jenny
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by jenny on Aug 21, 2013 23:12:44 GMT 10
DEMAND MANAGEMENT - CPF130819.doc (102.5 KB)
Hi all,
For many years and so many meetings, we have focussed on how to build more carparking at Church Point. But there will never be enough space for all the residents and all the visitors who would like to come to this beautiful place. The elephant in the carpark, way too big to ignore any longer, is how can the demand for parking be reduced rather than increased? How can the needs of both onshore and offshore residents and visitors be met without spoiling the low-key character, heritage and natural environment of Church Point?
Church Point Friends are a group of onshore and offshore residents, many with professional design expertise, who are working collaboratively to contribute to these questions. Attached article, "Demand Management" contains three proposals calling on Council to urgently start addressing the need to manage the demand for parking, and to give some priority to local residents over visitors, as happens in many parts of Sydney.
The "letter to assoc" is an introductory letter which has been sent to each of the four local resident association asking that they discuss these proposals and decide if they will support them. The two offshore associations are SIRA and WPCA, the two onshore associations are BCPRA and CPRA. If you are a member of one of these associations, let them know your views! Tell Council too.
These suggestions are to begin a long-overdue discussion - Before we commit to a $5.4 million building project, what are we going to do about the elephant?
Jenny C. Attachments:letter to assocs.doc (96.5 KB)
|
|
cr
New Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by cr on Aug 24, 2013 15:56:06 GMT 10
Let's start the suggestions with a thought regarding space, many households who use Church Point as point of access have two or more vehicles.
Maybe everyone should get their first permit at an affordable price, around the current price.
Second and subsequent vehicles per household should then pay a premium.
Have some incentive not to park there, leaving space enough for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by tcostin on Sept 13, 2013 11:30:18 GMT 10
I can foresee that this will be a problem with families whose children have a car, who won't have the premium budget. It is a tricky issue...
|
|
|
|
Post by tcostin on Sept 13, 2013 11:33:37 GMT 10
Have they considered tighter parking spots like in city areas, to make the most of the space and avoid the big gaps and double parking spots (where one car is entirely parked in) for families/friends like there is near the commuter wharf. I think it is the scenario where every additional spot counts. Even the 1 hour zones up the road that are 500m plus away, could be extended and created to be inclusive of resident parking, rather than just 1 hr.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachhouse on Sept 25, 2013 12:20:16 GMT 10
Hi,
the CPF propsals are all very valid points and make a lot of sense. It still won't solve the car parking problem in general, so we should have 2 2 pronged approach. Get as many CPs built as we can, introduce the above points and actually add a third 'prong': Much improved public transport!
2 ideas here: 1. Check how often passengers stay on the bus beyond CP wharf, susequently change bus route to generally terminate at CP. Introduce a small shuttle bus, which runs continuously between M/V and CP and perhaps once an hour/ 2 hourly to the end of Mc CC? Run this shuttle bus until 1am Thu/Fri/Sat!
2. Run the ferry constantly between CP and Bells and once an hour on the long trip or combine Water taxi service with ferry service and use water taxi as shuttle...
We need more frequent public services, that will automatically reduce boat numbers on commuter wh, probably not cars on CP, but reduce pollution at least.
Andrea
|
|
hubert
New Member
Posts: 16
Do you live on Scotland Island?: Yes
Do you own property on the Island?: Yes
Your age group: 40 - 59
|
Post by hubert on Sept 25, 2013 20:19:53 GMT 10
I lived in Hong Kong for 4 years and there are what they call mini-buses which go through the city with high frequency. They carry a maximum of 16 passengers and are really convenient for many.
I think that this could be a solution for the Mona Vale - Church Point route. Many people do their shopping and many other errands in Mona Vale and would not need a second (or third or fourth) car in the household if there was a convenient service. Also, it would make using public transport further away much more convenient.
The bus fees could be subsidised from the CP parking revenue and if it would reduce the number of cars per household on average within the offshore community and even in the CP / Bayview mainland area. The bus could stop at Rowland reserve for picking up Pasadena patrons who would be allowed to park there and further at some places within Mona Vale. Would this make more sense then trying to increase the number of spaces, or could it be a add-on solution to a modest increase in spaces at CP?
|
|
cr
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by cr on Sept 26, 2013 6:55:34 GMT 10
I believe we're moving in a better direction in this discussion.
Parking will be like building roads, and the commuter wharf (which still has most boats without a permit and many abusing the system including ex or non-residents!) the more we have the more use increases!
Loving the idea of a shuttle bus, operating much more frequently than the Sydney Bus and should be free!
The Pasadena development needs an alternative parking arrangement and really should have this as part of their DA.
Between the Pasadena and the millions saved from any new parking development a better alternative has got to be not only possible, but a much more viable position.
|
|
cr
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by cr on Sept 26, 2013 7:03:51 GMT 10
I can foresee that this will be a problem with families whose children have a car, who won't have the premium budget. It is a tricky issue... Call me old fashioned, but isn't this a bit extravagant! We walk more often than not well away from CP getting our one car park that we have paid for at CP! Don't kids have legs anymore, or bus passes? |
|
|
|
Post by beachhouse on Sept 26, 2013 8:50:04 GMT 10
Hi,
I am still astrong advocate for a 2 storey CP and I'll tell you why. The suggestions to more frequent bus and FERRY services will make life a lot easier for the short trips to M/V- perfect. The ideas as to how to used the existing CP have a lot of merit, BUT overlook 2 aspects: the cafes/ restaurants will want to serve customers in the evenings as well (which is nice for us as potential patrons), thus need evening car parking. And 2nd there is probably a legal issue with excluding non-offshories from buying a sticker...
Consequence is, we do need more CPs and I can't see for the life of me, why there is an issue with 2 storey deck as proposed by council. It could have some serious advantages:
1. that part of Mc CC gets a real overhaul (it looks derelict now!)
2. the lower CPs can be sold as 'garages/ storage ' to off-shore residents, who want to keep their cars or other belongings safe and thus subsidise the whole venture.
Just as a quick calc: someone mentioned A$5.4 m building costs. Say 50 garages at A$ 60k make already A$ 3 m. The Pasadena should be asked to pay for at least the required CPs they need for staff plus 1/2 the required CPs their 'tables' amount to, that must be in the region of 20 at either an annual lease or to be bought outright at cost (A$ 40k for outdoor ones?).That could bring in A$ 800k. We have some $$ in the kitty (I assume 3 yrs @ A$ 250k= A$ 750k). So all up we should be able to generate A$ 4-4.5m off a 5.4m budget. That leaves a million $$ in debt @ 5% that's A$ 50k, which means we could reduce the CP costs to 1/2 (A$ 150/a), take in only A$ 150k/a in fees, and pay the whole lot off in less than 10 years!
Now, what speaks against THAT? We have more facilities, an improved environment and save $$!
The argument that a 2 storey CP is ugly only holds, if you don't use a designer/ architect/ landscaper to make it look nice. In fact it could be a huge improvement to now, just don't look at a Westfield CP! We can work with planting, timber slats, maybe COR 10 elements etc and make a piece of art out of it. Something we can be proud of. There are enough creative people living here, no need to pay for the design!
My vision is for a community, which has the choice of hopping quickly onto public transport for that dash into M/V , cutting down on pollution, take their car for all the other big trips, without worrying about a car park at the end of the day. Convenience in both points and this is an advantage for young and old. Nobody loses- except some petrol stations...
Now, give me a good argument why not!
Andrea
|
|
hubert
New Member
Posts: 16
Do you live on Scotland Island?: Yes
Do you own property on the Island?: Yes
Your age group: 40 - 59
|
Post by hubert on Sept 27, 2013 13:34:58 GMT 10
Hi Andrea,
I have also thought that Pasadena should pay for the infrastructure their business depends upon. But then there are also other businesses / users, for example the Waterfront Cafe. How should that be handled in an equitable way? Pasadena owners would have an easy job countering the argument on the basis of equality.
In addition: I have been told that apparently the Pasadena owners at the time paid for the cost of 50% of the landfill and car park on the current Church Point reserve. If that is true, their case becomes even stronger! I do not know for how long these kinds of 'usage rights' last and it would probably be something that would need to be pursued through the courts.
I still think we are putting the horse before the cart. We are saying we want to invest in lots of infrastructure but haven't solved the question about how we are going to manage the demand for parking. In any kind of business this would be an investment proposal that is voted down by the board.
The proposals may form a sound business case FOR COUNCIL; but there is NO SOUND BUSINESS CASE FOR THE USERS. And the users are we (offshore residents), Pasadena, other businesses at Church Point and anyone else, including visitors and mainland people in the area. In fact, in my opinion: the proposal is a house of cards and it seems to me that we as users should stand together to ensure that Council implements solutions that work for everyone.
|
|
cr
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by cr on Oct 16, 2013 8:05:05 GMT 10
October 16, 2013
Mark Ferguson
General Manager
Pittwater Council
PO Box 882
Mona Vale 2103
Regarding Church Point Parking.
Dear Mark,
I am writing to ask for more options to be tabled regarding the parking issue at Church Point.
Firstly, I believe parking spaces to be like roads, or the commuter wharf for instance.
The more spaces made available, the more cars/boats will be parked there!
If you make it easier to park, that option will be taken by those already using public transport, car sharing or other means and gobbled up by any Pasadena development.
Alternate options include free shuttle to Mon Vale where public transport options are better or ease of shopping will reduce the need for cars and spaces.
This could easily be paid for by a condition alongside the Pasadena development, funds raised by car parking or the wise investment of the monies allocated to build an horrific concrete structure at Church Point or a mix of the above.
Each household should also be able to park one car at the current price, second cars at a premium and third and subsequent cars at what could be considered an extortionate rate.
This would naturally decrease the demand for parking and those who are extravagant enough to have numerous vehicles would either have to pay or park elsewhere!
Another option would be to share the load with another site such as the defunct pool at Bayview where another commuter wharf could be located alongside existing parking options and easy walk to Mona Vale.
It also seems Council is determined to reduce our parking options close to the point, where parking restriction are increasing and designated parking spots wastefully reducing previous parking options.
Let’s not have another debacle such as the commuter wharf, where the majority still haven’t paid for their permits and those that have can’t get a ‘legal’ park because of this!
Hopefully we can reintroduce some sense back into this debate.
Yours truly,
Tim Marshall
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 13, 2013 14:20:06 GMT 10
|
|
