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

Recommendations

Info

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
Subject area Summary of submissions Land use planning, environment and impacts Sustainability and design Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Community and stakeholder views Many acknowledged the value of a new rail line in promoting land use change and growth, particularly around stations However, most common concerns raised were ongoing operational vibration and noise for adjacent residents, visual amenity of an above ground rail alignment and loss of open spaces, vegetation, flora and fauna. People acknowledged that a new rail line to Rowville would improve access to employment and social activities outside Rowville, in particular, in Melbourne’s CBD. It would also promote local job growth, business opportunities and strengthen the local economy. A number also noted improved social inclusion and accessibility as a result of a new rail line, including better access for young people, students, disabled and elderly residents to transport. Other A large number highlighted concerns about the timeframe for project completion and the project being delayed or never completed. Several public submissions expressed concern over the decision-making process, including the current lack of commitment and funding. A large number expressed frustration with “yet another government study” and a strong desire to see work commence on building the Rowville rail line without delay. Several large or detailed submissions were received from individuals as well as those from key stakeholders like Knox City Council, Monash City Council, Monash University and others. Most of these were generally supportive of the concept but some questioned the details, in particular whether Rowville train services would trigger the need for other rail improvements or not (particularly improvements to the Dandenong line and the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel). This issue is discussed further in Chapter 6. We have used the submissions to help finalise our recommendations for the next steps (see Chapter 9), and the feedback received will be a valuable input to continued work on the rail line. Page 30
Page 1 and 2: Rowville Rail Study - Public Plan i
Page 3 and 4: Contents Foreword .................
Page 5 and 6: Executive summary Introduction Fina
Page 7 and 8: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Ex
Page 9 and 10: area in the interim period leading
Page 11 and 12: 2. History of Rowville rail line A
Page 13 and 14: cost implications for the Huntingda
Page 15 and 16: 3. Existing and future conditions F
Page 17 and 18: Figure 6 - Land uses in the Rowvill
Page 21 and 22: 3.5.1 Journeys to work Table 3 - Jo
Page 23 and 24: Source: VicRoads Figure 9 - SmartRo
Page 27 and 28: influence on the design and operati
Page 29 and 30: Activity Description Participation/
Page 31: “Rowville and residents in surrou
Page 35 and 36: Figure 14 - Summary of suggestions
Page 37 and 38: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report A
Page 39 and 40: 6.1.4 Implications for the rail net
Page 41 and 42: passenger capacity may also be requ
Page 43 and 44: Figure 17 - Illustrative cross sect
Page 45 and 46: 6.2.2 Station locations and layouts
Page 47 and 48: Figure 21 - Mulgrave station cross
Page 49 and 50: Figure 25 - Rowville station cross
Page 51 and 52: Table 10 - Summary comparison of Ro
Page 53 and 54: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report A
Page 55 and 56: 7. Travel demand effects Final Stag
Page 57 and 58: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Tr
Page 59 and 60: Source: VITM modelling of Rowville
Page 61 and 62: Final Stage 1 Feasibility Report Tr
Page 63 and 64: 8. Costs, benefits and impacts 8.1
Page 65 and 66: 8.5 Environmental and social effect
Page 67 and 68: 8.1 Conclusions Final Stage 1 Feasi
Page 69 and 70: 9.2 Recommended actions Our recomme

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?