Session 1: Small Transport Wins in Regional Victoria: Support Properity

Session: 1

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: Small Transport Wins in Regional Victoria: Support Properity

Format: Presentation and Group Discussion

Presenter Name: Benish (DoT)

Summary

• When transport is funded, the geographic disadvantage is not considered.

• Elderly populations are recognised, but not appropriately. Overall, we need bus services to capture these gaps in regional areas.

• Emphasis on systemic interventions, and single projects are not viable.

• Regional connections are often from direct A-B links to the CBD. This does not reflect the complexity of individuals’ transport needs. Consider medical services, do they need to travel to the CBD for these services? How can this be localised?

• Regional buses: Often only run in the morning and afternoon, but there is a gap in the middle of the day. The absence of a holistic timeframe means the service only services a small group of the community. Buses during just 'school-time' peak hours limit the capability of the service.

• Hyper Local, Flexible, Frequent, Integrated Towns and Cities are arranged as a 20-minute neighbourhood, but the infrastructure does not support these short, quick, and active trips.

• Consider old regional towns, these were established before cars and therefore inherently were pedestrian spaces. We can revisit this approach. We can look to the future, but sometimes we can look to the past.

• Responsive transport / On Demand: This is a new innovation. Barriers to access can affect the elderly. A case study (unnamed) moved away from fixed services, and the ridership decreased by 80%. Good in theory but needs to be carefully implemented. If additional care is focused on people with special needs.

• Challenges: The regional centres have services, but what about people who live in more rural areas. How can transport serve people who live "in the sticks"?

Session 1: Money Revenue Generation

Session: 1

Room: Portico Room

Session Title: Money Revenue Generation

Format: Discussion

Presenter Name: Simon and James (Stantec)

Summary

• The focus of the discussion is how to increase revenue from transport facilities. Public transport will be assisting movement for people and be free to use.

• Public transport expenses are significant for operation and maintenance.

• The primary opportunity lies in congestion pricing, proper pricing for parking, and fare payment encouragement.

• The City of Melbourne receives a significant proportion from on-street parking, and shared car facilities. Encourage Public transport use has been provided by reducing discounts on particular days of the week, and discounts for a group of people.

• Maximising asset utilisation.

Session 2: Micro Mobility Design Challenge

Session: 2

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: Micro Mobility Design Challenge

Format: Creative Workshop

Presenter Name: Oscar Hayes (City of Melbourne) and Liz Irvin (Stantec)

Summary

• There is potential for Melbourne to be scooter friendly. Micro mobility design guide is the focus of the project. Infrastructure design issues were discussed.

• Parking is the most important issue for e-bikes.

• Can dedicated bike lanes be shared with e-scooters?

• To increase safety: consider speed limits and road rules regulation.

• Queensland has speed regulations for footpaths and bike lanes.

• Three themes were discussed by groups:

  • #Parking: Considered the parking at the train stations, and bus stops. What does the space look like and is charging provided? How secure will these spaces be and who owns them?

  • #Going area: Shared space with no to low car, using road spaces filtering.

  • #Arriving: Engineering design.

Session 3: Has Covid Killed Public Transport?

Session: 3

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: Has Covid Killed Public Transport?

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Phillip Mallis (City of Yarra)

Summary

• Covid has a significant decrease in PTV patronage. This is ongoing post-covid. Surprisingly, bus ridership has performed better. Consider the buses that service hospitals, and places of employment that cannot be completed by working from home.

• Infrastructure Victoria outlined that CBD employment has decreased. WFH has increased working in suburban areas.

• Trip purpose: Important to consider, however, the shortfall of the census is that it captures travel to work. The VISTA data set is more robust, and this is taken every 2 years.

• During COVID, car transport increased for work, recreation, and services.

• Cycling: The bike counters have shown LOWER bike use in 2022. In the lockdown, cycling ridership managed to remain consistent, which is impressive considering fewer people were commuting to work. With the overall drop in cycling volume from 2018-2022, we are returning to 2010 levels.

• Challenges: There are blind spots in the data collection. Trip purpose is limited. The data is not consistent, symmetry is essential. The frequency needs to also be increased. The data also needs to be accessible, in a spreadsheet form, why is data presented in a pdf in 2022?

• Data Gaps: We do not collate PTV crowding, vehicle crowding, tram patronage by line, or PTV journey purposes.

• Classpass format: We need better options to purchase Myki use. A deal when you receive ten passes and it is cheaper. The people who least afford it cannot. New York has a weekly cap, this would incentivise. Weekly deals could really help shift from car dependency. Instead of annual deals, look for weekly. Off-peak transport is a great deal, but people did not really know about it, it needs to be communicated best.

• The lack of tolerance for incomplete data has impacted the release of patronage data. Tense conversation! What happens when places do not have the resources to navigate the criticisms? We need a better picture of patronage and there are many behind the scene challenges that affect how data is circulated and presented.

• Privacy concerns towards Governments collecting qualitative data.

• How can we capitalise on the post-covid interest in getting back in the community. Should we encourage people to WFH or come into the office? Who gets to make these decisions?

• The message needs to be spread, if we say nothing driving will continue to increase at default.

• Congestion charging: Will this work, or will people continue to drive and accept the costs? Generally, individuals are resilient to change, therefore intense advocacy and education are essential.

Session 3: Zero Traffic Growth with Increasing Population

Session: 3

Room: Portico Room

Session Title: Zero Traffic Growth with Increasing Population

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Lisa (DoT)

Summary

• The community complains about inadequate parking, yet people are aware of the traffic congestion.

• Consider a defined restriction for parking per household.

• Policy needs to be specific.

• Considered the opportunity of car sharing.

• How can we support younger generations and public transport use?

• We need to allow for time to see the behavioural change as infrastructure and restrictions will not radically change the car-dependent scenario.

• Restricting owning a car until a certain age could also be a way to ownership control.

Session 4: The Inside 'Scooter' - Melbourne E-scooter Trial

Session: 4

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: The Inside 'Scooter' - Melbourne E-scooter Trial

Format: Discussion

Presenter Name: Samaj and Ronard (Neuron)

Summary

• Data Overview: Feb to June 2022 Average transport distance 2.16km. Average trip durations 15.5 mins, Average trip per day 7408 trips. Total trips 1194300 trips. Total distance 2580066 km.

• Contribute to supporting Melbourne's major events; 41% of users said that the environmentally friendly nature of e-scooters was a factor.

• The shared bike lane network has also a low rate of accidents.

• 65% of scooter users indicated they made a purchase at the start or end of their trip.

• Daily public complaints decreased quickly after the launch.

• Concerns: Parking, footpath use, user noncompliance, reporting systems.

• Will private e-scooter users become public e-scooter users if the regulations are tightended?

Session 4: How can we reduce parking with car sharing?

Session: 4

Room: Portico Room

Session Title: How can we reduce parking with car sharing?

Format: Discussion

Presenter Name: Darcy (GoGet)

Summary

• Carshare facilitates placemaking and intermodal transport.

• Consider Peel Street where curbside parking slots were replaced by bike lanes.

• Users drive 50% less than before they joined the service. Increase access, and reduce costs/VKT. Car-sharing to tackle last-mile issues.

• 4 Key Benefits of onsite carshare -> reduce project costs (1 parking space $50k-$100k), improve project delivery timelines, reduce environmental impact and provide amenities to the local community.

• Requirements for onsite carshare -> a parking bay, mobile signal for the carshare vehicle, 24/7 controlled access. In front of/behind the security barrier. They provide different types of vehicles to meet different demands, such as vans to allow people to move houses.

Session 5: How do real people travel around the city loop?

Session: 5

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: How do real people travel around the city loop?

Format: Workshop

Presenter Name: Chris Loader (DoT)

Summary

• Based on people's lives experience, they choose the best answer to each transfer scenario.

• A workshop to understand how people recognise the station as a node and identify the gap between recommended transfer routes on Google maps or PTV and actual human preferences.

• People tend to prioritise how they feel when they are at the station rather than to what extent the station is convenient to transfer. But generally, frequency of getting the line is the most important thing.

• What if you cannot travel directly to your destination station? Would you transfer? Where? Why?

Session 5: Cultural Landscape

Session: 5

Room: Portico Room

Session Title: Cultural Landscape

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Heather (Geelong City Council)

Summary

• Aboriginal people have settled in Moorabool and Barwon Rivers, but those lands were not preserved based on their cultural landscape.

• Evidence of heritage is limited to tangible things, however, consider the intangible method of First Nations Storytelling. First Nations' cultural heritage and identity are often framed through the western planning system and the inclusion as stakeholders.

• Strong People Strong Country Policy- developed and led by First Nations People. Introduces a re-framing where inclusion is explored through how the identity of the Traditional owners is dependent on the health of the Country and their environment.

• This is a shift away from policies that looked at inclusion from a stakeholder perspective, that in a way forced First Nations people to engage with the western/colonial planning system. How can policies support First Nations individuals that do not live in their Country, this is particularly common as a consequence of the Stolen Generation.

Session 6: Shark Tank Pitch for Innovation

Session: 6

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: Shark Tank

Format: Discussion and Q&A

Presenter Name: Multiple

(Photograph by Phillip Mallis, 2022).

Summary

• First: Peter Parker The Future Frequent Network The Future Frequent Network (Interactive map: www.melbourneontransit.blogstop.com). Transformed Transit for Melbourne Every 10 minutes every day. Long-term network vision.

• Second: Demand Responsive Transit Three: Free Public Transportation Funded by Paid Parking.

Session 6: Reducing Carbon Emissions

Session: 6

Room: Portico Room

Session Title: Reducing Carbon Emissions

Format: Discussion

Presenter Name: William McDougall

Summary

• North East Link, emissions saved only account for 3% of total emissions over 30 years of running the road.

• Coal exports are not being taken into account in our 'net zero' goals.

• Transport solutions: Currently planning for a sharp decline in emissions rather than linear descent. Where is the electricity coming from for electric transport?

• There is a lack of implementation ideas and no actual plan for emissions reduction.

• The AGL early closing of coal plants was an early win.

• Consider, Carbon pricing, and greater transparency in scope in emissions and materials (how they travel, where they come from). Onsets vs offsets. Incremental timelines rather than just 30 years.

• We need to encourage people and behaviour change and actively work towards emissions reduction. E.g. taxes and disincentives for driving SUVs in Norway or France.

• Educate about where super is investing in. Tangible and teaching people how they are affecting emissions. Small personal education campaigns. Who do you bank with etc.

• Private enterprise is likely to drive innovation more than government.

• Repurposing of EV batteries once reached the end of their ability to power vehicles.

• Priority should be making public transport the first choice.

• No money in behavioural change and a decrease in consumption is needed, that is where government needs to step in.