The City of Melbourne needs to reconsider plans to remove traffic lanes in Albert Street, East Melbourne to make way for a bicycle path, says VECCI.

While the plan will not directly affect VECCI, the plan to remove two of Albert Street's six lanes between Gisborne and Clarendon Streets to make way for Copenhagen-style bike paths will cause city-wide traffic congestion.

"This plan is ill-thought out and counterproductive, especially when there is a more suitable alternative available", says VECCI Chief Executive Officer Wayne Kayler-Thomson.

"Firstly, when the State Government and others are trying to solve Melbourne's traffic congestion problems, it will cause massive traffic congestion.

"According to Council's own documentation, peak hour volumes in Albert Street are 1200-1400 vehicles with only 50 bicycles.  Outside of clearway times, cars seeking to travel along Albert Street during the day will be reduced to one lane each way.

"Albert Street drains traffic away from the CBD quickly and effectively, particularly during the evening peak – it is also part of a continuous route that traverses the City from East to West and vice versa, from Hoddle Street to Lonsdale Street.

"In this context, it is richly ironic that the State Government is seeking to extend clearway times on the Richmond side of Punt Road while the City Council is seeking to reduce traffic lanes on the City side of Punt Road.

"Alternatives, such as Victoria Parade, have been dismissed without appropriate investigation - putting a bike lane down the middle of the median strip would more effectively remove bikes from the dangers of interaction with road and pedestrian traffic.  Bikes could operate in conjunction with tram signals, similar to St Georges' Parade in Northcote.

"Comparisons with the `success' of Copenhagen-style bike lanes on Swanston Street are also spurious, as Swanston Street is no longer a through-road, given that cars cannot travel down Swanston Walk at key times.

"This proposal has also been advanced with minimal consultation with ratepayers and we would like to see Council make an assessment of negative impacts.

"VECCI is not opposed to bicycle infrastructure and, in fact, believes that an increased emphasis should be place on it – however, this particular proposal is potentially hugely counter-productive", says Mr Kayler-Thomson.