Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project Community Consultation Report

City of Darebin 22 May 2009 Document No.: Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project

Prepared for City of Darebin

Prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 9, 8 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

22-May-09

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd 2009

The information contained in this document produced by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and AECOM Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd. Quality Information Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project, Community Consultation Document Report Ref 60095546

Date 22 May 2009

Prepared by Vittoria Chiarella

Reviewed by Alice Foster

Revision History

Authorised Revision Revision Details Date Name/Position Signature 1 22/04/2009 Draft Report Alice Foster Principal Social Planner

2 04/5/2009 Updated report from Alice Foster Darebin City Council Principal Social feedback Planner

3 22/05/2009 Final Report Alice Foster Principal Social Planner Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Project Stakeholders 6 2.0 Community Engagement and Communication Plan 7 2.1 Communication activities 7 2.1.1 Letters to all along the corridor 7 2.1.8 Individual meetings 8 2.2 Other 10 2.3 Northcote Communication Activities 10 2.3.1 Public displays 10 2.3.2 Businesses informed 10 2.3.3 Letters distributed 10 2.3.4 Public Meetings 10 2.3.5 Survey 10 3.0 Consultation Outcomes 12 3.1 Consultation Outcomes regarding the Proposal 13 3.2 Consultation Outcomes regarding the Consultation 18 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 19 4.1 Process 19 4.1.1 Process Conclusions 19 4.1.2 Process Recommendations 19 4.2 Project 20 4.2.1 Project Conclusions 20 Appendix A Distribution of Information Packs 21 Appendix B Full Record of the Roundtable Discussion 25 Appendix C Full Record of the Plenty Road Public Meeting Discussions 39 Appendix D Map of Responses to the consultation activities 42 Appendix E Comments from Surveys 43 4.3 Northcote 43 4.4 Thornbury 46 4.5 Westgarth 48 4.6 Plenty Road 55 5.0 Comments 63 5.1 Thornbury 63 5.2 Westgarth 65 5.3 Plenty Road 69

List of Figures Figure 1 Revised Consultation Process and Project Timeline 5 Figure 2 Community Engagement 7

List of Tables Table 1 Targeted Workshops/Public Meeting 9 Table 2 Roundtable Discussions 9 1.0 Introduction AECOM was engaged by the City of Darebin to consult with the community and businesses of Darebin on the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Plan.

This report outlines the findings from the engagement activities undertaken by City of Darebin with AECOM to consult with community stakeholders, including local residents, business and the broader Darebin community.

A community engagement plan was initially developed for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Plan, to be undertaken within tight project delivery timelines with the expectation that, pending Council and community approval, Council would apply for funding of the project to commence in late 2009. This would be inline with the upgrade of tram tracks along the route by Yarra Trams.

During the consultation period a need was identified to extend the timeline for this initial consultation phase. It was also recognised that a rework of the original project would be required to address the issues raised by the community in this initial listening phase of the consultation.

In presenting this project to the community the City of Darebin believed it offered considerable long term benefits for the community, including access to trams (for people with disabilities, parents with prams, shoppers with trolleys and the elderly), a faster and more reliable tram service, better environmental outcomes and improved road safety. However they also recognise the project cannot move forward in its current form and that they will need to continue to work with State government, local residents, community and business stakeholders to achieve an acceptable proposal. As a result timelines for the project have been modified significantly. The revised process is shown in Figure 1.

Consultation Process fine tuning

LISTEN REWORK LISTEN COUNCIL DECISION

PHASE 1 State PHASE 2 December Stakeholders Consultation Consultation completed – 14 Community April Reference October - Consultation Groups November Report to the community Economic Analysis

Figure 1 Revised Consultation Process and Project Timeline

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 5 The stakeholder consultation and communication objectives for this initial phase were to: x Ensure all key interested parties are well informed about the timing, impacts and benefits of the project x Consult with groups who represent local community issues – safety, environment, cyclists, people with disabilities x Provide factual and accurate information to the community, in particular local residents, businesses and adjacent landowners, and public transport users x Monitor community perceptions and opinion through review of the local media and via direct liaison with the public x Enable meaningful and accessible participation by all stakeholders by establishing pathways and procedures for continual and open liaison and engagement.

The Proposal was intended as a live document which would be refined following consultation, and where necessary revised to ensure that it continued to reflect the philosophy set by the project and best suit the changing environment that it addresses.

This Community Consultation Report presents the findings from the activities carried out in the initial listening phase. The plan focused on gathering community views on three sections of the proposal: x Section A: Northcote – Between Westgarth and Separation Street (comprising Westgarth and Northcote areas) x Section B: Thornbury – Between Separation and Dundas Street x Section C: Plenty Road – Between Dundas and Albert Street

1.1 Project Stakeholders The project has been led by Council and developed in consultation with the State Government including VicRoads, Department of Transport and Department of Planning & Community Development as well as Yarra Trams.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 6 2.0 Community Engagement and Communication Plan A community engagement and communication plan was developed that categorised the project into separate groups: x Section A: Northcote – Between Westgarth and Separation Street o Incorporating Westgarth section and o The Northcote section which was conducted within the Northcote Streetscape Masterplan Consultation process (this is discussed further in section 2.3) x Section B: Thornbury – Between Separation and Dundas Street x Section C: Plenty Road – Between Dundas and Albert Street

Due to the length of the project corridor and the changing nature of the designs/landscaping treatments proposed along the corridor it was decided to hold the engagement activities separately so that it was possible to concentrate on the particular issues and concerns relevant to each area. The process adopted for community engagement is outlined below.

i

Inform Consult Involve

Provide the public with objective A two-way relationship in which Actively involving communities information on the project’s need, the communities views are and individuals to ensure that purpose, history, scope, benefits, sought. public concerns and aspirations consultation process and Engaging all identified are consistently understood. engagement opportunities. stakeholders within corridor.

Figure 2 Community Engagement

2.1 Communication activities A combination of direct and mass communication tools were used to inform the local community about the project. 2.1.1 Letters to all along the corridor Owners and occupiers with a property along the length of High Street and Plenty Road were mailed with a letter introducing the proposal and a brochure that outlined the project.

2.1.2 Mass Communication Mass communication tools such as media releases, advertising in local papers and the Darebin News were used to provide broad awareness of the project within the community. - A Media Release was distributed on Wednesday 18 February. - The Darebin News was distributed to all Darebin properties in the week beginning Monday 23 February. - Advertisements appeared in the Preston Leader and Northcote Leader on Tuesday 10 March.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 7 2.1.3 Engaging the Multicultural community

A wide range of communication tools were employed to ensure the culturally and linguistically diverse community were able to access information. This included communication materials translated into the six main languages (Italian, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, Macedonian, Arabic) and where requested an interpreter at public meetings.

2.1.4 Targeting specific audiences The Darebin Disability Advisory Council (DDAC) and the Darebin Ethnic Communities Council were seen as established groups that would be appropriate to present the proposal to in order to get the message to a wide audience. These presentations were completed and members encouraged to provide comments via submissions or surveys. DDAC submitted a formal response.

2.1.5 Project Webpage Located within the council website the project webpage contained up-to-date information on the project regarding upcoming consultation opportunities and project contact details for feedback/questions. The page was modified during the process to include information that was sought by the community. The on-line survey was accessible through this webpage.

2.1.6 Online survey An online survey was developed to gain feedback on four sections of the proposal; Westgarth, Northcote, Thornbury and Plenty Road.

2.1.7 Organisations and Community Groups

Information packs were distributed to 300 organisations and community groups (see Appendix A for a complete listing) to encourage discussion and participation through all segments of the community. Local community groups were utilised to target minority groups within the community, such as: x Senior Citizens x Mother’s Groups x Cycle Groups x Ethnic community groups including older adult groups x Neighbourhood houses

2.1.8 Individual meetings Individual meetings were held with residents and traders adjacent to the tram route upon request. Residents and traders were invited to further discuss the project and particular issues relating to them through the letterbox drop.

2.1.9 Public Displays

Public displays were staffed by AECOM and Darebin City Council at the Darebin Festival on Sunday 1 March. This provided the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the broader community.

2.1.10 Westgarth traders

As Westgarth does not have a formal Business Association these businesses were door knocked proactively to individually introduce the proposal and invite feedback on March 11, 2009.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 8 2.1.11 Targeted Workshops/Public Meeting

Targeted Workshops were scheduled with a sample of residents and traders invited to attend to provide information and to canvas ideas and obtain particular feedback on the proposal.

In addition, Plenty Road owners and occupiers were invited to a public meeting via the letter sent to them (as per 2.1.1).

Table 1 Targeted Workshops/Public Meeting Location Date Plenty Road targeted stakeholder meeting Wednesday 11 March 2009 Westgarth targeted stakeholder meeting Thursday 12 March 2009 Plenty Road residents and businesses public meeting Thursday 19 March 2009

2.1. 12 Westgarth residents – Cunningham, McLaughlin, Walker etc.

These residents were informed by a letterbox drop of a public meeting on 12 March 2009, to discuss their entry/exit from this pocket of homes. This meeting looked at options in this area of the proposal.

An additional page of the website was added to include these options and keep residents informed.

2.2 Extension of Consultation

Given the overwhelming response to the proposal and in response to community requests, council extended the communications process to Tuesday 14 April and held a series of round table discussions and another public meeting.

The roundtable discussions gave the community a chance, in small groups, to identify their concerns with the proposals. These are listed in full in Appendix B and were placed on the webpage and sent to all attendees following the meeting as a full record of what occurred at the meeting.

The public meeting commenced with a presentation from Council staff. Through this presentation participants were provided with background information and the objectives and details of the project. Attendees had the choice to break into small groups or stay to discuss the project as a group. The full report from this meeting is available in Appendix C.

Table 2 Roundtable Discussions

6pm - 7pm: Northcote Activity Centre issues Tuesday 31st March (No participants attended this Roundtable) 7.15pm - 8.15pm: Westgarth issues 6pm - 7pm: Cycling issues Wednesday 1 April 7.15pm - 8.15: Plenty Road issues 6pm - 8.30pm Plenty Road public meeting Tuesday 7 April

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 9 2.2 Other Throughout the consultation activities local interest groups developed community forums/blogs to capture community concerns, and a number of petitions were developed to present community dissent for the project. While these activities were not instigated by the project it is important to recognise external activities resulting from the proposal.

Additionally Bicycle Victoria provided comments of the proposal on their website. These comments were not intended as a formal submission but were posted onto their site to inform their members of the merits and drawbacks of the proposal.

2.3 Northcote Communication Activities The Northcote section of the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Proposal consultation activities were undertaken in conjunction with the Northcote Streetscape Masterplan consultation. The following communication and consultation activities were conducted:

2.3.1 Public displays Located at Northcote Town Hall, Northcote Library and Preston Customer Service Centres, these public displays showed the draft plans for the Northcote Streetscape Masterplan.

2.3.2 Businesses informed Articles appeared in the Northcote Business Association newsletter prior to consultation beginning and Darebin staff completed follow up visits to business properties located on High Street between James Street and Elm Street/Robbs Parade and including Northcote Central to ensure they had received the brochure and were aware of the public meeting.

2.3.3 Letters distributed Approximately 2250 premises were provided with information on the project, including dates/times of the public meetings. This delivery area was bounded by Epping Railway (to the west), to St David’s Street South/Andrews Street /Waterloo Road (to the east), Beaconsfield Parade/Dennis Street/ Brickwork Lane (to the north) and Charles Street / Roberts Street (to the south).

A personalised letter including a copy of the Information Brochure sent to 47 community services, interest groups, schools and other stakeholders in and around the area.

A personalised letter including a copy of the Information Brochure sent to 398 property owners located High Street between James Street and Elm Street/Robbs Parade, Arthurton Road, Eastment Street and including Northcote Central and Northcote Plaza.

2.3.4 Public Meetings Two public meetings were held, one for residents and the other for businesses.

Business Meeting, 6.00pm Tuesday 10 March 2009, Northcote Town Hall Community Meeting, 7.00pm Wednesday 11 March 2009, Northcote Town Hall

2.3.5 Survey A survey was developed in both hardcopy and online formats to provide an opportunity for the community to give feedback on the proposal.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 10 2.3.6 Advertisements

Advertisements were placed in the Northcote Leader on 3 March 2009 and 10 March 2009 advising on the project, public display locations, public information sessions, website, council contacts and the way to provide feedback.

An information update article included in the Darebin News (February 2009 edition).

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 11 3.0 Consultation Outcomes The purpose of the consultation was to seek opinions on the following three sections of the proposal: x Section A: Northcote – Between Westgarth and Separation Street x Section B: Thornbury – Between Separation and Dundas Street x Section C: Plenty Road – Between Dundas and Albert Street

As at 16 April 2009, 202 written submissions had been received in response to the consultation activities. Additionally, 1,287 surveys were completed (most online but some hardcopy also). The responses to the consultation generated a variety of comments from a range of organisations and individuals.

The concentration of responses can be seen when the submissions, attendants at public meetings and roundtables and survey responses are mapped as per below. Please note that as the survey was generally done anonymously, only approximately 10% of completed surveys carried an address that could be mapped. A larger map is available in Appendix D.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 12 There were generally two types of responses: 1. Those with comments regarding the proposal 2. Those with comments regarding the method of communication and consultation.

These will be addressed separately below.

3.1 Consultation Outcomes regarding the Proposal

Written and anecdotal responses to the proposal indicate that the community understand the importance and benefits of encouraging sustainable transport. The perception of the community is that Council has proposed a project that does not consider: x the impact of increased traffic on surrounding roads and residential streets, x access to properties, x the impact of loss of parking on local businesses; and, x providing Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant tram stops when the trams will not be compliant.

The following conclusions have been drawn from the views presented by community members during one-on-one meetings, public meetings, roundtable discussions, written submissions and survey results. x There is support for aspects of the project, in particular in relation to: o Supporting sustainable modes of travel by providing trams with priority; o Improved safety; and o Improved pedestrian environment which will create Activity Centres which attract pedestrians. x There is support for making tram route 86 more accessible. Many respondents applauded the direction taken by the City of Darebin particularly in terms of making it easier for all community members to use Tram Route 86, and the benefits the project will deliver to the broader community. x There is a high level of concern that the proposal will result in increased congestion on the preferred traffic routes, particularly St Georges Road and Albert Street. Many respondents felt that the proposal had given little thought to the impact of increased traffic on surrounding streets and that changes would only result in more bottlenecks. x Many businesses along the proposed project corridor, Plenty Road in particular, believe that the changes will be detrimental to their businesses. Many feel that the loss of parking and access through turn bans will deter people from visiting the area and lead to businesses closing. x There is strong opposition to the proposed loss of parking for the Plenty Road tram fairway. Many respondents felt that this would not only devalue their land but also deliveries, emergency vehicles and service vehicles will be unable to stop on Plenty Road., x Respondents felt that Council had a hidden agenda. Many respondents felt that the Council were not telling the full story, and alluded to the number of high rise buildings being developed in the area. x There is concern about the loss of tram stops in particular, stop 29 and stop 44. x A tram travel time saving of 6 minutes was not seen as enough to warrant the perceived inconvenience that the proposal would cause.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 13 The survey provided respondents with an opportunity of rating the proposal by weighing up the benefits and concerns of the project. In the current form, the proposal is poorly supported by those people who completed a survey. It is important to recognise that a limitation of any community engagement process is that respondents opposing the proposal are more likely to participate in the process and vocalise their position.

Between a scale of 0-10 with 10 being very strong support for the Proposal, survey respondents were asked to rate the Proposal. The following graph shows that all sections of the Proposal in its current form scored less than 5, with Plenty Road being the least favourable section.

All When weighing up the benefits and the concerns how strongly are you in favour of this project? Mean 0-10

5.0 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Westgarth Northcote Thornbury Plenty Rd

3.1.1 Westgarth The following issues provide a summary of the main concerns in the Westgarth section of the proposal: x Slip Lane – There was a high level of concern over conversion of the service road into a slip lane. Respondents felt that turning the current service lane into a slip lane would have detrimental affects on safety, parking, noise/pollution, amenity value, buses and trucks using Westgarth Street and disability/emergency access. x Removal of Tram Stops – there was concern that removing tram stop 29 would be counter- intuitive to the overall proposal, particularly as the Department of Human Services units on Roberts Street provides for residents that are predominantly without cars and often mobility impaired. x Loss of Parking - Parking loss on Ruckers Hill is of major concern as parking in the area is already difficult. There was also concern that a loss of parking would be detrimental to the viability of businesses in the area.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 14 x Increased Traffic Congestion – concern was expressed about an increase in traffic using Westgarth Street/Merri Parade. This was perceived as a local street and that exiting McLachlan Street, for both cars and bicycles, is already difficult because of the amount of traffic along Westgarth Street/Merri Parade. . x Cyclists – there was concern that cyclists would need to mix with pedestrians on kerb outstand platform tram stops.

See Appendix E for a full listing of comments received in the survey responses.

Westgarth In order to achieve the benefits listed previously are you willing to: Yes 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 No

Lose some parking in Westgarth Central (3-9 out 51.5 48.5 of 32 spaces)

Lose all parking up 27.5 72.5 Ruckers Hill

Have reduced speed limit for cars along High Street 66.9 33.1 (40 kmh)

Lose tram stop 29 on 59.8 40.2 Ruckers Hill

3.1.2 Northcote The following issues provide a summary of the main concerns in the Northcote section of the proposal: x Concern was expressed about an increase in traffic congestion along High Street. The inclusion of kerb outstand tram stops in Northcote represented an impediment for traffic movement and a concern with weaving in and out of lanes. x Loss of car parks within the centre was linked to a loss of trade and that there currently was not enough parking at the moment. x As a result of increased traffic congestion along High Street there was concern with increased levels of through traffic along neighbouring roads. This tended to be divided into two general concerns. The first was concern from local residents worried about extra traffic in side streets including Clarke Street and Bastings Street. The second concern related to additional traffic along parallel roads including Victoria Street, St. Georges Road and Station Street. x There was disappointment that cyclists would need to mix with pedestrians on kerb outstand platform tram stops. There was a secondary concern expressed about the absence of a dedicated cycle lane along High Street in Northcote. x A considerable number of replies commented on the general benefits derived from the Streetscape Masterplan and the following elements were rated highly: Improved pedestrian environment and streetscape; More public space with room for trees and shrubs; Easier access to trams for people with a disability; Enhanced safety for pedestrians.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 15 See Appendix E for a full listing of comments received in the survey responses.

Northcote yes In order to achieve the benefits listed previously are you willing to: no 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lose some parking in High Street Northcote 45.9 54.1 (35 out of 167 spaces)

Have reduced speed limit for cars along High 65.9 34.1 Street (40 kmh)

3.1.3 Thornbury The following issues provide a summary of the main concerns in the Thornbury section of the proposal: x Loss of so many tram stops in this section (stops 34, 37, 39 and 41). x Creating traffic problems through the narrowing of High Street. x Loss of parking for businesses through the installation of kerb extension platform tram stops. x Cyclists – there was disappointment that cyclists would need to mix with pedestrians on kerb outstand platform tram stops.

See Appendix E for a full listing of comments received in the survey responses.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 16 Thornbury yes In order to achieve the benefits listed previously are you willing to: no 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lose some parking in High Street Thornbury 41.7 58.3 (up to 56 spaces over 1.6 km)

Have reduced speed limits for cars along High 49.3 50.7 Street (40 kmh)

Removal of tram stops 24 (Bent Street), 37 (Woolton Ave), 39 45.3 54.7 (Gooch Street) and 41 (Collins Street)

3.1.4 Plenty Road: The following issues provide a summary of the main concerns in the Plenty Road section of the proposal. ƒ There was overwhelming concern over the loss of parking with respondents particularly concerned that reduced parking would: o Result in closing of businesses o Increasing parking in side roads o De-value properties o Deliveries to businesses on Plenty Road would be hampered.

ƒ Turn bans - The turn bans proposed would decrease access to properties along Plenty Road and increase the distance to travel and use of side streets to negotiate access.

ƒ Congestion - Concern that the proposal will increase congestion as Albert Street was seen as already congested, and that proposed changes would result in “rat running” down residential streets, many of which are considered too narrow to cope with the increase of traffic and additional parking.

ƒ Removal of Tram Stops – particularly tram stop 44.

ƒ Emergencies - Ambulance and emergency services parking was seen as compromised if the fairway does not allow parking. This was also seen as true for Australia Post, handymen, broken down vehicles, meals on wheels, garbage trucks etc.

ƒ Impact on Traders - Business owners are concerned that discouraging through-traffic on Plenty Road would reduce the level of drive by customers and that long term businesses would be forced out. Other concerns included loss of local employment/jobs.

ƒ Safety - Concern that the proposal would encourage fast and dangerous driving. The issue of safety for pedestrians on side roads with possible increased traffic volumes was also raised.

ƒ Need - Respondents felt that trams are currently not being delayed on Plenty Road, and questioned the need for the proposal. The installation of accessible platform tram stops prior to the availability of accessible trams was also queried.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 17 ƒ Lack of provision for cyclists especially with a hard barrier in place separating the tram fairway and the traffic lane.

See Appendix E for a full listing of comments received in the survey responses.

Plenty Rd yes In order to achieve the benefits listed previously are you willing to: no

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0% % % % % % % % % % %

Lose parking outside my business except in those sections identified (responses from business only- 92 9.8 90.2 cases)

Lose parking outside my residence (responses from 18.3 81.7 residents only -247 cases )

Lose parking for visitors/shoppers, except in those 25.4 74.6 sections identified (all cases)

Removal of tram stops 44 (Seymour Street) and 53 36.0 64.0 (Ethel Grove)(all cases)

3.2 Consultation Outcomes regarding the Consultation Respondents expressed concern about the consultation process; in particular that community were not adequately informed and in some cases not aware of the proposal. The timeframe was also of concern and it was felt that the timeframe did not allow for genuine opportunity for the community to become involved.

Accordingly, the City of Darebin modified the consultation process and extended the first round of consultation, until the 14 April 2009.

Respondents also felt that:

ƒ Only one option was proposed, not a range of possibilities. ƒ Consultation in Side Streets – Participants were concerned that residents in side-streets around Plenty Road were not involved earlier in the consultation process. ƒ More people should have been personally notified of the proposal as it affects everyone not just the people along the route. ƒ Although the consultation process was heavily reliant on the internet, information on the website is not readily accessible. There is no direct link from the front page and the site is difficult to navigate through. ƒ There had been no opportunity for residents/businesses to advocate to State/Federal Government. ƒ Consultation was not pro-active enough. ƒ The process felt rushed. ƒ Statistical data in reports needed to be referenced.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 18 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of the consultation has been to seek opinions on the following three sections of the Proposal: x Section A: Northcote – Between Westgarth and Separation Street o Incorporating Westgarth section and o The Northcote section which was conducted within the Northcote Streetscape Masterplan Consultation process x Section B: Thornbury – Between Separation and Dundas Street x Section C: Plenty Road – Between Dundas and Albert Street

The following have been divided into process and project conclusions and have been drawn from the views presented by community members during the public meetings, roundtable discussions, submissions and responses to the survey.

4.1 Process 4.1.1 Process Conclusions Although best efforts were made to inform the wider Darebin community of the proposal (see Section 2.1), a range of responses indicate that the communication and consultation process was not adequate. From the responses it is apparent that: x Respondents feel that broader project notification is required and that the entire Darebin community should be sent a personalised letter informing them about the proposal, regardless of cost. x The community feel that the consultation process was rushed and did not allow time for genuine community involvement. x There is a concern from respondents that Council will not hear or incorporate feedback into the proposal but rather push the project through the approval process.

4.1.2 Process Recommendations There is a real hunger from the community for information on this and other projects that have the potential to change or impact on the way they live, work and play within their community. As Council proceeds with the re work and further consultation on this project, it is recommended that: x The project has effective external communication approaches at all times. Escalation of concerns can occur for a range of reasons. One area that can often be identified by aggrieved stakeholders as a cause can be insufficient communication or a lack of timeliness of communication. In determining the relevance and timing of future communication Council should communicate often, even when there is little to report. The benefit in doing that is that stakeholders receive a strong message that they are not being forgotten. This can in turn build up greater trust and confidence from them towards the project and Council personnel. Furthermore, the Darebin Community are kept regularly informed during the rework phase of the project. x Community Reference Groups are used throughout the project rework phase. These groups can be effectively used throughout the process to test ideas and proposed changes. x Outcomes of the consultation process are communicated back to the community to show how feedback is being incorporated in the rework of the proposal x Ensure all surveys in future consultations that are used to illicit feedback from the community present both sides of the picture; opportunities and costs.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 19 4.2 Project 4.2.1 Project Conclusions It is important to recognise that a limitation of any community engagement process is that respondents opposing the proposal are more likely to participate in the process and vocalise their position. This was particularly evident at the public meetings and round table discussion where there was an overwhelming opposition to the project.

There is substantial anecdotal feedback gathered at various community events/festivals and during one-on-one meetings, supporting the proposal, however only rarely has it been followed or supported by a written submission or captured at the public meetings and round table discussions.

4.2.2 Project Recommendations The project re-work will allow Council and the community to work together to find some middle ground on the issues that were raised in the initial listening phase. It is recommended that the rework consider: ƒ Parking use on Plenty Road ƒ The impact on traffic congestion on alternative routes ƒ The economic aspects of the project including an Economic Impact Assessment and a Cost Benefit Analysis. ƒ Westgarth residents access to/from High Street and Westgarth Street

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 20 Appendix A Distribution of Information Packs Tram Route 86 Project, Community Consultation - groups who received Information Packs

Kindergartens Suburb Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten Fairfield Annie Dennis Children’s Centre Northcote Batman Park Kindergarten Northcote Blake Street Kindergarten East Preston Clyde Street Kindergarten Thornbury East Preston Uniting Church Preschool Centre East Preston Gellibrand Crescent Kindergarten Reservoir Gower Street Kindergarten Preston JS Grey Kindergarten West Preston Keon Park Kindergarten Reservoir Kookaburra Kindergarten Reservoir Maryborough Avenue Kindergarten Kingsbury Merrilands Children's Centre Reservoir Oakhill Kindergarten Reservoir Regent Baptist Kindergarten Reservoir St Andrews Kindergarten Fairfield Thornbury Kindergarten Thornbury Westgarth Kindergarten Northcote Yapperra Children’s Services - Kindergarten Northcote Yarralea Children's Centre Alphington Schools Suburb Bell Primary School Preston Burbank Primary School Reservoir Fairfield Primary School Fairfield Keon Park Primary School Reservoir Kingsbury Primary School Kingsbury Newlands Primary School Newlands Estate Northcote Primary School Northcote Penders Grove Primary School Thornbury Preston East Primary School Preston Preston North East Primary School Northland Centre Preston Primary School Preston Preston South Primary School Preston South Preston West Primary School Preston Reservoir East Primary School Reservoir Reservoir Primary School Reservoir Reservoir West Primary School Reservoir Ruthven Primary School Reservoir Thornbury Primary School Thornbury Wales Street Primary School Thornbury Westgarth Primary School Northcote Holy Name Primary School Reservoir Holy Spirit Primary School Thornbury East Our Lady of the Way Primary School Kingsbury Sacred Heart Primary School Preston St Anthony's School Alphington St Gabriel's Primary School Reservoir St Joseph the Worker Primary School Reservoir

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 21 St Joseph's Primary School Northcote St Margaret's Primary School Keon Park St Mary's School Thornbury St Raphael's Primary School West Preston St Stephen's Catholic Primary School East Reservoir La Trobe Secondary College Heidelberg West Lakeside Secondary College Reservoir Merrilands College Reservoir Northcote High School Northcote Northland Secondary College Northland Preston Girls Secondary College Preston Reservoir District Secondary College Reservoir Samaritan Catholic College Preston Samaritan Catholic College Preston Santa Maria College Northcote St John's Greek Orthodox College Preston Thornbury Darebin College Thornbury Baltara School (Northcote Campus) Northcote Croxton Special School Northcote Preston Special Development School Preston Elderly Citizens Groups Suburb East Preston Senior Citizens Club Inc East Preston East Reservoir Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir East Fairfield Senior Citizens Club - Thursday Group Fairfield Fairfield Senior Citizens Club - Wednesday Group Thornbury Golden Oldies Reservoir Northcote Combined Pensioners' Association Northcote Northcote Senior Citizens Club Inc Northcote Preston Rostrum Club Preston Preston Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir Reservoir Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir Spring Street Reservoir Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir Australian Greek Elderly Citizens Club North Inc Northcote Australian Thornbury Pensioners Club Inc Northcote Batmans Elderly Greek Women's Senior Citizens Group Northcote Darebin Greek Women's Senior Citizens Group Inc Reservoir Greek Elderly Citizens Thornbury Greek Ex-Servicemen’s Group of Darebin Inc Thornbury Greek Orthodox Elderly Citizens Club of Thornbury Thornbury Hellenic Stegi Friendly Elderly Citizens Club of Darebin Inc Preston Keon Park Greek Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir Preston Greek Elderly Citizens Club Inc Thornbury Reservoir Greek Elderly Citizens Club Inc Reservoir The Greek Nazarene Senior Citizens Club Inc Thornbury Greek Senior Citizens Club Reservoir Elderly Italo- Australian Women’s Group of Darebin Inc Reservoir Italian Elderly Citizens Group Holy Spirit Inc Thornbury Italian Senior Citizens Club of Preston Inc Preston Kingsbury Italian Senior Citizens Club Inc Kingsbury Merrilands Italian Senior Citizens Clun Inc Reservoir North West Reservoir Italian Senior Citizens Club Inc Reservoir Northcote Italian Pensioners Club Inc Northcote Piemontese Association of Victoria Ringwood Reservoir Italian Pensioners Club Inc East Preston

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 22 St Marys Italian Elderly Citizens Club Inc Northcote Thornbury Italian Pensioners Club Inc Thornbury Australian Macedonian Disability Pensioner Group VARDAR Preston Australian Macedonian Pensioner Group of Reservoir Inc Reservoir Bilga Senior Citizens Group Inc Preston Macedonian Pensioner Group, St Nikola Church Preston Macedonian Senior Citizens Club - Pelister Inc Preston Macedonian Senior Citizens Group - St Nicola Merlikinski Inc Thomastown Northcote Macedonian Senior Citizens Group Inc Northcote Islamic Elderly Group Inc. Preston Polish Senior Citizen's Club of Reservoir Inc. Reservoir Reskeon Maltese Seniors Group Reservoir Indian Seniors Citizens Club Thornbury Northern Suburbs Organ Club Bundoora Gentle Exercise for Over 50's Rosanna Batman Park Gentle Exercise Class Thornbury Greek Women's Elderly Friendly Club Preston Interest Groups - local, regional and state-wide Suburb Darebin Creek Management Committee Alphington Linc Northern Preston Darebin Pram Walkers Preston Parent Voice Preston Environment Victoria Melbourne Metropolitan Transport Forum Melbourne Merri Creek Management Committee East Brunswick Victorian Council of Social Service Melbourne Heart Foundation West Melbourne Link Community Transport Coburg North Victoria Road Action Group Thornbury Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (NAGA) Brunswick Darebin Community Health Centre Inc Preston PANCH Community Health Service Committee of Management Preston Mental Illness Fellowship Victoria Fairfield Preston BreastScreen Fitzroy Northcote Community Health Centre Northcote Northern Division of General Practice Preston Darebin Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Council Preston Aboriginal Advancement League Thornbury North Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre Preston Islamic Elderly Group Inc Preston COTA Victoria (Council on the Ageing) Melbourne ILVA Home Services Coburg Link Community Transport Coburg North Darebin Community Information and Support Centre Preston Northcote Community Information and Support Centre Northcote Jika Jika Community Centre Northcote Preston Neighbourhood House Preston SPAN Community House Thornbury Thornbury Women's Neighbourhood House Thornbury Alphington Community Centre Alphington Merrilands Community Centre Reservoir Preston Creative Living Centre Reservoir Victorian Disability Advisory Council Melbourne Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria Melbourne

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 23 Victorian Council of Social Services Disability Access Working Group Melbourne ASAPD (Arabic Speaking association for People with Disabilities) Reservoir AQA Victoria Fairfield Action for Community Living Northcote AGAPI Respite Care Centre Preston Bundoora Extended Care Centre Bundoora Darebin Community Mental Health Centre Preston South Interact learning Services Fairfield Northern Districts TPI Social Club Reservoir Wesley Employment Services Preston Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind - Northern Region Heidelberg Scope Vic - Regent Street Respite Accommodation Preston Friends of Bundoora Park Preston Friends of Merri Creek Moreland Friends of Darebin Parklands Alphington Friends of Darebin Creek Alphington Reservoir Bus Company Reservoir Ivanhoe Bus Company West Heidelberg Dysons Bus Company Bundoora Bus Association of Victoria Port Melbourne Connex Melbourne Victorian Taxi Directorate Melbourne Victorian Taxi Association Melbourne Victorian Road Freight Advisory Council Kew Public Transport Users Association Victoria Melbourne Northland Shopping Centre Preston Preston Market Preston Victoria State Emergency Services, Northcote Unit Alphington Heidelberg Police Heidelberg Heidelberg West District Police Headquarters Heidelberg West Reservoir Police Reservoir Northcote Police Northcote Preston CIU Police Preston Preston Police Preston Preston East Police Preston St Johns Ambulance - Northcote Northcote Metropolitan Fire Brigade Station Northern Zone Office Preston Metropolitan Fire Brigade Kingsbury Transport Accident Commission Melbourne Kinect Australia Melbourne DOTARS - Victoria Regional Office Melbourne La Trobe University Bundoora North Melbourne Institute of TAFE (NMIT) Preston Preston Reservoir Adult Community Education (PRACE) Reservoir U3A Darebin Inc Fairfield Preston Reservoir Progress Association East Reservoir Darebin Enterprise Centre Alphington Transport Workers Union Port Melbourne

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 24 Appendix B Full Record of the Roundtable Discussion Plenty Road Roundtable Tram Route 86 Corridor Proposal Notes from the Plenty Road Roundtable discussion Held Wednesday 1 April, 7.15 – 8.45pm, Council Chambers

Summary: - 70 community members attended - Cr Ben Morgan, Cr Vince Fontana and Cr Trent McCarthy were in attendance. Cr Diana Asmar and Cr Nick Katsis attended but declared a conflict of interest in this project and removed themselves from the meeting. - The notes from tonight’s meeting will be made available to all attendees who have left their contact details. For those with email addresses, the notes will be emailed, for those without email addresses, the notes will be sent via post. - A full Community Consultation Report will be made available at the conclusion of this phase of consultation. Everyone who attended this Roundtable discussion and provided their details will be contacted when the Community Consultation Report is available and made aware of where it is available. This is scheduled for approximately 2-3 weeks following the close of consultation. - The proposal will be re-worked to take into account the issues raised during the community consultation phase. This will take approximately 6-8 weeks, possibly longer. - Community Reference Groups are being considered to be involved in the re-work phase and more information on nominating for these will become available shortly. - Following a re-work of the proposal in conjunction with the State Government, Council will prepare a second phase of community consultation which will be broader and more comprehensive than the current community consultation phase. The plans for the second phase of community consultation will also be approved by the Community Reference Groups. - The second phase of community consultation is expected to commence in June or July or possibly later depending on the re-work timelines. - A report on the second phase of community consultation will be presented to Council and any further amendments will be made. Council will then make a decision on the final proposal. This may be as late as September or October.

Each group’s comments are listed below as a record of the points raised at the Roundtable session:

Kate Myers’ group:

- Statistics used in the Proposal report are questioned, particularly 14,000 passengers/day on the tram and the volumes of cars on Plenty Road (belief of misleading information). - Trams are currently not being delayed on Plenty Road, so why do we need the proposal - Conflict between the ‘outdoor dining’ vision of Northcote/Westgarth and the plans for Section C - Traffic jams aren’t on Plenty Road currently, there is a belief that this proposal will create traffic jams. - Will create more traffic in side streets (rat running) - Parking in Wood Street is already full, if people can’t park on Plenty Road this will exacerbate this problem - Loss of visitor parking for residents and businesses - Deliveries to businesses on Plenty Road - how? - Remove some tram stops to save time, not implement a fairway (will also save money to put towards improving the remaining stops) - Ambulance/fire access is compromised - Breakdowns in single traffic lane will cause traffic jams - Preferred peak hour fairway - Bell City traffic lights have interrupted flow of traffic on Bell Street – what about synchronising lights? - Change of tram drivers at the Depot causes many of the delays - Bell street right turn (heading west) causes blockage to trams – fix this first

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 25 - Disability Discrimination Act policy will only be implemented in Victoria with huge $ from State Government - Albert Street alternative is too full already and going in the wrong direction for most motorists - Trucks can’t use the proposed u-turn locations (also applies to residents) - Impact on businesses is huge – is Council concerned? - Timing of the land use study – need that now - Current zoning is illogical, needs sorting out - Increased residential densities on Plenty Road – these people will need convenience centres to shop at where they can walk to - Encourages fast driving if cars have their own lane - Who will buy a property if you can never park outside it o Devalues properties o Encourages urban sprawl as forcing people to build further out - Cyclists issues for Plenty Road - ‘The Junction Precinct Plan’ is not incorporated into Route 86 project o Developers need to provide underground parking to accommodate residents and visitors - Long term businesses being forced out - Local businesses which are linked to each other will fail as one of them moves out effecting the others - Residents want businesses to be there to give ‘texture’ to the area - Hydraulics on trams to solve the access issue – may be cheaper and more environmentally friendly - Local employment/jobs will be lost - Rework to include citations of where data comes from - Slow of traffic will limit cars going through - Parked cars provide a buffer to tram users and pedestrians - Lack of safety issue may return (as in the past in Preston) - Presence of prostitutes and drugs on Combi Street disappeared because of the business presence – may return if businesses leave - Current Parking Permit areas will further restrict parking availability

Katie Dickson’s group

- Issue of disabled people, families, older people accessing businesses on Plenty Road - Visitation eg. Home help to residential properties - Parking in front of businesses crucial to businesses operating - How many disabled would use tram - Difficulty of parking near businesses off Plenty Road - Issue of deliveries to businesses – tricky etc. - Illegal to unload in laneway - Semi-trailer delivery of goods – cant park on side roads or laneways - Security around unloading of goods – eg. Cigarettes and alcohol - Displacement of parking on side streets eg. Shakespeare Avenue - Issue of safety of pedestrians on side roads with increased traffic eg. Schools on Shakespeare - Logic? Of people on Trams if all business is gone - Emergency service? - Value of property - More detail on parking exclusions and land use - Consultation with surrounding area and users of shops - Convenience shops – stop to pick up – by problem - Solution for DDA access that doesn’t affect parking - Health services on Plenty Road - Empty shops affect look of area – beautification of empty premises

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 26 Nigel Turner’s group

Technical Issues

- Business Parking – Most of the attendees on Table 3 were business owners/managers concerned that the loss of on-street parking directly in front of their properties would result in loss of trade. - Compensation – The question, “Will compensation be available for any loss of earnings?” was asked. - Passing Trade – Business owners were concerned that discouraging through-traffic on Plenty Road would reduce the level of custom that they consider that they receive through “passing trade.” - Loading Zones – Many of the businesses rely on regular deliveries to and from the site to meet their business needs. They are concerned that not having the opportunity to load and unload directly at the front of their property will impact the way that they carry out their business. - Increased Traffic in Albert/Station Street – One resident of Plenty road worked on Station Street and was concerned that the increased traffic on Albert/Station Street would lead to increased congestion of this route. - Disabled Parking – Business owners were concerned that disabled customers would be less able to access their services where “disabled parking” is removed near the fronts of their shops. - Investment Returns – Property owners were concerned that, if business was lost, financial returns from their properties would be impacted. - Property Value – They were also concerned that, if investment returns fell, property values may be impacted. - Turn Bans – Participants suggested that right-turn bans would be an inconvenience to both residents and shoppers. - Inconvenience to Local Traffic – Participants also suggested that, if one of the goals was to discourage through-traffic but still provide access for local traffic, turn-bans would actually do the opposite. - Public Transport Improvements - Participants suggested that public transport improvements, in general, would provide little or no direct benefits to the types of business currently located on Plenty Road. - Increased Traffic Volumes on Local Streets – Participants suggested that circuitous journeys necessitated by turn-bans would result in more traffic on local streets around Plenty Road. - Legal Action – Participants suggested that legal action would be taken if Council were to pursue the project in it’s current format. - Breakdowns – Participants were concerned that breakdowns would result in major delays along Plenty Road.

Consultation Issues

- Consultation in Side Streets – Participants were concerned that residents in side-streets around Plenty Road were not involved earlier in the consultation process.

Possible Solutions

- Increased Service Frequency – Participants suggested that improved travel times and DDA access would not promote as great a transfer on to public transport as would increased frequency of service. - Council should purchase any vacant properties along High Street and provide parking lots to off- set parking losses

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 27 Alice Foster’s group

Issues:

- Loss of parking which in turn has the following implications: ƒ Economic impact on business ƒ Possibility of job losses - No right turns along Plenty Road - Increased danger to cyclists - Where is the study of green house emissions? - Increase volume of traffic in side streets - Access to businesses which are zoned industrial and have parking as part of their permits – How are you going manage it? - Resident’s access to their properties - What traffic management plan has been proposed to cope with changes? Have VicRoads got one or does the council? - What traffic study has been undertaken? - Why is the 6 minutes travel time saved in this proposal so important, as opposed to the impacts on Business Resources and Economic wellbeing of the community in the Plenty road area? - Grossly inadequate public transport system - Clarification of data e.g. tram figures cover the whole day, the data for cars only covers certain times – tram information is stacked to favor trams - Diversion of cars – where are they going to go? This proposal will encourage “rat running” - As the corridor grows, when is the infrastructure going to be extended to manage and cope with the expected growth? - Has anyone looked at the Carbon footprint of sending the traffic down St Georges Rd i.e. they will consume more energy driving further to get to St George’s Road than it does at present. - We want to keep our community environment. These is a place to live, work & have fun in, it’s our own local area. - How many disabled people have parking permits that have been issued in the City of Darebin? - Why can’t the cars/trams share the road together? - Are businesses going to be compensated for loss of business if this eventuates? - Consultation process needs to be looked at. More people needed to be notified as this affects everyone not just the people along the route. Residents down side streets would be affected as well.

Solutions:

- Parking – There needs to be parking facilities for businesses, ambulances, courier stops (courier vehicles are sometimes the size of semi-trailers). At present the area has an Industrial zone so it is set up for that. - Could the Council buy properties to supply parking? - Have timed priority for trams during peak hours, for clearways – dedicated fairways, and turns banned at certain times, other times it operates as normal - Location of tram stops – pushing them back from intersections so that there isn’t the congestion at the traffic lights at present - Trams have priority lights - At Bell Street, Dundas Street and Murray Road intersections trams should have precedence over traffic turning right - Light control system to stop the traffic but let trams go ahead, in order to let trams clear intersection - Strategic placing of tram stops can work – we must cater for business, cyclists, cars, trams & residents - Minor additions to proposal and the proposal can work

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 28 Karin Linden’s group

Effects of narrowing of Road / No right hand turn

- The narrowing of the road will cause problems for residents living on Plenty Rd as they will have problems turning in and backing out of their driveways. Even now, it’s hard to get in and out as driveways sometimes are on an angle and the narrowing of the road to one lane will make it even more difficult. There will be an increase in accidents as a result. - Albert St (where Plenty Road intersects) is currently already congested. With the proposed changes, traffic will avoid Plenty road and come down the three residential streets Dorrington, Chaleyer and Mc Comas and maybe further down as well. - Re-directing traffic to High St will not work as High St will be a 40 km/h Zone which people will avoid. - Some smaller Streets like Wood St are too narrow to cope with the increase of traffic and with the parking that will occur on one side it makes it even more narrow - No right hand turn will force traffic though smaller residential streets – cause traffic hazards for residents specially children playing

Parking

- The reduced/ removal of parking will make trade impossible on Plenty Rd ƒ Parking will be reduced for customers -leading to loss of customers ƒ It will be impossible to deliver good to business ƒ Removal of tram stops will also mean loss of customers - The removal of parking on Plenty Rd will affect the entire street- all traders. No other Council would even consider a drastic proposal like this. - Traders cannot afford any loss of customers in the current economic climate. Council’s role is to support local business for residents and employees. - Reduced parking in Plenty road will cause more parking in side roads. Residents living in side roads currently already have problems parking particularly due to traders. Often the garbage trucks leave rubbish bin unemptied because they can’t get close enough. - Many residents on Plenty rd do not have drive way access, - Residents on Plenty rd will have no room for guests or visitors to park. - Residents, particularly elderly, will have issues receiving services such as Meals on Wheels of Ambulance – isolating them further. - One accident could potentially cause traffic mayhem as it will block the entire road -being only one lane.

General

- Loss of business will mean more traders close, the area will become like Tyler St derelict and empty causing graffiti. This will also devalue the area. - Alternatively they will sell out to developers building more flats and causing further increase in traffic. - The plan is dealing with the symptoms not the cause, eg more cars on the road/ lots of traffic. Upgrade to one part of the line in Darebin is useless as there will be a bottleneck elsewhere on the line - Current proposal cater for minority groups (disabled) and not for the majority of people who are affected very gravely (stated by one resident) - however the money for the upgrade is conditional on improving access for disabled (stated by another resident) - We want the new trams without upgrade of tram tracks, they have already done work on the tram tracks - Disabled also use cars not just trams

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 29 Tram stop removal

- Good to improve access for aged and Disabled, Council should be commended for this initiative, however, the removal of tram stops works against it. - Tram Stop 44 is crucial for the safety of passengers going to the Greek church, school kids and elderly in general who can’t walk very far or who can’t cross Bell St. (The Senior Citizen Club is near tram stop 44). Some people come from three blocks away to catch the tram at this particular tram stop.

Future Consultation

- An important project like this affects everyone in Darebin and regardless of cost; everyone in Darebin should be sent a personal letter informing them about the proposal. - The current website information is not readily accessible. There is nothing on the front page on the Darebin site and it’s hard to know where to find it. - Non-residential owner of properties particularly leasing to businesses have not been notified. - Future communication about the project should be via ongoing personal letters regardless of cost. - Initial letter could be sent out with website address where information is updated and with phone number for those that do not have access to internet. - Billboard in front of Town Hall needed - Information centres at the market with a big sign advertising the project - Flashing signs around Plenty road advertising information about the project.

Mandy Bathgate’s group

Issues

- Parking impacts through the abolition of parking Concern about losing business Issues regarding access from the front No right hand turns Impact of kerbs – tram tracks - No parking = no customers = no business = unemployment (200 businesses = 1,000 people) - Why change something that has worked for over 50 years - Irresponsible timing – current economic climate - Impact on forward plans for business eg leasing/ownership. Some impacts on 12 year plans. Re- developments proposed. - Impact on property value – commercial and residential - Access and delivery to all eg post office courier delivery (if they can’t park out the front they can’t deliver). - Business reliant on delivery - Elderly and access and mobility - Superstops not the only solution - How do people access private/commercial properties with a superstop in front - Using fold out ramps at tram doors - Road not wide enough - Issue re car congestion. Does not agree with the diversion of traffic - Displacement of parking to side streets - What happens if there is a breakdown at a superstop? o Danger/safety to pedestrians o Emergency/ambulance services o Rubbish o Infrastructure - Moving house/deliveries – where do they park trucks - Mapping statistics of people who are disabled living in the area, don’t they have pre-arranged transport options? - Tram tracks should just be renewed - Blocking right hand turn into driveways - Environmental damage – congestion in the side streets NB time limits - Modify trams – give taxi vouchers, consider majority

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 30 - Danger at superstops - Unhappy people = legal action - Timeframes – timelines - Compensation? - Concern over spending $$ to save 6 minutes yet - Impact of congestion/diversion - $$ petrol - Tram people saying this is the best section - Right hand turn in Clearway times - Business/residents being discriminated against - Superstops = access for taxis concern = impact increases on disabled - Parking at local convenience centres - Business location is important - Unique businesses (Victoria wide) with local businesses coming in – they won’t come eg Tyler Street ghetto – will this happen? - Loading zones will be impacted - Way to improve a street is to encourage retail - Improve 6 minute tram run = more trams - Questions regarding DDA – as it stands? - Where are the tram stops going to be so they minimise impact. - Most of the trades people don’t arrive by tram - Need more studies to make a decision - Stop # 50 badly located – why not between Gower and Murray - Elderly residents and a lot of children’s parents drive = Disadvantage to elderly - 30,000 road users have not been informed and will be affected - Emergency/utility access eg Post pick up not feasible – bank up of vehicles = danger - Encouraging drivers onto tracks = danger - Hard work – loss of $ - a lot of personal stress - Legislation can change. Wait 10 years

Consultation process issues

- Consultation with other residents eg Albert Street, side streets - General lack of awareness - Process – concern re timeframes - Give residents/businesses opportunity to advocate to State/Federal Government for alternatives. - Give residents more time - Need to be listened to - Where is the Mayor and Councillors that will listen tonight – concern about the new legislation and conflict of interest – unable to represent the people - Documentation states implementation in ‘mid 2009’ which spread fear, why? - Council October 2008 Minutes – Council to send a letter of notice. Didn’t receive letter until March. - Residents in side streets not contacted. Identified by Council but not followed through. They need to know. - “Invitation only” on web = misleading - Web needs updating – public looking at this – changes message between meetings - Selective consultation – should be everyone - Consultation times inadequate, should be more than 1 hour for meeting - Online survey excludes a lot of people and designed by someone who wants a positive answer

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 31 Westgarth Roundtable

Tram Route 86 Corridor Proposal Notes from the Westgarth Roundtable discussion Held Tuesday 31 March, 7.15 – 9.15pm, Council Chambers

Summary: - 42 residents were in attendance - Cr Diana Asmar and Cr Trent McCarthy attended - Participants broke into five small groups and all issues and concerns were noted by group facilitators - All groups came together at the conclusion of the first hour to hear the issues raised by all groups - Daniel Kollmorgen, Manager of Transport Management and Planning made a commitment that the Proposal in its current form is unacceptable to Council particularly the use of the service road as a sliplane and that a further re-work of the proposal will occur. - A Community Consultation Report will be made available at the conclusion of this phase of consultation – closing date Tuesday 14 April. All attendees at this meeting who leave their details will be contacted when the Community Consultation Report is available (approximately 2-3 weeks following the close of consultation). - The re-work phase will take approximately 6-8 weeks, possibly longer - it will take as long as is needed. - Community Reference Groups are being considered during the re-work phase and more information on nominating for these will become available shortly. - Following a re-work of the proposal in conjunction with the State Government, Council will be asked to approve the amended proposal to go to a second phase of community consultation which will be broader and more comprehensive than the current community consultation phase. The plans for the second phase of community consultation will also be approved by Council and the Community Reference Groups. - The second phase of community consultation is expected to commence in June or July or possibly later depending on the re-work timelines. - A report on the second phase of community consultation will be presented to Council and any further amendments will be made. Council will then make a decision on the final proposal. This may be as late as September or October.

Each group’s comments are listed below as a record of the points raised at the Roundtable session:

Katie Dickson’s group

Tram stop removal at Robert Street

- Taking them away is counter-intuitive to providing tram platforms for disability access; - Single person’s units on Roberts Street predominantly without cars and often mobility impaired

Ruckers Hill parking

- have not provided evidence of parked cars reducing speed of trams on hill; - worried that shops won’t survive - Permit for Westgarth cinema was given on proviso that cinema actively encourages sustainable transport to their venue. Darebin should be enforcing this

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 32 Westgarth Street increase in traffic volumes

- increase in traffic volumes will severely affect turning movements out of McLachlan Street; - will affect ability of peds and cyclists crossing the road at intersection of Westgarth / merri Parade. Maybe need to consider signalisation - road shouldn’t be declared main road. Not viable as preferred traffic route; - St Georges roundabout signalisation will make situation worse; - Lowering of road at bridge. Council gave understanding to residents that would not increase traffic volumes on Westgarth. This proposal goes against that understanding. - If ‘slip lane’ or turn lane has no control (signalisation) on it then there will be no opportunities (gaps in traffic) at all to exit Westgarth pocket onto Westgarth Street

High Street service road

- Cyclists use service road instead of McLachlan street; - Don’t want heavy traffic near houses on service road. Problems of noise and safety; - Providing slip lane makes driving easier for cars in Darebin – don’t want to encourage any more car use. - Could entertain options of removing Elm trees (not native anyway) and removing or changing bluestone beds; - Opportunity to make entrance-way into Darebin

Wider road network

- Should not be encouraging traffic divergence within Darebin – cars should be encouraged to use Alexandra Parade and Heidelberg Road - What do Yarra Council have to say about these proposals? - Need more consideration of wider preferred traffic routes surrounding Darebin;

Westgarth shopping strip

- would prefer tram platforms within Westgarth shopping strip rather than south of Westgarth Street - No pedestrian signs directing people to and from station to Westgarth

Westgarth pocket

- Walker Street is a safer place for Westgarth pocket residents to exit area; - Housing values will decrease if too difficult to get in and out of Westgarth pocket.

Solution – to use cannons on High Street to randomly fire at cars entering Darebin.

Kate Myers’ group

Issues

- Parking loss on Ruckers Hill is illogical - Problems with the Westgarth Parking Survey that was conducted (methodology, weekends) - Concern over opening Little High Street in the future (south bound) - Safety of cyclists and motorists exiting McLachlan Street onto Westgarth Street (possibility of traffic lights to be investigated) - Diversion of traffic onto Merri Parade concerns (the scale and context) - Name of the project misleading - Compensation for residents on High Street service lane - Wider implications on the road network to be considered

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 33 - Proposed slip lane concerns o Safety o Parking limited for residents incl safety if parallel parking retained o Noise/pollution o Amenity value o Buses and trucks using Westgarth Street o Disability/emergency access o No purpose o Provision for cyclists - Health implication of cars close to houses - Rat running through Walker Street etc. - The amount of cyclists using McLachlan Street and Westgarth Street – make is safer for them - If sliplane is imposed on Council by VicRoads then trees and bluestones should be a lower priority than the houses - Need an integrated look at the Gateway (entrance) to Westgarth (plantings etc.) - Loss of parking in Westgarth and not being provided elsewhere - More development on Westgarth Street = more traffic/parking - Issue with pedestrian access on High Street bridge over the Merri Creek - Watch for banked up traffic on side streets north of Westgarth Street (ie Barry, Union, McLachlan)

Solutions

- Link between Hoddle Street and St Georges Road required - Ban right turn into South Park Crescent - Speed limits/humps on Westgarth Street – down to 40km/h - Stopping/diverting traffic earlier (ie at Hoddle/Heidelberg Road) - Copenhagen bike lanes on Westgarth Street - Permit parking required on Westgarth Street - No tram stops south of Westgarth Street – perhaps north of Westgarth Street - Left turns into Westgarth Street through the bluestone and trees - Traffic light sequencing for locals eg pedestrian phase at Westgarth Street to be responsive to pedestrians - Raised/marked keep clear zone at McLachlan Street to enable cars to exit - Tram track relocation to the east to give more road space south of Westgarth Street to avoid sliplane - Purchase UltraTune or toilet block for extra car parking - Playground and trees at Merri Parade - Graffiti off the railway bridge over Merri Parade (art work?) - Block Westgarth Street entirely

Daniel Neave’s group

Project discussions points

- Westgarth visitor survey to provide answers like the Northcote visitor survey - Service road is not an option - There should be only one lane south from the intersection of High and Westgarth, as this will allow shifting the tram tracks over, which leaves enough room for a standard left turn lane from High to Westgarth - Use the blue stone bed as a separate slip lane, there is enough room for a traffic lane and also a smaller blue stone bed - The loss of parking on Ruckers Hill is not acceptable - Cyclists, skateboarders and roller bladders etc. make the superstops unsafe if they are expected to travel near waiting tram passengers - Too many superstops, have one south of Westgarth Street and the other north of Union Street - Statistics used at the Roberts Street stop was not appropriate as the aged care facility was not in use at that time - The traffic management of Walker and Cunningham is important, would like access onto High and Westgarth to provide options - The next round of consultation should have improvements for all stakeholders

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 34 Consultation discussion points

- More presence in Leader - Timely internet information - Due to the size of the project the consultation should have been broader. - Advertise the public meetings better - Have a public information centre in Westgarth, e.g. use empty buildings, create public space - More public and accessible information - On Council website there should be a central place for all consultations, where you can sign up and be informed of all issues - Undertake consultation and surveys at all times of day and all days of the week - More transparency - Use the feedback from this consultation to feed in Councils consultation policy - Have more direct/dedicated surveys on the individual sections/issues

Alice Foster’s group

Issues

- Have the people been taken into account from the new Housing Commission area being built at Roberts Street – has a Tram stop been thought of for Older persons usage? - There are too many tram stops between Merri Creek to Westgarth Shopping Strip. - Two traffic lanes overlap in Yarra City Council municipality and converge into one into Darebin City Council and that is the problem and cause of the traffic congestion. - Loss of car parking at Ruckers Hill. - Impact on shops & cinemas. - Loss of car parking will force cars into side streets – impact on residents – Residents will request permit parking – resulting in loss of parks for general public. - Union Street has been missed out in the Parking Survey – missed signs “residents parking”. This has an impact on the survey that was conducted. - The impact of the proposal on Westgarth Street - traffic flow/speed/control - High Street is a Primary multi modal street – want to keep traffic out -VicRoads would support the project. - Dilemma of increasing traffic in Westgarth Street. Squeezing of traffic with Tram proposal.

Possible Solutions

- Activity Survey needs to be done for Westgarth Shopping Strip – this will support information about usage and assist with decision making process. - Talk to other Councils, Tram service, VicRoads Train and Bus services – Strategically plan whole route of Tram Route 86 not just the Darebin City Council municipality. - Restrict Ruckers Hill parking between peak hours in morning between 7am - 9am and 4pm - 6pm. This will leave the parking free and able to be used by the general public at other times. - Look at other access routes from St George Road to Hoddle Street other than Westgarth Street. - Make Westgarth Street one way – consider alternative streets e.g. Westbourne Road (with existing railway bridge). - Slip road – keep it the same as it is now but ease the road back at corner. - Suggested change to current Tram stops at Westgarth Street. Reduce to one super-stop near theatre. - Could move existing trees (elm trees) along the slip lane and replace trees with native trees positioning them closer to the existing houses. That way it is a win-win solution for residents and traffic. - 40km speed limit is needed now. - Install traffic lights at the corner of McLachlan and Westgarth Road – this would calm traffic. - Suggest Council buys properties on corners e.g. High & Union street – (old furniture store) and the corner of Westgarth & High Street for underground parking and develop public space on the area.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 35 Jim Barrett’s group

General Themes

Much of the criticism of the project could be divided into one of three general themes: 1. There was a view that the redirection of traffic out of High Street was sending cars into areas that were not able to cope with the increased volume. 2. There was a concern about the big picture i.e. how co-ordinated and involved are surrounding local govts and the state government? 3. The consultation process should have involved more people and lasted for a longer period of time.

Traffic

- The traffic in Westgarth St heading both East and West is heavy currently. There is no point in shifting traffic out of High St if there is nowhere else to go. - With the position of the Tram stop on the corner of Westgarth and High St and the development of the new slipway, traffic will be diverted west. This will make turning right out of western Westgarth very dangerous and time consuming. - Although the roundabout at the end of Westgarth St will be redeveloped, there is a lot of doubt about this intersection being able to cope with the increase of traffic. - Traffic may be forced down Walker and McLachlan St. This street is narrow, does not have sidewalks in places and is used frequently by school kids. This would be very dangerous.

Possible Solutions

- Westgarth St could be widened. - Entrance to McLachlan St could be closed (although this would inconvenience locals). - Signs on Hoddle Street could direct traffic to Lower Heidelberg Rd before they get to Queens Parade. - The tram lane near the super stop on Queens Parade is currently shared with cars. If trams were given right of way here, then this would act as a bottleneck and deter cars from venturing further up toward Westgarth St.

Vision for High Street

- There was a concern that High St was being turned into some kind of Swanston St. This attitude doesn’t recognise the fact that High St is a natural main road and carriage way for cars and should remain that way.

Tram stops in the new Plans

- There was a general opinion that there are too many tram stops in too short a space. - This is particularly true of the tram stop at the corner of Westgarth and High St. Most of the pedestrians north of Westgarth would be served by a single stop outside the cinema and southern residents could use the new superstop on Queens Parade. - The stop on the north side of High St heading south, next to the Aged Care facility was considered poorly placed and should be moved down toward High St.

Left Turn Slipway

- This will impact severely on the residents who currently live along the service lane. - Residents who live along the service lane may need to build higher fences to keep out the noise but this is currently not allowed according to heritage laws. - Solution: If the tram stop on the corner of Westgarth and High St was removed, an extra lane for left turners could be added which would leave the service lane as it is.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 36 Will Council be banning the right hand turn?

- Some residents were worried that Council was going to ban right hand turners out of Queens Parade into Westgarth St. This would make if even more difficult for residents in western Westgarth (Rushall?) to head east.

Streetscape

- The elms along Queens Parade are important and are a big part of the heritage in the area but some residents thought that the loss of one or two trees would be ok if the slipway issue could be solved.

Consultation

- Residents were unclear about the impact that their suggestions would have on the plans. There was a fear that everything was a ‘fait accompli’. - Residents of other streets that would be impacted by these changes, i.e. Westgarth St and Victoria St, should also have been notified. - Letterbox drops were the best way to contact residents. - Only few people had access to the net and the Darebin website was difficult to navigate. - Information given over the website was often inconsistent. - There was a sense that Council had lost a lot of resident trust. - Residents would like more options to discuss and more input into the planning process.

Cyclists

- Increased traffic volumes along Westgarth St would make it even more dangerous for cyclists. - The proposed changes further up High St are not cyclist friendly.

Notes from the Cycling Roundtable

Tram Route 86 Corridor Proposal Notes from the Cycling Roundtable discussion Held Wednesday 1 April, 6 – 7pm, Council Chambers

Summary: - Four community members attended - A Community Consultation Report will be made available at the conclusion of this phase of consultation. Everyone who attended this Roundtable discussion and provided their details will be contacted when the Community Consultation Report is available and made aware of where it is available. This is scheduled for approximately 2-3 weeks following the close of consultation. - The proposal will be re-worked to take into account the issues raised during the community consultation phase. This will take approximately 6-8 weeks, possibly longer. - Community Reference Groups are being considered to be involved in the re-work phase and more information on nominating for these will become available shortly. - Following a re-work of the proposal in conjunction with the State Government, Council will prepare a second phase of community consultation which will be broader and more comprehensive than the current community consultation phase. The plans for the second phase of community consultation will also be approved by the Community Reference Groups. - The second phase of community consultation is expected to commence in June or July or possibly later depending on the re-work timelines. - A report on the second phase of community consultation will be presented to Council and any further amendments will be made. Council will then make a decision on the final proposal. This may be as late as September or October.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 37 Issues raised: - Motor vehicles are a threat to the proposal – want more consideration of the other 3 transport types, trams, pedestrians, cycling - Enabling cycling safety for these reasons – by reducing vehicle traffic - Use of safety – occurrence vs. consequence, application to new design i.e. risk management - Plenty Road – making it less advantageous for cycling - What level of risk is Council prepared to take i.e. cars overtaking bikes on the easy access stops? - Focus on alternative north-south bike links instead of Plenty Road, but should accommodate cyclists too - Issue of how to develop “common-law” in using tram platforms - Concern of speeds on Plenty Road and cars and bikes trying to get past each other - Bike boxes – would they be bigger, deeper? - Want to have bicycle advance phase with trams at lights - Issue of safety (for cyclists) versus more space for street furniture etc. - Westgarth Street east-west movement is huge - Westgarth Street – crossing of bikes at intersection of Westgarth Street, Merri Parade - Use of service road on west cyclists breaking the law and in other locations following desire lines instead of other routes i.e. Westgarth Street west and McLachlan - Turn desire lines into legal routes or fix problem

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 38 Appendix C Full Record of the Plenty Road Public Meeting Discussions Tram Route 86 Corridor Proposal Notes from the Plenty Road Public Meeting Held Tuesday 7 April, 6.30pm - 8pm, City Hall

Summary: - 51 community members attended. - Cr Ben Morgan and Cr Gaetano Greco attended. - Susan Benedyka facilitated the meeting. - Daniel Kollmorgen, Manager of Transport Management and Planning presented the proposal to the attendees. - The notes from tonight’s meeting will be made available to all attendees who have left their contact details. For those with email addresses, the notes will be emailed, for those without email addresses, the notes will be sent via post. - A full Community Consultation Report will be made available at the conclusion of this phase of consultation. Everyone who attended this Roundtable discussion and provided their details will be contacted when the Community Consultation Report is available and made aware of where it is available. This is scheduled for approximately 2-3 weeks following the close of consultation. - The proposal will be re-worked to take into account the issues raised during the community consultation phase. This will take approximately 6-8 weeks, possibly longer. - Community Reference Groups will be convened to be involved in the re-work phase and more information on nominating for these will become available shortly. - Following a re-work of the proposal in conjunction with the State Government, Council will prepare a second phase of community consultation which will be broader and more comprehensive than the current community consultation phase. The plans for the second phase of community consultation will also be approved by the Community Reference Groups. - The second phase of community consultation is expected to commence in June or July or possibly later depending on the re-work timelines. - A report on the second phase of community consultation will be presented to Council and any further amendments will be made. Council will then make a decision on the final proposal. This may be as late as September or October.

All concerns raised at the public meeting are listed below as a complete record:

City Hall group:

- Concern over length of ‘easy access’ tram stops - Concern over reversing out of driveways with ‘easy access’ stops outside driveway - Concern over 60km/h over ramps for ‘easy access’ stops - Concern over statistics of older persons - Concern over removal of tram stops - Tram stop 44 – concern over removal - Concern over not being told of the proposal - More extensive consultation in the second phase of consultation - Concern over ramp length - Concern over the stops being the same height as the footpath and possibility of accidents - Prefer to do DDA stops in 15 years time - Deliveries to business, rubbish bin pick ups effected - Plenty Road not wide enough for these stops - Petitions from residents, traders, visitors - Removal of tram stops concern to Progress Association - Compliance dates for DDA compliance of tram stops - Too many cars on the road, safer for pedestrians - Why are cars on tram tracks, they are not on the train tracks delaying trains - Less pollution, trams deserve more priority

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 39 - Reduce speed limit, cars go too fast - Steps too high on the tram for the elderly - Tram stop 50 only 250m from Murray Rd stop - Concern over business closures if plan goes ahead – no parking or deliveries - Concern over DDA compliant trams on route 86 - Concern over car trips taking longer - Compensation for property owners - Number of disabled people using the tram is low - Taxi vouchers a possible alternative - People with disabilities unable to use route 86 - Preference for use of public transport by people with a disability over taxis - Positive benefits for Activity Centres – more seating, sidewalk cafes due to platform tram stops - Low floor trams required to make the service fully accessible - Congestion - Job losses - Concern over lack of notice for the public meeting and engagement of nearby residents - Alternative access to trams for prams/wheelchairs/trolleys/walkers – eg pull out from tram - Concern over VicRoads wanting to get the tram to the end as quickly as possible - Just getting high rise developments into Plenty Road - Concern over hidden agendas - Concern over speed of the process going forward - Why aren’t other options put on the table - Proposal gives bias to trams and against residents

Smaller groups:

- Concern over how the Fairway will be implemented. Fines? Tow away? - Plenty Road near the tram depot is already difficult for parking, this will make it very difficult for businesses - Ban of right turn will be difficult for residents and force large detours - Real problem with slow trams are in Clifton Hill and Collingwood - Wood Street is already bad for parking, this will increase noise - Health Services and retail will not have parking. Lose convenience. - Big housing developments mean more people and cars. Where will they go? - Street cleaning will be more difficult in side streets - Preston is losing character - Residents on Plenty Road will not have parking near their home for visitors and family - Trucks will be encouraged to use Plenty Road - Will there be special dispensation for parking near kidney dialysis on Plenty Road - Plenty Road and Bell Street is very dangerous - Where is funding coming from? How much is coming out of our pocket? - There isn’t enough room for everything – particularly U-turn lanes - Tram stop removal wasn’t mentioned in presentation – big issue for elderly - Tram stop “under used” – what is this in comparison to? - Concern of additional walking distance (particularly at night) to optimised tram stops - Doing U turns; concerned about doing manoeuvres - Angry about not able to do right hand turns into side roads, freedom of choice is restricted - Don’t want accessible trams - Don’t see problem with trams being held up by cars on sections between intersections - Concerned about taking time to get into driveway on Plenty Road. People frustrated behind. - Concerned of more people using side streets to avoid Plenty Road - Don’t want to preclude use of Plenty Road for cycling - Side roads already full of cars parking all day. Where do temporary, ‘pop in’ shoppers park? - Don’t feel its broken so don’t fix the problem of tram travel - Parking on Plenty Road essential to business on Plenty Road - Extend tram further north to reduce vehicular traffic - Don’t comply with DDA - Push Yarra Trams to purchase accessible trams - Superstop issues – step lift in other areas - 6 minute savings is not making a difference to anyone travelling

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 40 - Issues for people with disabilities o Getting a seat o Speed of tram when starting and stopping o Stability of trams o Distance to tram stops - Effort/difficulty of elderly/people with disabilities to catch the tram and walk to the tram stop – they won’t use the tram anyway - How can taxis stop to pick up the elderly? - Increased residential dwellings create more pressure on parking/traffic (Kelvin Grove) - Restriction on people who need services etc. – Mower man, nurses – where shall they park? - Tyler St is an example of loss of business caused by lack of parking - Where is the funding coming from? - Increase risk with cyclists sharing one lane = accidents - Better integration in transport planning between different Councils and State Government, Yarra Trams. - Better/more frequent public transport - Northbound to Eastbound, Plenty to Bell - Banning right turns will not work = diverted traffic - Garnet Street diverted traffic to head east - Creates problem in High Street where we don’t want addition traffic - Don’t take our tram stop 44 - Noise from ‘easy access’ stops - Removal of stop 44 creates lengthy walk and crossing of Bell Street - Stop 44 well utilised, near Preston South Primary School - Large vehicles on local roads o Accidents (visibility) o Parking o Deliveries will happen on local roads o Double parking - Pedestrian access across Plenty Road if divider strips go in - Can older adults/wheelchairs get across? - Will there be mid-block openings - Not enough right turn locations - Keep Clear signage required on side streets

Consultation concerns

- Best methods – local paper adverts, letterbox drops, email - Side streets should have been letter boxed from the start - Don’t letter box by distance, think of bigger area - Don’t rely on the Leader - Pamphlet good, gets people to next step

Possible solutions raised

- Add trams in with train - Extend Smith Street tram to Victoria Parade to speed it up and fit in larger trams

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 41 Appendix D Map of Responses to the consultation activities

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 42 Appendix E Comments from Surveys The following comments were provided by respondents to the question: Would you like to make comments about the potential benefits of the proposal? The comments have been divided into 3 broad categories to assist in their interpretation. The categories are:

x I believe the project delivers benefits to the community x I believe the project delivers only some benefits to the community x I don't believe the project delivers any benefits to the community

Any comments that contain personal information that may identify a respondent has been replaced with similar text that doesn’t allow identification.

4.3 Northcote

I believe the project delivers benefits to the community

ƒ This is very important for Northcote's future. ƒ Safer, slower, calmer movement, less frantic pace and removal of the existing traffic sewer situation ƒ I think the opportunities here are great - just worthwhile being mindful of Northcote's eclectic character, it's not defined by just a 'cafe lifestyle' - multiplicity of use is critical. The opportunity to integrate it all is fantastic though and makes this a very unique project. ƒ This would make trams more accessible. It is currently very difficult to get off the tram with a pram on High Street. Needing to push the pram out of the tram before you (unless you have help it is impossible to do anything else) means that you are pushing the pram into the traffic - which does not always stop. ƒ It is about time that the needs of people who actually live in Northcote are taken into consideration - Well done! ƒ Improving pedestrian access & reducing the volume of vehicles is the only way to go. ƒ I applaud the intention to design custom tram stops and shelters to celebrate public transport and minimise a preponderance of fences, tactiles and aggressive traffic barriers- the hideous tram stops recently installed in Queens Parade are an example of what not to do. ƒ High Street currently looks drab and dirty. It needs a facelift to encourage people to shop there. New pavements and reduced traffic will be helpful at making it a better destination for shopping and cafes. ƒ I am fully in favour of lower speed limits, reducing parking and giving priority to pedestrians, cycles and trams. I am fully supportive of widening the footpaths and having a central and prioritized tram stop. I would also support increased seating, tree planting and replacing the proposed bitumen with stone paving. ƒ The more the shopping strip area of High St are closed to traffic and made pedestrian friendly the more the community will become cohesive. See example of Bugota where cars were gradually removed from the centre city streets. ƒ Northcote / Thornbury are great and it looks like it will just get better! LOVE YER WORK. Love that you want to do different things with tram stops. This could make Thornbury look a lot better. ƒ High street really needs a face lift, the pavements look terrible. ƒ It should continue with refurbishment of the overall look and feel of a more user friendly street. The outcome should encourage a better standard of shops, restaurants etc. ƒ Extremely handy - for public transport users like me - elderly - hard to get on and off trams & sometimes vehicles don't stop - giving me a fright. ƒ Along with bushlands policy, green initiatives of council and proposed pensioner rate support this is a proposal that is right! And the council can be proud of. ƒ Anything that reduces traffic, speeding and discourages heavy transport ƒ I believe that the improvements will bring amenity to the area that will boost local shopping. It will act to make the area an attraction and encourage more use of sustainable transport options such as pt, bikes, and walking.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 43 ƒ It will add extra life and enhancement to the streetscape, create and environment that benefits retailers, residents & shoppers. ƒ Happy about slowing traffic, especially at intersections. We're near High Street and there's often "Road rage" on a daily basis. ƒ Customer experience to the High Street precinct needs to be improved. ƒ I think it will create a more vibrant public space - I particularly like the idea of green grass in between tram tracks and lots of appropriate public art. ƒ I think it is a progressive and forward looking proposal that will establish and protect the amenity of the area that will support greater tram, cycling and walking priority and make High St a great place to shop, live and play in. ƒ I think it is great. The parking in High St Northcote - There will never be enough space. ƒ I think in terms of being 'climate change friendly' that public transport & pedestrian options are important to promote. It is also important that all members of society have access to transport & shopping facilities. Darebin needs to enhance the aesthetics of High St. be great to reduce the traffic and make more pedestrian friendly. ƒ I think it's a really good start to improving High Street. ƒ This is an opportunity for Northcote and the City of Darebin to lead the way in implementing a comprehensive strategy which in the long-term will benefit all residents and visitors. There is already no capacity for more cars so the emphasis must shift for the wellbeing of the whole community. Whilst we regret the loss of any existing car parks the 'big' picture of what is proposed includes many initiatives that are positive. We cannot let this opportunity slip away on the basis that any one particular interested party doesn't get exactly what they want.

I believe the project delivers only some benefits to the community

ƒ I am all in favour of these benefits, however I think the current plan will also cause problems and I think the development can be done in a way that avoids these problems. As a pedestrian, pram pusher, cyclist, regular tram user and regular bus and train user I think I have a pretty good perspective. New trams stops are only useful if the new low floor trams run on the 86 line which so far they don't. I have been using the new tram stop at Walker Street but so I can't really see the point. ƒ Unless trams are low floor there will be no benefit. ƒ I don’t see long time benefits to the traders in the area at this present time, community possibly, traders definitely no. ƒ Notes from above: Hopefully less reliance on cars overall. Limited scope though - restrained by drainage network? Can WSUD be used? Eg: permeable paring be used? Green walls are pretty superficial and with drought is not a sustainable option! No point in the really in this setting. City of Darebin needs to emphasize benefits and overall strategy of reducing car usage / increasing cycling / walking. Can you substantiate arguments for this by providing figures for % locals using High St shops / Northcote Plaza? I.E. most visitors should and could be walking! New public spaces: Can they be NO SMOKING? Any potential to incorporate play / education? Bike parking: Needs to be suitably located for security, convenience and surveillance Not close to kerb as in picture) ESD: Visual impact us important bit in this setting (green walls seem unsuitable and a tack on more sustainable might be WSUD (eg permeable paving) and measures in design, procurement and construction (eg to minimise waste).

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 44 I don't believe the project delivers any benefits to the community

ƒ The proposal seems to totally ignore the effects of forcing motor vehicle traffic out of a major through road- High street, into the surrounding streets, and onto such alternative routes as St George's Road, Victoria Road and Station Street/Albert Street, all of which are already subject to excessively heavy traffic. The existing traffic isn't going to go away and to talk of forcing it to find alternative routes is simply forcing our problems onto other equally disadvantaged inner suburban residential areas. I can assure you that rate-payers who live in the side streets(at least those streets that lead anywhere) are not going to tolerate heavy traffic being diverted through their residential streets. The loss of parking amenity has previously been identified in the area and has been brought to the attention of VCAT who have imposed continuing embargos on such reductions. The proposal to remove parking up Ruckers Hill is unnecessary and will serve no useful purpose but will simply impose further delays on traffic. Remember, the main source of pollution from motor vehicles arises when vehicles are stationary or moving very slowly. ƒ The only valid benefit that this scheme will provide is that of disabled access to public transport, however the negatives for this scheme outweigh any other perceived benefits. ƒ ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT! Put raised platforms on St Georges Rd tram line instead of inconveniencing everybody else. Plus by the time Vic Roads "bugger" up the St Georges Rd roundabout how are we all going to travel North or South on either road? ƒ The benefits environmentally are obvious but people still need cars and parking. The trams should have hydraulic platforms to aid the disabled. ƒ Can't carry kids, shopping etc on a bike! NONE. Darebin has no right to bottleneck the traffic flows for areas beyond. Until there are improved & extended trains this idea is crazy. Let it flow. 40 through shops ok. Hope I never need emergency vehicle that might get caught in High St. ƒ There is no plan that I am aware of to enable people to move from one section of the shopping strip to another. This plan would mean that I would need to take my vehicle through suburban streets or travel to Victoria Road to go north. This is NOT an option, I will cease shopping in High Street or Northcote Plaza and move to another suburb where I can drive along the shopping strip when the need dictates. This is not often. But it is DIFFICULT to carry arm-loads of shopping onto a tram to go 2 or 3 stops to buy more goods and then get back on a tram with a load. Reduced traffic volumes on High Street will mean increased volumes on parallel roads. St. Georges Road in peak hour runs slowly ALREADY in the section from the Merri Creek Bridge to Arthurton Road. Is this being ignored. No plan to date really addresses the issue of our inner suburb being a TRANSPORT ROUTE for people travelling longer distances. Victoria Road is less congested than either of the above. ƒ It is not benefit at all. Do you think a lot of disability people are staying around this area only?? Parents with prams, if they like to come to High St for shopping where will they park? ƒ I cannot see what benefits will be achieved. It will make the business along High St worse. ƒ What is the point of having an improved pedestrian environment when no one will come to the area because there is nowhere to park???? Apart from the NSC all other businesses will suffer! Yes, in the perfect world everyone will catch public transport, but unfortunately this is not a reality. ƒ I think it would turn High St into an enormous traffic jam. ƒ No benefits at all. Most people coming from outside to here that come by car and need a parking spot. The parking problem and traffic will spill into other streets. ƒ As for the previous section. You are prejudicing the question by only asking about the benefits, and not saying there are disadvantages, such as forcing traffic onto other streets, making the area less safe for cyclists, and reducing the ability of cars to use the road at night. ƒ Again, a stupidly worded question. Do you just want us to tell you how terrific you are and what a great plan this is? It is obvious to an imbecile that the benefits would be a better looking streetscape with more room for cafes etc. and it makes it easier to get on and off the tram. All of this comes at the cost of reducing traffic flow (making it an impossible route to take to school/ work etc.) and reducing street parking. I would no longer go down there to shop under these circumstances. The reason I currently drive is because it costs me too much money to catch the tram from Preston when I am paying for 3 or 4 tickets for the family. I would also wonder about how great an environment it would be if there is a constant line of trams and cars sitting bumper to bumper pumping out fumes.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 45 ƒ What about the potential disadvantages??? You have to ask for both sides, you can't just hear things you want to. I can't BELIEVE the council wants to reduce car parking in this area. As a nearby resident, parking in our street has become VERY much more difficult over the last couple of years, particularly in the evening, when so many people are visiting Northcote. I am VERY annoyed that the council is planning to reduce this even further. I am annoyed that my rates money is being spent on making my life more inconvenient. I'm not against the new tram stops, but I think the council should provide more protection for local residents, and provide more car parking for visitors. ƒ I think the kerb extension tram stops are a better idea than the centre island platform in this very busy strip of High Street. Even with a lowered speed limit, which I support, there is still the potential for pedestrian vs. car accidents because this is such a central road for a lot of residents to use. Given the array of local hospitality outlets on this strip, I can potentially see a lot of young/careless/less than sober people standing in the middle of the road - or running between the kerb and a centre island - bad idea. ƒ This would cause more traffic chaos ƒ No benefits other than causing traffic congestion on High St and through side streets as drivers will try to find a way around this half-baked proposal. ƒ This is where I spend most my time, going either to my doctors surgery, and also regular at the eateries down this section. I can't find a park as it is, will no longer visit this area for dining.(I visit at least once a week traders Know me by name!) ƒ I drive through this area frequently- almost never walk here although I live locally- due to time constraints. There is NO need for wider tram stops or improved access for prams. There is a dire shortage of parking already, and major traffic congestion most of the time. You will make it WORSE! You will also kill off the trade for the many excellent shops and restaurants in this area. ƒ Can't see any potential. ƒ I do not see benefits, rather, your idea of 'street scaping' just hinders people from walking along the street and shopping. As it is, High St is an obstacle course of cafe's tables and chairs impeding people from walking along the street, much less people in wheelchairs trying to move along. You talk the rhetoric of wanting to help the disabled with special tram stops, and prove that this is just rhetoric when you then also want to clutter up the footpath with just about everything you can think of. ƒ I feel that any benefits to be gained from this scheme are purely aesthetic and do not further the "liveability" of Northcote at all. To me, the detriments far outweigh the benefits. ƒ Why don't you list potential disadvantages? Talk about a (mis-)leading survey!

4.4 Thornbury I believe the project delivers benefits to the community x I support reducing speed limits and using traffic calming methods wherever possible.

I believe the project delivers only some benefits to the community x I think the easy access stops design is better than extended kerb stops. If you take the parking along High Street there should be areas where they can go to make up for the loss of car parking. x My only concern is the removal of tram stops, because it makes trams less accessible for vulnerable people, for example elderly people and families with small children. x With the higher density of shops and pedestrians along this section, the proposal will have significant improvements for tram speeds. This is justified at the expense of motorists as I don't live in the area and rarely use the section of the road. x Reducing the speed limit is not really that big an issue, people will just get frustrated. x The proposed removal of tram stop no. 37 is unnecessary, however I agree with the removal of the other three stops. x The existing reduced speed limit of 50km/h is sufficient. x Whilst their maybe some benefits to the public transport system, not everyone can use public transport as a practical means of transportation to get to work. I for instance, and similar to many others, would be greatly disadvantaged increased traffic and congestion that this plan will cause as there are no alternative routes for cars.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 46 I don’t believe the project delivers benefits to the community x There seems like quite a lot of tram stop removals in one area. x It will make it more difficult to do local shopping as it will reduce parking on Plenty Road. x Increase travel time for cars. x The proposal will restrict traffic flow and create more havoc. Longer lines of traffic at all the traffic lights along Plenty Road, particularly during peak hours (pm & am). x Losing car spaces and reducing speed limits, where there are already issues, is just making matters worse for residents, the local community and businesses. x Reducing the speed limit will create even more traffic on nearby main streets such as St Georges Road – causing even more traffic jams as there is already too much traffic on St Georges Road. x The proposal will destroy local business and employment. x We cannot afford to loose car spaces. It is already an issue with people parking in side streets during the day leaving residence with nowhere to park. x Small businesses will suffer – no one will visit the area because the parking is already an issue. x I have concerns about the removal of tram stops as this would cause anxiety to the disabled knowing that they would have to walk further to get to the next stop. Why remove tram stops at all? x I don't think tram stops should be taken away in a residential area any tram stops should be taken away. x Do not reduce public transport accessibility. x All tram stops should be accessible – not just specific stops. x I have concerns about local residents being inconvenienced, particularly regarding right turns into their streets and people trying to do unsafe manoeuvres to avoid restrictions. x The project is a waste of money. x For those people who lives further north of Plenty Road and use this road to travel to city everyday to work, the proposal is a real disaster proposal, as there is no consideration for them. x Concerns that this proposal will only address and improve access to public transport. However, the flow of car traffic and provision of parking spaces for businesses must be equally considered. x Traders in the area are already being pressured by the domination of shopping complexes. The reduction in access to their businesses through reduced parking spaces would be detrimental to their business. x Pollution created by a stationary or slow moving car is considerably worse than a vehicle travelling at normal urban speeds. x Traffic congestion is currently bad and it will only be worse under this scheme, particularly in peak hour. x The business of Tyler Street shops have suffered because of lack of parking. x Much high-rise development will occur in the vicinity of High St (Northcote). A considerable proportion of these new residents are going to expect to be able to park close to home. x Concerns regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety – opposition to allowing bicycle riders and pedestrian traffic to mix, especially considering the number of elderly people in the area. x When shopping, access to High St parking is vital.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 47 Community suggestions x Increase tram rate, as there are many university students travelling to La Trobe & RMIT. x The proposal should add in dedicated cycle lanes i.e. Copenhagen lanes. x Please keep in mind that this corridor is already slow and any further changes should not slow it down further. x Changes in Thornbury should be the same as Northcote. No justification for the differential treatment has been provided. A Cafe / Bar / Arts culture exists and is developing in the Thornbury area too (i.e. from Normanby Ave to Dundas St). x Ensure that Victoria Rd and St Georges Rd become more car friendly. These roads need to stay at 60 and 70km/h for access to inner suburbs and the city. We have an opportunity for High St, Thornbury to become as vibrant as High St Northcote and Westgarth. x If clearway areas were enforced and tow away zones introduced there would not be a problem. x Given the number of new cafes and new business between Hutton St and Dundas St why not increase the width of the footpaths for two blocks similar to Northcote. x An on road marked bike lane would also improve cycling safety on High St. x Listen to the community as per your last meeting and act according to their wishes. x There are an excessive number of tram stops; removal of tram stops would make all traffic flow freely. What is needed is narrower paths (750mm less on either side). x The speed limit along High St should be variable; it should not fall below 50km/h. The speed limits should adapt according to traffic conditions. x Do not reduce public transport accessibility- instead aim to eventually (in the 5 to 10 years, maximum) remove all motor vehicles from High St shopping strip. See what occurred in Bugota. x Maybe greater prosecution of motorists who don't obey road rules when a tram stops. This would increase passenger safety when getting on and off a tram. x The reduction of car parking permits for multistorey developments along High St need to occur in order to reduce demand for on street parking. x A pedestrian crossing is required on the corner of Blythe St and High St, Thornbury, as there are a large number of flats between High St and Newcastle St. Many people use Blythe St as a route to get to Thornbury Station.

4.5 Westgarth

I believe the project delivers benefits to the community

ƒ Right turn lane from high into Westgarth going East would help divert traffic out of Westgarth shopping strip and High St shopping strips. Also agree with slip lane left into Merri Parade going west but need to improve St Georges roundabout which is very dangerous and also need to think about residents in High St that would have traffic in previous service lane...could service lane be changed to trees/shrubs and left turn be where current plantation is ? Need to create a green and friendly gateway to Darebin here. ƒ I am in full and total support of any proposal that prioritizes pedestrian, cycle and tram transport. I have made a conscious choice to not own a car and bought a home in Northcote because of the presence of public transport and community based shopping precincts that are within walking distance. At present, High Street is completely dominated by cars creating a dirty, smoggy and intimidating area. The pedestrian crossings are insufficient and I often feel unsafe or compelled to cross illegally. More trees, WSUD treatments to cleanse stormwater runoff and increased footpath width create a pedestrian friendly precinct with character and amenity. Increased greenery helps to create a space friendly to humans ... especially in the city where the immediate environment is dominated by hard things like pavement, buildings and cars. As Melbourne increases in density, open spaces including streetscapes with trees, places to meet and sit, walking precincts and garden beds become more and more important.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 48 Changes to the proposal that I would support are: increased WSUD garden beds both to add amenity and to filter storm runoff; undergrounding of powerlines wherever possible; the inclusion of the Barnes crossing and replacing the proposed bitumen with a non fossil fuel based paving solution such as local stone (I know this adds significant cost but it is aesthetically superior, decreases use of petroleum products and creates a more iconic space) ƒ FANTASTIC. This is a majorly blocked-up intersection. ƒ It is great that such a move will improve the area for local residents and limit High street being mostly used as a traffic corridor. PT access and walkable streets for people of all abilities should be the priority for healthy, sustainable communities. ƒ For too long people with disabilities have found it difficult to catch trams and cross High St, which means they are discriminated against in the use of the facilities there. ƒ This route was laid down in the 1950's because the M.M.T.B. proved that the transport lie/joke ie- the bus diesel or trolley, could not carry enough people. Route 88 (now 86) was, is and always shall be a massive carrier. Its passengers deserve the good deal proposed by council. ƒ I am very pleased with the proposal suggested. ƒ I believe the proposal will make the area generally more liveable by ultimately reducing traffic and increasing pedestrians. It will promote community inaction and a more village atmosphere in Westgarth. ƒ I understand global improvements in public transport, allowing it to be accessible to disabled persons, are now a necessity. There is no doubt change must be made to high street to comply with this. Wider footpaths may look pretty, granted, but does not make high street safer for anyone. ƒ Great to see the council looking into the future less cars on our roads mean a safer greener community. ƒ This section of High St has a high proportion of pedestrian traffic & high traffic volumes. Crossing the street is difficult, even with the pedestrian traffic lights. For some reason, drivers either don't see the lights or simply ignore them. Any modifications that will reduce the volume & speed of the vehicles and improve pedestrian access would be welcome. ƒ Of course the benefits are dependent on where they are located and how they are constructed.

I believe the project delivers only some benefits to the community

ƒ I am all in favour of these benefits, however I think the current plan will also cause problems and I think the development can be done in a way that avoids these problems. As a pedestrian, pram pusher, cyclist, regular tram user and regular bus and train user I think I have a pretty good perspective. New trams stops are only useful if the new low floor trams run on the 86 line which so far they don't. I can't really see the point. ƒ I think that widening the pavement area for pedestrians and safe access to trams is a great idea - particularly if it can be integrated into the streetscape in the same way that the Northcote High Street Masterplan proposed. Seamless and well-thought through integration is essential for a good outcome. I do however fail to see the benefits of removing car parking along High Street between Union and Clarke Streets as a way of providing better tram movement, particularly if there is no stop along this section!! I can't see that the current parking along that section hinders trams in any way currently?? Westgarth is a precinct visited by people wide and far across Melbourne(in particular because of the Westgarth Cinema) Not everyone can get there by public transport and I think it would be a bad idea to push parking into the residential side streets and congesting these areas ƒ I am in favour of upgrading public transport but object highly to the proposed use of the service lane in High St to be used as a feeder into Westgarth St. This will create increased traffic/congestion to an area which is already congested and overly used. The noise and speed of traffic using this as a thorough fare will be greatly increased and as this is a residential area considerably unwelcome. Safety along this road will also be severely impacted given the speed of traffic that occurs west along Westgarth St from High St. ƒ I support the proposal although am concerned with heaviness of stops or existing character of Westgarth Shops.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 49 ƒ I think the proposal is a bit short sighted. Yes something needs to be done but it should be of benefit the community that use the road- which includes all users not just tram users. It may be improve time for tram users- this could also be achieved by having more trams on the route. What about cyclists- there needs to be consideration of these users of the road to? Where is the bike lane? By reducing the speed to 40km from Westgarth street north it will just mean the road is busier for longer during the day. Who wants to sit on the side of the road when there is a continual stream of cars going by? ƒ Peak hour travel along that section should hopefully be easier for the tram but i still see lots of cars because there are not that many north-south roads. ƒ While I think there will be benefits for trams and passengers, as a resident of Westgarth St I am concerned about the impact of reduced traffic and parking in High St on the surrounding streets. Westgarth St West of High St is a residential street and this plan is likely to make it even busier than it is now. Traffic is frequently backed up in long lines and this proposal will only make this worse. ƒ The only benefit is the pram access, since I am currently unable to use the tram with two small kids. However, if you reduce car access and parking on High St I will no longer be able to drive to a single one of the shops or restaurants on that strip. You must be dreaming if you think mums will take kids by tram and wait 15 minutes at a tram stop just to run errands. ƒ The addition of slipway on service road at High and Westgarth intersection will cause major traffic congestion and severely impact on residential access to Westgarth pockets. Improved access to public transport is supported but not to extent where residential access is severely compromised. We live in this area - most of those using the tram will be passing through only. ƒ I have two young children at Northcote Primary school and live down Bastings Street. The traffic along High Street is much too fast. There needs to be traffic lights at the top of Mitchell street added to your proposal too. So many pedestrians cross High Street because of the primary school, doctors’ surgery and supermarket now. Many of them are with prams or elderly people that are slow to cross roads. Cars still go very fast - this proposal will assist I think in slowing cars, and encouraging people to use nearby arterial roads instead if travelling through Northcote. ƒ I am aware that some traders feel they will be disadvantaged by the proposal. As a long time resident of the area I think the shopping precinct will be enhanced by the proposal - and that the shopping strip will benefit. ƒ It will make it easier to use the tram if I have either my shopping jeep or grandson in his pusher. At present it is almost impossible to board or leave a tram in either situation. They are too high and narrow, and one is dependant on the abilities and interest in helping from other passengers, many of whom have difficulties in using the trams also. ƒ Obviously am in favour of easier access for tram passengers but would like minimum disruption to car parking, i.e. minimum spots removed, as there is so little available parking available in Westgarth. ƒ Probably my main support for this section is the addition of trees to the street. I currently find that High Street has a somewhat 'grungy' feel to it due to the lack of trees. While this is characteristic of Melbourne, the ability to add greenery to the street gets my full support. ƒ I think enhancing tram access through widened footpaths is a good thing, and will have the benefit of increasing safety for pedestrians IF it works to reduce traffic through the area. I think it is a big assumption to presume that one will lead to the other, given that high St is a major access route. Re benefits I do not see, traffic through that section of high St is already at a crawl. It is only going to get worse no matter what you do. I also do not see evidence that the new stops will necessarily lead to a faster and more reliable tram service. Trams and cars will still use the same bit of road most of the time, and slowing traffic effectively also slows trams. I would like to see increased tram frequency and capacity. I also don’t really see that moving people waiting for the tram from the normal footpath to the wider tram stop has any particular 'benefit to the community' unless you consider they'll be out of the way of the cyclists who will most likely choose to now ride on the footpath. ƒ Chaos, reduced business opportunities, lose night trade to other areas - from my point of view, benefits listed by the survey are currently outweighed by the disadvantages. Westgarth parking needs to be improved first. Suggest that you abolish any ideas about dedicated tram lane up/down Ruckers Hill.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 50 I don't believe the project delivers any benefits to the community

ƒ This section has run smoothly for the last 100 years. Don’t change it get the latest Tram's that are low for pensioners and disabled. ƒ If one of the aims is to reduce the traffic in High street then traffic in Westgarth St and Merri Pde would increase. This is not sustainable because the traffic in these streets already banks up at various times of the day. This makes entering or crossing these streets very dangerous and difficult - for cars, cyclists and pedestrians. If even more traffic was funnelled into Westgarth St and Merri Pde traffic lights would need to be installed at McLachlan street to make it safe for residents to leave this corner of Westgarth - especially with the proposed road closures. ƒ There are no benefits ƒ Please be fair when designing an online survey and allow both sides of an arguments to be canvassed. Where are the questions acknowledging the negative aspects. eg increased traffic flow into Westgarth St, a small suburban street where many families live? The in ability existing people who live in Westgarth street have to even get out of there drive ways or cross the road ƒ Loss of car parking and slower speeds will be major COMMUNITY COSTS/DISADVANTAGES, NOT benefits. I say this as a resident who can walk there but who also drives through on a regular basis. the traffic is already really backed up- why make it worse? Disabled people can already access this area! Wider tram stops are completely unnecessary and a total waste of precious space. ƒ Blocking lanes in High St will mean locals have no choice but to use St Georges Rd which is already overused. ƒ The bottleneck of traffic has already occurred back in Smith St. ƒ I do not regard them as benefits, but as obstacles to traffic flow, parking and shopping. I also envisage a serious safety risk with impediments to emergency vehicles proceeding along High Street. ƒ Traffic congestion is appalling already and we need to move traffic not slow it down ƒ Waste of money, why not extend route 112 instead. ƒ I think this will cause more traffic chaos. The above are not necessarily benefits. The super tram stop in High St near Walker St has not helped speed up the tram into the city. It slows the tram down and creates traffic chaos ƒ This is a stupid and leading question. I don’t think it will bring any benefits. It will make it extremely dangerous for cyclists crossing tram tracks, it will reduce traffic at night making the area less safe. It will increase traffic load onto St Georges Rd - and overload the already overloaded roundabout with Merri Pde. ƒ If upgrade of tram stop at High and Westgarth St is implemented along with slipway in this area, residents will be severely limited to access their property and by increased traffic. ƒ I am not opposed to accessible tram stops, but I am VERY CONCERNED that these changes will increase the traffic along Westgarth Street. There is already way too much traffic in this street, no breaks in the traffic to allow cars to turn in or out from driveways, too many hoons speeding along in non peak hours - posing a real threat to everyone, and insufficient traffic slowing measures (eg. speed humps). My other concern is that the pedestrian lights at the slipway are VERY UNRESPONSIVE. Pedestrians wait and wait, and usually end up giving up that the lights will change, and end up cross on the red light. This is very dangerous - but understandable given the lights. ƒ I would like to comment on what a ridiculously worded survey this is. "What benefits do you think ..." Well it's obvious that it would benefit tram users to board on or off, but it is going to make tram and car times slower and reduce street parking. Do council members think that we are all idiots?? ƒ obviously there was no consideration for the residents of this area or the motorists who use high street to get home. if the council was proposing such a plan, then why did it block off the high street entrance to walker street. where is the thought process??? ƒ 1. The proposed benefits are solely for the benefit of reducing traffic up/down High Street. This will lead to increased traffic along St Georges Rd, Merri Pde and Westgarth St. And increased traffic seeking "rat runs" in the side streets. 2. There are no benefits. ƒ I'm concerned about the intention to divert traffic to St Georges Rd/Grange Rd from High St, especially at peak times. Don't rely on the traffic numbers from third party surveys. Go down to the St Georges Rd / Merri Pde roundabout on a week day at 7:30 AM and stay for 1 hour. Watch the chaos. Take the councillors too. Maybe you could walk back to Westgarth for breakfast (don't take cars - there's no where to park)!

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 51 ƒ I live at 46 High St. I have reviewed options one and two for tram stop 27 and there must be another way to avoid additional traffic for residents west of High St. The ground separating High St from the service road is put to no good use, surely the High St west residents can be considered more favourably. Overall the proposal will provide benefits to the area and in particular: reduce vehicle flow provide safer bicycle transport improve street amenity High St south of Westgarth St, going south is wide. Motorbikes and vehicles frequently speed ( dangerously ) along this stretch of road. I see an immediate need to: reduce speed limits...40kmHr physically pacify the road if possible install speed cameras ƒ I do not want to see widened footpaths at the expense of car access. While I place a very high value on public transport, closing streets to car traffic to create malls kills a street stone dead and creates unsafe bogan hangouts and skateboarding areas. ƒ This plan is likely to have a many detrimental impacts on the residents of Westgarth St. Of primary concern to me is the prospect that the high flow of traffic along High St will opt to use Westgarth St/Merri Pde as a thoroughfare to St Georges Rd as an alternative to travelling up High St. In this sense, the proposed plan encourages motor vehicles to travel along smaller residential streets instead of using a main road in a commercial area. I think this would have a negative impact on both the interests of the residents and commercial businesses in the area. Also, but reducing the parking capacity along High St you will force cars to use parking in residential streets as an alternative. The interests of local residents don't seem to have a high priority in this plan at all, which is unfortunate given that the local residents seem to be the people who spend the most time and money within this precinct. ƒ Living on High Street I have seen the number of heavy trucks increase both ways Speeding on High street between Clarke St and Westgarth shopping centre from very early in the morning until late at night I believe the traffic has increased since Station St Fairfield has reduced the speed limit The tram stop at the corner of Clarke St for the 86 tram to Docklands is extremely dangerous due to the speeding cars coming down the hill Stop 29 is also very dangerous The cars parked on Ruckers Hill especially at weekends and evenings are visitors to the cafes. Theatre so where they are going to park could be an issue. ƒ Trams run every 7 minutes on this route - This is a good service. ƒ I believe that this will deter people from visiting the area. Small businesses will suffer due to people not being able to access parking in the area. This will not reduce the volume of traffic it will just cause congestion and driver frustration. ƒ The vehicle speeds on High St at the moment are exceptionally slow without adding these "improvements". Often it can take 10 minutes to get from Queens Parade to Mitchell St. The new "improvements" do not provide safety for cyclists or allow emergency vehicles clearer access down high street. Emergency vehicles will be significantly slowed by these changes. Vehicles will have nowhere to go to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. ƒ This survey does not cover the southern Westgarth area which is my main interest. I am concerned about the increased traffic flow into Westgarth St from High. ƒ Having driven the full length of the proposed changes for route86 for more than 20 years nearly every day, I can not see any benefits in safety for pedestrians. Since the widening of the footpaths in the upper High St shopping area, traffic congestion has caused a more dangerous environment for pedestrians with traffic unable to pass trams or clear tram tracks because of parking cars blocking the roadway. ƒ As a regular cyclist using High Street and Plenty Road every day it concerns me that no provision for cyclists seems evident in these proposals. In these times of global warming and tough economic times I feel that much more could be done to encourage more cycling through Darebin. I use my bike to access the local shops and Northcote Plaza for regular shopping trips as well as commuting to work in Grimshaw Street, Watsonia (off Plenty Road) five days a week. On road bike lanes on both High Street and Plenty Road would be a good first step as there are currently none. This new proposal of yours will make both these activities much more difficult. The idea of shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists is flawed as it actually creates potential danger for both users. This is not a benefit. Nor is the idea (as mentioned by one of your staff) that cyclists could cross on to the tram tracks as an alternative. Are you trying to kill us? I am more than a little concerned that a council such as ours that purports to be bicycle friendly can suggest schemes that actually exclude cycling as a viable transport alternative. ƒ There will be more traffic congestion on High St, tram journeys will be longer, and this will push even more cars on to an already congested St Georges Rd and Merri Parade.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 52 ƒ High Street is congested already so when I drive down to the Northcote plaza I avoid using it. I prefer to walk when I have the time. Access to Merri Parade needs to be improved as it is very congested and dangerous to enter it from side streets during peak hours. As a long-term resident I feel the emphasis on the commercial development of Westgarth has over-ridden the quality of life of residents. ƒ It is essential to improve, not worsen bicycle safety. ƒ The slower vehicle speeds will provide increased vehicular pollution for those walking and sitting in outdoor areas along High Street. Slower vehicles will typically travel in second gear. This has not been considered in the proposed "benefits" of the Project. ƒ What a useless small minded approach to putting a band aid on lack of planning into sustainable infrastructure for the needs of all. ƒ 1. I cannot see how the trams will be any faster when cars can ONLY travel on the tram tracks 2. I think that it will be dangerous for people waiting at tram stops to have the situations where "Cyclists will be required to go up and over the front of the platform tram stops that are proposed for Westgarth". 3. The proposed changes to Walker Street, Cunningham Street and McLachlan Street are of great concern. 3A. Of the 4 options (1A, 1B, 2 and 3)I am MOST opposed to option 3 as this has a very strong likelihood of funnelling through-traffic into McLachlan and Rucker Streets. 3B. Options 1A, 1B and 2 will make it difficult for the bus 506 to turn from McLachlan Street. I would be VERY unhappy to see the route for bus 506 includes Rucker Street. This bus already uses this street on occasions when the traffic in Westgarth Street backs up. Trucks also use Rucker Street to access the stone masons in Cunningham Street. More heavy-vehicle traffic is MOST UNWELCOME. 3C. Option 1A list as a 'Pro' the "improved access for pedestrians and cyclist to Rushall Station". This cannot be achieved by just blocking off the Walker Street/McLachlan Street corner; the pedestrian bridge crossing Merri Creek would need to be widened to 'improve access'. It is currently dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists using this bridge at certain times of the day because of the speed of the cyclists and the large number of bicycles. 3D. None of the options mention what will happen to bus route 506. Changing the service lane to the left-turn lane in High Street, and closing off Cunningham Street at High Street, must have an impact on this bus route. ƒ Parking for cinema, cafes and shops in the Westgarth Village is already in short supply. We can not afford to lose more. I live on the corner of Westgarth and High Streets. Already I often have park in Cunningham Street on a Saturday night. Cars park across my driveway in Westgarth Street and either block my car in the garage or prevent me from entering my own home. ƒ The proposal seems to totally ignore the effects of forcing motor vehicle traffic out of a major through road- High street, into the surrounding streets, and onto such alternative routes as St George's Road, Victoria Road and Station Street/Albert Street, all of which are already subject to excessively heavy traffic. The existing traffic isn't going to go away and to talk of forcing it to find alternative routes is simply forcing our problems onto other equally disadvantaged inner suburban residential areas. I can assure you that rate-payers who live in the side streets (at least those streets that lead anywhere) are not going to tolerate heavy traffic being diverted through their residential streets. The loss of parking amenity has previously been identified in the area and has been brought to the attention of VCAT who have imposed continuing embargos on such reductions. The proposal to remove parking up Ruckers Hill is unnecessary and will serve no useful purpose but will simply impose further delays on traffic. Remember, the main source of pollution from motor vehicles arises when vehicles are stationary or moving very slowly. ƒ No benefits. Will restrict and slow cars even more than at present. Have you been on the 96 tram? it is so packed in peak hours you can't get on, and it takes forever to get to the city. So you are restricting cars to funnel more people on to a tram system that can't cope even now. By the way - don't put pictures of the "new" trams in your illustrations, 96 never runs these. A little realism in these plans would be appropriate. Enough of the pretty diagrams and "room for chalk art" and "running ribbons of colour"! What about dealing with the transport crisis that exists now? Rather than increasing this even further. What about the High St, businesses that will lose more custom from people who can't park their cars nearby to put their shopping in, to transport elderly people to the shops. The trains are so packed they are impossible during peak hours... and you are restricting cars? Put some realism in this or stop wasting rate payer’s money on these impractical plans.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 53 ƒ I cannot see the benefits when the costs will be paid by other local streets and residential areas, like Victoria Road in particular. This will cause potential chaos at the end of Victoria Road as Vic Roads is considering closing the intersection of Westgarth Street and Heidelberg Road meaning that the Jefferies Street, Westgarth Street and Victoria Road will be probably brought to a stand still. High Street Northcote is the joining in the north of two roads, High Street and Plenty Road, and in the south of Queens Parade and Hoddle Street, if four such busy roads join how can you consider reducing High Street in Northcote to one lane of traffic each way? Where is the present traffic expected to go? It is not likely to reduce in the near future is it! ƒ I think this a not an appropriate way to improve Northcote, this will create more traffic congestion in neighbouring street, people that need to use their vehicles to get to designated areas where there is no public transport available, its too expensive to use public transport, morning peak hour will be bumper to bumper, I think this is a load of rubbish where money could have been spent to improve footpaths which are cracked, street lighting for better safety issues, improve security in our neighbouring streets. Improve parks and gardens for our neighbouring family can take their children’s out and enjoy them selves instead of this widening footpaths, narrowing high street, how can people go shopping do you expect people with disability can go on trams when they are overcrowded, some people with disability use their cars to get to and from than waiting for trams. This is just a joke that the council wants to use money in the wrong areas. COME ON COUNCIL SHOW SOME CONCERN USE THE MONEY ON IMPROVING AND MAKING NORTHCOTE A SAFIER CITY. This is not what Northcote needs. One other issue WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO PARK IF THEY WANT TO ENJOY A COFFEE OR A MEAL WITH THEIR FAMILIES. TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE AN ON GOING SARGA NEIGHBOURING STREETS ARE GOING TO SUFFER --- SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE IN DANGER WITH TRAFFIC IS DETOURED INTO NEIGHBOURING STREETS, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE VERY ABUSIVE, THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THIS STRUCTURE.

Community suggestions ƒ I would like to know whether the upgrade of tram works along route 86 will allow the more modern longer (and therefore, more passenger-carrying) trams available to us on the 86 line? I would also like to see some forms of weather shelter at tram stops that are not in shopping precinct areas, where there generally is weather protection. I think the idea of using the service lane on High Street, between Cunningham and Westgarth as a slip lane for turning left towards St Georges Road. ƒ Better options for al fresco dining for restaurants, cafes - likely to encourage more business to the area. ƒ Giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists over cars will create a safer, greener and a more socially connected community. Safer for pedestrians and cyclists- more children walking to school, more people walking and riding to work = less traffic congestion and pollution. Like Ackland Street where priority is given to pedestrians - better economic outcomes for local business. ƒ Will we be getting the modern low level trams on this route? Because if not I cannot see how the disabled, elderly or parents with prams will actually benefit as the trams still have steps. You could achieve the benefits I checked without the proposed changes, i.e. with much clearer on road signage about tram stops and pedestrian crossings. I do not think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages which I hope I can comment on below. ƒ The slow part of the 86 route is NOT High Street, it's Smith Street. There are plenty of safe crossing points and a train line running parallel that people can also choose. ƒ Eventually remove completely motor vehicle traffic from all High St shopping strip areas would be a forward progressive goal. See what occurred in Bugota. ƒ It is very important to place greater emphasis on pedestrian safety and access and this can only enhance the longer tern viability of the Westgarth precinct. ƒ If done correctly this would make the Westgarth precinct a much livelier and prominent precinct with great benefits towards businesses, however, several facts need to be considered at great length: 1. Car Parking can not be lost on Ruckers Hill 2. Parking along the street is to be 1 hour or less with no clearway 3. The widening of the footpath should be done at the front of restaurants / cafes and the car parking spaces out the front of retail premises to promote all businesses. 4. The tram stops should be placed at the junction of Westgarth and High as outlined and the second lot of stops should be on the northern side of Union and High heading up the hill, people will walk in to the Westgarth area from either of those stops. Having a 33 metre platform out the front of the existing shops is not a viable idea. 5. It should be thought about turning Clark, Union and Timmons in to one way streets so that more angle parking can be put in.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 54 4.6 Plenty Road

Positive ƒ I think it will assist in encourage people to use public transport as it will be a safer access. I do think that consideration of Re- Landscaping needs to be extended to section B and C. The proposed doesn’t indicate where bike riders will be accommodated in the changes. ƒ Anything that lessens the use of cars and promote community is great. ƒ I think improving the tram route is a great idea and very necessary. I also think increasing the frequency of tram and train services in Preston is needed, particularly on weekends. Many people work on weekends now. ƒ More frequent, low style trams with support staff to be used on route 86 NOW rather than only in the future. Confidence and good service needs to be improved. The proposal is positive but seems to be Northcote /Thornbury Central. This is common with Darebin Council. eg- speed humps, roadworks, park upgrades etc. ƒ Bring it on ! ƒ Just get-on and do it. ƒ It would enhance value of surrounding area ƒ Running trams on time. Hate when trams are running late. Need more trams. ƒ I think this proposal will see great benefits for people that are elderly or have a disability to be easier to access the 86 tram. ƒ Possible improved traffic flow. ƒ We have two elderly neighbours whom I have talked about the tram proposal with and they will not be responding to the proposal but both said to me that getting on and off the tram will be a big benefit to them. For me, it will be a hassle not being able to park outside some shops but that is all it will be, a hassle. If I am going to them by car I will park in Wood St or some other side street. ƒ Good for the development of the town. ƒ Please do whatever is necessary to improve/ increase public transport use in the area, reduce use and congestion in the area. ƒ More comfortable and more often trams. ƒ Reducing number of car accidents at Murry and Plenty junction. ƒ Yes! This is wonderful! ƒ * Enhanced amenity * Create green wedge * Improved quality of life of community ƒ We'd be more likely to ride a bike or use a tram if there was less traffic on the road. ƒ The potential ease for elderly, and especially mothers with prams to travel has been needed for many years. ƒ It seems like a good idea to encourage people to use trams and this means less traffic volumes on Plenty Rd. ƒ I support the proposal to remove approximately 300 of the car parks along Plenty Road in Preston and feel it is a good idea. I applaud the Council's general move towards a faster tram route 86 service as this is currently a common complaint of the tram route. ƒ There are two major university campuses out this way - you can't start soon enough with this plan. ƒ Anything would be better than the way it is now, these ideas look safe and more efficient. ƒ Car congestion reduced. More sociable atmosphere. Safety for tram traders. ƒ Increase tram rate, more on time schedule for tram. ƒ with the exception of tram stop removal, i am in favour of this proposal ƒ I think it is a great idea to improve the tram route 86 - we are big fans of public transport and feel that it is an integral part of life in Melbourne. However, l do feel that the most problematic section of the tram route is all of High St (and Smith St, for that matter) which is incredibly slow at peak times. Hence, l feel that these areas should be targeted for refurbishment. Once the tram hits Plenty Rd it is much faster! Do we really need to lose stops after this point? ƒ shop front on plenty rd are pretty dead, nothing happening except for near Preston junction. less traffic may make this area more attractive ƒ Better service for all of us. ƒ Great idea if completed quickly and no political games are played out at community's expense ƒ Yes, it will be very positive improvement all around.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 55 ƒ Outbound from the city there is Plenty Rd and St Georges Rd the proposal: once made safer, faster etc would be an attractive choice to travel reducing cars travelling outbound from city. The proposal will also accommodate the growing population in the Darebin area given that apartments are on the increase. Overall l love the idea, START ASAP!!! ƒ This area isn't full of popular businesses and competition for road space so it seems a bit of a non- issue except for compliance a federal legislation. ƒ Currently I cannot use the 86 tram because I can not get my pram on. It would change my life to be able to use public transport with a pram!!!!! ƒ main benefits is safety to the young and the elderly ƒ Bad for the environment - driving around.

Neutral ƒ I think the proposal has more negatives for PLENTY RD then positives. Positives: -easier access for disabled, elderly, mothers with prams -safety for passengers - may reduce travel time Negatives: -loss of parking -property value will go down b/c of parking issues -inconvenience for residents/businesses -businesses will close as there is no parking on the rd - travel time saved will not be as great as the loss of inconvenience for residents /loss of small businesses ƒ I can see the benefits but l am concerned re- parking because the road is so narrow. ƒ We would be more supportive of the project if it did reduce traffic volumes along Plenty Road, but we don't see that as likely. ƒ Safety for pedestrians is a priority. Reducing traffic means it will go elsewhere. ƒ The benefits must be weighed against the disadvantages of the people that it will mostly affect. I have a sister with disabilities so I understand the importance of accessibility but traders and people who do their shopping must be considered as well ƒ I am all for the potential benefits, especially as a mother with a pram. However, I am concerned about the parking repercussions as we live close to Plenty Rd and Wilcox St. It is already often difficult to find street parking for residents. So there should be a strategy to address this alongside the route upgrade. Perhaps FREE parking permits for residents. i also worry that the plan will harm local business so this should also be addressed. ƒ Too much noise and vibrations from trams only a real benefit to people outside of Preston. Too much speed. ƒ Build tram with a ramp - all trams to accommodate people with wheel chairs, jeeps and prams. ƒ I believe it will speed up trams, however entry/exit of trams from the depot and the proximity of tram stops in this area both need review. More trees are required and public art as this section looks like a concrete jungle.

Negative ƒ we as shop owners it would be a disaster it would deplete traffic which all businesses rely on what does the council propose to do with all the shop owners who will be going to the wall, instead of worrying about the trams why doesn’t council encourage for more shops to open especially in plenty road where businesses are closing and looking run down the focus is only in other areas but very little for plenty road. we are a business that opened in October 2008 with a long lease it is hard to start a new business but in this situation your proposal will drive us to the wall before we begin, and why weren’t we informed about this proposal by the agents before we signed leases should the council take responsibility for that. ƒ Will kill all business on Plenty Road. ƒ Nil ƒ The potential benefits, as perceived by council, are based upon flawed assumptions. Any time benefit is insignificant to the total route travel time can be achieved by other less restrictive actions ƒ Bedlam O.K for 1 in 10 persons. Business and residents it will be useless ƒ There are no Benefits. ƒ Apart from causing more traffic jams i don’t see any benefits ƒ I see no benefits to the community. Unfortunately all I see happening here is loss of business for all those along the Plenty Road corridor. It seems sad to me that the council I have elected considers saving a mere 6 minutes is more important than the people who run a business or own a property on Plenty Road. This stretch of the route 86 corridor already runs well why alter it. Plenty Road is nothing like Nicholson Street.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 56 ƒ What benefits, YOU have decided this sounds all warm and fuzzy, get into the real world and do what your ratepayers pay their rates for, stupid things like fixing our crumbling footpaths instead of wasting money on consultants and studies to further your careers, let the department of infrastructure deal with public transport. to save only six minutes in running time over such a long section does not justify the cost to the businesses and ratepayers of Darebin. ƒ My daughter uses this tram route to get to school, 6 minutes cut off this tram ride is not worth all of the local funding that will go into this project, further more, l notice over the page this project will result in the removal of stop 53, this will significantly affect my daughters transport to school as this is the stop she uses. ƒ No benefits! This corridor proposal is insane regarding strip shopping. For the sake of 6 mins- the route is grid lock in Smith St. - the proposal ruins small businesses located on the route and residents parking - Bureaucratic nonsense for a failing system - open your eyes and improve the rail system- A new train operation may, l said may,oblivate the need for this. ƒ concern about if parking is not allowed in Plenty Rd, over flow of parking in side streets and then be difficulties for resident parking ƒ No benefits - your tram problems actually begin in Thornbury not Albert street. Has anyone bothered to consider the small business owner trying to run a business along Plenty road, Preston? These businesses rely on street parking & right hand turns and your proposing to take this away? How can you state that parking we'll be kept to support local 'retail' only - what about every other business that doesn't make lattes and foccacias? This is WRONG! Poor consideration for minimal benefit. ƒ Have trouble getting out of my driveway. At times it is dangerous. Reducing it to 1 lane will make it very dangerous in peak hour traffic. ƒ All the above sound feasible but there will be a huge impact on small business ie- 300 and 1000 people will be jobless and l am opposed to this improvement plan. ƒ How can forcing business to close their doors be a benefit to this ridiculous proposal. ƒ The perceived potential benefits of this proposal are flawed. Council has not ascertained the ACTUAL numbers of the segments of the community who MAY have no or little access to a car, simply made an assumption that the numbers are significant. No survey has been conducted in this regard, although I note that selective surveys have been conducted regarding parking at Westgarth and travel in Northcote. Any increase in tram service speed will only be achieved along the PLENTY ROAD section (which is quite adequate in its CURRENT form), and trams will still encounter traffic impediments from Dundas Street to Westgarth Street. The potential for south- bound trams having to queue north of the junction is very real. ƒ Bad Idea ƒ Noble though these Benefits may be, achieving them at the expense of the livelihood of local business owners is nothing short of obscene. ƒ It is not feasible, will disrupt my business, visitors and clients, disrupt by turning right into Plenty Rd from my street. ƒ I believe the proposal will cause more access issues overall for local residents and business. ƒ What idiot thought this one up? ƒ none! ƒ Very bad idea. ƒ It would be of more use to make a keep clear space at the Plenty Rd & Garnet St intersection, so that the monster street railways hunting often in packs allow residents access and egress. The Bell Street turn right arrow also needs a longer interval to clear traffic. ƒ Nightmare. Police the clearway zones more frequently. Have broken yellow lines for tram priority. 6 mins is not worth the huge costs. I can't believe you are planning to spend ratepayers money on a saving of approx 6 mins - what recourse do we have if these "huge" savings do not come to light. ƒ In my opinion have to stay as it is now. Spending money of rate payers to other any more important issues --- ƒ The proposal will reduce traffic volumes on Plenty Road, to the detriment of businesses on Plenty Road and also to the detriment of traffic flow on Albert Street and St Georges Rd and Spring Street which are already seriously overcrowded at peak times. It is inconsistent to on the one hand say we want to enhance the tram service and then to remove several tram stops. The removal of tram stops further reduces the viability of businesses around those stops as pedestrian traffic is moved further from them.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 57 ƒ I can see no benefit - one lane for traffic on a road that carries so much traffic from the outer Northern suburbs is ludicrous! All it will do is kill off the remaining small business owners - the ones that council have not been able to bully!!! ƒ I can only see problems for traffic ƒ .i cant see any benefit from the proposal. the major issue is the tram travel along all roads in Melbourne and the suburbs ƒ Traffic volumes on Plenty Rd are high now, I cannot see these volumes reducing, rather increasing. ƒ As an employee of a business on Plenty Rd I believe there to be no benefit only disadvantage. ƒ Benefits- one lane each way will move traffic and speed up trams Negatives- overtime vehicle traffic flows will increase ( new subdivisions) - without off street parking businesses will close in Preston, Northcote and Reservoir - this will impact on local residents-longer trips to other shopping centres9by car, bus, foot) - the only winner is the tramway operators, not the shopping population ƒ Doesn’t anybody care about the planet. My parents drive in Plenty Rd every day if they had to go the longer way it would cost more in petrol and create more pollution. We already have enough pollution problems and it would cost people like my mum and dad more money. ƒ Avoid creating difficulties for our community by removing parking spaces and our tram stops. Work at encouraging local shopping access to services and reduce developments which only accommodate property developers and not the community. ƒ Business along Plenty Rd is quiet. Tram stops preventing customer parking will worsen business flow. ƒ Catastrophic Business proportions!!! Don't do it!!! ƒ Leave it as it is, I've never heard anyone complain, I've lived in Preston all my life nearly 90, so just leave it. ƒ A real problem for local small business if no street parking available - will make the area even more desolate and unfriendly to pedestrians. ƒ there is no value in removing two tram stops given the numerous stops along this route ƒ I am a local business owner, all of our clients drive to our business. No parking out front of our property will destroy our business. We currently have 2 drive-ways onto Plenty RD, these will become very difficult to access with the modifications to Plenty Rd. ƒ I see more negatives than positives with this proposal. NO to 24 hour CLEARWAYS on Plenty Road. ƒ Blocking off right hand turns into and out of side streets all along Plenty road does not encourage endorsement of these proposals. Why are these Separation Kerbs only for Preston and Reservoir, Thornbury and Northcote only get the painted yellow lines with full access in and out of their street. And for what, 6 minutes reduced tram times. We will get that 6 minutes back with the round about route we will have to take to get onto Plenty in our car. ƒ Entering and exiting my property will be impossible!!!!!!! ƒ Do not do it!! It will congest traffic, I will lose parking for family visit!! ƒ There will be no beneficial benefits to the small business owners if the off street car parking is eliminated altogether for the small businesses currently on Plenty Road. ƒ I travel through plenty rd on my way to my employment and the trip is long enough without the addition of these larger stops. ƒ We do not have 24 hour trains or trams. We do not need only one lane of traffic. ƒ Benefits for tram travellers will negligible. Similar results can be achieved by restricting right hand turns by vehicles during peak hours or even all hours. This would not disrupt the lives of people living on or near Plenty Road and would not ruin businesses on Plenty Road. ƒ i do not think it will reduce traffic volumes- it will only add to more traffic in side streets as people try to bypass sections or using adjacent streets to get to streets cars can't turn into ƒ * This proposal will prevent easy access to my street. (ie- from Plenty Rd) * Improving the train services is the go in our opinion, cars are a fact of life. ƒ High St has been made a nightmare for traffic next will be Plenty Rd , What next??? ƒ 6 minutes benefit to passengers! compared with destroying OUR livelihoods along with thousands of other business and residents with no on site parking options. The council promotes business in the area, this will ruin business never mind attracting new ones. This is a disaster - I urge council to rethink and not try to fix something that is not broken!!! Put our taxes to better use!! ƒ I wish someone had written a better survey than this. It is obvious that the benefits are for tram users alone. Many of us do not have the option to use the tram to get to our place of work, pick up kids from kinder/schools/child care etc. That's just how it is. You cannot prioritise trams over cars. In an ideal world we could all rely on public transport, just not in Melbourne.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 58 ƒ I don't think that they'll be many benefits, it will kill all trade along there. ƒ With no parking on plenty road we will have no were for customers to park as side streets are already full with cars most of witch never move ƒ The disadvantages far outweigh the little to no benefits of this change. This section on Plenty rd has no problems as is. Why is council getting it wrong again! Listen to the residents and business owners. ƒ only minimal benefits which could be achieved by less intrusive means ƒ Your correspondence has not highlighted any benefits for local residents who rarely use trams. ƒ I think the cons will far out weigh pros. Traffic will be reduced on Plenty Rd but will create more problems down St Georges Rd. Victoria and Albert St, which are already heavy. ƒ There are none. NOT TO ALL ROAD NARROWING. ƒ It may benefit the few but it will increase stress on the many businesses and residents. ƒ No benefits of the proposal, more chaos, more disadvantages ƒ For six minutes there's no benefit. You could get stuck at lights for that period, or there could be an accident, from Westgarth to Separation St. Takes double the time so there’s no point. The only people who will benefit are tram goers. There's more car traffic that uses the road. Better for Darebin brings people in Darebin together. Better for business also. High St all ready destroyed, its become a joke. ƒ There will be no benefits. The benefits listed above can be achieved through the removal of several stops, rather than eliminating normal residential parking in front of houses and local businesses. If every 2nd or 3rd or even 4th stop on this route were removed, the travel time objectives would then be achieved. ƒ I don't see any potential benefits. As a parent of 2 young active children, l can see more cars driving through my street making it more dangerous for my children to play outside. ƒ How can l visit the local shops l drive my car where do l park no benefit to me. ƒ The impact of this proposed change on the flow of vehicle traffic has not been considered. I think that this change will slow car travel. ƒ There are absolutely NO benefits that this proposal makes. ƒ What is the use ƒ No benefit - will cause problems with off-street parking congestion. Owners need to be able to turn right into their streets. This proposal is a waste of money and creates a traffic problem for owners. ƒ It will turn the surrounding homes into student ghettos!!! De-value homes. ƒ i disagree with parking restrictions at nearby shops ( i live near Tyler street/plenty rd intersection and proposed bans of turns into local side streets and driveways) ƒ Plenty Rd has no tram delays people are happy as it is. Accessible tram stop will create more problems than benefits, People have been boarding trams for 100 years with minimal problems why change. ƒ these are comments about negative effects: i strongly believe that it will effect business in such a negative way that many will close down. i moved to this area because it had so much choice-this will drive people to nearby shopping malls. when they got rid of parking near Tyler street in reservoir to extend the tram, the whole strip of shops died. please, don't do this. ƒ No consideration for residents who live in the Junction between Plenty Rd and High St (south of Bell) Parking and the limited street access for these residents will be terrible. ƒ The only improvement it will make is for the minority of transport users. There are not many people with disabilities, elderly, parents with prams that catch the tram in comparison tot he negative affect this will have on the area and the flow of traffic. This may reduce traffic volumes on Plenty road, however as a result the already busy High St will become more congested and cars will take shortcuts through our residential side streets more than they ever do now. Also, the residents will not be able to turn into Plenty Rd towards the city from their own streets!!! ƒ No benefit at all. Useless people in this council. ƒ with the way the trams don’t run on time anyway, who cares about 6 minutes??? this will create more traffic in our area, this will take drivers longer to get home and bigger traffic jams,. the traffic in the area is already congested, this will make matters a lot worse. I cannot believe that this is being considered. ƒ Will only create chaos (In side streets off Plenty Rd.) As traffic tries to avoid major hold-ups at Bell St & Plenty & Bell St & High. During peak hours (am & pm). ƒ There is already a problem with speeding traffic between Tyler St and Albert St, this would not make it safer. ƒ I live in Plenty Rd, I don't see any benefits. ƒ No benefits

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 59 ƒ Why 1 lane of traffic and no turns into side streets. is NOT a good idea. ƒ Traffic on Plenty Road is at a maximum at peak hour and this includes cars on the tram tracks. If you are to go ahead with this proposal you need to offer alternative road space unless you want a total traffic jam. ƒ There are no benefits ƒ Nothing but an inconvenience to residents and visitors, There would be very little benefit, it appears you have not consulted the community about this crazy idea, you would make it almost impossible for locals to enter and leave their property's by not being able to turn right into in out of their own homes or property. ƒ There are no benefits, only a down side for local residents from Tyler St heading north, removing tram stops - Stupid idea! I would not want some-one l love walking in the dark 15-20 mins either - side of the removed stop!! Just put more trams on! ƒ This will only add more to the peak hour congestion on St Georges Rd and Albert St. And make it more difficult for local residents to use their cars as many trips are to areas not well serviced by public transport. ƒ It is probably going to make car traffic slower and heavier on St Georges Rd as drivers avoid the "slow-ups". This happened with similar stops on the 109 line in Box Hill. ƒ I will not be able to enter my street from Plenty rd. I have lived in Preston for 40 years and find it totally shocking that this proposal has even got this far. it is a waste of tax payer’s money & time issuing flyers & sending letters for such an impractical request. There has obviously been no thought to the rate paying residents of Darebin that will be inconvenienced and will forced to leave Darebin. My property will be devalued enormously as I will only have one option to enter my street!!!! ƒ This is a one sided leading question! What happened to discussion? ƒ I will not rest while this is considered to be a viable option ƒ The proposed removal of parking in Plenty Road will simple increase the speed of the cars using Plenty Road and virtually destroy all businesses that rely on people visiting by car. I regularly visit a specialist shop in Plenty Road if I am in Melbourne I usually stay in Box Hill or Heidelberg or if I am visiting for a day I drive past en route to or from the Airport. There is no feasible alternative parking so a ban on parking will immediately make it virtually impossible for me to visit and as the proprietor relies on clients from around Melbourne rather than the local area your proposal will put him out of business. I have tried using public transport to visit this shop. It took 45 min to get there from the City. I have no idea how long if I was going across town from somewhere like Heidelberg probably well over an hour. It is quite clear that despite the bias of your survey - focusing on the benefits rather than a balanced look at the pros and cons there will be significant impacts on the retail trade in the area and I suspect create a nice speedway for cars. ƒ Very little. Remove some parking near these enhanced tram stops. police clearways more strictly. That will speed up the flow of traffic and trams. 6 minutes improvement is negligible(not much) ƒ there are none. except that cars will drive faster and make it more dangerous for pedestrians ƒ No benefits-In my opinion it would disadvantage my customers. Also access to my property that l live in and restrict my access to businesses and my place of worship (church). It would also disadvantage the elderly by the proposed removal of certain tram stops!!!! -Do your research!!! ƒ It seems a certain nationality is buying up properties doing unsafe renovations and putting overseas students in them. This is what this is all about...... ƒ What is the use. ƒ none - extend route 112 tram instead. ƒ With little communal business in this section / Dundas / Albert St - I cannot see that it is worth all the trouble for the people or your council ƒ You have mentioned the no right hand turn into the residential streets off Plenty road major problem. I can't fore see how 6 minutes off travel time is worth spending an enormous amount of money (rate payers) How about upgrading and just cleaning the current trams, if it saved 15 minutes or more it may be worth it. ƒ don’t think it's good for small business ƒ Why not ask residents if they want more cars on their streets, instead of all this irrelevant work. At the moment I can drive to my job, 30 minutes along high street, how long will it take me now? and hour or and hour and a half? Our property prices will also decrease. ƒ It looks like the streetscape in section will be improved with wider footpaths, street furniture and space for trees/ planting. Why are we in Preston treated like second class citizens without the same expectations as those living in Northcote and Westgarth? ƒ You will be putting people out of business. That is not the Australian way.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 60 ƒ There are none. ƒ on the contrary it will destroy local businesses and devalue retail and residential properties. ƒ The above mentions easier tram access for people with disabilities, elderly, parents with prams. I believe this is miss leading, super stops makes the stops accessible but do nothing for the actual tram, as it is often still inaccessible. Department of infrastructure informs me that there are new trams that are being developed that do not require the super stop but are able to "Kneel" to the ground hence negating the reason for super stops. ƒ the roads are slow as it is, it will cause havoc. i do not agree with this project ƒ Street will finish - not good. ƒ I believe there are some benefits however the negatives far out weigh these benefits. This will cause more traffic and congestion and shop traders will lose business due to the loss of parking. ƒ Based on similar projects (South Melb, Box Hill) The minimal gain is far outweighed by the increased traffic congestion and inconvenience to residents and businesses alike. ƒ How will this benefit business? ƒ NONE AT ALL! In a time of economic down turn this is how council decides to spend rate payer’s money? By increasing traffic delay and destroying small business? its pathetic and partitions will be formed to out who ever is responsible for this unusual and unnecessary proposal. Here is an idea why not use the money to form a support program for Darebin families left unemployed by the financial crisis. Unemployment figures are forecasted to reach 10% by the end of the year and the council is spending crucial capitol to speed up the trams for over seas students. MIND BOGGLING! I would like to see a survey conducted to find out what the percentage of people who actually use tram 86 are Darebin rate payers let alone Australian residents? ƒ I am concerned that all the off-street parking will move into our streets (residential) and it will cause noise and congestion. ƒ the tram service along this section is already reliable. trams are rarely inconvenienced by cars. the trams currently provide all the above benefits and do not require further enhancing at the expense of 40km/h, reduced access to side streets ƒ There are no benefits to this proposal for business owners along Plenty Rd - this change will result in reduction in business due to no parking and will therefore result in job losses. It will devalue commercial properties. There are no benefits for local residents who will not be able to access their own streets safely. It will lead to other streets being so congested because residents will need to travel around the world to enter their streets. ƒ Why do Darebin Council think trams are the most important mode of transport? By dramatically reducing and creating a major bottleneck on Plenty Rd. Does the Council wish to punish those horrible people who actually drive cars and have no other option to get to work. When you also mention reducing traffic volumes on Plenty Rd where do you think the traffic will go? Wake up!! ƒ It will kill business in the shopping strip. ƒ no no no no no no ƒ Trams won't be any different in efficiency. You're the local community workers, your solution - no more comment unless you pay me. ƒ Plenty Road parking access in front of our house is imperative because my wife / I suffer from Parkinson’s disease and cannot walk much distance and as we don't drive, pick up/ drop off parking for taxis is essential. ƒ I can not see any benefits ƒ No benefit to residents who live in this proposed area. 6 minutes reduction in tram journey is no reason. 40km is stupid and causes more congestion. And what of the cyclists? They can do whatever they want and pedestrians have to cater for them (as do cars now etc) ƒ We rely the car parking facilities for our business. The absence of car parking will destroy business opportunities. ƒ This is a biased survey. Why do you only ask about the benefits? A project of this size must has some sort of benefit to some aspect affecting the community. (Anyone who cannot see even a minimal benefit is lying) Where is my option to select from a list of disadvantages? Such as: Needing to drive double the distance to reach my local Safeway store. People now needing to park in side streets to visit local businesses. Less tram stops resulting in the average walking distance to a stop being increased. Local people simply giving up on shopping locally due to a maze of no turn street around their residence. ƒ little or no benefits to local residents and the shop owners who are already finding it hard, you will take away the customers of those who are dependant on local shops, plenty rd and high street main roads, and if you restrict them so much you will bill all the food shops and others along these streets

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 61 ƒ Leave it as it is. Thankyou. ƒ This should not be done as it will destroy the local shopping strips and destroy the street scapes. ƒ Trams travel fast enough and often dangerously, allowing a faster ? would increase the accident rate. ƒ I see no benefits to this proposed work. You're 6 minutes saved will be lost traffic light stops. ƒ No benefits only chaos. ƒ Leave it as it is. ƒ As far as I’m concerned there are no benefits. ƒ We also are concerned that we will be inundated with cars parking all over our streets. ƒ Cost vs. Benefit - not worth expenditure, would harm businesses, inconvenience residents and car travel times- refer RACV red spot surveys. Help local businesses by lowering rates and giving us more money to use in area.

Community Suggestions ƒ I find the Plenty Rd tram very easy - usually on time and drivers very helpful - and always wait for us elderly to be seated before continuing the journey. ƒ is it possible to make some fly overs to pass over roads, instead of red lights ƒ trams are very slow. it takes around 40-45 minutes for a tram from Safeway(beginning of plenty rd) to the city. suggestions- remove some tram stops as they are very close to each other, there are too many stops along the way ƒ Put human conductors on every tram. ƒ No comments but bring back conductor for our safety trams are now dangerous travel with fear! ƒ My comment is to reduce some tram stops for example currently there is are at Bell St and also Preston depot, both are not required. ƒ Trams need to go back to the more regular brake maintenance, also need cleaning. what measures will be put into place during construction to cope with the heavy traffic that plenty rd currently carries? ƒ Tram conductors would achieve the main benefits more cheaply and better. ƒ would all stops that are not at traffic lights have a pedestrian/zebra crossing to further enhance pedestrian safety?

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 62 5.0 Comments

5.1 Thornbury Would you like to make comments about the potential benefits of the proposal?

Positive Comments ƒ Once improvements are made, with our kids we will be able to use it more and more safety. ƒ Slower traffic would making driving this stretch smoother and less stressful ƒ I support the bravery of Darebin Council. It is the responsibility of council to lead the way in making changes to the unsustainable way that we live in Australia. We can not continue to be dependant on fossil fuels and travel one person per car. We can not expect to park our car directly outside of a shop we are visiting or within 100 metres of our homes. We need to be forces to make a change as we are not willing to make it by ourselves. If Council prioritizes sustainable transport (walking, trams, and cycles) making it easier, more economical and convenient more people will use it. If Council encourages community centres, pedestrian thoroughfares, community areas and pockets of shopping and entertainment in localized areas people will stop driving and start walking. Why not go a step further and put a price tag on parking spaces. They are in public roadways, sell them at a premium to homeowners or business owners. Perhaps people will them think twice about having 2-3 cars when they only need one. Driving, especially when public transport is so close, is not a right but a privilege. ƒ More time schedule for tram. ƒ The proposal will reduce the number of accidents from traffic turning right from Hutton St into High St. ƒ i am very pleased about the proposal, as it will make my children’s walk to school and my trips to school, work and shopping ƒ high street is very wide north of clarendon street so footpaths should be wider, allowing for trees. the trees are vital as it beautifies the area and attracts people ie. like in high street Northcote. more people means more business and improved shop facades ƒ Improved safety at Hutton St/High St intersection ƒ I love the idea don't stop now! ƒ Slower vehicle speeds but also it would improve the area in its appearance, more appealing for both visitors and residents.

Neutral Comments ƒ as long as the stops remaining are at pedestrian crossing lights it might be quicker to travel ƒ The proposal is good but lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by creating other problems. Reduce tram stops, police tram lanes during peak hour, use newer trams, landscape streets and you might achieve similar results with less dollars and interruption.

Negative Comments ƒ Other than create traffic bedlam, in the surrounding area, the proposed has been poorly thought out. The solution would be to use low entry trams as used overseas. ƒ Again I refuse to answer such a stupidly worded question. You are treating us like idiots ƒ This will only add more to peak (and off peak) congestion on St Georges Rd and Albert St, and make it more difficult for local residents to use their cars as many trips are to areas not accessible well by public transport. ƒ Create traffic jams restricts traffic flow. ƒ The wider part of High Street is a pleasure to use. The tram platforms will be a major obstruction, and contribute nothing in the times of the day when trams are NOT running. The great advantage of tram lines is that they have not required sectioned off areas the way trains always have. This "multi-use" nature of the lines is now being destroyed ƒ not fair for small businesses or for residents ƒ i avoid this section as it is already congested. the proposal will only add to this congestion, for cars, and will turn it into a no go zone as far as I’m concerned

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 63 ƒ The trams and proposed stop are NOT accessible to the disabled. ƒ This proposal will result in the further blocking of traffic, with more delays and more frustration. Councils meddling is counter production. ƒ Make it a more appealing mode of transport. By car it takes 20-25 mins to the city... the tram 40- 1hr pending traffic. ƒ If you reduced some tram stops, say situate every set of traffic lights. (approx 1km) That would speed up tram times and vehicle congestion ƒ No benefits. You [the co-ordinators of this project] have not done your research as thorough as you should have. You have upset all of the community using the area proposed!!! ƒ Again, only list the benefit, no side effect listed, not a fair survey. ƒ This will be detrimental to the local community and small businesses. This will create havoc on our roads, people will not visit the area and local businesses because there will be no parking and difficult access. We need more space on our roads and more parking and access not less. ƒ There is absolutely no need for this project as current system works. By going ahead vehicular traffic will be more congested and lessens parking space availability will be provided. Do not go ahead it will create a heavier parking burden on nearby side streets. Keep ƒ our tram stops provide services to Darebin constitutes and encourage local shopping by not hindering it with the removal of parking spaces. ƒ The proposal seems to totally ignore the effects of forcing motor vehicle traffic out of a major through road- High street, into the surrounding streets, and onto such alternative routes as St George's Road, Victoria Road and Station Street/Albert Street, all of which are already subject to excessively heavy traffic. The existing traffic isn't going to go away and to talk of forcing it to find alternative routes is simply forcing our problems onto other equally disadvantaged inner suburban residential areas. I can assure you that rate-payers who live in the side streets(at least those streets that lead anywhere) are not going to tolerate heavy traffic being diverted through their residential streets. The loss of parking amenity has previously been identified in the area and has been brought to the attention of VCAT who have imposed continuing embargos on such reductions. The proposal to remove parking up Ruckers Hill is unnecessary and will serve no useful purpose but will simply impose further delays on traffic. Remember, the main source of pollution from motor vehicles arises when vehicles are stationary or moving very slowly. ƒ There are no benefits from this proposal as it will damage my business by removing traffic from High St ƒ No benefits at all. ƒ This is not to improve travel by 6 mins for tram users, this is to create multi-level developments - we are not fools! ƒ what is the use. ƒ Instead of doing this project extend route 112 tram to Henty St at least. ƒ The only valid benefit that this scheme will provide is that of disabled access to public transport, however the negatives for this scheme outweigh any other perceived benefits ƒ As previous, don't slow the traffic any further. have you heard the term "bottleneck"??? That's what you are creating. ƒ Lack of High St car parking, reduced access to shops - I will go elsewhere after work to shop. ƒ Again small shops cannot afford to lose customers-- if you remove parking people will stop visiting these stores.

Other ƒ With new low floor trams being more common a simple speed-hump style loading area for wheel- chair access would help disabled & elderly without blocking traffic.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 64 5.2 Westgarth

Positive Comments x It may be advantageous for reducing traffic on High St. x Anything that will reduce the flow of traffic and reduce heavy vehicles using High St should make it a more attractive place to live. x I have vision impairment and can't drive. I think it is time the drivers were asked to make a few small sacrifices. We have been forced to sacrifice our access and convenience all our lives. It would be good to look at all the tram and bus stops throughout the City of Darebin. x Support reducing the speed limits – safety comes first. Why don’t the 40km/h signs that are in High St, Preston be put up? x With the left turn modifications proposed it will result in faster traffic flows and reduce the need for vehicles to take the back access to Merri Parade via Walker Street access. x I am in favour of removing car parking or introducing clear ways all along High St as it is already quite congested. Driving through High St from Preston to Northcote will become a lot more cumbersome, unless all street parking is removed or make it a clear way from 6-9am and 4-9pm.

Neutral Comments x Support for removing the tram stop before Westgarth St and High St. However, don't implement the slip lane and avoid funnelling traffic down Westgarth St, which would make McLachlan St more of a bottleneck then it already is. x I like the trees, but dislike the rest of the proposal. x The second Westgarth tram stop proposal has some merit, traffic management aside, as my stop, the next one down the hill, is a lot safer now than it was before. As long as seats remain at the tram stops that had them before because seniors are used to relying on them. x There should be no tram stops in front of the shops in Westgarth. Option 2, Westgarth, makes more sense, however I strongly believe that no special tram stops are required in front of our shops. x Keeping cars out of shopping areas themselves is a great idea but Ruckers Hill is a natural geographical obstacle and by not allowing any parking will just accentuate this. x Other parts of Melbourne have already increased the spaces between tram stops. x I am very much in favour of investment in public transport infrastructure and what you are trying to achieve certainly has its merits. I just want the city of Darebin to consider the impact on residents of these streets in the current design - from both a safety and quality of life perspective. x While I am in favour of improving the tram stops, the proposal to funnel more traffic onto Westgarth St in order to calm traffic on High St is misguided. Westgarth St is mainly residential and already suffers far too much traffic, while High St is not residential and can handle traffic, especially since there are several pedestrian crossings already. x While I am a strong supporter of public transport and all green modes of travel, there are some occasions when the car is the most appropriate mode of transport. x All trams should be accessible, not just ones which have 'suitable' stops. My experience of riding the trams is that they are far too full, including on weekends. What we need is more trams. A more efficient service will increase patronage, but trams are already full so they will actually become more unsafe and less accessible with more people using them. x I think section 1 of the proposal seems quite well thought out. However, a minor concern is with the nature of the platform tram stop design. Presumably this will make the left-hand lane of 'traffic' full-time parking.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 65 x I agree that making driving inconvenient can encourage people to reduce their car use. However, I think this needs to be coupled with increased convenience in other methods, such as buses and bike routes. For example the plans for both Westgarth and Ruckers Hill sections of High St seem to me to make bicycle travel more problematic, increasing the amount of time the cyclists have to interact with pedestrians and trams. Given that cycling offers a convenient means of transport, particularly for those accessing High St from Fairfield and Thornbury (where it may be too far to walk), I think that this compromise of tram stops over bicycles is an issue. x Whilst their maybe some benefits to the structure of the public transport system, not everyone can use public transport as a practical means of transportation to get to work. I for instance, and many others like me, would be disadvantaged greatly by the increased traffic and congestion that this plan will cause, especially considering there is no alternative route for cars to take. I have grave concerns that this proposal will only address and improve access to public transport x Having one DDA compliant tram stop south and north of this precinct integrates the strip and minimises the loss of car spaces. x No concern other than the small businesses losing customers in a recession.

Negative Comments x All trams should be accessible, not just the ones which have ‘suitable’ stops. x Footpath widening and new tram stops will lead to reduced safety and convenience for cyclists. Cyclists comprise a large proportion of shoppers in Westgarth. x Increased traffic in Westgarth St, west of High St, due to new slip lane in High St. x Pedestrian crossing of Westgarth St and High St and at McLachlan Street will become even more difficult and slow due to the new slip lane at High Street (which will allow a continuous flow of traffic from High St into Westgarth St). x Westgarth St and McLachlan St are already dangerous due to traffic taking the corner from Merri Parade too fast. If this development proceeds as planned, traffic will travel at fast speeds from the High St direction as well and will result in serious accident. x Consultation with Westgarth residents has been very poor. x It would be a great shame for an area as vibrant as Westgarth to lose trade because car parking access was limited for people coming from further a field. x The Westgarth Cinema is a significant social precinct in the area and will suffer greatly from reduced car parking on High St. The proposal will push people to park in residential streets or even reduce business for the cinema/shops/cafes if it is too difficult to find a car space. x I am concerned that a loss of parking in Westgarth Central will push people to park in nearby streets. On Friday and Saturday nights it is already almost impossible to get a park near our house (26 Westgarth Street) and loss of parking in Westgarth Central will exacerbate this. x The proposal will cause gridlock long High St, bringing about increased traffic and safety problems to local streets. x The junction of High St, Westgarth St & Merri Pde is at a standstill in the mornings. x The volume of traffic now coming down Merri Pde, turning left into High Street then left onto Punt Road is staggering. The volume of traffic also coming straight down High St in this direction has also increased significantly. Many mornings it is a standstill. I guess the traffic from Merri Pde is coming off St Georges Rd & using this local link, at considerable inconvenience to Westgarth locals just to get to Punt Rd. x Concerned about the bus terminus stop at the corner of Westgarth St and Merri Pde. How will diverting traffic to the service road affect this important bus service? x Very concerned about loosing car parking in general in the area – there are not enough car parks spots to service all the night life on Westgarth St, such as the cinema, restaurants, cafes and bars. x The project is too costly. x I don't think the proposed slipway between Cunningham and Westgarth streets will have much benefit – the main traffic problem is eastbound on Westgarth St.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 66 x Car parking should not be removed – businesses have already suffered as a result of a clearway. x Removing car parking along High St will not encourage trading. “This parking is the life-blood of the street traders”. x Cyclists have again been overlooked - the master plan is unclear about how cyclists will navigate the changes - the pictures in the appendix are not explained. x I think the tram stop south of Westgarth St is too close to the new platform stop further down Queens Parade. The Westgarth/High St tram stop should be moved north of Westgarth St into the northern section of Westgarth Central. x Strongly opposed to removal of parking between Clarke and Union streets. This will mean that this car parking which currently has low impact on the residential streets will be transferred to those streets. x I don't want High St to look like a Bourke St mall. x I would not be in favour of reducing the number of tram stops and would like to see provision of services for bicycles increased across Darebin. x Once the apartments at Stop 29 are rebuilt there will be need for the tram stop again. x Too many tram stops between Walker and Union streets and the High St/ Westgarth St tram stop is not required, and would reduce congestion in this area. This would avoid slipway option at High St/ Westgarth St. x Taking the parking off High St simply pushes them into residential streets. The scheme does not appear to have a solution to the proposed loss of parking. x There is already insufficient car parking – the loss of parking must be addressed or otherwise the scheme is unviable. x I am extremely concerned by what is being proposed for Cunningham St. Residents will only be able to access High St via McLachlan St or Rucker St. To turn right onto Westgarth St out of either McLachlan St or Rucker St is often a dangerous prospect as some drivers tend to travel quickly east bound along Westgarth St. Because of the left hand bend there is not a lot of distance allowing a right turning car (out of McLachlan or Rucker streets) to be seen by a car travelling east bound along Westgarth St. Council not would be maintaining their duty of care to residents of these streets by making it significantly more dangerous for them to drive their cars. If you intend on limiting us to only being able to exit our streets via McLachlan or Rucker streets you should install traffic lights to allow us to be able to safely turn right onto Westgarth St. x Not everyone has the option of catching public transport to work, for examples trades people who carry a cargo of tools. x There is no mention in the proposal of how the proposal will affect bus users - the plans to further clog Merri Pde will be met with opposition from bus users and operators. x You are forcing the residents of the service road in High St to lose their distance from the traffic and force thousands of extra vehicles to move within meters of their bedrooms, lounge rooms, and gardens. This plan will ruin the relative peace and amenity that can be had with a small distance from the main road for residents. x You are exposing residents to harmful emissions. x Removing the service lane entrance onto High St and funnelling more traffic into Merri Pde will further enhance the problem at this intersection. x The increase of traffic volume from High St, Walker St, Cunningham St and McLachlan St will cause traffic to congest on the corner of Merri Pde and Westgarth St and make this a major bottleneck. This hazardous corner will become unsafe for local residents to cross. This corner is an accident prone area and do occur frequently. x Removing the car parking High St in Westgarth will mean people visiting friends and family will not be able to find a car park in the residential streets. x Leave tram stop 29 – how are elderly people going to walk to the next stop. x Losing any tram stops is not viable. People, such as myself, sometimes walk this area and due to the change of weather may need to catch a tram, however being disabled or being with children any further distance myself and others need to walk could be a detriment to catching public transport.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 67 x The results of your traffic survey of parking on Ruckers Hill indicate an average daytime car space usage of 27%. This is a misleading measure of the real impact of removing the parking spaces. The nature of the Westgarth Strip means that the real problem is on the weekends and at night times. x The proposed road changes for the roundabout on the corner St Georges Road/Merri Parade and the plans to alter the corner access of Westgarth St/High St will increase the traffic on Westgarth St to unbearable and dangerous levels. This area has many young and elderly residents and there safety must and should be considered. x Concerns regarding the removal of the four tram stops. Question whether the 1.5 minutes saved by removing two stops would be worth the inconvenience of the regular users of these stops. Given the number of high-density dwellings under construction at the corner of High and McCutcheon St, I question whether this stop should be removed, regardless of its proximity to stop 33. x I would much rather be inconvenienced by slower traffic than have inner suburbs ruined by commuters from outer suburbs. Compare Rathdown St Carlton, to Johnson St Abbotsford for example (where cars are dominant). The local amenity of inner suburbs needs to be protected. x Cars parking on Ruckers Hill on Friday and Saturday nights do not impede trams and cannot see any benefit from separating traffic up the hill at all. x Opposed to the suggestion in this proposal that bikes would need to mount the tram stops as it is fraught with danger. Darebin is attempting to pride itself on its reputation as a sustainable city yet this plan is yet another hindrance for easy and safe passage to work / school etc for cyclists. x The suggested option of travelling down St Georges Road is not necessarily a viable option for many commuters. x Being a disabled person with limited mobility I am concerned about the car parking spaces that will be lost on High Street close to the local shops where I prefer to shop. I am unable to walk very far but can drive and currently park close to the shops and trolley my shopping to my car. Any loss of parking would be detrimental, especially disabled spots, which should be increased along High St. I don't use public transport because of mobility issues.

Community suggestions x The Darebin City Council website states that cyclists should use St. Georges Rd. However, cyclists tend to use the shortest route (for efficiency). Many cyclists use the shops on High St. Encouraging cyclist onto St Georges Rd will further contribute to the loss of business along High St. x Heavier policing of the clearways is required throughout the strip to ensure trams travel unimpeded. x Please consider putting all power lines underground, more WSUD garden beds and replacing the bitumen with a more environmentally friendly paving solution. x Will the carbon cost of construction and demolition be offset? x The proposal should add in dedicated cycle lanes i.e. Copenhagen lanes. x I would like to see illuminated speed signs on High St. Anything that will reduce the flow of traffic and reduce the use of High St by heavy vehicles should make it a more attractive place to live. x I live on Westgarth St. I can see the majority of traffic now turning left to get to St Georges road, and my street becoming a traffic nightmare. What are you proposing to fix this problem? x The proposed 40km/h speed limit should be introduced not just on High St but Westgarth St. x If the tram stop is put in on the Northern side of Union Street instead of the southern side, the loss of Tram stop 29 on Ruckers Hill will not be a concern. x Rather than building the sides of the platform stop with squared off edges, it is possible to build them to a similar design as a speed bump, so that cars can drive over the stop during clearway times, yet still allow for DDA compliance. The one drawback to this design is it does not provide a "safe refuge" for pedestrians to board the tram, compared with the standard stop design. This style of stop currently exists in the South Melbourne/Albert Park area.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 68 x I think the clearways should also be removed along this section of High Street. They have the effect of killing all the shops along those areas. Also, when you walk your kid’s home it is like walking on a dirty smelly freeway. x Tram stops should be moved away from intersections to promote safety and reduce congestion. The objective is to improve Tram Route 86, not push traffic into residential areas incapable of coping with further increased traffic loads. x Get rid of more parking, there are many car parks around High Street that are rarely used. For example the parking behind 'Stuzzi's'. Bu due to the lack of signage these car parks are not seen as readily available. x I would move the north bound tram and the south bound tram to the middle of Westgarth shops. This would free up the problem intersection Westgarth/High Streets.

5.3 Plenty Road

Positive comments

ƒ I have no concerns; just wish it had been done earlier. ƒ Good proposal. ƒ Public transport is vital and needs to work more efficiently. ƒ We believe the State Government needs to put into place more appropriate public transport infrastructure to cope with/accommodate the growing population of the Northern suburbs. The City of Darebin needs to focus on improving the overall appeal of the city and focusing on the small, self funded business’ that gives it its charm. ƒ Looks great! Well done. ƒ I agree you need to get through traffic off Plenty Road; slow the traffic to make it safer for pedestrians, improve access to trams, but this should be able to be done without detriment to the viability of businesses along Plenty Road. ƒ I agree with the council that something will have to be done - but this is just too much in one go, or even it’s the best even later in it’s present form. ƒ The reduction of tram stops that are closely spaced is definitely required. ƒ Just do it. ƒ I am totally in favour. ƒ We believe that stop 47 should be removed as it appears too close to stop 46 (Preston depot). ƒ Plenty Road needs all the help it can get. ƒ I would support any initiative that promotes safety convenience and addresses the needs of people with disabilities/ the elderly in our community. Go for it, l say!!!

Neutral comments

ƒ removing more tram stops which will make the travel to the city quicker ƒ Loss of right hand turns will be a hassle but public transport is much more important even though I am seldom a user of it nowadays. ƒ Surely, the Plenty Road Land Use Study should be done before the Council can make a decision on the major component of Plenty Road land use which is travel. ƒ There are to many tram stops along Plenty Rd. ƒ Trams hinder traffic- what alternative routes can be used so Plenty Road is avoided? Plenty Rd is already a nightmare out going during pm peak hour. ƒ The proposal should add in dedicated cycle lanes like Copenhagen lanes. ƒ While I’m not fully informed, l would support any comments that Darebin Bicycle Users Group puts in. They have extensive experience in thinking about road design for cyclists - and this needs to be considered seriously - does this proposal narrow lanes and therefore squeeze cyclists - etc - There is no mention of consideration of cyclists on the brochure that came with this survey. ƒ The matter of alternative parking at shopping centres has not been addressed in the plan, as outlined in this paper. Preservation of shopping sites is just as impossible as moving traffic along Plenty Road. ƒ Many students going to school on tram 86, increase tram frequency, lesser the delay of tram please.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 69 ƒ The impact of car travel needs to be considered. ƒ Incorporate more trees along Plenty Rd as well as low maintenance plants around tram stops etc. I drive through suburbs like Camberwell and see Greenery which looks amazing. ƒ Who decided that a 25% trip reduction was a valid figure; why not 12.5% which would result in an average saving of 1.5minutes per trip through Darebin, and could be quickly saved by improved tram flow at Bell street intersection and at Dundas Street. ƒ I strongly believe that all tram stops should be removed from main intersections and tram stops should be placed between main intersections to remove congestion at the intersections ƒ The loss of trees and nature strips needs to be considered. ƒ As far as Section A and Section B of the proposal i don't have any comments as High St is busy enough and i try to avoid it where possible. All i will say is that I would avoid these sections by car even more given that the proposals would further slow the flow of cars. ƒ I support a project that promotes public transport over car use but this needs significant research and careful consultation with residents and businesses as losing this many car spaces is very contentious. ƒ Why doesn't this section of the proposed include landscaping with trees like the Northcote end? It would provide a whole change in perception of the road - more conclusive to walk and public transport and potentially slow down the speed of the traffic? ƒ The council’s literature makes no differentiation between peak and off peak traffic flow. What will the off peak traffic be like? What sort of traffic will use high St at night? I think this plan will increase the off peak traffic flow in High street with the removal of street parking. ƒ I would be concerned that the increase of traffic on other major north - south routes (Albert St, Victoria Rd, St Georges Rd) will not be well managed. Perhaps a 3rd lane on St Georges Rd and better feed from round-a -bout to Hoddle Street would need to be considered? ƒ Ethel Grove has pedestrian lights; wouldn’t it be better to keep this stop? Rubbish bins at tram stops would also be a benefit as rubbish is left would reduce and make for a cleaner environment. ƒ High St and Plenty Rd in the proposal area are not wide enough for what is planned. The cost of this project would be better spent elsewhere as the proposal will only give 6 minutes saving. ƒ Can parking signs be erected for residents only in local areas? This will in some way make the proposal possible. ƒ Excessive tram stops, removal would make all traffic flow free, There is already a problem with the tram depot in Plenty Rd being too close to Bell St, the trams have priority their and it causes congestion and chaos. ƒ The issue of tram speed seems to be something which is often cited but I'm not clear whose concerns these are. I want a tram service which is reliable and can hold the amount of passengers who want to use it. I get on the corner of Plenty road and Gower street and the tram is already full, often the leave passengers at stops because the tram is packed by Thornbury. More trams are required and my impression of where the hold up from traffic occurs is it stems from Fitzroy, Collingwood part of the route. ƒ More tram stops should be taken out along the whole 86 route as it takes to long to reach the city. ƒ Will the council reduce our rates if we give up our parking spots and the inconvenience of not being able to stop in front of our homes for 5min because CARS have priority over residents? ƒ give way signs, residential parking only, get rid of nature strips, super stops, reduce speed on plenty rd, reduce traffic , service roads, review traffic lights to give way to trams at all times, bike lanes. ƒ Although I mostly travel by tram, I live close to Plenty Road and use it as a connector through to the eastern suburbs. There are not other car options nearby. At the same time, I also understand that cars travel way too fast in Plenty Road and sometimes drive past stationary trams that have the doors open. On balance, platform stops at key intersections is preferred. ƒ The existing reduced speed limit of 50kph is sufficient. Whilst their maybe some benefits to the structure of the public transport system, not everyone can use public transport as a practical means of transportation to get to work. ƒ Most hold ups are in Smith St which is city of Yarra. Tyler St - Wilkinson St is a long stretch and it is uphill. For older residents - Better to take out stop 54 at Wilkinson St. ƒ Tram times are always changing, would it be possible to have the electronic tram screens like in the city? It would make things a lot easier also, why do we have the old trams on our line? Route 96 has it better than we do.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 70 Negative comments

ƒ Overall this proposal is a no, Darebin Council needs to come up with something better that will support: small businesses along PLENTY rd PRESTON/RESERVOIR, residents and home owners along PLENTY RD PRESTON/RESERVOIR, support BICYCLE lanes (over cars). I hope we (HOME OWNERS, RESIDENTS, SMALL BUSINESSES, FAMILIES living on this rd, BICYCLE riders)get a fair hearing and are heard and given priority over cars, in making your final decision. ƒ no parking anytime on plenty road more congestion into side streets more greenhouse gases ƒ Restricted pedestrian access. ƒ I disagree with a 24hr - 7 days ban on parking and turning to achieve 6 min faster travel time in peak hour periods. ƒ Increased rat running on local streets as a result of right hand turn ban out of Plenty Road. ƒ There will be a loss of businesses between Wood and Tyler Streets, including an increase in local unemployment. ƒ This whole proposal will achieve nothing but loss of jobs, property devalue, and chaos as the whole section will become a bottle neck that will not be able to handle the traffic. ƒ It will get worse not better and not to mention access to residents homes, parking and emergency access. ƒ This small shopping strip is struggling for patronage as is - removal of short term parking will be fatal for small business and discourage shoppers from using this shopping strip. ƒ Keep the small business community alive. ƒ The potential closures of shops and removal of tram stops will also further inconvenience particularly older people in the area. ƒ I would lose the (6 mins) as would have to walk further to go to the next tram stop if 53 is taken away. So no benefit made, would also feel my safety at risk. ƒ The loss of car parking spaces on Plenty Rd will only increase the ambient of parking on our already cramped residential streets - Garnet, Seymour, Yann, and Junction. This is not OK. ƒ Start fixing out footpaths etc. Ratepayers are fed up with council wasting our rates e.g. that ridiculous sculpture outside the town hall. ƒ The amount of vehicles that use Plenty Road are in excess of 10,000 per day ( have Vic Roads Survey )these vehicles will be slowed which will cause congestion, use alternate route - which will increase the bottle necks already of Albert St , St Georges Road and surrounding side streets. The amount of disabled, elderly and prams that use Trams does not warrant the excess problems and monies that will be spent on these proposals. ƒ The loss of car parking spaces along Plenty Road (which for some reason is 73% greater than the total loss south of the Junction) will decimate local businesses and shops, and place additional pressure upon car-parking spaces at Northland and Preston Market. The lack of a dedicated bicycle lane (because it is just physically impossible to fit one in under this proposal) will surely result in cyclist fatalities. ƒ The St. George Road bicycle path is not a viable or safe solution for the cyclist community. ƒ How does this proposal cater for the future increased numbers of vehicle users coming through Darebin from the growth corridors of South Morang, Mernda, Doreen and Whittlesea? The same amount or more vehicles will instead be squeezed into one lane, rather than two. This proposal seems to be an attempt to move traffic out of Darebin by inconveniencing motorists. ƒ What are motorists expected to do when emergency services park their vehicles in the only traffic lane available for use? Has Council considered the negative impact on response times for emergency services vehicles which may be confronted with a combination of queued trams and a long line of peak hour traffic preventing them from progressing? ƒ Potential for increase in vehicle accidents resulting from local congestion in the area. ƒ Businesses operating along Plenty Rd - They will be forced to close - all for a lousy 6 mins. ƒ It is not a proposal; the decision to implement the project has been reached. This is a public relations exercise masquerading as a proposal. ƒ Compensation for businesses located along Plenty Road must be taken into consideration. ƒ To remove stop 44 (Seymour St) is not fair because there are the Greek Orthodox Church at Yana St, and two (2) Elderly Citizen's Group of resident's of DAREBIN C.C. which these meet at the premises Hall's of the Church.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 71 ƒ Overall this proposal is a NO. Darebin council should support small businesses along PLENTY RD by increasing parking along the rd e.g. Service rd could be put in, nature strips can be converted into parking, and in particular reducing the speed on this road. This proposal does nothing to support current local business. The reduction of parking along Plenty Road, and the reduction in the number of tram stops saves people 6 minutes, at the cost of business failure, and residents being restricted in their travel to and from their residence. The reduction in the number of right turn options into streets and private residences results in people travelling further and crossing potentially uncontrolled intersections as they have to take more roundabout methods of travel just to get home. ƒ Losing tram stops causes issues for our aging population who already confront delays when crossing Bell St. ƒ Lack of community education and information - only heard about it via local chemist. Should be advertised more wildly in local papers (where was it proposed)? ƒ No to 24 hr clearways this will kill off remaining small business left on Plenty Rd, property prices will plummet on Plenty Rd, no compensation for loss of parking spaces on Plenty Rd, Darebin Council please consider the small business and residents on Plenty Rd and surrounding side streets before you decide to introduce 24 hr clearways. ƒ We are living through a time where Australia is leading toward recession. It is at this time that Council should be worried about helping local businesses, as opposed to worry about superfluous additions to a tram line that will, without a doubt, and disturb local commerce. I have absolutely no doubt that I would lose business as a result of these changes. If a commuter is in such a hurry, let him/her wake up and leave the house 6 minutes earlier. Local businesses on the other hand, can't just pick up new customers as easily as that. If this proposal is accepted, I will be moving my business from Plenty Rd on to either another street or to another suburb where, hopefully, the local council will show a bit more respect and concern for local business owners. ƒ My concerns are the loss of trade to small business and shops due to lack of parking. ƒ Encouraging more traffic to travel down Albert Street will most likely: i - hinder bus, both school and public, travel and performance along Albert Street ii - reduce the safety, enjoyment and environmental health of pedestrians, people with prams, children (esp. those with asthma), the elderly, cyclists and disabled persons wishing to use or cross Albert Street, Station Street and Grange Road. The above two (2) impacts would actually contradict some of the key objectives of the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Instrument. ƒ I also consider the consultation period is far too short, as many people will not even be aware of the proposal let alone have time to voice an opinion. ƒ Blocking off right hand turns into and out of side streets all along Plenty road does not encourage endorsement of these proposals. ƒ It is called a tram corridor improvement I think it is a Disaster if it goes ahead. ƒ Unnecessary costs, inconvenience too many, inability to access my own street, a `fairway` system will cost far less and benefit everyone. ƒ I believe there will be more cars driving through side streets making it more dangerous for my children to play outside. ƒ The reason l don't wish for the removal of tram stops 44 and 53 is that there is a large elderly community and this will make it difficult for them to walk to the next stop as well as students that rely on these stops. Should you take away Seymour St 44, it is a long walk to the next stop. I don't support this at all and l don't see a reason for it. ƒ Loss of stop 44. We are devastated by the loss of our tram stop (Seymour St. 44) as we think it is very well utilised (by us and many others) and in fact has more patronage than the Bell St stops. One of the benefits of tram travel is the frequency of stops and to remove stops is a real shame. We often use the tram at night for safety reasons (safer than the train) and the additional walk in the dark means this is no longer a benefit. ƒ SEVERLY IMPACT ON THEIR ABILITY TO EASILY TRADE AND OPERATE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. MANY OF THESE BUISNESS' EMPLOY LOCAL PEOPLE AND LIMITING THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO MAXIMISE TRADE MAY FORCE THEM TO MOVE OUT OF THE CITY OF DAREBIN. THIS WILL IN TURN FORCE MORE TRAFFIC ONTO THE ROADS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET PEOPLE TO AND FROM WORK. THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE 20/20 PLAN TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO LIVE AND WORK WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY. ƒ Disagreement of removal of stop 53 as this is on a very steep part of plenty rd and will be disadvantageous to elderly and disabled.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 72 ƒ No consultation with residents within the Junction area - complete joke for such a major proposal to be implemented with no consideration for any residents in any of the streets that run between Plenty Rd and High St all south of Bell St. I will STRONGLY will appose this proposed route 86 development. ƒ A pedestrian loss of tram stops means a long walk and platform stops can be impossible to reach because traffic speeds through. ƒ Increased travel time for cars commuting through Plenty Road. ƒ This needs to be sorted out quickly as it is putting stress & hardship on our shoulders unnecessarily. ƒ As someone who is unable to utilise public transport to commute to work I feel these dedicated tram reserves will make my journey much more difficult. This doesn’t cater for non-public transport users in the area. ƒ This should be considered in the light of peak traffic times, and the increased cost in pollution/time/money for all, not just tram travellers! ƒ As a business I need trucks to bring deliveries, which currently come through Plenty Road. If they cannot get parking, then I am in trouble. Your proposal has no allowance for this operation. ƒ This project is too costly. ƒ Replace old track between Wood St and Bell St. *Why is it that streetscape is not the same in section A and section C? *What guarantee can be given that traffic volumes will be reduced even though you know that this is a major growth corridor? * I am concerned that bigger and faster trams will cause more cracking in my walls of my house due to vibration. ƒ Trams take up half of the road and everything has to stop when they stop, preventing a smooth flow of traffic. We are the only State that have trams, are they kept for a tourist attraction? ƒ I am very concerned about the loss of tram stop 44 (Seymour St). The tram stop is the closest stop for the predominantly elderly members of the Hellenic Stegi Citizens Club of Darebin, members of the Greek Orthodox Church in Yann Street and for the children at South Preston Primary School. It therefore takes a high volume of tram passengers at certain times of the day. Moreover, these passengers require safe and easily accessible tram stops. If tram stop 44 is removed, the closest stop would be across Bell St: a difficult and unsafe road to cross. I believe the removal of tram stop 44 would discourage families of the primary school, members of the club and churches from using tram as a mode of transport. This will increase the volume of cars in the area and the need for more parking spaces. ƒ Turn bans into side streets and driveways!! How do l get to my home? Fantastic!! Well thought out! More stops with no seating - not a great idea!! A lot of money and disruption to local residents all to make a 6 min saving. Not the best idea or even a good one. ƒ It’s time council spent Ratepayers money back into the community they are supposed to serve, fix the infrastructure you are supposed to maintain like footpaths etc. not paying for ridiculous artwork and pointless studies, let the government deal with public transport. ƒ This proposal not only loses parking but makes it impossible for services such as RDNS, Meals on Wheels, Community OT's, Home care, patient transport, Emergency services etc to park in front of people's homes therefore puts these people at risk or possibly deny a service. Often outreach policy states for services not to park in peoples driveways in case of emergency etc. ƒ As an OT who works in the community in particular on community access I believe this proposal is deeply flawed and the overall impact is not being looked at. My concerns are: * Council is proposing super stops at only some points - how is this complying with DDA when all stops should be accessible. Instead of super stops being created, the focus should be on purchasing trams that have the ability to kneel to the ground and therefore do not require huge changes to the road; by doing this it ensures that all stops are accessible. *By only having some stops accessible it then makes client walk further to those stops. This is almost impossibly for people who suffer from Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure. ƒ I believe this will be the same in Plenty road and by having the separation of traffic and tram, cars will not be able to give cyclist sufficient room. * The proposal for no right turns unless in designated areas. These will inturn cause congestion where u turns or right turns are permitted! In particular when I have used the tram in this section R turns into driveways or streets do not seem to hold the tram up. The issue seems to be in Smith ST, Gertrude and on High not the proposed plenty road section.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 73 ƒ As for Section C which has more impact for our business and staff, the proposed turn bans would be of significant inconvenience as we would need to travel further to find an appropriate turn and then have to double back to get to our destination. Given that there will be many cars doing the same it will add to the traffic along the alternative routes and increase our time on the road even more. ƒ There are very few people that walk along the entire Section C as there are very few shops like there are in Sections A and B. There are very few people that use most of the tram stops along Section C except for the ones at Bell St and Dundas St. So, having easier access to Tram stops will not benefit a lot of people. ƒ Concerned about Raglan St and Hotham St becoming busier as these roads are used by traffic avoiding Plenty Rd/ Bell St intersection with Plenty Rd is already avoided by traffic taking this detour. Hotham St is a dedicated 40 km/ph school zone and we are very concerned that this will be a common short cut for many motorists. Strategic turn bans in these streets would help solve this issue. ƒ It will not work because too many cars in a small space. ƒ This proposal is detrimental to the city of Darebin and the local Preston community. Residents will be unable to access their own streets; this will result in their property value being depreciated and people moving out of Darebin because of it. Business owners are already suffering due to the economic situation this proposal is causing unnecessary pain & anguish to those people trying to manage a business and pay employees. We have enough to think about without this extra burden. ƒ Plenty road is unique for its mixer of houses and shops and the council wants to take all that away! If they are so worried about the disabled, and elderly the council should think twice because getting rid of the local shops would result in those particular populations having to travel further out for food and services. Is this not a disservice to these populations?? Surely there is another way to make trams more accessible to these populations (i.e. GET NEW LOWERED TRAMS!) and leave plenty road the way it is. DONT FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN! ƒ This project isn’t good for Preston economically. ƒ We don’t have enough parking as it is. ƒ The scope of traffic predictions and the project overall is too narrow. - Severe restrictions of right hand turns will significantly disadvantage local residents and place pressure on High Street. ƒ Removal of the right hand turn for cars onto Bell Street from Plenty Road will significantly disadvantage local residents. No options for this are presented. ƒ Proposed tram stops for the Plenty Road section are not people-friendly and do not appear to include shelters and real time tram information. ƒ The report suggests these alternate routes will be favourable to motorists; however there was no disclosure of traffic modelling or another other evidence to support these claims. An analysis of traffic flows on nearby commuter routes (e.g. St. Georges Road, High Street north of Bell Street and Grange Road must be included in this study. ƒ The removal of the right hand turn onto Bell Street will be a major problem for local traffic heading north on Plenty Road and east onto Bell Street. There are likely to be other alternatives, such as a modified traffic signal sequence that can provide more frequent tram priority and a dedicated right hand turn lane for cars, separated from trams. ƒ I think it’s a complete waste of time and money. ƒ Road capacity is too insufficient to narrow. ƒ The removal of stop 44 concerns me as this is presently located about 30 metres from my place of residence. The removal of this stop would force me to walk greater distances to neighbouring stops. It also concerns me that the removal of stop 44 would increase the total distance between neighbouring stops to OVER 400 metres (greater than the guidelines recommend of no more that 400m between stops). This will inconvenience residents unnecessarily. ƒ Accessibility is about being able to walk to stop so removing stops is not desirable. ƒ Speeding hoons - by having the CLEARWAYS at all times on PLENTY rd this will give cars right of way to speed through as there are no parked cars. There will be nothing in their way to slow them down (no parked cars). ƒ CLEARWAYS will give cars a CLEARWAY to SPEED THROUGH, not caring that its a residential area. ƒ The aim of improvement should be to get more people catching public transport rather than to add superficial charges. ƒ When I first boarded a tram it cost me 70 cents, this was only 10 year ago, for a ticket and now it costs almost $4. Our aim should be to get everyone on the trams.

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 74 ƒ Am concerned that cars travelling south along plenty rd approaching Tyler St intersection will turn left into Kinkoro Rd as they do now in increasing numbers) as a short cut to Albert/Station St and resume their journey south. ƒ This is just crazy, Northcote and Westgarth lose 5% of their parking we are losing 90% and you are turning Preston into a Freeway and Northcote into cafe city. ƒ Please reconsider your current proposal. Because in it's current form it will cost the lively-hood of a lot of businesses, and it will cause unnecessary grief, anguish and stress, and ultimately the current Council will be held responsible and will be sued accordingly.

Community suggestions

ƒ My Suggestions to improve the project would be: * Pressure on Yarra Trams to purchase accessible trams that do not need super stop. Therefore making Transport accessible at all stops not just a few. * Instead of saving 6 minutes, instead more trams that allow the elderly or people with a mobility aid sufficient space to use the tram. Currently a client in a wheelchair would not be able to use the tram at peak hour or even on Sunday due tram being standing room only * Removal of the separation of traffic and allow parking to remain on plenty road. * Allow right hand turns into peoples properties. * Traffic at major intersections could be "Hook turns" similar to the city this would be in the section of Bell, Gower, and Murray this will allow traffic and trams going straight to continue on the journey. ƒ Get rid of nature strips and give us the parking spots for our guests and put up signs stating residential parking only. ƒ Put in a service rd and get rid of the footpaths?

Darebin council and partners are doing some great work down BROADWAY they should take that concept and use it along this rd...TRAMS/BICYCLES/RESIDENTS/PEDESTRIANS/BUSINESS OWNERS should have way over cars

Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project 22 May 2009 - FINAL Page 75