A hearty ‘thank you’ to all contributors thus far to our discussion. As stated previously, we seek to canvass the broadest range of views and to generate some real debate amongst residents, council(lors) and ratepayers. Hopefully, this is only the start of the debate!

We would also hope that this Draft Strategy represents only a start, and not a conclusion. Given the range of opinions already expressed, it is clear that the draft should be seen as a beginning to ongoing analyses and discussion – the first step in a process far from complete. From your comments there are many unresolved questions that need to be addressed. These include:

  • Are ratepayers getting value for money with this draft?
  • Are safety issues adequately addressed?
  • Will health improve?
  • How does the strategy fit in with overall traffic/transport management in Glen Eira?

 Value for money

If we’re about to spend millions, then how do we know we’re getting our pennies worth? The report relies almost exclusively on state  government surveys. Where is the local, homegrown analysis and evaluation?.  Some contributors to this debate have argued that it will only cost ratepayers up to $4 or $6 dollars per annum. Even one dollar is too much to waste if it achieves very little and there are other methods of attaining the desired results.

Safety

Cyclists deserve to feel safe on our roads. There’s no argument about that. But so do pedestrians! There is absolutely no comment in this draft about speed limits for cyclists, nor the policing of helmets, lights and bells. Kingston for example has produced a ‘cycling and walking’ policy that highlights the connection between the two. Port Phillip goes even further with their Road User Hierarchy – ie. Walking – Cycling – Public transport – Freight – Single Occupancy Vehicles – Multiple Occupancy Vehicles. And where is the evidence that narrowing already narrow car lanes will in fact improve riders’ safety as the draft proposes to do in numerous locations?

Transport and Traffic management

Nothing in this draft strategy investigates overall traffic management issues within Glen Eira- again in stark opposition to neighbouring councils. Port Phillip’s vision includes the following:

“The sustainable Transport Framework highlights four principles and defines a road user hierarchy to improve decision making in regards to sustainable transport policy and practice within the City of Port Phillip. The goals, strategies and initiatives of the Cycle Plan are based on the road user hierarchy and the four principles. (p.10)”.

As far as overall Transport/Traffic issues, Glen Eira is silent. It is even incapable of HOSTING a Metropolitan Transport Forum as shown in the latest minutes where the motion by Hyams and Pilling was defeated! What does this say about Glen Eira’s agenda and philosophy on this matter? Don’t Glen Eira residents and traders deserve a Forum where our local problems are outlined, views are canvassed, Councillors express their opinions, and solutions are formed for the future. What we know about our Councillors views is just through voting on proposals by administration or consultants. Is that good enough? Even the terms of reference for Reports do not seem to be governed by our politician Councillors. Strange.

Instead the draft is full of dubious claims and statistics. For example: “Given approximately 11% of households in the City of Glen Eira do not have a vehicle9, there is a good case for making cycling accessible to all residents.” (page 8)

Is this the kind of analysis that we’re paying good money for?  Is this an example upon which policy is created and millions invested? Even the most neophyte of statisticians would immediately ask: Who are these 11%? What are their age groups? Do they even want bicycles or would they prefer electric wheelchairs?

Health

All are in agreement that cycling can contribute to increased fitness and general improvements in health and hence should be encouraged. This includes both on and off road cycling. Yet, where are the statistics in the published report which vindicate the conclusion that providing all these new on and off road paths will (eventually) lead to a massive uptake in cycling? Very few of the actual figures provided are the result of careful monitoring by the municipality itself. We’re currently spending heaps of money  in Caulfield Park. How many cyclists currently use the park for this purpose? On what bases are the supposedly increased cycling numbers based? Where is the evidence?

As a document designed to plan the future, it is short on facts, short on logic, and tragically, short on an integrated vision. At best the document can only be the starting point for further investigation, discussion and debate. Thus far, there has been none of this!