A role for developer-led bus services in new estates?

What happens when new estates develop and the government does not put on bus services when the people move in?

Sometimes the answer is nothing. Car ownership, cost of living and valuable real estate devoted to parking can be higher than they need to be in these areas. There remain neighbourhoods developed 30 or 40 years ago that still have no bus or a skeleton service of a few trips per day. 

Examples include areas around Ringwood East, Croydon South, Scoresby, Knoxfield and parts of the Mornington Peninsula. Hence the multi-decade longevity of one-trip routes like the 745 or confusing deviations like on Route 737. And the embarrassment of Epping North/Wollert which had been developed with the expectations of a train but was limping around for years on a single infrequent bus (Route 575) until extra routes got added in 2016. In our own time Route 511 in Beveridge has remained a token service with just a handful of peak period trips. 

Newer subdivisions, provided they are large scale and not middle of nowhere planning errors like Eynesbury, have generally got route buses a lot sooner than 30 years after development. Indeed that's pretty much been the main budgetary emphasis for buses in the last several years as established area network reform and service improvements took a back seat. Furthermore, the routes added typically run to the minimum 'safety net' standards established in 2006. This includes 7 day service until approximately 9pm. The minimum frequency is hourly but 40 minute frequencies are common. While harder to remember, buses every 40 minutes harmonise with every second train in most outer areas. Peak frequencies vary from the same as off-peak to every 20 - 30 minutes on better served routes. This is hardly the stuff of major modal shift but does constitute a basic service that gets surprisingly good usage in some areas. 

It can take too long for bus services to start after people move in. This is due to the absence of a reliable funding pipeline for growth area routes (GAIC has limitations) and sclerotic DoT internal processes for implementing them. Unlike industrial-scale level crossing removal and road construction projects, bus planning is more like a bespoke cottage industry in which it is not considered extraordinary that adding a bus route can take longer than large infrastructure builds. Other barriers include multiple land owners, the sequencing of estate development and the construction of houses before direct roads good for efficient bus routes are completed.

If there's no bus when people move in to an area, households will stretch their budgets to buy and run more cars than what could be the case if buses operated. Once this has been done it is harder to change habits and encourage bus use when service does get added. That risks harming productivity measures like passenger boardings per bus service hour and the farebox recovery ratio. In contrast a bus service that's there when people move in means people see it as part of the neighbourhood and use it from Day 1. 

Developers providing buses

Sometimes there's a local need for improved transport in an area where existing options are sparse or do not exist. Given funding and implementation difficulties on the government side, what are alternatives if you want public transport introduced early in an estate's development? Or even if the estate is old and the government never got around to introducing a service. 

Local organisations and other tiers of government can take matters into their own hands by establishing a bus service for a particular need in cases where the state government has historically been unresponsive. The Mornington Peninsula has been a prime example of this. That area has seen a confusing mix of bespoke bus services including weekly seniors shopper services (run by council), a student / jobseeker bus (initially set up with federal government grant money as PenBus) and some late night hotel services. More recent government investment has seen some (like the university bus) incorporated into an upgraded regular network (which however remains undeveloped eg 3 or 4pm finishes). This is possibly because Mornington Peninsula is neither a designated growth area nor treated as metropolitan for matters such as minimum coverage and service standards for metropolitan buses. 

New estates are very different. They're faster growing with a far younger and more diverse demographic. Parts are still developing. Yet they share some similar issues to the Mornington Peninsula regarding bus coverage and frequency. 

To partly mitigate this some developers have introduced their own bus, often running to the nearest station. This is either a voluntary measure to increase their estate's saleability relative to others or imposed as a condition of developing. Services are typically very limited (eg there may be no off-peak or weekend service) but may still be useful for some people. 

The role of developer-funded buses is discussed in an RMIT paper prepared for BusVic (the bus operators' industry body). Developer-led buses – a solution for growth area transport needs was released in December 2021 but has only just come to my attention. Authors are Annette Kroen, Steve Pemberton, Robin Goodman & Chris De Gruyter. You can read it here.

The paper has many facts and figures useful for anyone wanting to know about the state of growth area bus planning and provision. The research found that new estates typically got their first bus route four years after development though there was wide variation. Routes typically run every 40 - 60 minutes though sometimes have better peak services. Avenues for funding are explored with case studies given of developer funded buses in specific new estates in Melbourne.

I recommend you read the whole thing (it's about 30 pages). Points that jumped out for me include:  

* The difficult in finding recurrent funding such as is needed to introduce regular bus services to growth areas. Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution is another funding source but can only be used for five years. The service must either be funded from general revenue or it ceases. 

* A survey was done of 150 new estates and when they got buses. In some cases buses were already there when residents moved in. The extreme example was a 14 year lag. Average wait time for those without service is 4 years. 

* Ten developer-funded bus services in Australia were identified. Seven of those were in Victoria. They largely ran during peak periods only on fixed routes (which were seen to be more reliable than flexible routes especially given the limited fleet size). All were voluntary except Eynesbury's which was a requirement. Operation was done either by commissioning a bus company or through a non-profit body. The former has more experience while the latter may be cheaper. 

* Developers were more likely to commence an estate bus service if their development was large in scale and they expected that they would not need to run it for very long (eg the government would introduce regular routes). The latter was also a reason for developers not introducing a bus - they would not want to be in a position of cancelling the service if no route bus replacement had been introduced. 

* There is a possibility that early developer funded buses generate an appetite for bus usage that continues after a state funded bus route is introduced with these having higher usage than similar routes in areas whose estates did not have a developer funded bus. 

* Main limitations with developer funded buses include their limited service (eg no off-peaks or weekends) and the volatility of service (as developers can withdraw the service). However they can be introduced early (especially given the lead-times for a government-organised route). However the latter provide an overall better service due to better hours, frequencies and destinations (including not being artificially confined to particular estates). 

* Some operators had issues with booking systems and on-demand services due to unreliability. Hence services tended towards fixed route/fixed schedule services.

* There were two main areas of government that developers liaised with when considering whether to put on a bus. Experiences with DoT/PTV were negative - they were unable to get straight answers on when their area would get a regular route. However relationships with local MPs was critical and effective. Local governments were not seen as important as buses are a state responsibility. 

* Greater certainty on when an area would get a regular service would give developers an incentive to initiate a temporary service. This is because there is assurance a. that there will be a regular route service introduced and b. developers know that they will only need to fund the service for (say) 2 years rather than an indefinite period. 

Scope for improvement

The study concludes that developer funded buses are a good thing to provide a service early in an estate's development. They build habits of bus usage that can carry after a regular route is introduced. However to encourage them government needs to be more timely with regards to introducing services to new estates with definite and funded plans for same. This improves certainty and makes it more likely developers will fund temporary services. 

Priorities for government include having an overall transport plan with details and time-lines for new bus routes, better sequencing of development and improved communication between parts of government. Doing these would help ensure that people in growth areas get the better transport they need sooner.

RMIT and BusVic have produced a useful study which shines a light on the extent of growth area bus services and the role of government and developers. I recommend you read it!