News & Discussion: CBD Carparks

[ChrisRT]

On the topic of CBD parking, I like the Entertainment Centre park'n'ride model - find a big underutilised car park just outside the CBD, provide excellent public transport to it and charge 2 bucks a pop. Everyone benefits - car drivers pay less for parking (albeit slightly longer commute maybe) and everyone else simply enjoys better public transport service.

[Isiskii]

On the topic of CBD parking, I like the Entertainment Centre park'n'ride model - find a big underutilised car park just outside the CBD, provide excellent public transport to it and charge 2 bucks a pop. Everyone benefits - car drivers pay less for parking (albeit slightly longer commute maybe) and everyone else simply enjoys better public transport service.

The entire section from South Terrace to Entertainment Centre is now free.

[Aidan]

Do you guys realise that you're arguing chicken and egg? One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually.

It matters an enormous amount! While public transport remains inadequate, trying to force more people onto it lowers everyone's quality of life. Better public transport will improve everyone's quality of life.

Summary of both arguments: "I'm not going to change my behaviour."

Of course I'm not - I already go by train despite the poor service. But I'd rather my train not be overcrowded - do you really think there's something wrong with that?

[monotonehell]

Do you guys realise that you're arguing chicken and egg? One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually.

It matters an enormous amount! While public transport remains inadequate, trying to force more people onto it lowers everyone's quality of life. Better public transport will improve everyone's quality of life.

Summary of both arguments: "I'm not going to change my behaviour."

Of course I'm not - I already go by train despite the poor service. But I'd rather my train not be overcrowded - do you really think there's something wrong with that?

Way to miss the point, Aiden.

Govt: "We can't afford to upgrade PT beyond a certain point until more people patronise it."
People: "We aren't getting out of our cars until PT is improved beyond a certain point."

The above argument is a feedback loop, no one wins. Hence as I said above;
"One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually."

Change is pain, people and the govt. just have to accept that and move forward sometimes.

[Aidan]

Do you guys realise that you're arguing chicken and egg? One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually.

It matters an enormous amount! While public transport remains inadequate, trying to force more people onto it lowers everyone's quality of life. Better public transport will improve everyone's quality of life.

Summary of both arguments: "I'm not going to change my behaviour."

Of course I'm not - I already go by train despite the poor service. But I'd rather my train not be overcrowded - do you really think there's something wrong with that?

Way to miss the point, Aiden.

You're the one missing the point, as your argument is based on false assumptions.

Govt: "We can't afford to upgrade PT beyond a certain point until more people patronise it."
People: "We aren't getting out of our cars until PT is improved beyond a certain point."

The above argument is a feedback loop, no one wins. Hence as I said above;
"One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually."

But that's not what the government say
And even if they said it, they'd be lying!

The government don't automatically spend more on PT when more people use it. Buses run full and the government does nothing. And we have fewer railcars now than we did twenty years ago!

BTW the situation you described is a deadlock and possibly even a catch 22. But the real situation isn't, and isn't even a feedback loop, because the government don't respond to feedback.

Change is pain, people and the govt. just have to accept that and move forward sometimes.

Change is only pain if you're making the wrong changes.

[iTouch]

You're the one missing the point, as your argument is based on false assumptions.

Lie

But that's not what the government say
And even if they said it, they'd be lying!

The government don't automatically spend more on PT when more people use it. Buses run full and the government does nothing. And we have fewer railcars now than we did twenty years ago!

BTW the situation you described is a deadlock and possibly even a catch 22. But the real situation isn't, and isn't even a feedback loop, because the government don't respond to feedback.

Lie

Change is only pain if you're making the wrong changes.

Lie

I rest my case.

[AtD]

Going to have to side with mono here. In economics jargon, it's a Path dependence problem, the existing system wins even though it's less efficient (the common text book example of this is the use of QWERTY despite many better alternatives). Moving away from the current position is not Pareto optimal as at least one player will be made worse off (drivers) even though the benefits may outweigh to cost.

In short: chicken and egg.

[Aidan]

Lie

I rest my case.

Saying Lie doesn't make it so, nor does it prove anything.

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why don't you provide a counterexample?

[iTouch]

Saying Lie doesn't make it so, nor does it prove anything.

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why don't you provide a counterexample?

It may not, but it is the most effective argument to someone with such a strong head.

[Aidan]

Saying Lie doesn't make it so, nor does it prove anything.

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why don't you provide a counterexample?

It may not, but it is the most effective argument to someone with such a strong head.

If your idea of winning an argument is to get the last word in, it could be an effective tactic. But if your objective is to change people's views, it is utterly useless.

Remember, internet arguments are often aimed as much at observers as at participants.

[monotonehell]

Change is only pain if you're making the wrong changes.

I know that and you know that, if you're able to step back and recognise the big picture you can see that. BUT on the individual's level, change is pain. People often don't know what's good for them, they're stuck in their habits. Even if those habits are detrimental to them, they still continue in that path. Some people even know that what are doing is detrimental, and yet they still continue.

"I do it this way because I do it this way."

Compare the cost of taking a car into the CBD everyday to the cost of taking PT for an individual who has a good door to door service. Everyone knows that the PT option is cheaper than taking the car, it's easier on the nerves as the person doesn't have to drive. But there are many many individuals in this position who don't take PT.

With pretty much every successful urban development plan I've read, there's always been those resistant to change, even when the benefits of change are writ in ten foot hight stone letters.

Change is uncertainty, staying the same is familiar. People often confuse familiarity with comfort.

[Aidan]

Compare the cost of taking a car into the CBD everyday to the cost of taking PT for an individual who has a good door to door service. Everyone knows that the PT option is cheaper than taking the car, it's easier on the nerves as the person doesn't have to drive. But there are many many individuals in this position who don't take PT.

Indeed there are - but instead of assuming the reason they take the car is because it's what they're familiar with, try investigating the real reasons. Some people do have more stuff with them than they can easily carry. Others find the services too unreliable - have you already forgotten capitalist's comment on this thread about full buses? These are problems that need to be fixed.

With pretty much every successful urban development plan I've read, there's always been those resistant to change, even when the benefits of change are writ in ten foot hight stone letters.

After the changes our state MPs keep making, that's hardly surprising. But when people see change bringing genuine improvements, people usually want more change than the government are willing to provide.

Change is uncertainty, staying the same is familiar. People often confuse familiarity with comfort.

True, but people are unlikely to feel comfortable standing in an overcrowded bus no matter how familiar it is.

[Waewick]

surely improved light rail and trams system into existing residential areas into existing employment areas taking into account where people actually want to go, not where the SA Government want them to (i.e park and ride down port road - i'm not saying its a bad idea i'm just saying its not going to improve the "paid up" people using the system)

[AtD]

Others find the services too unreliable

They'd be more reliable if there was less CBD traffic and more bus priority! However this will be politically hard to achieve if we continue to expand the number of cheap CBD car parks and encourage people into bad habbits.

[Aidan]

Others find the services too unreliable

They'd be more reliable if there was less CBD traffic and more bus priority! However this will be politically hard to achieve if we continue to expand the number of cheap CBD car parks and encourage people into bad habbits.

I see you snipped the second half of that line which referred you to capitalist's post. Had you checked it instead, perhaps you wouldn't keep missing the point:
Bus services become unreliable when they're overloaded.
A bus that can't fit any more passengers on is as useless as one that's cancelled. Where bus stops have Countdown, it's actually worse because it deceives passengers into thinking they can catch a bus soon.

Which leads back to the main point:
When our buses run full, the government fail to provide more.
It's not a case of chicken and egg - the chicken's stopped laying.