If you blinked you may have missed the report buried in page 29 of the Mercury a few days ago (August 22, 2020) about the progress report from the Commonwealth Government on the Hobart City Deal.
The Mercury barely mentions public transport. But the section of the progress report that particularly interests me concerns the “Activating the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor” in pages 17-18.
The term “Transit Corridor” has been used for so many years that many may have forgotten that it actually refers only to the Cycleway and the rail track. Main Road has not been part of the public transport conversation for years.
Once again we see much material that gives the misleading impression that the project is about urban congestion. None of the multitude of reports written about the Rail Corridor (by external consultants or any level of government) makes a credible case that light rail would ever mitigate traffic congestion. For light rail to do so would require major additional funding to move parts of the railway over or under the major thoroughfares such as Elwick Road and Albert Road.
It is really all about urban renewal but that term is buried on the second page where most would miss it. To use $25 million from an Urban Congestion Fund on a project that may well make congestion worse borders on the unethical.
The report does valiantly attempt to create the impression of activity, mentioning some documents that are new to me, with impressive titles such as Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor Precinct Plan, Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor Growth Strategy, and Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor Strategy – reports that probably do not exist.
Finally, the report makes this curious statement that the Hobart City Deal project will “Continue to explore opportunities for a value capture framework to support potential future funding opportunities for the transport solution in the corridor.”
Even the Tasmanian Labor Party say in their public transport policy that in government they “will test the market for potential operators to run a rail service through a competitive process to facilitate private investment in the project.”
Neither major party sees the proposal as financially attractive.
Clearly every major stakeholder has come to realise that all the alleged benefits of light rail will flow to Glenorchy. State and Commonwealth governments will have learnt by now that their role is to provide funding for construction, maintenance and operation, and that finding funding elsewhere may make the project financially acceptable for them – because it isn’t now.
Today, in the Moonah and Glenorchy CBDs are over 25 closed circuit TVs in public spaces, mostly on light poles. Council uses its resources to manage and maintain them with no demonstrable benefit to the community.
Funded by the Commonwealth Government, installed and maintained by the Glenorchy City Council, and used by State Police, they record movement across our city. We are all accustomed to seeing CCTV on private property, particularly in business premises, but may not have noticed them in public spaces.
After years of increasing expressions of concern about graffiti by residents and businesses, Council in December 2010 finally decided on a by-law and policy to guide how Council would deal with graffiti on council property and elsewhere in the city. There is no evidence of systematic public consultation. Eight months later in July 2011, it decided to “facilitate in conjunction with all tiers of government and local businesses, through grants, other financial assistance and in kind assistance, the installation of closed circuit TV (CCTV) in the Glenorchy CBD as a pilot project“.
The opportunity to act on that decision arrived at the end of the year when the Commonwealth Government announced the Proceeds of Crime Funding Round for 2012, with a focus on Graffiti (prevention, reduction and/or removal). At its March 2012 meeting, Council decided to take advantage of the opportunity by applying for a grant. It received $123,687 — not bad for a “pilot project”.
But it took another twelve months before Council nailed down precisely how it would evaluate or assess the “pilot”. At its 12 February 2013 meeting it refined the objectives of the pilot to be:
To reduce reported crime and incidents to Police;
To reduce reported damage and graffiti within the Glenorchy City municipality; and
To improve perception of safety and reduce fear of crime.
and listed nine statistics that would be collected as measures of the performance of the CCTV. Council also began to consider how the CCTV would be operated and managed, and what part it would play with crime prevention and detection strategies already in effect in Glenorchy.
The 1 September 2014 Council meeting saw answers to questions from our current Mayor (then Alderman Johnston) asking why reports, statistics, work plans and protocols had not yet appeared. Recent questions to Council revealed that Council has to this day never compiled those statistics, nor has Tasmania Police (to Council’s knowledge). Furthermore, Council has never reviewed the CCTV operation to determine whether it has achieved any of its original objectives.
What do we know of the current situation?
As far as I can tell, CCTV can now be found in these places.
Barry Street at entrance to Mill Lane.
Council Chambers roof.
Glenorchy Bus Mall – Main Road end and Barry Street end.
Northgate entrance on Main Road.
Moonah Car Park.
Moonah Post Office.
Main Road opposite Moonah Hotel.
GASP Pavilion on Wilkinsons Point.
None of the cameras are monitored; footage is downloaded if and when it is required.
The CCTV recording system operates on a 30 day rolling cycle. Only the previous 30 days of footage will be available: e.g., on day 31, it will record over day 1 of the 30day cycle.
Council’s CCTV system does not record audio; this conveniently removes any requirement to comply with the Listening Devices Act.
Council’s part in the CCTV operation appears to be to (a) house the recording equipment, (b) undertake an annual maintenance check on all CCTV equipment, (c) review CCTV footage, and (d) provide relevant footage to Tasmania Police if an incident is reported or the Police request the footage.
It is not clear whether Council has any control whatsoever over where CCTV is installed. Approval is required from TasNetworks for any installations or attachments to light poles.
But has the installed CCTV ever achieved its intended purposes? Has Council ever considered whether it does anything apart from making Glenorchy residents feel safe? Does it do even that?
As noted above, Council has never undertaken any evaluation to determine whether the CCTV operation achieved any of its original objectives.
Only Tasmania Police can tell us whether less crime is reported and vandalism has become rarer. But we read in the agenda of the November 2017 Council meeting that “formal correspondence with Tasmanian Police indicated that Police would be unwilling for operational reasons to release any data”.
As far as graffiti is concerned, the Council map website helpfully provides a graffiti page showing historical data. Extracting the raw data gives the following graph.
There is no evidence that the CCTV operation has improved crime prevention or detection in any way, disappointing given the Police Tasmania website says that the preferred role of CCTV systems is “to prevent or reduce the opportunity for crime to occur.”
But that may not matter. If the prime objective is in fact to make people feel safer and it costs little to maintain and operate the cameras, then they should stay. Whether they in fact reduce crime would be neither here nor there. On the other hand, they may be a complete waste of money.
GCC today (July 28) announced a project to “develop an arts and culture strategy for the City of Glenorchy”. It is searching for a consultant capable of producing the strategy by November 20 this year within a budget of about $50,000. The closing date for quotations is August 7. Eleanor Downes, manager of the Moonah Arts Centre, is the council contact for any queries (which must be made by email).
This may well be the first step in the economic stimulus project named “Showcase” described in the council’s July 2020 quarterly report as “delivering an Arts and Culture Strategy and creative workforce hub”.
The strategy will “present outcomes that address the vision, roles and contributions of Council, arts and cultural stakeholders and other community members”.
The deliverables are expected to include the following:
a staged plan for new and existing cultural infrastructure for the city
policy, plan and budget commitment for Council’s ongoing role in the delivery of events (including commercial)
opportunities that arts and culture offer to develop tourism in Glenorchy
vision, plan and ongoing budget commitment for the development, maintenance and protection of public art in the City.
ongoing plan for the Montrose Bay foreshore, GASP and Wilkinson’s Point areas including commitment to, plan and budget for the delivery of public art within the concept of an arts and sculpture park.
In particular, it acknowledges that selling the DEC may reduce venue for community performing arts that the DEC has offered to-date, such as eisteddfods, primary school bands, and dance groups performance. The consultant is expected to address this issue.
One of the top five priorities for the community as expressed in the GCC Community Plan 2015-2040 is to be “the hub for arts and culture in Tasmania and to forge a national and international reputation as a leading destination for arts tourism”.
Not a hub but the hub. Let’s hope that this ambitious objective was not triggered by optimism borne out of the fortuitous construction of MONA in our midst. It has done wonders for Tasmania and Hobart but we should not over-estimate what it has done for Glenorchy residents. We should leverage it’s popularity but not become dependent on it.
An Arts and Culture Strategy which does not rely on MONA is to be welcomed. All residents should take any opportunities to have their say.
Among Council’s stimulus projects is one named “City Scape”, intended to “create a vibrant city centre for Glenorchy” – an aim I think most would support but believed would arise from the CBD Revitalisation project.
The Council’s latest Quarterly Report says that City Scape is “subject to further review by council” so it’s anybody’s guess what it will eventually look like. But Council clearly expects outdoor dining to be part of it because regulations are being prepared to allow it to happen.
On Monday (July 27, 2020) Council will decide to progress a new by-law about public spaces and infrastructure that will create “opportunities for mobile and footpath dining experiences, to enhance the cultural and social life of the municipality.”
You may wonder why a by-law is needed at all. The problem is the planning scheme. It does list uses and developments that are “exempt from requiring a permit”. But as you can see below [ref], the exemption for outdoor dining relies on Council having a by-law and a procedure for granting licences to operate outdoor dining.
“5.11.1 Use and development including outdoor dining facilities, signboards, roadside vendors and stalls which have been granted a licence under the Council’s relevant By-Law.”
Note that some other Tasmanian councils have made progress towards allowing outdoor dining. Here is a sample.
The proposed by-law will replace, simplify and update some by-laws that have already expired. Yes, they do expire. And no by-laws means no offences and no penalties, so Council is finding it difficult to regulate some aspects of public spaces. So the new by-law will also allow Council staff to more effectively manage public spaces and infrastructure.
Watch next Monday’s council meeting live on Facebook on the official council Facebook page. It is scheduled for 6pm on Monday July 27.
Read the meeting agenda and for the other documents for the meeting, such as the latest Quarterly Report which is definitely worth a look, go here.
Since the early days of the current Council, a remarkably high proportion of motions in open Council meetings have passed unanimously without questions or comment. A vote by any alderman against any motion whatsoever has become a noteworthy event. To hear an alderman speak against a motion is just as rare.
Only two issues spring to mind as triggering anything like a true debate. The first related to changing the meeting start time from 3pm to 6pm; I recall aldermen discussing this for over half an hour? The second resulted from significant public pressure for an unconditional opt-out option for FOGO.
After the dysfunction of past years, it may feel comfortable to have Council meetings with no heat, no anger, no disagreement. It may be reassuring to see efficiently run meetings. The aldermen themselves may be pleased to be on their way home early. Universal agreement (or at least consensus) on most issues might be seen by many as desirable given recent history.
On the other hand, before the pandemic people leaving Council meetings would regularly express the sentiment “Wasn’t that a waste of time?” A curious comment given they’d just witnessed an efficiently run and uneventful meeting. What else could they have wanted? And could the lack of any disagreement be a concern? What might it tell us about our council?
If the lack of discussion at Council did indeed reflect identical or similar personally-held views on every issue then Council lacks a diversity of views; that would not produce optimal or creative decision-making. That would be tragic and should discourage voters from voting for candidates as a team in future.
Realistically though, it would be truly remarkable if aldermen did not occasionally have different views. Why don’t we see those differences?
Agreement on all issues could perversely be as dysfunctional as continuous conflict if it is the result of groupthink – where individual desire for harmony or conformity overwhelms the individual desire to express their personal views. It may reflect pressures on aldermen to conform, to present an impression of unity or at least avoid any hint of disunity.
On the other hand, it may indicate that Council is simply rubberstamping results of discussion or workshops elsewhere. Aldermen have already arrived at a consensus, are all talked out, and have nothing left for the Council meeting.
Furthermore, a desire to get home early and keep the meeting short may discourage them from breaking the flow. That would be exacerbated by the scheduling of council meetings on the same day as some workshops. Aldermen may find it difficult to maintain enthusiasm at the end of a tiring day.
The Planning Authority has its own particular pressures.
First, there seems to be huge pressure to accept without question the evidence and recommendations of planning officers and other council staff. But we must keep in mind that much of the material provided by staff consists of professional opinions based on assessments of situations based on assumptions and computer models of unknown provenance and limited evidence of relevance. Aldermen should not feel uncomfortable questioning evidence and staff should not feel threatened by that questioning. Professionals in any field can arrive at different conclusions starting with the same evidence.
And the mere mention of RMPAT sends a chill through the room. Pressures to avoid the expense and resources required to deal with an appeal could easily cause self-censoring. Concerns about possible newspaper headlines describing council as “anti-development” could have the same effect.
None of these possible causes need result in misbehaviour, and this article makes no such accusations. But it’s time that aldermen showed that they have minds of their own. That is not disunity. That is not the antithesis of teamwork. The next time I hear “carried unanimously” announced with enthusiasm, I’ll scream.
Despite the protestations of developers and their flagbearers, the Property Council and estate agents, it is extremely unusual to see a member of a planning authority vote against an application for a planning permit.
Last night (July 13, 2020) the Glenorchy Planning Authority – Aldermen Dunsby, Johnston, Ryan, Sims and Thomas – came close to rejecting an application by an industrial business in Granton to extend their working hours. Currently they start at 7am Monday to Friday. They wish to start at 5.45am. The final decision to approve will not please nearby residents (some as close as 100m away) who have complained about noise issues in the past.
But as the mayor very clearly expressed when speaking to the motion – they cannot consider past behaviour of applicants in making a decision.
The truth of her statement must been particularly galling to the three aldermen – Aldermen Dunsby, Ryan and Sims – who clearly had little faith, having learnt of past noise complaints, that the applicant’s future behaviour would be any better than in the past.
The planning officer in assessing the application had acknowledged the noise issue, and added a condition to the recommended permit.
The condition was, in effect, that the applicant would do the right thing noise-wise for the first six weeks. The three aldermen found this inadequate. After an extended discussion, the meeting conjured up an additional condition that ensures that noise levels are acceptable long-term but the three were still not satisfied.
When time came for the mayor to call for mover and seconder, the situation became a little tense. After some silence the deputy mayor moved the amended recommendations. The mayor called for a seconder and, receiving no response, directly asked the three if they wished to second the motion; none did. The mayor after checking meeting procedure seconded the motion herself to allow discussion to proceed and have a decision (hopefully) made.
What is more, Alderman Dunsby very pointedly asked the mayor, moments before the mayor was about to call for a vote, what would happen if the motion was rejected. She was then told what she should already have known given she has been a member of the authority for over two years, and it appears that persuaded her to vote for the motion when all indications prior to that were that she would oppose it.
Despite speaking passionately, it is somewhat disappointing that none of the three seemed to anticipate that the application might be rejected or not voted on, and did not prepare for that possibility with an alternative rejection motion, perhaps something like
“That pursuant to the Glenorchy Interim Planning Scheme 2015, Council refuses a permit for increased hours of operation (manufacturing and processing) at 1 Whitestone Drive, Granton, for the following reason: The proposal will have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity on land within a residential zone by virtue of increased noise emissions .”
As a final aside, given the logic behind the assessment of this application, there is little stopping the applicant from continuing to extend working hours incrementally hour by hour all the way up to 24-7.
All in all, a very interesting night at the office for the planning authority.
In the COVID pandemic we saw an amazing variety of activities described as essential, why not the Mercury newspaper? It is after all regarded in Tasmania as a newspaper of record.
All levels of government need the Mercury to do their job. Tasmanian law often specifies the use of newspapers for public announcements – sometimes daily newspapers circulating in the area, region or municipality, sometimes local newspapers circulating in the region, locality or municipality, sometimes newspapers circulating in Tasmania, sometimes any newspaper.
And we the public need it. Even if we personally don’t subscribe, we all benefit from journalism of local and state government matters that Mercury journalists do – investigative or otherwise. We may use national and international sources for our news but they are unlikely to take any interest in “our” news.
Circulation of the printed Mercury had been steadily decreasing until 2018 when News Corp, its owner, stopped participating in the Audited Media Association of Australia. It’s probably fair to assume the decline has continued without losses fully covered by online subscriptions.
The Mercury is a regional newspaper and is not immune from the same commercial pressures as others interstate. The current pandemic dramatically increases those pressures. We have seen many regional newspapers in Australia shut up shop during the pandemic and many may not revive afterward.
So it is not at all fanciful to ask the question: how would southern Tasmania cope without the Mercury? With great difficulty, I suspect.
While the Tasmanian Government Gazette may suffice for public announcements and notices, no journalism takes place there. Journalism is not part of its purpose. There is no analysis, no explanation, no background.
Southern local free newspapers such as the Eastern Shore Sun, Glenorchy Gazette, Hobart Observer, Tasman Gazette, and Derwent Valley Gazette cannot step into the journalistic breech because they are monthly which is much too infrequent. Most importantly, they are all owned and published by public relations companies (Font PR and Cor Comms) who presumably see them as a potential tool for their business, and are unlikely to undertake investigations which may scare off those who supply the advertising they need. The Kingborough Chronicle and Huon News are privately owned but are also monthly.
I’ve found only two Tasmanian sites which appear to provide a broad range of news and also claim journalistic expertise – the Tasmanian Times and the Tasmanian Inquirer. Neither appears to have the resources for investigative journalism.
A democracy cannot function well without an informed public. Many of the public have already stopped receiving their news from newspapers. Despite that, every member of the public who wants to participate in our democracy should be able to be informed without payment. While printed newspapers can be read in libraries (while not closed during a pandemic), more and more news web sites can be read only by subscribers.
There must be no financial impediment to being informed.
This is no trivial matter. Does any level of government in Tasmania have a Plan B if it goes bust? Do we, the public, have a realistic alternative to the Mercury for current information about our community?
PS. dateline July 15, 2020. The company FontPR has added to its stable of regional newspapers by purchasing Tasmanian Country from News Corp. Read a detailed report here.
PPS. dateline September 2, 2025. In the USA many local governments have a list of publications they regard as their “newspapers of note” where they publish public notices. With the demise of many local newspapers there is increasing concern about how to keep the public informed. Read this article to learn more.
Others who have lived in Glenorchy much longer than I might recall swimming off a jetty at the Grove Reserve.
Recent plans to develop the DEC precinct and enhance the Montrose Bay Reserve could change the face of Elwick Bay dramatically – at least on land.
The government has for many years advised us not to eat any fish caught in the bay (pollution). It has also advised us not to swim in it – particularly after rain (stormwater).
The zinc smelter at Lutana and the paper mill at Boyer discharged heavy metal contamination into the Derwent estuary for many years. Even though both have dramatically reduced their emissions, and Council has installed many litter traps on stormwater outlets, it may never be safe to swim in Elwick Bay again.
But that should not mean that the river can play no part in any development plans apart from being a scenic backdrop and something to travel on.
Despite the presence of the Derwent, no water-based features appear in the Kestelman proposal for Wilkinsons Point. And a suggestion of something in or beside the river, or any water-based feature in the new “playspace” at Montrose Bay drew a very negative reaction at the public consultation morning at Montrose Bay.
In fact, the jetty and pontoon at Montrose Bay actively discourage public access to the water – a “keep off” sign on the jetty and an equally ineffectual locked gate on the pontoon.
It’s no trivial matter using the river. As GASP CEO Frances Butler wrote on April 27:
“The bay is a very different matter and is not Council’s jurisdiction. Any installation in the water or encroachment into or over it (for instance the cantilever of the Wilkinsons Pt Pavilion) requires a Crown Lease. This means doing anything water-based is quite complex and requires very careful management – it’s a sensitive environment that we don’t wish to damage. We also need to take into account the effect of wash from the MONA ferry and future sea level changes and local area inundation due to climate change. That said, I am very keen for some water-based projects, funding and Crown permission permitting.”
It’s a tragedy that people going to Montrose Bay on a hot summer’s day cannot use water, either in the river or out, to cool down.
Tourists who travel along the river between MONA and Hobart will marvel at the landscape but would be aghast to learn that it is not healthy to go into it. Its beauty is only skin deep.
POSTSCRIPT: The first draft plan for the Montrose Bay Playspace (public comment closed June 2020) did include a tiny water feature called Water Play that features “interactive pumps, runnels and sluice gates in a creek-like setting.” It seems very small and designed for children to paddle, utterly useless for adults.
Off-street car parks are not the sole domain of vehicles but are shared with drivers, passengers and other pedestrians travelling across the car park. But the dangerous example in the featured image for this post shows that the Glenorchy Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (GIPS) fails to adequately cater for the safety of pedestrians in off-street car parks.
GIPS should be modified to explicitly and adequately provide for pedestrian safety. This document suggests how GIPS might be changed to avoid bad design in future. Council should then develop design guidelines for car parks to help architects to produce plans satisfying GIPS.
This is no trivial matter – the following map shows CBD off-street car parks in light blue. A great deal of effort has been applied to improving (revitalizing) a portion of the CBD but car parks (where most visitors first alight from their vehicles) are not addressed. Improving car park safety and amenity would complement the work being done on or near main road.
GIPS does not directly address the safety of pedestrians in car parks. It does so indirectly by referring to Australian Standards AS2890.1:2004 (part 1) regarding off-street car parking but in a cursory fashion, as you can see below.
It’s clear that it is virtually impossible for the GPA to reject a DA for inadequate pedestrian safety.
The standard “AS1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility” is also referenced by GIPS. It provides very little content relating to safety of pedestrians which is rather surprising given its purpose.
I believe that the emphasis must shift towards the quality rather than the quantity of parking. And this should occur not only in the CBD but throughout the city.
Other jurisdictions have developed their own design guidelines that take pedestrian safety much more seriously. I’ve listed some at the end of this document.
The changes to GIPS should not have any retrospective effect on existing car parks. I would however certainly hope that council would encourage businesses in the CBD to consider improving their parks as an off-shoot of the CBD Revitalization Project. That project should not only consider Main Road; it should also consider the role the off-street parking plays in city life.
Although Glenorchy has no multi-level car parks, new provisions should be sufficiently general to apply to any car park – surface, underground or multi-level.
And they should also apply to dwellings as well as business; although the simplicity and small size of their parking generally allows direct access to the building and they almost always have a separate entrance and path from the street.
The planning scheme guides the assessment of development applications. The purpose of the Parking and Access Code says:
E6.1.1
The purpose of this provision is to: (a) ensure safe and efficient access to the road network for all users, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists; (b) ensure enough parking is provided for a use or development to meet the reasonable requirements of users, including people with disabilities; (c) ensure sufficient parking is provided on site to minimise on-street parking and maximise the efficiency of the road network; (d) ensure parking areas are designed and located in conformity with recognised standards to enable safe, easy and efficient use and contribute to the creation of vibrant and liveable places; (e) ensure access and parking areas are designed and located to be safe for users by minimising the potential for conflicts involving pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; and by reducing opportunities for crime or anti-social behaviour; (f) ensure that vehicle access and parking areas do not adversely impact on amenity, site characteristics or hazards; (g) recognise the complementary use and benefit of public transport and non-motorised modes of transport such as bicycles and walking; (h) provide for safe servicing of use or development by commercial vehicles.
As you can see, the word “safe” appears four times. Pedestrians are mentioned twice. Unfortunately, it becomes very clear as one reads the Use and Development Standards that pedestrian safety plays second fiddle to the safety and efficient operation of vehicles.
I believe the safety of pedestrians in car parks requires specific mention as a new Use Standard. Existing Use Standards should also ensure that their provisions do not adversely impact pedestrian safety.
Suggested changes to the Planning Scheme
B4.1 Planning Terms and Definitions
Define the term “pedestrian” to mean “a person not in a vehicle including being on foot or in a wheelchair”.
E6.1 Purpose (Parking and Access Code)
E6.1.1 already contains the purpose “(e) ensure access and parking areas are designed and located to be safe for users by minimising the potential for conflicts involving pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; and by reducing opportunities for crime or anti-social behaviour;” which seems to be sufficient.
E6.6 Use Standards (Parking and Access Code)
E6.6.1 Number of car parking spaces
Add this exception to A1: “(iii) the number specified cannot be provided without adversely impacting the safety of pedestrians.“
Add the following performance criterion to P1: “(n) whether the provision of the parking spaces will adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
E6.6.2 Number of accessible car parking spaces
Add this requirement to A1: “(d) not seriously adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
E6.6.3 Number of motor cycle parking spaces
Add requirement to A1: “The number of spaces allocated must not seriously adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
Add performance criterion to P1: “(e) whether the provision of the parking spaces will adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
E6.6.4 Number of bicycle parking spaces
Additional requirement for A1: “The number of spaces allocated must not seriously adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
Additional performance criterion for P1: “(d) whether the provision of the parking spaces will adversely impact the safety of pedestrians.“
E6.6.5 Pedestrian safety – a new Use Standard
Objective
Acceptable Solutions A1 No acceptable solution.
Performance Criteria
To ensure that: (a) pedestrians can move safely between any parking space and any facility on site; (b) pedestrians can move safely from any street entrance to any facility on site.
P1 (a) Provide pedestrians with a separate entrance from the street into the car park. (b) Provide pedestrians with a clear and direct link, including a dedicated pedestrian path, from each street entrance into each car parking area. (c) Provide pedestrians a clear and direct link, including a dedicated pedestrian path, from each car parking area to each building entry. (d) Minimize visual obstructions in parking areas for both vehicles and pedestrians. (e) Provide passive surveillance of parking areas and pedestrian paths by ensuring they are not out of public view. (f) Provide adequate lighting throughout parking areas and to pedestrian paths for night safety within the car park and passive surveillance. (g) Minimize potential conflict with traffic by minimizing distance any pedestrian path travels across traffic aisles. (h) Where practicable, provide shade areas for vehicles and pedestrians. (i) All pedestrian paths and ramps shall:
Have a minimum width of 1000mm;
Have a non-slip finish;
Not be steep (ramp grades between 1:20 and 1:14 are preferred);
Comply with AS 1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility; and
Comply with AS 1428.2 – Standards for blind people or people with vision impairment.
Conclusion
The planning scheme and other regulations used to assess development applications clearly provide a much greater emphasis on vehicle safety than on pedestrian safety. Dangerous car park design exists. It should not be allowed to happen again.
Improving the safety and amenity of off-street car parks would make a visit to the CBD more inviting and complement the work being done on and near main road in the Revitalization project.
I urge council to redress this imbalance by pursuing appropriate changes to the planning scheme (or through any other mechanism that might achieve the same purpose).
Now that light rail has made its way into the draft Hobart City Deal in early 2019, and council has committed ten million dollars as seed money, we must take a closer look at “light rail”.
There is clearly considerable support for the idea of light rail. Many can recall using passenger trains in their younger days and wonder why they cannot be revived. And many others have walked or ridden along the cycle path, seen a slowly rusting railway line, and thought “What a waste! Why not make it useful? How hard can it be?”
So when the Mercury Newspaper (November 16, 2016) in a public survey asks voters the leading question “Do you think that Hobart needs a light rail system?“, it is not at all surprising that 62 percent said yes. On the other hand, almost 40 percent said no or didn’t care.
Even 30 percent of respondents in Burnie and Launceston answered yes to the question! What do they know of the Hobart/Glenorchy transport situation? They clearly support the idea of light rail. The idea! It is the idea that is emotionally appealing.
Suppose now that the survey provided the information that the light rail is likely to cost at least 200 million dollars. That was the value of a light rail project the state government submitted in 2017 to Infrastructure Australia for inclusion in it’s Priority List. By the way, it didn’t make it.
This number of dollars should focus the mind. It raises thoughts of money, how the project might affect you. The amount to build it, to run it, to travel on it. It raises questions of whether the light rail is worth that amount of money, whether fares should cover the cost of operation, whether there will be sufficient demand to achieve financial objectives.
The Hobart Northern Suburbs Railway Rail Action Group has played a leading role advocating for light rail. Ben Johnston, president of that group since its inception, has just resigned from that position due to work commitments. In his resignation post on the group’s Facebook page he laments about “politicians apparently passionate about the rail project prior to election, only to find they’re less enthusiastic once in Government.” That may simply be a result of being confronted by the difficulty of justifying the expense of construction and operation when you are in a position to actually make a decision.
What makes current discussions about light rail more frustrating is the secrecy behind the Hobart City Deal. The public has not seen the deal. The public has not seen any detail on the transport link proposal included in the deal.
Since we have yet to see any detailed design for an actual project, let me try to imagine some basic requirements assuming the current rail track is used and railway stations from the past are used again. These are my thoughts. If you imagine differently, share your thoughts by commenting on this post.
1. It will take a service of at least four trains an hour each way to persuade people to use it and the service must run seven days a week and run well into the night to allow people to use it for sporting or social activities.
2. To make sure the rail service can stick to its timetable, automatic traffic lights and boom gates will be required at every railway crossing giving priority to the rail service. They will stop the traffic for a minute every eight minutes. Imagine that at high volume thoroughfares such as Albert Road, Hopkins Street, Derwent Park Road, Lampton Avenue, and, worst of all, Elwick Road.
3. There will be a “station” at each stop with a platform on each side of the line. Absolute minimum facilities might be seating, all-weather shelter, good lighting, and a panic button to use in an emergency.
4. Some new tracks will be laid in passing loops located to allow trains to pass and allow a two-way service.
5. A service to Hobart will require a terminus in the Hobart CBD so people don’t need to walk far.
Council must think strategically and plan for the long-term. But it must also bring city residents along. It must show residents how they will benefit from their plans.
It must explain to residents why light rail will not follow the same path as the Derwent Entertainment Centre, why it will not become a service never making a profit and requiring a permanent subsidy. All the studies I’ve read use modelling to try to predict how many passengers we can expect. That modelling is based on a large number of debatable assumptions.
A final note on funding. It may be easy for the Glenorchy City Council to lobby for light rail. The high capital cost of construction will almost certainly be borne by the Federal Government, The cost of operation and maintenance, assuming that Metro Tasmania becomes the operator, will be largely borne by the State Government. The Council hopes to reap the benefits of an increased rate base resulting from infill development in the rail corridor at minimal cost to itself.
The light rail proposal is a risky proposal involving a very large investment. We need to be shown why we should accept that risk.
References
Many reports have been produced over the years. The list below does not include every report. It is a collection of the most significant (in my opinion).
Glenorchy City Observer 