Editorial: Consult public on parking or feel their wrath

Opinion

Persuading people that they should happily pay for after-hours parking on central Auckland streets is always going to be an uphill task. All the more reason, therefore, for the Auckland City Council to consult extensively and release the report upon which its action is based. Do neither of these and there is bound to be criticism. Do neither and announce that a six-month trial will start almost immediately and the level of complaint is bound to be deafening. The more so when this all smacks of a solution looking for a problem.

According to the council's parking services group, growing numbers of inner-city residents are monopolising free spaces all night, making it harder for others to reach restaurants, cinemas and bars in the evenings. Its response is to extend pay-and-display charges by four hours until 10 each night. The first test of this approach will be applied in several streets around the eastern side of the Viaduct Harbour within a week. The council's transport committee wants to extend this throughout the city centre from the end of this year.

Much of the criticism has labelled the move a revenue grab. But that seems unlikely to be the motive. Council figures forecast just over $1 million in extra annual parking revenue after an assumed 30 per cent reduction in occupancy of parking spaces. It seems hardly worth the trouble, especially as reprogramming pay-and-display machines and changing signs will cost $544,000. The problem in establishing the council's motivation is that its report on the issue has not been made public. There is only its baldly stated view that there is a widespread problem.

Evidence of this must be forthcoming if there is to be any chance of the charge gaining acceptance. Otherwise, it could well be concluded that the council is overreacting massively to complaints from a relatively small number of people. Undoubtedly, some apartment buildings were constructed without sufficient car parking, but it seems unlikely that the problem is so significant as to require such a stern response.

Inner-city restaurants, cinemas and bars have, of course, a right to be particularly concerned. They compete with fringe suburbs such as Newmarket, Ponsonby and Parnell for clientele. There are no fees for night-time kerbside parking in those areas. Paying extra to be entertained in the city centre - even at the half-price rate proposed by the council - will be a disincentive to some. Such is especially the case when, as Heart of the City's Alex Swney points out, there are no plans for other travel-demand management tools such as free shuttle buses. The council's own assumed reduction in the occupancy of car-parking spaces effectively acknowledges the way in which the charge will act as a deterrent.

The city council suggests that although Auckland will be the first New Zealand council to charge after-hours street parking fees, it is well behind Australian cities. That does not wash as a justification, given the bigger populations of the likes of Sydney and Melbourne. Equally, those cities have far superior public transport systems, which provide an efficient, convenient and affordable option to the car.

If the council wishes to look overseas, it should be looking at the like of British cities that allow parking at night on yellow lines and other areas where parking is outlawed during the day. There is surely some scope for this in Auckland. It would free up an amount of parking space that seems more likely to reflect the real extent of the problem. Before anything further is done, however, Aucklanders need to know the details of that problem and to be consulted on the appropriate response. As of now, the council policy bears the hallmarks of a sledgehammer assailing a nut.