In my blog on August 31 about the GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) – which encourages the reduction of parking availability in Australian buildings to reduce emissions – I disputed the assumption that less parking spaces means less emissions. After interviewing an executive director of GBCA, I still have not seen any evidence to support this claim.
Robin Mellon, Green Star Executive Director, GBCA, explains exactly how the points are awarded, in terms of parking: “The ‘Provision of Car Parking’ credit awards 1 point where either the number of car parking spaces is either at least 25% less than the maximum local planning allowances applicable, or not exceeding the minimum planning allowance by more than 10%; 2 points are available where the number of spaces is 50% less that the maximum allowances, or no more than the minimum allowances.”
Mellon goes on to explain why these points are awarded.
“The bottom line is that developments to which the majority of users must travel by car have a greater environmental impact than developments which are served by good public transport and which have good alternative transport options available,” Mellon claims. “Emissions and land use are obviously critical factors.”
Although I will admit that this statement is probably true, the link to parking is still missing. In fact, this idea seems to support the comment by Cristina Lynn of Parking Consultants, in the previous blog, that it really is more about the availability of alternative transportation than about the lack of availability of parking.
“If fewer people can park at or near the building, and the alternative transport options are encouraged, the environmental impact of the building will be less,” Mellon adds.
In my opinion, the GBCA is jumping to conclusions with regard to the first part of that statement. Is it possible that alternative transport options alone can make the same impact, regardless of parking availability?
My search for the link between available parking spaces and emissions goes on ...
Comments