Page 479 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Most particularly, Ms Le Couteur, you would be aware that the discussion paper also proposes that we seek over this next five to six years to double the resident population within the city. We are talking there about an increase from 5,200 to 10,400 over the next five years. In the context of parking and parking capacity, it needs to be understood that we are talking about a doubling of the resident population. The discussion paper also proposes that we develop plans or strategies that would lead over the next five years to, I think, a 25 per cent increase in the number of people working in the city. That computes at around an additional 12,000 workers.
I do not have this analysis, but in the context of the anticipated increase in parking spots, when one factors in the increase in resident population—the number of people living in the city—and the significant increase in workers, we are talking about an additional 5,000 people living and an additional 12,000 people, I think, working in the city. I will have to check that number. We are talking about an additional 17,000 people but only an additional 2,500 parking places. I think a discussion around parking, sustainable transport and a modal shift needs to be looked at in light of some of those other proposals in relation to the number of people that would be working in or living in the city. The question you raise is very much at the heart of the sorts of questions that we would like to be raised, Ms Couteur, over the next six weeks.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, a supplementary?
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you. That 3,300 was only public car park spaces; it did not include any private ones that were part of the residences or the offices. Are you aware, minister, that progressive cities such as Brisbane have in fact stopped increasing car parks and satisfying parking demand and are redistributing these resources to more sustainable travel? Is that an approach that your government will take?
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Ms Le Couteur. I am more than happy for the proposals in relation to the increase—you are quite right—in public parking to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny and analysis in terms of capacity for modal shift and expectations in relation to the time frame in which we can deliver modal shift. Over the last 10 years there has been a very significant, although from a very low base, change in transport methods to the city. We have, indeed, met our first sustainable transport plan target in relation to modal shift. As I say, I do acknowledge that it was from a relatively low base. We have met our first target. The next target will be much harder. I suppose, in an analysis of what is appropriate in relation to the provision of parking, we look at how realistic or reasonable the next target is, how we are going to achieve it and whether or not the continuing provision of additional public parking will militate against reaching our next target.
In the context of parking, it is an issue that is raised with me constantly and regularly, most particularly by retailers within the city. There is one group of stakeholders, Ms Le Couteur, who have very strong views that are much to the contrary of yours in relation to the amount of parking, and the government seeks to respond, of course, to all expressions or points of view. There is a very strong view expressed by, for instance, the Property Council and by other representative organisations, and most particularly by retailers and shop owners in the city, that there currently is not enough
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .