Agenda - imap.vic.gov.auimap.vic.gov.au/uploads/Meeting Agendas/2020 June... · note the...

12 June 2020

1

Agenda

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

Meeting No 58

8.00 am – 10.00 am Friday 12 June 2020 Maribyrnong City Council

Remote meeting - https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158992837

Committee

Members

Cr Sarah Carter, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council (Chair) Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, Mayor, City of Stonnington Cr Nicholas Reece, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne Cr Bernadene Voss, Mayor, City of Port Phillip Cr Misha Coleman, Mayor, City of Yarra Mr Stephen Wall, Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council Ms Jacqui Weatherill, Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Mr Peter Smith, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Mr Justin Hanney, Chief Executive Officer, City of Melbourne – for GM Strategy Planning &

Climate Change

Associate

Partner Representatives

Mr Adrian Salmon, Principal Planner, Planning Services, DELWP Mr Stephen Chapple, Regional Director – Gippsland & Port Phillip, DELWP Mr Dimitri Lolas, Acting Director Network & Corridor Planning, Department of Transport Mr Dan Nicholls, Manager Regional Development Australia - Melbourne, Office of Suburban Development DJPR Mr Peter Sagar, Executive Director Melbourne Renewal Precincts, Victorian Planning Authority

IMAP Ms Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Mr Stuart Draffin, Director Planning & Place, City of Stonnington Mr Damon Rao, Senior Transport Planner, City of Melbourne Ms Sue Jones, Project Officer StreetCount, City of Melbourne Mr Graeme Porteous, Director Strategic Projects, City of Melbourne Mr Barney Wilson, Acting Team Leader City People, City of Melbourne Mr Martin Whittle, Senior Project Coordinator (Wayfinding), City of Melbourne Mr Brian Tee, Senior Strategic Relations Advisor, City of Port Philip IMAP Champions Mr Bruce Phillips, Director Planning & Placemaking, City of Yarra Ms Kylie Bennetts, Director CEOs Office, City of Port Phillip Ms Tracey Limpens, Advocacy Performance & Improvement Manager, City of Stonnington Ms Virginia Howe, Acting Manager City Business, Maribyrnong City Council

12 June 2020

2

PRELIMINARIES

Item Time Alloc.

Agenda Topic Responsibility

1. 2 mins Commence 8.00am

Requirements of COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020

Recommendation:

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve that:

a. the members of the IMAP Implementation Committee participate in the meeting by electronic means of communication in accordance with Section 394 of the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency measures) Act 2020; and

b. the public part of the meeting is recorded and made available on the internet site of each Council as soon as practicable after the meeting in accordance with Section 395.

IMAP Executive Officer


Appointment of Chair

Cr Sarah Carter, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council


3. 3 mins Introductions and Apologies

Chair

4. 1 min Members Interest

Disclosure by members of any conflict of interest in accordance with s.79 of the Act

Chair

ITEMS

Item Time Alloc.



Confirmation of the Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee – 6 March 2020 (Attachment 1) Recommendation: 5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to

confirm the draft Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 57 held on 6 March 2020 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Chair

6. 3 mins Commence

8.07am

Business Arising (Attachment 2) Recommendation 6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

note the actions undertaken in response to Business Arising from the previous minutes.

note the correspondence (Attachments 2a-c) Correspondence: Inward Att a – Letter from Graham Porteous, CoM advising StreetCount

2020 postponement Att b – Email from Gail Hall, CoM advising progress on Planning

Scheme Amendment and analysis for mandatory green cover requirements (IMAP Urban Forest Project)

Att c – Email from Deakin University- Urban Logistics Laboratory offering research time pro bono.


12 June 2020

3

7.

5 mins Commence 8.10am

IMAP Communication and Governance (Attachment 3) Recommendation 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves:

a. To note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. To recommend to the 5 IMAP Councils that they consider re-approving delegations to the IMAP Implementation Committee under the new Joint Delegations Committee provisions of the Local Government Act 2020 as an interim measure until a new partnership approach can be confirmed and established after the Council election period.

c. To request an amendment to the Printing and Distribution Agreement with the Melbourne Convention Bureau through an exchange of letters, postponing the two agreed annual payments of $45K pa from June 2020/June 2021 until August 2020 and August 2021;

and that: the CEO City of Stonnington be authorised to sign the letter on behalf of the IMAP Implementation Committee Councils.



Financial Report for the Nine (9) Months ending 31 March 2020 (Attachment 4) Recommendation 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. receive the IMAP Financial Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2020;

b. note the forecast EOFY position.



IMAP Progress Report (Attachment 5) Recommendation 9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note

the IMAP Progress Report for June 2020.



Wayfinding and Signage – progress report (Attachment 6) Recommendation 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to

reconfirm its support for the development of the Wayfound Victoria website at an estimated cost of $20-30K.

Martin Whittle, CoM


Affordable Housing & Homelessness: Joint StreetCount 2020 (Attachment 7) Recommendation

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the StreetCount 2020 project update.

Barney Wilson & Sue Jones, CoM


IMAP Bicycle Network Model Project – Final Report (Attachment 8) (Deferred from March meeting – refer to March agenda for hard copy of this report) Recommendation 12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note and endorse the completed report on the IMAP Bicycle Network Model; and

b. support its ongoing use to support the implementation of each Councils transport strategies and plans.

Damon Rao, CoM

12 June 2020

4


IMAP Social and Economic Dashboard (Attachment 9) Recommendation 13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves:

a. That $80k is set aside for the engagement of a consultant

to develop the design of a dashboard that meets the

criteria set out in the Consultant procurement brief.

b. That a project task team comprising of officers from the

IMAP councils is established to meet over the next three

months to oversee the design of the dashboard and to

provide feedback as appropriate to the individual

Councils.

c. That a Project Manager is assigned to the project task

team to manage the key deliverables and provide PM

capabilities.

d. That a panel is established immediately from the project

task team comprising of the project manager and three of

the Councils to engage a consultant to provide the

services indicated in the consultant brief.

e. That a governance group is established being the CEOs

of the respective IMAP Councils.

Brian Tee, CoPP

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Meeting to be closed in accordance with Sections 66(2), 3(a) and 3(f) of the Local Government Act 2020.

Public and Associate Members can be excluded for these items

Item Time Allot.


14. 30mins Commence 9.10am

IMAP Governance Review (Attachment 10)

Jacqui Weatherill, CoS

OTHER BUSINESS

Item Time Allot.



Any other business Vic Roads Minor Maintenance Agreements with Councils re tree maintenance funding: discussion on liability issues (CoPP) Close Next Meeting: Friday 28 August 2020 (8.00am) City of Port Phillip – Remote meeting

Chair

12 June 2020

5

ATTACHMENTS

Item No

Attachment No Attachment Topic

5. Attachment 1 Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting No. 57 held on 6 March 2020

6. Attachment 2 Attachment 2a Attachment 2b Attachment 2c

Business Arising Correspondence: Inward Letter G Porteous, CoM re StreetCount 2020 postponement Email G Hall, CoM re Planning Scheme Amendment and analysis for mandatory green cover

requirements (IMAP Urban Forest Project) Email Deakin University- Urban Logistics Laboratory research offer

7. Attachment 3 IMAP Communications and Governance report

8. Attachment 4 Attachment 4a Attachment 4b

IMAP Finance report to 31 December 2019 IMAP Operating and Capital Works statement for the 6 Months ending 31 December 2019 IMAP Budget and Expenditure by Project to 31 December 2019

9. Attachment 5 IMAP Progress report

10. Attachment 6 Attachment 6a

Wayfinding and Signage project Website brief

11. Attachment 7 Affordable Housing & Homelessness: Joint StreetCount 2020 update

12. Attachment 8 Attachment 8a

Bicycle Network Project - Cover report Final Report - IMAP Cycling Infrastructure Model

13. Attachment 9 Attachment 9a Attachment 9b

IMAP Social and Economic Dashboard - Business case Powerpoint – Dashboard contents Draft Project brief

14. Attachment 10

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM IMAP Governance Review

12 June 2020 Attachment 1

1

DRAFT Minutes

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

10.00 am – 10.40 am Friday 6 March 2020 City of Stonnington

Meeting No 57

Council Chamber, 1st floor, Malvern Town Hall Cnr High Street & Glenferrie Road, MALVERN

Attendance:

Committee Members

Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, Mayor, City of Stonnington (Chair) Cr Nicholas Reece, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne Cr Bernadene Voss, Mayor, City of Port Phillip – late arrival 10.00am Mr Stephen Wall, Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council Ms Jacqui Weatherill, Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Mr Peter Smith, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Ms Linda Weatherson, General Manager Community and City Services, CoM - for Emma Appleton

Associate Partner

Representatives

Mr Stephen Chapple, Regional Director – Gippsland & Port Phillip, DELWP Mr Dimitri Lolas, Acting Director Network & Corridor Planning, Department of Transport Mr Dan Nicholls, Manager Regional Development Australia - Melbourne, Office of Suburban Development DJPR –for Michael Anderson

IMAP Ms Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Dr Nerina Di Lorenzo, Executive General Manager, Melbourne Water Mr Julian Szafraniec, Consultant, SGS Economics and Planning Mr Dale Stewart, Senior Recreation Planner, City of Melbourne Mr Damon Rao, Senior Transport Planner, City of Melbourne Ms Sue Jones, Project Officer StreetCount, City of Melbourne IMAP Champions Ms Kylie Bennetts, Director CEOs Office, City of Port Phillip Mr Justin Kann, Senior Advisor – Strategic Advocacy, City of Yarra – for Bruce Phillips

8.00-9.40am Friday 6 March:

Members of the IMAP Implementation Committee attended a workshop on the IMAP Governance Review with consultant Dr Michaella Richards, Dandolo Partners prior to the commencement of the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting. 9.45 – 10.06am Friday 6 March While awaiting a quorum, Nerina Di Lorenzo, Executive General Manager, Melbourne Water provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Flood Strategy Refresh (Item 10 in the agenda).


2

PRELIMINARIES

1. Appointment of Chair

1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, Mayor, City of Stonnington as the Chair of the meeting.

MOVED MR WALL / Cr Reece A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

2. Apologies and Introductions The Chair welcomed all attending and acknowledged our elders past and present. Introductions were made.

2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies:


Cr Misha Coleman, Mayor, City of Yarra

Ms Emma Appleton, Acting General Manager Strategy, Planning & Climate Change, CoM

Mr Adrian Salmon, Principal Planner, Planning Services, DELWP

Mr Peter Sagar, Executive Director Melbourne Renewal Precincts, Victorian Planning Authority MOVED MR SMITH / Ms Vaidyanath A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

3. Members Interest - Disclosure by members of any conflict of interest in accordance with s.79 of the Act. - None

ITEMS

4. Confirmation of the Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee – 29 November 2019

4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft Minutes of the IMAP

Implementation Committee No. 56 held on 29 November 2019 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

MOVED CR VOSS / Cr Reece A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

5. Business Arising The IMAP Executive Officer reviewed recent correspondence. Mr Nicholls noted that he would provide a contact for input to the IMAP recreation facilities planning study from Sport & Recreation Victoria.

5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:


note the correspondence (Attachments 2a-h). MOVED MR WALL / Mr Smith A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Correspondence: Outward Att a -P Younis, Secretary DoT – Follow up on Wayfinding & Signage meeting. CC Corey Hannett MTIA Att b – R Hamilton, Partner, PwC – letter of thanks for pro bono analysis of PRADS model Att c – Assoc Prof. L Crabtree, Western Sydney University – letter of thanks for CLT research and

presentation Att d – Prof B Glover, VC, Western Sydney University – letter of thanks for CLT research support Att e - C Henderson CEO Moreland CC – confirming participation in StreetCount 2020 Att f – S Wilkinson, CEO, Darebin CC – confirming participation in StreetCount 2020


3

Att g – T Kirkland, Department of Education and Training – Invitation to attend IMAP Implementation Committee

Inward Att h –Melbourne Water – inviting stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft Yarra Strategic Plan Action: IMAP Executive Officer to follow up with Dan Nicholls, DJPR for SRV contact details (Director Community

Sport & Infrastructure).

6. IMAP Communication and Governance 6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the Communications and Governance

Briefing Paper. MOVED CR VOSS / Mr Smith A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

7. Financial Report for the Six (6) Months ending 31 December 2019 The Executive Officer noted that:

additional external revenue was expected this year as a result of the StreetCount attracting additional partner councils and matched DHHS funds

a report showing budget approvals to date was attached (Att 4c); and

that the Governance Review budget required additional funds now that quotes were in and the consultant appointed.

Comments/Questions In response to a query relating to the IMAP surplus, Mr Smith noted that:

those projects not yet commenced had been removed from the budget; and

unallocated funding was placed in a Reserve Fund for approved actions.

ongoing resourcing is being considered as part of the Governance Review; and

no project contributions have been paid in the current financial year to reduce the surplus. 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. receive the IMAP Financial Report for the six months ending 31 December 2019. b. approve a further $20K to cover additional expenditure on the Governance Review (total of

$50K in the 2019-20 budget) MOVED MR SMITH / Cr Voss A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: IMAP Executive Officer to modify the 2019-20 budget to reflect approved increase in Governance Review

budget

8. IMAP Progress Report 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for March

2020. MOVED MS VAIDYANATH / Cr Reece A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

9. Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy – Final Report Mr Dale Stewart, Senior Recreation Planner (Project Lead) at City of Melbourne attended for this item with Mr Julian Szafraniec, SGS Economics and Planning, to present the final report for this project. Mr Stewart noted the lengthy project timeframe and great input, hard work and persistence from Council officers and SGS to bring the project to completion. He noted any subsequent work required the right environment to succeed and recommended a ‘baton change’ for work arising from the report. Mr Szafraniec provided a PowerPoint presentation of the key findings in the report. Comments/Questions

Cr Reece supported the need for bold, brave actions.

Mr Smith noted the recommendations were sensible; common property policies around leasing would be useful but hard to implement. Guidance was required to assess the work/costs behind the


4

recommendations.

Ms Weatherill thought it a great report and that it was important to share the problem with stakeholders from the sporting codes themselves so that they understand the need to modify their approaches to shorter timeframes.

Mr Stewart noted school facility access is still an issue and it remains a challenge as to how we can make a difference in this space. Ms Weatherill suggested the Executive Forum identify how all 5 councils advocate on this.

Mr Wall thought the report and data continued in it were great. He noted the report doesn’t commit Councils and is not about project delivery.

In considering the report’s recommendations, the Committee agreed that the councils needed to assess the implications of these recommendations, and consider these priorities against others to be undertaken by IMAP going forward.

9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves, subject to the consideration of any further feedback and subsequent changes, to:

a. Endorse the draft final report of the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project;

b. Convene an initial Council group to consider the potential of the project going forward; AND THAT the CEO’s bring advice about this and other project priorities back to the IMAP Implementation Committee in May 2020.

MOVED CR VOSS/ Mr Wall A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Actions:

a. CEO’s to convene a group to assess the implications of the Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy- Final Report’s recommendations; and

b. CEO’s review all project priorities going forward and report back in May

10. IMAP Bicycle Network Model Project – Final Report

This item was deferred to the May meeting.

Action: IMAP Executive Officer to include the IMAP Bicycle Network Model Project – Final Report on the agenda of the 29 May 2020 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting

11. Wayfinding and Signage project The Committee noted the completed manual is available for viewing at the link provided. Copies will be provided to Councils at the launch. 11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the updated Wayfound Victoria V2.0 and

continue support for:

Wayfound Victoria

Website development

Launch

Advocacy for IMAP / DoT collaboration for a consistent approach to wayfinding and mapping across Victoria.

MOVED Ms WEATHERILL/ Cr Reece A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

12. Affordable Housing & Homelessness: Joint StreetCount 2020 The IMAP Executive Officer noted that:

Two additional councils joining the StreetCount would contribute funding, along with DHHS

Launch Housing has been confirmed as the Project Coordinator.

12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the progress report on the StreetCount 2020 project.

MOVED MR SMITH/ Mr Wall A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED


5

13. OTHER BUSINESS There was no further business and the meeting closed at 10.40am. Next Meeting: Friday 29 May 2020 (8.00am) Maribyrnong City Council – Reception Room Level 1 Cnr Napier Street and Hyde Street, FOOTSCRAY

IMAP Implementation Committee Meeting 6 March 2020 – Endorsement of Minutes

Chairperson: Cr Steven Stefanopoulos _________________________ Date ________________ RESOLUTIONS

1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, Mayor, City of Stonnington as the Chair of the meeting

2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies:


Cr Misha Coleman, Mayor, City of Yarra

Ms Emma Appleton, Acting General Manager Strategy, Planning & Climate Change, CoM

Mr Adrian Salmon, Principal Planner, Planning Services, DELWP

Mr Peter Sagar, Executive Director Melbourne Renewal Precincts, Victorian Planning Authority

4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 56 held on 29 November 2019 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:


note the correspondence (Attachments 2a-h).

6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to: a. receive the IMAP Financial Report for the six months ending 31 December 2019. b. approve a further $20K to cover additional expenditure on the Governance Review (total of $50K in the 2019-20

budget)

8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for March 2020.

9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves, subject to the consideration of any further feedback and subsequent changes, to:

a. Endorse the draft final report of the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project;

b. Convene an initial Council group to consider the potential of the project going forward; AND THAT the CEO’s bring advice about this and other project priorities back to the IMAP Implementation Committee in May 2020.

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the updated Wayfound Victoria V2.0 and continue support for:

Wayfound Victoria

Website development

Launch

Advocacy for IMAP / DoT collaboration for a consistent approach to wayfinding and mapping across Victoria.

12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the progress report on the StreetCount 2020 project.


6

ACTIONS PUBLIC RECORD

Item Responsibility Action Due

5 Bus Arising/ Recreation


IMAP Executive Officer to follow up with Dan Nicholls, DJPR for SRV contact details (Director Community Sport & Infrastructure).

Mar 2020

7. Fin Report IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Executive Officer to modify the 2019-20 budget to reflect approved increase in Governance Review budget

Feb 2020

9. Recreation IMAP CEOs a. CEO’s to convene a group to assess the implications of the Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy - Final Report’s recommendations; and


May 2020

10. Bicycle Network Model Project


IMAP Executive Officer to include the IMAP Bicycle Network Model Project – Final Report on the agenda of the 29 May 2020 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting

May 2020


Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Implementation Committee

Business Arising

12 June 2020

A IMAP Executive Forum (1 November 2019 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 3. Bus Arising

Director City Strategy & Place , CoM

CoM to provide further updates to IMAP Councils as progress occurs with Telstra installations

Claire Ferres Miles to review the draft letter in response to Cr Bosler’s Telstra enquiry and update to reflect the current position

Nov 2019 No Progress

B IMAP Implementation Committee (29 November 2019 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 8. Affordable housing

CoPP IMAP Exec Forum

CoPP to make a regular progress report on CoPP affordable housing projects available to IMAP members

Executives to consider the advocacy proposal for the CLT publication

Feb 2020

CLT launch held

in Nov 2019 with

stakeholders

D IMAP Implementation Committee (6 March 2020 ) 5 Bus Arising/ Recreation


IMAP Executive Officer to follow up with Dan Nicholls, DJPR for SRV contact details (Director Community Sport & Infrastructure).

Mar 2020

7. Fin Report


IMAP Executive Officer to modify the 2019-20 budget to reflect approved increase in Governance Review budget

Feb 2020 Completed

9. Recreation

IMAP CEOs a. CEO’s to convene a group to assess the implications of the Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy - Final Report’s recommendations; and


May 2020

10. Bicycle Network Model Project


IMAP Executive Officer to include the IMAP Bicycle Network Model Project – Final Report on the agenda of the 29 May 2020 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting

May 2020

Completed –

refer item 12

Attachment 8

Correspondence

Inward Att a – Letter from Graham Porteous, CoM advising StreetCount 2020 postponement Att b – Email from Gail Hall, CoM advising progress on Planning Scheme Amendment and analysis for mandatory

green cover requirements (IMAP Urban Forest Project) Att c – Email from Deakin University- Urban Logistics Laboratory offering research time pro bono.

Recommendation:

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note the actions undertaken in response to Business Arising from the previous minutes.

b. note the correspondence (Attachments 2a-c).

GPO Box 1603

Melbourne VIC 3001

Telephone (03) 9658 9658

Facsimile (03) 9654 4854

DX210487

ABN 55 370 219 287

27 April 2020 Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer Inner Melbourne Action Plan City of Stonnington PO Box 58 Malvern, VIC 3144 Delivered via email: [email protected] Dear Elissa

STREETCOUNT POSTPONED

StreetCount was due to be delivered from 24 – 26 June 2020. The delivery of the event has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A project risk assessment and management plan was developed in March which determined that StreetCount could not be delivered during this period of social isolation.

There are also active strategies across the housing sector to accommodate people sleeping rough during COVID-19, which significantly changes the landscape and masks the actual number of people who are homeless.

The event coordination contract with Launch Housing will be suspended until a new date can be negotiated. To ensure the ability to deliver StreetCount is maintained, City of Melbourne will assume responsibility for event coordination activities which cannot be delivered by the contractor at this time. This will include the development of a digital survey platform and online volunteer training modules.

The IMAP StreetCount working group will continue to meet fortnightly to ensure activities align with each municipality’s response and recovery arrangements.

When delivered later in the year, StreetCount will offer more value for councils across inner Melbourne as it will deliver a better understanding and intelligence on the ground of the impacts of COVID-19. Data collected at this time will be a valuable snapshot of an unprecedented period where people have experienced cultural and physical hardship.

Please contact Sue Jones, Project Officer Strategic Projects on 9658 6633 or via email [email protected] for more information.

Yours sincerely

Graham Porteous Director Strategic Projects, Office of the CEO

Telephone 96588699

E-mail [email protected]

Website www.melbourne.vic.gov.au

CoM reference DM13514604

mailto:[email protected]

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2a

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Gail Hall <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2020 5:41 PMTo: Elissa McElroyCc: 'Lisa Monaghan' ([email protected])Subject: Green Our City Strategic Action Plan Planning Scheme Amendment economic feasibility

study - IMAP contributionAttachments: COM_SERVICE_PROD-#13374278-v1-

GOCAP_Economic_Feasibility_Testing_(Updated_Proposal)_from_Hill_PDA_and_Breathe.PDF

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Hi Elissa, Apologies for the rather large email. Please find attached the proposal (quote) to undertake economic feasibility testing of proposed standards on eight different development typologies for a planning scheme amendment that includes mandatory green cover requirements. The total project cost is $128,000 ex GST. The quote has been accepted and the contract is being finalised. The City of Melbourne has undertaken all relevant CoM procurement procedures required for a project under $150,000. As discussed IMAP is requested to contribute $25,000 ex GST towards this project. In return for this contribution two of the typologies tested will be relevant to typical developments in all five IMAP councils and will use exemplar planning applications from other (non-CoM) IMAP municipalities. The outputs will be shared with all IMAP councils and Lisa Monaghan, the project lead will be informed and involved throughout the process. We will invoice you for the $25,000 once we receive a PO number from you. Thanks Gail Gail Hall | Coordinator Green Infrastructure | Parks and City Greening | Capital Projects and Infrastructure City of Melbourne | Council House 2, 240 Little Collins Street Melbourne 3000 | GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001 T: 03 9658 8097 | Mobile: 0416178249 | E: [email protected] www.melbourne.vic.gov.au | whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au Pronouns: she or her | Our values | Think before you print

Have you seen the Green Our City strategic Action Plan yet?

[External Email] This email was sent to you from outside of Council – be cautious clicking on links and opening attachments.

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2b

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Roberto Perez-Franco <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2020 3:12 PMTo: Elissa McElroyCc: Hermione ParsonsSubject: RE: Elissa, how can CSCL and the Urban Logistics Lab help?

Thanks, Elissa! Looking forward to their response. Please stay safe, and thanks for your service. Cheers, Roberto

From: Elissa McElroy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2020 2:35 PM To: Roberto Perez-Franco <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Elissa, how can CSCL and the Urban Logistics Lab help? Hi Roberto, My apologies for the delay in responding to your generous offer. As you are no doubt aware the IMAP councils have been coping with significant disruption requiring community support and operational solutions. Most staff moved to a homeworking environment just last week and many of our local businesses are facing a crisis, placing more demands on councils than usual. However, I have now circulated your offer to the 5 councils to canvass any proposals that I can pass onto you. I will let you know if I get any feedback and will contact you at that time to discuss. Kind regards, and again my thanks for your offer. Elissa Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer INNER MELBOURNE ACTION PLAN M: 0404 248 450 E: [email protected] www.imap.vic.gov.au The IMAP host Council is City of Stonnington. I work from other IMAP Councils as follows: Cities of Melbourne (Mon), Yarra (Wed), Maribyrnong (Thurs) and Port Phillip (Fri).


emcelroy

Typewritten Text

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2c

2

From: Roberto Perez-Franco <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2020 4:49 PM To: Elissa McElroy <[email protected]> Cc: Hermione Parsons <[email protected]> Subject: Elissa, how can CSCL and the Urban Logistics Lab help? Importance: High

Dear Elissa, Today Hermione and I write to offer our help, free of charge. We want to ask you:

How can we help you, pro-bono? We highly value your membership of our Urban Logistics Laboratory, and realise urban logistics pressures are increasing due to COVID-19. We have a team of people who are pretty good at problem solving, many with significant operations experience. We could lend you a hand to take care of tasks/problems that are beyond your available bandwidth at the moment. So, tell us: Is there anything we can help you or the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Councils with? Is there any project we can do for you, or problem we can try to solve, or any initiative you would like us to help with? Let us know. Also, we want to ask you:

Is there something the Lab should work on? With the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altering the way billions live in cities today, and a full return to ‘normal’ at least a year or two away, pursuing our flagship project about envisioning the future of urban logistics 20 years from now feels too 'academic' and disconnected. So, we ask for your guidance: What do you think the Urban Logistics Lab should be working on today? Is there some problem or aspect of urban logistics, in the context of the response to COVID-19, that we should focus on? We look forward to hearing from you. And thanks in advance for your response. We appreciate your time and advise. Stay safe, Roberto and Hermione P.S. The revised Minutes of the 4th meeting of the Lab is attached; the two changes are outlined in the attached 'Change Log'. Dr Hermione Parsons, Industry Professor


3

Director, Centre for Supply Chain & Logistics (CSCL)

Deakin University Melbourne Burwood Campus Level 8, Building BC, Room BC8.104 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood Vic 3125 +61 3 9246 8795 +61 (0) 419 374 763 [email protected] www.deakin.edu.au Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B

Dr Roberto Perez-Franco Senior Research Fellow – Supply Chain Strategy Centre for Supply Chain & Logistics (CSCL) Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment (SEBE)

Deakin University Melbourne Burwood Campus Level 8, Building BC, Room BC8.111 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood Vic 3125 +61 3 9246 8879 +61 427 195 640 [email protected] www.deakin.edu.au Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B

Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone. Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free. Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone. Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free.


1 Report prepared by the IMAP Executive Officer


Progress Report

IMAP Communications and Governance ___________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

1. To advise the IMAP Implementation Committee of the progress of IMAP Communications and Governance during the last 3 month period.

Governance

2. IMAP Governance Review:

The contract was let in early February to Dandolo Partners and the final report received from consultants following the workshop at the last Committee meeting in March. For discussion - refer item 14 (Confidential business).

3. Local Government Act 2020

The Act was released in March and contains amendments to the provisions for Special Committees. Delegations to the 5 special committees that make up the IMAP Implementation Committee will cease on 1 September 2020.

It is proposed that the 5 Councils roll over IMAP to form a Joint Delegated Committee under s64 of the new Act prior to 1 September, and that any future changes to the structure and purpose – brought about as a result of the Governance Review - be considered and acted upon following the October Council election.

Sections to note in the new legislation are:

a. Section 11 Power of Delegation – Councils still use the Instrument of Delegation to delegate powers, functions and duties to members of a delegated committee. The Council has the power to appoint the Chair or the members to a delegated committee (s 2(l)), and, as before, must review these delegations within 12 months of a general election.

These provisions appear to be the same as for Special Committees.

b. Section 11 (9) notes that “Unless sooner revoked, a delegation made by a Council under the Local Government Act 1989 continues in force until 1 September 2020”.

The delegations of the 5 Councils to the IMAP Implementation Committees will therefore cease on 1 September 2020. If not renewed as a delegated committee, the IMAP Implementation Committee will hold its last meeting as scheduled on 28 August 2020.

c. Section 63 sets out provisions for Delegated Committees and makes provision for Councillors and ‘other persons appointed to the delegated committee by the Council’ who are entitled to vote.

This provision enables executive staff to be members of the delegated committee.

d. Section 64 makes provision for Joint Delegated Committees where two or more councils may resolve to establish a joint delegated committee. This provision was added to the Bill in the final amendments and appears to be in response to the points made in our submission.

The section notes the provisions of Section 61 apply to Joint Delegated Committees (which sets out how Council meetings are run) with the exception of the following provisions:

section 61(3) which determines the chair of a council meeting

section 61(4) which determines the quorum of council is an absolute majority; and

section 61(5)(d) whereby the Chair is given a second vote in the event of an equal vote.

Other key points to note in Section 64 include:

At least one councillor from each Council must be included, and the chair must be appointed from one of the Councillors present at the meeting.



The quorum is a majority of members of the Joint Delegated Committee.

The procedures for conducting the meeting are to be determined by the member Councils.

The Joint Delegated Committee must comply with any requirements prescribed by the regulations.

Most of these new provisions appear to enable a roll over of the current IMAP special committees.

In-house legal advice suggests that the new legislation implies that those ‘other persons’ (ie Council Senior Executives) appointed to a delegated committee by the Councils under Section 63 are also able to join the Joint Delegated Committee – although this is not explicit under Section 64. Legal Counsel has recommended external legal advice be sought for clarification.

e. The provisions for exempting non-council members of each Joint Delegated Committee from Personal Interest Returns is an omission in the new provisions of the Act and will incur duplication across councils as currently prescribed.

f. Therefore it is recommended that the Committee request the 5 IMAP Councils re-approve delegations to the IMAP Implementation Committee under the new Joint Delegations Committee provisions of the Local Government Act 2020 as an interim measure until a new partnership approach can be confirmed and established after the Council election period.

4. IMAP project budget update and Governance issues

The IMAP Executive Officer prepared a full review and update report on the current IMAP budget position and project commitments as at 1 May for consideration by the IMAP Executive Forum. Those projects where clarification is sought are noted below.

5. City of Port Phillip review of memberships The CoPP Council notified the IMAP Executive Officer that they were considering their Special Committee’s ongoing membership of IMAP along with a range of external groups at their Council meeting on 20 May.

Communications

6. During the last 3 months the following activities have involved the IMAP Executive Officer and others in IMAP communications:

o Wayfinding and Signage - Master Style Guide and Mapping

March - May – DoT and CoM Project team leader completed final design review of all changes to the PdF document Way found Victoria. DoT invoice has been paid ($30K).

Responded to signage maintenance enquiry from Moreland City Council

30 May - Project Manager (Contractor) completed her current work program and provided the:

Completed Website project brief and project timeline REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RfQ) ON HOLD PENDING COMMITTEE ADVICE – refer Item 10 Attachment 6

A distribution list for Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee (MVSC) members to add to (for emailing out the pdf. file.)

A draft email to MVSC members with an update + next steps A draft communications brief for Wayfound’s release + distribution An update on completed tasks + those requiring more action

o IMAP Urban Forest Plan

March – Project Leader CoMar met with the Executive Offier and Gail Hall, CoM to determine development typology information requirements for review alongside CoM’s typologies.



Development files for duplex and town house developments were sourced from Yarra and Maribyrnong Councils and uploaded to CoM.

o April - Request from CoM received for IMAP’s contribution of $25K towards the consultant’s review.

o ESD Factsheets Project

March – Consultant appointed to complete content of 5 factsheets

May - CoY have received initial drafts of the factsheets from consultants.

May – 50% payment invoices have been received.

Additional factsheet completed for the series by Wodonga Council on Subdivision. CASBE funding assisted its development.

May – Series licenced to Bayside City Council (Total 22 Councils + IMAP + TAFE)

o IMAP Bicycle Network project

Quote sought to run the model to develop the business case for linking to SG cycling corridor initiatives – within approved budget ($9,800). PENDING COMMITTEE ADVICE – Refer item 12 Attachment 8

2 April – Metropolitan Cycling Network Senior Reference Group was updated on the IMAP model.

An Article published on 30 April 2020 by SGS Economics (Author: Merle Zierke) in LGiU Australia referenced the work of the IMAP Councils on this project. Refer “A game changing investment in active transport infrastructure?”

The Final Report from the Project Team will be considered at this IMAP Implementation Committee (Deferred from March). Refer item 12 Attachment 8

o IMAP StreetCount 2020

13 March – The Project team met and discussed the Project Plan. The preferred provider for project coordination has requested deferral until Nov/Dec due to the pandemic.

March – Invoiced Darebin and Moreland Councils. Payments received.

Followed up DHHS payment – part payment went to CoM in error and will be recovered by IMAP. Confirmation received that additional matched funding of $20K from DHHS is approved for payment in 2020/21.

April - CoM formally advised Executive Officer/Executive Forum of project deferral.

May - Fortnightly meetings continue with the project team identifying work that can be undertaken in advance. Investigating requirements for an Ethics review. Refer item 11 Attachment 7

o Commercial Vacancies Project

IMAP Executive Officer followed up brief development with the project lead at CoPP on 11 and 26 March and during May. ON HOLD PENDING COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT – Refer item 13, Attachment 9

o IMAP regional map updates and licensing to Visit Victoria (VV)

Mid March - The map Licensing and Printing & Distribution Agreements were signed and finalised. Copies distributed to all parties.

April - Visit Victoria sought IMAP Council’s staff input on promotion topics for the Official Visitor Guide and later advised the map print run would be delayed from June to August due to the pandemic. Map updates by staff have been put on hold in the meantime.

May – Visit Victoria has sought staff input on tourism initiatives for the recovery.

Payment of IMAP’s 2019/20 printing contribution is now due ($45k invoice received) as per the signed agreement. It is proposed the Committee request an amendment to the Agreement through an exchange of letters, postponing the two annual payments to



2020/21 amd 2021/22. PAYMENT ON HOLD PENDING COMMITTEE ADVICE – refer recommendation below.

o COVID-19 Response (Inner Melbourne Council’s CEO group)

Not an IMAP initiative, however the IMAP Executive Officer has assisted the Chief Resilience Officer with the establishment of a Basecamp file share portal, input into the database spreadsheet, drafted advocacy correspondence, and circulated reports and correspondence from other Councils and states. Stonnington and Maribyrnong staff have been assisted with contacts/initiatives at other Councils.

o Other

The IMAP Executive Officer has been working from home since 24 March.

Undertook liaison with Deakin University’s Urban Logistics Lab who offered their pro bono research expertise to the IMAP councils during the pandemic

Monthly meetings held with the Executive Officers of Leadwest, Eastern Region Group of Councils (ERG) and Northern Council Alliance.

Correspondence ongoing with governance staff at CoM and CoY regarding LGA legislative changes to IMAP governance structure; met with Stonnington’s legal counsel.

Recommendation

7. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves:

a. To note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. To recommend that the 5 IMAP Councils consider re-approving delegations to the IMAP Implementation Committee under the new Joint Delegations Committee provisions of the Local Government Act 2020 as an interim measure until a new partnership approach can be confirmed and established after the Council election period.

c. To request an amendment to the Printing and Distribution Agreement with the Melbourne Convention Bureau through an exchange of letters, postponing the two agreed annual payments of $45K pa from June 2020/June 2021 until August 2020 and August 2021;

and that the CEO City of Stonnington be authorised to sign the letter on behalf of the IMAP Implementation Committee Councils.


Page 1 of 2 Report prepared by: IMAP Executive Officer


Financial Report for the Nine (9) Months ending 31 March 2020

1 July 2019 – 31 March 2020 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Background

1. The IMAP financial position was last noted at the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting held on 6 March 2020.

2. Retained Earnings carried forward from the 2018-19 financial year total $688,421 (excluding GST).

Income

3. Income indicates the retained earnings of $688,421 during the first quarter. IMAP Council contributions for 2019-20 were invoiced in the 2nd quarter. Additional income was invoiced for the Streetcount project and licence fees on the IMAP map.

4. Total Income for the 9 month period to 31 March 2020 is as follows:

2800 IMAP Operational Expenditure (Sundry Income – Projects) Retained Earnings carried forward from 2018-19 688,421 DHHS Contributions: 2020 StreetCount 50,000

2022 StreetCount 50,000 Moreland CC contribution: 2020 StreetCount 10,000 Fees and Charges – Map licence fee 450 798,871

6100 IMAP Operational Expenditure (Cost recovery – Salaries/Overheads): IMAP Councils (4) – Annual Contribution/Cost recovery ($42K each) 168,000

________________________________________________________________________ TOTAL INCOME $ 966,871 ________________________________________________________________________

Expenditure

5. Total Operating Expenditure (Projects) for the 9 month period to 31 March 2020:

4040 Contract Staff Wayfinding Contractor – Project Management – Jul 7,700 Aug 7,700 Sept 7,700 Oct 7,700 Nov 8,400 Dec 5,600 Jan 4,900 Salary – Project Manager Feb 3,720 Mar 4,120 57,540 4104 Postage and Courier

IMAP Courier (Aug) 139 Courier (Nov) 264 Courier (March) 445 848

4106 Software Support and Maintenance IMAP Basecamp monthly fee Jul 79

Aug 82 Sept 81 Oct 82 Nov 81 Dec/Jan 159


Page 2 of 2 Report prepared by: IMAP Executive Officer

Feb 82 Growing Green Guide website domain renewal 55 IMAP website hosting July – September 931 Oct – Dec 931 2,484 4108 Stationery – General IMAP Stationery – Nov meeting 182 Stationery – Mar meeting 89 171 4150 Consulting Fees Wayfinding Way found Website Draft (Printcess) 900 50% Share; Accessibility Review 5,940 Traffinity Wayfound review 5,100 Editing – Real Business 2,400 Cycling Infrastructure Modelling Inception payment – IST 26,359 Payment 2 – IST 35,146 Data updates 2,240 Payment 3 IST 26,359 IMAP Annual Report design & print 2,550 AR Summary design & print 2,170 Update IMAP map for OVG 1,125 110,289 4211 Staff catering IMAP Staff meetings 39 Staff meetings (March) 32 Catering March meeting CoS 196 267 4190 Sundry expenditure IMAP General expenses 79 ______________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURE $ 171,778 __________________________________________________________________________

R6100 IMAP Operating Expenditure (Salaries & Overheads) 151,321 __________________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL IMAP EXPENDITURE $ 323,099

NET SURPLUS $ 643,772 __________________________________________________________________________

LESS Prepaid grants and Non-IMAP funds (110,000)

IMAP Reserve Fund Balance (as at 31 March 2020) $ 533,772 __________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Refer to Attachment 4b to see total expenditure against project budgets to date. 7. Refer to Attachment 4c for balances and forecast as at May 2020.

Recommendation 8. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. receive the IMAP Financial Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2020.

b. note the EOFY forecast.

IMAP Operating Report.Operating & Capital Works Statement for period ended March 2020

EMCELROY 01-May-2020 18:13:51

EMCELROY 01-May-2020 18:13:51

Actuals Budget Variance Actuals Budget Variance

2800 - Sundry Income 10,450 0 10,450 798,871 0 798,871

Other Revenue 10,450 0 10,450 798,871 0 798,871

Total Operating Income 10,450 0 10,450 798,871 0 798,871

Total Normal Salary expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Annual Leave 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Long Service Leave 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net ADO 0 0 0 0 0 0 Workcover 0 0 0 0 0 0 Training and Professional Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extraordinary Staff Payments 0 0 0 0 0 04040 - Contract Staff 4,121 0 (4,121) 57,540 0 (57,540) Other Employee Expenses 4,121 0 (4,121) 57,540 0 (57,540)

Employee Benefits 4,121 0 (4,121) 57,540 0 (57,540)

4104 - Postage & Couriers 446 0 (446) 848 0 (848)4106 - Software Support and Maintenance 161 0 (161) 2,484 0 (2,484)4108 - Stationery - General 89 0 (89) 271 0 (271)4150 - Consulting Fees 1,125 0 (1,125) 110,289 0 (110,289)

Materials and Services 1,821 0 (1,821) 113,892 0 (113,892)

Bad and doubtful debts. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Community Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance costs 0 0 0 0 0 0

4190 - Sundry Expenditure 79 0 (79) 79 0 (79)4211 - Staff Catering 228 0 (228) 267 0 (267)

Other expenses 307 0 (307) 346 0 (346)

Total Operating Expenditure 6,248 0 (6,248) 171,778 0 (171,778)

Surplus/ (Deficit) for the year 4,202 0 4,202 627,093 0 627,093

Other comprehensive income / expenditure.

Depreciation and amortisation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating Capital Expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Surplus / (Deficit) 4,202 0 4,202 627,093 0 627,093

CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

Attachment 4a

EXPENDITURE BY PROJECT AS AT 31 MARCH 2020 Attachment 4b

IMAP 2019-20 Budget and expenditure by Project2019-20 Budget + Carry Forwards

ACTUALS 1st qtr ACTUALS 2nd qtr ACTUALS 3rd qtr as at 31

MarchPENDING 4th

qtrTotal YTD VARIANCE FORECAST Notes to the accounts

688,421$ 688,421$ 688,421$ $ - $ 688,421 All 2019-20 project revenue sourced from carry forward of Reserve Fund as per May 2019 decision by Committee

$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ 60,000

$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $50K to be held over to 2022 Count

$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000

$ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 450

$ 798,871 $ 768,871

$ 210,000 $ 168,000 $ 168,000 -$ 42,000 $ 210,000 Invoiced in second quarter. Difference is CoS contribution.

$ 168,000 $ 210,000

$ 998,421 $ 688,421 $ 268,000 $ 10,450 $ 966,871 -$ 31,550 $ 978,871

EXPENDITURE - COMMENCED PROJECTS Lead2019-20 Budget + Carry Forwards

ACTUALS 1st qtr ACTUALS 2nd qtr ACTUALS 3rd qtr as at 31

MarchPENDING 4th

qtrTotal YTD VARIANCE Notes to the accounts

IMAP IMAP Administration costs, printing etc IMAP $ 14,000 $ 355 $ 7,046 $ 2,393 $ 9,794 -$ 4,206 $ 12,000

G1.P4WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE (Nov 2019- additional budget approval $80K)

CoM $ 200,985 $ 8,600 $ 44,940 $ 18,340 $ 71,880 -$ 129,105 $ 130,000

Signage manual and infrastructure designs to be completed 2019/20. Discussions with the State proceeding to establish a regional map base.Additional $80K provision for Wayfound website development and launch approved in Nov 2019

G2.P1 INNER MELBOURNE CYCLING NETWORK CoM $ 100,000 $ 26,359 $ 35,146 $ 28,599 $ 90,104 -$ 9,896 $ 100,000 Final report to May 2020 Committee meeting

G3.P1 SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY PLANNING CoM $ - $ - $ - Final report to March 2020 Committee meeting. Review ongoing engagement / future resourcing after report delivered.

G3.P4CONSISTENT APPROACH IN THE RESPONSE TO HOMELESSNESS (STREETCOUNT)

CoM $ 100,000 $ - -$ 100,000 Includes $50K IMAP + $50K DHHS funding. State Government funding commitment to StreetCounts 2020 and 2022 received from SG. Darebin and Moreland confrimed as partners.

G4.P1URBAN FOREST AND BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND APPROACH

CoMar $ 85,000 $ - -$ 85,000 $ 25,000 Project proceeding in conjunction with CoM draft planning scheme amendment and case studies

G5.P5IMPLEMENT ESD AND GREEN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

CoY $ 32,720 $ - -$ 32,720 $ 32,500 Project proceeding on the five factsheets currently under development. Quote requested.

G3.P2AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Follow up to PRADS review (Approved Nov 2019)

CoPP $ 15,000 $ - -$ 15,000

IMAPGOVERNANCE REVIEW (Approved Nov 2019. March - Additional funding approved $20K)

CoMar $ 50,000 $ - -$ 50,000 $ 50,000 Contract let. Due for completion March 2020.Additional funding $20K approved March 2020

Strategy 1.3 COMMERCIAL VACANCIES (Approved Nov 2019) CoPP $ 30,000 $ - -$ 30,000 $ 30,000 Draft brief under review by project team.

Strategy 1.3VISIT VICTORIA MAP CONTRIBUTION (Approved Nov 2019)

IMAP $ 45,000 $ - -$ 45,000 $ 45,000 Agreements being finalised. $45K payments pa for 2 years agreed based on distribution stats.

$ 672,705 $ 171,778 $ 424,500

IMAP Operational Expenditure (Sals & O/Hs) CoS $ 210,000 $ 54,682 $ 49,893 $ 46,746 $ 151,321 -$ 58,679 $ 210,000

$ 210,000 $ 151,321 $ 210,000

$ 882,705 $89,996 $ 137,025 $ 96,078 $ 323,099 -$ 559,606 $ 634,500

$ 115,716 $ 643,772 $ 344,371

-$ 110,000 -$ 80,000

$ 533,772 $ 264,371

12 June 2020

CONTRACT INCOME

SUNDRY INCOME

REVENUE

Opening Balance (Reserve Fund)

Operational Contributions: Council Contributions $42K each

TOTAL REVENUE

AVAILABLE RESERVE FUND BALANCE

Total Revenue (Projects)

Total Revenue (Salaries and overheads)

Pre-paid DHHS Grant Contribution to StreetCount 2022

Total Expenditure (Projects)

COST RECOVERY

Operational Contributions (Projects): Council Contributions Nil

Melbourne Convention Bureau - Map IP licence fee

RESERVE FUND BALANCE

Additional contributions to StreetCount 2020 - Darebin $10K, Moreland $10K, DHHS $20K

Total Expenditure (Salaries and overheads)

Less prepaid grants and non-IMAP funds

DHHS Grant Contribution to StreetCounts 2020

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

Item Actuals Budget Variance Forecast Budget Variance

2800 - Sundry Income (Reserve Fund) $ 688,421 $ 688,421 $ - $ 688,421 $ 688,421 $ - 2500 - Cost recovery (Oper Expend - Sals & OHs)

$ 168,000 $ 210,000 -$ 42,000 $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ -

Prepaid grant contribution (DHHS) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 -$ 50,000

Grant contribution (DHHS) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ 60,000 $ 50,000 $ 10,000 Non- IMAP Council contributions (Moreland/Darebin)

$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

Contributions - monetary $ 976,421 $ 998,421 -$ 22,000 $ 978,421 $ 998,421 -$ 20,000

2800 - Licence Fees and charges (Map) 450$ $ 450 450$ $ 450

Other Income 450$ $ 450 450$ $ 450

Total Operating Income $ 976,871 $ 998,421 -$ 21,550 $ 978,871 $ 998,421 -$ 19,550

6100 Ordinary hours, leave, Super, expenses, OHs etc

$ 170,359 $ 210,000 -$ 39,641 $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ -

Employee Costs $ 170,359 $ 210,000 -$ 39,641 $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ -

4104 - IMAP Postage and couriers $ 849 $ 1,000 -$ 151 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - 4106 - IMAP Software support & maintenance

$ 3,492 $ 5,000 -$ 1,508 $ 4,500 $ 5,000 -$ 500

4108 - IMAP Stationery - General $ 359 $ 500 -$ 141 $ 300 $ 500 -$ 200

4211 - IMAP Staff catering $ 267 $ 500 -$ 233 $ 300 $ 500 -$ 200 4105 - IMAP Consulting fees (Annual report/map)

$ 5,845 $ 7,000 -$ 1,155 $ 5,900 $ 7,000 -$ 1,100

Other Expenses $ 10,812 $ 14,000 -$ 3,188 $ 12,000 $ 14,000 -$ 2,000

Wayfinding and Signage $ 114,362 $ 200,985 -$ 86,623 $ 130,000 $ 200,985 -$ 70,985

Cycling Infrastructure modelling $ 90,104 $ 100,000 -$ 9,896 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ -

Urban Forest Plan $ 85,000 -$ 85,000 $ 25,000 $ 85,000 -$ 60,000

Implement ESD $ 32,720 -$ 32,720 $ 32,500 $ 32,720 -$ 220 Visit Victoria - Official Visitor Map - 2020 contribution

$ 45,000 -$ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ -

Governance Review $ 50,000 -$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ -

StreetCount 2020 100,000$ -$ 100,000 $ - 100,000$ -$ 100,000

Affordable Housing $ 15,000 -$ 15,000 $ - $ 15,000 -$ 15,000

Commercial vacancies/Other? $ 30,000 -$ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ -

Operating Initiatives $ 204,466 $ 658,705 -$ 454,239 $ 412,500 $ 658,705 -$ 246,205

Total Operating Expenditure $ 385,637 $ 882,705 $ 634,500 $ 882,705 -$ 248,205

Net Surplus / (Deficit) $ 591,234 $ 115,716 $ 344,371 $ 115,716

less prepaid grants/non IMAP funds $ 120,000 $ 80,000

Available Reserve Fund 471,234$ 264,371$

IMAP Financial Report as at 1 May 2020 YEAR TO DATE FULL YEAR

ATTACHMENT 3

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

Attachment 4c

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


1

IMAP Progress Report June 2020

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) 2016-2026 identifies 27 strategies across 5 Goals to help build the inner Melbourne region’s creativity, liveability, prosperity and sustainability across a range of diverse neighbourhoods experiencing rapid growth.

Completed Projects (from 2016):

Goal 1: Economy

1. Information Requirements Investigation (Part of the CLUE project) (2017-2018)

2. Census for Land Use and Employment (CLUE) – Technology Upgrade Project – “Taking CLUE to the Cloud for Councils, Communities and Commerce” (2018-2019)

3. IMAP Tourism – Includes regional visitor map distribution with Destination Melbourne; 3 issues of the Cultural Guide with Cultural Tourism Victoria (2007-2019)

4. Thinktank convened on disruption, new technologies, open data, communications (2018)

5. Working group convened to review joint responses to “Australia’s Strategy for Protecting People in Crowded Places” (2018)

Goal 3: Communities

6. Consistent Approach in the Response to Homelessness – Combined StreetCount (2018)

7. Community Land Trust (CLT) Research Phase 2 (2014-2019)

8. Investigation of a Private Market Affordable Rental Housing Delivery Model, for use in Negotiating Voluntary Agreements (2019)

9. IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project (2016-2020)

Goal 4: Neighbourhood and Places

10. Urban Manufacturing Project - The Dilemma of Urban Employment Land (2015-2017)

Goal 5: Sustainable Environment

11. Green Roofs Research Project - Australian Research Council Linkage Grant – University of Melbourne – Dr. Nick Williams (2015-2019)

_______________________________________________________________________________


2

PROGRESS ON CURRENT PROJECTS

GOAL 1 ECONOMY

Strategies 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 Commercial Vacancies Research Project

City of Port Phillip are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this project is to explore commercial vacancies, the reasons for these and possible solutions

at a policy level.

CURRENT PROGRESS

29 November 2019 – The IMAP Implementation Committee approved the draft brief and budget.

4 February 2020 – first meeting of the Project Team to review the draft brief.

April 2020 – consideration given to incorporating the development of an Economic Indicators Dashboard to monitor the effects of the pandemic across Inner Melbourne

NEXT STEPS

Finalise the brief and appoint a consultant to undertake the project this financial year.

DEFERRED AWAITING APPROVAL

Strategy 1.4 IMAP Regional Map updates and licensing to Visit Victoria

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this project is to promote the Inner Melbourne area through providing updated versions of the

IMAP regional visitors map to Visit Victoria for inclusion in their tourism publications – the Official Visitors

Guide and Official Visitor Map, and to ensure wide distribution through an annual contribution towards costs.

CURRENT PROGRESS

29 November 2019 – The IMAP Implementation Committee approved the budget and agreed to the licensing of the map and provision of negotiated funding through a Printing and Distribution Agreement.

December – March: Agreements were updated; funding and distribution agreed. CEOs signed agreements.

April – May: As a result of the pandemic, Visit Victoria advised publication of the map will be delayed until August and released as part of the State Government’s recovery initiatives to enhance tourism activities. IMAP’s 2019-20 printing contribution is now due.


3

GOAL 2 TRANSPORT

Strategy 1.4 (Economy section) and Strategy 2.4 (Transport section)

Melbourne Visitor Wayfinding and Signage

City of Melbourne are appointed to lead this significant project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

Initially completed in 2010, this project was reactivated in 2012, focussed on visitor signage.

In December 2012, the IMAP Implementation Committee approved participation in the Melbourne Visitor Signage project and the coordinating committee was established to guide its work. The Committee seeks to:

Build common threads between roads, public transport, tourism, pedestrian, cycling and street directional signage systems across the inner Melbourne region.

Apply consistent shared symbols and terminology across these key signage systems; and

Coordinate responses to signage requests by tourist attractions, precincts and major developments.

The Melbourne Visitor Signage coordinating committee comprises representatives of the five IMAP councils, City of Wyndham (now ceased), Public Transport Victoria, VicRoads and Transport for Victoria (now DoT).

The aim was to build a Master Style Guide setting out agreed signing principles, guidelines and language (the ‘business rules’) to be adopted by collaborating authorities.

PROGRESS

2015

In April 2015 the Program Manager of Transport for London’s (TfL) Legible London wayfinding system visited for 12 days providing workshops on best practice, implementation and structures and a methodology for roll out of a comprehensive system. Following the TfL visit, the committee structured its work into two streams:

1. Collaborative projects

Master Style Guide The Wayfound guide version 1 is completed and underwent Council

reporting and approval in 2017.

Signage Infrastructure Design CoM’s signage design work looks at functionality, legibility, accessibility and views from different distances. CoM rolled out a pilot project at several sites to test the new sign design, content and placement with users. IMAP Councils are now installing these new designs. This work is being included in the update of the Master Style Guide (Wayfound Victoria 2.0) with version 2 currently in development in conjunction with PTV.

2. Strategic approach

The feasibility of building a single base map for metropolitan Melbourne

Commissioning a business case on the benefits of improved wayfinding signage in Melbourne.

2016

August - The visitor signage Master Style Guide (MSG) was endorsed by the IMAP Implementation Committee. The guide has been designed by PTV for release as a reference document.

2017

May - The Project team met with Transport for Victoria to discuss Guide promotion and mapping options.

May – the IMAP Implementation Committee adopted Wayfound as an operational manual by the Councils and referred it to Councils for adoption. The WayFound manual continues to be updated as user feedback on the trials is processed

August - the Business case for the next project stage was approved by the IMAP Committee.

A site visit at Southern Cross station with neighbouring councils reviewed the pilot signage project

Met with Parks Victoria who expressed interest in reviewing the Manual.

A draft MoU/licence was prepared to cover the relationship between project partners and 3rd parties


4

2018

Met Transport for Victoria (TfV) to discuss liaison through their new Project Manager position.

Three IMAP Councils formally adopted or noted the operational manual – Way found1.0. Yarra and Maribyrnong will await updates before proceeding.

Completed user testing of City of Melbourne’s pilot signs in North Melbourne and Southern Cross.

August to September - established a trial website for Way Found 1.0 to enable feedback

October to November – collated feedback from 7 identified agencies/Councils on Way found 1.0.

October - TfV and IMAP Mapping Workshop held – SGS facilitator

November – Liaison established with the Victorian Government Architects Office over sign infrastructure design. A short report on the key issues was prepared for the OVGA.

ADDRESSING THE GAPS IDENTIFIED BY REVIEWERS

December – Meeting held to review comments from the 7 independent reviewers

Met with David Blain, VicMaps on mapping requirements

Met with TfV to address Bike Path wayfinding gap in the Manual.

2019

January – met TfV re wayfinding signage advocacy and mapping strategy across Govt projects

Cycling and Walking signage meeting with key DoT staff

February – met TfV to consider a Round Table Forum on Bike and Shared Path Wayfinding to coordinate efforts across councils and authorities

Reviewed design changes to the Manual: referred bike shared paths to State Govt for input

May to July - Commissioned an independent review of the signage system’s design and technical details by an accredited accessibility auditor

DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNICATION OF WAYFOUND VICTORIA 2.0

March – Met Advisor Passenger Experience, Yarra Trams to consider wayfinding signage as a tool for dispersing tram patrons/congestion in the inner city

May - Reviewed Wayfound 2.0 changes with web and editor advisors. Drafted improvements and design of Way found 2.0 commenced in June. A new section: Part B: Implementation, will contain the design, graphic standards and technical details for fabricating, locating and installing a shared pedestrian wayfinding signage system

Mayoral correspondence sent to the Ministers for Transport Infrastructure and Public Transport in June about the inconsistent approach to transport-related wayfinding systems across Melbourne

August - developed a first draft of the mapping standards brief and budget for review by Executive Forum on 1 November

25 October CEOs and project team members met with the Secretary DoT and MTIA rep on the lack of consistency in signage across the ‘Big Build’ projects and called for a joint approach. Continued work on manual update.

November - Website domain established. Website brief in preparation. PTV engaged to do final graphic design of Wayfound Victoria 2.0. Engineering and editing review undertaken of new content.

2020 March 2020 - Completion of Wayfound Victoria 2.0 by March 2020. Links were made available to

Committee members. Followed up with correspondence to the Secretary DOT – awaiting the department’s response.

CURRENT PROGRESS

March – April – Department of Transport design staff undertook final review of the updates and prepared the pdf. for distribution.


5

Completion of the website brief – finalising this was delayed to enable technical input from DoT staff. The website RfQ has now been delayed awaiting Committee approval for expenditure during the

pandemic crisis. Development of a comprehensive distribution list to send out Pdf. versions of the document has

commenced. Draft communication plan under development for the document’s public launch.

NEXT STEPS

Website development contract to be awarded 2020 DEFERRED AWAITING APPROVAL

Publically accessible website to be completed May/June 2020 - DEFERRED AWAITING APPROVAL

Launch, media, communications and promotion of Wayfound Victoria to be undertaken June 2020 DEFERRED AWAITING APPROVAL

Strategy 2.3

Business Case – Inner Melbourne Cycling Network City of Melbourne are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

2018

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan shares this priority project with a number of other authorities and agencies who seek to support sustainable transport options and address the gaps in the metro cycling network. The IMAP project was initially deferred awaiting clarity around the work of these other agencies.

On 11 September 2018, the Metro Cycling Network Senior Reference Group, convened by Resilient Melbourne, discussed how the various agencies could collaborate to achieve a positive outcome in the further development of the cycle network and a project brief was developed for consideration.

On 14 November the IMAP Transport Managers heard presentations on the Cycling project proposals and Wayfinding Project’s mapping work; and reviewed all transport project proposals. Support was given to proceed with the joint cycling infrastructure mapping proposal which included 2 aspects:

o build and provide a cycling model to map existing cycling infrastructure across Inner Melbourne,

o analyse gaps and prioritise future network planning through mapping the detailed user modelling (as per City of Melbourne work) across Inner Melbourne.

November 2018 – the project brief was considered by the IMAP Implementation Committee and referred to

the IMAP Executive Forum meeting on 19 December for further clarification.

2019:

The IMAP Implementation Committee approved the Project brief on 22 February 2019. The outcomes and

benefits for this project are as follows:

o A bicycle network model for the IMAP area that will illustrate growth in bicycle trips generated by improvements to the bicycle network.

o A report that highlights the benefits of particular proposed improvements o An approach for this model to be maintained, updated and used in the future years. o A framework and method for the potential expansion of this model to the rest of Metropolitan

Melbourne in future years.

April 2019 – Bike Network Project Team reviewed the project brief and consultants shortlist for RfQ. Quotes were sought and the appointment confirmed in late July.

August to September - Data was collated from across the 5 councils for the consultants. Additional work was undertaken to improve and standardise datasets.

October – Project team meeting on the Interim Bike Model Report and comments sought

In November the Metro Cycling Network Senior Reference Group were updated on the IMAP project to assist in drafting the brief for a Metro-wide approach


6

2020

January - Various meetings were held to demonstrate the model and provide comment on the Final Report

CURRENT PROGRESS

March – May: The Final report was deferred in March and will be presented to the June IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

A proposal to run the model to develop the business case for linkages to the SG Cycling corridors(within approved budget) has been DEFERRED AWAITING APPROVAL


7

GOAL 3 COMMUNITIES

Strategy 3.1

Affordable Housing Controls & Targets City of Port Phillip are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

Completed Stage 1: Planning mechanisms (2008-2010)

Stage 2a: Community Land Trust (CLT) Research Phase 1(2011-2013)

Stage 2b: Community Land trust (CLT) Research Phase 2 (2014-2019)

Stage 3: Investigation of a Private Market Affordable Rental Housing Delivery Model, for Use in Negotiating Voluntary Agreements (2019)

Current

Investigation of a Private Market Affordable Rental Housing Delivery Model, for Use in Negotiating Voluntary Agreements BACKGROUND

2019

The Final Report by PwC with their analysis of the PRADs model was presented to the IMAP

Implementation Committee on 29 November 2019.

The report has been made publically available and PwC have been thanked for their pro bono

work.

NEXT STEPS

Undertake further areas of investigation on some of the report’s findings.

Strategy 3.4

IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project. City of Melbourne are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

Following work undertaken by the Victorian Planning Authority and Sport and Recreation Victoria to plan for future requirements for open space, the Committee considered a proposal at the May 2015 meeting to investigate recreation facilities and open space requirements across the IMAP region, in response to future growth..

The Final Report and Technical Data Report were reported to the March 2020 Committee meeting.

NEXT STEPS

The Committee’s resolution “to convene an initial Council group to consider the potential of the project going forward” has been referred to the project team to provide further advice on priorities.


8

Strategy 3.6

Consistent approach in the response to Homelessness:

StreetCount 2020 City of Melbourne are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

CURRENT PROGRESS August 2019 – DHHS confirmed a funding contribution towards the 2020 and 2022 StreetCounts

October – November – CoM commissioned a consultant report on the StreetCount methodology compared with overseas examples. The IMAP project team were consulted on the recommendations to finalise Melbourne’s methodology for the 2020 StreetCount.

A report on the 2020 approach was presented to the November Committee meeting which confirmed the project team, budget and methodology.

2020 An RfQ was circulated and bids evaluated for a Project Coordinator during early February. Moreland

and Darebin Councils have joined the project team to undertake the StreetCount following agreement by the IMAP Executives. Planning meetings have commenced.

DHHS confirmed they will provide increased matched funding for the project. Preferred project manager sought a delay on project commencement as a result of COVID-19.

NEXT STEPS

Appointment of a Project Manager by March 2020.PROJECT DELAYED AS A RESULT OF PANDEMIC


9

GOAL 4 NEIGHBOURHOODS AND PLACES

Strategy 5.4 (Also 1.1)

Urban Forest and Biodiversity Strategy and Approach Maribyrnong City Council are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

In May 2018 the IMAP Implementation Committee considered the Project Brief for the IMAP Urban Forest Plan.

Its purpose is to develop an urban forest plan aimed at protecting existing trees and increasing tree planting

and green infrastructure on private land. The objective is to increase tree canopy and landscape cover to

improve the environmental quality of the IMAP region, human health, amenity, liveability and appeal.

The project is being developed to provide a value add and uplift to the other Urban Forest initiatives

such as Resilient Melbourne and Vision 202020. The Urban Forest Plan will focus on private land

and the mechanisms to retain urban landscapes, particularly trees through guidelines and policies

that may involve incentives or deterrents such as the use of tree bonds.

Deliverables have been identified as:

o Education

o Baseline data and measuring is required to track progress in achieving the urban forest across the IMAP region.

o Planning policy mechanisms – State/Council

Policy / Local Law / Guidelines.

2018

On 11 September 2018, the CoM launched their ‘Green our City’ Strategic Action Plan. The Executive Officer and Project Team Leader met with CoM to assess alignment opportunities between the two projects.

November 2018 - Ms Hall presented details of the CoM project to the IMAP Implementation Committee. The Committee agreed to coordinate those aspects of the IMAP project focussed on policies for trees on private property with the CoM’s work in this area.

The Project Team Leader left Maribyrnong City Council in November which affected progress on this project.

2019

April 2019 – New Project team leader and Executive Officer met with CoM staff on the planning amendment and case study requirements for the IMAP project

May - Meeting of the IMAP Urban Forest Project Working Group to identify case studies for inclusion in the CoM study.

September to October - Maribyrnong City Council’s CEO appointed additional resources to the project. The Executive Officer met with Maribyrnong staff to determine next steps on the project.

November - Advised a process is in place to finalise the case studies with strategic planners on the project team.

2020

Feb – April: Project team agreed 2 development typologies to contribute to the CoM’s investigation and provided full sets of development plans from Yarra and Maribyrnong councils for assessment by CoM’s consultant. IMAP’s funding contribution towards this work is now due.


10

GOAL 5 LEADERSHIP IN SUSTAINABILITY

Strategy 5.4

Sustainable Design Fact sheets Project City of Yarra are appointed to lead this project for IMAP.

BACKGROUND

Completed - Stages 1 & 2

Work commenced in December 2010 to identify ESD topics to be written up in the form of Fact sheets for publication.

The first 10 Fact sheets pack was formally launched at the City of Melbourne on 11 May 2012.

5 additional topics were completed in 2016.

The project was presented at the 9th International Urban Design Conference held in Canberra in November 2016.

The 15 completed Fact sheet topics include:

1.0 Indoor environment quality

2.0 Energy efficiency

o 2.1 Sunshading

3.0 Water efficiency

4.0 Stormwater management

o 4.1 Site Permeability

5.0 Building materials

6.0 Transport

7.0 Waste management

8.0 Urban ecology

o 8.1 Green roofs, walls and facades

9.0 Innovation

10.0 Construction and building management

Melbourne’s Climate (including adaptation)

ESD Tools

5 additional factsheets to further extend the series were approved at the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting on 27 May 2016.

The Factsheets were licensed to CASBE and supplied to the Kangan Institute as a student learning tool. Other enquiries are continuing as more councils adopt ESD policies and local planning amendments.

CURRENT PROGRESS

Update from IMAP Sustainable Development Fact Sheet Team – May 2020

1. Johanna Trickett from Normal Disney Young is currently completing drafts of the five new fact sheets for the IMAP fact sheet suite. This work is being led by Yarra City Council.

2. These fact sheet topics are:

Daylight,

Natural Ventilation,

Building Envelope Performance,

Electric Vehicle Readiness, and

Zero Carbon Development.


11

3. Draft fact sheets will be ready to layout by graphic designers before June 30.

4. Additional IMAP funding will be requested after a quote from graphic designers for final illustrations and layout. Expected completion before September 2020.

5. An additional fact sheet on Sustainable Subdivision has been drafted by CASBE and Wodonga Rural City Council. Content was covered by CASBE project budget.

6. Currently there are 22 Councils across Victoria who have signed the IMAP license agreement and are utilising the fact sheet suite, in addition to the 5 IMAP councils. Interest continues to grow with the latest addition of Bayside City Council.

7. Interest in additional topics for ESD fact sheets have been raised by members of the IMAP Project Team, including "Offsite Renewable Energy" as well as "Air Quality" suggested by Maribyrnong City Council. Additional topics would require further IMAP funding to produce.

8. City of Yarra ESD Advisor and other IMAP Project Team members continue to liaise with CASBE and DELWP on new ESD policy development at a local and state level, including work on a Zero Carbon Development planning scheme amendment.

NEXT STEPS

Completion of the Factsheet series content this financial year.

Graphic design quotes

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The IMAP projects continue to add value, deliver stronger relationships, practical solutions and strategic directions, and influence the liveability and sustainability

of the inner Melbourne region.


1 Project Team: Martin Whittle [Team Leader] CoM; Eng Lim CoMar; Hayley McNichol CoY; Targol Khorram CoS; Shannon Rice CoPP;

Alan King, DoT; Marc Saville DoT; Frank Costa DoT; Jess Nichol MTIA. Report prepared by: Martin Whittle [Team Leader] CoM


Progress Report

IMAP Wayfinding and Signage Project ___________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

1. To update the Committee on the completion of the Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines V2.0 manual.

2. To confirm support for the development of the Wayfound Victoria website – placed on hold as a result of the pandemic.

Background

3. On 27 November 2019, the IMAP Implementation Committee confirmed the budget for the development of the Wayfound Victoria website: 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to:

Note the discussion held with representatives from DoT and MTIA on the development of consistent wayfinding and mapping; and

Write to the Secretary DoT to reinforce outcomes from the joint meeting and call for a response (Completed)

Support ongoing collaboration through the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee to promote consistent wayfinding signage development by the Department of Transport.

Support the ongoing budget requirements for the IMAP Wayfinding and Signage project and make provision in the current budget and Three year Implementation Program as outlined in the project budget report (see attachment totalling $60K-$80K this financial year).

Actively engage with MAV, joint Council groups and Metro Partnerships to promote consistency in wayfinding signage across the metropolitan area

MOVED CR COLEMAN/ Cr Voss A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

10.2 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to seek a meeting with the Minister(s) on Wayfound Victoria once completed.

MOVED CR VOSS/ Cr Coleman A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

4. Since this decision, Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines V2.0 has been completed as

far as is possible by the IMAP councils and partners, has been fully reviewed by the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee and the Department of Transport and is ready for distribution.

5. Wayfound Victoria V2.0 will still be looking for State Government input into 3 sections:


2 Project Team: Martin Whittle [Team Leader] CoM; Eng Lim CoMar; Hayley McNichol CoY; Targol Khorram CoS; Shannon Rice CoPP;

Alan King, DoT; Marc Saville DoT; Frank Costa DoT; Jess Nichol MTIA. Report prepared by: Martin Whittle [Team Leader] CoM

the Basemap for inner Melbourne;

Bike Path/Share Path signage design; and

the Regional Victoria section. These gaps will become more obvious/urgent through the Guideline’s wide application.

6. The Website development brief has been completed with the valuable assistance/input by Department of Transport staff – see attached.

7. A draft distribution list is being developed to assist with the launch.

Discussion

8. In March 2020, with the onset of the pandemic and advice from the IMAP CEO group, the project team delayed seeking quotes on the Website Brief due to uncertainty about budgetted expenditure on IMAP projects; this has also delayed the final launch of the Wayfinding Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines.

9. The website will be the one point of reference for the latest version of Wayfinding Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines. Through the website, the Guidelines become available to all Victorian Councils, State Government and consultants and it becomes the definitive point of reference, providing version control for consistent signage design.

10. It is expected that the website could be completed and available in 2 months at a cost of between 20-30K – less than originally expected.

11. In the absence of a dedicated website, alternative means of distribution could include:

a. mailouts (not ideal due to file size and future version control);

b. notifications to a mailing list, advising access to an alternative website (possibly the IMAP website – but the site is now likely to have a limited life; DoT or CoM websites - availability unknown)

c. advocate for DoT to take the project over.

12. The website and launch will largely complete this stage of the joint IMAP councils’ work on this project, however ongoing management of State, local and private requests for technical drawings, symbols, fonts, checklists and general questions will need to be answered on a regular basis. Currently all enquiries are directed to Martin Whittle at [email protected]; and a dedicated website base will assist as a one-stop-shop for some of these queries.

13. IMAP’s experience with the dedicated website we established for the Growing Green Guide: A guide to green roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne and Victoria (www.growinggreenguide.org) released in 2014, has shown limited maintenance

requirements in intervening years and yet has successfully enabled the manual to be downloaded worldwide over 100K times.The project’s external partners continue to maintain their interest in the site.

14. There is also a future Wayfound Victoria v3.0 to consider (including mapping, cycling and

regional design inputs from the State Government) requiring an ongoing point of contact.

Recommendation

15. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to reconfirm its support for the development of the Wayfound Victoria website at an estimated cost of $20-30K.


http://www.growinggreenguide.org/

12 June 2020 Attachment 6a

REQUEST FOR QUOTES

Web development project brief – Wayfound Victoria. Wayfinding Guidelines for Victoria

Contact details: Project Manager and Request for Quote (RfQ) contact

Martin Whittle

Senior Project Coordinator (Wayfinding)

City of Melbourne

Tel: 03 9658 9137

Email: [email protected]

Request for Quotes: date of issue

… 2020

Closing date for quotes

… 2020

Request for Quote

The City of Stonnington, on behalf of the five Inner Melbourne (IMAP) Councils, is seeking quotes from experienced people and companies to develop a simple website to host a pdf-formatted public reference document, Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines (referred to as ‘the guide’ or ‘the Wayfound guide’).

The purpose of the website is to …

Explain what the Wayfound guide is and promote its use

Host the guide (pdf format)

Enable users of the guide to ask questions, provide feedback and supply contact details

Build a database of users of the Wayfound guide.

The Wayfound guide website (referred to as the Wayfound website) will:

be built with a CMS format with User Guide based by user privileges instructions. (Training for users of the site would be an optional extra.)

include a database with CSV export and contact forms.

The website will go-live initially with downloadable pdf content. The intent is that the CMS can support individual pages, and that the website will allow for ease of navigation between the pages.

The proposed site map diagram and text are attached (See Attachment A). Video and images will be supplied during the web development process.

It is anticipated that the Wayfound website will be hosted by VentraIP.

In the event that the Wayfound website is transitioned to another host in the future, the CMS developed under this contract must be easily transferable.



The Wayfound website to be developed under this contract must be …

Easy to find

Publicly available (not password protected) and free to use

Developed on a pre-built website template such as WordPress or Squarespace

Hosted by VentraIP.

Easy to transition to another host, if necessary in the future

Developed for mobile with graceful re-scaling to tablet and desktop

Simple, intuitive, easy to use

Compliant with WC3 accessibility standards

Fully tested with a sample of prospective users of the Wayfound website prior to go-live. (NB: Martin Whittle, the web development Client and Project Manager, will be responsible for sourcing users for the testing stages.)

Designed with the same ‘look + feel’ as the Wayfound guide

Linked to relevant State and Local Government authorities’ websites

Able to be easily updated by IMAP Councils and the Department of Transport (DoT)

Future proofed to enable easy site expansion, and addition and replacement of pages.

The Wayfound CMS must also be able to generate reports on:

Number of users / subscribers

Analytics of usage and downloads

Names, job titles, organisations, email addresses and locations of people who download the Wayfound guide’s pdf file.

The website’s registered domain name is [email protected]

This project brief outlines the required functions and features of the Wayfound website; profiles of expected users; milestones in the design, development and testing process; and the target ‘go live’ and launch dates. The brief also outlines contract management arrangements.

About Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines

The Wayfound guide has been developed by the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee (MVSC), a collaboration of the five Inner Melbourne (IMAP) councils and the Department of Transport (DoT). The guide has been designed by DoT.

The aim of the Wayfound guide is to make people’s journeys easy. It does this by encouraging the adoption of common signing principles and guidelines for pedestrian, cycling, public transport and road signs.

The guide is intended as a free, easy-to-use resource for people working in the field of wayfinding in local councils, State Government authorities and private companies. It has been developed to assist staff responsible for commissioning, planning, designing, fabricating, locating and installing signs.

The Wayfound guide (the pdf file) comprises two parts:

Part A: Strategy – Signing principles and guidelines

Part B: Implementation – Design and technical information for a pedestrian signage system

The guide has 11 chapters and multiple images, diagrams and technical drawings.



As a work in progress, the MVSC is keen to receive the Wayfound guide’s users’ (readers’) feedback on how the guide can be improved and expanded. Feedback will be sent to: [email protected]

Future editions of the Wayfound guide are planned. It is expected the guide will be expanded and updated in the future.

Web development contract: milestones and dates

Design, development and testing of the Wayfound website must include the following milestones and meet the following deadlines*:

… 2020: Requests for Quotes (RFQs) issued to several companies

… (2 weeks later): Closing date for quotes to be received

… (3 weeks later): Contract awarded

… (10 days later): Inception meeting (Zoom or Skype). o Once the contract has been awarded, the person or company engaged to develop the

website will be required to outline the proposed site structure and make recommendations to the Project Manager.

… (3 weeks later): Presentation and briefing to Project Manager and his Advisory Group (see Project management below). The presentation will cover … o Two design options for consideration o An outline of the selected CMS functions o Features, navigation, search and reporting capabilities.

The presentation to include examples of similar types of documents that have been hosted on a CMS, to show what works and what doesn’t.

… (2 weeks later): Proof of concept – presentation of styled wireframes to the Client, Project Advisory Group and members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee (Zoom or Skype). (A total of ~12 people would attend the presentation.)

(NB: the website’s text and images will be populated by the client, not the contractor.)

… (2 weeks later): Live testing commences. Quotes must outline the proposed user testing process

… (3 weeks later): final presentation – to Client, Project Advisory Group and the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee (Zoom or Skype)

… (2 weeks later): Go-live date

… (3 weeks later): launch of the Wayfound Victoria website.

How we’ll work with you

To keep things simple, the person or company awarded this contract will communicate directly with the Client and Project Manager, Marty Whittle, and not with individual authorities, members of the Advisory Group or the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee.

The contractor will communicate with these stakeholder authorities and members of these groups through Martin Whittle, the Client and Project Manager

Issues requiring the input of these authorities and groups will be raised by the contractor with Martin Whittle. Martin will be responsible for communicating issues to these stakeholders and providing a response to the contractor.

*The development and testing dates (… to …) are indicative only. Responses to the RfQ need to outline dates for meeting these milestones, if different from above.


Wayfound guide’s user profiles

Barry, Developer / Project coordinator

Barry’s task:

‘It’s a project requirement that pedestrian wayfinding be integrated into our site development. How do I make sure I am installing signs that are consistent with other systems?’

What Barry needs from the website:

Confirm that these guidelines provide consistent information for sign users

Details of accessibility benchmarks for pedestrian signs

Checklist (or process map) for designing and fabricating and installing signs

Marc, Design agency graphic designer

Marc’s task:

‘I need to design a sign and I want to use the same symbols as are used on other signage systems.’

What Marc needs from the website:

Locate user-tested style, symbols and assets detail

Emily, Wayfinding agency strategy director

Emily’s task:

‘I need to fulfill a client brief.’

What Emily needs from the website:

Access to the thinking and assets of the system: including … o signing principles and guidelines o sign design and technical details o graphic standards and placement guidelines

Sally, Local council business district officer

Sally’s task:

‘I have to put a sign in the ground. I don’t know where to start.’

What Sally needs from the website:

Develop understanding of wayfinding

Benefits of wayfinding system to engage stakeholders

A (process map) checklist for installing signs

Signing principles and guidelines such as a hierarchy of information

Design and technical details for a signage system that has been benchmarked against accessibility standards

Toolkit to brief suppliers

Peter, Wayfinding project lead local / state government

Peter’s task:

‘I need to acquire sufficient budget to build a signage system that supports an integrated transport network.’

What Peter needs from the website:

Story / narrative of the project


Success stories

Find out who is on-board

Jenny, Signage contractor – engineer

Jenny’s task:

‘I need the assets to streamline and aid efficiency for my project.’

What Jenny needs from the website:

Assets / drawings for a specific signage need

Inspiration for the Wayfound website

Examples of simple, easy-to-use websites that highlight what the Project Team requires from this

contract include:

Victoria’s Big Build - https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/

Hassell Melbourne - https://www.hassellstudio.com/studio/melbourne

Metro Tunnel – https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au

IMAP’s Growing Green Guide - http://www.growinggreenguide.org/

Wayfound Victoria is a guide for transport-related signage. The Client will be seeking the

contractor’s suggestions about how the Wayfound website can link strategically with Victorian

Government transport websites.

The contractor will also be asked to provide examples of good websites that host documents.

Wayfound website: content / function / features

The Wayfound website will have the following functions and features:

Front end …

Free to use

Simple, easy to use

Search function / filter

Simple, easy navigation system (eg side bar and/or top menu)

CMS can support individual pages and the website allows for ease of navigation between the pages

Users are able to search by contents (see Wayfound guide’s Table of Contents)

Fast loading (<2 seconds)

Meets agreed accessibility criteria

Next/Back functions

Partner logos (IMAP Councils and DoT)

Examples (images) of signs installed in Victoria that have adopted the Wayfound Victoria system

Contact: for information, queries, symbols and licences

Feedback: users’ suggested improvements and expansion of the Wayfound guide.

Back end …

Easy to find - search engine optimisation strategy (see Quoting requirements below)

Publicly accessible (not password protected)

https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/

https://www.hassellstudio.com/studio/melbourne

https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/

http://www.growinggreenguide.org/


Available on mobile phones, desktops, laptops and ipads

The website is to be set up so that authorised IMAP and DoT staff can … o add / change / delete web content (eg About Us) o replace the Wayfound guide’s pdf file when newer editions of the guide are available

Reporting e.g. numbers of users / subscribers, unique visits, analytics of usege and downloads

Enquiry / contact forms

Contact details of users of the website.

IMAP has registered the domain name (wayfoundvictoria.vic.gov.au)

Future proofing …

The person or company awarded the Wayfound website contract will be required to advise on how the website can be future proofed to enable site expansion, and the addition and replacement of pages.

‘Look + feel’

The design of the website must be consistent with the ‘look and feel’ of the Wayfound guide. It is to feature the Wayfound guide’s visual language including its colour palette, font, images, arrows and pictograms, images, diagrams and text.

Wayfound guide’s graphic design details will be supplied by the Project Manager and DoT to the person or company awarded the contract (see attached Library of Assets).

The only logos to be featured on the web platform are six local councils (Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Wyndham and Yarra) and the Department of Transport.

No other logos, brands or company names are to feature on the website.

Budget

Up to $25,000 excluding GST.

If $25,000 is deemed to be insufficient to deliver on the project brief, please outline:

Which of the required web features and functions for a functional website can be delivered for $25,000 (provide a break-down of costs)

Additional budget required to fully deliver on the brief (provide a break-down of costs).

The client is open to agencies making cost effective recommendations.

Quoting requirements

Quotes are to include the following details and expectations regarding milestone payments:

Proposed web platform, functions, features and costs

What will be managed by the CMS and what will be static and requiring an ongoing maintenance contract.

A work program setting out tasks involved in the design, development and testing of the Wayfound website

Time required to develop + test the website to ‘go live’ and launch stages: o Expected start + finish dates o Expected date of each milestone


Proposed meeting / communication schedule with the Project Manager

Cost break-down including: o People involved in the project, each person’s experience in UX web design, and each

person’s hourly rates (+ GST) o Estimated total hours on the project (show break-down for each team member) o Other costs: e.g. non-staff design, development and testing costs (+ GST) o Total quote (+ GST) o Ongoing costs (e.g. licence to use WordPress/Squarespace template, etc.)

Experience of the person/company submitting this quote: o Web development o UX web design process o Working with similar types of projects eg hosting a large policy document, guidelines etc o Working with government authorities and/or large organisations with multiple

stakeholders o 3 examples of webs developed by the person/company

Testimonials (3 x relevant jobs)

Advice regarding proposed milestone payments.

Quotes are also to outline:

Standard SEO assumptions incorporated within the proposed CMS

A separately priced SEO strategy.

Please Note:

See Budget above: if $25,000 (excluding GST) is deemed insufficient for this job, please advise:

Which of the above tasks can be completed for a functional website within the budgeted $25,000 (provide cost break-down)

A quote for delivering on all tasks outlined in this brief (provide cost break-down).

Acceptance of quotes may be delayed due to Covid-19 funding-related issues.

Deliverables

The deliverable under this contract will be a fully operational website that meets the functions and

features outlined in this project brief, and designed to be consistent with the ‘look + feel’ of the

Wayfound guide.

The contracted person or company will also deliver the following:

• Training pack for CMS

• Document of site structure / logins etc

• Passwords and login details for future edits / editions

• Trouble-shooting or support structure including time frames etc

• Document of future-proofing measures for the site’s expansion


Quote evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Weighting

Cost Weight. 50%

Lump Sum

Lump Sum Breakdown

Schedule of Rates

Unit Rates for Variations

Hourly & Daily Rates for Variations (Nominated Personnel)

Hourly & Daily Rates for Variations

Materials and Equipment Rates for Variations

Value for money

Experience, Capability & Past Performance Weight.30%

Past Performances and Referee Contacts

Current Commitments

Plan for Proposed Services Weight.10%

Proposed Supervisory Personnel

Construction Methodology

Technical Specialist Application

Proposed Sub Contractors

Proposed Engagement of Aboriginal staff and/or Business

Quality Assurance Weight.10%

Commitment to Quality Assurance

Proposed Quality Assurance Processes

Project set-up

One week after the contract has been awarded, an inception meeting will be held to confirm:

Outputs

Approach to the task

Roles + responsibilities (Project Manager + Project team + Contractor)

Milestones + timeline

Meetings / communication schedule

User testing process

Live testing + ‘Go live’ dates

Launch date

Contract payment schedule


Project management

The Client and Project Manager of the Wayfound website development contract is:

Martin Whittle

Senior Project Coordinator (Wayfinding)

City of Melbourne

Tel: 03 9658 9137

Email: [email protected]

Martin will be assisted by a Project Advisory Committee comprising:

o Martin Whittle (chair)

IMAP Council representatives:

o Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer o Hayley McNicol, Senior Urban Designer, City of Yarra

Department of Transport representatives:

o Rachel Goldsworthy, Wayfinding Delivery Lead o Debbie Ferris, Senior Designer o Patrick Alewood, Customer Information and Creative Services Manager

Intellectual property: ownership of the work

City of Stonnington, on behalf of the Inner Melbourne (IMAP) Councils, owns copyright to all the artwork and material featured on the Way found web platform, and all Intellectual Property generated under this contract.



ATTACHMENT A:

Wayfound Victoria website – site map diagram + text (HH draft, 29.04.20)

Home Wayfinding Download Wayfound Victoria

Get in touch

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Image/video What is wayfinding? Wayfound Victoria signage guide

Questions or feedback?

Get in touch

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

About Why is good wayfinding important?

Wayfound Victoria’s signage system in

operation

Direct to download Wayfound Victoria

↓ ↓ ↓

Wayfound Victoria. What is it?

Direct to download Wayfound Victoria

Download Wayfound Victoria

Background

The problem

The collaboration

Vision

Include Footer on all pages

HOME

Brief blurb + video

Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines aims to make people’s journeys easy by ensuring that

direction and information signage systems used by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and

drivers are consistent, predictable and reliable.

ABOUT

WAYFOUND VICTORIA. WHAT IS IT?

Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines (‘the Wayfound guide’) is a free resource for people

working for local councils, State Government authorities and private companies who are responsible

for aspects of wayfinding and signage systems.


These people might work in areas as diverse as tourism, economic development, engineering,

graphic and industrial design, place-making, strategic planning, urban design, landscape architecture

or transport planning. For many, responsibility for wayfinding and signs might be an occasional part

of their work rather than their main focus.

The guide has been developed to assist with decisions relating to commissioning, planning,

designing, fabricating, locating and installing direction and information signs in public areas.

It is the first output of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee (MVSC), a collaboration between

local and State government to improve wayfinding for users and make the most of public resources.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the CEOs of five Melbourne and State government authorities agreed that poor signage was

a problem for visitors to Melbourne. Large-scale development and the city’s population growth

meant Melbourne was getting bigger, denser, busier and more difficult to navigate.

As the number of visitors increased, so did complaints about poorly maintained signs, inconsistent

information and ineffectual sign placement. In some areas of the city there were too many signs, and

in places like Southern Cross Station, where arriving visitors most need orientation and directional

information, there were none.

The problem was clear, but the solution was not, as none of the relevant authorities were solely

responsible for addressing the situation.

THE PROBLEM

A person’s journey can involve travel by foot, wheelchair, bike, public transport or car across more

than one local council area. A single journey can mean relying on many different signage systems

provided by a number of different authorities.

In Victoria, each responsible authority makes its own decisions about signs – their design, what is

signed, the information they carry, naming conventions and placement. And no authority is

responsible for ensuring that these many different systems join up along routes that cross municipal

boundaries or link destinations and transport networks.

So, each time someone moves from one form of transport to another or each time they cross from

one council area to another, the signage system also changes in its look and feel, and the

information it carries.

In Victoria, the hallmarks of good wayfinding – consistency, reliability and predictability – are

missing.

THE COLLABORATION

In the absence of a mechanism to address this problem, the CEOs established the MVSC to improve

signage.

Comprised of five Inner Melbourne Councils – Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington

and Yarra – and the Department of Transport, the MVSC started work in 2013, developing ’business

rules’ for the design and installation of signs by local and State government bodies. These rules were

intended to improve the consistency, reliability and integration of direction and information signs.

The MVSC’s first initiative is Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines. This guide encourages the

use of common signing principles and guidelines for pedestrian, cycling, public transport and road

signs in Victoria to make people’s journeys easier. It also includes design and technical information

for a pedestrian signage system, and guidance for placing and installing the signs.


A number of people with specialist skills – such as traffic engineering, wayfinding, graphic and

industrial design, market (user) testing, accessibility auditing and business case assessment –

assisted with the guide’s development.

VISION

The MVSC’s vision is that people travelling in Victoria need only understand one signage ‘language’.

All direction and information signs – be they local council pedestrian signs or State Government

cycling or public transport signs – will carry consistent information, use common graphic standards,

and be installed along routes that link key precincts, attractions, transport networks and

municipalities.

WAYFINDING

WHAT IS WAYFINDING?

According to Kevin Lynch, wayfinding is the process of using spatial and environmental information to navigate to a destination. (The Image of the City. K. Lynch, MIT Press, 1960)

Wayfinding can be defined as spatial problem solving. It is knowing where you are in a building or environment, knowing where your desired destination is, and knowing how to get there from your present location. (SEGD https://segd.org/explore/wayfinding)

Wayfinding can include physical elements such as urban design, architecture, landmarks, lighting, footpaths, landscaping and signage.

These elements work together to define paths and identify key decision points, while aiming to improve and enhance people’s experiences as they move from place to place.

WHY IS A GOOD WAYFINDING IMPORTANT?

Investment in city-wide map-based wayfinding systems has enhanced the brands and reputations

of the cities in which they have been established, encouraging exploration and contributing to the

sense of welcome experienced by visitors. (Wayfinding in Melbourne, Business case scoping report,

SGS Economics and Planning, 2015.)

Other benefits for users of the wayfinding systems and for government authorities and businesses include:

Users …

Improved legibility and accessibility, journey time savings and more positive experiences

Increased walking and cycling leading to wider health benefits and improved feelings of safety and security.

Government authorities and businesses …

More tourists, local visitors and business travellers benefitting local economies

Reduced car use and associated externalities, and more efficient use of road space

Less visual clutter and improvements to the public realm

Positive Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs). (The BCR for the Toronto 360 system, for example, shows that for every dollar invested, $3.7 would be generated for the city. Toronto wayfinding Benefit/Cost Analysis, T. Pearce, 2018. https://citywayfinding.com/toronto-wayfinding-benefitcost-analysis/

DIRECT TO DOWNLOAD WAYFOUND VICTORIA

https://segd.org/explore/wayfinding

https://citywayfinding.com/toronto-wayfinding-benefitcost-analysis/

https://citywayfinding.com/toronto-wayfinding-benefitcost-analysis/


DOWNLOAD WAYFOUND VICTORIA

THE WAYFOUND VICTORIA SIGNAGE GUIDE

The guide focuses on direction and information signs installed in public areas. It outlines:

signing rules or principles, general guidelines and mode-specific signage guidelines relating to

walking, cycling, public transport and roads

design and technical information for pedestrian signs, and guidance to place and install the signs

results of benchmarking the system’s design, fabrication and installation details against

accessibility standards

a suggested process map/checklist for planning and installing signs.

WAYFOUND VICTORIA’S SIGNAGE SYSTEM IN OPERATION

The Wayfound Victoria pedestrian signage system is being rolled out across the City of Melbourne,

and a number of the signs have also been installed in Maribyrnong and Port Phillip municipalities.

The system was piloted in the City of Melbourne in 2017 and 2018. Pre and post-installation user

testing showed a marked improvement in people’s confidence to find their way to a destination

after the signs had been installed.

Other Victorian councils are interested in adopting the pedestrian signage system because they see

two benefits of a shared system: 1) a consistent, predictable system for users, and 2) cost savings for

authorities through shared design and procurement.

(We would love to hear from Councils that have installed signs in accordance with the Wayfound

guide. Feedback on use of the guide and photos of the signs are most welcome. Please send to

[email protected])

DOWNLOAD WAYFOUND VICTORIA

Before downloading Wayfound Victoria please provide the following details. (They will help us

understand who is interested in the guide.)

Name:

Name of business or organisation*:

Position in the business or organisation*:

Email address*:

I’m interested in knowing more about future editions of Wayfound Victoria

Yes No


GET IN TOUCH QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK? GET IN TOUCH

Wayfound Victoria: Wayfinding Guidelines is a first attempt at developing a consistent approach and

shared design for wayfinding signs. It is the start of an ongoing process. The MVSC welcomes

suggestions for the guide’s improvement and expansion.

If you have any feedback you are willing to share, or any questions, please get in touch by email:

[email protected]

DIRECT TO DOWNLOAD WAYFOUND VICTORIA


1 Project Team: Barney Wilson, Sue Jones, CoM; Lisa Stafford CoS; Malcolm Roberts-Palmer, CoMar; Kate Incerti CoPP;

Tess Simson, CoY; Teneille Summers, CoD, Bernadette Hetherington, MCC. Report prepared by: Sue Jones, CoM


Briefing Paper

StreetCount 2020 Update

BACKGROUND

1. Strategy 3.6 of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan states:

“We will implement joint programs to improve the health, wellbeing and safety of the Inner Melbourne community. Opportunities include…Improving the coordination of accommodation and social support services for homeless people.”

In response to this strategy, in November 2019 the IMAP Implementation Committee endorsed the delivery of StreetCount in 2020 with confirmed funding comprised of $50k DHHS, $50k IMAP and $90k City of Melbourne. Moreland and Darebin municipalities joined the project in January, contributing $10k respectively and this was matched by DHHS.

KEY POINTS

2. Postpone StreetCount until end of 2020

StreetCount2020 was due to be delivered from 24 – 26 June 2020. The delivery of the event has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and is expected to be delivered in November.

A project risk assessment and management plan was developed in March to prepare for the likelihood of a delay. Key considerations were for people experiencing homelessness and sleeping rough during this period and their particular vulnerability; there are active strategies by the State Government and housing agencies across the sector to accommodate people sleeping rough in hotel accommodation across Melbourne, which significantly changes the landscape and masks the actual number of people who are homeless.

3. The event coordination contract with Launch Housing has been put on hold until a new date can be negotiated.

To ensure the delivery of StreetCount in November is possible, the IMAP StreetCount working group continues to progress priority components of the project. The development of a digital survey platform and online volunteer training modules are being led by City of Melbourne’s project officer. The project working group of IMAP and joint council meetings are now occurring fortnightly with seven participating councils.

4. IMAP partner councils are engaged to support response planning and resources across the seven LGA areas, monitoring the emerging landscape to ensure that when StreetCount can be delivered, it will align with each municipality’s response and recovery arrangements as well as contributing to a collective advocacy approach and messaging for social housing.

5. StreetCount will provide an opportunity to confirm data collected in conjunction with the ‘by name list’ (BNL) delivered through both City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne.

6. The delivery of StreetCount later in the year will offer more value for councils across Inner Melbourne as it will deliver a better understanding and intelligence on the ground of the impacts of COVID-19. Data collected at this time will be a valuable snapshot of an unprecedented period where people have experienced cultural and physical hardship. StreetCount will provide information gaps to inform improved service coordination for people who have returned to the streets after COVID-19 or who have remained sleeping rough.

RECOMMENDATION

7. That the IMAP Implementation Committee notes the StreetCount 2020 project update.


Project Team: Damon Rao [Team Leader] CoM, Kathleen Kemp CoPP, Cameron Martyn CoS, Peter Eckersley & Simon Exon CoY,

Kate Simnett CoMar, Elissa McElroy IMAP, Rufael Tsegay Resilient Melbourne

Report prepared by: Damon Rao [Team Leader] CoM


Briefing Paper

IMAP Bicycle Network Model project

___________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

1. To report to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) Implementation Committee on the completion of

the IMAP Bicycle Network Model project and provide a summary of the outcomes.

Project Outcomes

2. The main outcome of the project was the Bicycle Network Model which allows councils to assess

future growth and benefits associated with improvements to the bicycle network. The model is an

operational tool that is expected to be widely used by IMAP councils to plan and prioritise future

bicycle infrastructure projects and choose between designs offering different levels of protection.

3. The project also modelled scenarios for 2019, 2021 and 2031 with - and without - planned bicycle

network improvements from each IMAP council. Each scenario shows increases in bicycle use due to

population growth along with further growth from new infrastructure which enables more people to

cycle. Without new infrastructure, increased numbers of people would be exposed to greater crash

risk when riding bicycles.

4. The project estimated that constructing the proposed network of each IMAP council will increase bike

use by 82 per cent. This increases to 105 per cent on streets with new bike infrastructure.

5. The model used conservative inputs to determine future growth. Other factors such as traffic

congestion, public transport overcrowding, fuel price increases and others are likely to further increase

bicycle use.

6. The project also found a significant number of short trips, including car trips (31,000 car trips each day

averaging 1.2km) which could be converted to bicycle trips in the future. This would lead to reduced

traffic congestion and transport greenhouse gas benefits.

7. The projected growth in the number of kilometres cycled each day within individual councils is

projected as follows:

LGA 2019 No Build

2021 No Build

2031 Build 2021 Build 2031

Maribyrnong 19,987 km 20,858 km 24,732 km 26,000 km 31,077 km

Melbourne 108,253 km 119,164 km 159,084 km 149,630 km 196,442 km

Port Phillip 57,773 km 59,515 km 65,243 km 70,859 km 77,818 km

Stonnington 25,281 km 26,307 km 30,221 km 34,850 km 39,783 km

Yarra 77,111 km 83,420 km 105,923 km 94,800 km 119,164 km

IMAP 288,404 km 309,265 km 385,203 km 376,139 km 464,282 km

Estimated change in daily Cycling Kilometres Travelled

Bicycle Safety

8. The crash analysis found that 80 per cent of bike crashes in IMAP take place on only 10 per cent

(252km) of the road network. Many of these occur in high-risk corridors. Bicycle crashes are

estimated to reduce by 14 per cent in the future bicycle network.

9. On some key streets which are planned to have protected bike infrastructure, the likelihood of a crash

falls by about 45 per cent.


Project Team: Damon Rao [Team Leader] CoM, Kathleen Kemp CoPP, Cameron Martyn CoS, Peter Eckersley & Simon Exon CoY,

Kate Simnett CoMar, Elissa McElroy IMAP, Rufael Tsegay Resilient Melbourne

Report prepared by: Damon Rao [Team Leader] CoM

Next Steps

10. Councils will continue to work with the Department of Transport (DoT) and Resilient Melbourne (RM)

to further expand the model to Metropolitan Melbourne. DoT and RM have been involved during the

project and DoT has allocated funding to this work.

11. When this expansion occurs, the bicycle usage results for IMAP will improve further as trips into and

out of the IMAP area can be determined.

Recommendations

12. The IMAP Bicycle Network Model is the first step in making more strategic investment decisions in the

delivery of bicycle infrastructure. The model and its inputs should continue to be improved. This

includes:

a. Investing in more bike counters to inform the model.

b. Keeping bicycle infrastructure asset mapping up to date.

c. Ensuring that the model is broadly communicated, accepted and used and that feedback is

incorporated into future revisions.

13. The consultant’s final report makes several recommendations for the delivery of bicycle infrastructure:

a. Quick wins: A number of routes were discovered to provide the biggest uplift in bicycle usage,

relative to other parts of the network.

b. Investigate low-cost separation in order to speed up the creation of the proposed network,

and reduce cost.

c. Target areas where bike riding is time competitive to other modes by identifying corridors in

which bike riding is faster than competing modes.

Project Delivery

14. In February 2019 the IMAP Implementation committee approved the IMAP Bicycle Network Model

project. The project was to develop a Bicycle Network Model which would help to assess the value of

improvements to the bicycle network in the IMAP area. A PSG was formed of transport planning staff

from each IMAP council. The City of Melbourne was the project lead.

15. In April 2019 the Project Steering Group (PSG) undertook an RFQ process in accordance with City of

Melbourne procurement procedures. Four consultants were invited to submit proposals. Three

proposals were received and the Institute for Sensible Transport (IST) was selected.

16. On 12 December 2019, IST presented the draft report to the PSG. Members of the PSG provided

extensive feedback on the draft. On 28 January 2020 the final report was delivered.

Budget

17. The project was delivered within the allocated budget of $100,000 excluding GST.

18. There was a delay during the project due to incomplete bicycle infrastructure data. This was resolved

within the timeframes of the project and was funded from outside the project.

RECOMMENDATION

19. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note and endorse the completed report on the IMAP Bicycle Network Model; and

b. supports its ongoing use to support the implementation of each Councils transport strategies

and plans.

IMAP Bicycle Network Model Final Report - January 2020

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

Attachment 8a

2 | Institute for Sensible Transport

Prepared by

Liam Davies, Vaughn Allan, Dr Elliot Fishman and Gary Tong

Institute for Sensible Transport

ABN 78 504 466 884 102/1 Silver Street Collingwood, Collingwood Melbourne, Australia VIC 3066 E: [email protected] www.sensibletransport.org.au

mikehubbard

Typewritten Text

Attachment 8a

IMAP Bicycle Network Model Institute for Sensible Transport | 3

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Synthesis of recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 14

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 Understanding the policy alignment ............................................................................................................ 16

1.2 Safety and perceptions of safety for bike riding ..................................................................................17

1.3 About this project.........................................................................................................................................................20

2. Descriptive statistics of relevance ................................................................................................. 21 2.1 Journey to work ............................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) ........................................................ 28

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 29 3.1 Baseline bike riding activity module .......................................................................................................... 30

3.2 Mode share module ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.3 Bike Rider Safety Module ....................................................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Population Growth ....................................................................................................................................................... 34

4. Existing and Proposed Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 35

5. Bicycle Network Model .......................................................................................................................... 38 5.1 Baseline 2019 ................................................................................................................................................................... 40

5.2 No build 2021 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41

5.3 No build 2031 .................................................................................................................................................................... 42 5.4 Full build 2021 ................................................................................................................................................................. 43

5.5 Full build 2031 ................................................................................................................................................................. 44

5.6 Full Build 2031 – High Change ............................................................................................................................ 45

5.7 Using the outputs to guide bike infrastructure planning .......................................................... 47

6. Crashes ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 6.1 High-risk streets ...........................................................................................................................................................50

7. A street-level case study ....................................................................................................................... 56 7.1 Chapel Street, Stonnington .................................................................................................................................. 56

8. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 57 8.1 Quick wins .......................................................................................................................................................................... 57

8.2 Target crash heavy corridors ............................................................................................................................... 61

8.3 Investigate low-cost separation....................................................................................................................... 62

8.4 Investigate corridors where bikes have the advantage ................................................................ 62

8.5 Improving the model ................................................................................................................................................. 62

8.6 Expand the Model to Greater Melbourne and key regional cities ......................................... 62

Contents


9. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 63

9.1 Strava Normalisation ................................................................................................................................................63 9.2 Journey to Work to All trips ..................................................................................................................................63

9.3 The limitations of bike infrastructure to increasing bike use ................................................63

10. References...................................................................................................................................................... 64

11. Appendix 1: Bike Use Propensity Index ........................................................................................ 65

12. Appendix 2: Time Competitiveness ...............................................................................................68

List of figures

Figure 1 IMAP Future Bike Network ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 Estimated bicycle usage with future bicycle network, 2031 ....................................................8

Figure 3 Growth (%) in bicycle usage 2019 to 2031 full build ........................................................................ 9

Figure 4 Percentage Increase in Riding on Future Proposed Network ............................................... 10

Figure 5 Percentage Increase in Riding on New Sections of the Network ........................................ 10

Figure 6 Number of bike crashes on key streets .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 7 Change in estimated crashes per year .................................................................................................... 13

Figure 8 Areas with the greatest potential for converting short car trips to bike .................... 14

Figure 9 Emission and space consumption profile of different transport modes ................... 16

Figure 10 Hospitalised cases of people sustaining an injury while bike riding ...........................17

Figure 11 Fatalities in Victoria 2018 vs 2019 to 14 July ....................................................................................... 18

Figure 12 Rider confidence by environment .............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 13 Car driver trips between SA2s within the study area ............................................................... 26

Figure 14 Percentage of cycle trips by distance, IMAP LGAs ........................................................................ 27

Figure 15 Cumulative cycle distances, IMAP LGAs ............................................................................................. 28

Figure 16 Flowchart of the Model methodology ....................................................................................................29

Figure 17 Daily Strava bike riding activity and Bicycle Counters, 2018 ............................................ 30

Figure 18 Bike trips between SA2s in study area .................................................................................................. 31 Figure 19 Example of how the model draws riders to more attractive infrastructure ......... 33

Figure 20 Existing Bicycle Network IMAP ...................................................................................................................35

Figure 21 Future Bicycle Network IMAP ........................................................................................................................36

Figure 22 Kilometres of new bike infrastructure, by type and LGA....................................................... 37

Figure 23 Model scenarios .................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 24 Increase in Cycling Kilometres Travelled (CKT) due to infrastructure changes39 Figure 25 Estimated bicycle usage 2019 .................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 26 No build 2021 estimated daily bicycle volumes ........................................................................... 41

Figure 27 No build 2031 estimated daily bike volumes .................................................................................. 42

Figure 28 Full build- 2021 estimated daily bike riding volumes ............................................................ 43


Figure 29 Full build- 2031 estimated daily bike riding volumes ............................................................ 44

Figure 30 Increase in Riding on Future Proposed Network ......................................................................... 45 Figure 31 Increase in Riding on New Sections of the Network .................................................................. 46

Figure 32 Percentage change in ridership between No build and Full build 2031 ................... 46

Figure 33 Areas of opportunity for converting car commutes ................................................................. 47

Figure 34 Streets in which 80% of bike crashes occur in IMAP ...............................................................50

Figure 35 Current Crash Exposure, IMAP .................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 36 Future Crash Exposure, IMAP ......................................................................................................................53 Figure 37 Estimate change in crashes per year, IMAP ..................................................................................... 54

Figure 38 Maribyrnong growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build ..................................... 57

Figure 39 Melbourne growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build .......................................... 58

Figure 40 Port Phillip growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build .......................................... 59

Figure 41 Stonnington growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build ........................................60

Figure 42 Yarra growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build.......................................................... 61 Figure 43 Bike Use Propensity Index SA1 Level ...................................................................................................... 66

Figure 44 Propensity Index for SA2s within the study area ........................................................................ 67

Figure 45 Five route analysis of factors for bike use ...................................................................................... 68

Figure 46 Statistical Correlation of Bike Time Ratio and Mode Share............................................... 70

List of tables

Table 1 Top 10 Cycling SA2’s by origin, Journey to work ..................................................................................... 21

Table 2 Top 3 Cycling SA2’s in each LGA by origin, Journey to work ......................................................22

Table 3 Top 3 Cycling SA2's in each LGA by destination, Journey to work ..........................................23

Table 4 Top 3 strongest relationships in each LGA, SA2 - SA2, journey to work, cycling .... 24

Table 5 Strong relationships, SA2 - SA2, journey to work, car driver .................................................. 25 Table 6 Modelled scenarios .................................................................................................................................................. 33

Table 7 Crashes per 100,000 Cycling Kilometres Travelled (CKT), IMAP ............................................ 34

Table 8 Estimated change in daily Cycling Kilometres Travelled ..........................................................39

Table 9 Number of crashes in IMAP, last five years to March 2019 ....................................................... 49

Table 10 Cost to society by crash severity ................................................................................................................. 49

Table 11 Estimate cost of crashes in IMAP, last five years to March 2019 ........................................ 49 Table 12 Streets with most bike crash injuries or fatalities for each LGA ........................................ 51

Table 13 High crash exposure corridors with no change in infrastructure (2031) ................... 55

Table 14 Five Route Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 69


ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics

BIKE BOULEVARDS – Low motor vehicle volume streets with low speed limits.

CKT – Cycling Kilometres Travelled

DoT – Department of Transport (Victoria)

FUTURE PROPOSED NETWORK – Existing and proposed high quality parts of the bike network. High quality includes separated on road lanes, shared paths and bike boulevards.

FUTURE NEW NETWORK – Parts of the future proposed network that are yet to be built.

IMAP – Inner Melbourne Action Plan

SA1 – Statistical Area Level 1 (ABS)

SA2 – Statistical Area Level 2 (ABS)

STRAVA – An activity tracking App popular with bike riders, especially those interested in fitness/competitive cycling

VISTA – Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity

Glossary


Melbourne is experiencing rapid population growth, having recently surpassed 5 million inhabitants, and is on track to reach a population of 8 million by 2051. This growth brings enormous opportunities for Melbourne to cement its place as a global city. It also presents substantial challenges, such as increasing congestion and car use, urban sprawl, and climate change. A fundamental step-change is required to transform the way people travel throughout Melbourne, towards more sustainable and efficient modes of transport. This project has developed a model to estimate the uplift in bike riding if the full proposed bicycle network from Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) Councils and the Strategic Cycling Corridors was constructed. The safety impact of this proposed cycling network has also been modelled, enabling comparison of crash likelihood between the existing street design, and that under the proposed bicycle infrastructure network.

The five inner-city municipalities that comprise the IMAP are the City of Melbourne, City of Stonnington, City of Port Phillip, City of Yarra and Maribyrnong City Council. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the future bike network.

Figure 1 IMAP Future Bike Network

Executive Summary


Figure 2 identifies the model’s estimated daily bike riding in 2031 under the full build of the proposed bike network. This activity is estimated to occur only if the above network is implemented.

Figure 2 Estimated bicycle usage with future bicycle network, 2031 NB: The above estimates include population growth from ID.com.au

Figure 3 shows where the most growth in bicycle use is modelled to occur. This map expresses the percentage change in bike riding volumes between 2019 and the full build 2031 growth scenario. The figure only shows the future protected network or separated, off-road paths, or bike boulevards. Many sections of the future network are modelled to increase by 100% or more compared to 2019. In fact, many parts of the network that currently don’t exist but are proposed as high-quality links in the future will see in excess of 300% growth in 2031 compared to 2019. It is important to note that percentage increases in cycling activity (Figure 3) can be very high on some streets, and this can be due to these streets starting from a very low base, rather than the total volume of estimated cycling being very high.


Figure 3 Growth (%) in bicycle usage 2019 to 2031 full build

This project highlights where the biggest increases in ridership are likely to occur if the full network is constructed. By undertaking the model at the IMAP level, opportunities have been identified for coordinating future bike riding corridors that cross municipal boundaries. Examples of this include the Langridge, Gertrude, Queensberry Street corridor, and Chapel/Church Street between the City of Port Phillip, City of Stonnington, and the City of Yarra.

Infrastructure is projected to deliver an 82% increase in bike usage compared to a 2031 no build scenario on the future proposed network in IMAP. Importantly, it also shows the growth estimated to occur on the new parts of the network, that do not currently exist. Figure 4 illustrates the estimated increase in cycling if the proposed network is built.


There will be an estimated 82% growth in cycling kilometres travelled on the future protected network within IMAP (Figure 1). This increases to 105% when isolating yet to be built sections of the network (Figure 5).

Figure 4 Percentage Increase in Riding on Future Proposed Network

Figure 5 Percentage Increase in Riding on New Sections of the Network

Finally, a crash analysis was undertaken to determine the safety impacts that the full build scenario is estimated to have, relative to a no-build scenario. In the past five years, there has been over 3,000 crashes involving a person on a bike1, including almost 700 hospitalisations and 10 fatalities.

1 It is well recognized that this is likely to be an under-estimate, as it only includes police reported crashes.


The proposed infrastructure upgrades would provide an overall 14% reduction in risk exposure to bike riders in IMAP. That is, for every kilometre cycled, people are estimated to have 14% less chance of a crash. On some key streets that have no effective bike infrastructure today and are planned to have protected bike infrastructure, the exposure to crashes drops ~45%. Chapel Street in an example where the crash exposure is forecast to drop by this level due to the proposed protected bike lanes.2

The crash analysis also found that 80% of bike crashes in IMAP take place on only 10% of the road network (Figure 6).

80% of bike crashes in IMAP take place on just 10% of the road network.

The largest safety benefits could be realised through targeting infrastructure upgrades on the 10% of the street network where 80% of bike crashes occur. Each of the lines shown in Figure 6 represent the 10% of the street network where 80% of bike crashes occur within IMAP.

2 Protected bike lanes for Chapel Street have been included in the proposed network for modelling purposes only and does not imply a commitment on the part of the City of Stonnington.

Analysis conducted for this project found that fully constructing the proposed network is estimated to reduce the risk of bike crashes by 14% while increasing bike usage by 82% on the protected bike network.


Figure 6 Number of bike crashes on key streets


Figure 7 shows the estimated reduction in crashes on key routes in 2031, compared to a no build scenario. When viewed in conjunction with Figure 6, it is clear that many of the streets with the greatest number of crashes become safer.

Figure 7 Change in estimated crashes per year

This report, by providing estimated outputs in bike riding activity and safety, combined with generalised costs of building different types of bicycle infrastructure, is able to offer high level cost benefit outputs for building the proposed network.

Some streets do not show a large projected decrease in crashes. This is due to a number of reasons, depending on the context of each individual street. In some instances, this may be due to riding volume increasing at a rate that is higher than the projected crash risk decrease – the street may become twice as safe but the number of riders may increase three-fold.


Synthesis of recommendations

Quick wins

This bicycle network model provided a number of insights at both the strategic level and on a street-by-street basis. A number of routes were discovered to provide the biggest uplift in bicycle usage, relative to other parts of the network. The five most important links for each IMAP member council has been provided in this report, in order to offer infrastructure priority guidance targeting the greatest uplift in bike riding. Completing a rapid roll out of the proposed network on the 10% of streets where 80% of the bike crashes occur is recommended as a targeted approach to supporting the State Government’s Safe Systems and Vision Zero principles.

Target short distance car trips

In addition to the core outputs, the model has also been able to highlight areas that represent highly fertile parts of IMAP for converting short distance car trips to cycling. These areas, with demographics predictive of latent demand for riding bikes, high numbers of short distance car trips, and where bike riding is time competitive with other modes, is highlighted in Figure 8. Where a circle is shown, it indicates trips that start and finish within the given SA2 boundary, while the thickness indicates number of trips. Richmond is the standout – with very high numbers of short distance car trips at peak hour.

Figure 8 Areas with the greatest potential for converting short car trips to bike


Investigate low-cost separation

In order to speed up the creation of the proposed network, and reduce cost, lighter forms of delivering separated riding environments should be investigated.

Target areas where bike riding is time competitive to other modes

Identifying corridors in which bike riding is faster than competing modes will provide insights into where demand for bike riding is likely to be higher, helping to make more effective investment decisions.

Invest in bike counters

Expanding the network of bike counting devices will enable higher quality models to be developed in the future, offering a more reliable estimate of bike riding volumes. Moreover, installing counters before the installation of new bike riding infrastructure will enhance evaluation performance.


1.1 Understanding the policy alignment

The transport sector is Australia’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter and is the fastest rising source of emissions. Within the transport sector, private motor vehicles constitute the largest segment of existing emissions and forecast growth. Currently, transport emissions exceed the levels required for Australia to meet its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement. Transport emissions will need to be reduced by 50% in the next 10 years to put Australia on track to meeting our international obligations. Figure 9 highlights both the emissions footprint of different modes of transport, and the space each mode occupies. It serves to highlight that the bike represents a space and energy efficient mode of transport.

Figure 9 Emission and space consumption profile of different transport modes Source: Institute for Sensible Transport for work commissioned by the City of Melbourne (See Davies et al., 2018)

The creation of a well-connected, safe bike riding network is essential for Melbourne to maintain and improve its liveability, especially at a future population of 8 million and the increasingly recognised need to reduce transport emissions in line with international obligations. A safe bike riding network will provide a genuine opportunity for bike riding to form a significant part of the transport mix. For this to be realised, a high-quality network that connects residential catchments to key destinations and transport hubs that is comfortable for all-ages and all-abilities will need to be built. To date, efforts to create such a network have been disparate and fragmented, often lacking the level of separation required to improve safety outcomes for people currently riding and to encourage new people to ride.

1. Introduction


Gender and bike riding in Melbourne

It is well established that female participation in bike riding is far lower than the proportion of females in the general population and workplace participation (Pucher et al., 2010). Only around a fifth of the people who rode to work in Greater Melbourne on Census day 2016 were female. Females are more sensitive to the riding environment and less likely to be willing to ride on roads that do not offer separation from motor vehicle traffic (Dill, 2009). While it is not possible to fully incorporate gender within the Bicycle Network Model, it can be expected that growing the network of protected bike lanes and low speed routes will enhance the attractiveness of cycling for women, helping to close the gender gap.

Box 1 Gender and bike riding

1.2 Safety and perceptions of safety for bike riding

Safety concerns are the main reason people choose not to ride a bike (Götschi et al., 2015, Pucher et al., 2010). Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that cycle injuries among middle aged people has increased rapidly in recent years, as shown in Figure 10. It is critically important that safe bike riding infrastructure is provided to support the growth in bike riding, especially for ‘would be’ bike riders that are far more sensitive to riding conditions.

Figure 10 Hospitalised cases of people sustaining an injury while bike riding Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019)

Victoria saw a rapid increase in road transport deaths in 2019, as shown in Figure 11. It is important to note that the data for 2019 is only for the first 7.5 months, and across all transport categories, is higher than the full 12 months of 2018. Fatalities for people riding bikes have more than doubled the rate of increase compared to any of the other modes, highlighting the magnitude of the challenge of achieving a safer, more attractive riding environment.


Fatalities while riding a bike have more than double the rate of increase compared to any other mode.

Figure 11 Fatalities in Victoria 2018 vs 2019 to 14 July Source: Transport Accident Commission (2019)

The Bicycle User Confidence (Near Market) Study found that only 6% of people in inner Melbourne would feel confident riding on a road without a bike lane, 22% would feel confident on a standard bike lane but that 83% would feel confident on a protected bike lane. This provides important market information on what is required to make bike riding an attractive choice for more people. Figure 12 shows how respondents to the Near Market study stated their level of confidence on different bicycle infrastructure typologies. It is clear from these results that the greater the level of separation from motor vehicles, the higher people’s confidence.


Recent research for Melbourne found only 6% of people would feel confident riding on a road without a bike lane.

Figure 12 Rider confidence by environment Source: Based on CDM Research & ASDF Research (2017)

Figure 12 also provides a snapshot of how confidence levels change depending on the intersection and mid-block typology. Again, it shows the higher the level of separation, the more confident respondents say they would feel. Importantly, females are significantly underrepresented in bike riding participation in Melbourne (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017) and females are known to be more sensitive to the riding environment and less inclined to ride in mixed traffic (Dill et al., 2014, Dill, 2009, Dill and Voros, 2007).


1.2.1 Government support for improved bicycle infrastructure

Councils within IMAP have recently made renewed commitments to make it easier to use more sustainable modes of transport, including bike riding. Each of these commitments includes plans to make bike riding safer and more accessible for existing and prospective bike riders.

The State Government has also begun a review of their Strategic Cycling Corridors in line with the recent Victorian bike riding Strategy. The proposed infrastructure from both the IMAP member councils and the State Government has been used in the development of the Bicycle Network Model.

The Victorian Government’s Movement and Place framework offers an approach to street design that recognises the multi-dimensional role of streets, as both movement corridors, and places in their own right. On some streets, the provision of bike riding infrastructure will be prioritised. Resilient Melbourne Metropolitan Cycling Network intends to work with councils across metropolitan Melbourne to coordinate a metropolitan proposal for a network that is both holistic in scope and tailored to local needs. The planning and construction of bicycle infrastructure from all levels of government is an exciting prospect with the potential to transform our cities into a more sustainable and liveable future.

1.3 About this project

While the need for enhanced conditions for people to ride bikes has long been recognised, there has been a history of failing to deliver bike riding infrastructure in a coordinated, timely manner that accords with people’s preferences for the type of infrastructure that would encourage them to cycle.

There is a clear need to bring a strategic, data led approach to bridge the knowledge gap, to provide insights regarding:

1. Existing bike riding patterns.

2. A centralised map of bicycle lanes and paths in Melbourne, differentiated by infrastructure type.

3. A spatial analysis of latent demand for people to ride bikes (from those not currently bike riding, but open to it as a possibility in the future).

4. How changes in the type of bike riding infrastructure would influence demand/usage of that infrastructure.

5. How to sequence the construction of new bike riding links that best improve bike network density and encourages the most people to take up bike riding for transport.

6. A model to estimate how changes to bike riding impact on travel by other modes, and a tool that can monetize how these changes may translate from a $/km (e.g. each additional km cycled brings $1.24 in benefit).

7. How changes to bike riding infrastructure would influence safety outcomes for people choosing to cycle.

8. Potential expansion to the entire metropolitan area, as well as regionally, per the request of individual councils.

This project focused on addressing the above issues/questions, in order to inform government understanding on existing and future network usage based on a full build and no build scenario, combined with population growth forecasts. It acts as a planning tool that provides the basis for future cost benefit analysis and safety outcomes.


Transport data were analysed in the early development of the Bicycle Network Model, in order to gain insights into transport patterns within the IMAP region. A selection of descriptive statistics from this process is provided in this section, although it is not essential to absorb this information to understand the model outputs.

2.1 Journey to work

Table 1 shows the top 10 SA2s for bicycle journeys to work, by origin. The majority of SA2’s with high bicycle usage came from the inner north of the study area, with St Kilda the sole exception. Brunswick has the highest number of bicycle commuters, while Fitzroy North and Carlton North – Princes Hill had the highest bicycle mode share, with 16%.

Table 1 Top 10 Cycling SA2’s by origin, Journey to work

SA2 Number of trips Percentage of Journey to Work

Brunswick 1839 14%

Northcote 1291 11%

Richmond 1008 6%

Fitzroy North 988 16%

Coburg 808 7%

Brunswick East 725 12%

Thornbury 699 8%

St Kilda 689 5%

Carlton North - Princes Hill 687 16%

Brunswick West 615 10%

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017)

2. Descriptive statistics of relevance


Table 2 shows the top three SA2 for each LGA, in terms of bike riding by origin.

Table 2 Top 3 Cycling SA2’s in each LGA by origin, Journey to work

SA2 LGA Number of trips Percentage of Journey to Work

Footscray Maribyrnong 299 4%

Yarraville Maribyrnong 241 4%

Seddon - Kingsville Maribyrnong 239 4%

North Melbourne Melbourne 545 6%

Kensington Melbourne 419 8%

Carlton Melbourne 411 7%

St Kilda Port Phillip 689 5%

Port Melbourne Port Phillip 515 7%

Elwood Port Phillip 447 6%

Prahran - Windsor Stonnington 474 4%

South Yarra - East Stonnington 465 4%

Malvern - Glen Iris Stonnington 211 2%

Richmond Yarra 1008 6%

Fitzroy North Yarra 988 16%

Carlton North - Princes Hill

Yarra 687 16%



Table 3 shows the top 10 SA2’s for bicycle journeys to work by destination. Melbourne CBD had the largest number of bicycle commuters, with over 6,400. All the top 10 SA2s were centred around the inner city.

Table 3 Top 3 Cycling SA2's in each LGA by destination, Journey to work

SA2 LGA Number of trips Percentage of Journey to Work

Footscray Maribyrnong 260 2%

Yarraville Maribyrnong 74 2%

West Footscray - Tottenham

Maribyrnong 47 1%

Melbourne Melbourne 6402 3%

Parkville Melbourne 1987 8%

Docklands Melbourne 1686 3%

Albert Park Port Phillip 438 3%

St Kilda Port Phillip 434 3%

Port Melbourne Industrial

Port Phillip 431 2%

Prahran - Windsor Stonnington 301 3%

South Yarra - East Stonnington 267 2%

Malvern - Glen Iris Stonnington 111 1%

Richmond Yarra 1196 4%

Fitzroy Yarra 812 7%

Collingwood Yarra 644 6%



Table 4 shows the top 3 strongest relationships for bicycle journeys to work between SA2’s. All but one of the destination SA2s were Melbourne CBD, the exception being trips within Richmond.

Table 4 Top 3 strongest relationships in each LGA, SA2 - SA2, journey to work, cycling

SA2 Origin SA2 Destination LGA

Indicative Length (Km)

Number of trips

Percentage of Journey to Work

Yarraville Melbourne Maribyrnong 6.4 65 5%

Footscray Melbourne Maribyrnong 5.6 60 4%

West Footscray - Tottenham Melbourne

Maribyrnong 8 52 6%

North Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne 2 146 6%

Carlton Melbourne Melbourne 1.5 124 8%

Kensington Melbourne Melbourne 3.5 105 8%

St Kilda Melbourne Port Phillip 5.1 162 6%

Port Melbourne Melbourne Port Phillip 3.3 142 9%

Elwood Melbourne Port Phillip 7 106 8%

South Yarra - East Melbourne Stonnington 3.7 129 5%

Prahran - Windsor Melbourne Stonnington 4.9 111 5%

Malvern - Glen Iris Melbourne Stonnington 8.5 70 4%

Richmond Melbourne Yarra 3.8 227 6%

Fitzroy North Melbourne Yarra 3.8 218 16%

Richmond Richmond Yarra <4 160 6%



2.1.1 Understanding the potential – short car trips

It is important to develop an understanding of the opportunity to mode shift towards cycling, with a particular focus on short car trips. These trips are the most readily convertible to bicycle, and an area of direct interest for this project, given that it is concerned with understanding future cycling rates under an improved infrastructure scenario.

Table 5 shows the strongest SA2 relationships for car driver journeys to work. Surprisingly, many of the top 10 SA2 relationships consisted of trips that started and ended within the same SA2, including Richmond which had the highest number of car driver trips out of all SA2 – SA2s.

Table 5 Strong relationships, SA2 - SA2, journey to work, car driver

SA2 Origin SA2 Destination Number of trips Indicative Distance (Km)

Percentage of Journey to Work

Richmond Richmond 801 <4 31%

Kew Melbourne 603 6.4 35%

Malvern - Glen Iris Malvern - Glen Iris 519 < 4 62%

Essendon - Aberfeldie Melbourne 442 8.6 24%

Malvern East Malvern East 441 < 4 56%

St Kilda St Kilda 404 < 4 31%

Richmond Melbourne 391 3.8 11%

Malvern - Glen Iris Melbourne 381 8.5 24%

Hawthorn Melbourne 373 6.2 17%

Toorak Melbourne 350 5.8 30%



Figure 13 shows the graphical distribution of car driver trips between SA2s for Journeys to Work. It shows a more diverse travel pattern than bicycle travel, with many more strong travel numbers for non-CBD trips. Again, many of the movements with the highest car trips are those that start and finish within the same SA2. In total, there are approximately 31,000 car trips that start and finish in the same SA2, with 7,500 of those within IMAP SA2s. Driving to work within the same SA2 has an average mode share of 55% within the study area, decreasing to 37% within IMAP only. The circles shown in Figure 13 indicate trips that begin and end within the same SA2. Richmond and the south east of inner Melbourne contains the strongest concentration of these intra-SA2 trips.

Figure 13 Car driver trips between SA2s within the study area Nb. Circles indicate trips that start and finish in the same SA2

There are approximately 31,000 car trips to work that start and finish in the same SA2 within the study area.


2.1.1.1 Cycle distances – Journey to work

The distances people are willing to cycle is an important input into the Bicycle Network Model. This section describes what the 2016 Census data says regarding the distances people cycle when travelling to work. This is a useful insight in terms of understanding cycling behaviour and what trips may be converted to bike. For example, a journey to work that is above 10km is unlikely to be mode-shifted to bike if the proposed route is upgraded, while journeys to work within a cyclable distance could be reasonably mode-shifted.

Figure 14 provides an analysis of the proportion of all trips to work by bike by LGA for the IMAP councils, by distance. This shows that for most of the IMAP LGAs, the common distance to travel to get to work is around 3 - 4km. An exception to this is Maribyrnong, in which a relatively low proportion of people cycling travel in the 3 – 5km band, with the most common cycling distance from Maribyrnong being ~8km.

Figure 14 Percentage of cycle trips by distance, IMAP LGAs Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017)

Figure 15 provides an indication of the distance cycled to work for the IMAP member LGAs, expressed cumulatively. This shows that for most councils, around 75% of cycle trips are between 4 and 6km. Over 95% of cycle trips are under 10km. This insight justifies the inclusion of distance as a metric the model uses when determining future cycling estimates.


Figure 15 Cumulative cycle distances, IMAP LGAs Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017)

2.2 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA)

The VISTA dataset provides travel pattern information across all trip types, as distinct from the Census, which only provides information on the journey to work, which constitutes only ~18% of all trips.

VISTA was used for two distinct purposes in this project. First, it was used to scale up Census Journey to Work figures to include all trip purposes between SA2s. Second, it was used to estimate the trip time for different modes and trips purposes.

Using VISTA, we found that approximately 30% of all trips, regardless of mode or purpose, start and finish within the same SA2. Of those trips, approximately 50% are completed using a motor vehicle. These trips were taken over an average distance of 1.2km.

VISTA is a useful tool for analysing trip patterns and behaviours, particularly at the LGA and regional levels. It is noted that due to the limited travel surveys that were completed, VISTA may be limited in its accuracy in some geographic areas or for trip purposes. However, at present it provides the best publicly available dataset for undertaking this type of analysis.

A third of all trips, regardless of mode or purpose, start and finish within the same SA2 and half of these are by car, at an average distance of 1.2km.


The Model uses observed data to predict changes in bike riding participation across Melbourne’s inner LGAs, based on the bike infrastructure improvements that have been proposed by the local governments as well as the Victorian Department of Transport. The model has several discrete sub-modules that interact to generate a network wide model which estimates current and future bike riding activity, origin and destination of activity, relative changes to bike riding safety, and potential network effects of infrastructure.

Our approach has been developed in order to offer the IMAP councils a replicable, updatable Bicycle Network Model for the IMAP area that is capable of expansion to Greater Melbourne. We have used a range of data sources and standard GIS software, widely used by local government. Figure 16 provides an overview of our approach.

Figure 16 Flowchart of the Model methodology

The rest of this section will detail each of the key steps used in the development of the Model.

3. Methodology


3.1 Baseline bike riding activity module

A baseline of bike riding activity across inner and middle Melbourne was generated using Strava (Strava, 2019), a bike riding activity tracking App, calibrated to existing road usage observations. Strava allows users to track their bike riding activity online. This data set has been calibrated using actual bike riding activity observations from 166 network segments within the study area, shown in Figure 17. The bike network was segmented into three categories: on road; off road; and circuit training (activity spots in the network known to attract disproportionately high levels of bike riding activity from Strava users). This segmentation recognises and ameliorates bias towards certain road typologies, and conversely, away from certain infrastructure typologies. For each of these three segments a multivariate regression analysis was undertaken, drawing on three Strava variables:

1. Activity (all movements over a section of network)

2. Commutes (movements self-selected by App users as commute trips); and

3. Athletes (the total number of users over a section of network).

The result was a network usage estimation across the entire road network of the study area, with an estimated total number of users per day, per section. From this, total bike riding kilometres travelled in 2019 can be estimated. This baseline was then increased with the other modules, to project future activity.

Figure 17 Daily Strava bike riding activity and Bicycle Counters, 2018


3.2 Mode share module

Commute journeys were mapped using Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016 Census data using Statistical Area Levels 2 (SA2) as the origin and destination. Euclidian (as the crow flies) lines were drawn between all SA2s in the study area to all other SA2s in the study area, with journeys by each major mode and in total recorded against each line. This generated a schematic of travel across the study area, with riding mode share of each link calculated (see Figure 18). The thickness of the line in Figure 18 is proportional to the number of bike riding trips between SA2s.

Increases in bike riding activity was predicted, with an increase to commute journeys modelled, and then scaled up using a combination of Australian Bureau of Statistics (Journey to Work) and Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (all-purpose journey) data sets to represent a prediction of total bike riding activity in the study area. This method was adopted as it reliably shows where bike riding activity starts and ends within Melbourne.

Figure 18 Bike trips between SA2s in study area Nb. Circles indicate trips that start and finish in the same SA2

This mode share module was used in two predictions. Firstly, bike riding participation increases due to population growth was forecast. Population growth predictions were used to scale the number of journeys occurring from each SA2 accordingly (i.e., if an SA2 is predicted to increase in population by 10% between 2019 and 2031, it was estimated that this would lead to a proportional increase in travel along all links).


This method of adjustment was used to increase activity from 2016 levels to estimate activity in 2019, and then predict activity in 2021 and 2031.

Secondly, the increased bike riding participation, brought about by improvements to the bike infrastructure network were modelled. This modelling was based on projected growth in bike riding participation along each origin-destination link, due to infrastructure changes. This was modelled using regression analysis of existing observed travel mode share (as determined from analysis of ABS Census data) as the dependent variable, and four independent variables used as the predictors:

1. Distance: the length of the line between centroid of the origin SA2 and centroid of the destination SA2;

2. Bike Use Propensity: the propensity for cycle use of the link, determined by seven key demographic factors closely correlated to bike riding activity (See Appendix 1: Bike Use Propensity Index for further information).

3. Time Competitiveness: the ratio of bike riding time to that of the main travel mode of each link, calculated from VISTA’s travel times (See Appendix 2: Time Competitiveness for further information); and

4. Attractiveness of infrastructure: the attractiveness of the link to bike riding, based on the Near Market report’s findings, weighted to the network wide attractiveness of each SA2 in the link.

Each section of the network was coded with an existing and future infrastructure type. This allows a coding of existing attractiveness and future attractiveness of each network section. The attractiveness is based on City of Melbourne’s Near Market research findings (see CDM Research & ASDF Research, 2017), showing that there is a higher level of attraction to bike riding when physical separation from motor vehicles exists. The distance weighted attractiveness of each section of the network was used to generate a SA2 wide attractiveness for east-west and north-south travel. This attractiveness score was joined to each link, weighted to the length of that link in each SA2. This generated an attractiveness of the link as a whole. This allowed the regression model to assess the attractiveness of each link, in relation to each other link, to assess how much of a difference to mode share the infrastructure attractiveness of the journey is (the other three variables, which all show correlation towards bike riding participation, were included to attempt to isolate the role that infrastructure has in attracting people to ride).

The calculation emerging from the regression modelling was used on each link, to project a modelled bike riding mode share of the link under existing conditions. Secondly, the calculation was used to estimate bike riding mode share under changed infrastructure. It should be noted that, as these are computer generated models of mode share, there was divergence from observed travel patterns, likely due to many exogenous factors such as cultural attitudes towards bike riding, which are not possible to quantify with reliability. For this reason, we have used the difference between an existing and change scenario as a projected mode share shift to bike riding. For instance, if a link is modelled to have a current mode share of 12% bike riding, increasing to 15% with improved infrastructure, but it is observed that currently the link has a 20% mode share, only the difference of 3% is modelled as the increase, projecting a future 23% mode share.

The change in mode share was then projected across all links and joined to each SA2, which was then assigned to the street network (using the Baseline as existing activity), based on future attractiveness. VISTA data was analysed to determine the ratio of commute trips to all trips, with the resulting ratio used (1 in 5 trips) to scale up bike riding activity, projecting total bike riding activity. This allowed for projected increases in bike riding, both from population growth, and infrastructure improvement, to be separately projected, and modelled to occur on streets with the greatest attraction. An integrated network flows from this, whereby improvements to the network allow a redistribution of bike riding, lowering the demand on


some links. For instance, the installation of new or improved infrastructure parallel to existing routes of high demand will attract both new and existing bike riders, lowering the potential demand along current infrastructure corridors. In essence the model is able to draw bike riding activity towards newly improved network sections. An example of this is shown in Figure 19, where there is a projected decrease in ridership on Faraday Street, Carlton if the proposed network is constructed. This is because Grattan Street is proposed to be upgraded to separated lanes. The increase in riders along Grattan Street are not purely due to riders shifting from Faraday to Grattan, but also incorporate other trips such as Rathdowne to Grattan, Barkly to Grattan among others. This is consistent within known behaviours, where people on bikes will deviate from the shortest route in order to use higher quality infrastructure (Winters et al., 2010).

Figure 19 Example of how the model draws riders to more attractive infrastructure Nb. This image is illustrative only and may not represent the most up-to-date projected changes in bike riding volumes

The combination of these two elements of this module allow for projections of bike riding kilometres travelled under the following scenarios, per SA2 and per network section, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Modelled scenarios

2019 2021 2031

Base line No Build No Build

Base line Full Build Full Build


3.3 Bike Rider Safety Module

The bike riding safety module uses the baseline bike riding activity module to calculate risk profiles for different bike riding infrastructure typologies. This delivers a network-wide risk to people riding, based on 100,000 bike riding kilometres travelled, from observed crash data (police reported crashes using the Crash Stats data base). The risk profile modelled is shown in Table 7. An unexpected finding from this analysis of the data was that buffered had a similar crash risk to painted lanes. A very small sample size and the fact that buffered lanes are generally installed on streets of relatively high risk may help explanation for this finding.

Table 7 Crashes per 100,000 Cycling Kilometres Travelled (CKT), IMAP

Nothing Painted Lane Buffered Lane Separated Blvd

Crashes per 100K 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3

This bike infrastructure safety profile is the basis for understanding risk profiles of the future network, in 2031, under a no build scenario and full build scenario. The change in risk profile is overlayed to the existing risk profile of each street. By scaling existing road trauma by the differential in road safety observed across the network, the model recognises that some network sections will be below average for crashes per 100K CKT, while others above average. Again, there are numerous factors which are not possible to accurately model (such as, road width, presence of tram tracks, frequency of side streets, crossovers, etc).

This module produces a total output of bike riding kilometres travelled, along each bike riding network type/road classification combination, and the number of modelled crashes predicted to occur in 2031. Comparison of the 2031 no build and full build scenarios provides a robust basis for future cost benefit analysis of bike riding infrastructure.

3.4 Population Growth

Population growth rates at the SA2 level were applied to the model, using figures from ID. Population figures from 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2031 were used to determine current and projected bike riding volumes. First, trips were scaled up from 2016 (Journey to Work Census data) to 2019 to estimate current bike riding. This was scaled up again to 2021 and 2031. This provided the basis for a ‘No Build’ baseline to determine what changes to people riding bikes is expected to take place purely due to population growth.


Understanding the existing and future bike network is the key aspect that this Model uses to estimate changes to the number of people riding bikes. These were sourced from each Council and the State Government and verified through desktop analysis and staff knowledge of the bike network.

Figure 20 shows the existing bicycle network in IMAP, while Figure 21 shows the future network.

Figure 20 Existing Bicycle Network IMAP Source: Based on data supplied by IMAP member councils

4. Existing and Proposed Infrastructure


Figure 21 Future Bicycle Network IMAP Source: Based on data supplied by IMAP member councils and the Department of Transport


The future bike network offers a denser set of protected bike routes across much of IMAP. Figure 22 shows the breakdown in new bike infrastructure by infrastructure type, for each IMAP council. The vast majority of the proposed infrastructure is separated on-road facilities, making up 85% of all new infrastructure.

Figure 22 Kilometres of new bike infrastructure, by type and LGA


This section will provide an analysis of the results of the Bicycle Network Model. The model includes the five scenarios shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Model scenarios

The 2019 model provides a baseline of current bike riding usage across each street within the study area. Then, two business as usual (BAU) scenarios were modelled for 2021 and 2031. These BAU scenarios assume no new additional bicycle infrastructure. Increases in the number of people riding bikes come from population growth only. The final two scenarios show the changes in bike riding volume based on new bike infrastructure. For simplicity, it is assumed all proposed infrastructure is constructed by 2021 and projected population changes are applied. Then for the 2031 scenario, additional forecast population changes are applied. Finally, comparisons between the BAU and the full build, for both 2021 and 2031 will be provided to illustrate the areas within IMAP that are set to see the largest increases in bike riding. Figure 24 illustrates the estimated distance travelled in 2031 in two scenarios; with the network as it is now, and under the completion of the proposed network. Overall, is shows a 21% increase in cycling, should the proposed network be built. As will be shown in Figure 32

It is important to recognise that while the growth in estimated CKT may appear modest under the full build, this is partly a consequence of the model only considering changes to the infrastructure network within IMAP.

5. Bicycle Network Model


Figure 24 Increase in Cycling Kilometres Travelled (CKT) due to infrastructure changes

Table 8 provides the model outputs for the estimated change in daily cycling kilometres travelled across the different modelled scenarios. These scenarios show a growth in cycling, both from population growth, and the impact that infrastructure plays to encourage more people to cycle. Overall, if the full network is built, there is an estimated 60% growth in cycling by 2031, compared to 2019.

Table 8 Estimated change in daily Cycling Kilometres Travelled

Area 2019 No Build 2021 No Build 2031 Full Build 2021 Full Build 2031

Maribyrnong 19,987 20,858 24,732 26,000 31,077

Melbourne 108,253 119,164 159,084 149,630 196,442

Port Phillip 57,773 59,515 65,243 70,859 77,818

Stonnington 25,281 26,307 30,221 34,850 39,783

Yarra 77,111 83,420 105,923 94,800 119,164

IMAP 288,404 309,265 385,203 376,139 464,282


5.1 Baseline 2019

The first scenario provides an estimate of current bicycle volumes across the study area. This is the baseline for which the remaining four scenarios are built, based on the methodology described in 3.1 of this report. Figure 25 shows the estimated daily bike riding volumes on each street within the study area. The model estimates 288,404km of bike riding to currently occur each day within IMAP.

Figure 25 Estimated bicycle usage 2019


5.2 No build 2021

This scenario shows the estimated increase in bike riding volumes as a result of population growth to 2021. Under this scenario, no additional infrastructure is built. An estimated 309,265km of bike riding is modelled to occur within IMAP each day, with an indication of riding volumes shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26 No build 2021 estimated daily bicycle volumes


5.3 No build 2031

This scenario shows the estimated increase in daily bike riding volumes as a result of population increases to 2031. Under this scenario, no additional infrastructure is built. An estimated 385,203km of bike riding is modelled to occur within IMAP each day (see Figure 27).

Figure 27 No build 2031 estimated daily bike volumes


5.4 Full build 2021

This scenario assumes that all the proposed bike infrastructure is constructed by 2021 and includes population growth from 2019 to 2021. Under this scenario, an estimated 376,139km of bike riding is modelled to occur within IMAP each day.

Figure 28 Full build- 2021 estimated daily bike riding volumes


5.5 Full build 2031

This scenario assumes that all the proposed bike infrastructure is constructed by 2021 and includes population growth from 2019 to 2031. Figure 29 shows the estimated daily bike riding volumes on each street within IMAP if all the proposed bike infrastructure was constructed by 2021. Under this scenario, an estimated 464,282km of bike riding is estimated to occur within IMAP. In total, a 60% increase in the number of people riding bikes is estimated to occur compared to 2019 figures and a 20% increase compared to a No Build 2031 scenario. This equates to approximately 80,000 additional kilometres of bike riding across IMAP every day, or nearly 30 million additional kilometres over the course of 2031.

Figure 29 Full build- 2031 estimated daily bike riding volumes


5.6 Full Build 2031 – High Change

The Full Build 2031 scenario includes additional factors likely to take place as a result of building the network. These additional factors include:

• A 5% decrease in travel time for bike riders as a result of improved infrastructure, more direct routes, and traffic light sequence priority at key intersections.

• A 5% increase in motor vehicle travel time due to increasing congestion (based on Infrastructure Victoria modelling) within inner-Melbourne by 2031, improving time competitiveness for bike trips relative to car trips.

• A 10% contraction in perceived distance travelled as a result of increase e-bike usage due to improved infrastructure and e-bike promotion policies.

These three factors, when input into the model, result in a doubling of infrastructure induced bike activity. These results highlight the importance of including additional elements that contribute towards the three above factors when upgrading bike infrastructure to ensure the maximum uplift in bike usage is being achieved. Change in bike riding

Figure 30 provides a summary comparing the estimated bike riding in 2019, and under the full build in 2031, for each of the LGAs that form the IMAP, and for the IMAP region as a whole. When the proposed network is fully built, there will be an estimated 82% growth in cycling activity across the IMAP region, compared to 2019. The variation between different LGAs relates to; a) existing cycling levels, b) the extent of their proposed network, and c) population growth forecasts.

Figure 30 Increase in Riding on Future Proposed Network

When viewing the numbers shown in Figure 30, note that the modelling only considers increased usage from infrastructure improvements within IMAP. Infrastructure improvements made in LGAs outside of IMAP are likely to further increase bike riding participation. We estimate that an additional 14,000 CKT will be undertaken outside of IMAP each day as a result of infrastructure upgrades within IMAP. Further, exogeneous factors, such as cultural change, are likely to increase bike riding participation. As such, these are conservative estimates.

When isolating the estimated grow on the new sections of the network, a sharper increase in cycling will occur. Ridership is modelled to increase three-fold and Figure 31 provides an illustration of this.


Figure 31 Increase in Riding on New Sections of the Network

Figure 32 shows where the modelled changes in the number of people riding within IMAP at 2031, comparing a No Build to a Full Build scenario. The majority of the new bike infrastructure is set to see net increases in the number of people riding compared to a No Build scenario. There are two key segments that have been identified as decreasing under a Full Build scenario in 2031 compared to the No Build scenario. These are Canning Street, North Carlton and Swanston Street. This model output is due to the creation of new, high quality parallel routes. New bike riders are attracted to these routes, as well as some pre-existing bike riders’ diverting to the new route.

Figure 32 Percentage change in ridership between No build and Full build 2031


5.7 Using the outputs to guide bike infrastructure planning

The model, and the components that feed into the model, provide a range of analysis options beyond its original objectives. This includes highlighting areas with population demographics predictive of latent demand for riding bikes, converting short distance car trips, time competitiveness with other modes, among others. Figure 33 identifies the areas most viable for converting short distance car commutes to bike riding. Where a circle is shown, it indicates trips within the given SA2 boundary while the thickness indicates number of trips.

Figure 33 Areas of opportunity for converting car commutes Nb. Circles indicate trips that start and finish in the same SA2

The map was generated by filtering the following factors:

• Where bikes are currently faster than cars (VISTA analysis)

• Within easily cycle-able distance (<4km)

• Where the demographics are most conducive for bike trips (Propensity Index3 score of 4 or more)

• Where there are at least 50 car commutes that occur each day.

The Bicycle Network Model can provide a range of different outputs to help guide plans to increase bike riding. The output in Figure 33 helps provide a strategic lens for identifying areas where providing

3 See Appendix 1 for more information on the Propensity Index.


improved conditions for bike riding is likely to be most effective in shift short car trips. This analysis is not only isolated to bike infrastructure planning but could also help identify areas for public transport improvement.


Safety, both real and perceived, is a significant barrier to greater levels of bike usage (Bauman et al., 2008, Dill and Voros, 2007, Garrard, 2011, Götschi et al., 2015). This section will present the findings of a high-level analysis of recorded crash statistics involving a person on a bike within IMAP. This will include an overall picture of the number of crashes that occur within each municipality (Table 9), costs to society per crash (Table 10), as well as the estimated cost to society (Table 11). It will then detail bike crashes at a street-by-street level, outlining that 80% of all bike crashes in IMAP take place on 252km (10%) of the road network within IMAP. Many of these crashes are confined to high-risk corridors.

Table 9 Number of crashes in IMAP, last five years to March 2019

Other injury accident

Serious injury accident

Fatality Total

Maribyrnong 102 31 2 135

Melbourne 948 270 3 1221

Port Phillip 372 130 2 504

Stonnington 272 78 3 353

Yarra 638 173 0 811

IMAP 2332 682 10 3024 Source: Crash Stats (VicRoads, 2019)

Table 10 Cost to society by crash severity

Other Injury Serious Injury Fatality

$43,350 $646,933 $9,148,786

Source: https://www.atap.gov.au/parameter-values/road-transport/4-crash-costs.aspx

Table 11 Estimate cost of crashes in IMAP, last five years to March 2019

Other injury Serious injury Fatality Total

Maribyrnong $3,359,608 $19,820,831 $18,384,420 $41,564,859

Melbourne $31,224,592 $172,633,045 $27,576,630 $231,434,267

Port Phillip $12,252,688 $83,119,614 $18,384,420 $113,756,722

Stonnington $8,958,955 $49,871,769 $27,576,630 $86,407,353

Yarra $21,014,019 $110,613,025 $0 $131,627,044

IMAP $76,809,862 $436,058,284 $91,922,099 $604,790,245 Source: Crash Stats (VicRoads, 2019), and ATAP (Australian Transport Assessment and Planning, 2013) (2013), RBA (2019).

NB: Uses 2018 dollars.

6. Crashes


6.1 High-risk streets

As highlighted earlier, this analysis found that approximately 80% of all bike crashes in IMAP take place on only 10% of the road network. The locations of these high-risk streets are shown in Figure 34, with a colour gradient showing the number of crashes in the last five years. Chapel Street, Stonnington recorded the highest number of crashes in the last five years; some 151 recorded crashes have taken place on Chapel Street, with 80 in the Prahran – Windsor section and 71 in the South Yarra section. Using the cost estimates provided in Table 10, bike crashes along Chapel Street in Stonnington have cost society approximately $31 million in the last five years. Approximately 5% (1 in 20) of all bike crashes within IMAP take place on Chapel Street. Other high-risk streets in IMAP include Church Street (Richmond), St Georges Road / Brunswick Street (North Fitzroy/Fitzroy), Elizabeth Street, La Trobe Street, and Collins Street (CBD).

Targeting these high-risk corridors shown in Figure 34 is likely to deliver high-impact results in terms of reducing road trauma.

Figure 34 Streets in which 80% of bike crashes occur in IMAP


Table 12 identifies the streets with the greatest number of bike crashes resulting in an injury and/or fatality in each IMAP municipality. Chapel Street (Stonnington) has the largest number of bike crashes, more than double the street with the second highest number of bike related road trauma.

Table 12 Streets with most bike crash injuries or fatalities for each LGA

Street Name LGA Crashes (persons Injured or fatality) last five years)

Chapel Street Stonnington 151

Brunswick Street Yarra 71

Collins Street Melbourne 69

Beaconsfield Parade Port Phillip 31

Hopkins Street Maribyrnong 8

NB: Time period: Last 5 years to March 2019

Another way to look at bike riding risk is to identify streets based on their crash risk exposure profile. This is the level of risk on a street based on its level of infrastructure, recorded crashes, and volume of bike riding along a given corridor. Figure 35 shows the current crash risk exposure in IMAP, measured as crashes per 100,000 Cycle Kilometres Travelled (CKT). These streets are where there is a current high number of crashes involving a person on a bike, relative to the number of bike riders using the street.


Figure 35 Current Crash Exposure, IMAP


The crash exposure has also been measured for the proposed bike network in IMAP, based on 2031 estimated bike volumes, shown in Figure 36.

It shows where crash risk is likely to be highest based on the level of bike riding along a given corridor. The darker the red along the corridor, the higher the crashes per 100,000 CKT.

Figure 36 Future Crash Exposure, IMAP


Figure 37 shows where the key changes in estimated number of crashes per year are under a full build scenario. These corridors are projected to deliver the largest safety benefits as a result of upgrading bike infrastructure.

Figure 37 Estimate change in crashes per year, IMAP


6.1.1 High crash exposure corridors with no change in infrastructure

Table 13 highlights the top 20 streets with the highest projected crash exposure in 2031 that have no planned change in infrastructure. The crash profile for some of these streets relate to intersection collisions, while others are due to car dooring crashes. Some of these corridors may not be considered suitable for infrastructure upgrades (Hoddle Street, Princes Street, etc) and instead may require a greater focus on alternative corridors and improving intersections. In particular, Richardson / Reid Street, which is ranked number one in Table 13 is due to cross-traffic colliding with north-south bike activity. St Andrews Place, which has a similar number of crashes per 100K CKT, is likely due to conflicts with turning motor vehicles on Macarthur Place. Carlisle Street and Smith Street, however, are primarily due to car dooring crashes.

Table 13 High crash exposure corridors with no change in infrastructure (2031)

Rank Street Name SA2 Crashes per 100K CKT

1 Richardson Street Carlton North - Princes Hill 15

2 St Andrews Place East Melbourne 14

3 Carlisle Street St Kilda East 10

4 Reid Street Fitzroy North 8

5 Kay Street Carlton 8

6 Smith Street Collingwood 8

7 King Street North Melbourne 7

8 Victoria Street Melbourne 7

9 Kings Way South Melbourne 6

10 Hoddle Street Abbotsford 6

11 Racecourse Road North Melbourne 6

12 Ormond Road Elwood 5

13 Toorak Road Toorak 5

14 Alexandra Parade Yarra - North 5

15 Collins Street Melbourne 4

16 Princes Street Carlton 4

17 Simpson Street East Melbourne 4

18 Lygon Street Carlton 4

19 Curzon Street North Melbourne 4


This section will provide a case study of one street, to illustrate the potential benefits achieved through upgrading bike infrastructure.

7.1 Chapel Street, Stonnington

Chapel Street, Stonnington was found to be the most dangerous street in IMAP for people riding bikes. It has a relatively high volume of bike riders as of 2019 and is set to increase substantially by 2031. If the corridor was upgraded to separate motor vehicles and people on bikes, it would bring an estimated extra 2,000 bike trips per day. Chapel Street has a high level of existing bike riding despite recording the highest number of bike crashes in the last five years and the highest per kilometre risk of a crash.

In the last five years, there have been a total of 151 crashes involving a bike rider on Chapel Street. Of those, 26 were admitted to hospital and one bike rider was killed. Another 124 crashes involved ‘other injuries’. The following points outline the key safety implications for Chapel Street:

• On average, a bike rider is involved in a crash that is reported to police on Chapel Street every 12 days

• For each police reported bike crash on Chapel Street, there is a 20% chance the bike rider will be hospitalised

• Every second bike crash reported to police on Chapel Street is caused by someone opening their car door into the path of a person on a bike

• In the last 5 years, bike crashes on Chapel Street have cost society approximately $30 million4

• If no change in infrastructure takes place, the rate of police reported bike crashes on Chapel Street will increase to one every 10 days by 2031

• If no change in infrastructure is undertaken and the same crash trends continue, the projected costs to society resulting from bike crashes on Chapel Street will be $72 million in the next 10 years.

4 Using the metrics provided by ATAP shown in Table 10 and Table 11.

7. A street-level case study


This section provides a suite of recommendations for bike network development within IMAP as well as actions to improve the outputs of the model developed for this project.

8.1 Quick wins

This Bicycle Network Model provided a number of insights at both the strategic level and on a street-by-street basis. A number of routes were discovered to provide the biggest uplift in bike use, relative to other parts of the network. This section will provide the five most important links for each IMAP LGA, based on potential to increase bike riding participation, improve safety outcomes and network cohesion.

8.1.1 Maribyrnong

Figure 38 shows the total estimated percentage growth in Maribyrnong if the full network was constructed, compared to 2019. The model highlighted several corridors where growth in bike riding is projected to increase substantially.

Figure 38 Maribyrnong growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build

Of the streets included in the proposed network, the following streets offer the greatest potential to increase bike riding numbers if infrastructure upgrades were undertaken:

1. Barkly / Hopkins Street

2. Essex Street

3. Jerrold Street

4. Bunbury Street

5. Churchill Avenue.

8. Recommendations


8.1.2 Melbourne

Figure 39 show the net increase in bike trips in the City of Melbourne between 2019 and 2031 if the full network was constructed.

Figure 39 Melbourne growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build

The output from the model highlights the following routes as priorities:

1. Commercial Road

2. Bourke Street

3. Flinders Street

4. William Street

5. Dudley Street.


8.1.3 Port Phillip

Figure 40 provides an illustration of the net increase in bike trips in the City of Port Phillip between 2019 and 2031 if the full network was built.

Figure 40 Port Phillip growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build


1. Moray Street

2. Cecil Street

3. Nelson Road

4. Armstrong Street

5. Kerferd Road.


8.1.4 Stonnington

Figure 41 shows the projected net increase in daily bike trips in the City of Stonnington between 2019 and 2031 if the full proposed network is constructed.

Figure 41 Stonnington growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build


1. Chapel Street

2. Orrong Road / Williams Road

3. Malvern Road / Commercial Road

4. Waverley Road

5. Glenferrie Road

Additional opportunities have been identified, including:

• Toorak Road between Orrong Road and St Kilda Road.


8.1.5 Yarra

Figure 42 shows the projected additional bike trips in the City of Yarra between 2019 and 2031 if the full network was constructed.

Figure 42 Yarra growth in daily bike trips 2019 to 2031 Full build

Much of the projected growth is modelled to occur on the north-south corridors in the north-west of the municipality. The output from the model highlights the following routes as priorities:

1. Johnston Street

2. Gertrude Street / Langridge Street

3. Brunswick Street / St Georges Road

4. Michael Street

5. Church Street.

Additional opportunities have been identified, including:

• Continuing Church Street separated lane

• Coppin Street and Highett Street

• Heidelberg Road separated cycling infrastructure.

8.2 Target crash heavy corridors

Targeting infrastructure upgrades on the most dangerous corridors is likely to deliver the biggest boosts to safety and ridership. This report has highlighted that 80% of bike crashes take place on 10% of the road network.


8.3 Investigate low-cost separation

Providing low-cost separation is likely to deliver most of the projected uplift at a fraction of the cost of a full street transformation. Full streetscape upgrades should be targeted to high-profile corridors where economic activity would also receive significant benefits from the road upgrade.

Low-cost upgrades could include light separation (E.g. Albert Street, East Melbourne) or filtered permeability (E.g. Napier Street, Fitzroy). Each of these approaches lower crash exposure and increase the attractiveness of a corridor for bike use.

8.4 Investigate corridors where bikes have the advantage

The strongest predictor for bike use uncovered in our model was the time competitiveness of bike riding compared to other modes for a given corridor (SA2 to SA2 combination). Identifying corridors where bikes outperform other modes, or undertaking changes that advantage bike riding in terms of time competitiveness would likely see large increase in bike usage.

8.5 Improving the model

8.5.1 More permanent bike counts

The reliability of the model is greatly improved by access to more permanent bike counters. It is recommended that more count sites be included, especially off the key bike corridors, to improve understanding of bike usage across the network and not just on high-volume corridors.

Counts should be conducted pre and post infrastructure upgrade to improve understanding of the role that infrastructure upgrades play in boosting bike riding participation.

8.5.2 Conformity of geospatial data

Each Council and DoT uses its own geospatial datasets for their current and future bike networks.

It is recommended that all councils agree upon a standard road network geospatial dataset to ensure the seamless planning and delivery of infrastructure across municipalities. It is recommend Councils use of the TR Road dataset (managed by DoT) as a starting point.

8.5.3 Expand Near-Market Research

The boost rates for this model were based on City of Melbourne commissioned research identifying the stated preference for different infrastructure. It is recommended this be expanded to cover the IMAP or Greater Melbourne area and include a larger variety of street types and infrastructure typologies.

8.5.4 Undertake a study to determine where new bike riders mode shift from

This model is able to determine the amount of new bike riders on the network and what mode share bike riders will constitute for a link. However, we have assumed that those new bike riders come evenly from other modes. Further research is required to better understand the breakdown existing mode share plays in shifting to bike use. It is recommended that a study be undertaken within IMAP or expanded across Greater Melbourne to determine mode substitution.

8.6 Expand the Model to Greater Melbourne and key regional cities

To assist in making informed decisions regarding bike network planning beyond IMAP, it is recommended the Model be expanded across Greater Melbourne. Moreover, by creating a Model for key regional cities in Victoria, targeted investments in bike riding infrastructure can be made to maximise ridership and safety.


This model was developed using a range of data sources, application of existing research, and the inclusion of new research undertaken by the project team. With all models that predict future behaviour, there are limitations. This section will identify the key limitations with this model and highlight steps undertaken during the project to minimise deficiencies. It will also provide recommendations for future steps that will improve iterations of the model.

9.1 Strava Normalisation

The Strava Normalisation process used Strava Metro data and bike count data to estimate existing bike use on every street/path within the study area. A known limitation of Strava Metro data is that the majority of users of the Strava App are sports-oriented bike riders. These riders are more likely to ride further than people riding for utilitarian purposes. They are also less risk adverse than the general population, and frequent routes that are conducive to exercise but not necessarily for utility trips. Some routes are also repeated several times in a training session (e.g. Yarra Boulevard or Albert Park Lake). A key part of the Strava Normalisation process is to use bike counter locations to scale estimate usage proportionally. Off-road trails also see different bike riding usage behaviour relative to the on-road network. To minimise variances in rider behaviour on different parts of the network, the network was coded into three separate categories: On-road, off-road, and training routes. The normalisation process was run separately for each category, allowing for a more nuanced normalisation of the network. This improved the reliability of the normalisation process by approximately 20%.

The reliability of this process could be improved further with more bike counters, particularly those that are not on the principal bike corridors in the study area. Additional counters should also be used before and after infrastructure upgrades to improve the infrastructure boost element of the model.

9.2 Journey to Work to All trips

ABS Census Journey to Work data was used as the baseline for understanding trip origin and destination. Journey to Work trips are the most complete dataset available for origin-destination trips. In the study area, trips to/from work make up approximately 25% of all trips. This was scaled up using VISTA (a sample survey travel diary dataset) to produce an estimate of all trip types. The VISTA dataset was produced from 46,562 people completing a diary of all trips in a given day. As it is a sample survey and some trip origins and destinations do not have many trips recorded, and many have no trips at all recorded. This becomes even smaller for bike trips, which constitute a minority of total trips. While we know that there are variances in the proportion of trip purpose between different origins and destinations (e.g. Melbourne CBD has a high proportion of commutes), there are not enough trips to scale journey to work to all trips by nuanced proportions across the study area. Instead, an average scaling of 25% work to all trips was used. A greater focus on increasing the number of recorded trips in VISTA would improve the ability to provide a more accurate scaling of trip purposes in the future.

9.3 The limitations of bike infrastructure to increasing bike use

High-quality bike infrastructure is a critical element to supporting increases in bike usage. However, it is not the only factor that encourages (or discourages) bike trips. This project has sought to isolate these other factors and focus on the impact provided by improving infrastructure and via population growth. Increases to bike use could also be achieved through focusing on these other factors, including time competitiveness of bike riding compared to other modes, limiting car parking, introducing road user pricing for motor vehicles, increasing density and developing an urban form conducive to bike riding, and shifting cultural attitudes towards bike riding.

9. Limitations


AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS 2017. Census 2016. Canberra: Australian Government. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE 2019. Pedal cyclist injury deaths and hospitalisations 1999–00

to 2015–16. Canberra. AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING 2013. Crash Costs. Canberra. BAUMAN, A. E., RISSEL, C., GARRARD, J., KER, I., SPEIDEL, R. & FISHMAN, E. 2008. Cycling: Getting Australia Moving:

Barriers, facilitators and interventions to get more Australians physically active through cycling. Cycling Promotion Fund.

CDM RESEARCH & ASDF RESEARCH 2017. Near-makret research. Melbourne: City of Melbourne. DAVIES, L., ALLAN, V. & FISHMAN, E. 2018. Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model and GPC Inventory.

Melbourne: Institute for Sensible Transport, commissioned by the City of Melbourne. DILL, J. 2009. Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30,

S95-110. DILL, J., MOHR, C. & MA, L. 2014. How can psychological theory help cities increase walking and bicycling? Journal

of the American Planning Association, 80, 36-51. DILL, J. & VOROS, K. 2007. Factors Affecting Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings from the Portland, Oregon,

Region. Transportation Research Record, 2031, 9-17. GARRARD, J. 2011. Make it feel safe and they will come: addressing the actual and perceived risks of cycling. Asia

Pacific Cycle Congress. Brisbane. . GÖTSCHI, T., GARRARD, J. & GILES-CORTI, B. 2015. Cycling as a Part of Daily Life: A Review of Health Perspectives.

Transport Reviews, 1-27. PUCHER, J., GREAVES, S. & GARRARD, J. 2010. Cycling down under: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and

policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 332-345. STRAVA 2019. Strava dataset for Greater Melbourne. In: STRAVA (ed.). Purchased by the Institute for Sensible

Transport. TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION. 2019. Search statistics [Online]. Geelong: Transport Accident Commission.

Available: http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/online-crash-database/search-crash-data [Accessed].

VICROADS 2019. Crash Stats. In: VICROADS (ed.). Melbourne: VicRoads. WINTERS, M., TESCHKE, K., BRAUER, M., GRANT, M. & SETTON, E. 2010. How Far Out of the Way Will We Travel?

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2190, 1-10.

10. References


The Propensity Index uses 8 statistically significant5 Census variables to determine the propensity for bike use at an SA1 level. The factors that make up the Propensity Index are:

1. Residential population density, measured as people per hectare.

2. Employment density measured as number of people working per hectare.

3. Density of young adults measured as number of people aged 18 - 34 per hectare.

4. City based employment measured as number of people working in the CBD per hectare.

5. Short distance car trips, measured as number of people with commutes of less than 5km.

6. Low motor vehicle ownership measured as number of people with one or zero cars per hectare.

7. Bike use - origin measured as number of people riding to work per hectare.

8. Bike use – destination measured as number of people riding to work by destination per hectare.

Each of the 8 factors have been developed to form an Index, the result of which, at the SA1 level, can be seen in Figure 43. The darker the shade, the higher the latent demand for cycling in that area. It is important to note that the Index is calculated as a relative Index, meaning that the results can only be compared within the areas included in this map. The results are not comparable to other geographical areas.

5 Statistically significant, based on a binary logistic regression analysis performed on survey responses from bike share

users and non-users in Australia (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856414002638)

11. Appendix 1: Bike Use Propensity Index


Figure 43 Bike Use Propensity Index SA1 Level

In order to meet the modelling needs of this project, the Propensity Index was adapted to provide mean Propensity Index scores for each route in the SA2 to SA2 matrix. This was undertaken to calculate the propensity for a trip to be taken between each SA2. By using the Propensity Index scores as a ‘hand-brake’, the boost rate figures were scaled depending on the underlying propensity for cycling in the area (e.g. population density) and activity generation differences found across the study area. For example, a separated bike lane in Braybrook is likely to see lower boost rates compared to the same facility within the Hoddle Grid. The mean Propensity Index score along a proposed bike route were calculated using ArcGIS. This was done using the following steps:

1. Recalculated the Propensity Index at an SA2 level, instead of the SA1 level used in the previous report

2. Every SA2 received a split propensity score, both as an origin and as a destination

3. The origin score was calculated based on its propensity for cycling trips to begin in an SA2

4. The destination score was based on the propensity for cycling trips to end in an SA2

5. Both the origin and destination scores were calculated together to determine the propensity of travel between SA2s.


Figure 44 provides the Propensity Index scores for each SA2 within the study area.

Figure 44 Propensity Index for SA2s within the study area


In order to test the validity of using the four inputs (bike mode share, infrastructure quality score, and line propensity score, distance) for estimating future cycling volumes, we undertook an analysis of five routes with similar line propensity scores, infrastructure quality scores, and within a cyclable distance. The selected routes are shown in Figure 45.

Figure 45 Five route analysis of factors for bike use

12. Appendix 2: Time Competitiveness


The results showed no significant correlation between propensity to cycle, infrastructure quality, distance and the mode share of bike trips. Further analysis was then undertaken using the time competitiveness between bike travel and the dominant mode share for that same route, shown in Table 14. The outcome of this analysis can be seen in the ‘Bike Time Ratio’ column on the far-right hand side of Table 14. For each of these five routes, public transport was the dominant mode of travel and was used for this analysis. Google Maps was used to calculate the time for each of the routes. Where the Bike Time Ratio is 1, it indicates that bike and public transport take exactly the same time. Where the Ratio is below 1, bike travel is faster, while if it above 1 public transport is faster.

Table 14 Five Route Analysis

Origin SA2 Destination SA2

Propensity Score

Bike mode share (JtW)

Route confidence rating Distance (m) Bike Time Ratio

South Yarra - East Melbourne 4.82 4.92% 3.62 4600 1.25

Brunswick Melbourne 4.73 15.34% 3.15 6145 0.90

St Kilda Melbourne 4.74 6.25% 2.54 6285 1.04

Northcote Melbourne 4.41 13.49% 2.99 7000 0.81

Footscray Melbourne 4.24 4.30% 3.94 6510 1.35

There was a significant correlation (R2=0.88) between the time competitiveness of bike travel and public transport, as shown in Figure 46. This means that when public transport is faster, it depresses the mode share for cycling (e.g. South Yarra – East in Table 14), and when bike travel is faster than public transport, the bike mode share is amplified (e.g. Northcote to Melbourne). This finding has the potential to influence the way bike network planning is undertaken, to identify corridors where bikes are most competitive against other modes of transport to provide the most mode shift towards bike use. As a result of this analysis, time competitiveness has been factored into the Bicycle Network Model.


Figure 46 Statistical Correlation of Bike Time Ratio and Mode Share

To incorporate time competitiveness into the model, we used VISTA trips to determine the average trip time for each mode. The main mode of travel for a trip was based on journeys to work. Then the average bike time was divided by the average time for the main mode to determine the bike-time ratio that link. Where an average trip time could not be determined for either bikes or the main transport mode, a bike-time ratio of 1 was used. This is recognised as a limitation to the model in its current form and could be improved with additional network analysis.

R² = 0.8809

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Bik

e Ti

me

Rat

io

Mode share


Institute for Sensible Transport

102/1 Silver Street, Collingwood Melbourne, Australia VIC 3066 E: [email protected] www.sensibletransport.org.au


IMAP PROJECT – SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DASHBOARD

1

Purpose This project will develop a dashboard to measure and track the economic and social impact of COVID19 on our community over time. It will be used to improve Council services and policies and (as appropriate) to advocate to the State and Federal Government for funding, service delivery and policy changes.

Alignment with IMAP Goals and Strategies. The project aligns with the goals of IMAP, particularly Goal 1: A globally significant, strong, diverse and engaged economy.

Investment logic analysis (e.g. what are the problems, benefits, potential strategic responses and solutions)

The IMAP Region does not have an agreed set of information on which to develop strategies to advocate to State and Federal Government. All councils use their own sources of information which often duplicates the existing sources. Reliable, relevant and timely data will allow the Inner Melbourne Region and individual Councils to make strategic investment decisions and monitor impact of interventions. This is particularly relevant given the COVID 19 pandemic.

Project scope and timeline See attached procurement brief for agreed scope and timeline.

Project cost and funding sources Up to $x sourced from IMAP Reserve 2020/21

Lead Council and Project Team City of Port Phillip ‐ Project Lead Mike Coultas – PM

Teresa Parsons – SME Brian Tee – Strategic Advisor Stonnington Yarra Maribyrnong Melbourne



2

Assessment against IMAP project criteria

Alignment with the IMAP Vision

Will the project/action demonstrably enhance the liveability of Inner Melbourne by delivering defined outcomes which contributes to achievement of the goal and aims of the plan?

The project will provide and bring together relevant, reliable and timely data to monitor the liveability of Inner Melbourne in a period of significant change. This will enable IMAP and associated Councils to make data‐informed decisions about enhancing liveability.

Does the project/action align with potential programs and/or funding opportunities within the State or Federal government, or elsewhere?

There may be funding available from universities and government grants.

Regional Benefit

Will the project/action’s benefits accrue to a broader region (i.e. more than just one local authority)?

Where possible, the dashboard will provide data to inform policies at an IMAP regional level, individual Council and at a more localised level. Over time, it is expected that further metrics will be added providing a greater understanding of how the region operates and the key differences that enable the region to operate successfully.

Is there sufficient agreement amongst the IMAP members to undertake the project/action?

The proposed project is supported by the IMAP CEOs and officers in the Project Team.

Shared Resources

Are there opportunities for resource sharing and/or economies of scale?

Working collaboratively in the inner Melbourne region will provide opportunities to share data and resources and is also expected to deliver economies of scale regarding the use and procurement of ‘big data’. The project will offer justification for this as part of the design.

Focus on Results

Does the project/action present opportunities to find new or better ways to address issues/challenges facing Inner Melbourne?

The proposed project will present relevant, reliable and timely data that can be used to identify data‐informed opportunities to address challenges facing Inner Melbourne.

Can the expected results of the project/action be clearly defined?

Key deliverables have been articulated in the scope.



3

Timeliness

Can the desired result be achieved within a 5‐ 10‐year period?

It is expected that the dashboard outcome will be realised within six months. This will enable the ongoing evolution of the dashboard to address issues as they emerge and allow for timely advocacy to State and Federal Government.

Effectiveness

Do the expected outcomes warrant the expected investment of time and resources?

The investment in the proposed project will provide a platform for more informed decision making across and within the inner Melbourne region.

Value‐Add

Does the project/action overlap, duplicate or enhance other strategies being undertaken elsewhere?

There are a range of data collaboration projects being undertaken by other Councils and levels of government, but this project is unique and will enhance rather than duplicate.

Recommendation:

1. It is recommended that $80k is set aside for the engagement of a consultant to develop the

design of a dashboard that meets the criteria set out in the Consultant procurement brief.

2. It is recommended that a project task team comprising of officers from the IMAP councils is

established to meet over the next three months to oversee the design of the dashboard and

to provide feedback as appropriate to the individual Councils.

3. It is recommended that a PM is assigned to the project task team to manage the key

deliverables and provide PM capabilities.

4. It is recommended that a panel is established immediately from the project task team

comprising of the project manager and three of the Councils to engage a consultant to

provide the services indicated in the consultant brief.

5. A governance group is established being the CEOs of the respective IMAP Councils.

Next Steps

1. A consultant brief will be distributed to a nominated set of consultants by 14th June 2020.

2. The consultants will provide their submission by the 3rd July 2020 which will be considered

by the panel against an agreed evaluation criteria.

3. A consultant will be engaged to deliver the design, and this will be presented to the IMAP

CEOs on 20th August including implementation timeline and operating costs.

10/06/2020

1

Proposed measures and example dashboard

The following presents proposed measures and an example dashboard that aims to present a range of key indicators that will assist IMAP Councils to

(a) Track the impact of COVID19 in our community over time; and (b) Allow for broader use to develop integrated IMAP data.

Please note that it is a mock‐up only to assist potential scoping of further work to be undertaken by relevant CoPP staff and IMAP councils.

Any data and analysis contained in these mock‐ups is subject to further validation and should not be relied on for decisions.

1

2

Measure assessment frameworkCriteria Explanation

Relevant Addresses at least one of the key economic outcomes of interest to IMAP Councils:• Economic activity (Industry turnover, growth & performance)• Labour participation (unemployment & underemployment)• Business behaviour (investment, building approvals)• Consumer behaviour (activity, expenditure & concerns)• Property market change (price, affordability)Addresses at least one of the key social outcomes of interest to IMAP Councils (to be refined):• Welfare program use• Health & wellbeing indicators

Consistent and/or comparable

Currently or foreseeably available in a consistent way for each IMAP Council and provides a reasonable assessment of what is happening locally

Timely and reliable

Available with sufficient frequency and validity to inform decisions and advocacy

Cost‐effective Cost to obtain and evaluate measure provide value for money

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

Indicative IMAP Social & Economic Measures and Dashboard

emcelroy

Typewritten Text

Attachment 9a

10/06/2020

2

3

Outcome Measure Consistent and/or comparable

Timely & reliable

Cost‐effective Max Granularity Notes

Consumer behaviour

1. Roy Morgan Consumer confidence

Somewhat Yes – released monthly

Yes – free and available

National Use assumes correlation between national and local confidence

2. Alphabeta consumer expenditure

Somewhat Yes – released weekly


National Use assumes correlation between national and local expenditure patterns

3. Consumer financial distress

Yes Yes – released weekly

Yes‐ free and available

Local government area

Available at LGA level

4. Consumer expenditure(Requires funding)

Yes Yes – timing to be confirmed

To be determined –cost involved

Small area (Exact parameters TBC)

Highly localised data available. Variety of products available egSpendmapp or other data service (Alphabeta or Data Republic)

5. Consumer behaviour/movements(Requires funding)

Yes Yes To be determined –cost involved

Small area (Exact parameters TBC)

Range of methods can be developed to track local activity. This includes use of public transport data, APIs to commercial data sets (eggoogle,optus) or linking in with data companies like Neighbourlytics, Dspark and Data Republic

Housing market change (price, affordability)

6. Corelogic Home Indexes

Yes Yes Yes – weekly National Use assumes correlation between national and local patterns. Only freely available for discrete time period

7. Housing market (average cost, time on market, auction rates)

Yes Yes Yes – may require manipulation

Suburb

Proposed Top 15 measures

4

Proposed Top 15 measures (continued)

Outcome Measure Consistent and/or comparable

Timely & reliable

Cost‐effective Max Granularity Notes

Economic Activity

8. Key industries and growth

Somewhat

Somewhat –updates available annually

Likely Municipal with some SA1 mapping

IMAP councils are using different products to support this information. Some work to ensure data is comparable and usefully presented would need to be undertaken.

9. CLUE (Census of Land Use and Employment)

No Somewhat May not be viable for all IMAP Councils

Local areas

10. ABS Construction Activity or Building Approval

Somewhat

Somewhat –released quarterly with three month lag


MunicipalGreater Melbourne

Building Approvals available at LGA each month with some two month lag) Option to use internal data.Greater Melbourne data is publicly available for construction. LGA data may be available to purchase

Labour participation

11. ABS Regional unemployment rates

Yes Somewhat –released quarterly with three month lag

Yes‐ free and available

Does not specify particular industries or cohorts. Does not measure change in hours/underemployment

Business behaviour

12. NAB Business confidence index

Somewhat

Yes – released monthly


State Use assumes correlation between national and local confidence

10/06/2020

3

INDICATORS UNDER CONSIDERATIONPUBLIC DATA SOURCES

5

Source Benefit Current status

PTV Myki data Provides data about how and when people are moving around

Each Council has been able to access information for particular projects.CoS consultancy have requested data release on CoS behalf

Realestate(Domain)

Provides housing market data CoS considering options to incorporate into a dashboard

Key industries and growth

Provides insight into industries and growth in each municipality

Different tools used by different Councils.

INDICATORS UNDER CONSIDERATION

BIG DATA/COMMERCIAL DATA SOURCES

6

Subscription is $$ (about $35k)

Source Benefit Current status

Neighbourlytics Uses a range of proprietary sources to monitor behaviour of people in local area

Subscription is $$ (about $35k)

Spendmapp Provides card transaction data from single bank to monitor local consumption

Subscription is $ (about $22k)

D Spark Uses Optus network to monitor people movement

Subscription is $$ ($30k for three‐month data)

Alphabeta Use Illion datasources to monitor expenditure and credit applications

Company considering developing a local government product (have had some interest in NSW). Start up costs likely to be about $150k

Data Republic Could design a consumer expenditure profile based on purchasing bank data

Costs unknown.

10/06/2020

4

INDICATIVE DASHBOARD

The following static dashboard provides an example that could be prepared using existing measures that are available.

It shows each measure at the most granular level available and provides examples of different ways of presenting information based on the types of information available.

It is designed to show some different ways of presenting information. Further work to refine this will need to be undertaken.

7

EXAMPLE DASHBOARD

7% below normal levels

Trend compares to previous weekSource: Alphabeta

Consumer Expenditure

90.3Below average of 109.5

Trend compares to previous fortnight

Source: Roy Morgan

Consumer Confidence

Local indicators

Unemployment

Consumer Financial Distress

National indicators

-23.5%below same week last

yearTrend compares to previous week

Source: Corelogic Pre-Listing Activity

Property Market

-46 ↑ 19 points

Compared to previous monthSource: NAB Business Survey

Business Confidence

8

March 2020 data released in June 2020Source: Department of Education, Skills and Employment

Key Insights1. National indicators measures

suggesting recession. 2. Some improvement

compared to end March results.

Changes in consumer credit risk scores for IMAP and surrounding LGAs. Scores greater than 1 represent increasing financial distress.Source: Alphabeta

Key InsightsModelling suggests that industries most impacted include professional, scientific and technical services, accommodation and food, arts and recreation.

12 June 2020 Attachment 9b

Request for Quote – IMAP SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DASHBOARD

1 | P a g e

DRAFT SPECIFICATION 1. Introduction

Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) is seeking to engage a suitable qualified consultancy to help develop a dashboard of social and economic indicators that will provide IMAP with an improved understanding of the economic and social context of the IMAP region and how this changes over time.

2. Background and Context

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) brings key government stakeholders together to develop and deliver regionally based actions across the cities of Melbourne, Maribyrnong, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra. IMAP is looking to develop a dashboard of social and economic measures that will measure the impact of COVID‐19 and monitor broader economic and social wellbeing across the IMAP Councils. The dashboard should be a combination of both lead and lag indicators. Individual IMAP councils currently use different tools to obtain economic and social data (e.g. some Councils use the Economic‐ID suite whilst others have their own “in‐house” economic modelling or use Remplan). IMAP Council recognise that ‘big data’ provides opportunities to monitor what is happening at a local level in a reliable and timely matter. Two services available to local government that have been identified include:

Spendmapp – uses bank transaction data to track expenditure and local activity and

Neighbourlytics – uses a range of data sources including social media to provide insights into local behaviour.

There are a range of publicly facing dashboards that can provide a model for the development of the dashboard. Examples that have been identified include:

Department of Infrastructure, Transport Cities and Regional Development, National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard https://smart‐cities.dashboard.gov.au/greater‐melbourne/overview;

City of Chicago https://data.cityofchicago.org/

City of London https://data.london.gov.uk/london‐area‐profiles/.

There are also a range of collaborative data projects that may have relevance including a project being undertaken by the Inner Southern Metro Councils (led by City of Glen Eira) working with Swinburne University on a data cooperative to monitor one of more social policy issues of interest to each Council. A review of possible measures has been undertaken and the data from each Council was collected and evaluated. This has been summarised into an indicative set of measures and example dashboard (Refer Attachment 1).



2 | P a g e

3. Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made. a. The project should initially focus on tracking the impact of COVID 19 from an economic and

social perspective. It is expected that this will be an iterative process with Council officers and further indicators may be added over time to reflect emerging issues.

b. The information garnered from the dashboard will be used to improve Council services and policies and, as appropriate, to advocate to the State and Federal Government for funding, service delivery and policy changes.

c. The audience of the dashboard will be limited to IMAP CEOs and relevant staff. This does not preclude the release of specific data for advocacy purposes or stakeholder engagement.

d. IP of the dashboard product will be retained by IMAP.

4. Key Stakeholders

A working group of officers from each Council has been established to provide input into the project. IMAP CEOs will provide strategic input into the development of the dashboard and overall governance. The IMAP Implementation Committee is the key authorising body.

5. Project Deliverables and Scope

The successful proposal will propose a collaborative work program that:

1. Dashboard Design ‐ Demonstrates use of an iterative methodology that engages IMAP working group and IMAP CEOs to develop a dashboard and/or platform that: a) Allows IMAP and IMAP CEOs to monitor and respond to emerging economic and social

impacts in a timely manner through advocacy and collective action; b) Presentation of Metrics Consists of reliable, relevant and timely economic and social

measures (up to 15) that collectively help monitor economic and social health at geographic levels. The data should be aggregated across the following levels: IMAP as a region IMAP municipalities Neighbourhood defined as suburb, street or activity centre.

c) Data should also be presented, where practical as a grouping across the geographic levels including Business or Social groupings Other interest areas. d) Is presented to the IMAP CEOs on a monthly basis.

2. Operating Model ‐ Develops a cost‐effective implementation and ongoing operational

model to ensure the ongoing maintenance and management of the dashboard. This will involve a critical appraisal of operating models and recognition of implementation and operational costs.

3. Summary Report ‐ Delivers a report that:



3 | P a g e

a) Evaluates the benefits and costs of options to obtain consistency in use of data and tools across IMAP councils;

b) Evaluates available options and cost‐benefit of purchasing tools that use big data to monitor local outcomes;

c) Outlines available options for developing interactive dashboards including partnerships with organisations or universities who focus on spatial data noting that there may be options to apply for ARC Linkage Grants.

d) Identifies key risks and issues associated with the initiative and mitigation approaches. e) Identifies best practices for these types of initiatives. f) Presents a schedule for the implementation and operationalisation of the dashboard.

6. Response to Consultant Brief

Consultants are required to provide a written quote which addresses the above Project Scope.

The response must allow for an inception meeting with the relevant stakeholders as well as

workshops / meetings with the Project Working Group – to be held at the City of Port Phillip offices,

and an opportunity for working group officers to undertake two reviews of any drafts nominated

above prior to the finalisation of the deliverables.

Written quotes will include the following:

a) A project response that demonstrates your understanding of the project and includes a

detailed work program including methodology, process, milestones and timelines relevant to

the tasks set out in this brief;

b) Examples of involvement in similar projects;

c) Proposed schedule of meetings and outputs;

d) Details of the project team including relevant experience and qualifications;

e) Hourly charge rates for each person to be involved in the project, including details of

personnel hours and responsibilities in relation to tasks in the project;

f) Total fee for completion of the project (inclusive of disbursements and GST). The fee

estimate should include a breakdown of the fees for the respective stages that are indicated

in the brief. The fee (including disbursements), cannot be exceeded without prior written

authority from IMAP;

g) Details of the resources, information and data that that can support the consultant to

ensure that the project is conducted to a high standard and completed within the time

frame required;

h) Declaration of any conflict of interest and how any conflict of interest may be managed; and

i) Relevant insurances held by the consultant.

7. Assessment Criteria

In assessing the submissions received and selecting a consultant to undertake this project, a panel of

IMAP Council officers will consider the following (in order of importance):

Quality of submission.

Proposed approach/methodology (demonstrating an understanding of the project and

issues).



4 | P a g e

Experience in delivering similar projects and relevant technical skills of staff.

Technical expertise and experience of project team, including consideration of an

experienced project manager, and the correct skill balance in the team or consortium

Ability and capacity to complete within timeframes.

Value for money.

8. Procurement Process and Schedule

The overall schedule for the design stage will is based on the following dates:

(a) The successful consultant will be appointed on the basis that work will be completed within

a period of approximately two months from the date of the inception meeting.

(b) The consultant is to include a timeframe in their fee proposal which responds to the

deliverables identified in Section 5 above. If the above timeframes are unable to be met, an

alternate timeframe should be included in the fee proposal.

(c) Fee proposals are to be received by Friday 3rd July 2020 and a consultant will be appointed by Friday 31st July 2020.

(d) The selection panel will comprise of a sub‐group of the project task group.

9. Contact Details

With respect to this request for quote, the submitter should liaise directly with the City of Port

Phillip officer nominated below:

Name

Position

Telephone number

Email address

Agenda - imap.vic.gov.auimap.vic.gov.au/uploads/Meeting Agendas/2020 June... · note the...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda - imap.vic.gov.auimap.vic.gov.au/uploads/Meeting Agendas/2020 June... · note the...