Murrumbeena students at risk, says mum
18 Dec 12 @ 05:00am by Donna Carton
Parents and students from Murrumbeena Primary School are campaigning for a school crossing on Murrumbeena Rd.
WORRIED parents say busy Murrumbeena Rd is now too dangerous for schoolchildren.
They want a crossing supervisor at the busy road to allow Murrumbeena Primary students to walk to school and ease traffic congestion at pick-up and drop-off times.
A VicRoads assessment has found not enough schoolchildren cross the road to warrant a crossing.
But mum Christine Farnan said many parents drove their kids to Murrumbeena Primary, even if it’s a short journey, rather than let them negotiate the road on their own.
“For years we have been asking for a crossing to be built,”Ms Farnham said. “Parents drive their children due to the traffic dangers.”
Parents have now requested Glen Eira Council employ a supervisor to help children at the Murrumbeena and Dandenong roads lights crossing.
“It’s not ideal. That is a very busy spot, but it is better than nothing,” Ms Farnan said.
Cr Neil Pilling said he had spoken to worried parents and would ask for more council investigation.
“Council should re-examine this. This is a very busy road, not helped by one of the worst level crossings (at Murrumbeena),” he said.
“I will advocate for a crossing supervisor funded either wholly by council or shared with VicRoads.”
COMMENTS
Ostensibly this sounds like a pretty straight forward problem. However it reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of this council and the temerity of many of its councillors. Instead of real action, all Pilling can do is ask for ‘more council investigation’! If this Council was really run by its councillors instead of administrators, and the Local Laws reflected this, then the solution would be simple:
- At tonight’s council meeting Pilling would move the motion that a part time lolly pop person be employed. End of story! Or since this council has delegated practically all responsibility to officers and the CEO has control over the hiring of staff, the issue could be solved in a matter of moments – if councillors simply ‘request’ the exercise of this delegated power.
- We are not talking huge salaries (crossing supervisors are part time, and earn about $12 per hour). This shouldn’t even descend into the farce of Vic Roads versus Council responsibility. When Caulfield Park can be earmarked for about half a million dollars of concrete plinthing then the argument of who pays becomes obscene.
- Given the current rigging of the Local Law meeting procedures councillors have no control over the agenda; there is no notice of motion; ‘urgent’ matters have to fall within the space of agenda release and council meeting – which wouldn’t apply in this case since the issue has been ongoing for some time; and finally, councillors have been told time and time again that they shouldn’t make any decisions without the good advice provided by officers – ie reports! Thus the wheels of democratic efficiency flounder time and time again on such utter nonsense!
- We anticipate that Pilling may ask for a Request for A Report. If so, that will now not surface until February 5th next year – at the earliest. Kids will already be back at school by then!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Murrumbeena Road, like Dandenong Road, is a state arterial road, and the responsibility of VicRoads. As an institution, VicRoads sees its job as to facilitate car movements, although its supposed to consider the needs of all road users. Arguments like “not enough schoolchildren” are what you expect from an institution looking for excuses or have no interest in taking any action. How many schoolchildren would it take for a change of attitude? Since the area has been earmarked for higher density development, how many children will there be in the future? How many children *would* be permitted by their parents to use the crossing if it was staffed?
Once again we have an example of planning policy failure. Government allegedly wants more people to walk and reduce dependence on private motorized transport [read cars]. It has forced higher density development through the establishment of urban ghettos, often on state arterial and other major roads. Well, these policies should come at a cost, with current speed limits inappropriate for a pedestrian future. In urbanised pedestrian environments in Scandinavian countries they have a 30km speed limit. Victorian motorists almost certainly wouldn’t obey such a limit, but its time to get the message through to VicRoads that where people are being encouraged to be pedestrians and especially where they are not supported by safety measures such as pedestrian crossings, there should be at most a 40km speed limit. Motorists can bitch, but they’re the root cause of the problem.
December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Brings me back to the ped crossing put in at Booran Rd and Marara some 4 years ago, the intitial thought was for a supervised school crossing but as ‘supervisors’ are so hard to source Council put in the present ped crossing with lights. Sounds like this could solve the problem at M’beena Rd which is so much busier traffic wise than the Booran Rd location. Should be a good mix with the ped and train crossing operating around 8.30 am on!
Rob Spaulding.
December 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM
A pedestrian crossing on Grange Rd next to the Glen Huntly Primary was established some years ago as a result of the school lobbying its MP to do it. Somehow VicRoads agreed and did it all the work necessary to implement it. That’s politics at work. Glen Eira Council had nothing to do with it. Seems to me that Murrumbeena Primary should lobby the State Government to do likewise. You never know they may get it, election is next year.
December 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM
This Council only reacts to road safety issues if there are at least 3 casualty crashes within 5 years. Good luck to the Murrumbeena folks with their campaign – it’s a really low cost option and well worth it if it prevents injury – but I’m afraid this Council won’t see it that way.
December 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM
You have to apply the regulations in an even handed manner. If the VicRoads guidelines and councils own criteria indicate a supervisor isn’t warranted then either review the guidelines or apply them in an even handed manner. I tire of councillors overriding on these matters in an ad hoc populist manner after some well orchestrated public pressure. Often by a rowdy few. The consequence in matters like these is that more dangerous crossings get dropped down the priority list. As I say, either apply the guidelines in an even handed manner or change them. There are too many merely populist councillor overrides on these matters.
December 18, 2012 at 5:15 PM
This sounds reasonable but circumstances change and often change rapidly. The guildelines could have been written centuries ago. I doubt that council even has any guidelines for the numbers of cars versus the numbers of students. You write about “populist” councillors. Well so they should be when safety is the question and they are there to support locals. To not say anything is to ignore residents.
How many other changes have taken place because Newton decides it should happen. Car parks at gesac and now Gardener’s road that cost squillions are ad hoc decisons made to support a lousy business case to begin with. Guidelines are fine when they’re sensible and when everyone sticks to them or at least recognises that they need to be updated on a regular cycle. You can’t have 400 residences going into a couple of square kms and more kids at the school without thinking that the guidelines are outdated and useless and then pretend that there’s no problem. That’s what happens too often. I’d want a lolly pop man instead of concrete lumped into all parks. It’s cheaper, safer and gives people what they want.
December 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous 4 replied: I doubt that council even has any guidelines for the numbers of cars versus the numbers of students.
Oh yes they do. I know of one crossing where they had to alter the days they used pedestrian counters because the few noisy advocates found out the counting days and circulated local residents to use the crossing as often as possible on those days to wilfully distort the figures.
It may well be that some sort of crossing is justified here. But it must be on some objective basis, not ad-hocary as that means more deserving crossings drop down the priority list. Don’t like populist decision making.