The following stems from another public question asked at last council meeting. Whilst the original question is admittedly long and not numbered, we have attempted to organise the question and answer along some logical lines. This proved to be a most difficult task given that there is no real connection between what is asked and the response! All the questions relate to parking and traffic management in an upcoming Murrumbeena development.
Why hasn’t the council been pro active knowing that post development there will be traffic and parking issues?
Answer – William Street, Murrumbeena is situated within Council’s Housing Diversity Area. A key reason for this designation is the good access to public transport (including Hughesdale Railway Station) which provides opportunities for residents and their visitors not to use private vehicles. Development is therefore directed towards these areas.
What are councils plans regarding parking and traffic flow in and out of William st knowing that reports are already available.?
Answer – It is acknowledged that some additional vehicle movements will be experienced in William Street as a result of the new development however State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day.
Why does the council continue to fail the residents and stakeholders regarding this development?
Answer: Council annually receives many requests for traffic management works but resources for works of this type are finite requiring prioritisation of resources. Resources are directed to those streets in greatest need of attention (not where new rateable homes are provided). Council operates a warrants system whereby streets are prioritised for attention on the basis of objective criteria including vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, reported crashes, peak hour traffic volumes and land uses (activity generators).
Why cant the the council be proactive and involve the residents and stakeholders with and open forum to appease concerns regarding access in and out of William st let alone parking post development?
Answer: Traffic counts will be undertaken following the occupation of the new apartments to determine the number of vehicles using William Street.
It is obvious that there will be traffic issues in William st post development, imagine 50 cars trying to get in and out of Poath rd in peak hour. keeing in mind cars parked in the street.
Answer: It is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable.
The resources are available as there is 41 new rateable homes, The information regarding traffic management is available and already supplied.
What is the councils plans to assit and appease the residents and stakeholders concerns regarding traffic and parking in William St Murrumbeena?”
Answer: Once data is collected in William Street, it will be added to this list to determine its priority for traffic management works.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM
I would like to know why Glen Eira Council continues to hide behind the line ‘…..State Government Planning Guidelines state that reasonable traffic volume targets for local access streets are variously between 1,000 – 3,000 vehicles per day…..” as a standardised response to all residents when they raise issues on traffic volume increases in local streets!
This shows an abslute disrespect of all residents who raise these issues. BUT it also demonstrates council officers complete lack of expertise in measurement and target setting to support robust and reliable decision making.
State government guidelines are simply that – DPCD requires each council to develop its own measures & targets that must take into account local community needs and charactertistics. In effect this means that for some local access streets the range 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles/per day target may be relevant. But this is never to be a blanket application.
Its critical council improves its data, measurement and target setting capability- the Glen Eira Council traffic department does not have these skills or expertise currently!
Its time they recruit staff with these critical skills and stop hiding behind these nebulous statements ….’within State Gidelines between 1,000 -3,000…’.
This is absurd!
Lets not forget – The Council elections in October are not too far off! Lets ALL grab the opportunity for CHANGE!
August 2, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Well said Anonymous – it’s a pure fob off which is without any analytical review by supposed professionals and clearly demonstrates how low residents are on the Council totem pole.
Definitely time for a change.
August 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Last year’s census statistics show how untenable the argument is about housing diversity and proximity to public transport. Cars dominate regardless of the zone, or number of bedrooms. People have cars and will continue to use them. Couple this with council handing out parking permits willy nilly, or allowing parking in adjacent side streets, whilst passing waivers on parking in countless applications, we inevitably end up with traffic and parking chaos.
To then turn around and state that it is “unreasonable” to think that 49 additional units will not have an impact on surrounding areas is ludicrous. This resident has asked some decent questions. They should have been responded to completely. By not doing this council has again demonstrated how little it cares for amenity and how much it values development.
August 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM
This is absolute crap that completely fails to answer any of the quite legitimate questions asked.
Yet again Council is ignoring traffic and parking issues – why does Council persist in making grand statements about how good they are at managing traffic and parking and how responsive they are to residents concerns about these issues while continually failing to actually do anything about it.
To a point I concede that Council’s resources are not unlimited and that traffic and parking issues need to be evaluated and prioritised but when Council sets the budget it only provides for 4 traffic treatments per year – this clearly indicates a vast difference between the importance Council places on these issues vs. the importance residents place on them. Why doesn’t Council adjust it’s budget so that it is more in line with residents expectations.
There are plenty of items in the budget that could be scaled back to allow for a greater emphasis on traffic and parking issues. For example, the warm season grass planting, the concrete plinthing of parks (does anyone know the purpose the plinths serve). The ability of residents have safe and reasonable vehicular access to and from their homes is a basic amenity that Coucil continually disregards.
August 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Lee, you should have included the $300K (and rising) spent on the pursuit of Penhalluriack. It could have been spent on solving quite a number of traffic and parking issues.
August 2, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Shonky, pathetic answers. Hey Jamie how does this fit in with the satisfaction survey that showed you’re a real flop when dealing with traffic and planning. From this you’ve sure taken it to heart and after years of sitting on your bums you’re still sitting on your bums and producing this crap for residents. I now dub you the DO NOTHING COUNCIL except when it comes to ripping people off with higher rates.
August 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Insult to injury is added in council replies that usually in our street where about 15% of traffic had broken the speed limit (according to council figures) which was heading towards two thousand a week… was of no real concern as most speedsters only broke the speed limit by a bit. What a joke when speaking of a street where traffic is parked heavily on both sides and families live here.
August 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Exactly in my case too in 2011, after council conducted a traffic count survey the council report to me stated that majority of drivers were travelling withn the speed limit (i.e. 85 percentile). When I questioned this ) I said so are you telling me that it was acceptable that cllose to 15% of cars were speeding?
They referred me to the Police Highway patrol!- a very interesting apparoach by couincil traffic department.
In fact I strongly believe when cars see the 2 black counters spread across a road, most drivers instinctively slowe down. So the figure of 85% is in reality significantly understated. This is clearly borne by my observations (and anecdotal evidence of other residents & their visitors) for over a year in my particular street. In fact the number of cars has significantly incresaed as well as speeding.
So what is needed urgently is new councillors who demand the council officers shift (kicking & screaming if needed) into the modern era – properly look at innovative, longterm, strategic solutions to the traffic issues in the municipality, by working very closely with the community. The current Council piecemeal, ad hoc appraoch is not going to deliver any benefits to the community- on key outcomes such as social, road safety, envronmental sustainability quality of life or economic, as we haed towards major traffic GRIDLOCK- going nowhere fast!
August 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM
GE City Council has a disregard for neighbourhood amenity. Why are they content to ensure residential streets are dominated by cars? Why do they encourage people (by poor traffic management) to drive short distances rather than walk? It sure is safer for our communities having more people walking and riding…less crime and a greater sense of community.
The 85th percentile carry-on shows their apathy and lack of will to improve the amenity for the majority of residents.
Adequate infrastructure should be in place before developments such as the one above are occupied. We all know what happens when the population increases….there are more cars and more people (probably walking to their cars) on the street. Why not be clever and put traffic calming measures in in advance of the increased population? It ain’t rocket science but then I guess apathy is easier….
August 4, 2012 at 3:05 AM
Sensibloe municipalities like Port Phillip now give number one priority to pedestriqns in GLEN EIRA it seems those on foot come a long last even on what is called a footpath. DEVELOPERS SEEM TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLETELY DOMINATE the footpath in a street I know of and have done so for the time the house has been constructed. “Funnily” enough,it doesn’t concern council officers that pedestrians and even the disabled walk many metres on the road to avooid the gated footpath. A tragedy waiting to happen.
With so many developments planned strict guide;ines must be drawn up and ENFORCED FOR ULTIMATE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
August 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM
I was driving along the road that borders the racecourse and almost hit a jogger the other day. Why has Council removed the footpath and forced pedestrians onto the road? It doesn’t make any sense.
August 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM
I think you are referring to Queens Avenue. Council, in all their wisdom and trying to piss off Frank Penhalluriack, closed off the footpath on the racecourse side and let vegetation grow over it. Absolute disgrace that this has been allowed to happen and when someone gets injured (and they will) I hope they sue the pants off Council and Newton personally.
August 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM
if the council is sued- have a guess who wil have to pay for litigation costs- Us the ratepayers- better to vote out these goons (& they all are!) & make sure newton gets sacked (Moderators: rest of sentence deleted)
August 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Housing Diversity Areas aren’t about diversity: they’re about a monoculture that developers find (for the moment) profitable. The investment needed to underwrite their profits come from ratepayers, and in some cases taxpayers. As per Council’s answer, the money isn’t available to ameliorate the loss of amenity for existing residents, especially since development in targeted areas is occuring at an artificially inflated rate. Council also prides itself on being a “low-rating” council, meaning it underinvests.
The arguments about “good public transport” and the relationship with Housing Diversity Areas are specious. For public transport to be effective, it has to be frequent, and it has to service the areas that people want/need to go to at times they want to travel. Even if you live near a train station, you have to consider the destination and time of day too. Council refuses to do the necessary strategic work. As an example, suppose you have to do a subject as Distance Education student because your local school doesn’t have the money to offer it. You could take a train to the city, take a second train to the northern suburbs, then grab a bus, and finally walk 15 minutes to the campus. If that is acceptable, then Housing Diversity Areas should be scrapped since nobody in Glen Eira is more than 1km from public transport. The practical effect of Council’s policies is to encourage car use in a confined space, in which residents fight to escape at certain times of day while conflicting with other people availing themselves of State arterial roads to pass through. Worse still, Council actively encourage people from neighbouring suburbs without Major Activity centres to drive to ours.
Vehicles Per Day [vpd] is as stated only a guideline, and not very relevant here. The problems manifest themselves at intersections, particularly when a cul de sac has only one way out, is close to a level crossing, and is unsignalised with a narrow entry/exit consisting of one lane. While it is officially council policy not to add traffic to existing traffic congestion spots, this is universally ignored by decision-makers. For those interested, the guidelines can be found in GEPS 56.06-8 Standard C21 Table C1. People may wish to compare the target speeds with actual speeds in their streets.
Having “objective criteria” for a warrants system sounds good, but the criteria, weights, and results should be publicly visible. Any time there’s a multicriterion optimisation problem, there’s scope for abuse by choosing carefully the relative weights attached to the criteria.
I sympathize with William St residents, and was first aware of a development there when it was used to justify a substandard proposal elsewhere. Pedestrians walking past it will have to be especially vigilant.
The answer that “it is not appropriate to assume that traffic and parking impacts after construction will be unreasonable” is especially inflammatory. Since developers don’t quantify the impacts and Council doesn’t require them to, there is no reasonable basis to assume things will be hunky-dory. Hand-waving, in which “increase in traffic is considered to be neglible” or “it is considered that the local roads can cope with the increase”, is an affront. Failing to due diligence means that people *should* automatically fear the worst, especially since Council has admitted that its not going to spend any money ameliorating problems should they emerge. Council does have a point that maybe, just maybe, the residents can get out of their street with a typical delay of less than 5 minutes. [Just what delay *is* acceptable?]
Ultimately though, once the developer has got its Planning Permit, Council loses interest. It was at the planning application stage that traffic-related issues should have been considered professionally, and that includes the impact that the decision has for an area if it is replicated N times.