Final Version, 10 April 2018 - moreland.vic.gov.au cycling, train and bus usage. However, there were many ... • Clarity of purpose, process, roles and responsibility on what is non-negotiable

Final Version, 10 April 2018

PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT REPORT, MITS, FINAL VERSION, 10 APRIL 2018

1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

Privacy

Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.

For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.

Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.

Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.

For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.

Consultation

Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.

Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.

Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.

© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd. This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

Authorisation can be obtained via email to [email protected] or in writing to: 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.


2

Background

Moreland City Council (Council) is developing a new Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy

(MITS) to set the direction on dealing with major transport issues within the municipality for the

next decade. Council is working to achieve a shift towards sustainable transport options

(walking, cycling and public transport) for travelling around Moreland, relying less on cars to get

around. Council is also developing a Parking Strategy at the same time as the MITS. Council

engaged GTA Consultants to prepare the MITS. GTA Consultants’ team includes Capire

Consulting Group to design and deliver the engagement strategy, and CrowdSpot to deliver

online map-based hot-spotting engagement.

There will be three phases of engagement to deliver the MITS:

• Phase 1: Pre-engagement. 1–22 December 2017

• Phase 2: Engagement on background paper and to inform draft MITS. 15 February – 7

March (with a soft launch of the CrowdSpot map on 31 January)

• Phase 3: Consultation on draft MITS and Parking Strategy. June - July 2018.

This report details the engagement findings for Phase 2. It includes findings collated from a

variety of face-to-face and online engagement activities as outlined in Table 1.

Engagement activities and participation

Table 1: Phase Two engagement activities and participation

Engagement activity Location Participants1

Survey Online and hard copy 454

Online map-based hot-spotting (CrowdSpot) Online (with opportunity to provide hard copy input at face-to-face events)

569

Face-to-face community events - three pop-ups and one speakout

Glenroy, Fawkner, Brunswick, Coburg 132

Focus group for Urdu women Fawkner 14

Internal stakeholder workshop (Council officers)

Moreland Civic Centre, Coburg 31

External stakeholder workshop Moreland Civic Centre, Coburg 42

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 1,242

1 For more detail see Section 2, page 11.


3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

Findings

The key findings from Phase 2 of engagement are described below. This list is a summary of

participant sentiment and does not necessarily reflect Council’s views. These findings will be

used to inform the development of the draft MITS.

• Overall, participants felt that sustainability, liveability and safety should be the top

principles driving the MITS, and that economic prosperity / growth should be the lowest.

• The key location-based transport issues identified by community members using the online

pinpointing map CrowdSpot related to unsafe bicycle lanes when cycling, limited

crossing locations when walking and speeding traffic, and feeling unsafe and traffic

congestion in relation to cars’ presence.

• The biggest barriers to using all modes of transport were: time (waiting time, travel time,

frequency); convenience (transport mode does not go where I need it to go, transport

modes are not well linked, it is difficult to carry things, difficult to access); safety concerns

(regarding traffic speed, road rage/aggression, personal safety on and moving between

modes); and distance (between start and end points and moving between different modes).

• Participants who have a connection to the north of Moreland reported more barriers to tram

usage and walking than those participants connected to the south of Moreland.2

• Participants from both the north and south of Moreland reported numerous barriers related

to cycling, train and bus usage. However, there were many opportunities identified to

enable mode shift to more sustainable transport options by:

o The provision of safe and amenable environments for pedestrians and cyclists. For

cycling, this was through improved bike lanes and shared use paths, and through the

provision of end of trip facilities such as showers, bike lockers and bike parking at

transport hubs. For walking, it was frequent crossing opportunities, increasing the

feeling of safety, and making walking to activity centres more attractive.

o By increasing the reliability and frequency of public transport modes and aligning the

time tabling of different public transport modes to support multi-mode journeys.

• While participants were in broad agreement about supporting measures to improve

conditions for walking, cycling and public transport, even where this takes space or

priority away from cars, there was not agreement about the role of parking. Participants

were divided as to whether parking should be increased and free in shopping strips, with

developments required to provide significant on-site parking or the reverse situation.

Participants from the north of Moreland were more likely to support the increased and free

parking option, whereas participants from the south were more likely to support the reverse.

• Community thought Council should prioritise advocacy to other levels of government in the

areas of cyclist safety on major roads, the frequency of trains and lengthening

existing tram lines into new areas.

2 South Moreland includes the suburbs of Brunswick, Brunswick West, Brunswick East, Coburg, Pascoe Vale South and Fitzroy North. North Moreland includes Coburg North, Fawkner, Glenroy, Gowanbrae, Hadfield, Pascoe Vale, Tullamarine and Oak Park.


4

2

6

1.1 Project background 6

1.2 Engagement approach 7

1.2.1 Moreland Engagement Strategy 7

1.2.2 Objectives and line of inquiry 7

1.3 This report 9

1.3.1 Engagement in Phase 2 9

1.3.2 Promotion of engagement in Phase 2 9

1.3.3 Limitations 10

11

2.1 Number of participants 11

2.2 Demographics of community participants 12

2.2.1 Age 12

2.2.2 Location 12

2.2.3 Gender 13

14

3.1 Transport and the Moreland lifestyle 14

3.2 Prioritising transport principles 14

3.3 Transport issues 14

3.4 Transport barriers and enablers 15

3.5 Transport trade-offs 16

3.6 Advocacy 17

4 Detailed engagement findings 18

4.1 Transport and the Moreland lifestyle 18

4.1.1 Usage of different modes of transport 18

4.1.2 Role of transport in lifestyle 18

4.2 Principles to guide transport in MITS 20

4.3 Location-based transport issues and opportunities 23

4.3.1 Transport issues according to community 23

4.3.2 Opportunities and issues according to stakeholders 26

4.3.3 Did the background report capture all the issues and opportunities? 35

4.4 Mode change to sustainable transport 36

4.4.1 Barriers to mode change 36

4.4.2 Enablers of mode change 45

4.5 Acceptability of transport trade-offs 49


5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

4.5.1 Walking and cycling 50

4.5.2 Parking 51

4.5.3 Public transport 54

4.6 Advocacy priorities for Moreland 56

4.7 Opportunities for collaboration 58

4.7.1 External collaboration 58

4.7.2 Internal collaboration 60

61

Event agendas 61

Survey tool 64


6

1.1 Project background

Moreland City Council (Council) is developing a new Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy

(MITS) to set the direction on dealing with major transport issues within the municipality for the

next decade. Council is working to achieve a shift towards sustainable transport options

(walking, cycling and public transport) for travelling around Moreland, relying less on cars to get

around. Council is also examining how much car parking is provided across Moreland and

whether this should change in the future, and is developing a Parking Strategy at the same time

as the MITS.

Council’s broad vision is to create an environment where sustainable transport options are

convenient and attractive, with the aim that Moreland is a more liveable, sustainable and

healthy place to be. Council is also looking at ways that developers can contribute to funding

sustainable transport initiatives.

Council engaged GTA Consultants to prepare MITS. GTA Consultants’ team includes Capire

Consulting Group to design and deliver the engagement strategy, and CrowdSpot to deliver

online map-based hot-spotting engagement.

The objectives of MITS are:

• To create a comprehensive picture of current travel conditions in Moreland.

• To review the relationship between integrated transport outcomes and relevant policy

directions adopted by Council.

• To establish a clear vision and strategic objectives that align to corresponding policy

directions and work to be undertaken by Council.

• To develop a clearly defined document for the next decade and beyond that provides

priorities, implementation actions and delivery timeframes.

• To evaluate if the existing public and private car parking being provided is sufficient for the

current and future population, having regard to the above objectives, and to make

recommendations for the future use of land designated for public and private car parking.


7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

1.2 Engagement approach

This section of the report describes the engagement approach for MITS. A three-phase

engagement program (shown in Figure 1 below) was designed in November and December

2017, with the aim of providing multiple opportunities for the community and stakeholder to

contribute to the development of MITS.

Figure 1: Engagement program

1.2.1 Moreland Engagement Strategy

The Moreland Engagement Strategy is Council’s framework for engaging with the community.

According to this strategy, guiding principles for engagement include:

• Relevant communities and individuals are engaged in planning and decision making to the

highest level appropriate.

• Communication is a two-way transaction. Listening is as essential as telling. Honesty

attracts people and encourages them to be involved.

• Clarity of purpose, process, roles and responsibility on what is non-negotiable and where

are the limits; who are the final decision makers; and what decisions have already been

made.

• Selection of a range of approaches to enable different communities or sectors to participate

effectively and to remove barriers to participation.

• Address conflict in a positive and proactive manner.

• Feedback to participants, informing them of the results of their participation.

• Value the knowledge of the community to enhance the expertise of professional employees.

1.2.2 Objectives and line of inquiry

Table 2 details the three engagement phases and the objectives for each phase and the line of

inquiry for each phase.


8

Table 2: Engagement phases, objectives and line of inquiry

Phase Objective Line of inquiry*

Phase one

Pre-

engagement

December 1-

22, 2017

• To build awareness of the MITS in the community.

• To build awareness of the opportunity to contribute during two phases of

consultation in 2018.

• To provide opportunities for the community to contribute their 'hope' for the

future of transport in Moreland.

• To assist the project team to understand community interest in online and face-

to-face engagement activities based on the location of participants.

1. In 2028, how do residents hope to be moving around Moreland?

Phase two

Engagement

on

background

paper and to

inform draft

MITS

29 January –

11 March,

2018

• To seek feedback on the background paper.

• To understand the transportation needs of the community to inform the

development of the MITS and Parking Strategy.

• To increase understanding of the required trade-offs to achieve key objectives

and understand community appetite for trade-offs.

• To identify the Moreland community’s priority locations for a range of transport

mode improvements.

• To enable mutual learning between Council and the community.

• To build trust between Council and the community and stakeholders.

• To explore opportunities for stakeholder collaboration to deliver the strategies.

1. How does transport affect quality of life and everyday living?

a. What are transport journeys of different types of community

members in terms of living, working and playing in Moreland?

2. What are the principles that should guide sustainable transport

behaviour?

3. What are the transport issues and opportunities in different areas

of Moreland, presently and in the future?

a. Has the background report captured all the issues and

opportunities?

4. What supportive measures will enable mode change in Moreland?

5. What trade-offs are acceptable to achieve key transport

objectives?

6. What are the key advocacy priorities for Moreland?

Phase three

Consultation

on draft MITS

and Parking

Strategy

June 2018

• To provide a ‘pulse-check’ to test if the MITS and Parking Strategy has

addressed key issues.

• To close the loop on the previous phases of consultation so that community

and stakeholders understand how their input has been used.

• To explore opportunities for stakeholder collaboration to deliver the strategies.

1. Is there support for the draft strategies’ objectives and actions?

2. Have all relevant key issues been identified and addressed? If no,

what issues are missing?

3. Is anything missing from the draft strategies’?

4. What are the collaborative opportunities to deliver the strategies

with internal and external stakeholders across different levels of

government and the wider community?

*A line of inquiry is a guiding research question. Line of inquiry questions may not be asked directly to participants but will guide the formulation of more accessible and

approachable questions, by using tailored contextual introductions, language and prompts.


9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

1.3 This report

This report details the engagement findings for Phase 2 of engagement, conducted over February and

March 2018. It includes the findings against all lines of inquiry, from all the engagement activities

conducted over this phase via face-to-face and online engagement.

1.3.1 Engagement in Phase 2

Over February and March 2018, the following activities were delivered to seek community and

stakeholder input:

• Survey – available online and in hard copy

• Online map-based location hot-spotting using CrowdSpot

• Three pop-ups in Glenroy, Fawkner and Brunswick3

• Community speak out in Coburg

• Focus group with Urdu women living in northern Moreland

• Internal stakeholder workshop (Council officers)

• External stakeholder workshop (including state government agencies, resident groups, traders’

associations, and so on).

1.3.2 Promotion of engagement in Phase 2

To promote the opportunity to participate in engagement to inform MITS, Council created awareness

and invited people to participate using the following channels:

• Online promotion:

o Council’s Facebook channel

o Council’s website

o Emails sent to people who participated in the December 2017 phase of engagement

• Other promotion:

o video screens at customer service centres

o posters at libraries and customer service centres

o advertisement in City News section of Moreland Leader

o opportunity to call Council to provide feedback and request hard copy of survey if required.

3 The survey was administered at pop ups alongside a ‘lo-fi’ paper-based version of the location hot-spotting similar to CrowdSpot, which was entered into the CrowdSpot online map after the pop ups


10

Figure 2: Example of social media post used to promote engagement

1.3.3 Limitations

The limitations of the engagement should be considered alongside the findings presented in this report:

• Community members from Coburg and Brunswick were over-represented amongst participants, as

were females and people aged 35 to 44 years.

• Some participants may have participated in multiple, different engagement activities across Phase

2, so the total number of participants may not represent unique participants.

• Some information included in this report may be factually incorrect or unfeasible. The information

has not been validated as it is purely a summary of participants' opinions, ideas and feedback.

• Some participants raised concerns that were outside the scope of what Council can influence,

either directly or indirectly. These points have been included, but may be out of scope for

consideration by Council and inclusion in the MITS.

• The report presents the key findings from engagement and includes a broad range of feedback,

concerns and ideas expressed by participants. It provides an overview of participant sentiment but

does not report on the sentiment of individual participants.


11 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

This section summarises the participation in Phase 2 of engagement and provides a demographic

breakdown of participants. Participants were not required to provide demographic or identifying

information if they did not wish.

2.1 Number of participants

In total, 1,242 people participated in Phase 2 of Council’s engagement on MITS, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Participation in Phase 2 of engagement

Engagement activity

Location and date Participants

Survey Online and hard copy available

Available 15 February to 7 March 2018

4544

Online map-based hot-spotting (CrowdSpot)

Online

Available 31 January to 7 March 2018

5695

Face-to-face community events - three pop ups and one speak out

Pop ups:

• Glenroy, 17 February 2018

• Fawkner, 22 February 2018

• Brunswick, 4 March 2018

Speak out:

• Moreland Civic Centre, Coburg, 24 February 2018

1326

Focus group for Urdu women

Fawkner

1 March 2018

14


Moreland Civic Centre, Coburg

7 February 2018

31

External stakeholder workshop

Moreland Civic Centre, Coburg

27 February 2018

42

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 1,242

It should be noted that some participants may have participated in multiple engagement activities, so

the total participation number does not necessarily represent 1,242 unique participants.

4 Includes partially and fully completed surveys 5 Number of active participants who inputted on CrowdSpot. Passive participants (who only viewed CrowdSpot but did not input) represent an additional 1,798 unique visitors. 6 This is an estimation of participation, given the pop-ups were informal events with participants dropping by at times that suited them, participants were not required to RSVP or provide identifying details if they did not wish. This estimation is based on visual survey of participant numbers alongside the number of comments collected by engagement delivery staff.


12

2.2 Demographics of community participants

2.2.1 Age

Of the community members who participated in the survey, CrowdSpot and face-to-face events, 734

provided their age range. The age range of 35 to 44 years was the most common, making up over 38

per cent of participants. Figure 3 shows the age range of participants.

Figure 3: Age range of Phase 2 engagement participants

2.2.2 Location

Of the community members who participated in the survey and face-to-face events, 473 provided

information on their place of connection in Moreland via the question ‘which area of Moreland is most

important to you?’. Coburg was the most common response, representing over 27 per cent of

participants who reported their location. Note that CrowdSpot did not collect location data for

participants. Figure 4 shows the location of participants.

Figure 4: Place of connection in Moreland of Phase 2 engagement participants

16 1534

162

281

127

6728

3 10

50

100

150

200

250

300

15 yearsor under

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85+

Age range of participants (n=734)

99

4128

132

57

35

3

206 8 5

2411

1 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Place of connection of participants (n=473)



Participants were also asked about the nature of their connection to the location they selected in

Moreland. The majority stated their connection as ‘I live here’, as shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Nature of connection to place of phase 2 engagement participants

2.2.3 Gender

Of the community members who participated in the survey and face-to-face events, 396 provided

information to describe their gender. Females represented just over 60 per cent of participants who

reported their gender, as shown in Figure 6. Participants were provided the option to provide non-binary

gender responses, but no sincere responses were received for this option.

Figure 6: Gender of phase 2 engagement participants

I live here, 88%

I study here, 6%

I visit here, 5%I work here, 1%

Participants' nature of connection to place (n=473)

I live here I study here I visit here I work here

Female, 242

Male, 154

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Gender of participants (n=396)


14

This section summarises key findings from all engagement over Phase 2.

3.1 Transport and the Moreland lifestyle

Walking was the most commonly reported mode of transport, followed by car (as driver) amongst

participants. A large number of participants said that transport is critical to connecting them to the things

that matter in their lives, enabling social interaction, education, work and health and recreation. Mode of

transport results have not been validated against ABS data or the Moreland Household Survey – it

solely represents participants’ reported transport mode. It is likely that many participants reported

walking as a mode of transport if they walked at any point during their typical day, irrespective of

whether walking represents a significant part of their daily commute.

3.2 Prioritising transport principles

Overall, sustainability, then liveability, and then safety were the top three priorities, and economic

prosperity and growth was the lowest priority across all participants. Participants were asked to

nominate their top three principles from a list of eight or could suggest their own principle. Participants

who connect with north Moreland thought that liveability was the most important followed by safety, then

sustainability. In comparison, those connected to south Moreland’s top three priorities were

sustainability, liveability and safety.

3.3 Transport issues

The top three transport issues identified by community members using CrowdSpot were related to

bicycle, walking and car usage concerns. These were:

• Bicycle issue: unsafe or no bike lanes (105 of 1,101 spots on CrowdSpot).

A note on place of participant connection:

This report makes reference to participants connected to north Moreland and south Moreland. For the purposes

of understanding whether community participants’ attitudes varied due to place of connection, community data

has been split into north and south Moreland in some sections of the report. Suburbs included in north Moreland

are Coburg North, Fawkner, Glenroy, Gowanbrae, Hadfield, Pascoe Vale, Tullamarine and Oak Park. Suburbs

included in south Moreland are Brunswick, Brunswick West, Brunswick East, Coburg, Pascoe Vale South and

Fitzroy North. It was not viable to split participant responses by suburb, due to some suburbs having low

response rates.



• Walking issue: no crossing facilities (99 of 1,101 spots on CrowdSpot).

• Car issues: speeding traffic, seems unsafe and seems congested (67, 67 and 64 spots respectively

of 1,101 spots on CrowdSpot).

3.4 Transport barriers and enablers

Overall, the biggest barriers to all modes of transport were:

• Time: Waiting time, travel time, frequency

• Convenience: ‘It does not go where I need it to go’, transport modes not well linked, difficult to carry

things, difficult to access

• Safety concern: Concern regarding traffic speed, road rage/aggression, personal safety on and

moving between modes

• Distance: Distance between start and end points and between different modes.

Table 4 outlines the key barriers for each mode and also summarises ideas provided to enable

sustainable mode change.

Table 4: Summary of key transport barriers and enablers by mode

Mode Barriers in Moreland Enabling higher use

Bicycle • Safety concerns • Normalise cycling by encouraging more people to ride

• Reduce speed limits to 30 to 40 kilometres per hour

• Separate cyclists and pedestrians where possible

• Cycling safety education and awareness

• Connect cycling routes to train stations, and provide bike facilities on

trains and at stations

Bus • Time

• Convenience

• Improve information on service frequency and information available at

and about stops

• Improve amenity of public transport stops and locations

• Link timetabling of different public transport modes to enable multi-

mode journeys

Train • Time

Tram • Distance

• Convenience

Walking • Safety concerns

• Distance

• Improve access to train stations including the entry and exit points and

at either end of platforms

• Consider pedestrians in planning stage of all development

• Improve access to educational facilities and shopping precincts

• Improve pedestrian amenity, such as shade provision

Car

(driver,

passenger,

car sharing,

Uber and

Taxi)

• Time

• Convenience

Managing use (rather than enabling higher use):

• Support high needs user groups to use car when it is their only viable

option, including people with disabilities, families with young children

• Introduce paid parking, time restrictions, better monitor disabled

parking permit use, prioritise for high needs user groups

• Enforce traffic management and road safety measures


16

3.5 Transport trade-offs

Council sought to understand the transport priorities people favoured and used three scenarios to

understand community’s preferences. Improving transport will sometimes create effects some people

may see as negative. Council was keen to understand what participants saw as most important when

making choices about positive and negative effects in transport, and to understand people’s willingness

to support initiatives that improved some transport modes (such as walking, cycling and public

transport) even if this lessened priorities for cars and parking.

The three different scenarios were presented, on walking and cycling, public transport and parking.

Each scenario had two options, with option one rated at zero at one end of a scale, and option two at

six on the other end of the scale. Participants could choose to fully support one option, which would

result in a zero or six rating, or sit somewhere between the two options, with a rating from one to five.

The three scenario scales are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Scale for transport trade off scenarios

Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Scenario

one –

walking

and

cycling

A walking/cycling friendly

environment with lower speed

limits, traffic management

measures such as speed humps,

more crossings for pedestrians

and cyclists, shorter wait for

pedestrians and cyclists to cross

roads, more space for

pedestrians and cyclists (e.g.

more bicycle lanes and wider

footpaths).

An environment where it's easier

to drive, with higher speed limits,

fewer traffic management

measures, fewer crossing points

for pedestrians and cyclists,

longer green lights for cars at

intersections, more space on

roads that can be used by cars.

Scenario

two – car

parking

More car parking at places such

as shopping strips, car parking is

free, developments such as

apartment buildings are required

to provide a significant amount of

car parking on-site

Less car parking at places such

as shopping strips, car parking is

paid, developments are allowed

to provide less car parking

particularly where they are easily

accessible by public transport,

cycling or walking.

Scenario

three –

public

transport

An environment with greater

public transport priority included

tram-only lanes and bus-only

lanes, traffic lights let trams and

buses go through more quickly,

some restrictions on right turns

so turning cars don’t hold up

buses and trams.

An environment with lower public

transport priority where buses

and trams share lanes with cars,

buses and trams don’t get priority

at intersections, no restrictions

on vehicles turning.



Table 6 summarises responses to the scenarios based on selection on the numerical scale shown

above using two different averages:

• mean: the central tendency of the community’s responses

• mode: the response (from 0 to 6) that occurs the most often amongst community’s responses.

While participants were in broad agreement about supporting measures to improve conditions for

walking, cycling and public transport, even where this takes space or priority away from cars, there was

not agreement about the role of parking. Participants were divided as to whether parking should be

increased and free in shopping strips, with developments required to provide significant on-site parking

or the reverse situation. Participants from the north of Moreland were more likely to support the

increased and free parking option, whereas participants from the south were more likely to support the

reverse.

Table 6: Summary of participant trade-off responses on scale of 0 to 6

Results All participants Participants

connected to

north Moreland

Participants

connected to

south Moreland

Walking and cycling scenario

Average response on scale (mean) 1.12 1.39 1.00

Most common response on scale (mode) 0 0 0

Car parking scenario



Public transport scenario



3.6 Advocacy

Participants were asked about their advocacy priorities, acknowledging that Council does not have

direct control over some aspects of transport, such as major roads and public transport services. The

highest advocacy priorities overall were safety of cyclists on major roads and more regular train

services.

• For participants connected to south Moreland, cyclist safety was by far the highest priority.

• For participants connected to north Moreland, cyclist safety was of a similar priority to trains coming

more often and lengthening existing tram lines.


18

4 Detailed engagement findings

4.1 Transport and the Moreland lifestyle

4.1.1 Usage of different modes of transport

Community participants were asked about the modes of transport they use in their typical lives (with the

option to select multiple modes of transport). The summary of participants’ responses is shown in

Figure 7. Walking was the most commonly reported mode of transport, followed by car (as driver).

Participants could select multiple modes.

Figure 7: Transport modes used by phase 2 engagement participants

4.1.2 Role of transport in lifestyle

In the survey, participants were asked ‘What role does transport play in connecting you to the things

that matter to you?’ This section summarises responses to this question.

13

14

32

115

121

187

221

239

253

286

297

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Car share as driver (GoGet, Flexicar etc.)

Motorbike/scooter

Taxi

Uber

Bus

Car - as passenger

Train

Tram

Bike

Car - as driver

Walked

Transport modes used by participants (n=451)

Data sources used to inform this section:

Survey

Focus group with Urdu women


Survey



Most of the 159 participants who answered this question said broadly that transport connected them to

the things that matter most to them in their life. Of the survey participants who answered this question,

43 per cent (68 of 159) said specifically that transport is critical to connecting them to the things that

matter in their lives. To describe the role of transport these participants used words such as necessary,

vital, immensely important, crucial, essential, fundamental, major, central.

Most participants who answered this question discussed public transport over cars. There were 37

participants who mentioned public transport and two who mentioned cars specifically.

Key themes

The key themes identified by participants are listed below, alongside some participants’ responses on

the aspects of their life that transport connects them to.

• Social interaction (28 participants): Connection to friends and community locally and in other parts

of Melbourne; access to events, new locations and social activities, more opportunities to

participate in public life as well as the chances to interact with others while travelling.

o ‘Having wheelchair-accessible transport options means I can socialise and otherwise

participate in my community, which I believe is essential.’

o ‘Lots of my social life also requires me to get to the Melbourne CBD or other areas outside

of where I live so public transport plays a huge role in getting me there.’

o ‘I would be very isolated and trapped without my car.’

• Education (21 participants): Travelling between home and school for both children and adults.

Many of the parents who responded said it is important that the journey is safe, enjoyable and

efficient.

o ‘Better transport means us mums can stay longer at work, no need to pick kids up.’

o ‘I frequently ride with my young children, to their school and to local shops and to visit

friends, and with better infrastructure this could also be much safer.’

o ‘I work in the CBD, but my 12-month-old daughter is at childcare near home on Victoria

street. Travelling to/from the city is an important part of my day.’

• Work (20 participants): Getting to work efficiently and on time was important to many participants.

o ‘Transport is vital to how my family participates in society in relation to work. It is also

crucially important in maintaining relationships and personal wellbeing.’

o ‘It ensures I get to work on time.’

o ‘Main mode of transport to work - affects my commute time.’

o ‘Without my bicycle I would not have convenient access to work in the city.’

• Health and recreation (12 participants): Walking and public transport can provide opportunities to

exercise, live a healthy lifestyle and can have positive outcomes on mental health. Transport also

plays an important role in connecting people to health services and places for recreation.

o ‘In emergency I can go by the train and connects me health service.’


20

o ‘Bike transport makes life easier to get around (no parking, no car maintenance) so I pop

out more often, I bump into people I know more often, it's great health wise (physical and

mental).’

• Family (8 participants): The ability to travel to visit and connect with family across Melbourne as

well as the need to ensure family members, especially young children can travel safely.

o ‘Without my car I could not conveniently visit family living in the western suburbs.’

o ‘It plays a big role and will play an even bigger role when my daughter is old enough to take

public transport on her own, but Fawkner is not connected well enough which worries me a

lot.’

Some participants also noted that having various modes of transport also plays a role in ensuring

people of all abilities can reach the things that matter:

o ‘I am disabled and cannot cycle or walk far, so rely more on other forms of transport which

can be disappointing.’

o ‘I used to walk but now illness means it is not possible.’

4.2 Principles to guide transport in MITS

This section outlines participant feedback on the principles that should guide the new MITS.

Participants were asked to choose their top three priorities from the list in Error! Reference source n

ot found.Table 7, though they could also suggest other principles. Figure 8 on the following page

shows the principles in priority order for participants.


Survey

Community speakout

Pop-up (Brunswick - co-located with the Sydney Road Street Party where Council had a stall, so

more extensive engagement activities were able to be run)



Table 7: Principles

Principle Definition

Sustainability Reducing our use of fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution.

Safety Reducing the number of injuries or people killed on the road, as well as making people feel

safe

Improving health

and wellbeing

Increasing the amount of physical activity people get while travelling (e.g. walking or cycling

for part or all of their journey) and reducing the health risk from pollution

Equity Making sure that all members of our community have the same opportunities, regardless of

age, ability and where they live

Liveability Creating pleasant streets and neighbourhoods where quality of life is high

Economic

prosperity/growth

Transport supports local businesses

Time efficiency Making sure people can get around quickly

Cost-efficiency People don’t have to pay as much to get to where they need to be

Figure 8: Principles that should guide MITS according to Phase 2 engagement principles

Overall, sustainability, liveability and safety were the top three priorities, and economic prosperity /

growth was the lowest priority. Quotes from participants on principles they favour include:

• Sustainability: ‘In the future to increase the use of sustainable modes, my children going to

university independently will need better public transport options from Fawkner otherwise they will

need a car each, hence increasing the number of cars on the road.’

• Liveability: ‘Recognise and mitigate destructive effects of traffic on residential streets and liveability.’

43

81

127

167

184

222

269

289

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Economic prosperity/growth

Cost-efficiency

Time efficiency

Equity

Improving health and wellbeing

Safety

Liveability

Sustainability

Number of selections by participants

Principles that should guide MITS (n=471)


22

• Safety: ‘I commend the council for thinking about the safety of people walking and cycling but

please do not forget about us who need to use a car, bus, train and tram.’

• Improving health and wellbeing: ‘Let's have a transport strategy that values people centred

transport, for a greener, safer and healthier Moreland.’’

• Equity: ‘That all local streets are treated equally. To prevent some streets bearing more of the brunt

of through traffic than others.’

• Time efficiency: ‘(Transport should help) me get to where I need to go. Ideally, in the least possible

time and with minimal hassle.’

• Cost-efficiency: ‘Moreland Council should focus on reducing costs (of transport).’

• Economic prosperity/growth: ‘Economic growth - transport sustains increased residential numbers.’

Participants who connect with North Moreland thought that liveability was the most important followed

by safety, then sustainability, as shown in Figure 9. Participants connected to South Moreland favoured

sustainability, liveability and then safety.

Figure 9: Principles that should guide MITS - according to place of connection of participant

162 158

127

111

88

71

44

22

61

7266

4144

36

1512

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Principles based on place of connection (n=388)

South Moreland North Moreland



4.3 Location-based transport issues and opportunities

Participants identified location-based issues and opportunities across Moreland that hinder and help

movement. This section summarises their feedback. Community and stakeholder feedback has been

split into two sections, as different tools of data collection were employed for these two groups.

Community members completed this activity via CrowdSpot, while stakeholders contributed via

workshops and also focused on providing actions to respond to situations.

Refer to the separate CrowdSpot report for a detailed analysis of community feedback on

location-based issues.

4.3.1 Transport issues according to community

This section summarises key findings from CrowdSpot’s analysis of community input on location-based

issues.

Figure 10 provides a summary of the spot ‘types’ used by community members, with bike issue spots

being the most common, followed by walk issue spots.

Though a total of 569 unique participants used CrowdSpot, participants could place as many spots as

they wished on CrowdSpot.

Figure 10: Summary of types of spots on CrowdSpot (source: CrowdSpot)

Summary of location-based issues experienced in Moreland by transport mode

Figure 11 shows the nature of location-based bike issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

unsafe bicycle lanes being the most common issue. Participants could select multiple issues, though a

total of 206 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to bike issue reporting.

382

297 273

35 29 1867

0

100

200

300

400

500

Bike IssueSpots

Walk IssueSpots

Car IssueSpots

Bus IssueSpots

Train IssueSpots

Tram IssueSpots

Like Spots

CrowdSpot - type of spots (n=569)


CrowdSpot


24

Figure 11: Bike issues reported on CrowdSpot

Figure 12 shows the nature of location-based walk issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

no crossing facilities being the most common issue. Participants could select multiple issues, though a

total of 159 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to walking issue reporting.

Figure 12: Walking issues reported on CrowdSpot

Figure 13 shows the nature of location-based car issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

speeding traffic being the most common issue. Participants could select multiple car issues, though a

total of 147 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to car issue reporting.

2

2

3

3

5

6

6

7

8

12

13

16

21

34

53

84

105

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dangerous shared path

Cars ignore traffic signal

Other

Too long to wait to cross at signal

Poor lighting

Congestion

High risk of car dooring

Blind spot

Narrow bicycle lane

Limited or no bicycle parking

Limited or no directional signage

Poor surface

Bicycle lane/access blocked

Bicycle lane ends

Dangerous crossing

No bicycle lanes

Unsafe bicycle lanes

Bike issues (n=206)

4

4

4

4

6

6

9

10

11

16

16

17

18

19

26

28

99

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

4wds in park

Cars ignoring traffic signals

Narrow footpath

Other

Dangerous Shared Path

Limited time to cross at signal

Poor Lighting

Blind spot

Cars blocking footpath

No footpath link

Speeding traffic

Too long to wait to cross at signal

Unattractive walking route

Poor access for those with disabilities

Dangerous crossing

Poorly maintained footpaths

No crossing facilities

Walking issues (n=159)



Figure 13: Car issues reported on CrowdSpot

Figure 14 shows the nature of location-based bus issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

infrequent bus services the most common issue. Participants could select multiple issues, though a total

of 17 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to bus issue reporting.

Figure 14: Bus issues reported on CrowdSpot

Figure 15 shows the nature of location-based train issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

dangerous railway crossing the most common issue. Participants could select multiple issues, though a

total of 17 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to train issue reporting.

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

10

10

42

64

67

67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Blind spot

Free car parking

Rubbish dumping issues

Truck turning issue

Cars ignore traffic signal

Poor road surface

Traffic noise

Traffic light issues

Right turning cars slow movement

Signage or road markings are unclear

Parking issues

Location is congested

Location seems unsafe

Speeding traffic

Car issues (n=147)

1

1

1

2

2

2

4

6

6

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Not enough space for bus to reach curb

Poor waiting facilities at stop

Not enough seats on bus

Narrow bus route

Stop seems unsafe

No stop within walking distance


Unreliable bus timetable

Poor connectivity

Infrequent bus services here

Bus issues (n=17)


26

Figure 15: Train issues reported on CrowdSpot

Figure 16 shows the nature of location-based tram issues reported by participants on CrowdSpot, with

feeling unsafe at a stop or station the most common issue. Participants could select multiple issues,

though a total of 11 unique CrowdSpot users contributed to tram issue reporting.

Figure 16: Tram issues reported on CrowdSpot

4.3.2 Opportunities and issues according to stakeholders

In both stakeholder workshops, participants considered location-based issues and opportunities across

Moreland, and how Council could respond to address the issue or seize the opportunity. Table 8 and

Table 9 summarise the opportunities and issues identified by stakeholders respectively. Please note

that where the issue listed was the inverse of an opportunity already identified in Table 8, this has not

been included in the ‘issues’ table for readability.

1111

45

79

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

New station requiredNo capacity during the peak

Poor station accessPoor waiting facilities at stop

Limited footpath access to stopFeels unsafe at stop or station

Infrequent servicesDangerous railway crossing

Train issues (n=17)

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Blind spot

Difficult to access tram stop

Infrequent services

No capacity during the peak

Poor tram stop position


Cars blocking tram movement

No service - extend line

Feels unsafe at stop or station

Tram issues (n=11)






Table 8: Transport opportunities in Moreland according to stakeholders

Location Opportunity Action to respond (where provided) Workshop

Moreland Road and

railway line level crossing

removal

• Improve pedestrian and cyclist routes

• Integration of Bell St and Moreland Rd level crossing

removal with transport strategy

• Upfield corridor provides opportunities for increased

bike capacity and pedestrian safety

• Work closely with council and transport agencies.

Understand timing of interrelated projects

Internal,

external

Level crossing removals • Opportunity to address corridor rather than individual

intersections (such as Park St/Gaffney St) with 16 level

crossings and or pedestrian crossings

• Utilise open space beneath tracks, such as for bike

highway

• Address rail corridor as a whole, whether sky rail or

trenched or cut and covered

External

Main pedestrian spines -

Bell Street

• Better tree canopy over footpaths to make walking more

attractive

• Often street trees have to be small under power lines.

Planning permits should require large canopy trees in

front set back.

Internal

Pedestrian spines • Reduce on-street car parking • Remove car parking on street and use underutilised car

parks / new multi decks for parking

Internal

Between Sydney Road

and Nicholson Street

(bordered by Blyth Street

in north and Glenlyon

Street in south)

• Shared zones to slow traffic down to make area more

pedestrian friendly

• Construct 10kmh shared zones External

Victoria Street and

railway line, Brunswick

Activity Centre

• Make more pedestrian and bike friendly • Improve pedestrian and cycling connections. To connect

people and place and make a ‘market’ place

Internal

Wheatsheaf Road and

Glenroy Road

• Higher density through neighbourhood activity centres

(NACs). Currently low number of NACs in north.

• New community services hub (Wheatsheaf) will attract

multiple clients - Merri Health, library, park/community

garden, child care/early years, neighbourhood house.

• Improving east-west connections across the railway lines

• Potentially improved density for public transport

connections. Improve pedestrian and cycling

connections into the centre and around the centre.

• Plan active transport links, raise awareness within

service users and client groups.

Internal,

external


28


N/A Increase attractiveness of cycling:

• In activity centres, increase cycling by putting shower

blocks and bike lockers in for people who want to ride to

work, but their work place doesn't have showers.

• Improve safety

• Good cycling links across the municipality boundaries

• Build better bicycle path connections to Coburg High

• Wayfinding signage for bike routes - highlighted the best

and safest routes

• Put in shower blocks and bike lockers, at train stations

and activity centres

• Bike paths with better Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design (CPTED) principles

• Re-allocate road space away from car parking to bike

paths

• Look at bicycle lanes, shared paths for surrounding

neighbourhoods to Coburg High. Ensure continuous

lanes.

Internal,

external

Major roads • No standing zones in some areas to improve bus

movements

• To ensure the roads are not so tight due to street

parking, have some no standing areas on tight turning

points especially so the bus can get through

External

Munro Street and railway

line, Coburg Activity

Centre

• Transit oriented development, as per Brunswick and

Glenroy

• Internal

N/A • Car share and Uber • Don't ignore preferences for personal mobility and

individual freedom. The car still preferred.

Internal

Moreland Road and

Holmes St / Dawson St

• Contributions to sustainable transport because of land

rezoning

• Specific projects for transport improvements nearby Internal

Cameron Street,

Moreland Road, Holmes

Street

• Ongoing priority for trams at Cameron St/Moreland

Rd/Holmes St intersections cause delays

• Need minor interventions in hot spots to increase

through put/reduce impact of congestion

External

South Street, Hadfield • Hydrogen refuelling of buses on South Street. Public

refuelling including bus route

• Progress Hydrogen Refuelling Station (HRS) project Internal

Lynch Road, Fawkner • New neighbourhood activity centre at Sealed Air site in

Fawkner

• Tram extension Internal

Sydney Road north of

Bakers Road

• Extend Sydney Road tram services north of Bakers Road • Consideration for future tram routes north of Bell St -

tram network plan and integrated land use opportunities

External




Gowanbrae • Improve access to Gowanbrae via Augustine Terrace

• Residents support opening of restricted access road for

public transport and emergency exiting

• Alternative second access connection to Gowanbrae

• Open up some residential roads

Internal,

external

Pedestrian activity

centres

• Make streets more pedestrian friendly • Streetscape improvements that address Urban Heat

Island Effect (UHIE) - focus on key pedestrian streets

and activity centres.

• Increase number of 40km/h zones. Adopt more traffic

thresholds.

Internal,

external

Coburg activity centres • Improve understanding of usage of parking in Coburg

activity centres

• Coburg parking patronage audit. Define the Coburg ACL

as a place for people. Change the target market of the

centre.

Internal

Activity centres • Change the parking rates, via planning scheme and cash

scheme to fund sustainable transport initiatives

• Best practice policy implemented in planning scheme Internal

N/A • Local shopping trips - carrying loaded shopping bags does

not encourage walking and cycling

• Increase usage of Amazon and e-commerce Internal

N/A Attract more bus users by:

• Improved facilities

• Improved role for buses to perform a cross train feeder role

in the networks

• Improved crosstown bus services and frequency lining up

key destinations and activity centres

• Smaller buses, more frequent regular series that go to

Essendon to Glenroy station in addition to Westfield

• Buses connecting with train timetables and a shuttle

service to main stations (e.g. Coburg, Moreland)

• Wheelchairs and trams on trains and buses

• Bicycle storage or carrier on buses, improve quality of

bus shelters

• Greater investment on bus service frequencies

connecting to activity centre destinations.

• Road space reallocations for 24/7 bus lanes and

network vision and targets for public transport choices

• Work with the bus providers to align with train timetable

and nationwide routes

• Advocate with PTV to allow wheelchairs and trams on

PT services

Internal,

external

Marigold Crescent to

Primula Drive,

Gowanbrae

• Enable walking space for Marigold Crescent residents on

top of the hill down to access point on Primula Drive

• Footpath connecting Marigold Crescent to Primula Drive

External

Anderson Road, Fawkner • Connect Merri Creek bike path along whole length Internal


30


Sydney Road • Land rezoning opportunity - no residential but retail and

commercial. Developer contributions for improvements.

• Specific actions for sustainable transport initiative

around this location – and include linkage to Fawkner

station

Internal

Sydney Road • Separate car traffic

• Maintaining and improving the reliability of public transport

throughout Sydney Road

• Reallocate road space away from private vehicles

during peak times to improve tram routes efficiency and

safety for bikes

• Strategy to promote the priority of public transport

External

Sydney Road • With outer suburban freeway upgrade (Tullamarine

Freeway and Bell St) strategy towards discouraging

through trips down Sydney Road (citybound) into Royal

Parade into Grattan St/Haymarket should encourage

diversion for the community.

• Strategy to connect throughout, align with neighbouring

municipalities and government agencies for public

transport mode. Modal priority shift for Sydney Road.

External

Upfield Bike Path • Bike paths that provide safe, accessible travel to stations

and key places in the municipality

• Invest in bike infrastructure and shared user paths from

activity hubs to station (e.g. CERES, Coburg, Moreland)

External

Northern Moreland • Increase cycling in North • Provide more bicycle infrastructure and facilities in the

north, especially connectivity to train stations and tram

stops

Internal

RMIT Brunswick • Use of RMIT Brunswick campus as a compound on the

weekends (between Union and Dawson St)

• Understand RMIT student movements to understand

timetabling for public transport implications

• Projected increase on Student Road on the RMIT

Brunswick campus. What does that mean for safe access

to the campus?

• Engage with RMIT to discuss. Trouble shoot costs and

other potential factor issues

• Discussion around timetabling and public transport

timetables. Promote public transport changes to

students.

• Reduced the speed on Union St a few years ago - but

should potentially review traffic calming / crossing

between the campus and Jewell Station given increased

student numbers.

External

Cumberland Road • Cumberland Road needs a separated bike path as part of

the route from Coburg to Glenroy

• Put in a bike path External

CERES • Improve connections to CERES • CERES bridge for pedestrian and bikes External




N/A • Improving airport access options from Moreland via public

transport

• Public transport connections up to Broadmeadows

• Better integrated timetabling and frequency

External

Murray Rd between

Creek and Elizabeth

Streets

• More and diverse pedestrian connections across arterial

roads, for example, Murray Rd between Creek and

Elizabeth Streets

• Pedestrian refuges such as on Moreland Road on the

Merri Creek Bridge

Internal

Coburg • Council workers to pay for parking at Moreland Civic

Centre

• Increase income from parking, encourage public

transport use

External

Table 9: Issues in Moreland according to stakeholders

Location Issue Action to respond (where provided) Workshop

Dawson St and railway

line

• Supporting the core industry with precinct transport routes Internal

Lorne Street • Connectivity of bike paths to sporting reserves such as

Mutton Reserve, Lorne street

• Connect with on street paths and with off street paths

along either Merri Creek or Upfield Bike path

Internal

Bell Street • Bell Street is a ‘raging torrent’ of motor vehicles. It is a

barrier to pedestrians and cyclists – not only to cross but

to travel along this major route.

• Access to Bell Street tram stops - dangerous pedestrian

environment

• From Coburg travelling north it is difficult to turn right into

Bell Street. Only option is from Russell Street which is

quite dangerous.

• North - south traffic off freeway into Bell Street then south

along Sydney Road

• Protect Bell Street as a major traffic corridor (cars and

trucks) - it is a major east-west route

• Reduce motor vehicles, reduce speed, improve bike and

pedestrian amenity, both on and adjacent

• Improve crossing opportunities. Work with TFV/PTV to

create safe stops/level access.

• Allow right turn from Waterfield Street

• Belter Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) precinct

transport planning, regulate rat-running through residential

streets

External

Upfield Line • 20-minute frequencies on Upfield rail line - not enough

service for current and future projected populations

growth

• Greater frequency of rail service and infrastructure

upgrades to accommodate greater frequencies. Integrated

feeder bus timetabling to rail lines.

External


32


N/A Issues for bike use:

• Bikes chained up overnight will be vandalised

• Bicycle parking is lacking around retail centres

• Missing bike connection from Arthurton Road to

Nicholson Street

• Lack of investment in cycling and pedestrian

infrastructure

• Upfield Bike Path is too narrow

• Bike track meeting Barkly Street crossing has near

misses of running into pedestrians (near Samson

bicycles) - improve visibly with mirrors set up sign to warn

pedestrians

• Bike lockers in the streets, or on the bus, or at train

stations

• Increase bike hoops along Sydney Road, Lygon Street

and other RETAIL operations. There is a particular

problem with privately owned spaces.

• Work with Moonee Valley to change the road layout.

Allocate road space to bike riders.

• LATM planning with extensive community engagement in

relevant areas (east, west). Participatory research on how

residents travel and shop on Sydney Road.

• Widen the bike paths, maybe with the LXRA to share area

options for public space.

Internal,

external

De Carle Street • Unnecessary roundabouts in De Carle Street (Brunswick /

Coburg) – difficult for cyclist and pedestrians

• Remove roundabouts External

Moreland Road and

Hudson Street

• Trams and buses need accessible stops for people with

disabilities

External

Nicholson Street and

Stewarts Street

• Poor pedestrian and cycle crossing. High level of usage

by pedestrians, with cyclists (links to east Brunswick,

Merri Creek bike path and proposed bridge link to

Northcote) and access to Brunswick East Primary School.

• Rat-running through the area

• Complex crossing between Blyth Street and Albion Street

that needs to be reconciled

• Traffic calming - Stewarts Street

External

Barkly Road and

Sydney Road

intersection

• Barkly Street and Sydney Road intersection is dangerous

for pedestrians and bikes

• Sydney Road bike lane is poorly surfaced and dangerous

• Pedestrian crossing and no right-hand turns

• Resurface road in partnership with VicRoads

External

Lygon Street and

Holmes Street -

southern end of the

municipality

• Not enough residential parking compared to the number

of permits issued

• Review number of permits issued - cap how many can be

issued

Internal




Harding St and Sydney

Road

• Would removal of car parking threaten business viability?

There are different needs and patterns on weekday

versus weekend

• Investigate further Internal

Activity centres • Lack of horizon planning in the area of high densification.

State planning laws require transport plan for each

building with limited requirement to look wider.

• All major projects in Brunswick and Coburg should require

horizon planning covering precinct, not just building

needs. Requires advocacy to state government.

External

N/A • Tram road safety hotspots - Lygon St (Brunswick to

Weston Road), Sydney Road (Coburg activity area),

Moreland Road

• Opportunities to redesign street to improve safety for all

road users

External

Around schools • Congestion around schools. Pedestrian crossings are not

being used. Parking regulations close to schools are not

enforced. Disregard for speed restrictions.

• Enforcement Internal

Brunswick East and

West

• Pockets of on street parking affecting bin collection and

emergency services access

• Street parking is causing congestion affecting services

limiting access to service delivery

Internal

Cumberland Road • Improvement required for better pedestrian accessibility • Pedestrian crossing locations required on Cumberland

Road and other arterial roads in Moreland.

• Better line marking and signage for both motorist and

pedestrians

External

Moreland Road • Variable quality of bike routes • Upgrades Internal

Nicholson Street and

Blyth Street

• Increasing congestion on commuter trails (Shimmy trail)

and impact in public open spaces (Fleming Park)

• Consider if demand can still be handled Internal

Jewell Station • Lack of pedestrian crossings at Jewell Station and Union

street

• Engage VicRoads to establish a pedestrian crossing.

Application of a solution that services high traffic

pedestrians.

External

Union Street and Upfield

Bike path

• Surface over tram tracks for bikes needs to be improved • Build better crossing for bikes - repair with better surface

than asphalt

External


34


Gaffney Street • Railway crossing location, significant pedestrian-motorist

conflict point

• Streetscape improvement plan signalised/zebra crossing.

Interim improvements require before crossing is grade

separated.

External

Boyne and Jackson

streets

• Traffic calming to address hoon driving. Regular police

interventions in area.

• Speed humps External

Glenroy activity centre • Glenroy is very poor for cyclists to move around • Take the cars out. Put parking in places tucked away from

shops and station.

External

North Coburg Tram

Terminus

• North Coburg terminus constrains service delivery with

only one track

• Redevelop terminus External

Sydney Road • Cycling and walking on Sydney Road from Park Street to

Allison Street and maybe even further north - cars travel

well above the 40km/h limit during clearways times

running two abreast.

• Sydney Road bottleneck - long drawn out process to

revitalise the road and resolve parking problem. Access to

Flemington Park for cyclists and pedestrians.

• Sydney Road/Western Ring Road /Camp Road is very

bad for pedestrians and bikes

• Enforcement

• Within Council, better integration of departments

responsible for planning, transport, open space. Timeless

targets for investment.

• Improve direct routes for pedestrian and bikes through.

Indirect routes discouraged.

External

N/A • Waterfield Street - Disabled parking near library

• Overuse of disabled parking bays by permit holders who

can walk. They need proximity to the shop entrance, but

they don’t need the wider bays as wheelchair users do.

• Enforcement and redo parking to make it safer with

improved layout

• Encourage the green permit to be issued to elderly or

ambient drivers and place green permit bays close to

shop entrance. Also remind green permit holders that they

get double time in regular bays. Place blue permit bays

(the wide bays) the next rank back to make them more

readily available for wheel chair users.

External



4.3.3 Did the background report capture all the issues and

opportunities?

Council asked participants if the background report had captured all the transport issues and

opportunities in Moreland. Participants who had read the report were provided the opportunity to

give feedback. Figure 17 shows that the majority of people who responded to the survey had

not read the report.

Figure 17: Number of participants who read the background report

There were 33 participants who provided further feedback on the report by answering the

question ‘Do you have any feedback you would like to provide on the report? For example, are

there any issues that we should consider in developing the new Moreland Integrated Transport

Strategy that are not covered in the report?’

Key messages from these participants who read the background report are summarised below.

More information provided on:

• mapping of future scenarios

• ways Council will advocate to other levels of government

• social and economic inclusion and access to transport

• how the focus on creating more infrastructure to the north come into reality

• why population growth is a good thing and how we can ensure future development is

beneficial to everyone

• the split of infrastructure investment between north and south.

Greater focus on the following issues:

• enforcement of existing regulations

• negative impacts of road noise

• improving bus infrastructure, routes and timetables

77

79

298

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

No response

Yes

No

'Have you read the background report?' (n=377)


Survey


36

• issues within Council control

• separated bike paths (as in Partille, a suburb of Gothenburg, Sweden)

• the rise of electrified bikes, scooters, skateboards, mopeds, etc

• liveability, health and user experience

• cycling infrastructure in the north

• promoting active journeys to school

• train travel - double tracks, more pedestrian crossings over tracks

• parking restrictions and speed limit signage

• more walkable streetscapes.

Policy development should consider:

• visitors from other suburbs

• including specific and detailed strategies

• views from a diversity of participants.

4.4 Mode change to sustainable transport

Council acknowledges that it needs to increase the use of sustainable modes of transport to

ensure the future of Moreland. However, Council knows that increasing the usage of

sustainable transport requires understanding and what is currently inhibiting people from using

bikes, walking or public transport, and what may be enabling unnecessary car travel. This

section summarises the barriers and enablers to different forms of transport.

Council notes that while it seeks to reduce car usage, some trips will continue to be taken by

car. Disability and poor access to public transport prevent people from using sustainable

transport alternatives.

4.4.1 Barriers to mode change

Community participants were asked to list the barriers that stop them from using the transport

modes they would like to use more. Workshop, pop-up, speakout and focus group participants

were provided with an opportunity to provide open ended comments, whereas survey

participants were given a choice of several barriers for each mode of transport.


Internal stakeholder workshop



Pop-ups (Glenroy, Fawkner, Brunswick)

Community speak-out

Survey



Overall, the biggest barriers to all modes of transport were time, convenience and safety. Table

10 summarises participant comments on key barriers.

Table 10: Summary of barriers identified across transport modes

Barrier Description

Time Waiting time, travel time, frequency

Convenience It does not go where I need it to go, transport modes not well linked, difficult to

carry things, difficult to access

Safety

Concern regarding traffic speed, road rage/aggression, personal safety on and

moving between modes

Comfort Overcrowding, look and feel, infrastructure standards and quality

Distance Distance between start and end points and between different modes

Health Poor health or physical ability, age (younger and older)

Cost Expensive fares, maintenance

Other Education, information provision, policy, urban growth and development

Participant feedback suggests that buses have the most barriers to usage, as shown in Figure

18. The following paragraphs summarise the key barriers for each mode of transport.

Figure 18: Number of usage barriers reported by transport mode

128

9279 76

5037

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Bus Train Tram Bicycle Car Walk Motorbike

Number of usage barriers reported by transport mode (n=473)


38

Bus

The top three barriers to using buses were time and convenience. This is highlighted in Figure

19, which shows waiting time, travel time and ‘it doesn’t go where I need to go’ each received a

high number of responses across participants connected to both the north and south of

Moreland.

Comments recorded via face-to-face engagement suggest that the main community concerns in

these areas are that buses are:

• not frequent enough and do not run in the hours needed

• unreliable and often late due to congested traffic

• often full and do not have adequate space for prams.

‘Frequency is too low to make it a primary mode of transport. The timetable does not seem to

incorporate the regular traffic fluctuations we all know about (e.g. rush hour) so during the

busiest times, which is also when I would most like to take the bus, it does not appear to run to

any discernible schedule. This makes planning to take the bus impossible.’

Figure 19: Barriers to bicycle usage by place of connection

Bicycle

Safety concerns were overwhelmingly the biggest barrier stopping community members from

riding bicycles. This is highlighted by Figure 20. Safety concerns were reported as the biggest

barrier for all participants. There were also 41 comments mentioning safety concerns from

participants in the face-to-face engagement activities. Key safety concerns included; traffic

speeds, risk of dooring, congested traffic, busy shared paths, unmaintained bicycle paths,

disappearing bicycle lanes and road rage.

‘The commuter bikes and pedestrians make me nervous to cycle on the bike other near our

home (Merri Creek). It gets very crowded and bike-pedestrian accidents are a constant fear at

peak hour commute times.’

Convenience was another barrier mentioned by 15 face-to-face engagement participants. Key

comments included that bicycle paths are not comprehensive enough with limited connections

and that there is a lack of infrastructure such as water fountains and end of journey lock-up

21

12

2 2 3 30

12

22

16

63

0

7

0

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

Waitingtime

Travel time Safetyconcerns

Comfort Cost Distance Health orphysicalability

It doesn'tgo where Ineed it to

go

Bus - barriers to usage by place of connection (n=58)




spaces. Some participants also felt that travel time was sometimes made longer than necessary

because of long wait times at traffic lights.

‘In regards to cycling, one of the main issues I come across is that there is no bike lane or bike

rack/holding station at Oak Park Station. It is also impossible to fit the bike in the train during

peak hour.’

‘We have to make major change to accommodate all the new residents coming in. I'm

wondering why central Brunswick (Glenlyon/Blyth/Sydney Road/ Lygon Street is not Richmond

style one-way streets, with half the road dedicated to efficient bike movement?’

Figure 20: Barriers to bike usage by place of connection

Train

Travel and waiting times were identified by survey participants as the two greatest barriers to

train travel in Moreland, as shown in Figure 21. Face-to-face engagement participants provided

comments that further explain. These are summarised as:

• trains are often over crowded during peak hour

• limited number of parking spots for cars and bicycles at train stations

• trains are often not within walking distance of home

• frequency of trains could be increased

• trains missing stops when they are running late.

‘Trains through Coburg do not run frequently enough and are always too full. To go into the city,

I'd rather take the tram as while it takes longer it's more comfortable and reliable.’

‘The best station for me is Batman but on many occasions the train either doesn't stop and at

this station or is terminated at Coburg. I have also found the Upfield line to be unreliable and

often there are delays or cancellations and when there is only a train every 20 mins every delay

or cancellation causes great disruption.’

‘(I don’t want any) more cancelled stops at Jewell when the train is running late.’

‘I feel safe on buses and trams. I don't feel safe on trains.’

03

27

3 1 1 2 41

7

19

2 0 0 15

05

1015202530

Waitingtime




go

Bike - barriers to usage by place of connection (n=54)



40

Figure 21: Barriers to train usage by place of connection

Tram

More survey participants from north Moreland discussed barriers to usage of trams than those

in the south, see Figure 22. The two key barriers were that there are long distances to walk and

travel by tram and that trams do not go where they participants members would like them to.

Key comments from face-to-face engagement participants were:

• it is often too far to walk from homes to the tram line

• tram lines do not extend far enough north

• overcrowding during peak hour

• minimal accessibility for prams and wheelchairs

• feelings of low personal safety at night.

‘I would like the option of using trams but most of the trams and/or tram stops are not

wheelchair-accessible, which rules trams out most of the time for me.’

‘The tram line doesn't go far enough north and this makes it difficult for people further north to

access places like the University of Melbourne unless they are willing to take the train and then

bus. There is also plenty of road space to extend the trams.’

‘It's so far to walk to tram line from Fawkner home particularly with young kids.’

18

6

2 2 2

15

1

9

68

7

12

8

1

4

02468

101214161820

Waitingtime



It doesn't gowhere I

need it togo

Train - barriers to usage by place of connection (n-48)




Figure 22: Barriers to tram usage by place of connection

Walking

More survey participants from north Moreland discussed barriers to walking than those in the

south, as shown in Figure 23. Survey and the Urdu women’s focus group feedback shows that

concern for safety and distance were the top two barriers. Key comments included:

• poor quality footpaths

• high speed of traffic and often having to cross multiple lanes

• low street lighting leading to feeling of low personal safety

• limited pedestrian crossings

• distances between key locations and activity centres are too far to walk.

‘Walking to the nearest amenities in Coburg feels too far as businesses are so scattered and

there doesn't seem to be any centre where you can find the basics.’

‘There is nowhere worthwhile to walk to. Walking environment is substandard to decent in

quality so not encouraging me to walk (to my non-existent destination).’

‘Traffic light sequences favour cars and discourages walking.’

‘The Lygon Street speed limit is very high making crossing when there are no pedestrian lights

and cycling along it feel unsafe. The speed limit could be accessed as well as the possibility of

making it more pedestrian / cycling friendly (more lights, bike path on road or footpath). Or

smaller lanes so as to kerb speed and encourage drivers to be more cautious.’

6 6

1 13

21

45

8

3

0 0

23

1

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

Waiting time Travel time Safetyconcerns



need it to go

Tram - barriers to usage by place of connection (n=53)



42

Figure 23: Barriers to walking by place of connection

Participants also noted the barriers using other modes of transport beyond the major

sustainable options of public transport, walking and cycling.

Car (all forms)

Participants discussed the barriers to all forms of car travel including driving and being a

passenger in personal car, car sharing, Uber and taxi. Overall, fewer participants identified

barriers to car travel compared to other modes. Figures 24 to 27 show the barriers identified by

survey participants. Virtually no participants connected to north Moreland responded to this

question, likely due to higher levels of car usage in the north.

Key barriers to car usage were:

• travelling by car is often inconvenient due to parking difficulties and limited pick-up and drop

off points

• congestion, especially in peak hour makes travel times long

• waiting times, at level crossings and traffic lights extends journey times

• safety concerns around such as pulling out of driveways on bust streets, poor signage

• the need to have child seats for travelling makes Uber, taxi and car share difficult for people

with young children

• personal safety is a concern in Uber and car share arrangements

• car share is not available everywhere in the suburb and can be unaffordable.

0

34 4

02

0 00

4

10

1 1

5

12

02468

1012




need it to go

Walking - barriers to use by place of location (n=20)




Figure 24: Barriers to car as driver usage by place of connection

Figure 25: Barriers to car as passenger usage by place of connection

Figure 26 Barriers to car share usage by place of connection

2

3

1 1

3

1

0 0

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 00

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

Waitingtime




go

Car as driver - barriers to use by place of connection (n=8)

Car - driver South Moreland Car - driver North Moreland

1 1 1

0

1

0 0 0

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 00

0.20.40.60.8

11.2

Waitingtime




need it togo

Car as passenger - barriers to use by place of connection (n=5)


01

2

0

7

4

10

10

3

0

21

01

0

2

4

6

8




need it to go

Car share - barriers to use by place of connection (n=20)



44

Figure 27: Barriers to Uber usage by place of connection

Only a very low number of participants responded to the barriers to taxi usage: one participant

in the north of Moreland stated the barrier was ‘cost’ and one participant in the south stated the

barrier was ‘safety concerns’.

Motorbike and scooter

Motorbikes/scooters were the mode of transport discussed the least by participants in terms of

barriers to usage. The key barriers identified were safety concerns, as shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Barriers to motorbike/scooter usage

0 0

3

0

1

0 0

1

0 0

1

0

2

0 0 00

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.5

Waitingtime




go

Uber - barriers to use by place of connection (n=8)


0 0

7

0 0 01

00 0

3

01

0 0 0012345678

Waitingtime




need it togo

Motorbike/scooter - barriers to use by place of connection (n=14)




4.4.2 Enablers of mode change

Participants throughout the engagement discussed methods to enable increasing use of

walking, cycling and public transport. The results of these discussions are summarised in Table

11 on page 46.

Stakeholders’ key recommendations for enabling higher levels of sustainable transport are

summarised below.

Cycling

To improve safety for cyclists on the roads, stakeholders suggested that cycling on-road needs

to be normalised by encouraging more people to ride. They suggested reducing speed limits to

30 to 40 kilometres per hour and separating cyclists and pedestrians where possible. Education

and increasing awareness of cycling and safety on the roads with children and the community

was also mentioned as an initiative to improve safety. It was also mentioned that there should

be cycling and walking routes connected to train stations, and bike facilities on trains.

Walking

In response to barriers for pedestrians, stakeholders’ suggestions were to improve access to

train stations, schools and around precincts. Increased pedestrian access should be considered

in the planning stage and consider access to educational facilities and at the entry and exit

points to train stations at either end of platforms. Paths should cater for cyclists and pedestrians

and be shaded.

Public transport

In relation to public transport, stakeholders suggested improving information on service

frequency and information available at and about stops. They suggested considering the

amenity of public transport stops when designing them, as well as their locations. There was

also a comment about re-allocating priorities to leverage pedestrians and cyclists over car

users.

Cars

Suggestions to address barriers to using cars as a mode of transport focused access for high

needs user groups. There was a suggestion to introduce paid parking and change the time

restrictions on parks, and better monitor disabled parking permit use. Another suggestion was to

prioritise carparks for high needs user groups including people with disabilities and families with

young children. Traffic management measures should be enforced including road closures.

Stakeholders recognised that high needs user group needed to be supported to use cars when

this was their only viable transport option.





Pop-up (Brunswick)

Community speak-out

Survey


46

Table 11: Enablers of mode change

Mode Enablers Quotes

Public

transport

(general)

• Free public transport

• Congestion tax

• Safety, amenity and shelter at stations

• Clean and safe vehicles

• Increased housing density

• New neighbourhood centres and employment

opportunities

• Internet of things

• Integration with various modes (for example, ‘mobility

as a service’ apps)

• Efficiency and regularity

• Align modes to meet each other

• Quality and frequently of provision

• Improved public lighting around high activity public

transport locations

• Constraints on parking

• Public education on local routes

• Separate public transport routes from cars

• Residential developments to consider public transport

integration

• Smart apps to track services so know arrival time

• ‘Multi model transport

and integration,

timetables and routes.’

• ‘Residential

developments to

consider public

transport i.e. parking

controls,

infrastructure, upgrade

require i.e. tram

stops.’

• ‘More direct routes to

key community hubs.’

Bus • Improved shuttle bus services and routes

• Increased frequency of services

• Bus cleanliness

• Direct bus service to the city

• More digital screens with bus arrival and departure

times

• Direct bus service from Glenroy to Fawkner

• Dedicated school bus service

• Bus services to key community facilities

• Bus services for elderly people

• Buses to airport starting early and finishing late enough

for shift workers

• ‘Direct bus Glenroy to

Fawkner to provide

easy access to hubs

of Glenroy Library and

Station.

• ‘Providing computers

to display bus

tracking, when bus

has left, how long to

the next one.’

• ‘Improve shuttle bus

route.’

Train • Upgrade stations along Upfield Line

• Improving travel time to the City in peak periods

• Free public transport for children

• Two tracks on the Upfield line

• More train frequency to cater for density growth

• Improve the feeling of safety at train stations, such as

through increased surveillance and police patrols at

train stations to improve safety

• Later services

• ‘Moreland should be

advocating for two

tracks on the Upfield

line.’

• ‘Excellent for access

to the city, sporting

facilities.’

• ‘Increase safety at

train station through

police patrol,

cameras.’




Tram • Tram tracker PTV app

• Accessible tram stops, with raised platforms for access

by prams and mobility devices

• More frequent trams

• Extension of tram lines further north

• Traffic light sequence to allow trams to pass quicker

• Trams in convenient areas of the city

• Expensive car parking forces people to seek transport

alternatives

• ‘Rationalise tram

stops, provide

disabled access and

speed up trams with

tram priority.’

• ‘Would be good to

sequence the lights so

trams can go through

quicker.’

• ‘Tram tracker PTV

app.’

Cycling

• Social programs to teach bike riding safety, such as

cycling initiatives in cooperation with schools

• Better landscaping around cycling routes

• Improved bicycle facilities in new and existing housing

developments, in train stations and in schools and near

local businesses e.g. pumping stations

• Bike sharing

• Security measures at end of bike trip points.

• Invest in pop-up social enterprises such as fix-it bike

stations

• Create safer spaces for cycling: more bike lanes,

separation from cars, more crossing points, improve

lighting on major routes

• Review laws such as helmet laws and footpath riding

• Install more riding infrastructure in the north such as

hoops and bike lanes

• Invest in new technology (such as e-bikes)

• Install bike racks on all buses

• Educate drivers to reduce unsafe driving including

speeding on cycling routes and opening car doors

without looking for cyclists

• Allow more property crossings

• Develop a ‘low stress network’ that gets people from A-

B safely and conveniently

• Remove risks by reducing parking along cycling routes

such as Sydney Road

• Improve routes to railway stations

• Buildings with end of journey facilities such as showers

and change rooms

• More bike lanes

• Share the benefits of bike routes and riding routes with

the community

• Separated infrastructure designs to enhance

connectivity and include priority signs

• Good wayfinding

• Good pathways

• ‘More bike sheds at

train stations and tram

stops.’

• ‘Bikes more dedicated

off-road bike paths

(footpath shared is

better). Quiet street

routes, connecting

quiet roads to make it

safer.’

• ‘Shared

consciousness is our

responsibility to each

other in negotiating of

shared space.’

• ‘Advocating for the

widening/upgrade of

the Upfield bike path

should definitely be a

priority, as in peak

hour it is already at

capacity. For more

people to cycle in

Moreland this is a

crucial upgrade.’


48


Cycling

(continued)

• Water fountains

• More bike parking

• Improved signage on bike routes

• Integrated and connected network beyond Moreland

• Automatic bike crossing signs at Upfield station at the

bike path when train crosses. Put detectors up and

down to influence light changes, such as what happens

for cars on the road

• Bikes more dedicated off-road bike paths (footpath

shared is better). Quiet street routes, connecting quiet

roads to make it safer

• Improve Upfield bike path to cater for more bikes

• Removal of level crossing at Glenroy Station

• More obvious on-road bicycle lanes

• Dedicated bicycle routes in Fawkner

• Improved shared paths for bicycles and pedestrians

Walking

• Canopy trees and shade

• Regular seating (for elderly and others)

• Safe crossing points

• Water stations

• Shared zones

• ‘Walking school bus’ programs

• Social fitness and walking groups

• Take out on-street carparking on major roads

• Incorporate street safety and surveillance through new

development

• Improve pedestrian amenity by traffic calming and

greening of streetscape

• More road closures such as Wilson Avenue

• Target last mile to train by walking not driving

• Delivery systems such as Uber

• Wide tree lined footpaths

• Internet of things

• Lighting of night routes and paths to improve safety

• Automated walk signs

• Clear wayfinding signage

• Increased number of bike and pedestrian crossings

• Better light for pedestrians and cyclists

• Longer light cycles for pedestrians

• More pedestrian access to road space in shopping

centres

• Make it easy for people to carry shopping if walking

• Improved footpaths

• More accessible crossing points

• Pedestrian crossing bridge over train lines

• ‘Incorporate street

safety and

surveillance through

better/new

development.’

• ‘Lighting of night

routes/paths (improve

safety perception).’

• ‘Make it easy for

people to carry

shopping - Council to

give each house a

trolley.’




Walking

(continued)

• Merri Creek bridge (at Ceres)

• Pathways through new developments

• More street signs would make it easier to get around

(such as names of streets)

• Car-free streets

• More bike paths and less parking

• Supermarkets are close by

• Adult exercise equipment in all parks in Moreland

• Safe, active streets connected up to laneways

• Close to connecting forms of public transport

Car (for

high needs

user

groups)

• Low cost car parking

• Autonomous vehicles and charging points available at

Councils and in new developments

• Freeway connectivity encouraged through the

community

• Clearway finding signage

• More parking

• Car pooling

• Increased flexibility and agile carpark facilities, such as

through RMIT Campus parking on weekends

• Ridesharing

• At four-way intersections - everyone should be going

left in left hand turn lanes, have a U-turn mid-block,

and have a separate pedestrian crossing

• Reduce line of intersections

• Remove street parking in commuting times from 7am

to 9am and 4pm to 7pm

• Angle parking in front of main road shops is safer and

easier

• ‘Affordable

autonomous vehicles

and charging points.’

• ‘Electric vehicles -

opportunity for cleaner

car travel.’

4.5 Acceptability of transport trade-offs

Improving transport will sometimes create effects that some people may see as negative. For

example, if speed limits are reduced this can improve safety but the increased amount of time it

takes to travel may be considered a negative. Council wanted to understand what kinds of

approaches people favoured in different transport scenarios.




Community speak-out

Survey


50

Participants were asked about their level of support in three different scenarios:

• walking and cycling

• car parking

• public transport.

4.5.1 Walking and cycling

Participants were asked about their level of support for cycling and walking scenarios. There

were two options tested, each at opposing ends of a scale:

• Scenario 1: A walking/cycling friendly environment with lower speed limits, traffic

management measures such as speed humps, more crossings for pedestrians and cyclists,

shorter wait for pedestrians and cyclists to cross roads, more space for pedestrians and

cyclists (e.g. more bicycle lanes and wider footpaths).

• Scenario 2: An environment where it's easier to drive, with higher speed limits, fewer traffic

management measures, fewer crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists, longer green

lights for cars at intersections, more space on roads that can be used by cars.

Figure 29 and Figure 30 show that a walking/cycling friendly environment was preferred by

participants who connect with both the North and South Moreland.

Figure 31 highlights that even participants who were car drivers or passengers preferred the

walking/cycling friendly environment scenario over the car centric scenario.

Figure 29: Level of support for cycling and walking scenarios

Participants provided explanations of their choice:

• ‘We have a finite amount of space/road/path available now and in to the future. It is better to

prioritise healthy, sustainable modes, encourage people to avoid driving where possible by

making the other opinion more appealing: safer, quicker, faster, cheaper and more

pleasant.’

220

65

38

11 15 1123

0

50

100

150

200

250

Full supportfor scenario

1


2

Spectrum of participant support from scenario 1 to 2

Cycling & walking scenario - support levels (n=383)



• ‘By lowering speed limits, inconsistency of speeds would also be resolved in Moreland.’

Figure 30: Level of support for cycling and walking scenarios based on place of connection

Figure 31: Level of support for cycling and walking scenarios based on transport mode used

4.5.2 Parking

Participants were asked about their level of level of support for car parking scenarios. There

were two options tested, each at opposing ends of a scale:

153

49

247

7 5

15

63

14 142

8 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Full supportfor scenario 1


Cycling and walking scenario - support based on place of connection in Moreland (n=375)


212

88

46

1020 15

28

159

40

17 23 1

4

305

94

4811

15 1316

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350



Cycling and walking scenario - support based on transport mode used (n=374)

Car as driver or passenger Bike Train, tram or bus


52

• Scenario 1: More car parking at places such as shopping strips, car parking is free,

developments such as apartment buildings are required to provide a significant amount of

car parking on-site.

• Scenario 2: Less car parking at places such as shopping strips, car parking is paid,

developments are allowed to provide less car parking particularly where they are easily

accessible by public transport, cycling or walking.

Figure 32 shows that support between the two parking scenarios was split. Figure 33 and

Figure 34 show that when the data was divided by place of connection and transport mode used

by participants, the split in scenario preference remained. However, participants connected to

north Moreland were more slightly more likely to support Scenario 1, while south Moreland

participants were slightly more likely to support Scenario 2.

Figure 32: Level of support for parking scenarios

In commenting on their choice, participants often mentioned the tension between importance of

parking (especially for business and access to goods and services) and providing more space

for pedestrians:

• ‘Must provide free delivery of purchased goods to home to make this work.’

• ‘Pedestrian friendly shops do better and are more pleasant.’

• ‘One size fits all suggestions such as parking restrictions in shopping centres might work

well in the transport-rich south but in the north people will just drive further to shopping

centres which will further undermine the viability of strip shopping centres which are

imperative for social equity and ensuring people have walkable access to fresh food… The

choice to not own a car in Brunswick is a lifestyle choice, in the north it is usually an

economic or age-related reality that renders people isolated and unable to fully participate in

society.’

• ‘This is a place-based issue - needs nuanced approach for parking for the different areas in

Moreland.’

95

54

35

12

4337

91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Spectrum of participant support from scenario 1 to 2

Parking scenario - support levels (n=367)



Figure 33: Level of support for parking scenario based on place of connection

Figure 34: Level of support for cycling and walking scenarios based on transport mode used

53

36

26

8

26

32

67

41

18

10

3

16

2

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Parking scenario - support based on place of connection (n=358)


120

72

47

11

40 34

69

3427

24

4

2828

64

95

7156

20

51 48

135

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


1


2

Parking scenario - support based on transport mode used (n=357)



54

4.5.3 Public transport

Participants were asked about their level of support for public transport scenarios. There were

two options tested, each at opposing ends of a scale:

• Scenario 1: An environment with greater public transport priority including tram-only lanes

and bus-only lanes, traffic lights let trams and buses go through more quickly, some

restrictions on right turns so turning cars don’t hold up buses and trams.

• Scenario 2: An environment with lower public transport priority where buses and trams

share lanes with cars, buses and trams don’t get priority at intersections, no restrictions on

vehicles turning.

Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 36 show that an environment with greater public transport was

preferred by most participants regardless of north or south connection or transport mode used.

Figure 35: Level of support for public transport scenarios

Participants explained their level of support:

• ‘We have finite space, so we should prioritise healthiest, most space efficient and

sustainable forms of transport (walking, cycling and public transport) over cars (often single

people in them), then everything will sort itself out.’

• ‘‘If the timetable is accurate then people know when next one is and make a judgement how

long to walk to next stop.’

• ‘The better public transport is, the more people will use it.’

• ‘Bring trains, trams and more bus routes to Hadfield to encourage less reliance on driving.’

250

5934

8 8 6 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


1


2

Spectrum of participant support from scenario 1 to scenario 2

Public transport - support levels (n=381)



Figure 36: Level of support for public transport scenarios based on place of connection

Figure 37: Level of support for public transport scenarios based on transport mode used

172

41

20

4 4 3

13

72

1712

4 4 3

30

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


1


2

Public transport scenario - support based on place of connection in Moreland (n=372)


246

74

41

10

11 822

162

34

143 1 4

6

346

7451

13

6 714

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


1


2

Public transport scenario - support based on transport mode used (n=368)



56

4.6 Advocacy priorities for Moreland

Participants were asked about their advocacy priorities, acknowledging that Council cannot

affect transportation change solely through direct action. Figure 38 shows that the highest

advocacy priorities overall were safety of cyclists on major roads and increasing train frequency.

Participants could select up to four responses.

Figure 38: Advocacy priorities

A participant said ‘advocate to the state government to fund completion of strategic cycling

corridors as per government's newly released strategy focus on prioritising funding of corridors

and increasing active travel to schools. E.g. Pentridge boulevard, Urquhart intersection, Murray

Road, Elizabeth Street, to enable active travel to Coburg High.’

Figure 39 shows a north-south breakdown of priorities. It highlights that in the north, cyclist

safety was of similar priority to trains coming more often and lengthening existing tram lines.

Whereas, in the south, cyclist safety was a clear priority for advocacy.

85

4

15

71

79

116

122

128

150

218

278

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Other

I don't think Council needs to advocate on thistopic

Buses - increasing the number of bus stops

Buses - longer hours of service

Parking – increasing amount of parking at rail stations

Buses – come more often

Road conditions – decreasing speed limits on unsafe roads

Trams - come more often

Trams – lengthening existing tram lines into new areas

Trains - come more often

Cycling – increasing safety of cycling on major roads

Advocacy priorties (n=396)



Community speak-out

Survey



Figure 39: Advocacy priorities by place of connection

Participants comments included:

• ‘I take the tram to/from work (tram lines 1 and 6) - my stop is Weston Street in Brunswick

East. It's near impossible to get on the tram in the morning. Often, I have to wait for two or

more trams to go past. I have tried to vary my leaving times (i.e. an hour earlier or an hour

later) but it doesn't make much difference. Given the amount of new apartment buildings

erected on Lygon Street, more trams really need to be added to these lines.’

• ‘If you intend to get more people on bikes, choosing active transport, healthy, lower

pollution, liveability, there is no other way to do it than provide the space on roads, with safe

protected bike lanes - NOT thin strips next to opening car doors or a bit of paint with arrows

here and there. Please start removing on-street parking and replacing it with bike lanes.

Coburg has a sea of car parking off street behind both sides of Sydney Road, it is not

needed on the street as well.’

• ‘Please fix the Pascoe Vale Station area to make is safer for pedestrians and cyclists. It is

ridiculous that cars coming down Gaffney Street can fly across the train tracks at 60km/h…

Pedestrians have to roll the dice and run between cars, it is very risky…Motorists are

forever being given priority over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. It is infuriating.’

4

7

47

37

80

90

142

81

142

195

8

21

41

34

30

69

64

69

74

0 50 100 150 200 250

I don't think Council needs to advocate on thistopic










Advocacy priorities by place of connection (n=384)

North Moreland South Moreland


58

4.7 Opportunities for collaboration

4.7.1 External collaboration

Participants in the external stakeholder workshop were asked where their organisations’ goals

are aligned with Councils, and how they thought their organisation and Council can work

together in the future. Opportunities for stakeholder collaboration are outlined in Table 12. Most

organisational representatives said that their organisational goals are broadly aligned with

Council’s goals.

Table 12: Opportunities for stakeholder collaboration

Organisation Collaboration ideas

Bicycle

Network

• One on one discussions

Brunswick

Residents

Network

• Increased transparency of information

• Systematic community engagement

• Research on transport solutions with participation by the community to draw on

local knowledge, such as community generated list of ideas and problem areas

CERES Inc. • Demonstration project to encourage minimised use of private vehicles and

highlight sustainable transport and access options

• Trial car parking approaches that prioritise higher priority users at CERES and

use the trial to collect data on cars across the site

Coburg

Traders

Association

• Sydney Road Co-Design Working Group

• Communication and education on parking restrictions

Darebin City

Council

• Open channels of communication

• Regular meetings

Department of

Environment,

Land, Water

and Planning

• Share data on demographics of local area to better inform land use and planning

decisions

Department of

Health and

Human

Services –

Northern

Division

• Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee

• Greater Council representation from key service units to make presentations

during consultation, such as heat mapping project

Disabled

Motorists

Australia

(DMA)

• Regular consultation: to be on Councils 'go to' list. DMA can provide pathway for

information and communication and 'grassroots' experience.

• Be available to discuss with Council the needs of people with disability (PWDs)

in all manner of transport issues as well as infrastructure






Gowanbrae

Residents

Association

• Principally favour car use

• Treat Gowanbrae as a special case due to the unique transport characteristics of

the area

Level

Crossings

Removal

Authority

(LXRA)

• Share existing knowledge and experience of level crossing removals, local

conditions and transport planning

• Clear strategy that is developed worth consideration of current and future works.

Commitment to developing ideas together and considerations of constraints

• Shared bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure around train stations

Moreland City

Council (MCC)

Strategic

Planning

• Ongoing communication and resource sharing

• Ensure project integration

Moreland

Energy

Foundation

(MEFL)

• MEFL and Council can work together on electric vehicle programs (infrastructure

and network planning)

• Monitor and evaluate progress against zero carbon transport goal

• Open regular dialogue between MEFL and MCC transport

• Actively encourage people particularly in events and workshops on energy and

solar to consider how they get to our events and promoting sustainability. Active

transport and carpooling. Actively advocating for joint goals through

MEFL/Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action and other industry partners

Metro Trains • Promoting rail and transport to residents

• Place based activation and planning near stations

• First and last mile campaigns

Moreland

Bicycle User

Group

• Consult closely with Council about getting bicycle strategy implemented about

details such as path design, path location and roundabout removal

Moreland

Pedestrians

Group

• Consultation and meetings

RMIT

University

• Participate in and share awareness campaigns

• Host information events

• Clear points of communication for discussion and implementation

• Opportunities to collaborate on master planning and a transport survey in 2018

for Brunswick

• Multi-partner workshops on placemaking in precincts overlaying all strategic

plans and documents

• Needs to undertake a new transport survey with Brunswick staff and students in

2018. Are there any specific questions Moreland City Council would like us to

ask?

Taxi Services

Commission

• Considering integrated transport options and solutions that tap into an expanding

market and service

Transport For

Victoria (TFV)

• Council needs to bring State Government to the table in integrated decision

making, perhaps with a memorandum of understanding or partnership

agreement outlying key objectives actions and accountabilities

• Meet quarterly with stakeholders to set projects and identify hot spots and places

• Share research, share responsibly, and deliver joint projects


60


• Undertake a movement and place assessment for Moreland

• Improving pedestrian access to railway stations and enhancing information

frequency at stops and interchanges

VicRoads • Ongoing communication

• Working groups between Council, VicRoads and other stakeholders

• Collaboration with Metro North West region on strategies relating to arterial

changes

• Separating cyclists and pedestrians

Yarra Trams • Sharing data on collisions, travel time insights, market intelligence

• Good practice in streetscapes for trams, stop design and placement

• Project delivery of streets and stops

4.7.2 Internal collaboration

Participants in the internal stakeholder workshop were how the team could contribute to

development and implementation of the MITS. Opportunities for collaboration are outlined in

Table 13.

Table 13: Opportunities for internal collaboration

Department Collaboration ideas

City Strategy

and Design

• Provide contacts for community consultation and advisory boards

• Provide advice on education strategies to increase walking and cycling for

different age groups

• More detailed workshops with team to refine draft and options / parking

strategy considerations

Environmentally

Sustainable

Design

• Consider EV/auto implication

• Help walkability (Urban Heat Island Effect action plan) with shade and

greening, water bubblers

• Promote initiatives, success, progress (Zero Carbon Evolution strategy)

• Environmental KPI's to track and measure progress

Asset

Management

Team

• Provision of statistical information on current infrastructure within the

municipality

Strategic

Planning

• Planning scheme amendment to introduce planning tools that enable

sustainable transport initiatives

Transport • Provide data from traffic count register





Event agendas


62




64

Survey tool

Moreland City Council is preparing a new Integrated Transport Strategy to guide decision

making for the next decade, replacing the current strategy from 2010.

Your responses to this survey will help us develop a draft Moreland Integrated Transport

Strategy and Parking Strategy. This will be released in May 2018 and you will have another

opportunity to provide input before we finalise the strategy in August. We are also holding face-

to-face consultation events in February.

Firstly, we have a few questions about your connection to Moreland.

1. Which area of Moreland is most important to you? (Please choose one)

Brunswick

Brunswick East

Brunswick West

Coburg

Coburg North

Fawkner

Fitzroy North

Glenroy

Gowanbrae

Hadfield

Oak Park

Pascoe Vale

Pascoe Vale South

Tullamarine

2. What best describes your connection to the area that is most important to you? (Please choose one)

I live here

I work here

I study here

I visit here

Please tell us about your use of transport to get around.

3. Thinking about the trips you have made in and through Moreland in the past month what are the transport mode(s) you have typically used? This includes all trips for work, study, shopping, social occasions.



Bicycle

Bus

Car - as driver

Car - as passenger

Car share as driver - e.g. GoGet,

Flexicar

Motorbike/scooter

Taxi

Train

Tram

Uber

Walked

4. Thinking about the transport modes you didn't use in the last month are there

any that you would like to use (or use more often), but there are barriers? (Please choose all that apply)

There are no barriers

There is no transport mode I would like to use more

Bicycle

Bus

Car - as driver

Car - as passenger

Car share as driver - e.g. GoGet, Flexicar

Motorbike/scooter

Taxi

Train

Tram

Walked

5. Please let us know what the barriers are to the transport modes you don’t use. (Choose all that apply)

Health or physical ability

Travel time

Safety concerns

Comfort

It doesn't go where I need it to go


66

Cost

Waiting time

Distance

6. If there are other reasons you don’t use certain transport modes, please list them here (making sure that you let us know which transport mode you are talking about)

7. What role does transport play in connecting you to the things that matter to

you? We’d like your view on balancing different priorities Improving transport will sometimes create effects some people may see as negative. For example, if speed limits are reduced this can improve safety but the increased amount of time it takes to travel may be seen as a negative. We are keen to understand what you see as most important when making choices about positive and negative effects. The following questions describe three different scenarios and ask you to select on a scale which scenario you would prefer. Your preference might be completely for one scenario or fall somewhere in the middle. Please keep in mind these are examples only and are not indicative of any future plans. The intent of these questions is to prompt thinking and gauge community priorities. Please note, Council can directly make improvements to local roads, footpaths, shared paths and Council-owned car parks. Council can advocate to state government agencies (e.g. VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria) for changes to speed limits, improvements to public transport services and upgrades to major roads but cannot make these changes directly.

8. This question asks about your level of support for a cycling and walking scenario. There are two scenarios we are testing. There are trade-offs associated with each and these are explained below.

Scenario 1. A walking/cycling friendly

environment with lower speed limits, traffic

management measures such as speed

humps, more crossings for pedestrians and

cyclists, shorter wait for pedestrians and

cyclists to cross roads, more space for

pedestrians and cyclists (e.g. more bicycle

lanes and wider footpaths)

Scenario 2. An environment where it's easier

to drive, with higher speed limits, fewer traffic

management measures, fewer crossing points

for pedestrians and cyclists, longer green

lights for cars at intersections, more space on

roads that can be used by cars

Thinking about the two scenarios described above, which would you be more likely to support? You don’t have to support one completely and can answer somewhere in the middle. Please place an X on the bar below to indicate your level of support between the two scenarios.



Scenario 1 Scenario 2

9. This question asks about your level of support for a car parking scenario. There are two scenarios we are testing. There are trade-offs associated with each and these are explained below.

Scenario 1. More car parking at places such

as shopping strips, car parking is free,

developments such as apartment buildings

are required to provide a significant amount of

car parking on-site.

Scenario 2. Less car parking at places such

as shopping strips, car parking is paid,

developments are allowed to provide less car

parking particularly where they are easily

accessible by public transport, cycling or

walking.

Thinking about the two scenarios described above, which would you be more likely to support? You don’t have to support one completely and can answer somewhere in the middle. Please place an X on the bar below to indicate your level of support between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 Scenario 2

10. This question asks about your level of support for a public transport scenario. There are two scenarios we are testing. There are trade-offs associated with each and these are explained below.

Scenario 1. An environment with greater

public transport priority included tram-only

lanes and bus-only lanes, traffic lights let

trams and buses go through more quickly,

some restrictions on right turns so turning

cars don’t hold up buses and trams

Scenario 2. An environment with lower public

transport priority where buses and trams

share lanes with cars, buses and trams don’t

get priority at intersections, no restrictions on

vehicles turning

Thinking about the two scenarios described above, which would you be more likely to support? You don’t have to support one completely and can answer somewhere in the middle. Please place an X on the bar below to indicate your level of support between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 Scenario 2

The next section asks questions about the principles that the strategy should be based upon and which aspects of transport Council should advocate on. When preparing an integrated transport strategy, we need to think about the effect that transport has on our community. Principles such as sustainability, social equity and mobility are an important starting point for making decisions about transport. While we can try to follow all principles that are important to us, it is sometimes necessary to prioritise some over others.


68

11. What do you think are the top three principles that should guide the new Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy? This does not mean that other principles are not important or that they will not be considered. Please select three only. Sustainability – reducing our use of fossil fuels, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution

Safety – reducing the number of injuries or people killed on the road, as well as making people feel safe

Improving health and wellbeing – increasing the amount of physical activity people get while travelling (e.g. walking or cycling for part or all of their journey) and reducing the health risk from pollution

Equity – making sure that all members of our community have the same opportunities, regardless of age, ability and where they live

Liveability – creating pleasant streets and neighbourhoods where quality of life is high

Economic prosperity/growth – transport supports local businesses

Time efficiency – making sure people can get around quickly

Cost-efficiency – people don’t have to pay as much to get to where they need to be

Other – please specify: As mentioned previously, there are many aspects of transport that Council cannot control directly. However, Council will use the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy to advocate to other levels of government, mostly state government agencies such as VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria, for transport improvements for the Moreland community. Some things that Council may advocate for can be more easily or quickly influenced than others. For example, it may be easier to advocate to VicRoads for reduced speed limits than for new bicycle lanes on major roads. It may also be easier to advocate to Public Transport Victoria for more frequent bus services than for an extension to a tram route. It is important for Council’s advocacy to focus on the things that are most likely to achieve a positive outcome for the Moreland community, as time and resources are limited. If Council attempts to advocate for a large number of changes which are unlikely to occur, it can miss the opportunity to make a real difference.

12. Thinking about what Council cannot control directly and the need to focus advocacy activities on things that are likely to lead to improvements for the Moreland community, what should be the focus of Council’s advocacy to other levels of government?

I don't think Council needs to advocate on this topic










Other, please specify: Council has produced a background report on the state of transport in Moreland and the future trends in population growth and the implications for getting around the municipality, to inform the development of MITS. The background report has informed this survey.



13. Have you read the background report? Yes

No

14. Do you have any feedback you would like to provide on the report? For example, are there any issues that we should consider in developing the new Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy that aren’t covered in the report?

Finally, we’d like to know a little about you.

15. Do you identify as: Female

Male

I identify as: _____________________

16. What age group are you in? 14 or under

15 - 19

20 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85 and over

17. If you have any final comments please leave them here: If you would like to stay informed about the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, particularly when there is another opportunity to provide your input, please provide your name and email address below. We will not publish this information and it will be separated from your answers. Name: Email address or postal address: Please leave your survey at a Council service centre, library or post it to Strategic Transport, Moreland City Council, Locked Bag 10, Moreland 3058

Documents

Final Version, 10 April 2018 - moreland.vic.gov.au cycling, train and bus usage. However, there were many ... • Clarity of purpose, process, roles and responsibility on what is non-negotiable