEII Medical Centre and UWA.

There also appears to be a shortage of supply at peak times in some local centres, notably the Onslow Road shops, and around schools.

Looking forward, a gap between supply and demand may emerge if current parking areas on undeveloped land are lost to development. This would have to be mitigated via generous parking provision in new development or the construction of multi-level parking.

Notwithstanding the above, in the Subi Centro/Rokeby Road area empty parking spaces are frequently observed yet workers cannot find parking bays. It appears there is a mismatch between the product being supplied and the needs of users; most notably the provision of affordable long term parking for workers, and extended hours parking for shoppers.

It is clear that cost is a primary issue for local workers. This is evidenced by the number of vacant bays in privately managed parking facilities that are priced to favour all-day rather than short-term parking. Many workers choose to park on-street in free spaces and regularly move their vehicle or run the risk of receiving a fine rather than pay for off-street all day




Page 31

parking which is perceived as expensive. The high turnover for parking leads to reduced productivity and adds unnecessary traffic movements on the street network.

Finally, the available parking resource is not used as efficiently as it could be. Line marking, introduction of angle or 90 degree parking in wider streets and use of vacant land for parking are current opportunities in the city to increase supply.


Improving the awareness of available parking is recognised world over for providing three key benefits – making more effective use of current parking supplies (particularly off-street car parks), reducing driver frustration in finding available parking and reducing unnecessary traffic circulation on streets generated while finding an available parking bay. The use of technology such as smartphones to disseminate information on parking availability and price is growing in popularity to help make better use of existing parking supplies.

Wayfinding

Increasingly car parking availability information is being collected in real time and disseminated using smartphones and the internet in order to direct visitors to available parking bays (refer to Figure 11). These systems are designed to reduce frustration for motorists, particularly unfamiliar visitors, but also importantly to reduce the amount of vehicles using city streets, circulating to find available parking bays. The City of Perth is using a parking app for CPP managed car parks. A more sophisticated system is used in San Francisco which applies to on and off-street car parks. On-street car parks are fitted with bay sensors. These schemes can also be used in conjunction with parking guidance systems, similar to that used in Subiaco (Rowland Street car park) and City of Perth (e.g. Elder Street and convention centre car parks).

Figure 11 Examples of parking availability information (City of Perth, 2012)

Flexible parking pricing to manage demand

Traditional methods of flexible car park pricing generally applies to early bird parking in off-street car parks which are aimed at encouraging people to travel earlier than the traditional commuting peak hour. San Francisco has taken on a new approach to flexible pricing for on-street parking, aiming to set pricing so that there is at least one available parking bay per city block at all times. Pricing is adjusted monthly (no more than $0.50 increase) to manage demand and provide available bays where demand is greatest and reduce charges where bays are underutilised. Prices also vary across the day to discourage peak hour travel.




Page 32

On-street versus off-street public parking

There is a growing recognition that on-street parking uses less land per space than off-street car parks since it does not require specific access aisles. On-street parking bays typically use a quarter of the land that would be needed to provide the same amount of service with off-street parking serving a single destination. On-street parking offers other efficiencies given that it services multiple uses that have complementary demand profiles. On-street parking is therefore seen increasingly as supporting more compact developments. This highlights that off-street, single use car parks are not always the best solution however on-street parking in mixed use areas is clearly a cause of concern in many areas of the city.

Collaborative Mapping Inputs

Workers primarily responded on this issue in the collaborative mapping, with comments from many residents and shoppers supporting the observation that supply is not a primary issue for these users. A representative selection of comments is provided below.

I work at hospital and cannot get a convenient park.

We need to continuously move our cars to avoid infringements. We don't share these spots with anyone else, besides those who work here.

Build a multi storey car park.

Parking is very expensive (posted by a worker).

This problem cannot be solved with shorter parking times or by charging for parking, there simply needs to be an investment made to increase the available parking.

The parking time for workers is too short.

There are no lines painted in the parking spaces so a lot of room is wasted by people parking incorrectly.


Workshop participants were asked to discuss the following ideas tabled by Arup:

1. Formalise the use of open space and vacant sites for workers‟ parking.

2. Convert underutilised short term parking bays into all day bays for workers.

3. Construct a multi-deck car park.

4. On residential streets, provide a mix of resident only parking and all day parking bays.

Summary

There was general support for formalising additional off-street car parking for workers to use provided that it did not consume green space and would work best in commercial areas with specific examples in the city including Roydhouse Street, Pavilion Markets, Morgan Street (west end), Bosich site, Arcus site and Hood Street. It was suggested that sites serviced by good public transport (e.g. 97 route) or sites at peripheral locations with dedicated shuttle services could also be options.

Outer town centre locations, Forrest Street, car park no. 12, Rowland Street and other underutilised existing car parks were seen as potential locations where short stay parking could be converted to all day parking.




Page 33

The high cost associated with multi-deck car park construction was recognised and attaching the car park to new development was seen as the best approach. Issues with traffic generation were also cited. The preferred locations for multi-deck car parks were identified as hospitals, UWA, west of Rokeby Road, Forrest Street, Pavilion Markets and close to the Subiaco town centre but not in the centre.

Only limited support for a mix of resident only parking and all day parking was evident. The only potential locations identified included around UWA, around hospitals, Hamersley Road and Rupert Street in Subiaco and Morgan Street in Shenton Park.

4.2.5 Traffic Safety

Current Situation

Street parking is in high demand in many local streets throughout the City of Subiaco. Safety issues are exacerbated in locations due to:

Narrow streets with highly utilised parking on both sides.

Narrow streets accommodating bus routes where there is also highly utilised on-street parking.

Parking, on-street or on verges, too close to street corners, laneways and driveways.

Some examples are demonstrated in Figure 12.

These issues result in reduced sight lines for people travelling along streets or entering roads from side streets, driveways or laneways. Highly utilised parking on streets around schools, recreation places and shopping strips can create unsafe conditions when pedestrians step out onto the streets from between parked cars. Parking on two sides of the street where streets are narrow can reduce the trafficable width of the road to a single lane. On two way streets, this can sometimes require vehicles to reverse into a driveway or available space along the kerbside in order to allow an oncoming vehicle to pass.

Figure 12 Parking on both sides of streets and on verges causes traffic safety issues


A review was undertaken of current practices in street design rather than specific measures to overcome inappropriate parking. While the combination of narrow streets and highly utilised street parking can create safety issues, it does provide the benefit of reducing travel speeds, which in itself is a traffic calming measure. The correlation between visibility, carriageway




Page 34

width and vehicle speeds is shown in Figure 13 which is an extract from the UK document Manual for Streets (2007). This manual takes a different approach to traditional traffic engineering of residential areas. Central to the manual is the philosophy that streets have a place function. The design guidance aims at reducing traffic speeds on local streets to appropriate levels through a variety of road design and streetscape measures which are intrinsic to the design (rather than add-ons such as speed humps). This includes restricting the effective width of streets through on-street parking. On-street parking is a feature of new-urbanist design principles.

Figure 13 Correlation between visibility, carriageway width and vehicle speeds (Department for Transport UK, 2007)


Traffic safety was a popular issue raised with a total of 295 comments made relating to traffic safety/engineering. The most common user group making these comments were residents. For residents, this issue was fourth only to on-street parking, time restrictions and parking supply, all interrelated issues. This was highlighted as the second most commented issue in Zone 2 which encompasses the QEII Medical Centre and UWA.


It is evident that a traffic management and safety investigation is required to address the safety issues raised which were largely centred on residential streets in Shenton Park and attributed to the intense use of kerbside parking and inappropriate parking too close to intersections and on verges. A traffic management and safety investigation is outside the scope of this parking management investigation and therefore measures were not tabled for discussion at the workshops. The safety issues associated with parking on both sides of




Page 35

narrow streets should be weighed up against the merits in on-street parking as a traffic calming measure.

Summary

The outputs from the collaborative mapping exercise should be used to establish the

boundaries and objectives of a traffic management and safety investigation, focussing on

residential streets in Shenton Park.




Page 36

5 Longer Term Considerations

In response to the view expressed by the community in the collaborative mapping, the workshops focussed very much on issues the community are facing now. However this strategy is intended to have a ten year horizon and as discussed in Section 3.4 movement, access and parking demand will change in that time. This section makes comments on matters not necessarily raised in the consultation process but which the city may need to consider in the context of longer term actions and strategic approaches.

5.1 On-Site Parking Provision

Subi Centro is held up by the Australian urban design community as a leading example for Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). It is highly likely that the City of Subiaco will attract more TOD style development in the future due to its proximity to the city, public transport and the presence of local work and shopping options.

An underlying premise for TODs is that they require less parking provision due to the proximity to public transport. The evidence in many Australian cities is that whilst TOD residents may use their cars less, they still want to own cars. This has been the experience at Subi Centro where there is insufficient parking to meet the needs of residents. This will continue to be the case until off-peak public transport options are radically improved.

A number of comments posted on the collaborative mapping website raised the issue of insufficient on-site parking provision.

Brisbane City Council‟s (BCC‟s) Head of Planning talks about the need to provide car storage, rather than highly convenient car parking in TOD type developments. BCC accepted options such as tandem parking and car-stackers to enable developers to meet parking demand on-site within constrained areas. Car parking stackers, while not mainstream in many Australian cities, have been used in locations where site areas are constrained. This has been the case with a number of infill residential developments in the Melbourne CBD, many of which are accessed off narrow laneways.

It is recommended that the City of Subiaco take into account residential demand for car storage even when in transit areas, when establishing parking requirements for future development. Also the sale, lease or rental of parking bays should be unbundled from the sale or rental of residential properties. This increases flexibility on the number of parking bays that are available to residential units at any point in time.

Over time, parking spaces, like residences, will normalise to a market price. Residential

parking bays, like residential units could be bought, sold or rented for residential use, but

should not be made available for use by workers commuting to the city/Perth City.

As the city becomes more developed, and some available parking areas are lost, consideration will also need to be given to the parking requirements of commercial developments to ensure the demand for worker parking is not unreasonably exacerbated.

5.2 Off-Street Public Parking

This study has not specifically investigated the merit or need for a cash in lieu scheme to fund future parking provision in the City of Subiaco. This has been considered and recommended in previous parking studies and the city‟s integrated transport strategy. This current study has highlighted community sentiment supporting development of a multi-deck car park within the




Page 37

Subiaco town centre. This is based on a perception that there is insufficient parking supply or that the existing off-street parking is expensive.

The city is soon to commence a structure planning process which will consider opportunities for increasing density within the Subiaco town centre, which has been identified as a secondary activity centre in the current planning strategic plan, Directions 2031 and Beyond. Sites currently used for at-grade car parking are expected to be early development opportunities. The merits of developing shared car parks in mixed use precincts such as in the Subiaco town centre are well documented. Efficiencies in parking provision are gained through the fact that the peak parking demands generated by the various uses do not coincide and the cumulative peak is less than the sum of the individual peaks. This is demonstrated in Figure 14.

The structure planning process will be an opportunity for the city to consider identifying and preserving a site for a future multi-deck public car park that could be partially funded through cash in lieu.

It is recommended that the city continue to collect and build a database of public parking utilisation within the Subiaco town centre in order to make informed decisions based on robust information on the future need for an additional public car park.

Figure 14 Demand cycles for various land uses with differing peaks (Litman, 2006)

5.3 Patersons Stadium

The State Government has announced the development of a new home for AFL matches. The new stadium in Burswood will host all home matches for the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle during the regular home and away season. The new stadium is expected to be open in 2018. While other events/matches may be expected to operate at Patersons Stadium, event-day, capacity crowds are expected to be less frequent. The site may also be targeted for new development.




Page 38

While the future function of the stadium is yet to be confirmed, consideration should be given to:

Opportunities to make better use of the existing parking supply on site (opening more of the existing bays for public use).

Removing the event day parking signage on streets surrounding the stadium. This would help to rationalise and simplify signage on many streets surrounding the site.

5.4 Light Rail

The draft document Public Transport for Perth in 2031 identifies two potential light rail routes through the City of Subiaco. Feedback during the community engagement process for this project has identified that some streets are currently being used for park and ride. It is equally possible that light rail stops will attract park and ride. A proactive approach to parking management around stops should be planned and implemented in consultation with the Department of Transport.

It is recommended that the city continue to work with the Department of Transport to identify potential stop locations that are consistent with the city‟s plans for activity intensification.

5.5 Moving to a More Sustainable Future

The City of Subiaco is well serviced by public transport through the existing rail line and frequent bus routes such as the Subi Shuttle; however, further investment in public transport to increase service coverage and frequency will help to shift more people from cars to public transport modes. As stated earlier, people may still chose to own a car but reduced car use will lower demands for car parking at the trip end (e.g. places of employment, shopping, recreation, entertainment, etc.).

The City of Perth, through the Parking Management Act, raises revenue that is then invested into the provision of public transport services within the boundaries of the Act‟s jurisdiction. Revenue is raised through the licensing of all non-residential bays (there are a few other exceptions). This revenue is used to fund the Central Area Transit (CAT) service and the Free Transport Zone, amongst other service improvements.

The Perth Parking Management Act is a sound model for generating revenue for public transport improvements and is worthy of further contemplation for the city as a longer term travel and parking demand management tool. It is however appreciated that any move to increase the costs for businesses in the city is likely to be unpopular in the current climate and would require an extensive consultation period with businesses.




Page 39

6 Recommendations

This section of the report draws together the key recommendations for consideration in a parking strategy for the City of Subiaco. The recommendations have been categorised as follows:

Short term: next two years. This generally applies to measures which are quick-wins, easily implementable or address a critical issue.

Medium term: two to five years.

Long term: addressing particular issues which are likely to be exacerbated over time or require a step change (e.g. behaviour change), which would be a lengthy process.




Page 40

Table 7 Key recommendations

Topic Description Rationale/Objective Time

frame

Location Implementation

considerations

Time controls and costs

Time based

pricing and

increased time

limits

In locations where there is a

clear need for more worker

parking - convert short stay

kerbside parking to all day

parking but set parking fees

for all day parking at levels

comparable with off-street car

parks.

Increase provision of all day

parking but without

discouraging use of off-street

facilities that already exist.

Short Subiaco

town

centre

Would need to be partnered with

short term parking (rather than

unrestricted, free all day

parking).

Increased time

limits in some

areas

Consider increasing the time

limit in some areas, such as

around hospitals where

patients will generally need

around three hours to attend

appointments. Also around

town centres where

restrictions extend with

distance from the centre.

Match supply with user needs.

Three hour is unlikely to

encourage worker parking but

rather provide more flexibility

for visitors.

Short Subiaco

town

centre and

others

Consider this approach around

hospitals and in streets stemming

from Rokeby Road, Subiaco,

where first hour free plus

additional two hours paid could

be offered.

Ticket parking Move towards ticket parking

in most areas where time

limits apply - even if free.

Improves efficiency of

enforcement and helps to

enforce time limits.

Short Subiaco

town

centre

Not a popular suggestion in

residential area. Suggest

standardised type of ticket

machines (e.g. ticket, ticketless,

etc.).




Page 41


frame

Location Implementation considerations

Enforcement

Make

enforcement

more visible and

more regular

Ensure that enforcement

patrols occur at times of peak

utilisation in visible areas.

Manage community

perceptions.

Short Citywide It is important to be “seen” to be

undertaking enforcement to

create the impression that

ignoring parking conditions will

result in a penalty.

Enforcement

blitzes

Identify problem areas

through continued

community engagement and

conduct subsequent

enforcement blitzes in the

area at peak times.

Discourage poor behaviour. Short Citywide Could be resourced by additional

casual staff or additional staff

(overtime).

Re-allocate

resources

Move towards a random

roster outside business hours

and shift resources towards

9.00am – 5.00pm policing.

Discourage poor behaviour

from workers and shoppers.

Short Citywide 9.00am and 5.00pm is generally

the critical time period for

parking in the city.

Licensing of all

non residential

bays

Similar to the Perth Parking

Management Act. Fee

associated with licensing of

bay is invested in public

transport improvements.

Revenue raised to improve

availability of public transport.

Long Subiaco

town

centre

Concept yet to be tested with

community – would be long

term aspiration and require

enabling legislation.




Page 42


frame

Location Implementation consideration

Resident Permit Scheme

Charging for

second and third

permit

First permit is free. Charge

applies to second and third

permit with the third permit

costing more than the second.

Price charged for the permit

needs further investigation to

assess benefit versus cost.

Applicants make a conscious

decision on whether they

need to apply for a second or

third permit.

Short Citywide

Increased cost in administration

of scheme. Phase in over time

(i.e. honour all existing permits,

etc.). Suggest only nominal

charge for first year.

Permit-controlled

verge parking

Signage and change to local

laws to allow verge parking

with a residential permit only.

Improve efficiency in

enforcement. Address

community angst.

Short Citywide Marketing/education campaign

required as well as enabling

legislation.

Replace visitor

permits with

books of single

use visitor

permits

Booklets of single use (daily)

„scratch-away‟ permits. The

user scratches the date for

which the permit applies. A

booklet of 100 could be

provided for free and charges

apply for booklets thereafter.

More control of visitor

parking. Encourage only

those who need the permits to

apply for additional booklets.

Short Citywide Increased cost in administration

of scheme. Possibility of permits

being sold to workers or for

events - management controls

advised.

Annual renewal

of permits

Residents must apply

annually for a new permit.

This should be combined

with a demonstration of need,

e.g. vehicle registration, on

site provision, etc.

Applicants make a conscious

decision on whether they

need a permit.

Short Citywide Increased cost in administration

of scheme.




Page 43

Six month or one

year permits

Yearly of half yearly permits

could be applied for.

This is particularly applicable

if a charge for permits

applies. This would allow the

charge for the permit to be

split into two payments.

Provide more flexibility –

particularly for student

residents where

circumstances may change

from semester to semester.

Medium Citywide Increased cost in administration

of scheme.

Increase

sophistication of

resident parking

permits

Include locational details and

holograms or similar.

Reduce permit fraud. Medium Citywide Permits will be more expensive

to produce and arguably helps to

justify introducing a charge for

permits.




Page 44


frame


Match supply with demand

Permit only

restriction - pilot

Identify and implement pilot

areas for provision of a

mixture of residential only

(and tradesperson with

permit) parking and short

term time restriction parking.

Ensure supply of parking for

residents in areas where on-

site parking is scarce.

Short Mixed use Pilot in areas that have older

housing without on-site parking

such as: Rupert Street, Morgan

Street, Onslow Road, Shenton

Park and Hamersley Road,

Subiaco.

Encourage use of

off-street car

parks

Two approaches depending

on private or city owned car

parks.

City: parking guidance

system, offer worker

discounts (monthly pass),

discounts for car pooling.

Private: liaison with parking

operators to encourage

parking validation/rebate and

offering discounted monthly

parking to workers.

Preference is to better use

existing car parks rather than

build a new multi-deck.

Medium Subiaco

town

centre

City should work with local

trader associations in liaison

role.

Multi-deck car

park

Consider possible sites and

financing options for a

centralised multi-deck car

park to service the Subiaco

town centre.

Centralised supply to meet

long term demand.

Long Subiaco

town

centre

Financing and site selection will

need to be considered carefully.




Page 45


frame


Traffic safety

Large scale

traffic

management

investigation in

Shenton Park

Address issues such as:

- Parking on both sides of

streets

- Parking too close to

intersections and blocking

sight lines

Safety. Short Residential While this is a current issue, the

problem in many Shenton Park

streets has the potential to

dissipate when the large multi-

deck car park becomes

operational at QEII Medical

Centre. The situation should be

regularly monitored. Highest priority to be given to

locations around schools and

bus routes.

Safety review of

school parking

and pick up/drop

off

Conduct a safety review of

parking allocated to schools

in the City of Subiaco.

Safety and use of school

parking.

Short Citywide Parking at schools should meet

the needs of the users.

Improve on-street

parking

efficiency

Undertake a pilot testing

whether linemarking bays

leads to improved parking

behaviour (i.e. no parking

outside marked bays) and

improved parking yield along

kerbside.

Safety and efficiency of

limited kerbside.

Short Subiaco

town

centre,

mixed use

Locations need to be carefully

selected so as not to reinforce

some (residential) streets for

parking.




Page 46

Traffic speed

pilot study in

Shenton Park

Where it is proposed to

restrict parking to one side of

street or restrict on-street

parking in order to increase

the effective width of local

streets, undertake a pilot

study to monitor traffic

speeds pre and post

intervention.

On-street parking is a traffic

calming measure – removal

of it has the potential to

increase traffic speeds and

lead to other safety issues.

Short Residential Study could be undertaken in-

house using the city‟s tube

counters.




Page 47


frame


Other

Parking inventory

database

Maintain the parking

inventory in ArcGIS and

publish it on the city‟s

website.

An up to date inventory is

needed for ongoing decision

making on parking supply

and controls.

Short Citywide Additional responsibility for

Field Services staff to collect

and manage the information -

could be achieved with help

from consultants if needed.

Parking

utilisation

database

Regularly (as often as

resources permit) collect

information on the utilisation

of parking on-street and off-

street.

There is strong community

perception that there is

insufficient parking supply in

the Subiaco town centre.

Regularly collecting and

publishing parking

availability information will

help in monitoring changes

over time, provide useful

information on locations in

the city where people are

more likely to find an

available bay more often

(despite the fact that

information will not be

collected/displayed in real

time), assist in decision

making on setting parking

prices.

Short Subiaco

town

centre

Additional responsibility for

Field Services staff to collect

and manage the information -

could be achieved with help

from roll-out bay detection

sensors and/or consultants if

needed.




Page 48

Parking sensor

monitoring

Pilot study to assess the

accuracy of the parking

sensors in monitoring length

of stay.

Monitor use/application of

parking sensors elsewhere

(e.g. City of Melbourne) and

in particular whether they are

proven reliable as a means of

enforcement.

This parking technology

already exists in the city and

could be used to streamline

parking enforcement.

Short Citywide

Decision for rolling out

additional sites for parking

sensors should be put on hold

until greater certainty on the

ability for sensor technology use

for issuing infringements stands

up in court.

Data collected could be used for

real time information

dissemination and utilisation.

Funding public

transport

improvements

Explore opportunities for a

CAT bus service between

Perth CBD and the Subiaco

town centre.

Reduce reliance on private

motor vehicles.

Long Subiaco

town

centre

Potential for park and ride issues

around key stops.

Proposal is more viable if funded

via scheme where all non-

residential bays are licensed

(similar to the Perth Parking

Management Act) or through

parking fee revenue.

Real time

information and

Smart device

application

Consider implementing

measures to collect real time

data with the aim of

developing a mobile

application that helps people

to understand where to access

available parking bays.

Increase efficiency of current

parking provisions.

Medium Subiaco

town

centre

Data collection and storage

needs to be considered carefully

prior to app development.




Page 49

Parking updates Use city website and possibly

other social media to share

information on changes to

parking conditions in the City

of Subiaco. This should

include information from the

Department of Health on the

timing of the introduction of

additional parking at QEII

Medical Centre.

Address misconceptions and

community concerns around

the parking transition taking

place, particularly at the QEII

Medical Centre.

Short Citywide Additional administrative

responsibility to keep

information up to date.

Parking reference

group

Establish a parking reference

group with members from the

community covering all

parking user groups equally.

Help to oversee

implementation of the

parking strategy.

Parking is an evolving issue

and it will be important to

identify and address issues on

a continual basis.

Short Citywide

Additional responsibility for

Field Services to manage the

ongoing consultation process.




Page 50

7 Conclusions

An extensive data collection and community engagement process has informed this investigation. The design of the process to collect this information was deliberate in aiming to distinguish between the perceptions of the current parking situation in the City of Subiaco and reality.

It is clear from this process that parking is a complex issue and there is no quick win or sure fix to solve the numerous and varied issues. The collaborative mapping outcomes demonstrated starkly opposing views between many users groups and it will not be possible to solve all issues to the equal satisfaction of these users.

At the root cause of the issues uncovered is the provision of worker parking, congestion and traffic safety on residential streets and meeting the needs of visitors.

Demand for free or cheap worker parking is causing many of the impacts on residents, businesses and shoppers in the city. It creates congestion in quiet streets, damages verges and uses up short term bays. In addition, for many workers finding affordable all-day parking is a significant problem and barrier to efficient work.

Residents‟ concerns include safety, amenity and the difficulty of finding convenient parking for themselves and their visitors. Illegal verge parking or over-staying of time limits, often by workers, is a significant contributor to poor safety as it causes congestion and obstructs sight lines for car drivers.

The third core theme is the provision of short term parking across the city that meets the needs of users. Shoppers and business owners have identified that parking in shopping and business areas should be more flexible to meet the diverse needs of visitors to the city. Parking is very restricted and unsafe near schools. Short term parking near the hospital is not long enough for many out-patient visits. Residents in some areas advise their visitors cannot find available parking.

To address these core issues, five key aspects for review (interventions) have been identified:

1. Time controls and costs

2. Enforcement

3. Resident permit schemes

4. Match supply with demand

5. Traffic safety.

Short to long term recommendations have been made to address these aspects. Importantly the level of community support for these recommendations has been tested through community workshops (and drop in day). These interactive sessions provided useful feedback on the pros and cons of various interventions and where they would work and not work.




Page 51

There is no single measure to address the core issues and while the recommendations are numerous, the recommendations need to be implemented systematically. The effects of changes to parking management should be monitored using key performance indicators including:

Number of parking related complaints received

Enforcement person-hours

Number of parking infringements issued

Number of parking permits issued

Parking utilisation (in key hotspots).

To some extent people‟s expectations for parking in the City of Subiaco are not always realistic. For example the intercept survey outcomes suggest that most people interviewed had quickly found a park that met their requirements within a short walk of their destination, but considered parking to be a real problem. More explicitly:

Many workers do not want to pay for parking in the city. This is not a reasonable expectation for a high density inner city suburb and is not possible in similar suburbs in other parts of Perth metropolitan area or other Australian cities.

Business owners feel that shoppers should be able to park for free like at Claremont. Claremont does not have the same pressures on parking that the City of Subiaco has given its inner city location and older buildings. Free parking is not available in other inner city locations such as Leederville or Mt Lawley.

Some residents seek to exclude all non-residential parking from streets, which is not practical or possible in mixed use areas across the city.

Some residents want to be able to park for free in all parts of the city, including privately owned and managed car parking areas.

This is not intended to deny the many genuine and significant parking-related issues that impact on the residents, business owners, workers and visitors of the city. However in developing any strategy the city will need to manage community expectations in regards to the supply and cost of inner city parking.




Page 52

8 References

ARRB Transport (2003) Review of Parking Supply Data and Rationalisation of Parking Restrictions, City of Subiaco

ARRB Transport (2004) Hampden Road Precinct Parking Study, City of Subiaco

ARRB Transport (2005) Review of Subiaco Residential Parking Permit Scheme, City of Subiaco

ARRB Transport (2006) Subiaco Parking Utilisation Survey, City of Subiaco

ARRB Transport (2007) Subiaco Parking Utilisation Survey, City of Subiaco

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) Population Projections, Australia 2006-2101, Cat. 3222.0, ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) Australia revealed as 2011 Census data is released, ABS

City of Nedlands n.d. Parking and Infringements, viewed 7th May 2012 <www.nedlands.wa.gov.au>

City of Perth (2012) City of Perth Parking Mobile App, viewed 20th

May 2012 <www.cityofperthparking.com.au>

City of Subiaco n.d. The Operations of the Football Parking Scheme

City of Subiaco (2006) Parking Local Laws

City of Subiaco (2007) Integrated Transport Strategy

City of Subiaco (2007) Rosalie Reserve and Adjacent Residential Parking Scheme

City of Subiaco (2009) Business Tenancy Survey Responses

City of Subiaco (2010) Town Planning Scheme No.4

City of Subiaco (2011) Think2030 Community Engagement

City of Vincent n.d. Residential and Visitor Parking, viewed 7th May 2012 <www.vincent.wa.gov.au>

City of Yarra (2010) Parking Permits and Conditions

Committee for Perth (2012) Perth at 3.5 million

Department of Health (2010) Access and Parking Strategy for Healthy Campuses in Perth Metropolitan Area, Department of Health WA

Department of Planning (2011) Directions 2031 and Beyond, Western Australian Planning Commission

Department for Tranport UK (2007) Manual for Streets, Paddock Wood, Tonbridge, DfT

Department of Transport (2011) Public Transport for Perth in 2031, Department of Transport WA




Page 53

Department of Planning (2011) State Planning Policy 4.2.2 Activity Centres, Western Australian Planning Commission

Ernst & Young (2012) The threshold question: Economic impact of the low value threshold on the retail industry, National Retail Association Ltd

Litman, T. (2006) Managing Parking Best Practices, Chicago, American

Planning Association, 2nd

Edition

Newman, P. (2012) Presentation – Sustainability: What it can mean for people

and communities, 20 April, 2012

Town of Cambridge (2012) Parking Permits, viewed 7th

May 2012

<www.cambridge.wa.gov.au>

Town of Claremont (2011) Ranger Services: Parking, viewed 7th

May 2012

<www.claremont.wa.gov.au>

Appendix A

Engagement framework

Subject Engagement Framework

Date 14 March 2012 Job No/Ref 223694/SRG

J:\223000\223694\WORK\2 - REPORTS\APPENDICES\A_SUBI ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK_FINAL DRAFT.DOCX

Page 1 of 4© Arup | F0.13 | 14 February 2011

SUBIACO PARKING STRATEGY ‐ CONSULTATION STRATEGY 1. Purpose and scope of engagement The purpose of the engagement is to involve the various communities of interest and stakeholders in Subiaco in development of a parking strategy that seeks to improve accessibility and better balance the needs of the various user groups The engagement shall provide the various communities of interest and stakeholders with:

adequate, accessible mechanisms to express their views and needs in regards to carparking and related access issues;

factual information and data about the supply and demand of carparking in Subiaco;

useful and legible information about options, precedents and exemplar solutions that may be appropriate in Subiaco to inform analysis of these options;

forums and workshops in which they can actively participate in analysis of options;

opportunities to comment on recommendations; advice about the final project outcomes and how these seek to

address the views and needs of the community.

2. Purpose and scope of engagement

Business ownersResidents

Staff Customers & visitors

Service providersInstitutions





3. Level of engagement Model Goal Promise Applicability

INFORM

To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

We will keep you informed.

Possibly external / institutional stakeholders not directly impacted, eg UWA.

Otherwise not applicable.

CONSULT

To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

Institutional stakeholders that will be impacted such as the hospitals and football oval.

Visitors who do not reside or work in the area, eg shoppers.

INVOLVE

To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

The wider residential, business and employee communities within the Council area.

Advocacy groups and key stakeholders

COLLABORATE

To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

We will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

Workshop participants.

EMPOWER

To place final decision-making in the hands of the public. We will implement what you decide. Not applicable





4. Key activities Activity Objective(s) Description Target Stakeholders Engagement Level

NEWSPAPER

Build community awareness of the project and opportunities to get involved.

Include short articles in Council’s news pages in the local paper

All

Inform

INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS

Gather qualitative data to inform quantitative data collection

Ask people using parking areas to participate in a short survey / interview Parking users (random)

Primarily data collection

Limited Inform

WEBSITE: General

Keep community informed or project activities, progress, data and options as appropriate

Project web page linked to Council webs ite providing project updates and data

All, but particularly residents, business owners and employees

WEBSITE: Collaborative mapping

Provide dynamic and interactive forum to engage community in analysis phase and options review

Expand qualitative assessment

Specialist web product that will enable people to post information about particular hot spots and areas of concern


WEBSITE: & HARD COPY: Feedback forms

Provide simple means for community to provide feedback and input regardless of access to technology

Support easy analysis of inputs

Automated survey style feedback form accessed from web or in hard copy that allows feedback to be collated and analysed


LIBRARY DISPLAY

Provide access to information for stakeholders that do not have internet access

Hard copy displays of information posted on web Stakeholders without

internet access

DROP IN DAYS Provide access to information and opportunities to provide input for

As above, with staff available to answer questions and assist with collaborative

All, but particularly Stakeholders without





Activity Objective(s) Description Target Stakeholders Engagement Level stakeholders that do not have internet access

mapping and/or feedback forms

Scheduled to occur when options are available for comment

internet access

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

Provide a collaborative forum for key stakeholders to participate in review of options

Facilitated participatory options review processes conducted with communities of interest from particular hot spots (eg Shenton Park, central shopping area…)

Select community representatives / communities of interest

COUNCILLOR BRIEFING

Inform Councillors so they can respond effectively to community

Conduct ½hour Councillor briefing Councillors

223694 | Draft 1 | 15 June 2012 | Arup


Page A2

Appendix B

Parking survey form

Appendix C

Stakeholder engagement

Record of Verbal Communication

J:\223000\223694\WORK\1 - COMMUNICATIONS\MEETINGS\WA HEALTH MEETING NOTES.DOCX


Project title Subiaco Parking Management Review Job number 223694

Communication from Martin Hicks File reference

Organisation Department of Health Date of communication 2 May 2012 Telephone no (08) 9225 3902

Communication to Su Groome

Organisation Arup

Telephone no 08 9327 8353

Copy to Danya Alexander, File

Record of communication Action

Meeting to discuss parking issues on health facilities within City of Subiaco

18th April

Martin manages the Metropolitan Access and Parking team of Department of Health. This team was established in early 2010 to manage parking and access issues across health campuses. The team is a specific response to the 2009 agreement by DoP, Health and WAPC which requires hospitals to establish parking management plans. Prior to this, parking provision was not a constraint or requirement for development of hospital sites. As a result parking is ad-hoc across all campuses, and typically undersupplied. Three hospital sites specific to this role are within the City:

QEII Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) King Edward Hospital (KEH)

However Martin’s team do not have current responsibility for QEII as development and implementation of a parking management plan forms part of the site redevelopment. A 5,500 multi-deck car park is under construction at QEII which should alleviate the majority of parking issues. This should be partially operational by end 2012. Prior to construction starting there were approximately 3,000 parks on site but now are only about 1,000. This reduction will be making a significant contribution to the problems being experienced in the area. The biggest issue as perceived by DoH is PMH which has nowhere near enough parking on site for staff or visitors, and no capacity for development of car parks. However as PMH is scheduled to move in 2014 the plan is to struggle through. There are 380 parking bays on site. Demand far outweighs this capacity. An interim management strategy currently is for staff on the morning shift to park on an oval (200 places) on the Shenton Park campus of Royal Perth Hospital and catch a shuttle bus to PMH or KEH, The hospital are currently undertaking minor works at the Roberts Rd Emergency department access due to congestion and queueing in this area. These works will ensure that ambulance access to the site is not blocked. The City could assist these works with the following management measures on Roberts Rd:

Provide a clearway in the right hand lane of Roberts Rd at front of driveway entrance to PMH carpark, and

Record of Verbal Communication

Project title Job number Date of Communication Action

Subiaco Parking Management Review 223694 2 May 2012

J:\223000\223694\WORK\1 - COMMUNICATIONS\MEETINGS\WA HEALTH MEETING NOTES.DOCX


Consider replace one or two carparks on Roberts Rd with an indented turning lane into this carpark to reduce congestion at the lights.

KEH is less constrained with availability being closer to demand. It is also likely this hospital will move in the future. Staff have the option to park at the oval at Shenton Park but few use this option. Generally staff are provided permits to park on hospital sites. These are renewed annually. DoH have been incrementally increasing car parking prices from January 2011. Whilst it remains relatively cheap, some staff may seek cheaper/free options off site. Martin’s team have also been working to encourage staff to use other transport modes. End of trip facilities for cyclists are being improved at all campuses, permits are made available for staff who car pool and DoH subsidise smartrider tickets for staff without a parking permit by 20%. A matter for consideration for parking controls in the vicinity of all hospitals is that 2 hour time limits is not sufficient for many outpatient type visits. Martin is about to change jobs. The new contact in his role will be:

Russell Bance Director - Metropolitan Access and Parking Department T: (08) 9225 3901 M: 0404 016 859 E: [email protected] Russell will return to work on 7 May.

Su 2/5/2012

File Note

J:\223000\223694\WORK\1 - COMMUNICATIONS\MEETINGS\120514_UWA CONSULT NOTES.DOCX

Page 1 of 2©Arup | F0.15 | 14 February 2011

Level 7 Wellington Central 836 Wellington Street West Perth 6005 Australia www.arup.com

t +61 8 9327 8300f +61 8 9481 1334

Project title Subiaco Parking Strategy Job number

223694-00

cc Michael Duckett File reference

Prepared by Danya Alexander

Date

21 May 2012

Subject i

Stakeholder consultation - University of Western Australia

Introduction This note summarises the key discussion items from the meeting held on 14 May 2012 held between David Tyrrell-Clark (UWA) and Danya Alexander (Arup) to inform the preparation of a parking strategy for the City of Subiaco. Existing parking conditions:

Students view - there is insufficient supply of parking.

UWA considers that there will never be enough car parking supplied due to:

Road capacity

Cost: $3.5k per bay to construct

Aesthetics

Some behaviour change is needed

The University controls 3,283 parking bays under the cap. Other bays surrounding the Crawley Campus are contained within the cap (763 bays) but are under local government control

Mode share: Approximately 30% students travel in single occupancy vehicles (SOVs), 80 to85% staff travel in SOVs

Student eligibility for parking permit:

48 credit points, and

Post code restricted areas.

The post code restricted boundaries – if travel time by PT is greater than 45mins then the student is eligible. The boundaries however pre-date the introduction of the Mandurah line and require updating.

UWA all day parking fees apply for 8 hours, for City of Subiaco this is 9 hours (ie an extra hour is charged). This makes some difference to demand ($1 per day difference in fee)

Some side streets around the Uni are free but have a time restriction which precludes use by most students.

File Note 223694-00 21 May 2012

J:\223000\223694\WORK\1 - COMMUNICATIONS\MEETINGS\120514_UWA CONSULT NOTES.DOCX

Page 2 of 2©Arup | F0.15 | 14 February 2011

DEC control some recreational parking south-east of Hackett Drive in the foreshore. UWA indicated that there are some enforcement issues with DEC having only limited powers (ie infringements must be delivered in person) which is leading to some abuse. This needs to be confirmed with DEC.

Public transport service provision is very good – will cope with increased demand however PT provision is usually more limited at the residential trip origin.

Light rail is unlikely to see a significant change in mode share. Bus travel time from City to UWA Crawley is around 18 mins and follows a direct route along Mounts Bay Rd. Light rail travel time expected to be around 25 – 30mins and is less direct.

UWA considers the standard of enforcement between the City and UWA parking bays is very similar.

The greatest issue is Hackett Drive where one side is controlled by UWA and the other by City of Subiaco. The parking tickets are not interchangeable which can lead to confusion and issues when a ticket machine is out of order.

Parking is very price sensitive and people will change parking locations easily if there is a price disparity. There was formerly a disparity between UWA and City controlled parking however fees are now consistent. UWA now has in place authority for parking charges to be tied to the City’s (without going through a lengthy University Senate process to alter).

UWA’s anecdotal evidence indicates that 20% would pay any price to park (ie are not price sensitive)

Others – parking fees in the order of $10-15 per day would shift modes.

UWA considers that a 20% mode shift away from SOVs would solve parking issues.

Considerations for the parking strategy:

Avoid creating a disparity between City and UWA controlled parking

Continue financial contribution to Subi shuttle

UWA would support installation of a parking guidance system but has no plans to implement themselves

DOCUMENT CHECKING (not mandatory for File Note) Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Danya Alexander

Signature

Appendix D

Stakeholder workshop feedback survey responses

1

Parking Workshop Evaluation Results 31 May, 7, 9, 20 June 2012 Palms Community Centre

1. Attendance and evaluations received

Date 31 May 2012 – Zone 1 Number attended 11 Number evaluations received 5 Percent response 45%

2. Venue

The venue was suitable for this type of event

3. Session

The session was well run

Comments on the workshop It was nice to get dinner provided As first workshop held, it evolved as a learning process for staff Not enough explanation given to participants as to how to participate in the exercises I felt able to provide feedback but not on the topics I would have liked to be asked to

give feedback on though

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

Strongly agree

Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

Strongly agree


2

4. Confidence to express opinions

I felt able to express my opinions and provide feedback on the topic

5. Improvements Assessing the options was quite difficult, especially given the time restraints and

differing opinions The options review worksheet was a bit labour intensive Investigate the possibility of controlling participants to stick to the general and not get

bogged down in particulars The table we filled was quite difficult to understand, some concepts were not relevant

6. Other comments Thanks Thank you for the opportunity to put our case I have learnt a lot about the ‘situation’ with parking for City of Subiaco Staff coped well Perhaps it would be better to take first residents’ considerations, business owners next,

worker etc , as it is difficult to jump from one ‘skin’ to another

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Strongly agree


3


Date 7 June 2012 – Zone 2 Number attended 22 Number evaluations received 21 Percent response 95%

2. Venue


3. Session


Comments on the workshop A little later start for working folk (maybe that is why you appeared to have a

predominance of old folk) Very noisy Excellent location, timing convenient Tables too close together, venue too loud very difficult to hear discussions The logic is immensely frustrating, most questions referred to the CBD – parking in

Shenton Park, Hollywood and Crawley is a different issue Terrible acoustics No trouble finding a parking spot Perhaps a little later in the evening, more opportunity to suggest solutions You were looking for solutions/benefits for workers from outside our area at the

expense of residents Should’ve started with opportunity for people to provide feedback first

01234567

Strongly agree


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly agree


4

It starts a little early for workers – but I understand the difficulties to please everyone Disappointed, somewhat prescriptive Some people were monopolising and also held strong personal opinions and were close

minded to other discussion areas and views and most of all solutions Too ambitious for time available Smoothly run. I would have liked time to comment on some of our solutions – a few

were covered by the selection options Could have been longer Too noisy, difficult to hear



5. Improvements Orange juice rather than just water Needs to concentrate on particular problems of the zone involved for residents Discussion tables further apart Circulate proposed discussion points prior to meeting Less predetermined discussion points, more listening, less talking Well run generally More time for individual comments Needed more feedback rather than presentation, rather than workshop more

interactive on what current feedback/thoughts were Remember safety first. First do no harm. Always take a good history and examination Email addresses for the speakers/convenors for further dialogue Zone 2 is such a disparate area – especially the residents around UWA compared to

houses in Shenton Park ‐ perhaps zone 2 need to be split for discussions? The discussion should have been more focused on key issues and solutions Well presented – and participants listened too Action needs to be taken to make changes Residents concerns taken note of and actioned Ask participants to provide their long lists of worries upfront so that they can work

better with the facilitator e.g. have your drop in sessions before the workshops

0

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree


5

6. Other comments Let participants have access to material for consideration and provide input for

discussion prior to meeting A desire for the councillors of south ward to meet with us after they have read the

report Actions need to be implemented ASAP Business hour time restrictions on all streets which get enforced when residents ring up

and submit a complaint. Educate on an ‘effective complaint’ i.e. photo and rego of vehicle, time duration of offence etc.

Scribes at table discussion should have spent more time writing and less time leading the discussion

The first thing to do is to police no parking streets of residents particularly UWA students

Is there any way to get a mix of residents to be more representative – not all from one location/street? I know it’s hard and you all did a great job under difficult circumstances. Thanks for supper!

Needed session to be how residents felt about proposals, rather than trying to provide input into ARUP report

Consult onsite with the local residents (ratepayers) i.e. parking in Hilda Street – invite Hilda Street residents to an onsite review. Remember rules are for guidance

Great idea – this sort of thing could happen a little more – say twice per annum It would be useful to have a copy of the formal slide presentation. Summary provided to participants Tough job Difficult to make any improvements until the QE multi car park is open and something is

done for students parking at the park on Park Street or down Hackett Drive Su and Subi staff were firm and fair when dealing with some very frustrated residents

tonight

6



2. Venue


3. Session


Comments on the workshop Well done with this bolshy lot! Lovely Difficult conditions to control crowd. A lot of competition to express opinions Great for people busy weekday nights

01234567

Strongly agree


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly agree


7



5. Improvements Not very much – pleasantly surprised. Intro and finishing weakest parts. Perhaps too

many staff (our ratepayers $$) Handout of presentation More business owners attend. Use info from pro Subi and SBA More time for personal expression on parking problems and solving them Less topics so more time can be spent on each Nothing to mind

6. Other comments Perhaps more pressure on Coles to build that multi storey car park Opportunity to input into my own area. Combine with councillors. Good opportunity to present my streets views. Thank you Just hope all the money spent on this project we will see results quickly!! Wondering how long the Council will take to deal with the positive suggestions and

strategies from the information given? Extremely well run and organised

0

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly agree


8



2. Venue


Note: This workshop was held in the council chambers

3. Session


Comments on the workshop Excellent presentation – positive approach Pleasant surroundings, helpful and courteous staff, their help is appreciated. The

provision of food and drinks appreciated. Quite an improvement from the previous one at the Palms

Free discussion allowing for some stronger personalities

02468

101214

Strongly agree


012345678

Strongly agree


9



5. Improvements Maybe more balanced group representing all groups – too dominated by residents Owing to the time restriction, the pie and bar charts were rushed through, so it was

difficult to extrapolate the info contained therein. Also the colour correspondence was difficult to differentiate

I think the organisers have a strong handle on workshopping. Subiaco does well by its residents.

Info at workshop would have been of more value had it been passed out earlier and able to be considered before this workshop

6. Other comments Great interaction and excellent coverage Keep up good work Thank you; I found the session very informative on many levels. Regards and good luck! We are so lucky to be welcome to participate in such professional workshops. Thank

you! A big question! Informative workshop raising as many questions as answers. Good to

be able to express views and experiences. Good luck! All staff worked and interacted with participants – top marks – stretched the

imagination and made me more aware of the big problem that the council has. Many thanks

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Strongly agree


Parking Study Research Report - City of Subiaco Study Research Report 223694 Final | 12th September...

Documents

Transcript of Parking Study Research Report - City of Subiaco Study Research Report 223694 Final | 12th September...