Sensational-Adelaide.com

monotonehell wrote:Did you know that the only fully automated parking structure in the World is in Adelaide? And that it doesn't work. Every other carpark in the World that looks automatic has an attendant hiding somewhere ready to pounce on the malfunctions that happen several times a day.

Not true, a lot are "automatic" in a sense that one office responds to calls for many car parks.

If you want automated, see Westfield Chatswood. Each space has a small red/green light above it, and a sensor detecting if it's occupied. There's electronic signs at the end of every row and at every ramp telling you how many free spaces there are in each given direction. Even if there's just one space left, you can drive directly there and not have to circle around.

monotonehell wrote:

Edgar wrote:Well, if no to cash-change ticketing machine, no to smart card machine, what can you come up with?

If these U-Parks station can come up with cash-change ticketing machine, I cannot see why it cannot be done in city parking machines.

Because there's only 4 of those in UPark and they're a constant problem of breakdown. They require daily visits from the technicians because they are so unreliable. Imagine the cost of replacing all the street parking machines with something like that?

The thing with big idea technological solutions to real world problems is that if you've ever worked in the industry you'd know that unless you're willing to spend MEGAbucks in development, testing and rollout you get machines that don't work. And even if you are prepared to spend the money and time you still get machines that don't work.

Did you know that the only fully automated parking structure in the World is in Adelaide? And that it doesn't work. Every other carpark in the World that looks automatic has an attendant hiding somewhere ready to pounce on the malfunctions that happen several times a day.

The old 1980's machines in UPark work better and require less maintenance than the Windows based mess they've installed into Topham.

I can just imagine the joy of being stuck in a row of cars inside Topham, about to break free on a Friday evening, when suddenly.....

AtD wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Did you know that the only fully automated parking structure in the World is in Adelaide? And that it doesn't work. Every other carpark in the World that looks automatic has an attendant hiding somewhere ready to pounce on the malfunctions that happen several times a day.

Not true, a lot are "automatic" in a sense that one office responds to calls for many car parks.

If you want automated, see Westfield Chatswood. Each space has a small red/green light above it, and a sensor detecting if it's occupied. There's electronic signs at the end of every row and at every ramp telling you how many free spaces there are in each given direction. Even if there's just one space left, you can drive directly there and not have to circle around.

That's a nice feature, but it's not a fully automated carpark. That's Park Assist. Rats I thought of this Park Assist idea years ago, but never had the guts to make it work. However according to another article they also have a number plate recognition system installed there (drat another idea I had!) connected to the ticketing system in case of lost tickets. But again that needs an attendant operator.

When I say fully automated I mean one where an attendant doesn't need to be employed onsite in case of problems. There's not a car park in the World like that (as far as I know).

city Street parking.... should be abolished.

Hmmm, that's a lot of food for thought guys.

I appreciate everyones contributions regarding this forum. I like the idea regarding a prepaid card system (similar to that used in most phone boxes/library photocopiers) although i do appreciate the considerable expense that would need to be committed to such an upgrade.

I guess the emphasis here (as i saw pointed out at least once in this forum) is the availability of more options for Adelaide motorists. Because at the end of the day, i feel that we are using an outdated system that is overdue for renewal. And like any system renewal, it would be naive to say that it can be done without considerable cost. A cost that a feel is necessary considering its long term benefits. Let's face it, ticket machines aren't going anywhere fast (so long as there's street parking anyhow). An upgrade is inevitable, so what better time than now to begin the transition. As for the maintenance issue, well, like all machines, they'll need maintaining and like all machines, they'll most probably be upgraded from time to time to minimize on operating costs. Hey, i'm sure the Rundle lantern is gonna cost a pretty penny too. Oooh, ahhhhh, look at the pretty lights. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for the project, it's just that, if Mike Rann's serious about developing infrastructure in Adelaide, city street parking should be up there on his priority list. Hmmm, maybe i should give him a call...

So, like the phone box before them, let's say hello to the coin/card option with our parking ticket machines and say goodbye to loose change, over-charging and inconvenience.

Free street parking for disabled persons, pensioners, and full-time Uni students is another consideration that i feel the Adelaide City council should review.

JaySun wrote:...if Mike Rann's serious about developing infrastructure in Adelaide, city street parking should be up there on his priority list. Hmmm, maybe i should give him a call...

You'd be wasting a call. On street parking is governed by the council UPark is the council unit responsible for their operational maintenance.

JaySun wrote:...like the phone box before them, let's say hello to the coin/card option with our parking ticket machines and say goodbye to loose change, over-charging and inconvenience.

Harping on about costs again, I'd just like to point out that phone boxes have a convenient network connected to them already by virtue of being a telephone, so they don't have to be all wired up.

JaySun wrote:Free street parking for disabled persons, pensioners, and full-time Uni students is another consideration that i feel the Adelaide City council should review.

They did review that back at the end of ... I think it was 2005, and their resolution involved extending the 2 hours free for disabled patrons in staffed Uparks by quadrupling the number of available parking spaces. This also meant that the "mothers with prams" spaces in the shopping UParks went the way of the dodo. :wank:

Parking in general across all of Adelaide needs to be reviewed, both on and off street, private and council operated. And more importantly PT into and around the city needs to be improved so that people don't need to drive in so often.

^^ What a bunch of whiners! You've no idea how easy you have it in Adelaide! Free parking in even minor urban centres is practically non-existent out here. There's several suburban shops here where you have to pay to park even for a few minutes outside Woolworths. Coins are a valuable commodity!

Take PT.

AtD wrote:^^ What a bunch of whiners! You've no idea how easy you have it in Adelaide! Free parking in even minor urban centres is practically non-existent out here. There's several suburban shops here where you have to pay to park even for a few minutes outside Woolworths. Coins are a valuable commodity!

Now who's whining? If you hate Canberra so much why not marry it? .. no wait...

May be this in the wrong thread but as a frequent visitor (& hopefully one day a resident) of Adelaide I have always wondered when looking over the skyline of the CBD from my hotel room why there are so many above ground parking towers in the Adelaide CBD as appose to other cities where most parking towers are underground or under buildings. Is there some problem with the sub soil under the CBD or have they (builders & ACC) just built/approved the parking towers on the cheap??

bulldog13 wrote:May be this in the wrong thread but as a frequent visitor (& hopefully one day a resident) of Adelaide I have always wondered when looking over the skyline of the CBD from my hotel room why there are so many above ground parking towers in the Adelaide CBD as appose to other cities where most parking towers are underground or under buildings. Is there some problem with the sub soil under the CBD or have they (builders & ACC) just built/approved the parking towers on the cheap??

It's fairly simple, we have(had) the room for them. Most other CBDs are restricted in space by harbours or mountains or some other reason that limits (and therefore increases the cost) land availability.

It's a simple RoI calculation, a carpark is relatively cheap to build and has a good return. We've had a few of what I suspect are car parks by stealth approved recently. Where an office building is promised but the car park stage is built first.


Now having said this, I'll also say that I don't like it. We already have too many carparks in Adelaide and there's more being built right now. But on good thing is that they are (I believe?) cheap to demolish if a "real" building is to be built.


But Adelaide, like Los Angeles, has a lot of flat land and this promotes "lazy" land use. Unlike cities like Hong Kong or Manhattan where land is at a premium so the only ways to go are up and down.

Shuz wrote:city Street parking.... should be abolished.

Then where would people park their vans?

City activities require service vehicles, and not all of those can fit in the multi storey or underground car parks.

JaySun wrote:Hmmm, that's a lot of food for thought guys.

I appreciate everyones contributions regarding this forum. I like the idea regarding a prepaid card system (similar to that used in most phone boxes/library photocopiers) although i do appreciate the considerable expense that would need to be committed to such an upgrade.

Does anyone still use prepaid cards in phone boxes?

So, like the phone box before them, let's say hello to the coin/card option with our parking ticket machines and say goodbye to loose change, over-charging and inconvenience.

What you're proposing an obsolete system, imposing a large extra cost for very little benefit!

The ability to use a mobile phone to pay would be a better idea. Another sensible alternative is the new smartcards that we're getting for our buses and trains.

Free street parking for disabled persons, pensioners, and full-time Uni students is another consideration that i feel the Adelaide City council should review.

I disagree for the same reason I disagreed with Shuz: making street parking free for those who don't need to use it will make it unavailable for those who do need to use it.

Already street parking is often regarded as more desirable - many people dislike "roundy roundy updy downdy" car parks! Prices should be set so that street parking is always available.

Moderator's note: This has been split from the 58-76 Franklin Street thread. - AtD

Ben wrote:IMO the amount of carparks being constructed in the city is ridiculous and council needs to amend the development plan to reduce the amount allowed.

I would have thought that the most appropriate test for whether there were too many parks was if someone builds it and it remains empty then there are probably too many. I'd suggest that if there are developers proposing to build more parks, then there is probably demand for those parks, and it would be a bad idea to stop them being built. If the amount that developers build is actually too high for demand, then surely they won't make any money and they'll stop building them (or start tearing down existing ones).

And I would think that feedback from an existing business nextdoor on the possible impacts on demand qualifies as the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour. I'm not sure that the ACCC has rules on lobbying activities with the expressed purpose of limiting competition, but this would seem to qualify as against the spirit of national competition policy if not the legislation. If the council listens to any of this claptrap at all then they aren't doing their job properly.

Will Derwent wrote:I would have thought that the most appropriate test for whether there were too many parks was if someone builds it and it remains empty then there are probably too many. I'd suggest that if there are developers proposing to build more parks, then there is probably demand for those parks, and it would be a bad idea to stop them being built. If the amount that developers build is actually too high for demand, then surely they won't make any money and they'll stop building them (or start tearing down existing ones).

oh jeez, way to paint a bullseye on your chest - lol. You'll receive some interesting feedback here.

My personal opinion: Less CBD car parks = higher cost of parking = less people traveling by car = more PT demand/usage (which is a good thing). Really depends what sort of societal transport behaviour you want to encourage.

Will Derwent wrote:

Ben wrote:IMO the amount of carparks being constructed in the city is ridiculous and council needs to amend the development plan to reduce the amount allowed.

I would have thought that the most appropriate test for whether there were too many parks was if someone builds it and it remains empty then there are probably too many. I'd suggest that if there are developers proposing to build more parks, then there is probably demand for those parks, and it would be a bad idea to stop them being built. If the amount that developers build is actually too high for demand, then surely they won't make any money and they'll stop building them (or start tearing down existing ones).

And I would think that feedback from an existing business nextdoor on the possible impacts on demand qualifies as the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour. I'm not sure that the ACCC has rules on lobbying activities with the expressed purpose of limiting competition, but this would seem to qualify as against the spirit of national competition policy if not the legislation. If the council listens to any of this claptrap at all then they aren't doing their job properly.

It is entirely within ACC's power to regulate CBD land use for whatever reason they see fit and they would be in derelict of their duties if they failed to do so. Keep in mind, however, that the state government has the power to take powers away from local government at any time (as evidenced with the over $10 million rule - see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 951795.htm for example).

Will Derwent wrote:I would have thought that the most appropriate test for whether there were too many parks was if someone builds it and it remains empty then there are probably too many. I'd suggest that if there are developers proposing to build more parks, then there is probably demand for those parks, and it would be a bad idea to stop them being built. If the amount that developers build is actually too high for demand, then surely they won't make any money and they'll stop building them (or start tearing down existing ones).

And I would think that feedback from an existing business nextdoor on the possible impacts on demand qualifies as the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour. I'm not sure that the ACCC has rules on lobbying activities with the expressed purpose of limiting competition, but this would seem to qualify as against the spirit of national competition policy if not the legislation. If the council listens to any of this claptrap at all then they aren't doing their job properly.

I agree with you that it is not the role of the ACC to determine whether supply or demand exists or not, that's up to the investors to bare that risk and make that determination. The direct commercial impact on competitors to the proposed development should never be a factor for consideration by the council. Whether or not a car park would be empty, full, profitable, bankrupt or owned by a goldfish in the Cayman Islands is irrelevant for planing considerations.

The ACC's role does include "research and studies are done on the impact of this car park on this area of the city" - the social impact of noise, traffic, pollution, mode shift, aesthetics, and reduction in pedestrian amenity. In this role, the impact on the amenity of commercial competitors is a subject for consideration (eg new traffic and queues preventing access to/from competitor's car parks). Also in this role, I think I'd speak for most of the forum in suggesting that the ACC should be highly critical of any stand alone or "staged" car park development.

However, I'm not completely confident that those two functions remain separate enough for my liking given the language used in this thread. It is not unheard of for commercial lobbies to use the development approval process at the council level for anti-competitive behaviour, Coles and Woolies have been accused of it many times.