August 2, 2010

Panel Report: A Study in Council Failure

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

Melbourne 2030 has become the convenient scapegoat for the ongoing failure of Glen Eira Council to adequately plan for the future. Everything is laid at the feet of the Brumby government, thus absolving councillors and senior executives of any role in the current fiasco that represents Glen Eira planning. The recent Caulfield Village Panel Report makes this clear in spades – but more of that in the following days.

What is important right now is to ask the basic question: does Glen Eira actually need the Caulfield Village to fulfil the Melbourne 2030 vision and its other legal obligations? Or have we already far exceeded all population prognostications? The table below gives a clear indication that Glen Eira and, in particular the surrounds of the Racecourse, have well and truly exceeded target population figures. Yet, with council’s tacit consent, the region is still ‘developing’!

The major problem with the report and the Amendment C60 which triggered the report, is that:

• Neither the panel, nor the Council, considered the impact(s) on surrounding Glen Eira suburbs
• Neither the panel, nor the Council, considered the implications for traffic in the wider region
• Glen Eira has failed to carry out a Structure Plan for the whole Phoenix Precinct (includes Monash Caulfield Campus part and Caulfield Racecourse) with an integrated plan and an integrated transport plan as required by Melbourne 2030 guidelines, and the recently adopted Integrated Transport Act.
• ‘Evidence’ in the form of ‘expert’ testimony, for the most part was commissioned by the MRC, which cleverly restricted everything to Caulfield Village area (not all of the Major Activity Centre area). Council relied on policies, masterplan and ‘research’ a decade old.

But the major sticking point remains the argument that Glen Eira has to endorse such projects in order to cater for its yet to be realised population explosion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The following table has been constructed using ABS population statistics. They reveal a totally different picture and call into question not only the failure to present to the public such statistics, but reveal how we have all been hoodwinked by a Council that either does not do its homework well enough, or is at the beck and call of developers.

In particular, readers should note from the table below:

• The staggering proposed increase in Caulfield East population
• The fact that we have well exceeded expectations
• The already huge impact on surrounding Glen Eira suburbs.

  Glen Eira Vision 2020(1991 census) Glen Eira Actual Caulfield Eastactual 6 Glen Eira suburbs around Caulfield East 2 Stonnington suburbs around Caulfield East
Population 1996 117,037 112,737 1,206 58,696 27,890
Population 2006 117,060 122,069 1,174 63,679 29,138
Population Current 2009   136,354 1,242 66,905 30,395
Population 2016 Projected 117,479 160,671 3,642 77,659 30,528
% Change 1996 to 2016 0.38 % 42.5 % 302 % 32.3 % 9.46 %
 

August 2, 2010

Whiteside Quits!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments 

From council’s website:

“Cr Helen Whiteside submitted her resignation from the Glen Eira Council on Friday 30 July.

Helen served as a Councillor 2005 – 2010 (re-elected 2008), as Mayor in 2009 and Deputy Mayor in 2010. She served on the following Committees: Audit; Animal Management; Arts & Culture; Community Grants; Roads and was a Trustee of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

The Victorian Electoral Commission is responsible for the filling of the vacancy.

In the meantime, residents should deal with other Camden Ward or Glen Eira Councillors”.

 

July 30, 2010

Panel Report: Caulfield (Racecourse) Village

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
1 Comment 

From council’s website (including link to full report).

Amendment C60 – Melbourne Racing Club Re-development Panel Report released Printer Friendly
Council has received the Panel Report on Amendment C60 which seeks to rezone the land that is generally bounded by Station Street, Kambrook Road, Bond Street, Heywood Street and Normanby Road, Caulfield.

The amendment proposes to:

Rezone the land from a part Residential 1 Zone and part Mixed Use Zone to a Priority Development Zone – Schedule 2 (PDZ2).
Introduce Schedule 2 to the Priority Development Zone – Caulfield Mixed Use Area, into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
Apply the Road Closure Overlay (RXO) to close part of Smith Street, Bond Street, a laneway west of Bond Street and a laneway south of Heywood Street.
Amend Clause 22.06 Phoenix Precinct Policy to reflect the development vision of the Incorporated Plan.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to include the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan, July 2008 as an Incorporated Document.

An officer report will be prepared for a decision in due course. This report will discuss the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations. The officer report may make one of the following recommendations to Council:

That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes proposed in the Panel Report.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes that differ to the Panel’s recommendations.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with no changes.
That the amendment be abandoned by Council.

 

July 26, 2010

Governance: going, going, gone?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

That a matter concerning a request from Council’s Solicitors, Norton Rose, dated 15 July 2010 seeking instructions from Council to allow them to meet a 23 July 2010 deadline be treated as a matter of Urgent Business. And that this item of Urgent Business be dealt with in the Confidential part of this Council Meeting as the first item of business under S.89(2)(f) Legal Advice.

 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously  (July 20th Council Minutes).

Thus the public is informed (for want of a better word!) of the behind the scenes machinations of Glen Eira Council and the saga surrounding the (re)appointment of the CEO. Putting one and two together, we surmise the following:

  1. Only a court of law, or the Municipal Inspector would set a deadline
  2. Norton Rose (and the $40,000 going their way til now) were the legal eagles involved in the reappointment process – hence it’s reasonable to conclude that this is more of the same
  3. The motion was moved by Whiteside and Magee – devotees of Newton. Both had also voted in favour of an investigation months ago

In April this year, via a leak to the Caulfield Leader, the community learnt that a Municipal Inspector was investigating Glen Eira. This makes it 3 investigations in the space of 12 years – surely a record? The Inspectorate’s newsletter in turn, makes it abundantly clear that their function includes (and we quote):

  • Investigating allegations against councillors and senior council officers concerning breaches of the Local Government Act 1989
  • Conflict of interest
  • Budgets
  • Code of conduct
  • Councillor and mayoral allowances
  • Local Laws
  • Procurement processes
  • Chief executive officer appointment process
  • Primary/ordinary register of interests         
  • Delegations

 

Clearly, the current investigation is about much more than mere ‘minutes’ of any meeting as claimed by Lipshutz in a Caulfield Leader letter several months ago. We can only speculate, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the major catalyst and central issue is, and probably always has been, the (re)appointment of the CEO.  The sudden ‘Urgent Business’ Item of Tuesday night’s council meeting, only strengthens this supposition. 

But what are the consequences for the municipality?

We appear to have reached a state of total inertia. Everyone is watching their backs, everyone is gagged, and the community again kept in the dark. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, one thing is absolutely clear. The decade long malaise of this council continues. It is a council divided, in spite of all the ‘club’ propaganda and motherhood statements to the contrary. To put it bluntly, councillors simply stuffed up as they did in 2005. The compromise ‘solution’ of a two year term will cost this community not only tens of thousands of dollars, but will continue to divide. Once again we are left with a dysfunctional governing body and a CEO fighting for his reputation.

This latest episode does no credit to anyone – councillors or administration.

 

July 20, 2010

Strategic Planning: Does it exist in Glen Eira?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Our last two posts have featured what may appear to be separate issues – Caulfield Racecourse planning and childcare centres and kindergartens. In reality they are intimately connected. Strategic Planning must incorporate all aspects that are likely to impact on the local community. It must also “focus on what the customer wants rather than what the appointed and elected officials think the customer needs.” (Dave Fountaine, AQUEST Consulting LLC) In Glen Eira, the ‘customers’ are mostly irrelevant. A glimpse at the recent Community Satisfaction Indicators reveals that on the criterion of ‘engagement in decision making’, Glen Eira ranks 63rd out of the 79 Councils in Victoria with a bare pass mark of 58.

 Yet, we are a municipality with a growing population, an unprecedented spurt in residential development, traffic and parking nightmares, and an increasingly ageing population. Open space remains limited, yet we insist on either selling it off, or privatising this valuable resource. Aged and child care facilities barely get a look in. And all through this, real public debate is absent. Without a comprehensive and detailed strategic vision, drafted in direct consultation with residents, this municipality will continue to waste resources and alienate its community.

Given all this, there are some vital questions to ponder:

  1. Why is Glen Eira the only metropolitan council without formal structure plans? Such plans could: introduce strict height limits and overlays through properly executed community consultation processes. Perhaps then we could avoid the angst of Elsternwick, the Racecourse, Centre Road, Hawthorn Road, and others yet to hit the drawing boards.
  2. Why is Glen Eira focussing on 3 ‘activity centres’ when other neighbouring councils have double this number? Surely the role of council is to support local business and breathe life into strip shopping throughout the municipality with more retail, commercial and community services to reduce travel, pollution and increase employment? The planting of a few tawdry trees is not an answer!
  3. Why is Glen Eira being treated by developers as an inner ring municipality with high-rise (over 5 storey buildings) housing developments circumventing Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme? Why is this being allowed to continue – or is it in fact ‘encouraged’ ie. Zoning/amendments at developers’ requests?
  4. Why has Glen Eira failed to address its child care and kindergarten shortage which it has known about for at least a decade? Is this what the community wants? Have they ever been asked for their priorities?
  5. Why is public open space dwindling and being sold off or leased to private interests with fences to ensure exclusive use (de-facto privatisation) on a regular bases?
  6. Why is there never any substantive change in budget allocations that take into account community submissions?
  7. Why can other councils such as Bayside institute a 13 member community consultation panel for its community plan as a formal, prerequisite component of its Council Plan? Why can other councils actively seek and achieve direct community input and involvement? (See: http://planforbayside.wordpress.com/)
  8. Are councillors prepared to explain why they blithely endorse the expenditure of $7-9 million to demolish and then rebuild the Duncan Mackinnon pavilion and grandstand, and yet will not spend a fraction of this on child care centres?
  9. Why does Glen Eira Council does not conduct regular expert economic analysis as the fundamental basis for information and decision making processes that set the parameters for social, environmental and financial triple bottom line accounting?

 

Honest answers to all of these questions would tell us a lot about the lack of consultation, vision, and planning of this administration and its ‘yes men’.

 

July 14, 2010

Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[6] Comments 

Dear Friend/s of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve,

 As you may be aware we have had two enduring legal battles and have come up against very competent opposition in each case. At the first VCAT Appeal our representatives were declared vexatious for all their hard work unfortunately. However, we must take pride in our joint efforts at the Panel  Hearing at the C60 which was held incredibly  in the Caulfield Park Pavilion and the Melbourne Racing Club Committee  Room. 

 ALTHOUGH, AS A GROUP OF RESIDENTS I BELIEVE WE PRESENTED OUR CASE  VERY WELL AND PROFESSIONALLY IN MANY CASES AND NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME /RESULT IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE GLEN EIRA COUNCIL ONLY APPOINTED A SOLICITOR PART -TIME  and  two experts AND THE OPPOSITION APPOINTED A QUEENS COUNCIL and FOUR EXPERTS.  

 In the plan the MRC hopes to build on Crown Land at the Station and their QC asked to pay our council money rather than provide money for the compensation of loss of “Open Space’ WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE SET ASIDE IN ALL CASES OF DEVELOPMENT.  This one is for a 15storey building, 12 storey building, 15,000 square metres of retail and housing for about 2,000 persons… it grew as the panel hearing proceeded!! 

 I hope the panel studies the facts and now more factors enter into it.  During the time of the procedure the garage in Station Street was sold for a good price. I wish the engineers well !

 Now to the point of this email…  Now more than ever we must campaign TO HAVE THE RACECOURSE RETURNED TO THE “SITE  FOR A RACECOURSE PUBLIC RECREATION GROUND AND PUBLIC PARK”  these words are directly from the title document in which “ Queen Elizabeth ll forbids any transfer or dealing with any part of the land.”

 In the planned development all of the members car parks will be built on so we can alert members to this fact at a demonstration in Smith Street (which is to be re-routed) on Saturday31 July at 12.30.  We are to aim for television coverage in view of elections.

 Slogans could  be “SAVE THE TRIANGLE”     “MORE GREEN SPACE”    “PROPER RACECOURSE  ACCESS” “MORE PLAYING FIELDS”

 Make a sign, come along bring your friends and relations we must have at least fifty attend for effect.

 Yours faithfully

 Mary    (0428-128-594 enquiries and support)

 

July 13, 2010

Not our responsibility? Ahhhh, puhleese!!!

Posted by gleneira under GE Kindergartens/Childcare
Comments Off on Not our responsibility? Ahhhh, puhleese!!! 

Last Tuesday night’s Council Meeting provided the gallery with the same old excuses and rhetoric that residents have become accustomed to whenever kindergartens and childcare facilities are mentioned. With shameful predictability nothing in the budget was changed in response to thoughtful and comprehensive submissions by the Save Local Childcare Coalition and the Toy Library. The same old slogans and shibboleths were let loose underpinning a philosophy which simply refuses to accept any social, much less moral, obligation to cater to residents’ needs.

‘It’s not our responsibility’ is the standard catch cry. It’s the state and federal governments’ job to provide for kindas and childcare. On and on, councillors trot out the party line. Last year saw waiting lists of over 150 for kindergarten places; this year it is the imminent closure of the Elsternwick Childcare Centre and the cramped and unsafe working environment of the Toy Library.

None of this is new. It is ‘policy’, set by an administration and countenanced by councillors who either do not have the wherewithal to challenge an agenda designed to rid itself of all ‘costly’ enterprises outside of sport and pavilions or, who simply are incapable of honouring their commitment to the community. How much longer can this go on? And it has been going on for far too long. As far back as 2003, speeches were made in Parliament condemning Glen Eira and its failure to provide adequate childcare facilities. Here’s an example:

Mr Scheffer – 5th November, 2003

I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Community Services in the other place, the Honourable Sherryl Garbutt. The role of the City of Glen Eira in the steady privatisation of child care has been a growing concern to local parents. In recent days the issue has erupted again with Sunday’s edition of the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader running two separate stories on what it calls the child-care crisis and on the council’s September decision to close the Caulfield Children’s Centre. The Glen Eira council says the centre has to close because the facility would not meet new state government standards. The council says it cannot afford the upgrade. I have called for the council to apply to the Victorian government for a three-year exemption to give it time so that the centre’s 75 children and their families can keep using the service.

A report by the City of Glen Eira states that demand for child care in Glen Eira  currently exceeds places available, and I suspect that the council is prepared to reduce its level of involvement in the provision of child care, because it wants the private sector to fill the vacuum. I ask the minister to provide me with information on what the Bracks government is doing to support local government such as the City of Glen Eira to maintain the role in the delivery of child-care services at a time when the challenge is on to improve operating standards in child-care centres.

Local parents are campaigning to keep the Caulfield Children’s Centre open and are meeting with councillors to press their case. I strongly support their efforts. They want the right to choose community-based child care and they want Glen Eira council to maintain a strong presence. The Glen Eira report states that the total number of children in the 0-to-6 age group in Glen Eira  will fall by about 10 per cent in the next 20 years but also says that demand may be influenced by work force participation levels – and increase.

Local parents say actual birth notifications show a steady increase in recent years and that the percentage of first-time mothers in Glen Eira is significantly higher than the state average. The report also states that the size of the market has expanded rapidly over the past decade and will continue to do so. The council is not especially concerned over the loss of child-care places when the Caulfield Children’s Centre closes. They know the private sector will pick up the shortfall.

While many parents are very happy with privately operated centres, a significant number want community-based care and are appalled by council vacating the field so that right now it provides only 16 per cent of the centre-based places”.

The fact that the Caulfield Centre ‘survived’ has more to do with parents’ outcry than council policy. None of the lobbying, acrimony, and behind the scenes shenanigans should have happened. The failure to facilitate open debate was, and remains evident.

And today, we have Rob Hudson, adding his voice to the ongoing sham:

Rob Hudson – april 13th, 2010:

“To provide just one example, the City of Port Phillip has spent over $4 million on new kindergartens and children’s hubs in the last three years. During the same period the Glen Eira City Council has not made any application for children’s hub funding. As a result of this lack of investment by the Glen Eira City Council the waiting list for kindergarten places in the city blew out in October last year to 146. While that was eventually reduced to less than 30, thanks in part to the state government making Caulfield Primary School available as a kindergarten, this is still totally unacceptable. Every four-year-old is entitled to one year of preschool, and the Glen Eira City Council should ensure that there is a sufficient number of kindergartens in the city for that to occur. ”

Councillors have many questions to answer regarding their consistent failure to act on these issues.

 

July 8, 2010

A Decade of Neglect Continues…….

Posted by gleneira under GE Kindergartens/Childcare
Comments Off on A Decade of Neglect Continues……. 

From yesterday’s Age newspaper

Row over council’s cut in childcare

JEWEL TOPSFIELD

July 7, 2010

THE federal government’s controversial excuse for dumping its election promise to build more than 200 childcare centres has been used to justify a cut to the number of centres in the baby-booming City of Glen Eira.

Parents are angry that the council will not find a replacement facility for Elsternwick Children’s Centre when it closes after its lease expires next year. In a letter to parents, Glen Eira mayor Steven Tang used statistics cited by the government – including that 90 per cent of long day-care centres in Melbourne report vacancies – to help show there did not appear to be a childcare shortage.

Save Local Childcare Coalition spokeswoman Bron Burton said it was nonsensical to use national data to suggest there were plenty of places in Elsternwick. The council’s early-years plan shows the number of births in Elsternwick jumped from 187 in 1999/2000 to 300 in 2008/2009. The report also identified that finding childcare for children under two was difficult due to long waiting lists.

// Dr Burton said many of the 65 families who used the Elsternwick Children’s Centre would struggle to find alternative childcare that suited them, and some parents would be unable to return to work.

The City of Glen Eira, in Melbourne’s south-east, will have just three council-managed childcare centres when Elsternwick closes – Caulfield, Carnegie and Murrumbeena.

”We know of a lot of parents who are currently on waiting lists and have been for some time,” Dr Burton said.

Cr Tang said the council would prefer to continue operating the Elsternwick centre at the current site, but the owner would not extend the lease.

He acknowledged there would not be a vacancy for every child at the other council-managed centres, but said there were plenty of alternatives. ”The equivalent of 60 vacancies per day were identified across Glen Eira … [and] 26 of the 37 services in Glen Eira indicated that they currently had vacancies,” Cr Tang said in the letter.

He told The Age the council’s early childhood priorities in Elsternwick included kindergarten and an upgrade to the maternal and child health centre. ”These services are not being delivered by other providers,” he said.

But Dr Burton said private childcare centres often didn’t take children under 18 months old, and many parents preferred council-managed centres.

The federal government’s statistics – which it used to justify its backflip on building childcare centres on school grounds – have been criticised because they average out all vacancies and do not acknowledge there are chronic shortages in some areas.

The Greens surveyed 56 childcare centres in the inner-city federal electorate of Melbourne and found only 6 per cent had vacancies every day for children aged two and under, while only 11 per cent had vacancies every day for three-year-olds.”

More on this issue and kindergartens in the coming days.

 

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 — Next Page »