The 4446 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 26 August 2014 at 2pm

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

File number: 137/220/701/188

Mr Brooks, you have five minutes; please commence.

Mr Gil Brooks: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and councillors; thank you for approving my appearance here today and for the circulation of the notes I intend to talk to. This document contains photographs and diagrams, so I formally request that it be added to the Minutes of the meeting.

I represent 100 concerned petitioners that are worried about the existing traffic issues in King Arthur Terrace, mainly as they relate to the safety of children. We all agree with the existing problems, although we have a difference of opinion on what we should do about it. As set out on page two of my notes, I have worked my entire career in the law enforcement and justice market sector both in Australia and overseas. I was a police officer in Victoria for 15 years, five of those in the traffic division; I was a senior executive in the courts division of the Attorney-General's Department; I was the national manager of an international IT (information technology) company, law and justice unit, and I have run my own consultancy business for 15-odd years, with clients in justice and law enforcement agencies across the country.

The information I provide is to qualify my expertise in providing assessments of both the traffic issues there and in the quality of advice Council received in considering that. What we want Council to do, we want you to accept that you acted on poorly researched and incorrect data. We'd like you to reverse or suspend your decision on our petition, and obtain new advice on the issues raised by petitioners, especially as they impact on the child-safety issues regarding the park, the tennis centre and the new disabled Montrose facility. Then, on receipt of that new advice, you reconsider our petition.

Next, on page five, I list my concerns with the advice that you received. The advice you received didn't once mention children. That was the core issue of our petition. It includes seriously flawed interpretations of the vehicle speeds detected during the June 13 automatic traffic survey conducted by Council; it contained factual errors, and made unsubstantiated or questionable claims on traffic issues, and in my view should not have been presented to Council in that form because it was just not of an acceptable standard.

In terms of the flawed reporting results of the June automatic traffic survey, whilst noting that the survey found that the average vehicle speed over the seven days was 41 kilometres per hour east and 42 kilometres per hour west, it went on to advise Council that this indicated that the majority of motorists are complying with the speed limit. Average speed has no such interpretation. Actually, what the study actually revealed was 15 per cent of vehicles exceeded 49 kilometres per hour travelling east and 48 kilometres per hour travelling west; five per cent of vehicles exceeded 53 kilometres per hour travelling east and 52 kilometres per hour travelling west.

Some 73 per cent of vehicles travelling east were in the 36 to 50 kilometres per hour zone, and 80 per cent of vehicles travelling west were in the same speed band. These are disturbing findings in this child-centre area and totally contradict the advice given to Council.

Turning to the shared-pedestrian zone in front of the tennis centre, which we asked to be implemented, that area looks like a shared zone, it was designed to be a shared zone, the locals treat it as a shared zone; all you need to do is add some signs and we have a shared zone. However, the request by petitioners that this be so designated was summarily dismissed because of the high levels of traffic that were going through. I thought this an astounding statement. The recommendation was that we dig up all the aggregate and paved sections and replace it with asphalt—not a convincing argument.

In front of the Pat Rafter Arena pedestrian crossing, we have only one prescribed pedestrian crossing in that area. If you look at the photograph there, that is not a prescribed pedestrian crossing by any stretch of the imagination, and I think Council owes a duty of care to pedestrians in this area and my opinion is it's currently not meeting that duty.

The error of facts includes the statement that, as part of the review of the city's road hierarchy, that area of King Arthur Terrace was reclassified. The LORD MAYOR has confirmed that statement was incorrect in a letter to me dated July. The unsupported type claims include the statement that the intersection of Fairfield and Palomar Roads couldn’t cope with some existing traffic if we put a right-hand turn ban on King Arthur Terrace. There's a photograph there that shows that is a questionable statement at best; it copes when the tennis centre has an event on; it coped before the tennis centre—

Chairman: Mr Brooks, sorry, your time has expired; thank you.

Mr Gil Brooks: Thank you.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like to respond?

In this case, the recommendation came through that it would be premature to make long-term decisions on the nature of the road and the road environment until we know exactly what is going to happen with the future development of the area. As you are well aware, there is a State Government plan that they are talking to Council about for the Yeerongpilly TOD (transit-oriented development) which will see future development happening in that area. Obviously, as part of any future development, there is likely to be traffic changes in the area, and those traffic changes could include a range of things, such as new roads being put in, additional intersections, additional pedestrian facilities, additional traffic calming, a whole range of other things that will come up as part of that assessment.

So, that recommendation was put forward to the Committee. It was accepted by the Committee. But in relation to some of the specific issues that you have raised, I acknowledge you have had a look at the automatic traffic count survey that was done. Certainly the information that is provided by the officers you mentioned, that was accurate, but also the information you have provided is accurate as well. It's actually part of the same report. The figures that we used were the average mean traffic speeds. You have referred to the 95^th percentile speeds and the 85^th percentile speeds, and they are both actually legitimate parts of that traffic analysis.

Council generally looks at the average, but we also do take into account the 95^th and 85^th percentile in that analysis as well. One of the challenges that we've got is that, on virtually every single road across Brisbane, people do exceed the speed limit, so there is always a percentage of people that will exceed the speed limit, even in areas where there is traffic calming, even when the speed limit is very low.

Across the city, the State Government and Council have both agreed that a safe speed limit or a safe road environment for residential areas is 50 kilometres an hour. That is the standard speed limit across the State. In this case, the speed limit is set lower, at 40 kilometres an hour. In addition, there is also a number of traffic calming devices that have been put in place as well, so we do acknowledge that there is a need to create a low speed environment along that stretch of road. There are several reasons for that. There is obviously residential development in the area; you've got the big sporting precinct with the tennis centre, and then you've got the Ken Fletcher Park as well which, as you rightly point out, attracts a lot of families there on a regular basis, particular on the weekend.

So, for all those reasons, we absolutely agree that a low-speed environment is desirable, and something that we want to achieve. The average mean speeds were approximately in that 40 kilometres-an-hour zone, give or take; there were percentages as you have pointed out that were doing more than that speed, and that is obviously a concern both to yourself and to Council.

So what Council is looking at going forward is how we can further reinforce that low-speed environment. There is a zebra crossing in place directly outside the park, and there is also—I guess the best way you could describe it is a pedestrian refuge in that area you referred to as the shared zone. So that is not a formal zebra crossing, but it certainly is a refuge, because it gives people an ability to wait in the middle of the road in a space there, and that is something that Council would generally define as a pedestrian refuge. We use different forms of pedestrian refuges across the city, but that fits our definition of a pedestrian refuge.

I am certainly happy to take your feedback on board. As I said, we haven’t made any final decisions on what the end outcome will be. We are certainly keen to continue to work with you to get a good outcome here, particularly in light of what changes will occur as part of the Yeerongpilly TOD as well. So thank you very much for coming in; we appreciate your time.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Brooks.