The Eastern Transport Coalition is a grouping of seven eastern suburban councils that advocates for transport improvements. Earlier this month they released a bus plan. Below is my review of it.
Our city is growing rapidly. Bus services not so much. Per-capita service is actually dropping. Timetables can still reflect 1970s shopping hours with no or little Saturday afternoon and Sunday service. And, apart from the SmartBus routes (put in about 10 years ago) there have been no increase in basic frequencies on most popular routes in Melbourne's east despite increased commercial activity and densification around areas like Box Hill and the Monash precinct.
We're in a transport planning limbo. Metro Trains and Transdev (a major bus operator in Melbourne's east) both proposed greenfields timetables in 2015. Both got vetoed by government. But instead of coming up with alternatives public transport ministers have just let things be. The department still employs transport planners and somehow they're kept busy. But with few exceptions the public sees precious little of their work in the form of revised bus networks that better suit modern needs.
Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. These contain more than its fair share of very busy routes, very quiet routes, and, critically, inefficient and duplicative routes. Apart from some piecemeal changes when the SmartBuses went in, Melbourne's east has never had the wholesale network reforms that areas like Wyndham, Brimbank, Plenty Valley, Epping North and Cranbourne (outer south-east) received. Instead any subsequent reforms involving new routes have been small-scale poor quality affairs that merely layer one infrequent new route over another. A far cry from the transformation the network needs to make buses more useful for hundreds of thousands rather than merely hundreds.
Importance of councils
Local councils, through the Eastern Transport Coalition, are stepping in where the state government has feared to tread. ETC has put together a bus network review that will likely guide future local government advocacy for better bus services in Melbourne's east.
Why is this important? Councils are a significant voice that can encourage state governments to improve buses and provide support when it happens. Such support can involve works to connect roads that enable efficient bus routes, supportive parking, traffic and pedestrian access policies and locating community facilities on frequent bus routes.
Councils also have to 'pick up the pieces' of managing congestion in a densifying community where cars outnumber children. Exhortations to use public transport are meaningless if convenient service doesn't exist. And that's squarely a matter for the state government.
When the state does decide to revise services councils do a lot of 'behind the scenes' work to ensure the best possible network gets delivered. For example they can advise of local issues and proposed developments that state planners should know but may not. It would be no good to run a new service to a facility about to be closed, for example. Councils can use local newsletters and networks to inform of public consultation sessions. That helps make engagement more representative. And they can help sell bus reform in their communities if they see substantial benefits.
Council advocacy can get transport projects implemented sooner than might otherwise be the case. Successful examples are the rail extensions to South Morang and Mernda that were promised, backtracked on but ultimately delivered ahead of other rail projects. This works best if there is also strong community backing. Community groups may even have initiated campaigns.
Other potential partners in a coalition for better buses include industry associations (such as BusVic), industry unions (eg RTBU and TWU), universities suffering parking pressures, environmentalists, social service agencies, local business, academics and more.
However, with few exceptions, whatever organisation has been done in the last five or so years has failed to win a heavily infrastructure-focused government over. There is scope to learn from successful public transport service initiatives such as the 2006 - 2010 Meeting Our Transport Challenges, 301, 401 and 601 university shuttle routes and the more recent Night Network. Papers like ETC's, stating what needs to be done, are a useful first step.
Overview
Local councils, through the Eastern Transport Coalition, are stepping in where the state government has feared to tread. ETC has put together a bus network review that will likely guide future local government advocacy for better bus services in Melbourne's east.
Why is this important? Councils are a significant voice that can encourage state governments to improve buses and provide support when it happens. Such support can involve works to connect roads that enable efficient bus routes, supportive parking, traffic and pedestrian access policies and locating community facilities on frequent bus routes.
Councils also have to 'pick up the pieces' of managing congestion in a densifying community where cars outnumber children. Exhortations to use public transport are meaningless if convenient service doesn't exist. And that's squarely a matter for the state government.
When the state does decide to revise services councils do a lot of 'behind the scenes' work to ensure the best possible network gets delivered. For example they can advise of local issues and proposed developments that state planners should know but may not. It would be no good to run a new service to a facility about to be closed, for example. Councils can use local newsletters and networks to inform of public consultation sessions. That helps make engagement more representative. And they can help sell bus reform in their communities if they see substantial benefits.
Council advocacy can get transport projects implemented sooner than might otherwise be the case. Successful examples are the rail extensions to South Morang and Mernda that were promised, backtracked on but ultimately delivered ahead of other rail projects. This works best if there is also strong community backing. Community groups may even have initiated campaigns.
Other potential partners in a coalition for better buses include industry associations (such as BusVic), industry unions (eg RTBU and TWU), universities suffering parking pressures, environmentalists, social service agencies, local business, academics and more.
However, with few exceptions, whatever organisation has been done in the last five or so years has failed to win a heavily infrastructure-focused government over. There is scope to learn from successful public transport service initiatives such as the 2006 - 2010 Meeting Our Transport Challenges, 301, 401 and 601 university shuttle routes and the more recent Night Network. Papers like ETC's, stating what needs to be done, are a useful first step.
Overview
The review paper has 29 pages. You can (and should) read it here.
The first half sets the scene, says why bus network reform is needed and gives examples of previous unsuccessful and successful network revisions.
The second half comprises four appendices. These include the specific proposals. Appendix A suggests new routes to accommodate growth. Appendix B lists changes (mostly route amalgamations, frequency upgrades and minor changes) required immediately.
Appendix C concerns one issue - the limited access to the Bayswater business precinct. Appendix D is about stakeholder groups and councils outside the ETC area. Some include out-of-area proposals. These are good and interesting but detract from the paper's eastern area focus.
Appendix C concerns one issue - the limited access to the Bayswater business precinct. Appendix D is about stakeholder groups and councils outside the ETC area. Some include out-of-area proposals. These are good and interesting but detract from the paper's eastern area focus.
9 ways to make a good review better
There's lots of good ideas in the paper. More on those later. But the paper itself has quirks that make it hard to follow or weakens its value as an advocacy document. Nine examples are below:
* Maps Maps Maps. There's no maps! OK, I'm exaggerating. But only slightly. The whole paper has just one map in an appendix about a small area. Even if you know the local bus network well (decision makers probably won't) it's hard going to follow the changes proposed without maps. Good maps would show before and after networks or, better still, before and after frequent networks, to illustrate directness, coverage and frequency gains of improvement proposals. The map below shows how frequent service in Melbourne's east diminishes with distance from the Box Hill/Doncaster area, with at least one and probably two million Melburnians remote from it. This could have been a central point of advocacy with maps used to illustrate an improved proposed network.
* Emma Chisit? A weakness. ETC's paper gives no idea as to how much extra their proposed network would cost. Would it be $10m more per year or $100m more per year?
It is true that costing bus improvements is difficult for outsiders. Rerouting a previously inefficiently scheduled bus may allow a route extension to be cheaper than envisaged. A plan to buy more buses may tip the fleet size over a depot's limit, with a new larger facility greatly increasing costs. We can't expect councils to know such minutiae without consulting bus operators. Maybe they should have done that. But even if they didn't, roughly grouping proposals by low, medium or higher cost would have helped greatly.
It is true that costing bus improvements is difficult for outsiders. Rerouting a previously inefficiently scheduled bus may allow a route extension to be cheaper than envisaged. A plan to buy more buses may tip the fleet size over a depot's limit, with a new larger facility greatly increasing costs. We can't expect councils to know such minutiae without consulting bus operators. Maybe they should have done that. But even if they didn't, roughly grouping proposals by low, medium or higher cost would have helped greatly.
For example operating hours or off-peak frequency upgrades to existing routes would be fairly cheap as these just entail more driver hours and working existing buses harder. Simplifying a few routes and boosting some frequencies might be medium cost. A few new buses might be needed but other buses might be freed by cutting route overlaps. Such reform if well-targeted is likely to be the best booster of patronage for the money. In contrast completely new routes with no offsetting rationalisations would be high cost. The case for the latter would need to be very strong, especially in established areas like much of the eastern suburbs.
Better bus services can be very cost-effective. And if planning starts now (just) quick enough to implement by the 2022 state election. These are potentially major selling points for advocates. But they need to get some idea, even if vague, as to which are easiest and cheapest to make a start on. And also which upgrades would most benefit multiple marginal seats, which are heavily concentrated in Melbourne's east.
* Focus on cost-effectiveness important. The approvingly quoted Brimbank review is an example of 'smell of an oily rag' network reform with better directness and frequency obtained by reducing overlaps between routes. Disclaimer: I was professionally involved in the Brimbank review and saw it jump from being a proposal for a simple upgrade to one route to a comprehensive network overhaul.
Some proposals in the ETC review seem the direct opposite of the disciplined Brimbank approach. For example Appendix A starts with a new The Pines - Templestowe Village - Heidelberg route. This makes a lot of sense. What isn't mentioned is that much of the corridor (eg Reynolds Rd) is low density and/or duplicated by excessive service on routes such as 280/282, 309 and 901. What's there now is too much and a fourth route would be overkill. A true Brimbank-style review would have deleted most if not all overlapping routes. That would not only completely fund the recommended Pines - Heidelberg route (suggested here as a modified Route 280) but also other upgrades for no extra cost.
* Emphasise real network reform. Appendix A suggests new routes to accommodate growth. Appendix B lists changes (mostly route amalgamations, frequency upgrades and minor changes) required immediately. There's less emphasis on medium scale changes involving (say) clusters of 2 to 6 related routes even though this is key to cost-effective route straightening and frequency upgrades everyone wants. This is possibly a consequence of how the paper was compiled - ie just listing what every council wants rather than seeing the network as a whole. Brimbank's new network came in so cheap yet delivered patronage gains precisely because of these types of changes.
* Use available data to better inform priorities. Patronage by route was the main data used. This is better than nothing but it's important to note its limitations. For example a route may have high overall patronage simply because it is long and fairly frequent, not because buses on it are particularly busy. Other metrics, eg boardings per bus operating hour (available from the Department of Transport), can give a better indication of bus route performance and allow resources and advocacy to be better directed. For instance the paper only weakly advocates a service upgrade for Route 733 despite very strong boardings per hour numbers indicating that improvement should be a top priority.
The same applies for data such as population density, car ownership and socio-economic status which were all used to determine service priorities in the new Brimbank network. More advanced map data analysis tools could have allowed the ETC to tell stories like how a revised network would bring better transport to a million more people (including mapping their parliamentary districts to help political advocacy).
Some proposals in the ETC review seem the direct opposite of the disciplined Brimbank approach. For example Appendix A starts with a new The Pines - Templestowe Village - Heidelberg route. This makes a lot of sense. What isn't mentioned is that much of the corridor (eg Reynolds Rd) is low density and/or duplicated by excessive service on routes such as 280/282, 309 and 901. What's there now is too much and a fourth route would be overkill. A true Brimbank-style review would have deleted most if not all overlapping routes. That would not only completely fund the recommended Pines - Heidelberg route (suggested here as a modified Route 280) but also other upgrades for no extra cost.
* Emphasise real network reform. Appendix A suggests new routes to accommodate growth. Appendix B lists changes (mostly route amalgamations, frequency upgrades and minor changes) required immediately. There's less emphasis on medium scale changes involving (say) clusters of 2 to 6 related routes even though this is key to cost-effective route straightening and frequency upgrades everyone wants. This is possibly a consequence of how the paper was compiled - ie just listing what every council wants rather than seeing the network as a whole. Brimbank's new network came in so cheap yet delivered patronage gains precisely because of these types of changes.
* Use available data to better inform priorities. Patronage by route was the main data used. This is better than nothing but it's important to note its limitations. For example a route may have high overall patronage simply because it is long and fairly frequent, not because buses on it are particularly busy. Other metrics, eg boardings per bus operating hour (available from the Department of Transport), can give a better indication of bus route performance and allow resources and advocacy to be better directed. For instance the paper only weakly advocates a service upgrade for Route 733 despite very strong boardings per hour numbers indicating that improvement should be a top priority.
The same applies for data such as population density, car ownership and socio-economic status which were all used to determine service priorities in the new Brimbank network. More advanced map data analysis tools could have allowed the ETC to tell stories like how a revised network would bring better transport to a million more people (including mapping their parliamentary districts to help political advocacy).
* Think about larger connected regions when grouping proposals. Bus networks in western municipalities Wyndham and Melton (town routes) are pretty much self-contained. Planning by council area for these is fine. But that's not true in the middle eastern suburbs. There development is continuous, council areas are smaller and there is a dense and permeable road grid. Appendices A and B in this review groups proposals by small council area rather than by larger region or corridor. I think this makes it harder to follow and less useful for interested parties like the Department of Transport. Especially when you want to advocate for upgrades to key routes like 703, 733, 737, 767 and 900 which serve multiple LGAs.
* Present solutions as well as problems. For some reason a whole appendix is devoted to the access problems around Bayswater Business Precinct. It's not clear why. Also observed was that this appendix described the existing confusing network well but did not propose a solution. That's important if you're expecting things to change.
* Assign priorities for proposals. Many ideas are presented. Most are good. However they are not ordered by importance. It may be self-evident to those who know the network that a Route 733 service boost is vastly more important than adjusting the 687 out to Chum Creek. But others might not be aware. The large list presented can overwhelm a minister or department for whom doing even one or two initiatives is a big deal. If they're only going to do a few it's important to guide them into doing something significant and value for money, for example by presenting proposals in a cost versus network importance matrix or a 'do first, do next, do later' grouping across the whole region.
* Edit to present a balanced 'network view' and avoid bias. The review looks like it was done by asking each member council to nominate what they wanted and publishing what was sent. Page 18 demonstrates that councils were at least aware of what others had proposed. However different councils responded in different ways. Hence the amount of detail by area varies, skewing the review significantly. For example Appendix B has just one 'immediate' specific service proposal from the City of Knox. Greater Dandenong and Monash also have only a few despite their unquestionably high needs. Yet the much sparser Yarra Ranges has nearly thirty. Following on from the previous point recommendations vary greatly in importance but there is no evidence of a broader view being taken when the paper was being edited. The risk is a lack of focus and the paper being dismissed as disorganised or impractical.
Observations on specific proposals
The meat of the proposals are in Appendices A and B. I won't comment on them all. I'll include links where I've mentioned them (or something similar) previously. Here's a summary.
The good
There's some worthwhile frequency upgrades advocated. 703 and 900 deserve extra trips but suggested frequencies are unfortunately not specified. The upgrade of Route 907 to form a faster Bus Rapid Transit route is also welcome, especially if off-peak, evening and weekend frequency is boosted.
The popular 737 is suggested as a SmartBus. It deserves an upgrade but only if simplified and straightened as part of a wider network review. I present some ideas here.
Improving the long-neglected Route 800 is rightly also proposed. However the suggested 10 minute frequency is expensive. Given 800's trip generators and catchment the first priority could have been extended operating hours and a 20 minute 7 day service. This would have been much cheaper and not require any purchases of new buses.
Improved frequency and days of operation of local routes. The City of Dandenong supports frequency and/or operating hours upgrades for Routes 811, 848, 802, 814 and 857. These are needed given local social needs and demographics. However I'd have added other underserviced routes like 800, 804, 815 and 885 so that all routes in the area at least have a 7 day service. While social disadvantage is less many routes around Templestowe, Knox, Ringwood, Croydon and Lilydale also need 7 day service and/or better hours. These are relatively cheap upgrades as no new buses have to be purchased.
At least some contributing councils have thought about local network reform. Examples include (i) shortening routes in the Box Hill area to permit easier through travel, (ii) deleting the duplicative and redundant Route 673 and (iii) numerous changes suggested for the Yarra Ranges area. All are probably good suggestions. But not having maps makes it harder to be sure.
The neglected
Route 733. The paper mentions a rerouting in the Box Hill area to serve Laburnum Station. However it doesn't mention the inefficient overlap with Route 703 along Centre Rd. 733's very high boardings per hour numbers between Box Hill and Clayton make it perfect for a SmartBus upgrade, something the ETC should be advocating hard for given its low cost especially if its duplicative portion is removed or replaced.
Frequent Box Hill - Deakin University shuttle. Currently it's a mess comprising two(!) infrequent shuttles between Box Hill and the campus (201 and 768) which don't consistently meet trains. An upgrade to form one simpler and more frequent route 201 shuttle would be cheap but isn't advocated. Also desirable, to improve access to Deakin University from the south, would be an upgraded Route 767.
Certain main roads miss out on direct and frequent buses, mainly due to an unwillingness to tackle significant network reform in some areas. Examples include Canterbury Rd (which lacks a single route along it) and Ferntree Gully Rd (which currently has duplicative routes along much of it). The same could be said for routes in areas like Noble Park and Springvale which have such good catchment demographics for buses that frequencies should be nearer to 20 minutes than their current 60 minutes.
Scoresby Rd. A major corridor currently with nothing but occasional buses. It would be partly addressed in one of the Appendix A new route proposals. However Stud Park is a far weaker destination than Knox City for people in the area. I discuss a low-cost network fix for Scoresby Rd here.
Local network simplification in many places. More mention could have been made of areas where the network needs to be simplified. For example routes like 279, 664, 685, 693, 695, 737 and 742 have numerous part-time deviations and variations. These may be tolerable on local routes but not on major routes like these. The same is also true in the Rowville area where we have routes like the 681/682 in Lysterfield with occasional deviations and overlaps with Telebuses. Oddly, despite their limited operating hours and quirks such as 7 day running but no public holiday service these did not rate one mention in the review.
Splitting routes like the horrible 735 and 736 would have been a no-cost no-brainer to simplify the network and prepare for a new direct Canterbury Rd route between Box Hill and Ringwood. Similar comments apply in areas where scope exists for vastly simpler networks in areas that need them such as around Springvale, Noble Park, Keysborough and Dandenong where highly duplicative routes currently often only run hourly or in Manningham where there are some inefficient overlaps.
Splitting routes like the horrible 735 and 736 would have been a no-cost no-brainer to simplify the network and prepare for a new direct Canterbury Rd route between Box Hill and Ringwood. Similar comments apply in areas where scope exists for vastly simpler networks in areas that need them such as around Springvale, Noble Park, Keysborough and Dandenong where highly duplicative routes currently often only run hourly or in Manningham where there are some inefficient overlaps.
The unclear
A lot of proposals for new routes are listed in Appendix A. I liked, and previously commented on, their Pines to Heidelberg route. Ditto for the 907 BRT upgrade. However others, especially in the Cities of Knox and Monash, involve new routes which will be expensive. There are written descriptions but without maps the reader cannot see how these fit in with the broader network. Without maps I will suspend judgement on them; I could draw some but don't have the time. Neither will anyone of influence to whom the ETC hopes to sell their proposals.
Some local short-distance buses, such as around Ringwood and Bayswater are proposed. The track record of short routes like these is mixed. I think it would be fair to say that to work their frequency needs to be high with excellent destinations, such as provided on the successful university shuttles. Where high frequencies (like every 10 min) cannot be provided it might be better to serve suburban centres with direct higher frequency routes from surrounding areas rather than through a dedicated short distance loop route.
There's a lot of confusion about Route 745. One can hardly blame the review's authors as the route is confusing, with four once-daily variants. However the claim about it being well used is unlikely to be correct (Page 15). This weakens the case for the new route proposed, even though it would look good on a map. My initual gut reaction that there are at least twenty more worthy network upgrades that should take precedence is thus not challenged.
It is wonderful that eastern suburbs councils have gathered to champion bus services, something so important but long neglected by governments. Their work fills a void left by a state bureaucracy unable or ineffective at communicating this need to successive ministers. Councils can be strong public advocates for good bus networks. That's valuable given that these days we hardly hear from others who could also be potential allies (eg industry associations and driver unions) and there can sometimes be small but noisy opposition to generally beneficial network reforms.
The ETC paper suggests some very worthy service upgrades. However despite its title it is not quite what I'd call a full review. It's not detailed enough. There are no costings and almost no maps. The paper usefully brings together requests from various councils in the one place. But more work is needed to integrate these into a workable plan that would make the Department, politicians and others sit up and take notice.
If the resources were not available to do a full review maybe it should have been pitched more as an advocacy document with specific 'no-brainer' recommendations likely to match what a review would suggest. People love maps that show 'local wins' near them. The paper could have proposed a more useful frequent network and compared it with today's half-hourly service that is common even on many main roads. Case studies of poor service, unmet needs and opportunities for cost-effective network improvement, possibly three or four per municipality, could also have been included.
Am I being unfair? Have I missed anything? If so please leave your comments below. If you wish to see what I've written about bus routes and networks in Melbourne's east see the Timetable Tuesday and Building Melbourne's Useful Network indexes.
No comments:
Post a Comment