Case Study: Innovating and adapting Movement and Place framework to ensure a more liveable future for Melbourne

This abstract has open access
Abstract Summary
Melbourne is undergoing an unprecedented population growth which fundamentally changes movement patterns across the city. A review of traffic data and travel behaviours found that people heavily relied on private vehicles for travel. With the population expected to rise by another one million people within the next 10 years, more people will want to access to high value jobs and services. Should the transport network continue to operate in the same way, congestion will worsen, parking will become more challenging to find and the liveable city and placemaking aspirations of Melbourne will be threatened. The dominance of the private motor vehicle impacts air quality, reduces the walkability and safety of the city and requires a significant amount of valuable inner-city space to inefficiently move people and store cars. In a city that is growing and reinvigorating, planning for the dominance of the motor vehicle rather than for people is a concept that ought to be challenged. In response, we worked with Transport for Victoria to innovate and adapt “Movement and Place” (M&P) framework to develop a process that, while we are planning for and operating transport network, we consider the needs for movement and placemaking simultaneously. M&P recognises that transport link performs two functions: movement of people and goods, and serving as a place (a destination in its own right). The need to provide a balance between movement and place will challenge transport and land use planners in choosing the right interventions for the long term livability and vitality of the city. A transport network that prioritises movement of people could deliver a reduction in vehicle traffic through Melbourne, with car trips replaced by more walking, cycling and public transport travel. Our case studies show that, at strategic level, the M&P approach can be used to establish the basis for planning and implementing on-road priority for public transport routes within the road network. The methodology involves assessment of the current performance of the routes, develop performance targets based on the classification for movement and place criteria, identify gaps in performance and allow prioritisation of modes for investment decisions. At project level, the M&P approach is used to classify the existing and proposed public transport interchanges or stations in Melbourne, provide design guidance for the development of project solutions and aid community engagement. Based on our case studies, lack of data has been a key issue in developing the type of tools and assessment approaches initially aspired to. Outside of general vehicle traffic conditions, sources of consistent and reliable data are often restricted, or could be in formats and of a size that make their use and application problematic. We want to share the lessons learned which we believe will help other mega cities to consider the roles and challenges facing transport system and land use now and into the future, and if similar approach could be adapted to help unlock growth potential, deliver high density, accessibility and less car dependent development. The value of a Movement and Place approach is in its simplicity and clarity for communicating how we envisage a place functioning in the future, and as a result, which modes we prioritise. There is a temptation to ‘cater to all’ and prioritise ‘all’ modes along the same links. In the context of this work and its future application there must be an acceptance that public transport will not have priority everywhere and in certain places other modes e.g. pedestrians, may be more important. This means performance targets must take this into account.
Abstract ID :
ISO338
Submission Type
Associate
,
GTA Consultants
Associate Director
,
GTA Consultants

Similar Abstracts by Type

Abstract ID
Abstract Title
Abstract Topic
Submission Type
Primary Author
ISO532
5: Smart futures and sustainability: planning for innovation
Case Study/Research Project
Ari Krisna Mawira Tarigan
ISO618
3: Liveable places and healthy cities: planning for people
Case Study/Research Project
Kate Holmquist
ISO456
4: Knowledge economies and identity: planning for culture
Case Study/Research Project
Mr Benjamin Scheerbarth
ISO59
3: Liveable places and healthy cities: planning for people
Case Study/Research Project
Amira Badran
ISO528
3: Liveable places and healthy cities: planning for people
Case Study/Research Project
Niken Prawestiti
ISO149
5: Smart futures and sustainability: planning for innovation
Case Study/Research Project
raana saffari
ISO324
3: Liveable places and healthy cities: planning for people
Case Study/Research Project
Shirley Maraya
ISO255
6: Changing environment and risks: planning for resilience
Case Study/Research Project
Manoranjan Ghosh
ISO568
2: Beside the megacity and the role of other cities and areas: planning for balance
Case Study/Research Project
Chensi Xu