Earth Hour sequel at Westgarth issues meeting?

Laudable as this weekend's Earth Hour climate event may be, we don't want to be kept in the dark again at the Route 86 Westgarth meeting next Tuesday 31 March, when Darebin Council expects to resolve complex service road and parking issues in the space of a single hour.

One of four so-called roundtable discussions - and the only one devoted to Westgarth issues - Tuesday's meeting looks set to repeat the pattern of last week's public meeting - a lengthy preamble by officers about the overall context for the project, complex information made available for the first time on which the audience is asked to comment on the spot, and major issues that deserve in-depth treatment compressed into the short time left over for actual public discussion.

The meeting will take place nearly two weeks after the 18 March public meeting at Northcote Town Hall, and two weeks before the 14 April deadline for submissions on the Route 86 proposal.

Given that the key issues are already clear - the High Street service road treatment, the parking implications for businesses and residents, and cycling - there is little reason why Council should not publish on the web any further work done on the options well in advance of the roundtable discussion. This has been communicated to Council at Officer and Councillor level, as well as to the company engaged by Council to facilitate the consultation.

In the lead-up to the meeting, a group of Westgarth business owners yesterday met with Rucker Ward Councillor, Trent McCarthy. While the meeting was described as 'constructive', the acid test will not be media photo-opportunities, but the public stance taken by Councillor McCarthy on issues such as the service road, parking, and the consultation process. The same goes for Mayor Diana Asmar and Councillor Steven Tsitas, Rucker's two other Council representatives. Individual assurances given in small meetings must be reflected in a broader public position that is advocated to Council to improve the community outcome.

As the deadline for submissions approaches, Westgarth businesses have given strong support to a petition stating that the loss of parking, particularly from Ruckers Hill, will have a deleterious effect on businesses in the strip. More than 78 parking spaces will be lost in all the current options, with no specific research gaving been undertaken by Council to show how Westgarth customers arrive in the strip. While business owners further north are worried by their own loss of parking, the situation in Westgarth is exacerbated by the lack of dedicated parking areas behind shops. Sounds like more than hour's worth, doesn't it?

See all posts on the Tram Stop Route 86 Corridor Project.

Council must consider Westgarth alternatives

With Council yet to put forward any Route 86 options that do not use the High Street service road as a sliplane for traffic turning left into Westgarth Street, residents themselves are coming up with options that might well solve the problem.

The option above, produced by a local resident, shows how three lanes can be accommodated south of Westgarth Street on the northbound western side of High Street. This would allow left-turning, northbound and right-turning lanes without using the service road as a sliplane.

The first slide uses the Nicholson Street-Alexandra Parade intersection as an example. The following two slides show the changes necessary in Westgarth - including early signage down the hill, the distance needed for the approach, and the slight re-alignment of tram tracks that could be accommodated by making High Street one lane in the city-bound section south of Westgarth Street. As locals will know, the two lanes there as you cross the intersection rapidly converge to a single lane anyway.

I understand that this option would retain the central tram stop of Council's preferred Option 2.

Council should seriously consider this and other ideas that may emerge to meet what are clear resident concerns about this proposal. Their consideration of such community input - including technical advice - must also be completely transparent. What we need at next week's Westgarth roundtable discussion aren't further options thrown up on a screen for the first time, but further discussions on refined options that go up on Council's website this week in advance of the roundtable.

If this happens and the options show clear signs of meeting resident concerns about the sliplane, parking and cycling, then we might well see some positive movement in advance of Council's next meeting on 6 April.

A larger version of the presentation can be viewed using the control next to the slide number, or on Google Docs.

See all posts on the Tram Stop Route 86 Corridor Project.

Details of next week's roundtable discussions, and how to make a submission by the 14 April deadline are now available at the Route 86 project page.

Update: See Council's Westgarth residential access page for the options presented at last Wednesday's public meeting, together with some additional information.

One thing that should be noted is that it's confusing to have the tram stop options listed as options 1 and 2 on the main route 86 page, and then use the same terminology for the options regarding residential access on this new page.

Route 86 consultation wastes deadline extension

Following last Wednesday's public meeting on the Route 86 project at Northcote Town Hall, the City of Darebin has done little to progress its promised roundtable discussions, and has failed to publish on the web the details of the further consultation, or the additional options it presented at the meeting. So much for transparency, and so much for the fast-approaching extended deadline on 14 April.

Of the many people I have spoken to about this issue, no-one who has put themselves forward to take part has yet received a response about attending the discussions, and there is little evidence that Council has promoted the opportunity to do so among residents or businesses who may not have attended the public meeting.

This has been despite the election of a more progressive Council last November, a positive Council meeting last Monday to secure the deadline extension, and the attendance of Mayor Diana Asmar and Councillor Trent McCarthy at the public meeting to hear residents' concerns.

A notable absence at that meeting was Councillor Steven Tsitas, one of four Councillors - including Mayor Asmar - who declared a conflict and could not take part in last Monday's vote on the motion to extend the consultation deadline. With Councillor Gaetano Greco on leave of absence, the motion was ultimately not put to a Council vote due to the lack of the required quorum, but authorised instead by Darebin CEO, Michael Ulbrick, on the spot.

The first point to note is that a possible conflict presumably does not preclude representation of your constituency, as Mayor Asmar has shown. A Councillor can listen to constituents, attend public meetings, and advocate on behalf of residents and businesses to Council officers without landing in hot water over any potential conflict of interest.

The second point is that, with four Councillors having declared a conflict at the Council meeting, they will presumably be unable to vote when Council officers finally report on this proposal and make their recommendations.

Depending on the return of Councillor Greco, this may leave less than a majority of Councillors to vote on the issue, and therefore once again without the necessary quorum for a vote to occur. I understand Darebin Council is seeking legal advice on this issue, which needs to be quickly resolved if there is to be any sort of vote at all on this proposal.

In the meantime, the consultation is showing all the signs that led the City of Darebin to score so poorly on its own 2008 report card in the area of community engagement. With a clearly more progressive Council in place, it can surely do a lot better than this. Get on to your Councillors to demand progress on the consultation, and register your interest in joining the roundtable discussions on the issues of concern that have been identified so far.

It is my hope that the separate discussions will be appropriately linked (for example, a couple of business owners in the service road discussion among a majority of residents, and vice versa in the parking discussion for businesses). As I said at the public meeting, the proceedings of these discussions must be transparent as they progress, so that there is every chance of a solution that optimally meets everyone's needs.

Update: See the Route 86 project page at the Darebin website for a series of meetings on the evenings of Tuesday 31 March and Wednesday 1 April. Of four sessions, one hour on the Tuesday is devoted to 'Westgarth issues', with one hour the following night on cycling issues - presumably for the whle project. I had expected there would be themed meetings on issues such as the service lane, loss of parking and cycling, but at least the first two have been compressed. It is also disappointing to note that the meetings begin almost two weeks after the public meeting, and that the additional options then presented are not on the website. I got my email about the sessions after 5.00pm today. If you haven't received yours, email route86@darebin.vic.gov.au to take part.

What do you want from tonight's meeting?

With the extension of the deadline for submissions, tonight's public meeting on Darebin's Tram Route 86 Corridor project stands some chance of getting the consultation back on track. So, what do you want to see come out of the meeting? Feel free to leave a comment, but here are a few thoughts to get things started.

While most people would agree that faster, more efficient and accessible public transport is an urgent priority given climate change, a good idea badly executed helps no-one.

I'm hoping tonight's meeting will especially address the impact on those affected by the closure of the splitter island (see also Nick Hurle's map) near the intersection of High and Westgarth Streets, the implications of the likely loss of parking for local businesses, and the integration of cycling paths in the proposals. There is also the effect on existing transport, with the service lane bus stop set to disappear under both the current options.

In particular, as they will ultimately vote on the proposal, I would like to see each of our Rucker Ward Councillors - Trent McCarthy, Diana Asmar, and Steven Tsitas - briefly share with us their views on each of these issues. It isn't too much to ask where they stand individually, and how they think they can contribute to a resolution. Trent McCarthy moved the motion to have the submissions deadline extended, and that is a welcome start to a better outcome, but let's get into the details.

In line with Councillor McCarthy's motion, I'd also like to hear at the meeting just what further 'roundtable discussions' will take place with community members and other stakeholders to work through these issues. The discussions must include the people most affected by the proposals - service lane residents, business owners, public transport users who are elderly or living with a disability, and residents who can contribute in other ways - for example, by offering specialist knowledge on transport, traffic management and the environment.

Referring back to a point raised at the Thursday 12 March meeting at the Jika Jika Community Centre, Council should also offer its view on doing specific research on the Westgarth strip to identify just how customers arrive to do their shopping. If that research showed, like the Northcote study, that far more people arrived by alternatives to car travel than the business owners had believed, it might go some way to reassuring businesses about the loss of car-parking spaces. If the results showed a heavier reliance on cars than Council claims, it would surely strengthen the case to explore options to preserve parking.

Either way, the parking solution will be a mix of approaches - research, looking for alternative parking provision, minimising the loss of spaces, and offering incentives to change the transport mix to encourage people to get here by foot, bike, tram, bus or train. While Council is far better resourced to call on expertise, it also needs to encourage and listen to community ideas that might help.

One idea might be for shops to be allowed to sell individual tickets at the bulk discount rate with each purchase. Could incentives be offered for patrons in the strip who arrive by sustainable transport, or in full cars, instead of each person arriving individually and taking up a separate parking space? Do the tram stops have to be 33 metres long? Is there any prospect of shorter but more frequent trams that need shorter stops and take away fewer parking spaces?

Finally, it is interesting to note that by far the greatest impact on parking in Westgarth will be the loss of spaces on Ruckers Hill. This is claimed as necessary to preserve a lane of traffic on each side of the dedicated north- and south-bound tram tracks. If we stopped seeing High Street as both a (clogged) car artery and a major public transport route, it might be possible to retain some parking on Ruckers Hill - local traffic and parking should pose a much smaller impediment to trams even if they share the tracks.

It is, of course, a reality that existing traffic has to go somewhere, and not simply be unfairly diverted onto other roads where other residents will have to deal with the associated problems. This only goes to emphasise the need for a systemic focus on public transport that meets the needs of commuters who, for lack of a good public transport system, drive their cars along our roads.

What do you think?

See all posts on the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project

Come to the Route 86 meeting Wednesday night

The City of Darebin is holding a public meeting for Westgarth businesses and residents tomorrow night, Wednesday 18 March, at 6.30pm to discuss the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project, and in particular the potential impacts on the local businesses and the community from options presented so far. Unfortunately, no agenda seems to be available. Go to the Northcote Town Hall, Room 2B (Level 1) and have your say.

Those visiting the Route 86 project page at the Darebin website should note that, despite the tardy updating by Council, the deadline for submissions on the project has been extended to 14 April (the Tuesday after the Easter break), and that further 'roundtable discussions' have been promised between Council officers, stakeholders and community members.

See all posts on the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project

Northcote Bowl public meeting this Thursday

Back on 18 February I posted about the State Government's controversial decision to call in developments to expedite them in cases where there is a deemed 'net comunity benefit'.

One such development is the proposed 96-unit proposal for the Northcote Bowl site. The City of Darebin opposes the call-in, and is holding a public meeting at 7.30pm this Thursday 19 March at the Clyde Street Community Centre, 64 Clyde Street Thornbury. Further details at the City of Darebin website.

While the City of Darebin's consultation and planning proposals could themselves be significantly improved and this large-scale development has given rise to widespread and understandable community concerns, I support Council's opposition to the call-in and this opportunity for further community input. Let's see what comes out of it.

Are political donations driving Victorian development?

As recently reported in The Melbourne Times ('State squashes planning right in bid to save jobs', 11/2/09), the Brumby government is set on 'fast-tracking' major developments by taking them out of the hands of local councils where there is a claimed 'net community benefit', including the creation of jobs in the building industry. A lot rides on how that benefit is (or isn't) defined.

One problem is that, according to a recent report by Royce Millar in The Age based on Australian Electoral Commission figures, the Victorian ALP is a major beneficiary of political donations from big developers. If it's not on for local councillors to vote on developments by developers who have given them political donations, do we really want an ALP flush with developers' cash steamrolling local democratic processes and community concerns? Here's the unedited version of my letter published in today's edition of TMT.

Greg Barber's letter about Greens contributions in Parliament offers an interesting lens through which to examine the Northcote Bowl development.

Barber writes that a private member's Bill he introduced last year aimed to prevent councillors voting on any development where they had received election donations from the developer. Now we have the Brumby State Government giving the green light to the Northcote Bowl development, sidelining a refreshingly feisty council in an undemocratic process.

Yet on 3 February, Royce Millar reported in The Age that, according to Australian Electoral Commission figures, 'corporate donations to Labor are predominantly from firms with lucrative public contracts or planning approvals, or those seeking them'. Millar identified a number of large donations from big developers bankrolling the Victorian ALP. That is to say, development decisions are being taken out of council hands by a government swimming in developers' cash.

While I am not claiming that the developers of the Northcote Bowl are among the ALP's donors, the scale of developer donations to the ALP amounts to inappropriate political influence in favour of bulldozing developments through despite valid community opposition - hardly a 'net community benefit'.

I agree with comments by Rucker Ward Councillor Trent McCarthy reported in TMT that the financial downturn is being used as a pretext to 'push through developments that deserve more scrutiny' (11/2, 'Ire as Brumby bowls residents over'). I look forward to the outcome of Councillor McCarthy's discussions with other Darebin councillors regarding his proposed public meeting on the Northcote Bowl development.