A car parking stoush is brewing at the University of NSW as a coalition of prominent academics moves to derail a $66.7 million expansion of a campus car park, warning the project risks locking in car dependence and undermining the institution’s climate goals.
In a joint submission to the NSW Department of Planning, 12 professors and researchers across the university’s fields of transport, public health and law have urged the NSW government to reject the university’s proposal to add 505 new spaces at its Kensington campus.
The plan would involve adding three levels to the existing Barker Street car park, which the university says is part of a broader effort to improve campus safety and “placemaking”.
However, the submission warns the move will entrench a “status quo” of car culture and lead to “induced demand”, a well-established concept in which increasing parking capacity encourages more people to drive, leading to higher congestion and emissions.
“This proposal is completely misaligned with pretty much any university strategy you could name,” said the submission’s lead author Dr Christopher Standen, a research fellow at the university’s faculty of medicine and health, and school of building environment.
“The university has a target of 85 per cent of students and staff travelling by sustainable modes. As far as records go back, they have consistently failed to meet that. Encouraging more people to drive isn’t going to help.”
UNSW argues consolidating parking into one structure would allow future removal of central campus car parks to accommodate green space and new buildings.
But the academics estimate the embodied carbon from construction alone would exceed 3 million kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent — roughly comparable to 20 million kilometres of driving — before factoring in emissions from increased vehicle use. That, they argue, sits uneasily alongside UNSW’s 2030 net zero strategy.
Standen likened the proposal to motorway expansions, where adding lanes often produces only temporary relief before congestion returns.
“It’s the same with parking supply,” he said. “If you increase the supply, the demand increases – especially when parking at the university costs as low as $8 a day, which inflates demand.”
The dispute reflects a broader divide in how institutions approach lower-carbon transport. While UNSW is pursuing expansion, other universities — including the University of Sydney and UTS — are planning growth without new multi-storey car parks.
Governments are also limiting parking to encourage public transport use including Inner West Council which has proposed capping parking requirements in new housing developments.
The academics argue that, for a fraction of the cost, the university could fund a dedicated cycle path to nearby Green Square – where thousands of students live just four kilometres away – or provide public transport incentives for the 45,000 staff and students who attend the Kensington campus daily.
The submission also raises health concerns, including particulate pollution from tyre and brake wear, along with noise and air pollution it argues “disproportionately affects disadvantaged populations”.
In a statement, a UNSW spokeswoman said the project would improve safety and accessibility, noting many commute from areas without easy public transport.
The spokeswoman added that the university “supports academic freedom and respects the role of staff in contributing to public discussion.”
She said the project would also include sustainability measures including EV charging spaces, rooftop solar panels, and be designed as an all-electric building.
For the dissenting academics, such measures do little to offset what they see as a fundamental contradiction.
“As a leading global university, UNSW should be following best practice,” the submission stated. “Instead, we are entrenching the status quo.”
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
From our partners
Read the full article here
