At its June 2025 open meeting council “endorsed” (whatever that means) the final draft of a Glenorchy Cycling Infrastructure Plan (GCIP) which contained no timeline, no description of what type of infrastructure might be where, and consequently no budget. It is in effect a vision for where cycling infrastructure might sit geographically long-term, but without any of the data needed to make a Priority Project. Still better than nothing and sufficient to satisfy, for now, the well organized lobby groups (such as Cycling South and Tasmanian Bicycle Council) in southern Tasmania.

By carefully reading the GCIP you will find the word “walking” mentioned 38 times, usually in the phrase “walking and cycling”. It seems the authors believed that the GCIP might serve as an infrastructure plan for all active transport, not just cycling.

It takes a few moments of thought to realize that those who walk have vastly different needs and considerations from those who ride. But it is not at all clear how those who often or mostly walk have their differing needs recognized by any level of government. There is a Facebook page “Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group” that appears to focus exclusively on public transport. A recent addition is an organization known as Hobart Streets which shows some promise. So no organized lobby groups for those who walk.

Let me clear. I am not talking about tracks or trails designed purely for sport or recreation. Council already takes management of walking trails seriously, so seriously that you could say that Council has 4 R’s – Roads, Rates, Rubbish, and Recreation – instead of the usual three. I am talking primarily about people using “walking” as a way of getting about in their day-to-day life. To the shops. To the bus stop. To visit. To work. To school. To play sport. To the doctor. To study. etc. etc.

Infrastructure

It is easy to forget that there is a great deal of infrastructure in our city whose prime purpose is to cater for pedestrians. We drive past it. We walk over it. We can easily take it for granted.

Footpaths are the most ubiquitous. They are everywhere, well almost everywhere, and council does have policy documents related to them. The basic Footpaths Policy provides “guidance on the standards required for the provision and construction of footpaths and kerb ramps”. That policy refers to a footpath hierarchy defined exactly as follows:

• Category 1 – CBD: footpaths in the main street in the CBD where there is significant business and pedestrian activity.
• Category 2 – Primary: high pedestrian activity within the CBD areas and includes direct pedestrian links between the key CBD zones, such as the Intercity Cycleway.
• Category 3 – Secondary: footpaths that provide the best link between key destinations and facilities (e.g. bus stops, local shops, schools, playgrounds, etc.)
• Category 4 – Local: footpaths generally in the residential streets and any footpaths which are not included in the other categories above.

Notice the reference to the Intercity Cycleway as a “footpath”. Any regular user of the cycleway would regard it as “contested” in terms of whether pedestrians or cyclists have priority.

The Footpaths Policy also states that a “digital map of footpath hierarchy will be … maintained by Council”. It would be similar to the map underlying the Cycling Infrastructure Plan but not developed with any public consultation. The only map in Council’s map website is the Infrastructure Map which shows roads and kerbs but no footpaths.

The Footpath Trading Policy and Guidelines concern how businesses can operate on footpaths.

But there is much more infrastructure which exists to serve pedestrians.

• Bus stop approaches (frequent destinations)
• Kerbs (including ramps, kerb cuts and extensions)
• Laneways and paths crossing blocks (e.g. Katoomba Crescent lane way)
• Pedestrian crossings (with or without signals)
• Pedestrian overpasses (e.g. Brooker near Montrose Bay) and underpasses (e.g. Brooker near Strathaven)
• Pedestrian priority streets (access by vehicles limited and low speed)
• Pedestrian refuge islands
• Pedestrian safety and comfort (e.g. lighting, shelter)
• Pedestrianized streets (vehicles excluded)
• Rules regarding pedestrian priority (or not)
• Spaces shared with cyclists (separate?)
• Wayfinding (signage etc)

All this pedestrian-oriented infrastructure demands a pedestrian-oriented Infrastructure Plan.

Taking the bigger view

Before people walk, they think about how they will get from the starting point to the destination – everything in between – the route.

It is time for council to think the same way, in terms of routes, not simply individual pieces of infrastructure mitigating local issues.

It is time for walking infrastructure to be planned using routes as the primary focus, not apparently piecemeal addition here and there according to demands or complaints from residents.

Planning could in fact move to the next level via networks where integration and interconnection of major walking routes comes into play. This approach has been used elsewhere (such as Victoria (Australia), Queensland, and Dundee (Scotland)) so it has been tried and tested elsewhere.

A focus on the elderly

It is generally accepted that pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users. And older pedestrians are the most likely to be injured or killed in a crash. Furthermore, most demographic projections predict an increase in the proportion of older people in Glenorchy’s population. The State government’s Population Policy website says that for Glenorchy the “population of people aged 65 and above is projected to increase from 8,862 (17.4% of the LGA population) in 2023 to 12,074 (22.2%) in 2053.”

Clearly when considering pedestrian safety on roads, there must be a focus on the particular vulnerabilities of the older members of our community.

In conclusion

An interesting possible result of this type of planning is that it might trigger applications to the Black Spot Program for “walking” black spots in addition to the current almost exclusively “driving” black spots?

The State Government in their Active Transport Strategy tends to universally use the phrase “walking, wheeling and riding” as if they have identical requirements in all contexts. While many cycling and walking routes will overlap, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists differ dramatically and may even conflict.

Those differences demand a Walking Infrastructure Plan specifically designed for those for whom walking is important. Yes – a Glenorchy Walking Infrastructure Plan. The absence of an active lobby group should not delay council. Work must begin immediately.

---

Original sources

1. Council Footpaths Policy (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Footpaths-Policy-2024-.pdf

2. Footpath Trading Policy (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Footpath-Trading-Policy.pdf

3. Footpath Trading Guidelines (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Footpath-Trading-Guidelines.pdf

4. “Planning for Walking”, Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation 2015
https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4465/planning_for_walking_-_long_-_april_2015.pdf

5. Victoria Walks – https://www.victoriawalks.org.au

6. Public domain map showing laneways and cycleways – https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-42.81996/147.25748&layers=C

End.