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

4.4 Response to the Draft Stage 1 Report
Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report
Community and stakeholder views
The Draft Stage 1 Report was prepared and released on 9 March 2012. Submissions were
invited, to gauge community and stakeholder reaction to the Rowville rail link concept design
before finalising Stage 1 of the study.
In total, 247 submissions were received from 239 people or organisations in response to the
Draft Stage 1 Report. A significant volume of comments and queries was also made via
Twitter, Facebook and Your Voice (on the study web site). All material was reviewed and
analysed to assess which issues people felt strongly about, particularly in relation to possible
options (for example, the two optional locations for a station at the Rowville end of the route)
and suggestions for changes or improvements to the details presented.
Table 6 provides an overview of the comments received, including stakeholders and
members of the community. More details are in the Report on Public Submissions on the
Draft Stage 1 Report.
Table 6 – Summary of submissions on the Draft Stage 1 Report
Subject area Summary of submissions
Rail alignment Many acknowledged the need to achieve a cost-effective solution and balance underground
tunnelling with above ground infrastructure.
Rail
operations
Station design
and location
Integrated
planning
Some emphasised the need to minimise traffic congestion and therefore keep major rail-road
intersections grade-separated.
While most submissions agreed with the mix of underground and above ground infrastructure
proposed in the Draft Report, some concerns were raised with above ground infrastructure
including loss of open space, long-term operational noise and vibration and visual impact to
adjacent residents.
A number suggested alternative alignments including non-CBD centric options and connections
to the Glen Waverley line or Alamein Line instead of the Dandenong Line.
Submissions acknowledged the value that train services in Rowville would add to improving
convenience, accessibility and travel time savings.
Concerns raised in relation to rail operations included car parking at stations, overcrowding of
trains, train timetabling efficiencies and train frequency.
Most common topics raised in relation to station design and location include car parking,
connection to other transport services and not contributing to further traffic congestion.
The majority indicated preference for a station at Stud Park instead of Wellington and Stud
Roads, because it was seen to provide better connection to the existing bus interchange and
local businesses.
Submissions generally supported the proposed upgrades to Huntingdale Station, and new
stations proposed at Monash University, Mulgrave and Waverley Park.
A number of comments supported the idea of constructing an additional station or ‘park and ride’
facility at EastLink.
A large majority highlighted the need to ease traffic congestion on major arterial roads and
provide a more attractive mode of transport to a private vehicle.
Concerns were raised about the cost of the proposed solution and the reliance on other
infrastructure improvements for the project to proceed (such as the the Melbourne Metro Rail
Tunnel).
A number of submissions, in particular stakeholders, highlighted the limited scope focusing only
on heavy rail solutions.
Page 29