Thursday, August 29, 2024

UN 183: Melbourne trams versus the world


Some interesting commentary on how our trams compare with other countries' here (from the same people who brought you those SNAMUTS city maps showing public transport's haves and have nots). 

It starts by asking whether Melbourne trams are the slowest in the world (spoiler: they're not - that honour goes to Toronto, which is so good with buses but so bad with trams) and finishes with many other graphs and numbers. 

Speed

As can be seen below, Melbourne's weighted tram speed, in both kilometres per hour and relative to other cities terms, fell between 2006 and 2016. There was however a rebound in 2021, possibly due to pandemic-related factors. 


Our most recent average of 15.5 km/h is far better than Toronto's at 10.7km/h. Zurich, often praised by transport academics and commentators, has performed poorly on tram speeds, dropping from better than Melbourne to worse than Melbourne. Sydney, and some northern European systems, operate faster than ours. 


Catchment density

Another graph compares job and resident density around tram routes. In 2006 Melbourne was, with Adelaide, at the bottom of the sample but had increased significantly by 2016. Sydney fell then rebounded, with the large changes likely due to its growing tram network extending to less dense and then much denser areas. Increased density is good for potential patronage but may slow trams if there are also more cars, bikes and pedestrians. 

Frequency

This is yet another addition to the mountain of evidence that Melbourne is deteriorating on service frequency, especially when measured in per capita terms or compared against Sydney.  

Melbourne averages 8.8 trams per hour. This is higher than the typical route's frequency (5 or 6 trams per hour) because the calculation factors in sections with multiple routes (mostly in or surrounding the CBD). 

Despite its decline, Melbourne still occupies a respectable middling position on frequency. However note that they are based on weekday interpeaks, where individual routes are at or close to turn-up-and-go frequency. However if the graph was based on maximum waits across the week, Melbourne would be a poor performer with 20 and even 30 minute intervals between services the rule at nights and certain times on Sundays. 

Conclusion

There's two lessons out of this data if we want a world class tram network. That is: 

1. Run trams faster through priority measures that give spatial or temporal separation from car traffic

2. Run trams more frequently, especially during popular night and weekend times

We also need to exploit cascading opportunities, such as presented by the Metro Tunnel's relief of the Swanston St corridor, to reform the tram network so that routes more evenly reflect CBD activity and there is better connectivity in CBD fringe areas, including to new stations such as Arden, Anzac and new routing via Victoria St and Park St


See other Useful Network items here

Thursday, August 22, 2024

UN 182: An always there network - the two principles public transport needs to work


Always there

If you want people to use public transport in big numbers it needs to be 'always there', 365 days of the year. 

The concept of mass transport operating on fixed routes to fixed timetables was devised by mathematician Blaise Pascal in the mid-1600s.

This was revolutionary; the concept of running a service even if there were no passengers wanting to ride seems counter-intuitive and wasteful. 

However it started the idea of an always there service that people could rely on and even base life decisions, like where to live and work, on. You could call it the 'always there' effect, with no need to book.

An extension of this idea is that service exists over a wide span of hours from early to late, ie not just in and between the peaks. Hence when Melbourne boosted many of its local buses to run 7 days until 9pm in the 2006-2010 period, patronage on these routes increased, including at times when there was already service.

Extend the idea more and you get a frequent service. Which in the best cases mean turn-up-and-go. Public transport then becomes something like water flowing out of a tap, there whenever you want it. Frequent service is true 'on demand', ie on your terms not theirs, provided you're willing to walk a little distance to it. But the trade-off is that by being on fixed corridors you can give it priority over other traffic and build shelters with seats for the short time that you are waiting.  

Over 400 years on and there's people who think they're smarter than Pascal. They back 'demand responsive' service like FlexiRide, which has neither fixed routes nor fixed timetables. Our state government embraced this two or three years back but has since cooled on it as limitations became apparent.

For example it is using GAIC developer funding to replace Tarneit's struggling FlexiRide with more suitable fixed routes. And it hasn't progressed moves to introduce FlexiRide in Greensborough/St Helena, initiated when FlexiRide hype was at its peak. Melton people, who have suffered from their FlexiRide not reliably meeting hourly weekend trains, will be hoping they follow Tarneit soon with more fixed routes. 

So Pascal got the last laugh; compared to fixed route/fixed timetable service, flexible routes are either poorly used or max out to become unreliable if more than a few people want to use it. And the idea of  an 'always there' service remains powerful today. 
 
Network effect

As cities grew it was found that not every destination could be accommodated on a single route. This necessitated transferring for some trips. It was found that further ridership gains were possible by making this easy.

This requires several ingredients: (i) good route geometry to provide adequate speed and coverage and minimise backtracking, (ii) the shortest possible distances between stops of intersecting routes to aid physical transfer, (iii) integrated fares to remove the financial cost of connecting and (iv) either very frequent service or timed connections to minimise waiting times. 


The above rules are not always obeyed by those responsible for building the network. For example  some rebuilt stations (eg Mentone and Edithvale) and so-called accessible tram stops are further from road intersections and buses than those they replaced. And Infrastructure Victoria keeps peddling its modal fare moonshine. A good thing the state government is ignoring them on this.  

Another example of the network effect can be seen in the success (in terms of inducing more driving and dispersed land use that induced it even more) of the US interstate highway system, as explained here. This showed that providing a ubiquitous connected network was more important than trying to assess cost-effectiveness on individual sections or reactively relying on existing demand for future planning. Whether it's public transport or roads, if you make something better more people will use it, with these gains being consolidated as the improvements shape habits and longer-term decisions. 

The benefits of major infrastructure projects are enlarged if other modes are considered. Sydney's new Metro got a lot of limelight this week. However it was accompanied with significant bus network and timetable reform. The aim of this is to reduce network duplication and provide some connectivity improvements to the new Metro stations. Hopefully we get bus reform of a similar scale for Melbourne's Metro Tunnel, with some concepts for Watergardens to Dandenong discussed here

An always there network

Marry these two ideas to get an always there network

Go to Doonside in Sydney's outer west and check its train timetables. You will see a 7 day service about every 15 minutes even at 5am Sunday or midnight any night. Ditto for most other stations in Sydney. That's what an 'always there' network looks like. It's legible and easy to communicate. And it helps explain why Sydney's train patronage is much higher than Melbourne's despite having fewer stations. Sydney's Metro has lifted the bar even further with 5 to 10 minute frequencies common. 



You can't use Sydney's density or traffic to explain all this away either. Other city comparisons demonstrate the centrality of the 'always there' network, even if other factors are unfavourable. Brisbane versus Perth is the most notable Australian example. Despite having half the lines, half the stations and a lower population, Perth's rail system outperforms Brisbane's on patronage due to operating its trains every 15 minutes  all week versus 30 minutes for Brisbane. Unless it's after mid-evening there'll always be a train soon in Perth. And the planning of its bus routes, with them feeding rather than paralleling trains gives Perth a network effect that Brisbane lacks. 

Even when it decides to substantially increase metro rail services (rare events insufficient to arrest declining per capita service), Melbourne has taken a different tack to Sydney. Instead of going for the 'always there' approach it only boosted services during times that it thought would be busiest, typically midday and not early morning or evenings. 

This habit goes back years. An example was the 11am - 7pm increase in Sunday train and tram frequencies while Jeff Kennett was premier in 1999. 2012 saw a further big increase to every 10 minutes on weekends for Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston (under another Coalition government). However the busier lines of Ringwood remained with 30 minute gaps weekend evenings and Sunday mornings, with the quieter but marginal seated Frankston line getting a modest upgrade to every 20 minutes at all times but early Sunday morning in 2021 (under Labor).

What this means that even on our busiest line (Dandenong) you get frequent service between about 11am and 7pm. But outside this service falls sharply to every 30 minutes on weekends, especially after 7pm and Sunday mornings. 


The sharp fall-off means that if you are making a return trip of more than a few hours there is a high chance that you'll get a frequent 10 minute service in one direction but face 30 minute gaps in the other.  This is very different to a flat Sydney-style timetable with 10-15 minute intervals early to late. Hopefully the Metro Tunnel fixes this for Dandenong - Watergardens but there is not yet word on whether other lines will get relief from their 20, 30 and 40 minute gaps at key times people travel.  

Service designs with inconsistent frequencies or sharp fall-offs also hurt messaging. Overall a consistent 7 day 15 minute frequency, like at most Sydney stations, is more sellable than what's found at Dandenong, which could be every 10, 20 or 30 minutes. It also makes early start/late finish trips much more attractive, with weekend V/Line tourism to the regions and airport trips the key beneficiaries. 

Sydney's approach of a frequent service until after midnight is obviously the gold standard. But smaller cities, such as Perth and Auckland, have a pattern of 15 minute daytime Monday to Sunday frequency on their key routes, aiding legibility. Melbourne doesn't have this consistency, with early weekend evenings and Sunday mornings being a particular unresolved issue over many decades. 

Conclusion

Public transport is not just about building infrastructure, as prominent as this is at the moment.  

Design and operation of the network is equally vital. 

This should be informed by the concept of an 'always there network' as outlined above. 

This would make public transport services useful in many more peoples' lives, and maximise the benefits of the infrastructure we build. 

See other Useful Network items here

Thursday, August 15, 2024

The new Parkdale station - Day One

A look at the first day of the new Parkdale station on the Frankston line, which opened earlier in the month. 


The station is open for passenger service but it will be a little while until all passenger facilities and access points will be available. It needed to be rebuilt as part of the level crossing removal at Parkers Rd. 

Very significantly Parkdale was built 'rail over', despite 'Save Parkdale' objectors who wanted the rail sunk. Walkers accessing the shops from the residential area to the east can do so directly without backtracking or changing levels. When done this will be at two points, north and south of the station, with access to the platforms from both. And there is pretty good visibility across the corridor, with elevated rail better than long fences and blank walls. Even on the first day, where it was still a noisy building site, the comments I heard were positive. 

Parkdale's public reception has been much better than Chelsea's level crossing removal and station rebuild. There the rail was partly sunken and sightlines across the rail corridor were reduced. Also walkers had to climb bridges (via steps, ramps or lift) to cross the rail corridor. Not only that but Nepean Hwy (where the shops are) has no pedestrian crossing lining up with the station's main footbridge and lifts. Thus it's an indirect, unshaded and unsheltered walk for local residents, train users and bus passengers alike visiting the shops or beach, and it's not uncommon for people to jump the long dividing fence that got erected. 

Effectively Chelsea's level crossing removal spent hundreds of millions to replace one divide with another, as you can see in 'Hot, Wet and Disconnected' below:  


The Chelsea community is currently advocating with local MP Tim Richardson and road safety minister Melissa Horne in fixing a mistake their project created by installing a sensibly located pedestrian crossing to restore direct access across the rail corridor at Chelsea. 

Let this be a cautionary tale. Listening to a noisy minority does not always give the best outcomes. And even when a decision has been made (eg rail over versus under) other design considerations (like the placement of pedestrian crossings) can make, or in Chelsea's case, break a project. This experience shows that supposed experts (like the LXRP and its processes) can't always be trusted if their ranks are stacked with traffic engineers who don't 'get' local walkability and access needs. 

Thursday, August 08, 2024

UN 181: How Auckland is beating Melbourne on buses

 


When I
compared public transport service trends across the six larger cities in Australia/NZ last month one stood out for the increase in its population near 7 day frequent service in the last decade. 

Auckland.  

In 2011 it had both (i) the lowest proportion of people and jobs near frequent service and (ii) the lowest service intensity per 100 000 population. Both its numbers then were slightly worse than Perth - another sprawling, car-dependent city whose own public transport renaissance inspired Auckland's. 

By 2021 Auckland had surpassed both Sydney and Melbourne in service intensity. And it was rivalling Melbourne in the proportion of people and jobs near frequent transport (defined as every 15 minutes or better). Plus Auckland's service was still heading in the right direction; unlike Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth whose recent population growth had outstripped service growth, thus lowering service intensity per capita. 

Another snapshot of Auckland's progress came in a LinkedIn article by their network planner Pete Moth. The item announced the commencement of Auckland's 40th frequent bus route. This lifted the proportion of residents near 7 day frequent service to 45%. Still not enough but a vast improvement on the 15% from 8 years ago when there were only 9 frequent corridors. When you count Auckland's high population growth it is possible that the number of Aucklanders near frequent service would have almost quadrupled in that short time. 

How did they do it? The biggest single increase came when they were reforming their bus routes. That success has begat further service improvements, including additions to their frequent network. The dramatic geographical effect of Auckland's expansion of frequent service is mapped below. 


What about Melbourne? My interactive frequent network maps show the extent of frequent service in Melbourne. If you want to use the 'gold standard' yardstick of 7 day frequent service then you use the Sunday maps as this is the day which frequent service is least prevalent on the Melbourne network. In other words if a service is frequent on Sunday then it should be equal if not more frequent on other days (with Ringwood/Belgrave/Lilydale trains the main exception since the 82 tram got weekday upgrades).

Below shows Melbourne's 7 day train, tram and bus corridors that are frequent in the middle of the day to at least early evening. 


The frequent network looks quite extensive in the inner suburbs but there is an important qualification; in Melbourne no individual route has 7 day frequent service until mid-morning. This typically continues for about 8 hours before falling off after about 6pm. If I was to rigidly apply the 7am - 7pm criteria that Auckland does then the map would be almost blank, with only a handful of multi-route corridors showing. 

The majority of lines (which are trams) got their 7 day frequent service in 1999 when Jeff Kennett was still premier. The three longer train lines (Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston) gained their 7 day frequent service in 2012 (under Ted Baillieu). 

Premiers Bracks, Brumby, Andrews and Allan may have built a lot of transport infrastructure but have not presided anywhere near the 7 day frequent train and tram network expansions that Kennett, Baillieu and even Napthine have.   

Which bus corridors qualify for 7 day frequent service? The map below, with the trams removed, make this easier to see. 


Mebourne's 350 route bus network includes just five significant corridors with 7 day service every 15 minutes or better. These are the 200/207, 234, 246, 907 and the Knox Transit link portion of the 732. Many other routes or corridors, notably our orbital SmartBuses, qualify on weekdays but don't make it onto this map as they lack sufficient weekend frequency (mostly every 30 minutes). 

What have been the most recent additions to Melbourne's 7 day every 15 minutes or better frequent network? I mentioned the 82 tram upgrade before. The most recent bus additions have been the 234 and 907 upgrades in 2021. These are welcome upgrades but their span of frequent weekend service is still less than Auckland's 12 hours. A few years before that was a 246 weekend upgrade. Overall, pretty meagre despite high patronage potential 7 day corridors like Footscray - Highpoint or Coburg - Preston - Northland - Heidelberg with overlapping routes existing. 

Conclusion

In the rush to deliver frequent service to the most people Auckland has left Melbourne for dead in the last decade.  It rolled out 31 new frequent 7 day bus corridors in the time Melbourne has taken to introduce 3. This is despite Auckland starting from a very low service base, inheriting far less fixed rail infrastructure and having a more transit-hostile urban form. That's a 90:1 difference in their work-rate when population differences are considered.  

Auckland's bus network reform, especially its now substantial 7 day frequent network, is an inspirational story of achievement in public transport planning and practice delivering community benefits. The odds were against it but the will was there to make it happen.  

In contrast Melbourne has far underperformed despite having more going for it, including:
(i) a massive still-operating train and tram network legacy that very few Anglosphere cities have;
(ii) triple Auckland's population;
(iii) knowledge of the need for simpler frequent 7 day bus routes as per its barely acted-on bus plan and
(iv) there being a dozen or more potential cost-effective 7 day frequent bus corridors between popular destinations possible with minor increases in weekly service hours or overlap-busting network reform.     
With bus reform successful in Auckland, Perth and Sydney, Adelaide telling us how not to do it and even stirrings from Brisbane, the time is now ripe for Melbourne to now get on board with frequent 7 day buses. 

With rising infrastructure costs and tightening state budgets for the foreseeable future, attention to efficient service delivery through better 7 day train and bus services might be one of the few untapped cost-effective initiatives in transport left. 

More: Lessons from Auckland - Bus reformers speak (UN 154)

    

Thursday, August 01, 2024

UN 180: The east-west bus service split in Melbourne's south-east


I often say that evolutionary historical accident, not patronage or contemporary community needs, is the biggest reason for bus routes and timetables being as they are in Melbourne. 

This is because, unlike bus reform in Perth or our LXRPDTP leadership has yet to transform the department into a well-oiled delivery machine that, amongst other things, is able to reform bus services at the pace and scale needed. The result is lengthening bus reform backlogs across Melbourne and reduced value from its $1.5 billion annual bus operating budget, despite a public obligation to efficiently spend this for the greatest good.  

2021's Victoria's Bus Plan correctly identified the history/needs mismatch, as below. 

 "There is also often a mismatch between demand and frequency
with low service frequency on some high-patronage routes
 or high frequency on low-demand routes"

(Victoria's Bus Plan, Page 8)

 
In practice though the 1145 day-old bus plan has been a fly-by-nighter; two great initiatives right at the start but less since, with nothing seen of the promised implementation plan. 

So it's back to history to explain why things are as they are in Melbourne's south-east. 

Oakleigh and Dandenong areas

The late Dr Paul Mees grew up in Melbourne's east just beyond the Burwood Hwy tram's original terminus (it's been extended several times since). In A Very Public Solution he mentioned that the Oakleigh-based Ventura typically ran its buses every half-hour (every 20 min on its flagship Route 700) whereas the Dandenong-based Grenda's ran them hourly (apart from its flagship Route 800 - again every 20 minutes on weekdays).

Dr Mees didn't mention that 40 or more years ago Grenda's had a skilled ex-London scheduler in Ian Wall who intricately offset times to give even 30 or 20 minute combined frequencies where two or three hourly routes overlapped. That maximised benefit from limited resources. Evidence of this remains on the network today with key examples being the 802/804/862, 811/812 and 814/848 corridors. Also, until the new Route 816 replaced the 815, there was a combined 20 minute corridor between Dandenong and Keysborough comprising the hourly but co-scheduled 812, 813 and 815.

Greater and lesser minds

The weakness is that while a great mind can produce an elegant intricately scheduled maximally frequent network, the lesser minds that follow can destroy it, or at least fail to communicate the combined frequent service. 

The former can happen if other considerations trump an originally carefully offset timetable, such as happened with 426/456 on Ballarat Rd and 802/804/862 between Chadstone and Mulgrave in 2014. As for the latter, PTV's one-size fits all credo can present timetables for overlapping routes at stops separately, making it difficult for passengers to visualise the more frequent combined service. Poor and non-sequential route numbering also makes it harder to discern frequent corridors, such as most conspicuous with 600/922/923 and to a lesser extent 281/293 and 802/804/862.  

Multi-route bus corridors are most prevalent in bus-heavy cities with CBD-centric networks. Melbourne uses them less as most of its bus routes are not radial. But local examples exist, including 200/207, 250/251, 302/304 and 411/412. Modern planning has shied away from creating many more, with the tendency to simplify them, eg reduce 3 or 4 route corridors to 2, or even, in 826/827/828's case, just one.   

Constraints

Creativity in bus network design can be constrained due to:

(a) current bus contract funding being based on live service hours, with maximising bus vehicle utilisation or frequencies a lower priority;
(b) a lack of a patronage maximising culture in DTP top management with good networks and service specifications a consequence of individual planners' pride of work rather than an institutional standard;
(c) the conditional nature of GAIC bus funding (which can force duplicative, inefficient and infrequent networks in some growth areas), and
(d) the presence of multiple bus operators in an area that can make network reform harder. 

In relation to (d) DTP assure us that its bus contract reform will facilitate area rather than operator-based planning. While the former 'network view' approach is better, the difference is minor if one operator exclusively covers a substantial contiguous area, such as  Grendas around Dandenong (or even wider under the Ventura group) and CDC around Werribee/Tarneit.

The difference widens where there are two, three or even four bus operators in an area, as is common in our inner north and inner west. This is because the most efficient network design may require some routes to be extended, shortened, rerouted, merged or deleted. In some cases operators may need to share a new route, as with the 900 between Caulfield and Rowville introduced in 2006. 

Small reform on a per-operator basis can work if this does not cause gaps or overlaps that need other operators' services to be modified. The 2021 Transdev network timetable adjustments along these lines were successful. Scope for similar with other operators remains, with the relative extent of opportunities graphed here. The main thing to avoid is large single operator reforms in multi-operator areas that lose out, such as with Transdev's aborted 2015 greenfield network.   

Encouragingly, medium sized area-based network reform can still happen in multi-operator areas if the Department is determined enough to broker (sometimes reluctant) acceptance from operators. Brimbank in 2014 is an example of this.  

The clear lesson from the past are that neither a new operator nor new contracts will necessarily deliver  bus service reform if will is lacking to do it. As an example, the first lot of bus franchising in the 1990s saw Met Bus split into operations run by Melbourne Bus Link and National Bus. Melbourne Bus Link hardly reformed its services during its entire period while National Bus did a lot (maybe too much?). Its successor Transdev succeeded with its 2014 network but weak public consultation, single operator thinking and failure to accommodate political change made its 2015 attempt fail.

While the new 'ZEV' bus contracts may in theory have some benefits including easier network reform, realisation is by no means guaranteed. Given that there have been examples of bus network reform under existing bus contracts it does not seem reasonable to use 'awaiting the new contracts' as a reason to delay even small reforms.   

Brighton/Moorabbin area

Established areas a little nearer the bay (but still beyond the trams) had higher frequency routes. For example every 20 minutes weekdays off-peak (as you can still see today on routes like 630, 824 and 825). Higher frequencies often operated on Saturday mornings with reduced (or no) Saturday afternoon service.

If there was a Sunday service at all it was sparse and if privately-operated likely fell victim to the severe bus service cuts of 1991. The latter was not only because the state was broke - there was also mismanagement including an acrimonious bus contracts dispute that led to duplicative routes being added while established routes were cut.

MetBus routes in the St Kilda/Prahran/Sandringham area largely escaped the cuts, with these retaining their weekend and evening services. 35 years on the key determinant of whether a bus route runs on Sunday evening remains if it is an ex-government service or not rather than a more objective criteria such as patronage or social needs. Ex-government routes exist in this area due to (a) Met Bus taking over Melbourne-Brighton Bus Lines in 1985 and (b) the area having Victorian Railways trams that became government-run buses such as the old 901/current 600 before being franchised later in the 1990s.  

Further east though was a patchwork of small private operators. The modern 3-digit bus route numbering system commenced in 1971, with network maps published soon after.

Very roughly Grendas around Dandenong got 800-series numbers while Ventura routes around Box Hill - Oakleigh got 700-series numbers. Each operator's 'main' highway route got a round number like 800 or 700.

The 600s were mostly short routes in the Brighton - Sandringham area (where there were a lot more than now). Most stayed west of Warrigal Rd though a few extended a few kilometres east to as far as Westall. Route 800-series were densest around Dandenong though some had continued west as far as Southland.  But everything west (and many east) of the Frankston line were 600-series routes that were relatively frequent, with some examples from Daniel Bowen here


Encouraged by the government's 'go or grow' policy, smaller bus companies amalgamated or got bought out by larger bus operators. This led to depots, fleets and eventually routes being consolidated. This provided more one-seat rides. However where a lower frequency route was merged with a higher frequency route the latter would often lose trips, effectively redistributing service from established to growth areas. But not always, as I'll show later. 

The most notable merger was the consolidation of various small bus operators under the Moorabbin Transit brand following the Grendas takeover in 1988. Most 600-series route numbers were retired, with more 800-series routes from the Dandenong area extending westward towards Moorabbin, Brighton and Hampton providing coverage instead.

The 1992 network (below) illustrates this, with comparatively little subsequent change to the network structure in the 30 plus years since. Example long east-west routes include 824 (Moorabbin - Keysborough), 811/812 (Brighton - Dandenong) and 826/827/828 (Hampton to at least Dandenong - but later simplified to just 828). 


Service level differences

In broad terms (and there are exceptions) the western part of most of these long east-west routes is relatively posh, the eastern end relatively poor with some low patronage 'green wedge' sections in the middle. 

However as foreshadowed earlier, service levels along some of these routes vary. 

The first example is 811 and 812. On weekdays each route operates once an hour. Because these entirely overlap over their western half, this gives a combined 30 minute frequency. Where they split at Dingley Village, service is halved to hourly each. Again due to history where the operator merged higher frequency western area routes with lower frequency routes further east. 

Route 812 has little unique coverage, overlapping routes to similar destinations for a large section between Springvale Rd and Dandenong. In contrast Route 811 has high usage and significant unique coverage between Springvale and Dandenong. On usage and demographic grounds this Heatherton Rd portion justifies at least equal service to that which the Brighton end gets but doesn't get it. A complication exists on weekends where the combined frequency on all portions is hourly as the hourly full length 811 is fed by a shortened 812 (eastern section only).    


Route 824 from Moorabbin to Keysborough is another example of a route whose frequency has been kept relatively high in the west but halves in the east. This is done not by having an overlapping pair of routes that fans out but a single route that finishes about half its trips part-way along, giving the west more trips. 

Again, like with 811/812, weekday and weekend patterns vary. On weekdays the higher (20 minute) frequency operates between Moorabbin and Westall. Which, although a railway station, is a weak terminus. 


On Saturdays the higher frequency portion applies over a shorter section of Route 824 - between Moorabbin and Clayton only. However Clayton is at least a stronger terminus. The western portion of the timetable reflects the old Saturday morning rush hour where a 30 minute service is provided.  Similar for the Route 825 timetable that the 824 routes through to at Moorabbin. However on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and evenings the short-workings vanish, with the full route getting an hourly service. 

Some time ago Route 828 had a similar Saturday pattern (ie western portion every 30 minutes on Saturday morning, eastern section hourly) but this got adjusted so the entire route operates to a 40 minute frequency, thus improving service in Dandenong/Doveton, which has high social needs and is more remote from other routes compared to the route's western section.

Another instance of history trumping need is where routes that hug the frequent Sandringham train line (such as the Brighton - Sandringham portion of the Route 600) have longer operating hours and later finishes than buses in areas that provide unique coverage. Again this is a case where an ill-advised amalgamation  decades ago joined disparate routes with different service level requirements but no one since has succeeded in fixing it despite the zero to low cost of doing so
 

Summary & solutions

While routes like 811/812 and 824 gained minimum service standards (including later evening trips and Sunday service) these 2006-era upgrades generally did not address other network issues such as service frequency (unless worse than hourly) or a poor allocation of resources relative to patronage or social needs. 

Given the absence of significant implemented bus network reviews since, the result is that timetables can be basically static for years if not decades, with some dubious choices (like the quiet Route 704 frequency boost) sometimes subsequently made where upgrades are funded. 

While some 1980s/1990s route amalgamations were a pragmatic response to problems faced at the time, they are not necessarily the best today, especially if one wishes to economically simplify the network, deliver a legible service hierarchy (something the Bus Plan proposes, though vaguely) or selectively upgrade services to best effect. 

As one example tacking a relatively frequent and direct route (eg the 824 between Moorabbin and Clayton) on to a meandering local route with little unique coverage between Clayton and Keysborough is not a good fit if you want to build a frequent and direct network without short-working complications.

You might instead opt to have the 824 as an entirely main road service between Moorabbin, Clayton and Waverley Gardens for a more legible east-west route (replacing the eastern portion of the 704 and taking advantage of a level crossing removal). Meanwhile the western portion of the 704 could be joined to the eastern portion of the 824 to form a coverage style Oakleigh - Clayton - Keysborough route with a matching service frequency. 

Similarly 811/812 reform might remove duplication in the Keysborough area and add service to Heatherton Road between Springvale and Dandenong via Dandenong Hospital. Even better if, thanks to other reform in Dingley Village, it could be simplified into a single route operating at double frequency. This would end the anomaly where, for historical reasons, the Brighton end gets double the weekday service of the more important Heatherton Rd segment. 

Similar cases exist across Melbourne, with discussions on many available below.