QVM new car parking

[Nik Dow]

Original plan for Queen Victoria Market carparking was to replace the existing ground level car parking with 720 spaces (i.e. no net increase).  Rob Adams, Director City Design and Projects has a report in to next Tuesday's Council (committee) meeting recommending this be increased to 1000 car parks.  https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/825/14753/AGENDA%20ITEM%206.4.pdf

Beginnings of a submission:

This runs counter to Council's current transport strategy, relevant sections:

p 51 "Council has set an emissions reduction target of approximately 188 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide from the passenger transport sector compared to a 2020 business-as-usual emissions scenario"

There is nothing much else I could find in the current transport strategy that directly states a need to reduce car travel. Shows what a weak document it is. All about making things better for Active and PT but nothing about the fact that this can only be done by reducing traffic lanes for private MVs.  

Increasing the size of car parking at QVM will lead to more car trips. With the exception of parts of Elizabeth St between Victoria St and Haymarket roundabout, there are no protected bike lanes leading to the market. Increased traffic will cause the cycling and pedestrian environment to deteriorate further (contrary to Key direction 4, p 118 "The City of Melbourne will progressively upgrade the mobility provided by Melbourne’s central city streets by prioritising public transport, walking and cycling.")

QVM parking as far as I can tell (CoM documents on line do not specify) will enter/leave from Franklin Street. The increased parking will increase traffic in Franklin and connecting streets.  Franklin St will be reconfigured to create a through link to Dudley St, encouraging through traffic on the market's edge, worsening the barrier to access the market from the south.  the QVM Munro Site Development Plan https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/local-area-planning/queen-victoria-market-precinct-renewal-plan/Pages/munro-site.aspx states 1.6 "Requements":  "Minimise vehicular traffic generation though the surrounding precinct".  Admittedly the Munro Site Development Plan states that New Franklin Street will be a "shared zone" and yet it will "Better connect west and east of the city with the market by realigning and constructing Franklin Street as a oneway street (shared zoned). Flexible design to allow festivals, street markets and community events." It can't be both of these things, but if a shared zone is planned, adding more parking movements to Franklin St will lead to increased car movements through the shared zone as traffic attempts to avoid Elizabeth St, already clogged with private motor vehicles.

At various times the new section of Franklin St has been proposed as four traffic lanes, later as two traffic lanes.  Adding traffic to Franklin St makes it more likely it will be configured as four traffic lanes.  Franklin St is a prime candidate along its whole lenth to be reduced to two traffic lanes, returning public open space to parkland and active transport.  Franklin St ends at Swanston Street, an inapproprate destination for through traffic. The Melbourne Metro project has proposed permanent closure of Franklin St at Swanston St, this should be supported by City of Melbourne and is consistent with conversion of car lanes to parkland. Pressure to maintain four traffic lanes will be increased by increases in car parking emptying out onto Franklin St. 

It seems bizarre that CoM would propose to increase car parking anywhere in the municipality, given stated aims relating to greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian and cyclist safety and the need to rebalance transport away from private motor vehicles.

[tom keeble]

Council's own Transport strategy says, 

The City of Melbourne has introduced progressive policies and innovative changes to on and off street parking since the 1970s. Despite this, there is an oversupply of off-street parking and low occupancy of on-street in some locations."

https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy/car-parking

Left hand, meet right hand.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Melbourne BUG" group.
To post to this group, send email to melbou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
melbourne-bug+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/melbourne-bug?hl=en
 
Visit the Melbourne BUG website at http://www.melbournebug.org/

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Melbourne BUG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to melbourne-bug+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nik Dow]

Thanks for finding that, in the same discussion paper:

"If we want to be the most liveable city and meet our Urban Forest target of 40% canopy cover by 2040, we need to make space for more trees in the city. Underused parking spaces should continue to be converted to other uses, but at a faster rate. Higher value uses of street space include more trees, wider footpaths, improved tram stops and on-street dining areas. The large amount of space dedicated to on-street parking provides a significant opportunity to increase tree canopy cover and mitigate climate change impacts."

Note no mention of converting car parking to safe bicycle lanes. Everything else seems to be a higher priority.

[tom keeble]

They have been releasing different discussion papers for specific areas. Here is cycling:

https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy/cycling

and here are the rest:

https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy

but yes, concerning that across these separate docs there doesn't appear to be an overall narrative.