Where is the economic modelling?

Are the promises just a guess?

Based on the publicly available information, it is difficult to confirm the existence of formal, detailed economic models that explicitly project specific increases in tourist numbers or future event volumes as a direct result of closing the Esplanade. The publicly released documentation appears to rely more on visionary beliefs, general economic trends, community feedback and qualitative assessments of possible benefits rather than explicit quantitative economic models. Guesswork.

No Clear Goals, No Numbers

When major urban change is proposed — especially in a tourism-dependent precinct — best practice demands clear metrics: e.g., target increases in visitor numbers, business turnover uplift, jobs created, or changes in transport usage. Yet:

• The publicly available council documentation relies heavily on qualitative language (“safer, greener and more connected”) rather than projections of economic benefit.  
• The trial is framed as data-gathering (“traffic data, community feedback, business sentiment and visitation patterns”) rather than being grounded in a predictive economic model.  
• There appears to be no model in the public domain that estimates the likely return on investment, target economic outcomes, or quantifies the potential business impact
• Examples referred to by Council, (Times Square in New York and Stroget in Copenhagen) where an increase in pedestrian traffic was measured bear little relevance to Surfers Paradise.
• The project aligns with broader regional tourism strategies (like "Towards Tourism 2032") that aim for general growth, but these high-level strategies do not contain the specific models for the Esplanade closure itself.
• The existing substantial value the Esplanade currently brings to the economy is not quantified. A simple question "Will cutting it bring more or fewer people than the thousands per week using it now?" is not addressed.

In essence, the publicly available evidence suggests that the economic benefits related to increased tourism and event volumes are largely based on the supposition that an enhanced pedestrian experience will lead to a more successful tourism hub.

• It does not appear to factor in the damage to visitor experience and brand reputation traffic jams bring.
• That "build it and they will come" relies on people being able to get there.
• It does not acknowledge that the Esplanade is already one of the healthiest and most popular pedestrian locations in Surfers Paradise.

Any approach to disrupt that should come with serious, quantifiable, positive objectives.

Are there other ways to do this?

There are better ways to test an urban development concept than simply replicating an approach that has a mixed or negative track record elsewhere, such as in the case of Ocean Drive, Miami

The key critique often levelled at such projects is a failure to adequately consider the unique local culture, existing economic drivers, and specific community needs.

Here are better approaches, informed by urban planning best practices and lessons from international examples:

1. Phased Implementation and "Tactical Urbanism"

Instead of a full, long-term closure trial that disrupts existing traffic patterns significantly, cities can use a phased approach, also known as "tactical urbanism" or "lighter, quicker, cheaper" interventions.

• Weekend or event-based closures: Initially, test the closure only during specific peak times (e.g., weekend evenings) or as part of a scheduled event (e.g., the existing beachfront markets). This allows for data collection on foot traffic, business sentiment, and traffic impacts under controlled circumstances with minimal disruption to daily life. So this data should already exist from the frequent major event road closures around events such as The Pacific Airshow, Kidchella, Springtime Festival, New Years Eve and Schoolies.
• Low-cost temporary changes: Use temporary materials like planters, street furniture, and temporary pavement markings to create pedestrian spaces. This makes the project easily reversible and allows for community feedback to directly inform adjustments before permanent, costly infrastructure changes are made. Notably, the use of these tactics has not resulted in an influx of pedestrians to the Esplanade. Crowds at the Council’s activations can be measured in the tens of people.

2. Robust and Inclusive Data Collection (Beyond Traffic)

The current Surfers Paradise trial is gathering data on traffic and community feedback, but a more comprehensive approach would involve:

• Understanding the "car culture": A major critique of the Surfers Paradise plan is the failure to acknowledge the area's unique "car culture" (cruising, show cars) as part of its existing appeal. Better testing would first quantify this existing economic driver and test interventions that cater to it rather than eliminate it.
• Detailed business impact analysis: Conduct rigorous surveys and data-sharing agreements with local businesses to track sales, not just sentiment, across various sectors (retail, dining, hotels) to understand the true economic impact in real-time.
• Pedestrian movement simulation: Use advanced computational tools and simulations to model how people move through the space and identify potential safety concerns, dead zones, or navigation difficulties before they become real-world problems.
• Security and safety audits: Conduct detailed safety audits, especially regarding nighttime safety, which can be a significant barrier and danger to pedestrian use in some areas.

3. Integrated Transport and Wayfinding Solutions

A common barrier to pedestrianization is poor access to alternative transport and parking.

• Prioritize connectivity: Ensure that the pedestrian zone is seamlessly connected to public transport hubs (light rail, buses) and clearly signposted parking facilities.
• Clear wayfinding: Implement clear and engaging signage and maps to help visitors navigate the area, locate amenities, and find alternative routes, which is particularly crucial in tourist-heavy areas.
• Loading and access management: Establish clear, restricted-hour access for delivery and service vehicles to minimize conflict with pedestrians and ensure businesses can operate efficiently.

Why Economic Modelling Matters

• Accountability: Taxpayers and stakeholders need to know the expected economic return for a major investment and adjustment to public space.
• Risk mitigation: With modelling, trade-offs can be evaluated (loss of traffic vs. gain in pedestrian spend; increased congestion vs. improved public realm) before full implementation.
• Benchmarking & evaluation: Clear targets enable measurement. Without them, how will we know if the trial succeeds, fails or needs adjustment?
• Business confidence: For local traders and investors, defensible data gives certainty. Ambiguity fosters caution and possible flight of investment.

What Should Have Been Included?

• Forecasts of key metrics: visitor numbers, average spend per visitor, incremental business revenue, jobs created, foot-traffic flows.
• Transport modelling: changes to traffic volumes, journey times, parking occupancy and loading-zone impacts.
• Safety audit outcomes: pedestrian/cyclist conflict modelling, emergency vehicle response times, incident risk mapping.
• Business impact modelling: deliveries, waste collection, service vehicle access, sight-line changes, prime frontage value changes.
• Scenario modelling: baseline (keep traffic), partial closure (e.g., weekends/events), full closure — each with cost/benefit analysis.

By implementing these more nuanced, data-driven, and community-focused testing methods, the City of Gold Coast could gain a much clearer picture of the value of the Esplanade and adapt its plans to fit the specific needs and culture of Surfers Paradise, potentially avoiding the pitfalls seen in other cities.

Way Forward

What has become clear through the trial is just how damaging closing the Esplanade has been to the city. It would have been better to have not had to endure this while still recovering from Cyclone Alfred.

At a time when Surfers Paradise must evolve to remain competitive, the Esplanade closure trial lacks the empirical backbone needed to justify, monitor and refine the change.

If the people of the Gold Coast are going to invest in this transformation, they need to see the numbers — and the plan must include not only the “what” but the “how much”, “how measured” and “how will we know success”.

We encourage the City of Gold Coast to publish the economic modelling that underpins this trial, set clear measurable targets, and commit to transparent reporting post-trial.

Without economic clarity, this large public-realm experiment may deliver uncertain returns. From the closure trial it looks set to inadvertently undermine the very experiences it seeks to enhance.