- Host: Alexandra Almond (LinkedIn)
- Session: 1
- Location: Supper Room
- Attendees: 40
Example of giving people what they want - park & ride
Land-value important key consideration in determining level of parking
- "mega carpark", may be appropriate for low-value sites
- opportunity cost - land value
Introduce user pays - help people realise the costs.
Wider challenges in public transport decision-making
Content majority - don't have a voice. Those in the minority - have a loud voice. E.g Frankston line improvements.
Investing in car orientated infrastructure reinforces car orientated travel behaviour
Sky rail - what right do transport professionals have to make decisions?
- Not having a transport plan that clearly articulates transport priorities
- Educated minority decision-makers carries more weight than uninformed majority?
- Strong and vocal opposition.
- Net positive to society - betterment value capture, houses next to railway - receive compensation.
Communicating transport debates with the public
- Need visionary policy
- Very hard to consult on alternative if community can't imagine the full range of options (e.g bus service or car parking).
- No clear vision and opportunity for people to participate in decision-making.
- Important role for public servants to inform debate on future public transport infrastructure
- need to clearly explain issues
- public are not forced to consider trade-offs in decision-making
- Contradictory public outcomes often sought: walkable city but also wanting parking etc
- Communicating what's been successful overseas
- 20 year vision: politicians don't want to take on / be accountable for decisions 20 years into the future.
- Transport projects used as a political football. Politicians make decisions based on perception of popular vote or opposite of
- Role of social media - easy to complain, unlikely to voice support