Participants proposed minor changes to the hierarchies outlined in the draft, giving higher priority to accessible parking, residents and visitors and lower priority to electric vehicles, commuters, active transport share schemes and car-share schemes.

Feedback supported an audit and review of the location and design of on- and off-street publicly provided parking spaces for persons with a disability to ensure that these spaces are appropriately located to meet user needs and designed to provide safe and appropriate access.

Responses were divided over the utility of implementing parking technologies in Bayside, while identifying smart parking technologies as useful tools to assist in desired greater enforcement of parking restrictions.

There were lower levels of support for introducing car-share schemes, with around half responding they would not be useful to them.

Most participants were unsupportive of both modes of transport, with a slightly higher preference for e-bike share.

There was general support for electric vehicles (EV) and charging infrastructure across engagement methods, focusing on Council facilitating greater availability of EV charging stations in Bayside.

Feedback surrounding high-density development generally highlighted population growth as detrimental to managing parking as a finite resource and focused on parking permits, off-street parking provisions to ease congestion and alternative transport links for high-density areas.

Participants were supportive of Bayside’s parking permit system, with additional feedback seeking a review of parking permits, land use zoning and governance in commercial, and residential areas and in high-density development to alleviate congestion, reduce hazards and support local traders, business and residents using community organisations or activities.

Participants supported the promotion and support of alternative transport options, including advocacy for improved public transport, greater cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and road rules, community transport for older people and the creation of more car parking at public transport stations.

Feedback suggests significant communication, education and support are needed to engage older demographic groups in behaviour change surrounding parking, transport usage and emerging technologies in the context of population growth and development.

Almost all respondents owned a car, with most households having two cars. Most park their cars on their property overnight, but 21% parking partly or solely on the street. Almost all respondents with a car hold a Bayside parking permit, with most households holding two permits. 12% held a disabled parking permit, with the most common feedback on the disabled parking permit system being that it worked fairly or well (25%).

Car was the most common form of transport around Bayside, with almost all respondents (94%) travelling by car at least some of the time, followed by walking (74%), cycling (27%), and train (15%). The most common factors that would encourage additional travel by methods other than private car were improvements to public transport (38%), improvements to bike paths (13%), and more parking at stations (10%).

Car travel decreased substantially (62% net decreased), and walking increased significantly (58% net increased) during COVID-19. Respondents were split in terms of whether transport patterns would return to pre-pandemic patterns (31% yes, 27% no, 28% unsure, and 14% said their patterns did not change during COVID-19).

Parking availability was most important to respondents in shopping precincts (73%), followed by the beach and foreshore (49%), on the street outside their property (42%), and commuter parking near stations (36%).

The average ease of parking was highest for parking at parks and reserves (6.96 out of 10), followed by beach and foreshore (5.92), residential streets (5.51), on the street outside their property (4.83), at shopping precincts (4.75), outside schools (4.32), and most difficult for commuter parking near train stations (3.25).

The most common action of respondents when they can’t find parking in the areas important to them was to park further away and walk the distance (41%), or to drive around till they find parking (14%). Respondents were relatively split in terms of whether they would consider alternative transport modes if parking was unavailable with 21% highly likely and 27% highly unlikely to seek alternatives.

The five most common actions that respondents say Council could do to improve their satisfaction with parking availability in the most important areas were to provide more parking spaces, car parks, and on-street parking (19%), more permits for residents / more resident only parking (17%), more time-limited parking (10%), more multi-storey or underground car parking (9%), and more parking patrols and enforcement (9%).

Respondents were asked to rate their support for seven ideas about parking in Bayside. The average agreement (from 0 strongly oppose to 10 strongly agree) with these seven ideas is summarised as follows:

o Moderate Support – for allocating some public parking spaces in shopping precincts to people with particular needs (6.44).

o Mild Support – for increasing the number of disabled permit parking spaces in shopping precincts (5.94) and for creating pedestrian only areas in major shopping precincts (5.92).

o Neutral to Mildly Oppose – for supporting car share services (4.88), converting parking spaces to electric vehicle charging stations (4.86), and allocating public parking spaces to create protected bike lanes (4.77).

o Moderately Opposed – for converting car parking spaces into public open space (3.28).

The most common feedback provided by respondents that they wanted Council to consider in the Parking Strategy were around new developments including adequate off-street parking (9.5%), more off-street parking (9.2%), more on-street parking around activity centres (7.2%), reduce the amount of parking or the number of cars (6.6%), consideration for persons with disability / special needs (5.0%), issues or suggestions around parking permits (5.0%), parking enforcement (4.4%), and change/review parking rules and restrictions (4.1%).