Looking at the query plans, the query optimizer is pretty much begging you to add useful indexes to the tables. Until the query plans are robust, forget about looking at locks and I/O.
To make solid suggestions for indexes, you pretty much need to give us a picture of the schema, all the queries, and all existing indexes on the tables. I would not take the missing index suggestions exactly as they are presented. They undoubtedly will help, but they may not be the best thing to do (the suggestions aren't usually... intelligent... for lack of a better word).
The parallelism operators mean that the query used multiple CPUs to process the query in parallel. This is only desirable when you absolutely need SQL Server to do a bunch of work -- in this case, the problem is that you're asking SQL Server to do too much work and it's doing the best it can to satisfy the query in the shortest possible time.
With a small number of rows being returned from each query with what appears to be highly selective predicates, I would expect these queries to fly with useful indexes applied (and no parallelism would be needed).
Just in the visible area, it looks like queries 9 and 10 are virtually the same for ~35% total cost apiece; relatively speaking, the table scan of Transactions should go to pretty much zero. Depending on what you're doing, you may be able to combine those two queries into one.
If that's not enough speed, there are other techniques involving precomputed aggregates, but if you're kinda-sorta-almost okay with 500ms, then you won't need to go this far with just a robust set of base query plans. If all the queries are highly selective, indexes alone should easily get you into the < 5 ms range.
Finally, consider adding useful indexes to your temp tables. A nested loops join with a table scan on the bottom input can be quite expensive depending on the data involved.
Best Answer
Today my colleague found "secret" article about Moodle configuration. Turns out we needed to set "Is Read Committed Snapshot On" to True. It solved the problem.