Page 766 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Professor Donald Shoup, who is a well-known transport expert recruited to solve parking and traffic problems in cities struggling with congestion, such as Los Angeles, is blunt in his description of policies that demand a large amount of car parking. He says:
… parking requirements cause great harm: they subsidize cars, distort transportation choices, warp urban form, increase housing costs, burden low-income households, debase urban design, damage the economy, and degrade the environment.
They are interesting comments from Professor Shoup. They indicate that there are hidden costs of parking that we need to consider as we respond to car parking pressures and develop car parking policies. Professor Shoup says that his goal is to transform parking debates to save cities from misguided attempts to make parking free and plentiful—the kind the Liberals have called for in their motions. He calls it a poison prescribed as a cure.
The car parking debate highlights a bigger issue—that is, the issue of how we want our city to work over the next 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years. Do we want to build a city that continues to be dominated by the private motor car? We know that this is a system that will not work, especially as our city grows, as climate change progresses, and as pressures associated with peak oil impact on our transport modes and on lower income families. We only have to look to other cities to see the problems car dependency causes. Cities like Los Angeles are now desperately trying to undo their entrenched traffic and parking problems with more transit and with parking reform.
Canberra is still a young city with a great chance to create a transport system that is resilient and sustainable but that remains convenient. This is a system that is much more focused on public transport, on walking and cycling, and on an urban form that is not dominated by cars and car parking. The ACT Greens have always supported sensible policies that will help Canberra achieve this transport mode shift.
The proposed light rail corridor for Gungahlin to Civic, a project being progressed through the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement, is a great example of how our city can develop sustainably and offset the need for car parking. As it develops, the light rail will carry more and more commuters who would otherwise drive. It can integrate with the bus system and park-and-rides so that its catchment is even larger. In addition, it can support increased sustainable development around its corridor. I hope that the light rail will support new development rules for adjacent developments so that they do not have to include so many car parks. This means a more efficient use of the land, more affordable accommodation and, of course, increased overall sustainability. It is a smarter way of developing.
Cities all over the world are experimenting with smarter approaches to car parking. Calgary in Canada, for example, is becoming well known as one of the more sustainable transport cities. It has utilised the concept of what it calls interceptor car parks. It has restricted car parking in the city and allowed new city developments to build with limited car parks. Some of the money saved by these developers is returned
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video