The Agenda!

View fullsize

Land Use and Transport Modelling

Session 1

Room: Regent

Session Title: Land Use and Transport Modelling

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Daniel Paez, Managing Director, Ineca

Presenter best contact email: dpaez@ineca.co 

Notetaker: Ben Thorp

Summary:

Daniel’s lecture walked us through the need for integrated transport and land use modelling -  vital when land-value capture is proposed. Land transport modelling is complex. There are three main methods: transport-led with integrated land-use modelling, land-use-led with integrated transport modelling and holistic modelling. Daniel notes that holistic modelling is extremely complex and that it is better to adapt one of the former two depending on the nature of the strategy ie. land-use modelling helps well in situations where the aim is to understand uplift from catalytic transport infrastructure.  An example of these models was given using cellular automata and agents whose behaviour changes based on relationships with neighbours ie industrial will be close to freight opportunities and residential and commercial will want to cohabitate. Daniel’s presentation alerts us to the need for more modelling as it is currently underused in Australia and has high potential. This is particularly critical as it enables us to create better policy around public private partnerships in funding infrastructure through value capture from developments.

Last mile connection

Session 1

Room: Melbourne

Session Title : Last mile connection

Format: Discussion

Presenter Name: Elena Spanos

Presenter best contact email: espanos@casey.vic.gov.au

Summary:

The session explored the challenges of trying to implement sustainable alternatives to last mile connections. Attendees discussed alternative modes to cars, including buses, walking and cycling, along with the likelihood of residents living in proximity to train stations using those modes. Solutions included building more bicycle parkiteers and installing CCTV to ensure cyclists are comfortable with riding and parking to stations. Walking has been viewed as a “difficult” mode to use, especially in some neighbourhoods where walking is “doable” but considered unsafe by many, especially at night. All these are important considerations, especially given the challenges being faced by urban planners with regards to providing ample parking, land which could be better used serving active travelers and public transport users.

What impact does paid car parking have on travel mode choice?

Session 1

Room: Supper Room

Session Title: What impact does paid car parking have on travel mode choice?

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Chris Loader, ChartingTransport.com

Presenter best contact email: chris@cloader.net

Notetaker: Hesara Weliwitiya

Notes:

• Vista data to identify parking areas

• Paid parking in Melbourne, airport while it is limited suburbs

• Work, tertiary, secondary school trip purposes have lower private mode share

• Free parking areas have high private mode share

• Parkopedia is a good source of data to gauge where/cost of paid parking

How gender blind are you?

Session 1

Room: Portico

Format: Presentation

Session Title: How gender blind are you?

Presenter Name: Ilya Fridman

Presenter best contact email:

Notes:

• 47% of the women avoid going back to spaces where they have had a negative experience

• 12% never went back to the same place again after the negative experience

• 1% of the women stopped going to work/school after a negative experience

• CCTV camera’s do not make women feel safe and they do not prevent harassment and busy places are not safe. 

• Women barely use emergency buttons at public transport stations because it draws extra attention to an uncomfortable situation

• Women prefer to talk about or report sexual harassment with other women

Tram is King/Bus is King

Session 1

Room: Yarra

Session title: Tram is King/Bus is King

Format: Presentation

Presenter: Scott Przibella, Department of Transport

Contact: scott.przibella@ecodev.vic.gov.au  

Note taker: Vincent Ng

Summary:

Scott Przibella presented a case study from Toronto's King Street Transit Pilot, using it as a basis to explore what are the preconditions for a successful tram priority pilot that could be applied to Melbourne. Toronto faces many challenges similar to Melbourne. In recent years there have been over 130K people who have moved into the downtown precinct. The City has explored a 12 month pilot project to introduce a new tram route into the CBD. Pathways analysis provided different ways to test and redefine road and public space. These included curb extensions, ramps from curbs, buffer zones, planting 250 trees, adding concrete colourfully painted jersey dividers (which later became an iconic image of the project). 

Previously the area had an average of 6km/h, 20% overcrowding on route 504 tram and despite operational improvements the system had reached its capacity of 65,000 pax / day and 20,000 vehicles / day. Following the trial, there were significant improvements in traffic saving 5mins off the CBD commute and 180 car parks were removed. Pedestrian activity was stable and cycling increased by 150-200%. The project has been seen as a considerable success and the discussion focused on what areas could a pilot be explored in Melbourne? Issues that would have be countered with rational evidence would be identifying unreliable public transport bottlenecks (Sydney Road, Collins Street, Chapel Street) and addressing local community concerns such as likely opposition from local traders. A successful program that creates a co-pathway for community to engage in the incremental change.

Do you know your stations?

Session 2

Room: Melbourne

Session Title: Do you know your stations?

Format: Pop Quiz

Presenter Name: Harry Barber, Phillip Boyle Associates

Presenter best contact email: 

Notetaker: Rahman Shafi

Summary:

This was a pop-quiz, trivia-style sessions, asking participants a range of questions on train stations, with an emphasis on non CBD-based stations. Questions ranged from busiest (by patronage, stations with highest car-based trips, education, work and business-based trips. There were separate rankings for station access by patronage number and proportion. The data source is from PTV (data from 2014). Interesting findings include Jolimont Station having the lowest car access, Westona station station having the highest bike share access, and Macaulay Station having a 100% mode share for station access. Laverton was found to have have the most car-based station access trips, with over 3,500 trips daily.

10 ways to run empty buses

Session 2

Room: Yarra

Session Title: 10 ways to run empty buses 

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Peter Parker, Melbourne on Transit Blog

Presenter best contact email: parkerp@internode.on.net 

Notetaker: Lachlan Burke

Summary:

Peter Parker from Melbourne on Transit explored the reasons why 150 out of nearly 400 government designed bus routes in Melbourne are severely underused, despite spending the majority of funding on the network. Particularly in the north areas such City of Manningham and Knox. His 10 types of routes which run empty consistently are:

1) Routes that are indirect such as 787

2) Routes that are confusing - separate routes such as 566

3) Routes with dead ends/weak termini such as 518 - only useful for a variety of trips, should connect to other stations to assist people with transfers

4) Routes that do different things at different times 558 like the City Loop - people can’t remember which way it goes

5) Routes that overlap others such as in Manningham, huge loop routes such as 280&282 (Manningham Mover) overlapped by 309&901 - bus routes compete for patronage - overall boardings per hour per service km is low

6) Routes with poor operating hours/days such as 757&758 from Knox City - too late for school or work in the morning

7) Routes that are infrequent such as 745A, B, C ,D - one bus a day - Knox, Scoresby Road and almost the total coverage of Bayswater

8) Routes that don’t connect with trains - such as 580 (Eltham to Diamond) where the timetables aren’t harmonised making transfer possibilities within 40 minutes lucky coincidences

9) Routes that don’t run public holidays such as 681&682 in Rowville, City of Knox - operate 7 days, but not public holidays

10) Routes that are overserviced for their catchments such as routes 578 & 579 through Research and Warandyte where the catchment population is sparse and there are 15 boardings an hour - could be reused to alleviate crowding in areas such as Box Hill to Doncaster in increasing service levels of routes such as 800

Bike Share

Session 2

Room: Supper 

Format: Presentations and Panel Discussion

Session Title: Bike Share 

Presenter Name: Jacqui / Adrian Webb/ Elizabeth Kim, Transport for Victoria 

Presenter best contact email:

Notes:

• Uber has approached Melbourne to start a bike share scheme.

• DOT – Looking at future of bike share since 2- 3 years. (Regulatoy)ry – encourage or discourage private entrance, funding arrangements (value for money)

• Elzabeth Kim – It was a great scheme to begin with. The way contract ran from year to year –

• Bike share scheme was not right sized for Melbourne.

• Price competitive but difficult to sign up to it .

• Easier sign up was needed.

• Introduced the app since last year – 50% of rides came from there- growth in ridership by 20%.

• RACV – Had several organization problems in delivering bike share

• Foot print of the project – too few docks

• Planning and getting support for such networks is very important

• Real estate is a problem – problems with cafes/foot path space.

• Lot of pushback from communities

Important aspects:

• Density – Melbourne’s system was too far apart

• Location

• Tourists-

• Infrastructure

• Safety – working on intersections

• Works well with grid systems

• Info system – how any bikes are there around?

All the above have to work together.

London – Business-people and tourist.

Bike share was not makings sense in Melbourne because it was duplicating public transport. However, it is about looking at where in the CBD and carefully considering the origins and destinations. Fastest mode in some cases.

What is the purpose of bike share? Halo effect?

Adrian – Does not see share bikes as a big part of the mobility.

There are several market segments.

Private sector is better at identifying opportunities.

End of bike share is a good thing.

Bike share as a way to provide connectivity across radial areas.

Value question – Bike share is an expenditure, but all other forms of public transport are also not profit making.

Darebin parking strategy understanding

Session 2

Room: Portico

Session Title: Darebin parking strategy understanding

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Elliot Fishman, Sensible Transport & Phillip Mallis, Transport Planner, City of Darebin

Presenter best contact email: info@sensibletransport.org.au

Notes:

• Rational people become very emotional when it comes to car parking, also in progressive councils such as Darebin

• People are ‘entitled’ to their on-street car parking. They think it belongs to them

• Residents of Darebin raised safety issues related to the removal of car parking spaces at train stations

• People mentioned they want to decide themselves what to do with their garage and driveway, instead of the Council deciding for them they have to use it for car parking 

• Social media is a huge challenge for councils. False facts spread rapidly and conversations can easily get violent. 

• Elliot concludes with a Dutch saying: “The pain is in the change”. After a design has been implemented, many people will soon not remember the old situation.

Autonomous Vehicles: the questions we are not asking and should be

Session 2

Room: Regent

Session Title: Autonomous Vehicles: the questions we are not asking and should be 

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Vincent Ng, Movement & Place Consulting

Presenter best contact email: Vincent.ng1@unimelb.edu.au 

Notetaker: Vincent Ng

Summary: 

Today, many transport futurists would argue that we are at the cusp of a transport revolution that offers the greatest step change since mass adoption of the automobile some 70 years prior. The major benefits of AVs include safety, consumer convenience & comfort, and environmental benefits, yet these also come with significant risks. For policy makers, the need to ensure equitable access, limiting urban sprawl, integrating with existing public transport, monitoring the over commodification of transport, preparing for job displacement & environmental externalities, and finally ensuring privacy & network security present the biggest risks. 

The advent of AVs will likely be realised as a global phenomenon sooner than many people predict. Globalisation is a powerful enabler. It encourages the most audacious engineers who are tackling the complexity of AV technology to share developments and planners across global city governance networks not only to interrogate the implications for public policy but also share best practices in early trials. Given the emerging trends in the future of mobility, it behooves policy makers and planners to stay one step ahead of not only the rapid pace of development, but also to be an integral part of bridging difficult conversations across both private and public, local and global stakeholders.

Doncaster Busway: Making it a Gold Standard BRT

Session 3

Room: Yarra

Session Title: Doncaster Busway: Making it a Gold Standard BRT

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Andrew Herington, Victorian Transport Action Group

Presenter best contact email: heringa@bigpond.net.au 

Notetaker: Lachlan Burke

Notes/Summary:

Andrew from the Victorian Transport Action Group talked us through his analysis of what would be needed to lift the Doncaster Busway from its current ‘bronze status’ to a ‘gold status’ or BRT corridor. Melbourne has  He notes that buses are particularly flexible in serving catchments and present a number of unique opportunities for servicing a population such as more catchment area.
In this analysis he identifies the key issues of the route: 

• Lack of intermediate bus stops, there needs to be a closing of the current gaps to be an average of 2.5km per stops

• Lack of fully segregated lanes particularly to bypass traffic lights into Hoddle Street

• Proposed at-grade intersection at Bulleen which hinders potential to create a fully functional bus station

• Getting from Victoria Park to the city which requires a bus tunnel due to the key blockage at Victoria Pde hindering right hand turns. Achieving this enables connections to the Melbourne Metro 2 station at Fitzroy and could service Fitzroy, Melbourne Uni and new Parkville Station

Japanese parking policy lessons/inspiration

Session 3

Room Supper 

Format: Presentation

Session Title: Japanese parking policy lessons/inspiration

Presenter Name: Rebecca Clements, University of Melbourne PhD candidate

Presenter best contact email:

Notes:

• In Japan, it's rare to have on-street car parking (mainly for temporary parking)

• Policy leadership to manage car parking

• Data for parking is highly accessible (more or less difficult in Australia)

• More or less community car parking in small lots

• Off street parking gels well with the urban fabric (not excessive and large land footprints)

• Local road are mainly shared space for human travel

Big data and the bicycle network

Session 3

Room: Portico

Session Title: Big data and the bicycle network

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Elliot Fishman, Sensible Transport 

Presenter best contact email: info@sensibletransport.org.au

Summary: 

• Sensible Transport used Strava data to map cycle behaviour in Sydney and Melbourne

• The implementation of bicycle paths can be very expensive: 11 million dollars for a kilometer 

• After a commute distance of 4.5km, the number of people cycling drops quickly 

• Melburnian suburbs such as Richmond and South Yarra have many internal short trips

• There is a need for more data and also info about currently existing cycling infrastructure

Electric Scooters Workshop

Session 3

Room: Melbourne

Session title: Electric Scooters Workshop

Format: Workshop/Discussion

Presenter name: Karen Roache, City of Port Phillip

Contact: karen.roache@portphillip.vic.gov.au  

Note taker: Vincent Ng

Summary:

This session explored the two key questions: What will make an e-scooter trial a success and what can we learn from other shared mobility initiatives? 

The first half of the station discussed what “success” looks like. Participants had a range of definitions on how they would define success of a car. The most popular response by general consensus was the need to re-claim roads from cars, and transition into more sustainable alternatives. The issue of changing perceptions and introducing a relatively new mode to the public was discussed, along with other similar implementations in the past (Uber, O-Bike, etc). The later half of the discussion examined the issues around health and safety. Are e-scooters a form of active transport? What are they replacing? 32% of the journeys are last mile car trips, but what else? Are there lessons to be learned from docking models that ensure maintenance and minimise discarded vehicles? One of the points raised was that scooter companies are incentivised to keep regular daily use of the vehicles and they already redistributing and picking them on on a daily basis. They are much easier to load and consolidate than bikes and the companies that are aligning with new regulations are also putting many more staff on the ground to service compared to Mobike's 1/2000 bikes model. Pricing models, however, are very different from bike share and are typically $4-5/ trip for last mile. At the same time there are opportunities to incentives and reward good behaviour such as station to station trips. One final takeaway is that Victoria needs a regional strategic and legislative approach though and can learn from NSW, Western Australia, and South Australia as mobility on a wider scale has more implications for jurisdiction than local council mandate.

Transport Lingo Bingo/NUMTOT Bingo

Room: Regent

Session Title: Transport Lingo Bingo/NUMTOT Bingo

Format: Bingo

Presenter Name: Rebecka Gunnarssom, GTA Consultatns

Presenter best contact email:

Summary:

The reason the session came about was recognising the communication issues that can arise from working in multidisciplinary teams, using different terms, abbreviations etc. The Transport Lingo Bingo went through some of those terms deriving from landscape architecture, transport planning, engineering etc.

Road User Pricing

Session 4

Room: Yarra Room

Session Title: Road User Pricing

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Elliot Fishman, Sensible Transport

Presenter best contact email: info@sensibletransport.org.au

Notetaker: Ben Thorp

Summary:

Changing the we pay for transport.  People who drive more pay more, drive less pay less.  Winners and losers but everyone wins from less congestion.  Impact of AVs will likely be more congestion. Electric cars, no more fuel excise.  It will be inevitable that charges will be introduced. Differential for types of streets.  Pay more where it is more congested. Discussion highlighted the difficulty of the politics of a new tax.

Okcupid for train stations

Session 4

Room: Regent 

Session Title: Okcupid for train stations

Format: Presentation and Discussion

Presenter Name: Saskia Noakes, GTA

Presenter best contact email: saskia.noakes@gta.com.au

Notetaker: Justin

Summary:

Saskia explores train station personalities. Through matching the personality of the community and the train station, it will improve in how the train station can support a diverse group of people. However, there is limitation in current research as it is easy for the personalities matching to become stereotype. Recommendation is made by using “mindset” to replace “personalities” for framing the research.

Barriers to Interchanging: Should we end the single seat journey?

Session 4

Room: Melbourne

Session title: Barriers to Interchanging: Should we end the single seat journey? 

Format: Presentation

Presenter: Lucas Wells

Presenter best contact email: 

Notetaker: Vincent Ng

Summary:

This session explored one of the major challenges in transport node planning - barriers to interchanging. What are the issues people have with interchanging? For most people the main concerns are around: 1. Reliability - i.e. certainty of when your connection will come 2. Frequency on connecting services 3. Stop design, lighting, shelter, and safety issues. While there have been significant advances such as technology for mapping public transport (buses & trains) in real time, there is still a ways to go in terms of cities improving the experience to encourage better transport interchanging.

Normalising cycling (for females)

Session 4

Room: Supper room

Session Title: Normalising cycling (for females) 

Format: Presentation

Presenter Name: Steph Austin

Presenter best contact email:

Notes:

• In Australia females ride significantly less than males 

• Women have safety concerns, fear of judgement and lack of confidence. 

• Females view getting around a city differently to males, have different needs

• “You can’t be what you can’t see”, so should there be any marketing/ social media campaign/ website specifically focusing on women? 

• Comment from the audience: many males are also less confident cyclists, so is it a common issue and not only a gender issue?