In built-up areas, creating segregated bicycle lanes involves trade-offs with other modes, such as repurposing existing kerbside parking. Can parking be eliminated without financially impacting local businesses? This study answers this question empirically, employing as a case study Boundary Street – the high street of a gentrifying inner-city suburb in Brisbane, Australia. It seeks to elucidate (1) the current use of on-street parking along Boundary Street; (2) the necessity for driving to Boundary Street, based on distances travelled; and (3) Boundary Street patrons’ spending habits and visitation patterns. Three sets of primary data are used, including a public forum, an intercept survey, and a series of systematic field observations. The results show that most visitors reach the area on foot; parking spaces are generally available along the street, contrary to local perceptions. Nearly a third of private car users travel less than 3 km to Boundary Street and more than half travel less than 10 km (in other words, they come from the inner city). Therefore, they do not need to travel by car – if distance was the only consideration. Based on these findings, it is concluded that reassigning at least one row of kerbside parking to cycling along Boundary Street would be appropriate.

Cite this paper:

Yuzhen Lin, Dorina Pojani & Jonathan Corcoran (2024) Reassigning kerbside parking to cycling lanes: Is Robin Hood planning good for business? Australian Planner, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2024.2329187