This is an overview for evaluators. For more detail on overseeing or participating in the core process refer to the Practitioner's Guide to Movement and Place.

The objective of Movement and Place is to plan, design, and deliver roads and streets that:

• contribute to the network of public space within a location, where people can live healthy, productive lives, meet each other, interact, and go about their daily activities
• are enhanced by transport and have the appropriate space allocation to move people and goods safely and efficiently, and connect places together.

The Movement and Place core process is a method for achieving these objectives through informed conversations, working collaboratively towards a shared vision, identifying a range of options to determine the best approach, considering multiple points of view, and consulting with multiple disciplines and stakeholders.

Movement and Place core process

The Movement and Place core process has six steps, which may be iterative:

This is the spectrum of activities that constitutes ‘taking a Movement and Place approach’ – from setting a vision to determining a preferred option for implementation.

Step 1: Vision, objectives, and evaluation criteria

Decision-makers should be able to clearly identify:

• a place-based vision for the place or each place affected by the project (in the case of corridors or large precincts)
• a list of objectives for each
• a summary of performance indicators used to evaluate the options
• targets and benchmarks used by project teams for gap analysis and to compare options.

Steps 2 and 3: Spatial information in the form of network and place maps, overlays, comparisons or scaled options

Using the documentation provided by the project team, decision-makers should gain an evidence-based, shared understanding of the places that will be affected by the project or plan, and how the multimodal transport networks are integrated with land use and public space within the study area. The spatial information should document the current state, the planned intent and the implications of achieving the vision and objectives.

Figure: Recommended site analysis, Master Planning Guidelines for Schools (DET May 2020)

While maps and information differ depending on context and purpose, they should contain enough basic spatial information for decisions to be evaluated.

Step 4: Map of issues and opportunities in the study area

Based on the evidence and understanding gained in the previous steps, evaluate the core process map of Movement and Place issues and opportunities. Confirm this was prepared and communicated with a range of stakeholders in a workshop or meeting (as described in Step 3.2 of the Practitioner’s Guide to Movement and Place).

This includes a list of key issues and opportunities the intervention will seek to address (the ‘problem definition’) and an overview of the method that informed the selection of the intervention. If applicable, the list will be complemented by a range of scenarios that highlight the circumstances external to the plan or project that will have informed the development of options.

Step 5: Scenarios, assumptions and options considered

A set of validated design options should be presented that respond to the ‘problem’, including the vision and objectives, issues and opportunities and the scenarios. Options are not restricted to capital investment. For example, they could include operational improvements (including different operations by time of day/month/year) or behaviour change. Best practice will consider at least two options (preferred and alternative) in addition to the baseline (minimal intervention) case.

Step 6: Preferred option, risks, sensitivities and trade-offs as well as the implementation strategy or actions, and who is responsible for each action

To make a decision on the preferred option presented by the project team, the rationale behind the options, as well as the scale of impact, cost, complexity and risks associated with the solution, needs to be clearly understood.

Project teams may have prepared an implementation plan to accompany their outcomes report, which may include further information on strategic actions related to programs, operational budgets, a review of project proposal or business case funding, or regulatory changes.

Key considerations

Practitioners should draw upon existing studies and policies where possible, using the core process to elaborate on the land use and transport interface within places, particularly on streets and roads. Some of the required analysis or decisions may already have been completed as part of a previous strategic planning activity. For example, a business case needs assessment would cover Steps 1 and 4, while a strategic business case would complete Step 5, and a final business case, Step 6.

The core process supplements other processes (such as business case processes) and should be used for practitioners working together in taking a Movement and Place approach. The process is not intended to discourage or replace other integrated methods of working including interdisciplinary practitioners, more workshops, co-design with joint practitioner teams, or co-design with the community.

Additional considerations

Additional considerations for decision-makers when evaluating projects or plans include:

• the location and size of the place or project
• anticipated demographics and potential catchment for the place or project
• capabilities of the agency, project team, government project partners, and whether external consultants or experts are required
• wider interventions outside the study area, to be explored through engagement with other project teams or agencies.

Documenting the process

Project teams are encouraged to document the outcomes of each step of the Movement and Place process. The Movement and Place collaboration report template provides a convenient format for documenting outcomes at each step. Documentation of assumptions, trade-offs and sensitivities is particularly relevant where the Movement and Place process is split between projects or owners. It is important these underlying factors are well-understood by decision-makers throughout the project life cycle, so they can inform more detailed investigation, changes over time, or changes in approach.

Decision-makers can evaluate individual steps based on a holistic understanding of the inputs and outputs that informed the outcomes. The template has been developed to help project teams report these outcomes to decision-makers and teams are encouraged to use it.

Monitoring and continuous improvement

The outcomes of Movement and Place plans and projects need to be monitored and reviewed by agencies. During delivery phases, reviews should be annual. During operational phases, reviews might be less frequent, e.g. five-yearly.

Reviews should aim to identify:

• the progress of benefits being realised
• further place improvements
• opportunities to increase active transport
• unexpected impacts (both greater and less than anticipated).

Teams should use their best efforts to implement the outcomes including, where relevant, the spatial arrangement proposed through the Movement and Place process.

Where a Movement and Place approach is applied to a portfolio of work or a program – because small, similar projects have been packaged into a single funding stream – individual projects would be required to align to the outcomes of that process at the higher level.

Evaluating engagement and collaboration

Working collaboratively towards a shared vision requires considering multiple points of view and consulting with multiple disciplines and stakeholders. The Movement and Place core process uses a workshop model with a core team of practitioners leading the process and preparing analysis for discussion and refinement at those workshops. The process is scalable to smaller meetings or larger forums with break-out sessions.

The following factors should be considered by decision-makers when evaluating projects or plans:

• Have the right people been involved?
• Have different viewpoints been expressed?
• Has this process has been documented, to demonstrate this engagement and collaboration?

Have the right people been involved?

Those who need to be involved in projects and plans will generally depend on the location, stage and scale of projects and plans. However, this should include a balance of practitioners specialising in movement (e.g. transport planning and traffic engineering) and place (e.g. strategic planning, urban design, architecture, and landscape architecture, place managers and owners). The core team composition may vary from individuals with interdisciplinary skills and ‘design thinking’, through to specialist teams coordinated by a project manager.

Early involvement of all stakeholders, including those responsible for later stages such as designers, assessors and managers, can benefit the project by ensuring alignment to expectations.

Workshops and meetings need to involve key stakeholders pertinent to the plan or project, communities involved, location, extent of work already completed, and potential future governance arrangements. Decision-makers should be able to identify a mix of stakeholders as part of the core process, including representatives from all relevant local government organisations and State government agencies; industry, business, education and community groups; and members of local communities including Traditional Custodians and knowledge holders.

Have different viewpoints been expressed?

A good process is one where:

• everyone has expressed their needs and viewpoints clearly
• subject matter experts have been allowed to disagree
• points of agreement are used to arrive at a solution on common ground.

Decision-makers may need to weigh up the merits of different options presented to them based on differing viewpoints. They could look for how common ground was found to reach a solution that is most aligned to strategic objectives and the community’s vision for the place. Where there is no common ground, or option selection is based solely on other criteria, such as cost and program, decision-makers may wish to ask project managers to supplement their options assessment and reporting with these matters or convene further workshops. This is particularly important in relation to major place-based outcomes that may otherwise be tangential to the core project objectives, such as a land bridge or pedestrian signal improvements.

Documenting collaboration

Decision-makers should have access to evidence that documents who was involved in the collaborative process, as well as what their views were, and what trade-offs were made. Reporting could take the form of a table as shown in Figure 6. Reporting needs to:

• identify the common ground between stakeholders
• identify any areas of difference, objections raised and decisions made
• list any criteria for re-assessment of those decisions, or areas for decision-makers to consider
• provide minutes of meetings that select the preferred scenario.

Consensus

Trade-offs