Safe Active Street Program - Elizabeth Street and Jenkins Avenue

I support the Safe Active Street Program - Elizabeth Street and Jenkins Avenue. I regularly cycle through Nedlands and this will make the journey safer. Hopefully this will encourage more cyclists.

As every project introducing novelty, there will certainly be a few design issues, is it a reason to not try?

I ride to work every day from Nedlands to the city.

Any initiative trying to promote cycling or walking for short distance travel is a step forward.

There are obviously enough specialist comments for or against the project in the long list of submissions.

I support the idea of the safe active streets program.

For once, somebody stood up to put a project together. As with every projects, it has its good points and its bad points.

How about we try and see if it works?

Thanks to the people who put the project together.

SUBMISSION FOR SAFE ACTIVE STREETS PROGRAM FOR JENKINS AVENUE AND ELIZABETH STREET

I totally agree that streets should be safe for all road users.
As a resident of 36 years on Jenkins Avenue, however, I am not in favour of the proposal for Safe Active Streets Program for Jenkins Ave/Elizabeth Street, particularly how it will affect Jenkins Avenue.
My three main concerns are that Safe Active Streets propose to decrease traffic lane width to 2.25 metres, have designated marked parallel parking bays alternating from left to right hand sides of the road between consecutive intersections and decreasing the speed limit to 30kph.
1. Narrowing street lanes. From the material provided at the information sessions, lanes are to be 2.25m wide. A 4WD or SUV, which are popular vehicles in the suburb are 2.15m wide (from edge to edge of the external mirrors) which will give 5cm passing clearance to the centre of the road if the vehicle is in the centre of its lane. A small to medium sized car (eg Honda Euro) is 2.0m wide (from edge to edge of the external mirrors) giving a clearance of 12.5cm either side. A truck at 2.48m wide is wider than the proposed lane.
2. Formalising Parallel Parking. From the material provided at the information sessions, marked parking bays are to be provided. Alternating the marked parking bays between consecutive intersections from left hand side to right hand side of the road will cause a weaving effect down the road requiring motorists and cyclists to change direction slightly while crossing an intersection with a raised plateau 100mm high in the middle it.
3. Decreasing the speed limit to 30kph. Jenkins Ave is a low traffic volume street which most motorists travel at 50kph on a street that has had no fatalities (all 3 points given at the information session on 19 Feb 2018). Surely this suggests that the road is reasonably safe at present.
In recent years, a footpath was constructed on the northern side of the street for the safety of pedestrians and children on bicycles. I have observed many children on bicycles with their parents, some children riding beside the parent while others ride well ahead. In all observed cases, the child has obviously been told to stop at the intersection because that is what happens. They then cross the intersection together when safe. In my opinion this is an excellent way to prepare the child for efficient handling of a bike and being aware of safety on the road. Bike riding on the road does require the rider to be in full control of the bike, know and understand the Road Rules and not be in the process of learning how to ride. Apart from changes in speed on a road, surely all other rules governing use of the road should be consistent.

Jenkins Avenue’s main use for vehicular traffic would be to provide safe access to and from Stirling Highway at the Dalkeith Rd traffic lights or passage way to either of the IGAs (Florence Rd and Taylor Rd) or Nedlands Library.
In my opinion, the converting of Jenkins Ave to conform with the Safe Active Street Program is not necessary and will not only frustrate cyclists and motorists alike, along with the possibility of side swiping oncoming vehicles but may have the opposite effect by making passageway along the street less safe than it is at present.
Surely, other less expensive ways could be proposed if it is considered necessary to make the road safer for all road users.
Warrick

I have lived in Nedlands/ Dalkeith for over 42 years.I grew up in the area & I was fortunate enough to bring up our family in this area too.We are very experienced bike riders & walkers all around the suburbs mentioned previously.
!. What statistical evidence do you have regarding people injured/killed around the suburbs of Nedlands/Claremont that requires this plan to be proposed? None is evident on any site that I have read.
2.I am concerned that this proposal will go ahead before the City of Perth or the City of Claremont have actioned a proposal to continue your alterations in their suburb, in order to finish the overall picture. If this is so, then the same company could be contracted to do the whole project rather than it be piecemeal. This surely would be cheaper overall & be more efficient .
3.Spending $2.5 million dollars on this project may not involve ratepayers contributions to The City of Nedlands but his money still comes out of the public purse. In anybody's mind, this is a huge sum of money.
4.These alterations will require a large amount of upkeep to keep in good order. Where will this come from?
5. Inevitably there will be increased traffic onto other roads that have a greater speed limit eg. Princess Rd & maybe Melvista Ave.I include cyclists as well as cars. I do not feel there has been enough consideration to this flow on effect. These streets are already busy streets. Each road may get between 10-20% more traffic.
6.Peak hour traffic is terrible on Broadway,Bruce Streets & Stirling Hwy. There will probably be increased traffic at these times on Stirling Hwy. People will try to bypass the queues. More cars & frustrated drivers mean an increased chance of accidents.
6. I concur a speed limit of 30km/hr is much safer for everyone on the road. But, to add to that a speed hump at every intersection that doesn't have a roundabout seems excessive to sat the least.This will also put people off using Elizabeth St & Jenkins Ave.
7.Surrounding roads will have more cars parking in their streets. UWA adds to the parking issue. They have less car parks now due to Andrew Forrest's Development on the foreshore.
8.Visual pollution from all the necessary street signs will be increased in a big way,.
9. When there is a median strip on Broadway to prevent cars from going from Broadway Fair straight across Broadway to Elizabeth St, please ensure bikes will fit in transverse. Trying to fiddle with bikes so one doesn't get swiped by a car is not what anyone needs.
10. Bike racks need to be available for people at Broadway Fair & on the river. I know some are there on the river but there are not enough.
I believe this concept has some merits but not enough forward planning for the overall result has occurred.
We cannot see there is the necessary need for this project. What do Nedlands Primary School, Loreto Nedlands Primary School, Freshwater Bay Primary School,Christchurch Grammer School & MLC think about your plans?
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this project. JaneStorey

Comments on “Safe Active Streets” Proposal for Elizabeth St and Jenkin Ave, Nedlands
I seriously doubt that the proposed street configuration will be considered “bicycle-friendly” by
“timid”, less-experienced cyclists which the route is supposed to attract, due to the extremely narrow road width which places cars and cyclists close very together.
I don’t have children, but I often see children riding to Nedlands Primary School along my street (Kingsway) mostly with their parents and almost always on the footpath. I don’t think that parents of primary school-age children will be comfortable riding along the proposed “Safe Active Street’. Before proceeding further with this project, I think there should be more detailed consultation with parents and children at the local schools to determine if the proposed configuration will be suitable.
I feel that the footpath network provides a more suitable network for primary school children, as it is covers virtually all local streets. The City of Nedlands should audit the footpaths in the area and carry out minor improvements such as upgrading kerb ramps, where these are found to be deficient. There are many, obvious deficiencies in the footpath network which should be fixed. For example, near 55 Kingsway, the footpath suddenly narrows from 1.5 m to 1.2 m then widens out to 1.5 m again, because the people constructing the footpath couldn’t understand the simply geometry needed to negotiate the bend of approx. 45 degrees in Kingsway. In general, footpaths of 1.5 m width or greater should be sufficient for children riding to school as the main flows are “tidal”, i.e. to school in the morning and home from school in the afternoon.
I acknowledge that cycling on footpaths is far from ideal and not as safe is it is perceived to be by many cyclists and parents. Conflict with motor vehicles entering driveways is always a potential issue. I personally prefer not to cycle on footpaths other than for very short distances to avoid other problem areas.
I have been regularly cycling for nearly 40 years, and cycled to work for most of my working life from homes in Victoria Park and Nedlands to workplaces in Perth CBD, Belmont and East Perth. I am not a fast cyclist, and prefer to ride on good quality paths (where they exist) and low-traffic local streets rather than major roads. I have been on cycling holidays in USA, Canada, and Europe (Denmark, Netherlands, France, Germany and Austria) so I have experienced a wide variety of cycling infrastructure in different parts of the world.
Route Choice
While I understand that one of the primary aims of the route is to service the local primary schools, a different (or additional) route choice east of Dalkeith Road would have far greater potential in terms of increasing overall cycling in the area. The existing informal but well-used route is via Jenkins Ave, Dalkeith Rd, Edwards St, Bruce St, and Clark Street to Fairway. This provides direct access into UWA, through UWA to Kings Park and via the existing shared path along the north side of UWA (south side of Stirling Hwy) to Perth city.
(I was very surprised that the Department of Transport planning representative at the Loreto public meeting was not aware of this existing route via Edward and Clark Streets.)
The proposed Safe Active Street does not service UWA and other key destinations at all well. The section of Elizabeth St between Kingsway and Broadway is very steep (approx.. 10% gradient) and not conducive to easy cycling by most people. In general, children’s bikes have less effective gears and brakes compared to adult bikes, so it is unlikely that primary school students would be able to ride this section in either direction, easily or safely.
In contrast, the route via Clark St has a maximum gradient of around 3% which is much more manageable by the “average” cyclist.
Note that Clark St is preferred over Edward St, east of Bruce St, as Edward St carries more motor vehicle traffic and has a roundabout at Broadway. Roundabouts are notoriously unsafe for cyclists, and cyclists tend to avoid them if at all possible. The Strava heat map (provided online) confirms that more cyclists currently use Clark St compared to Edward St, even though Strava data mainly depicts the more “serious” cyclists who are riding for fitness training rather than everyday transport.
In the event that the Safe Active Street proposal does go ahead as planned, I suggest the alternate route via Edward and Clark Streets should be formalised and signed to UWA, Kings Park and Perth City, as it is a far more useful route for the majority of cyclists other than primary school children.
Value for Money
The proposal offers very poor value for money in terms of potential increase of cyclists. DoT should be giving priority to completing the Swanbourne to Fremantle path along the railway line which was promised in 1996 and is now at least 8 years overdue for completion. Potential ridership for the Swanbourne to Fremantle path is huge compared to the local Nedlands project.
If this is to be regarded as a "demonstration" project, the cost of implementing these types of treatments on a widespread scale would be enormous. Consider the several hundred kilometres of similar "Local Bicycle Routes" identified in the 1996 Perth Bicycle Network which would cost a $billion or more. So far, the Government hasn't even been able to complete even the most basic improvements on the PBN local bicycle routes, so its pie in the sky stuff to think that these proposed treatments could be done on a widespread basis.
There are similarities to the Woonerf (Living Street) concept which was developed in the Netherlands around the 1980’s. By the late 1990’s, the Woonerf concept had fallen out of favour as the high cost of completely rebuilding the streetscape made it impractical to implement on a widespread basis.
Road Design Issues
The designers do not understand that road space is the most valuable commodity for cyclists. Attempting to make a road "bicycle friendly" by narrowing it simply doesn’t work.
Narrowing local streets causes only a slight reduction in vehicle speeds but greatly increases conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles due to the reduced road space. This has been a WKF (Well Known Fact) since the early 1990's.
There are numerous examples around Perth suburbs of good cycling routes destroyed by narrowing the road in the name of "traffic calming".
Some early (1990’s) bad examples include Douglas Ave in South Perth, and Whichman Rd in Attadale. Closer to home, are Coghlan Rd in Subiaco, Bay View Tce in Claremont (south of Stirling Hwy) and the fairly recently-narrowed Stirling Rd in Claremont, which was reduced from 2 lanes to one very narrow lane.
The proposed changes will destroy existing bicycle routes, particularly along Jenkins Ave, which are well used already by high school and UWA students and adults.
The existing “Safe Active Streets” are great examples of what not to do to create a good cycling route. Dedicated parking bays narrow the road, even when there are no parked cars and the "angled slow point" traffic calming treatments create conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles where none existed previously. Having ridden the Mount Hawthorn example, the unmodified route further north is much better than the expensively treated portion of the route.
Because of the current low demand for on-street parking along the routes currently, I predict that the proposed formalised parking embayments will be used as de facto bicycle lanes by “timid” cyclists to provide more clearance between themselves and passing motor vehicles. As a result, the nibs with trees and projecting nibs at intersections will create dangerous squeeze points as these cyclists move out into the through lane.
Motivation and Past History of City of Nedlands
City of Nedlands’ past history in catering for cycling on local streets is not good, so it is hard to understand the motivation for this project.
Nedlands has installed 6 roundabouts installed in close proximity to schools, UWA and QEII despite being made aware these would not be friendly (and less safe) for pedestrians and cyclists.
Included in this list is the fairly recent roundabout at the intersection of Bruce and Elisabeth Streets, which is on the intended “Safe Active Street” route was clearly not a good idea in such close proximity to Nedlands Primary School. Colouring the pavement red through this roundabout won’t undo the previous mistake.
Even now, City of Nedlands is proposing another roundabout at the intersection of Monash Ave and Smyth Rd, on the doorstep of another primary school, and in close proximity to Hollywood and QEII hospitals.
While acknowledging that roundabouts can reduce serious crashes for motor vehicles, it is widely understood that roundabouts are not “friendly” for cyclists or pedestrians and many practitioners do not recommend that roundabouts be installed in areas of high pedestrian and cycling activity.
Therefore, it seems pointless trying to make a “Safe Active Street” in one part of City of Nedlands while simultaneously proceeding with yet another roundabout which will make things worse for pedestrians and cyclists.
City of Nedlands attempt to create an on-road bicycle route along Birdwood Parade in Dalkeith failed, despite two offers of funding from Department of Transport. The only evidence of progress was painting bicycle logos on the road, but these were subsequently painted over in black paint as the size was way to small compared to the published design guildlines.
Alternatives to “Safe Active Streets” Proposal
• Use fixed speed cameras for speed enforcement rather than expensive physical changes to the street environment.
• Paint "Advisory Bicycle Lanes" on the streets, without narrowing them, with prominent bicycle logos and directional arrows (sharrows) but avoid expensive coloured surface treatments and road modifications - paint is cheap.
• Allow on-street parking, as now, but don't dedicate road space to parking. Consider embayed parking where demand is consistent - already done near Tresilian.
• Also, don’t ban parking where there are Advisory Bicycle Lanes to avoid backlash from residents. An occasional parked car is not an insurmountable problem for a cyclist. The presence of Advisory Bicycle Lanes may well discourage drivers from parking there, but parking will still be available for local residents if really needed.
• Don't narrow the streets. Cyclists need precious road space.
• Design bicycle route to use gentle grades and most convenient route to key destinations like UWA and Kings Park. Have spur route to primary school rather than detour main route which would result in inferior end result.
• Improve existing footpaths as these are probably sufficient and provide far more fine-grained network for kids getting to school.

Final Note
The Safe Active Street proposal is amateurish in its presentation, with many grammatical, spelling and factual errors in both the online and printed materials. One example: The project drawings show “Bays Rd” in the title block, rather than “Bay Rd”. Also, the drawings show the narrow shared lanes on the roads as “Sharrow”, without explaining what this means. A Google search is needed to determine if this is an error or not. Sharrow is certainly not a term that would be familiar to the average resident.

Whilst the idea of encouraging more cycling in the City of Nedlands is to be lauded, I feel that the Safe Active Street proposal for Jenkins Avenue will be impacted by the impending infill along Stirling Highway extending down to Jenkins Avenue and to a lesser extent, Elizabeth Street. Cars from the new infill will be travelling along Jenkins Avenue to access Dalkeith Road traffic lights. Naturally, traffic density will be at its maximum around school start and finish times, discouraging parents from allowing their children to cycle to and from school.
Edward Street, with its more shallow hill and already wider pedestrian pavement would be a better option for cycling particularly as school children may already use the footpaths to cycle to school. This could also allow adults to use Edward Street to cycle to the shops, library, university, etc.
The proposed path connecting Jenkins Avenue to Elizabeth Street is of personal concern given that it covers the existing utilities to properties further down Dalkeith Road and will restrict verge parking to place more vehicles parking on the street.

I am against the proposal for Safe Active Streets in Nedlands. I am concerned that the increase in property crossovers and traffic volume which will occur in Jenkins Avenue with the planned high density infill between Jenkins Avenue and Stirling Highway will reduce safety and expected cyclist use of Jenkins Avenue as a Safe Active Street.
The planned pedestrian and cyclist shared path connecting Jenkins Avenue and Elizabeth Street on the western side of Dalkeith Road, as shown on the plan, is situated over most of the utility supply lines including gas, telephone and at least two internet cables. The telephone and internet have required regular excavation and works in recent years so I am concerned that the proposed path will have a negative impact on utilities to properties in Dalkeith Road and beyond. Also, this path will reduce verge parking meaning more cars will be parked in already busy Dalkeith Road.

I supoort the Elizabeth St "Safe Active Street" proposal.
Elizabeth St serves two primary schools and UWA.
Not sure it has to be as fancy as proposed, but will not discuss this further, just matters of route.

I only use my bicycle for relatively short trips, e.g. hospital when my wife was there, bank at Stirling Hwy, Dalkeith Hall for some events, etc..
Living at the top of a hill and aging, has made me very aware of hills in the area.
The Elizabth Street hill from Broadway up to Nedlands Primary School is steeper than the Edward Street hill.

It might be worth considering supplementing the proposal as follows.
I recommend, as a route between Elizabeth St and the milder Edward St hill (appropriate to users living or working north of Elizabeth St), informal encouragement of the no-parking side (east side) of Viewway for southbound cycling to Nedlands Primary School and the west side of Kingsway for northbound cycling Primary School to Edward St.
Rearranging the no-parking side of Kingsway might be appropriate.
There is no need for any special markings, but enforcement, esp. at school start and end times, of the no-parking sides of Viewway (and Kingsway if appropriate) would be worthwhile.

I am under the impression that at a Councillor level the Town of Claremont are not in favour of the Safe Active Street Programme.
Therefore I believe that until this can be changed the expenditure should not be incurred. It would be a road to nowhere.
The idea in principle is to move cyclists safely through Nedlands, a bottle kneck at Jenkins and Rockton Road would be counter productive.

I ride from Jenkins to the city and the natural rout I have been taking is Jenkins, Dalkeith, Edward, Broadway, Cooper st, Fairway then sneak through the corner of the University past the sunken garden and join the bike path on Mounts Bay after Winthrop. I tried Elizabeth St and it is to steep and drops me without a good rout to Mounts Bay bike path. I suspect that most cyclists will continue to use Edward because of the favourable gradient.

The community might be able to make a better informed decision on Red bitumen vs normal bitumen if they were told the cost differential, I see many of the comments are looking for Value for money.

My preference would be to find a solution that does not result in replacing grass with more hard surfaces.

1. SPEED LIMIT: I agree with another person's feedback that the speed limit of 30km/hour is too low. 40km/hour is deemed the acceptable speed limit for schools and it makes sense to adopt this; it is sufficiently slow to reduce traffic incidents and ensure a safe street. The stretch which has been identified for this project is not an unsafe stretch to start with - which the planners have actually stated by saying they picked this road for the Safe Active Streets project due to its low amounts of traffic - so it doesn't make sense to reduce the speed limit by 20km/hr.

2. SPEED BUMPS: Having speed bumps at every intersection is excessive. Instead, speed bumps at every second intersection would slow down traffic sufficiently and would cost the council - and therefore ratepayers - less. Alternatively to speed bumps, establishing roundabouts at any two intersections along Elizabeth Street (from Bruce Street through to Dalkeith Road) would be as effective at slowing down traffic. For example, a roundabout at the Florence Rd/Elizabeth Street intersection as a major intersection. I would caution against introducing lots of speed bumps that will only need to be removed after community outcry (thinking of the very real example of Carrington Street where a whole heap of huge speed bumps were installed only to have to be removed not long after, to later be replaced by only a couple of small speed bumps and possibly a roundabout or two, at what I can only imagine was great cost to the ratepayer and great waste of funds).

3. RED ROAD: I am unclear why the whole road needs to be made red when installing a sufficiently wide, red cycle path on either side of the road, making pedestrian paths slightly bigger, slowing the speed limit to 40km/hr (not 30), and having speed bumps (or as mentioned above, roundabouts instead of speed bumps) would achieve the same effect.

4. OTHER LOCAL COUNCILS: It is unclear what this project will achieve if the City of Claremont doesn't agree to extend the streets down towards the Christ Church end of its own precinct; and the City of Perth doesn't agree to continue this from Broadway to UWA/the river. This project should not proceed in isolation from those two councils agreeing to extend it, and arguably should be put on hold until this occurs. Can't the three councils reach some kind of agreement on this and agree to use the same contractor to achieve economies of scale and the consistent outcomes?

5. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC FOR SURROUNDING ROADS: After speaking with some of the local government and transport representatives at the forum on 12 February 2018 (thank you for this), I am not convinced that the effect of this project on pushing traffic to alternative streets such as Princess Road and Melvista Avenue has been given sufficient consideration. I was advised that 'only' 700 cars use Elizabeth Street each day, and around '3300' cars use Princess and Melvista. Pushing 700 cars onto alternative routes will mean an additional 20% traffic flow on either Princess or Melvista, already very busy streets. If it is a half-half distribution this still equates to an additional 10% traffic on each of those streets. (Not even factoring in the impact on Stirling Highway traffic along this strip, which is already bad, especially at peak times).

6. IMPACT ON PARKING FOR SURROUNDING ROADS: Have the effects of this projects on the parking habits of non-resident UWA students been factored in? This has often been a problem for the streets west of Broadway and this project seems to mean parking will be significantly reduced, which will clearly have an effect on the streets from Thomas Street down to UWA.

Overall, I agree with another person's feedback that this project seems to be heavily influenced by the opinions of a vocal minority, and a push from the State Government; and that the majority of residents affected by the changes will be unaware of them until the works commence and will probably be against a lot of the changes (if not all).

I also feel a lot of the intended outcomes of this project could be achieved by simply adding in good cycle paths at the side of the road, making existing pedestrian paths slightly wider, and adding in a roundabout or two along Elizabeth Street. I don't think the drastic measures (with associated costs) that have been proposed are required - smaller changes could be introduced to achieve substantially the same outcomes at much lower costs and without as much impact on residents. I personally live close to the Mount Hawthorn 'Safe Streets' on which this project is based and I wasn't even aware that the roads were red with speed bumps because it was meant to be a safe street. It is an unnecessary expenditure which can be achieved by small tweaks rather than by such a major change which will adversely impact a lot of residents.

It's a fantastic project and our family of 5 look forward to a safer, bike and pedestrian friendly streets within the neighbourhood.

Absolutely rubbish idea, too many speed bumps created by raised areas, this will create issues for buses and vehicles of all descriptions. A 30kph limit is ridiculous, more nanny state idealism forced on the majority by a vocal minority. The major will not even be aware of this until construction starts and will not be pleased with the unwanted and unwarranted changes!

I think this is a great initiative for children and adults alike. I am not particularly sporty but enjoy riding my bicycle and would love a better option for this stretch to link up with the cycle path from Claremont towards Cottesloe and also city bound/to the various schools. I use Jenkins to cycle now, but think it would be great to do this and motorists can choose plenty of alternatives, else use Jenkins being vigilant for cyclists/pedestrians. The health benefits of encouraging our children to ride to school are great and the reduction in congestion would be a good outcome. I am however concerned how this can possibly work with the proposed "draft LPS 3", which would create more traffic and more congestion. There are plenty of places in Perth where there are higher density housing options - what attracted me to Nedlands was the streetscape - a safe, family friendly, leafy suburb with character housing, maintaining what are now rare blocks just a stone's throw from the city. The safe street would be an enhancement, the planned higher density will reduce the attractiveness of Nedlands.

I think the 30kph limit is too low and should be 40 mph in line with school vicinity limit. Also it would be sensible for all intersections to be stops for streets crossing the Safe Active Streets.

Thank you City of Nedlands for a great initiative! My children ride to and from school, and throughout the suburb on weekends, and would definitely frequent this route often. A great way also to encourage people to stay active and keep in touch with their community. My family strongly supports this Safe Active Streets Program and look forward to seeing it progress.

I am neither for nor against this project at this stage but I am concerned about the consultation process.
The description of this project is all glowing without any real discussion of the possible side effects such as where traffic might be displaced to. (The changes to Broadway several years ago pushed significant traffic onto neighbouring streets.) Also, no mention is made of the fact that the plans include extending the centre median strip in Broadway across the Elizabeth Street intersection, thus severely limiting traffic using Elizabeth Street and Broadway Fair Shopping Centre. Normally I would be in favour of anything that enables cycling but it is not clear that this proposal has been thought through. Further information is required.

Definitely support this project, as a cyclist and road user. I like that there is a positive impact for residents in these safe active streets, as they will have less vehicle traffic and will be likely to support this work too.

Any bike path in this area is well overdue with two primary schools and a library all on this side of the Stirling Hwy. However it would all be so much better if there was a safe overpass or underpass at Smyth St corner to link up all this with the council offices, and childcare centre on the opposite side of Stirling Hwy. This corner is an accident waiting to happen.

My family heartily supports this initiative. I walk every day to the local primary school, whilst my son and his friends ride to high school. Having such a well placed Safe Active Street would remove concern the parents have for our children riding themselves across Nedlands to the Dalkeith Rd lights. This safe street would also allow my children to be more independent and ride themselves to the library, shops and friends houses.