GE Transport

Archived Posts from this Category

March 5, 2012

Trust Me – I’m An Officer II

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments 

Above is the belated (4 month!) response from Transport Planning signed (illegible) on behalf of Cr. Forge. Residents should carefully note the range of ‘excuses’ for doing absolutely nothing and the validity/credibility of such responses. In particular:

  1. Opening paragraph does not address the issue at all, although it does emphasise the importance of ‘safety’ – but this is only relevant it seems for Glen Huntly Rd. and not the side streets leading off the arterial road.
  2. There is no quantification of anything. The inclusion of the phrase ‘even if an increase in traffic volume’ is remarkable. In other words, Council has got absolutely no idea about the impact of their decision making. Further, exactly what does ‘relatively low’ mean? Relative to what?
  3. What does ‘based on current conditions’ mean? Is the classification of Rowan St. at 421st on the ‘priority list’ the figure determined PRIOR to the introduction of the 40k zone in Glen Huntly Rd, or following the introduction of this speed limit?
  4. It’s extremely kind of council to reiterate what the current speed laws and limits are – but the conclusion that there are ‘no plans’ to do anything certainly does not follow logically from this opening sentence. Further, just because the ‘vast majority’ of cars are travelling below the legal speed limit, means that a sizeable minority ARE NOT and therefore constitute a safety issue.
  5. The offer of a ‘detection trailer’ is indeed magnanimous, but what does it achieve? Has council ever bothered to find out whether these trailers in fact achieve their stated objective? Do they result in decreased speed limits? Where is the evidence?
  6. The removal of two concrete lids is irrelevant to the complaint. Is this supposed to suggest ‘hey look, we’re at least doing something’? All it’s confirming is that the concrete lids have been smashed time and time again so council are now finally not relying on concrete but attempting some remedial and long overdue action. But it’s got nothing to do with the central issue and nor has ‘road patching’. In fact, perhaps the best solution to this problem would be do nothing – if the road isn’t patched and is full of pot holes this could well be the most effective deterrent for both speeding traffic and traffic in general. Surely such an idea should appeal to a ‘do nothing’ council!
 

March 3, 2012

Another Happy Customer!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[15] Comments 

We’ve received the following email:

“Hi- I’ve perused your GE Debates website & noted that while all the topics are very pertinent to residents, I noticed that there seems to be little discussion of Council’s non existent traffic management in the City of Glen Eira particuarly in and around local streets surrounding main shopping strip roads (particularly in Elsternwick, Glenhuntly Road shopping strip).
 
Since the introduction in 2011 of 40kmph speed limit Mon to Sat (reduced from 60kmph) in Glenhuntly Road, the local side streets have been inundated with cars trying to escape the slower speed limit, creating RAT RUNS & creating danger for pedestrians, kids & pets. In fact there have been 2 cats killed (our beloved pets) by speeding cars on Rowan street in 2011.
 
A recent traffic survey conducted by Council at my request in Rowan Street Elsternwick showed the traffic volumes had increased from 900 to 1400 per week & approx 20% of these cars were speeding (above the required 50kmph). Council however has refused to take any action to implement safety measures…(anything would do- e.g. speed limit signage (50kmph), no left turn at certain designated peak AM & PM times, one speed hump, etc).
 
I have an FOI currently with Council seeking data & information and criteria for setting of priorities & decision making, as well as budget & expenditure over the past 3 years on local street road safety measures implemented.

I have sought the assistance of my local councillor Cheryl Forge, who has been inept completely & instead of remaining independent & helping her constituents, seems to have sided with the Council traffic engineering department, as I have received (only 4 months late) a response she signed that is almost word for word the same as the Council traffic department’s initial response. How disappointing!!!!
 
I think the traffic management issues are seriously neglected in the city & Council is not complying with good traffic management practices legislation or keeping up with practices seen in comparable inner city councils (e./g. Stonnington, Port Phillip, etc)
 
There is a definite problem in the local streets. I’m sending you photos of ‘Keep left give way sign on the roundabout) that was driven over last weekend, (by a 4 wheel drive no doubt).

I’m wondering if you could post this comment (in its entirety or edited if deemed too long) on your website & invite comments from other residents. I’d be interested in their views and also what action we residents could collectively take to pressure this incompetent Council to take action to make our local streets safer. At the very least, the speed limit should be reduced in local streets to 40kmph to align with the main roads! How illogical is it to have higher speed limits in local residential streets than in the main roads!!!

Thanks in advance

 

February 2, 2012

A Resident’s Point Of View

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.

Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.

We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)

Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.

As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.

 

January 18, 2012

Consultation: Transport Strategy

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Once again we have to marvel at how other councils conduct their consultation in comparison to the pseudo consultation methods that characterise Glen Eira’s approach. Presented below is a diagram taken directly from the Bayside Council website depicting their timeline for community consultation on an Integrated Transport Strategy. Please note:

  • Two rounds of consultation
  • Dissemination of both background and discussion papers – both with provision for feedback
  • Draft follows consultation
  • That this can all be achieved within a 4 month timeframe

 

January 13, 2012

How & Why The Tail Wags The Dog

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[17] Comments 

We must first of all thank ‘Reprobate’ for alerting us to the paper on ATS (Active Transport to School) which we’ve uploaded. We’ve also copied some extracts from this paper for readers’ consideration and response since we feel that the issues raised here are not exclusively about ATS, but impinge on all policy and governance decision making in Glen Eira.

“The paper further examines actor behaviour and institutional cultures in the processes of ATS policy implementation in local government through an investigation of the Cities of Glen Eira and Boroondara, two middle-ring Melbourne council areas with quite different ATS outcomes. Boroondara experienced an eightfold growth (from 891 to 7,278) in ATS participation between 2008 and 2010 whilst over the same period ATS participation in Glen Eira declined by 23% (from 5,442 to 4,187) (Bicycle Victoria, 2010b). Exposure to State government policy and other external influences are the same for both organisations. So, it can be presumed that the key differentiating factors relate to the processes of policy implementation at the local government level.

The role of local government diversified following council amalgamations in 1994-95 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2008). An outcome of these changes was an expectation that councils ‘…would have greater resources to manage more complex and diverse services and to engage in more difficult urban issues in a more sophisticated manner‘ (Stone, 2008, p. 110). ATS programs fall into this domain. However, the strategic direction of some councils including Glen Eira, has been to resist the diversification of responsibilities. Glen Eira City Council resists many of the existing policy goals. In large part, the resistance is due to the culture within the institution, lack of clarity on the delegated responsibility of local government, and an aversion to cost shifting from other tiers of government.

A request was made for the researcher to interview Glen Eira Council staff. The request was refused by the CEO ostensibly due to the perception of bias resulting from the researcher’s involvement in local active travel advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted with two elected officials who shed light on the role of Councillors and Council Officers and their attitudes to ATS. Councillors are not subject to the CEOs restrictive powers and were willing to participate in the research.

The CEO at Glen Eira has an overriding influence on the activities within the Council. Theoretically, local government CEOs work for the Council and have the role of managing the council entity (Cetinic-Dorol, 2000). Although it is not unusual for conflict to arise between the CEO and Councillors, the conflict that has plagued Glen Eira City Council is extreme and has hindered the organisations ability to achieve its objectives. His stranglehold on the organisation is further reflected in the council’s organisational chart…

Glen Eira promotes itself as a ‘low cost council’ with an aversion to real or perceived cost shifting (Glen Eira City Council, 2008, p. 25; 2010a, p. 13; 2010b, p. 13). The council models itself on the traditional council with an emphasis on ‘roads, rates and rubbish’(Glen Eira Councillor 1, 2010). They are involved in two programs with limited regard to ATS- part-funding (with VicRoads) school crossing supervisors and two (4% of schools) road safety audits are undertaken by traffic engineers around schools annually. Institutionally, the council is reticent to become involved in better facilitating ATS despite external funding opportunities with seed and match funding programs dominating funding opportunities for sustainable transport projects. The objective of such programs is to embed cultural change within institutions. As a local government, Glen Eira fears other tiers of government shifting responsibilities and costs onto local government so ‘…they won’t, as a council, support an unfunded or defunded government programs…’ (Glen Eira Councillor 2, 2010). This fear of cost shifting is common to many Victorian local governments, but it is used at Glen Eira as a device to avoid participation in programs that challenge the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ mindset. This is a governance issue and stems from the institutional culture operating within Glen Eira.

The culture within an institution can be a barrier or facilitator of sustainable transport programs. Interviewees suggested the various departments within Glen Eira operate in a siloed or independent rather than integrated manner (National Bicycle Advocacy Group Representatives, 2010). This siloed approach includes a reluctance to engage external expertise. The unwillingness extends to the involvement of the local government in external funding programs such as Victorian Travel Smart programs, Supported Employment of Sustainable Transport Officers and Local Area Access Program. These programs require local governments to match funding from the state government. The institutional unwillingness to contribute adequately to such programs hampers program facilitation (State MP, 2010). This aversion to adequately fund programs has resulted in Glen Eira receiving the lowest Grants Commission funding per resident in Victoria (DPCD, 2010; Glen Eira City Council, 2010a), signifying a failure to utilise external funding opportunities for programs including ATS.

Strategy within Glen Eira exhibits a desire to resist change and continue with a business as usual approach where roads are for cars. The unwillingness to invest time and money into programs facilitating alternate modes of travel illustrates the higher priority given to motorised travel. This is despite traffic congestion being a concern cited by the community and in strategic policy documents (Glen Eira City Council, 2008).

Glen Eira has the fourth lowest per capita expenditure on bicycle infrastructure in Victoria. The 2010expenditure of just $2.91 per capita on bicycle infrastructure was in contrast to Boroondara at $6.51 percapita (Bicycle Victoria, 2010a). The total capital expenditure in Glen Eira in 2010-11 was forecast to be $47 million, with 19% allocated to the renewal and upgrade of roads. Only 0.2% of the budget is allocated to bicycle lanes, 2% to pedestrian safety and 0.03% to ‘upgrade of safety treatments around schools’(Glen Eira City Council, 2010b). In the same budget period, Booroondara allocated about 4% of their capital works budget to active travel infrastructure (Boroondara City Council, 2010b).

Within Glen Eira, the CEO and his senior managers are the most influential, whilst elected officials, whose role is to represent community needs and interests are generally supportive of ATS yet their input is nullified.

Glen Eira City Council is an example of a technocratic community network (see Fig 3). Such networks resist policy change including the implementation of delegated responsibilities such as ATS programs. The Council uses cost shifting as an excuse within the institution to account for the local government’s reluctance to engage in ATS programs. However, funding is allocated to a number of programs which although beneficial to the community, do not fall within the tradition council realm. These programs include aged care facilities, an arts program, and business development programs.Based on Peterson’s (2003) policy network variables, Glen Eira is a stable policy network in which the same actors dominate decision making (Fig 3). Outsiders are not encouraged to engage with the local government nor are outsiders actively invited to provide input.

 

December 20, 2011

The Leader: Chadstone Expansion

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

Congestion central: Chadstone expansion hard to swallow

Nicole Cridland

RESIDENTS say an expansion of Chadstone Shopping Centre will swallow small business in parts of Glen Eira and worsen traffic congestion. Trish Fields said businesses in Carnegie were suffering and residents were being fined for parking infringements while Chadstone had been allowed to continue to grow and offer all-day parking. ‘‘It’s a case of the Fashion Capital versus local neglect as a monolith grows and grows,’’ Ms Fields said. ‘‘There is no consideration for local traffic, but every effort is made to help Chadstone grow while small traders in surrounding areas are actively being restricted.’’

Stonnington Council is seeking approval from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to allow an amendment to the Planning Scheme before placing the proposed $500 million Chadstone expansion on public exhibition in January. Local resident Matthew Knight said news of the planned expansion, that included an office tower and hotel up to 13 storeys as well as 27,000sq m of extra retail space, was a ‘‘shocking revelation’’ to the community. ‘‘With Dandenong and Warrigal roads already completely congested, this massive expansion will simply overwhelm the local road network,’’ Mr Knight said. ‘‘Given that there is insufficient parking and no plans for any significant expansion of public transport access, the only certainty is a congestion crisis at Chadstone.’’

Ms Fie l d s said traders in Carnegie and Malvern East were being unfairly penalised by parking restrictions. ‘‘There is no effort to scour Waverley Rd to monitor parking overstays or speeding drivers who use the side streets and make illegal turns to avoid the traffic lights,’’ Ms Fields said.

 

April 27, 2011

Tomorrow’s Community Forum

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

From yesterday’s Caulfield Leader

 

July 5, 2010

Bike Strategy: Part 2

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport
[4] Comments 

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!

 

June 29, 2010

Draft GE Bicycle Strategy: The Facts & Critique

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport
[17] Comments 

The current Draft Bicycle Strategy recently released by Council proposes to spend $2.4 million over the next few years. Whilst well written, the recommendations are extravagant, piecemeal and unjustifiable. .  A thorough debate of the proposals must occur. Other considerations and priorities must also be examined, especially in light of a scarce Glen Eira budget and heavy borrowings. Any bicycle strategy must be viewed in the broadest context. The issue isn’t solely about bikes – it’s about Sustainable Transport as a whole. Cycling is only a very small part of a much larger issue and problem.

Here are the facts taken straight from the draft report and from enumerated ABS statistics of the 2001 and 2006 Census. Things to note are:

  •  An expected increase in cyclists of only 500 in the next 5 years
  • The heavy reliance on both private cars and trains
  • Cycling is only the 8th most popular activity in Glen Eira parks – walking the most popular

 The most telling statistics however are listed below:

On Road Traffic Year 2001 Year 2006 % Increase % Total Current % Total Overall
Private-Car/Taxi 35,542 36,531 2.60 93.01 73.56
Private-Bikes 740 1,009 0.71 2.57  
Private-Trucks 420 309 -0.29 0.79  
Public-Tram/Bus 1,317 1,429 0.29 3.64  
Total 38,019 39,278 3.31 100.00 79.10
Off Road Traffic Year 2001 Year 2006 % Increase % Total Current  
Private-Bicycles Not Available Not Available      
Walks 1,083 1,438 4.07 13.85  
Public-Train 7,645 8,943 14.87 86.15 18.01
Total 8,728 10,381 18.94 100.00 20.90
Overall Total 46,747 49,659 6.23   100.00
Population 118,138 123,047 4.16    

The other data of interest are key On Road results:

  • About 16% cyclists go to work within Glen Eira;
  • About 23% of Glen Eira cyclists go to Melbourne to work, but none are coming to Glen Eira;
  • About 65% go to surrounding Councils or further;
  • Only 19% cyclists from other Councils come to Glen Eira to work.

 

So what does this all mean?

Ratepayer and taxpayer dollars, in this case $2.4m, must have benefits that are worthwhile and seen to be worthwhile. The key benefits of cycling are in terms of environment i.e. reduction in carbon pollution, and health of cyclists. Let’s examine those 2 benefits in light of the figures provided. The fundamental basis for comparisons must be the increase of population, which for the statistical period covered was 4.16% i.e. 5,000 additional souls.

 The on road bike increase (which includes motorcycles) is very small, just 0.7% with 250 more bikers. Say we double the increase of cyclists on the road for the next 10 years, which will cost nearly $500 per year per additional cyclist. This seems extravagant. Will it reduce carbon pollution in Glen Eira? NO. Not unless there is a decrease of cars on the road. The increase of cars on the road was 4 times greater than the increase of cyclists. Will the expense improve health of cyclists? Probably, but $240k per year expenditure can be used in many ways to improve both environment and the health of more than just 500 people. It is clear that there is no pre-condition in Glen Eira to have such a large expenditure for on the road cycling.

 The outstanding result is the increase in Public Train patronage by nearly 15%. That contributes to reduced environment pollution and health of those using Public Transport. Unfortunately, even here the overall impact is not encouraging. The train benefits are mainly due to its off road advantages. The off-road traffic is only about 21%, whereas the on-road (mainly cars) is 79%. And the increase of train patronage is only slightly better than car increase. As long as there is an increase of cars on the roads the net benefit on environment and health will be negative.

 Can Governments, particularly Glen Eira do something about the critical issue of cars on the roads? Let’s assume that we spend an equivalent $500 per additional person per year on improving environment and health. That amounts to $25 million just for Glen Eira. With 30 Councils in the metropolitan area that becomes a substantial sum. Regardless of the money available, the focus for measurably reducing the carbon pollution and improving health requires reducing on road traffic and pollution, increasing off-road traffic and actively shifting On-Road traffic to Off-Road traffic. Does the strategy address any of these issues? NO!

 And how do you see this transport issue and how would you spend $500 per person per year in Glen Eira to improve environment and health?

 Over to you.

Should Glen Eira Council establish a Sustainable Transport Strategy before or after spending money on bicycle road lanes?online survey

 

« Previous Page