Rowville-Rail-Study-Final-Stage-1-Report-FINAL

Activity Description Participation/results
Guest articles To expand the discussion and involve
the community in the wider debate
key stakeholders were invited to
contribute guest articles to the blog.
Draft report
release and
submissions
Draft Stage 1 report was released in
March 2012 and feedback was invited
from the public and stakeholders
Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report
Community and stakeholder views
Published articles by Professor Geoff Rose (Monash
University), Jeremy Lunn (Public Transport Users
Association) and Cr Jackie Fristacky (Metropolitan
Transport Forum).
247 individual submissions were received from the
community and stakeholders.
The feedback received from the community and stakeholders during the study has helped
shape the preferred options for a Rowville rail line. For example, the alignment was designed
to minimise the impact on the existing road system, which was a key consideration raised
during the community consultation. All major road crossings and access points were retained
by designing the rail line to be below or above ground for much of the length.
More detail on the consultation process and outcomes is in the Public Consultation Report.
4.2 Summary of responses during the study
Among stakeholders, the commonly identified outcomes of the rail line included the
opportunities of increased investment into public transport, increasing commercial and social
development opportunities, reduced road congestion, improving access to destinations and
urban renewal projects.
The single most important community theme raised was a strong and well-articulated desire
to see the Rowville rail line built. This was reflected either in ‘lobbying’ type commentary
(“just build it”), or frustration (“not another study”).
Through the online channels, community and stakeholder workshops several key themes of
concerns have emerged. They provide a clear picture of the areas of greatest priority for the
community, which include:
Integrated transport planning:
Values raised included understanding behaviour and demand of travel users,
accessibility, integrated transport hubs and avoiding impact on the road network.
Desired outcomes included network integration, meeting demand, reliability and
access to the city and Monash University precinct, linking of activity centres, no
impact on the operation of other rail services and Wellington Road operation.
Social amenity and environment:
Values noted included retention of urban amenity, linking of activity centres, limiting
environmental impacts, underpinning sustainable growth in the region
Outcomes included community acceptance and input, fit for purpose infrastructure
and positive impact on residents.
Integrated land use planning:
Values raised included rail stations as activity centres, no impact on Monash
University buildings, a dedicated station at Monash University, integration of stations
with existing urban area.
Page 26