In a heated and emotionally charged meeting, Council voted 6–3 to adopt the controversial “Road Map to Zero: Safe Travel Strategy and Action Plan.” The decision came after extensive debate about community trust, the legacy of past “pop-up” bike lanes, and the purpose of the high-level policy framework.
The strategy, funded in part by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), serves as a “toolkit” of safety principles and road treatments aligned with state and federal policies.
During public question time, residents pressed council on the report’s purpose and lack of detail. Burnt by the COVID-era experience of pop-up road infrastructure, many feared the policy was a stalking horse for another round of imposed changes.
Before debating the issue, councillors put an unusually large number of questions to staff – notable because they had already had opportunities to do so before the item came to council. The 18 questions ranged from prompts inviting staff to explain the strategy’s merits to more pointed efforts to uncover any undisclosed motives.
A particularly testy exchange focused on the decision to leave out a 600-signature petition opposing the plan from the community engagement report on a wording technicality.
During the grilling, council was repeatedly told the policy does not allocate budgets or lock in specific infrastructure projects, which will instead be considered through the upcoming Integrated Transport Strategy refresh.
No safety zones in this debate
Despite these assurances, the debate exposed deep divisions within the chamber. Opposing councillors argued that the policy ignored a 600-plus signature petition and risked repeating past mistakes.
Cr Jay, who voted against the motion, expressed strong scepticism toward the strategy’s overarching philosophy. “This strategy is built around a roadmap to zero philosophy, and frankly, roadmap to zero sounds a lot like COVID zero to me,” she said. Cr Jay added that many residents had “clearly lost trust in this council” following previous, highly unpopular pop-up infrastructure trials.
Deputy Mayor Mears also voted against the strategy, urging a delay to rebuild community relations. “What I would seek to do is rebuild that trust,” he stated. “We have an opportunity to review this document… what’s a month? What’s a week? to get this right.”
Cr Hardy also backed the opposition, declaring the document “irrelevant” and stating he would prefer to focus on a comprehensive, independent transport strategy in 2027 rather than adhering to state and federal policy alignments.
Supporters warn delay could cost funding … and lives
Proponents of the strategy, however, argued that delaying the framework would jeopardise crucial government grant funding and stall vital safety measures.
Cr Halliday, who moved the recommendation, strongly defended the plan. “This is a practical strategy that gives us a toolkit of interventions that we all want to make our road safer,” he said, slamming the politicisation of road safety. “This does not commit us to projects. This does not override community consultations.”
Cr Buckingham said: “This strategy is a sensible plan that will save lives and prevent accidents. It’s like a menu of interventions that we can use when we look at individual streets, intersections and spaces.”
An emotional Cr Crawford expressed frustration with the opposition’s arguments, calling them “disingenuous and dangerous.” She noted that the community constantly requests safety interventions like crossings, slower school speeds, and hooning measures. “Things don’t improve if we don’t start somewhere,” Crawford said. “Does that mean we throw the baby under the bus and not adopt an internationally recognised framework?”
Cr Thomann admitted he was “very torn” due to the community’s lingering mistrust from past projects but ultimately voted in favour to support the advancement of road safety.
In closing the debate, Mayor Makin emphasised that the strategy is a necessary precursor to the ITS. “This is a toolkit of options that will feed into the integrated transport strategy,” Makin said, noting that the draft had been successfully revised to address community feedback.
The motion was carried with Mayor Makin and Crs Halliday, Buckingham, Consolo, Crawford and Thomann voting in favour, while Deputy Mayor Mears and Crs Jay and Hardy voted against.
