Item 8.5 on the current agenda features the multi-deck car park(s) issue. We are finally told several interesting things:
- Council has secured $20.6M in grants
- This amount means that council does not have to fork out any ratepayers’ money
- The car park locations have changed in both Elsternwick and Bentleigh
- The car parks will be ‘smaller’
Three options are then provided:
- Proceed with a ‘feasibility’ study and community consultation on design
- Proceed with ‘soft’ community consultation first
- Return the money to the federal government and abandon the project
Whilst all this sounds wonderful, a myriad of questions remains and detail of course is missing. For example:
- Multi-level car parks cost the earth. Council in its Strategic Resource Plans (SRP) for 2018/19 put the cost for the Stanley Street edifice at $18M and the Horsely Street versions at $14M – and that was three years ago! Admittedly, the later first drawings were for the equivalent of 5 and 4 storey constructions. We are now told that the proposals will be ‘smaller’, so supposedly cheaper! What then needs to be stated is: if the car parks will be smaller then how many actual car parking spots will they contain? And how does this reduced number correlate to the previous studies that told us we need xxxx amount of car parking spots? Was this initial figure wrong and we are now supposed to accept a lesser required number? Even more dramatic is the change in location. Whilst the new recommendations make sense, it again calls into question the first set of recommendations. How could planning have got it so wrong the first time around?
- We are also concerned about council’s track record on major infrastructure projects. Each and every one has cost heaps more than first suggested. So, will $20M really be the final cost and if not, then how much will council need to put in to complete the projects? There is much in the officer’s report claiming that it will not cost council a cent. We remain unconvinced.
THE OPTIONS
Option 1 – Proceed with full feasibility and site due diligence, including development of concept designs. The problem with this option is that it basically pre-empts community input on the first question that needs asking – ie does the community support the development of multi-level car parks? If all the community is asked to respond to is the draft designs, then the first essential question is neatly side-stepped.
Option 2 – Proceed with a light-touch engagement phase to gauge community support for the commuter carparks prior to undertaking full feasibility and concept design. What on earth does ‘light touch engagement’ mean? Is this a euphemism for another half-baked consultation process? Even if the consultation is genuine, what happens if the Elsternwick proposal gets support and the Bentleigh one does not garner majority support? Will council still proceed? Return half the money?
Option 3 – Abandon the projects and return the funds to the Federal Government.
Our problem with these options is that there is no logical sequencing of process. Surely the first step must be whether a majority of the community even supports the idea of multi-level carparks. The next step would be to proceed with a business/feasibility study, etc. If there is no support, then ‘yes’, return the money – or if one site is shown to be acceptable to the community, then proceed with this alone. The drafting of the options does not provide this logical sequence. With the officer’s report recommending Option 1, the go ahead is taken for granted.
Looking back, residents have never been asked the crucial question – do you want multi level car parks? That should and must be the starting point. Residents also require far more specifics in order to come up with any informed opinion. Given that council as far back as 2018/19 was able to come up with some base-line costings, then they should be able to do this now as well. They should also be capable of telling residents what is the difference between ‘commuter parking’ and shoppers’ parking. Will certain levels be set aside for train commuters alone? How will this be monitored and enforced? Will there be any parking costs? This is information that should inform any consultation process. What we have in this report fails miserable on all these counts.
Finally, the recent publicity regarding the alleged pork barrelling by the Liberals in the grant process, should not have any impact on what decisions will be made by councillors. Federal Labor is of course using this as a great opportunity to lambast the Libs. It is therefore incumbent on our councillors to focus on their roles – ie the Glen Eira community and not to play politics! They are councillors first and last and owe allegiance to their constituents – not some political party!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 6, 2021 at 2:29 PM
Interesting post. I suggest that we need to take one step back and look at what is happening behind the scenes and question the mentality that drives these events. Millions are on offer through various grants. Great many will say. Officers go for them regardless of whether the projects are listed as top priority or not. Money coming in is all that matters. What people want done first does not matter. Result? No one is asked. The money is in so let’s do it. I agree wholeheartedly with the post’s views on listening first to what residents want. Twenty million is big money but that doesn’t mean that these projects should go ahead. That’s where budgets and priority listings that residents have a say in, should come first. I’m tired of reading how pavillion after pavillion has got grants ahead of the priority listings that were done several years ago. Those with grants jump the cue so to speak and the others are left behind. You do what’s essential first and has community backing. I’d love to see more money spent on open space and the urban forest instead of more concrete buildings. That’s my priority irrespective of what grants are out there for concrete buildings.
August 6, 2021 at 4:22 PM
Good points there, every time they build a bigger pavilion and add more concrete around them, we lose more fictional open space and make a greater surrounding area more dysfunctional. Our open space is dying the death of a thousand cuts, and our open space planners couldn’t give a rats. They just want to delver the big pavilions that will look good on their resumes, when they abandon this sinking ship.
August 6, 2021 at 4:27 PM
Residents, I draw your attention to an article in today’s Age: “PM refuses to say if he saw car park seat list” (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-refuses-to-say-if-he-saw-list-of-marginal-seats-to-get-car-park-funding-20210805-p58g62.html)
While Congestion Busting is important car parks are NOT the solution. As the article states: “Infrastructure Australia (2018) said there was “potential” to encourage public transport use by building more commuter car parks in outer-suburban areas specifically. But it recommends government prioritise better bus services and walking or cycling over car parks.” And so it is with Council’s published transport and infrastructure plans – commuter car parks are not a priority whereas parking for our residents to shop is! With the declaration of a Climate Emergency building carbon-intensive concrete mutli-deck parks should be a last resort. Unfortunately, the Federal government will only spend this $20M on multi-level car parks. This money is tainted with corruption and the more information we have the more it stinks. I agree with Jeremy “Twenty million is big money but that doesn’t mean that these projects should go ahead. That’s where budgets and priority listings that residents have a say in, should come first. ” We should I believe instead be:
1) promoting the purchase of electric minibuses that will run during peak hours and will pick people up on demand for a small fee (like Uber) and take them from their homes to stations (just like the airport and private school shuttle systems),
2) protected bike paths,
3) safe school zones for cycling and walking to school
Do we need car parks for commuters – who may not even be residents. Feel free to leave comments on my FaceBook page on this issue https://www.facebook.com/DavidZyngierGreensForCamden/
August 6, 2021 at 7:10 PM
Very good ideas.
I made the mistake of driving through Carnegie shopping strip yesterday at 6pm, it was worse than Bangkok, completely absolutely 100% stuffed.
August 6, 2021 at 11:26 PM
I agree with David’s Items 2) and 3).
Yes for protected bike paths and Yes for safe school zones forr cycling and walking to schools.
I would strongly suggest if we want parking at stations it should be secure parking for bicycles.
1). A much smaller foot print,
2). Much cheaper per commuter
3). Much better for the environment. (it could also accommodate electric bikes).
August 7, 2021 at 9:21 AM
Council’s policies appear to be incoherent over the years. There was a policy of no new activity centres (unless you’re rich and powerful enough). A significant fraction of the population wanted to drive to a shopping centre. At the time Council came to the conclusion that people would drive if they were further than 400m away. I asked why they were encouraging people to drive private motorized vehicles to the same locations they were also planning to increase population density massively. The answer to that was “traders”. The “10-minute city” principle has been replace by a “20-minute city” principle. Now we apparently need to spend tens of millions of dollars on multi-storey carparks to encourage people to drive from the areas whose amenity is to be protected, at the expensive of existing residents whose amenity is to be sacrificed. There’s is nothing democratic in all this. In fact the entire system has been corrupted by money.
August 7, 2021 at 10:39 AM
The Traders Association have had far to much say in how our city is planned, for a start their interest in personal profit, is at odds with most others. The unsustainable traffic nightmare that is ruining our local streets and no doubt our health seems to play second or third consideration to their personal profit motives. Most shop owners wouldn’t even live in Glen Eira, it’s just a cash-cow for them.