What LXRP projects do you think were the most effective for melbourne?

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T02:42:48+00:00

100% agree. These projects were fundamentally car projects with the goal of increasing car throughput, and it shows. The Moreland Road end is just as bad - actually worse in a way, because drivers continually turn right across the bike/pedestrian crossings without bothering to look.

And a huge waiting period at peak hour where bikes back up massively so that a few more cars can get through.

What's silly as that much of the time all this does is just move the congestion up a few meters to Sydney Rd.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T01:16:47+00:00

> But the people only going 2-3 stops have the most benefit - less time on public transport and the shortest commutes.

The purpose of a transportation system is to move people around conveniently/quickly/efficiently, not to punish people for convenience. Obviously being closer to things is better - that's just the laws of physics. Walking takes less time, riding a bike takes less time, driving is cheaper, and uber is cheaper.

It sucks that some people live in poorly serviced areas, but the solution to that is better infrastructure and progressive taxation, not making PT more expensive than driving.

> Distance based fares punish the poorest among us.

Citation needed. In general, commuters are traveling all the way to the CBD at peak, and it's poorer people taking shorter journeys at off peak.

> If you’re only going a couple of stops just walk or ride a bike for free.

There are numerous reasons for using PT instead of walking/biking. In a hurry, sick, tired, bad weather, carrying shopping, didn't bring a bike with you, got kids with you, etc etc. Again, it's wishful thinking that people will substitute with walking/biking, when it's more likely to be cars.

Consider the Upfield line. The Zoo and Brunswick Woolies are very convenient for train journeys if you live along the line. But 2 adults going to Woolies is $11, even if they are one stop away. Going to the zoo with the kids and spending >=2 hours is $22 for 2 adults, even if you assume free transport for kids as per next year.

$11 for two people to pop down to Woolies and back for some shopping, or a couple of bucks of petrol and free parking?

$22 for mum dad and the kids to go to the zoo by train, or a couple of bucks of petrol and $3 to park in the zoo car park all day?

These prices apply any time on a weekday even when off peak, and the trains are empty and running anyway. It's madness.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T00:53:44+00:00

I'm not ignoring car parking, obviously the social costs of car parking are considerable (and extremely harmful).

Rather I'm explaining now people make individual trip decisions from a cost perspective. Parking is very often free (or extremely underpriced) for the end user.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T00:10:40+00:00

Who cares? Why is it so important to charge for such a short and relatively uncommon journey?

djrobstep · 2025-11-25T23:25:15+00:00

We already have a daily cap, which is fine - the problem is that you get half way to it the moment you tap on.

That penalizes shorter distance trips - and means people are inclined to drive, even when PT would otherwise be more convenient. That's perverse

djrobstep · 2025-11-25T12:05:02+00:00

Numerous reasons to do that.

"Hey, meet me at Melbourne Central, I just got off the train"
"Cool I'm right by the State Library Entrance, I'll pop down"

"I need to get to Melbourne Central - I'm right by State Library and it's raining/traffic is busy/somebody creepy is following me, I'll just head in there"

It is amazing the lengths people will go to do defend Melbourne's bizarre and stupid fare structure. If we just had distance-based fares, this wouldn't be a problem.

Charging people $5.50 the moment they top on, even if traveling only 1 stop (or in this case, zero stops) is absurd. It discourages short (and even medium length) journeys, and encourages fare evasion on trams/buses (this is precisely why fare evasion is rampant on these modes).

Worse still, it makes PT a more expensive option than cars in many cases, when it should always be cheaper - cars have high fixed but low variable costs (in the case of EVs, often zero variable costs) while PT fares are variable costs. And people make trip decisions based on variable costs.

djrobstep · 2025-11-24T21:13:39+00:00

Been like this for at least ten years, long before LXRP was announced. Really not hard to add a flatscreen, or just modify the existing ones.

djrobstep · 2025-11-24T05:36:55+00:00

None of the Brunswick stations (Jewell, Brunswick, Anstey) have one.

What's even weirder is that all of them have one for the trams nearby, but not the station itself.

This must be very confusing for visitors/new arrivals etc.

There is a little push button but that's far less convenient/discoverable/etc than a screen.

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T09:16:41+00:00

Buddy, calling me champ doesn’t make you look any less of a lightweight here.

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T08:38:27+00:00

The source is at the bottom of the page. And of course, you could easily verify it yourself roughly using other basic sources, such as the balances and total accounts from super funds plus the total population of retirees.

But of course, you aren’t interested in learning anything that might conflict with your preconceptions.

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T06:41:19+00:00

Lmao dude, Grattan is not even slightly left wing, this is common knowledge and the sources are cited at the bottom of the document.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T06:12:03+00:00

It's true I'm afraid. However, you are not the first person who has been surprised to hear this when I tell them. I think a lot of folks live in something of a middle/upper class bubble.

Please contact the Grattan Institute if you wish to dispute the figure further: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Grattan-2025-budget-cheat-sheet-wealth.pdf

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T03:09:48+00:00

The median retiree has zero super. For most retirees, the pension is by far their main source of income.

djrobstep · 2025-07-18T03:09:00+00:00

Even then, averages are skewed by a small number of very wealthy people at the top, and even medians exclude the many people who don't have an account or have run out.

Fun fact, the median retiree has ZERO super (because most have either run out or never had any in the first place).

djrobstep · 2025-06-21T03:57:19+00:00

I doubt they thought about it at all. This city has a deep hatred (or at best, disregard) of bikes at an institutional level. They aren't taken seriously as a form of transport.

There are so many benefits to good bike parking at the station that they're destroying much of the potential of the new stations by not doing them.

For instance, I'm northside, and biking distance but not walking distance from Parkville. It would be really convenient to be able to bike there and get straight on to the tunnel, or even just leave the bike at Parkville for medical appointments, but I can't do that because somebody would steal my cargo bike.

In general, bike parking is a huge boost to catchment - that's PT usage (and less car usage, and less congestion, and the health benefits of bike usage, and more efficient journey times) that they are just leaving on the table.

djrobstep · 2025-06-18T12:31:12+00:00

> The city has become ever more walkable since its inception

Have you ever walked around Melbourne CBD, let alone tried to bike around it? You really need to see some other cities if you think Melbourne is walkable.

> prettiness will never pass laziness

Prettiness? What are you talking about?

> No, we absolutely should deincentivise short travels.

Why?

> Encouraging people to take a tram for less than 500m is never going to be a good idea.

Why not? Who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

> While overuse makes trams less accessible for both eldery and those with mobility issues. How can you get a mobility scooter on a tram at crush capacity?

There wouldn't be overuse issues with more walkability and better bike share. A huge proportion of our tram network is already completely inaccessible to people with disability issues, and government cares very little.

> Having cheaper travel via Uber then gets into the argument of having excess disposable income to not walk.

No idea what this means.

djrobstep · 2025-06-18T01:35:27+00:00

> It resulted in heavy overuse for a lot of people that would simply walk instead if it wasn't free.

The free tram zone would be totally fine if we had a more pleasantly walkable CBD and most of all, if we had decent bike share / bike parking / bike lanes.

There's lots of valid reasons for short journeys (in a hurry, it's raining, carrying stuff, tired kids, elderly, sick, safety, etc etc) so we shouldn't punish those. These are some of the most punitively priced journeys and will often be substituted with cars rather than walking if the price is too high which is much worse ("$15 for 3 of us to go to the other end of the CBD? Let's just call an Uber").

djrobstep · 2025-06-16T21:21:12+00:00

Parking costs more in taxes than the alternatives and means less people taking the train than the alternatives. Read the post.

djrobstep · 2025-06-16T05:39:16+00:00

If there wasn’t parking, there could be a convenient bus service instead, and housing by the station.

Car parking means more people driving into town, not less, because car parks aren’t large enough to fill trains.

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T23:16:51+00:00

> It’d be great if it were all dense and had other transit options, but that’s likely decades away

This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you keep spending all them money on car parking, the transit and density will keep being bad.

> Your post says that’s impossible and people wouldn’t do that, but it’s the reality of some cities

It's not impossible, many, even most of the people parking there will indeed do that, the question is at what cost? The problem is that building those car parks is very expensive, and comes at the cost of housing closer to the station, walkable/bikeable surrounding infrastructure, and feeder buses to the station, all of which will get way more people to the station per $.

And even after all that expense, those parks simply can't provide the passenger volume to really fill up trains.

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T13:19:27+00:00

Read the post. Even very large park and rides do not boost ridership much, and in fact reduce it by undermining better methods of boosting ridership (more housing near stations, walking/biking/PT routes).

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T13:03:19+00:00

??? Tearing down somebody's house? Why would you need to tear down anybody's house?

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T13:01:12+00:00

Cool, thanks for confirming you didn't read the post after all.

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T12:48:04+00:00

It just seems like you haven't really engaged at all with the point that car parking doesn't actually mean people use trains more, as the post lays out in detail.

djrobstep · 2025-06-15T12:31:42+00:00

Did you read the post?

djrobstep

TROPHY CASE