Redland City Council Response to Petition

Redland City Council has responded to the shortened version of this petition that was presented to the council meeting of August 19. They have said that Delancey Street (c. 5,000 vehicles/day, local street classification) doesn't meet criteria for traffic signals, calming infrastructure, or other significant interventions yet other local streets with less traffic have these measures in place.

Each specific request was knocked back individually: 

• Speed camera/radar enforcement - not Council's jurisdiction (QPS).
•  Variable Message Signs - considered temporary-only, not a long-term fix.
• AI wildlife detection - "monitored" but no commitment.
• Exclusion fencing - ruled out due to driveways/intersecting streets.
• Under-road fauna crossing - ruled unfeasible due to topography/engineering constraints (but these were not specified).

"No further action" is Council’s final response but they can be pushed to release documents, and reconsider partial measures. 

What can you do?  Send an email to rcc@redland.qld.gov.au and challenge Council's response with these points:

• Warrant criteria are not disclosed: Council says Delancey St "doesn't meet the criteria" but won't say what the criteria are, or whether koala strike risk is even factored in separately from normal traffic volume.  Ask them to release the criteria.
• Only 2 options were assessed, not all options:  Council ruled out full exclusion fencing and an under-road tunnel as not feasible, but never addressed staged/partial fencing or above-ground crossings  which are cheaper and unaffected by the topography excuse they gave.
• Monitoring AI detection tech: ruled out point blank, no trial, no commitment. Other QLD councils are already using it. Ask why Delancey St isn't a candidate.
• Signage is not a solution: but it's the only measure being offered by council, and there's no evidence it reduces koala deaths on a road like this.
• Speed cameras/VMS: Council says enforcement isn't their job (true) and VMS is "temporary only" but that doesn't mean nothing can be escalated to QPS or trialled longer-term.
  
  

You can frame your own message based on those points, or simply:

• Request the wildlife strike data and warrant criteria be made public
• Ask why partial fencing / above-ground crossings weren't assessed
• Ask for a firm commitment (with timeframe) on an AI detection trial
• State that signage alone is not an acceptable outcome