The Federal Opposition has rightly accused the Federal government of using the $389 million car parking program as a political rort and is another example of abuse of governance and proper process which we have raised on a number of occasions. But it also raises fundamental issues including the need for a transport framework/strategic plan and an independent process for evaluation and ranking investment programs which is essential to ensure precious funds are spent in areas of greatest need and strategic objectives are met in the most cost-effective manner.
Station car parking does have a legitimate place in a Victorian transport plan for a modal interchange strategy which promotes greater access to the public transport network, but it is a very costly way of doing this and in some situations is totally inappropriate. This is particularly relevant at inner city stations which can be accessed by tram, bus, taxi or where many people simply walk or cycle to the station. Promoting and improving these access modes requires minimal investment in supporting infrastructure and should be top priority. These are locations where the cost of land is relatively high and its use for commuter car parking cannot be justified. In these situations provision of more commuter car parking would simply generate more car traffic but would also encourage people to drive further from outer areas to enable them to travel in a cheaper fare zone.
Middle – Inner city stations such as Glenferrie, and Camberwell Stations are examples where commuter car parking should not be provided in the first place and limited to drop off and pick-ups (“kiss and ride”) but these have been included in the federal government’s car parking program. The Camberwell commuter car park is of particular concern because it is used extensively (inappropriately) by local traders and shoppers and is accessed from Burke Road, a tram route that is already heavily congested. To encourage more road traffic for commuter purposes would simply add to the congestion and its detrimental impact on tram services, particularly in morning and evening peak travel times.
Construction of a commuter car park at Glenferrie adjacent to another tram route on Glenferrie Road would never be recommended for similar reasons, but the cost at this location would be prohibitive. The land would have to be acquired and a multideck car park built. The total cost would be very high for zero net benefit and planning and development issues for such a development would be hugely problematic and politically fraught at the local level. It is amazing none of these issues were taken into account.
None of the above is rocket science and should have been reflected in the federal government car parking program. If priorities had been established independently of
government by state government departments responsible for public transport this rorting should never have happened. But this raises more fundamental issues about the relevance of the motor vehicle in a zero emission world and its impact on travel and transport and the infrastructure required to support it in the future. That is a subject which all governments at all levels need to start responding to as a matter of urgency.