Six of nine councillors voted to adopt the controversial Roadmap to Zero – Safe Travel Strategy and action plan at the City of Port Phillip Council meeting on 5 August. The other three councillors: Cr Beti Jay; Cr Rod Hardy; and Deputy Mayor Bryan Mears, voted against the motion.

The number of residents speaking against the motion should have made councillors stop and think.

Eleven speakers opposed the strategy. Only four supported it — and two of those were representatives of the Port Phillip Bicycle User Group.

That doesn’t mean Council must automatically agree with the majority in the room. However, when opposition is that significant, elected representatives should seriously interrogate why.

Residents were not arguing against safety.

They questioned whether this strategy will actually deliver it.

Speakers such as Mark brought professional consulting experience to his submission and Andrew spoke passionately about practical consequences. Other residents raised parking, 30 km/h limits, consultation, implementation, costs and whether Council has learned from previous failed transport projects.

A petition of almost 600 signatures opposing the plan in its current form was not “lost” but was completely missing from Council papers, such an important representation from the community being absent created the impression of grave prejudice. The petition called for the Council to provide information about the proposed designs, locations and further community consultation for road traffic interventions.

Yet at times, certain councillors responses to this resident dissent seemed remarkably defensive.

Cr Crawford’s point of order during Andrew’s contribution particularly stood out. Residents watching could reasonably ask why procedural intervention was necessary rather than simply allowing an engaged resident to finish making his case.

Cr Halliday’s exchanges with Crs Hardy, Mears and Jay were equally revealing.

Councillors are entitled to passionately support cycling and alternative transport, however personal enthusiasm for fewer cars cannot become transport policy by default.

Consider Grey Street: one young family with two children under three regularly arrives home after 6pm and, despite having a residential parking permit, can drive around unable to find a space anywhere near home.

Where does their safety fit into the strategy when a parent eventually parks several streets away and walks home at night carrying children and everything that comes with them?

Cr Thomann raised an important question about deaths and serious accidents. If we’re redesigning streets in the name of evidence-based safety, residents deserve transparent data showing exactly who is being injured, where, how and why.

And then came discussion about alignment with state government priorities and future funding.

This should make residents really uncomfortable – it was repeatedly stated by one council staffer that preferred or greater access to state government funding was leveraged to adoption of the strategy.

Council’s job isn’t to obediently follow Spring Street because challenging state policy might make future funding conversations difficult. Council’s job is to advocate for Port Phillip.

Ask for better roads. Demand potholes are repaired. Fight for better public transport. Advocate for adequate police resources. Challenge cost-shifting from state to Council.

Before embarking on another ambitious transformation of our streets, Council also needs to confront and own its history.

Residents remember the pop-up bike lane debacle – state government funded works that council blithely accepted don’t forget!

Residents are the ones that see underused infrastructure. They experience disappearing parking and community facilities taken over street-sleepers, but who pays the rates…

Trust is not restored with another strategy document outlining ideas that require state government money (does it have any?).

It is earned by demonstrating that previous mistakes are acknowledged and have been understood.

Fix what is broken. Measure what already exists. Listen to lived experience. Then ask residents to trust you with the next grand plan.

Eleven residents opposed. Four supported.

Perhaps the Safe Travel Strategy revealed Port Phillip’s biggest problem is not transport at all.

It is trust.