Need for the proposal has not been demonstrated - baseline parking occupancy data analysis not in EIS
“Predict and provide” planning is outdated. In 2024 the NSW Government committed to adopting a “vision and validate” - UNSW should be following best practice in managing parking demand.
Increasing parking supply will make driving to campus more attractive and encourage more staff, students and visitors to drive to until parking congestion returns to its equilibrium level, as NSW Government is aware, this is known as induced demand. Increasing traffic to the university and in surrounding streets.
Impacts of increased car dependence are not assessed.
The proposal is misaligned with UNSW’s Net Zero Strategy, UNSW’s transport mode share target of "at least 85% of staff and student trips to campus be made by sustainable modes" and Randwick City Council’s net zero objective, and the NSW Government’s Future Transport Strategy 2056 of reducing car dependence, and increasing the share of trips by public and active transport - what is the point of having such strategies? No wonder there is a loss of trust in Government and institutions.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED. This is a major shortcoming of the proposal.

I conditionally support this, but I ask we retain the zebra crossing on barker street, otherwise I am totally fine with the upgrade.

I don't have the full context on why the crossing is being removed, whether it's for the sake of emergency services or something, but given the pedestrian life on campus; I ask there be a reason better than reducing the length of car trips to justify the removal of the zebra crossing. If it must be removed please provide a crossing at the same spot as well in some form given its a natural pedestrian exit from campus on top of the ones going at the exit.

I found the zebra crossing quite useful, I can see it being useful for people running late for class heading from the area south of barker street. People are likely to take a shortcut through the suburbs and find the crossing useful, I know they will as I have as walking through the suburbs is nicer than walking along side Anzac parade which is also longer, the light rail is nice but makes more sense if you're going to the west portion of campus but that's 1 quarter of the area taken up by the campus. And there's additional student accommodation likely to be built on anzac parade with a DA on top of the old commbank.

I did a quick search and it seems car usage on campus went down from 30% in 2007 to about 17% in 2019 (I couldn't get more recent data), but I'd imagine its only fallen futher. I'm not making a case against more parking more so the prioritisation of car transport over others on campus for the benefit of a minority of people on campus. (see page 30 of this document https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/Attachment-A_Literature-Review-University-Travel-Plans.pdf , relevant graphic provided as attachment).

I like the improved bike access, bike facilities and the removal of cars from the street, however I have a complaint about the new signalised crossing this proposes on Southern drive/Barker street. The traffic report outlines that it will remove the current zebra crossing at engineering road and replace it with signalised pedestrian crossing, which will as the report outlines, add a 40 meter detour to pedestrians (roughly 30 seconds if you are well bodied). This is completely out of character with the area around this development as this zebra crossing had 480 people cross it in 2 hours of a survey that was completed there, compared with 500~ cars leaving the carpark in the same 2 hours, the report also notes that since at least 2019, more people walk to uni than those who drive there. This 30 second detour also does not account for the fact that signalised crossings remove the pedestrian priority and take even more time from the pedestrian (the main user of this space) by making pedestrians wait at lights. Barker street should be moving towards being more pedestrian friendly and lower traffic, especially as car usage to uni drops, doubly so as the area's around UNSW become more populus and dense. Removing the crossing here makes it a much more hostile and difficult area to cross for pedestrians, especially for those who are disabled, and only benefits the relatively few who drive to university. Do not remove the zebra crossing, turn it into a raised crossing and if need be, add a signalised crossing before it or make it left turn only to stop dangerous manoeuvres out of the street, but do not remove the pedestrian crossing, if anything another zebra crossing should be added closer to Anzac parade (near the maccas) as there is extremely frequent pedestrian crossing in this area.
I walk to uni and am of fairer complexion, 30 more seconds in the sun, as well as a minute waiting at lights, causes me to burn.
Thank you for listening to my complaint,
Lars.

We live in an incredibly car dependent city, which is an enormous issue for a whole host of reasons, although I will refer you to the state governments own policy regarding the future of transportation. It is well understood internationally that parking drives traffic. Most UNSW students do not drive to university, as they shouldn't. There is already more than enough parking to cope with those who genuinely need to drive, what we lack is a sufficient cycling and public transportation network. This parking expansion will serve only to increase traffic in the area. The only way to alleviate parking woes for those who truly need them is to provide those who don't with viable alternatives to driving. The best cities around the world have been actively removing parking spaces to great success, driving demand for alternative transportation options that are more space, energy and environmentally efficient. The state governments own policy is to make cycling and public transport the default option for more people, so why would you try to make driving easier, increasing demand for this incredibly destructive mode of transport.

I support the project

I object to the proposed expansion of the UNSW Barker Street Carpark during the construction of the G25 Education Building on the following grounds:
1. No Demonstrated Need
UNSW has not provided evidence of current parking utilisation across its existing facilities, nor has it demonstrated that alternatives—such as demand management, redistribution of staff parking, or use of under‑utilised basement parking—have been considered.
2. Cumulative Construction Impacts
The G25 project is already generating significant disruption, including heavy vehicle movements, road closures, noise, dust, and reduced pedestrian safety. Adding a carpark expansion during this period would create unacceptable cumulative impacts on the surrounding community.
3. Traffic and Safety Risks
Barker Street is already heavily congested, particularly in the afternoon peak. Congestion has worsened since the closure of other access streets to Anzac Parade for the light rail. Additional vehicle movements associated with an expanded carpark will intensify queuing, increase delays, and heighten safety risks for pedestrians, hospital visitors, school children, and UNSW students.
4. Parking Affordability and Displacement
Current UNSW parking fees are unaffordable for many students, forcing them to park in surrounding residential streets. Expanding the carpark without addressing pricing will increase vehicle circulation and worsen competition for on‑street parking, further impacting local amenity.
5. Loss of Residential Amenity
Further development of the carpark will remove existing views for residents in Willis Street and parts of Norton Street. The increased visual bulk will diminish residential amenity and contribute to a sense of enclosure in an already dense precinct.
6. Inconsistency with Strategic Planning Objectives
The proposal conflicts with NSW planning goals to reduce private vehicle dependence, support public and active transport, and protect residential amenity in established neighbourhoods. UNSW is located in a highly accessible public transport corridor, making additional car‑based infrastructure inappropriate.
7. Procedural and Transparency Concerns
UNSW has not provided full utilisation data, alternative options, or a campus‑wide transport strategy. The proposal appears to be a response to UNSW’s own staging decisions rather than a justified or strategically planned need.
Requested Outcome
I request that the Department:

1. Reject the proposed expansion of the Barker Street Carpark during G25 construction.
2. Require UNSW to provide a comprehensive parking and transport strategy, including utilisation data and assessment of alternatives.
3. Ensure any future parking proposals are considered within a holistic, campus‑wide transport framework aligned with NSW planning objectives.

I object to the significant increase in the UNSW carpark for many reasons - height, bulk, scale, overshadowing, increase traffic conjestion, loss of privacy, views, light pollution etc, BUT MOST OF ALL I object to UNSW encouraging more personal driving to an area that is well supported by public transport. Where is the action in terms of climate change and reducing cars/petrol/pollution?
Shameful proposal on a University that says it supports sustainability and environmental impact. Please see many reasons why the proposed extension should not be allowed to proceed.