GO NOOSA TRANSPORT INITIATIVES 2023/24 EVALUATION AND 2024/25 IMPLEMENTATION · Report

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                          12 AUGUST 2024


8.2 Cost

As a temporary measure, the pop-up park was established with a budget of $30,000. The intention
was to assess its success and public acceptance for the purposes of a trail without excessive
financial investment over a short period of time. Costs included: staff for setting-up and dismantling,
plant and equipment, marques, line marking, signage, additional lighting and surveillance.

Existing materials such as the sandstone blocks, bollards, park benches and stormwater pits (which
were use as plant holders) were used to reduce costs and purchasing unnecessary equipment. The
trees were also reallocated to projects once the park was disassembled.

8.3 Community feedback

Feedback from the community indicated a mixed response. Negative comments focused on the loss
of carparking spaces and accepted access to the beach. Constructive comments highlighting the
need for improvements in its execution, including additional bicycle parking and restroom facilities.

On the ground observations witnessed the drop-off zone and scooter parking receiving the best
response from users. The park benches were underutilised in the morning, with the covered tables
being utilised from midday to early evening. Users of the drop-off zone included: Uber and other
rideshare services for drop-off and pick-up, workers were dropped-off and picked-up by friends and
family, the area also assisted people with a disability, youth and families who were unable to get a
park to be safely dropped-off, and wait by the designated zone while family members went in search
of a park or collected the car.

Park users were also encouraged to provide their written feedback on the trial, which 58 responses
were received. Thirty-five respondents were against the concept. Twenty-two respondents liked or
supported the concept with changes. Two were neutral and willing to wait and see how the trial
went.

Themes from the 60% of respondents against the park included:
   • There is already ample seating and parks for people.
   •   Cost was a concern for several residents, including the cost of staff.
   •   Concerns over boom gates and no access for two weeks for disability users.
   •   Early morning swimmers who have parked in the same car park everyday, had a sense of
       ownership and did not like that they did not have access to “their” car park.
   •   Execution was poor, “black bitumen oven”.
   •   There is no use trying things like this and removing car parks as there is no solution for the
       congestion.
   •   Need to move the people’s park to Lions Park, the irony of returning a car park to the people
       and putting cars in the park.
   •   People went to Gympie Terrace instead.
   •   Lack of community consultation, community sentiment should outweigh traffic management
       improvements.
   •   Better utilised for a toilet block.
   •   Need multi-story car parks, paid parking and timed parking instead, car park for residents
       only.
   •   No improvement to traffic.