The state government is currently consulting on nine suburban activity centres that it has identified as being appropriate for higher density housing. These are the same centres that I suggested some transport upgrades for last year.
With the consultation comes some increased detail on each centre. Today I want to discuss Chadstone as this is the only centre that isn't on a strong radial train or tram line. There's lots of bus routes but their hours and frequencies are limited. You can read specifically about the government's housing plans for Chadstone here.
Now let's go back a bit.
Long-term Melbourne residents and planning followers will remember Melbourne 2030 in the early 2000s. This was predicated on denser development around major activity centres. You can see evidence of this around centres like Moonee Ponds, Box Hill and Carnegie. As pointed out at the time, Melbourne 2030 did not have a serious funded transport infrastructure and service program attached.
This is why centres like Moonee Ponds (in Transport Infrastructure Minister Danny Pearson's seat) have off-peak train service levels basically unchanged from 25 years ago. Box Hill and Carnegie have fared better. But with 30 minute gaps still common for both trains and bus routes, service levels at key times continue to lag below what is required to reasonably live without a car and address local traffic congestion.
Today's suburban housing activity centre plans also don't say much about the transport infrastructure or services they need. But Chadstone's has this little note below pointing to a route along Princes Hwy.
Promises and proposals
This investigation is the latest word we have on the status of the Caulfield - Rowville tram. that was promised by premier Daniel Andrews on 10 April 2018. The Suburban Rail Loop, which would also serve Monash University Clayton, was announced a few months later and stole all the limelight.
This investigation is the latest word we have on the status of the Caulfield - Rowville tram. that was promised by premier Daniel Andrews on 10 April 2018. The Suburban Rail Loop, which would also serve Monash University Clayton, was announced a few months later and stole all the limelight.
With the tram promise floundering, what you might call the 'big end of town' in the south-east (ie Chadstone Shopping Centre and Monash University) is backing a trackless rapid transit scheme between Caulfield and Rowville. The proposal claims to be twice as fast as existing bus services and would connect with intersecting transport services including the Suburban Rail Loop at its Monash station.
Locals have a right to be sceptical whether it will happen or not. At the Rowville end politicians have a long history of over-promising and under-delivering on transport. Budgets for the State government's existing suite of major projects are blowing out while the Federal government's cap on overseas students will likely stymie Monash University's growth.
Locals have a right to be sceptical whether it will happen or not. At the Rowville end politicians have a long history of over-promising and under-delivering on transport. Budgets for the State government's existing suite of major projects are blowing out while the Federal government's cap on overseas students will likely stymie Monash University's growth.
However something in transport does need to be done. Not only to support the housing proposed but also because existing bus services are not up to the job, even for current land use and population. I discussed Chadstone's transport needs in 4 steps here but didn't fully cover the Princes Hwy transport corridor, especially a direct connection with Monash. The most cost-effective way to do this will be today's topic.
Route 900 SmartBus
The last big radial public transport upgrade in the Chadstone area was the commencement of the Route 900 SmartBus in 2006. This soon became Melbourne's most productive SmartBus route with strong usage on all days of the week. It, like both the promised tram and the advocated trackless route, already operates between Caulfield and Rowville.
Despite its good patronage performance, the 900 doesn't operate to the frequency or speed standards one would expect of a premium public transport corridor. For instance there is no Sunday service after 9pm and there are 30 min gaps between trips on weekends and evenings. Same for the other routes.
That's not an inherent problem with buses; it's just that low frequency and short hours is a choice that Melbourne's made for the last 60 years or so, with service on even our 'premium' SmartBuses trailing equivalent routes in other cities, especially on weekends.
The last big radial public transport upgrade in the Chadstone area was the commencement of the Route 900 SmartBus in 2006. This soon became Melbourne's most productive SmartBus route with strong usage on all days of the week. It, like both the promised tram and the advocated trackless route, already operates between Caulfield and Rowville.
Despite its good patronage performance, the 900 doesn't operate to the frequency or speed standards one would expect of a premium public transport corridor. For instance there is no Sunday service after 9pm and there are 30 min gaps between trips on weekends and evenings. Same for the other routes.
That's not an inherent problem with buses; it's just that low frequency and short hours is a choice that Melbourne's made for the last 60 years or so, with service on even our 'premium' SmartBuses trailing equivalent routes in other cities, especially on weekends.
Existing travel speeds
Travel on Route 900's western portion, between Caulfield and Huntingdale, is unacceptably slow. A trip between these locations takes around half an hour. That's via the most direct road distance of about 8km or the actual bus travel distance of around 11.5km. In other words around 20km/h.
Travel on Route 900's western portion, between Caulfield and Huntingdale, is unacceptably slow. A trip between these locations takes around half an hour. That's via the most direct road distance of about 8km or the actual bus travel distance of around 11.5km. In other words around 20km/h.
You could blame buses being held up in car traffic for some of this, especially on busy weekends around Chadstone. But there are two other key reasons for Route 900's slowness. These are:
* The route's travelled kilometres between Caulfield and Huntingdale, which as noted above are about 40% longer than the shortest road distance possible (via Princes Hwy and Huntingdale Rd)
* Further exacerbating the above, the very high number of turning movements. I get at least 9 between when the bus leaves Chadstone to when it leaves Huntingdale station.
Unless it's the 82 in Maribyrnong (for historical reasons) there is no way that a Caulfield - Rowville tram would be built with so many turning movements. The so-called trackless rapid transit proposal shows just two turning movements between Caulfield and Rowville in its animation.
TRT's PR video conveys the impression to lay viewers that high speed requires their special vehicles (and associated depot and maintenance costs). This is not so. With more direct routing and appropriate priority over other traffic conventional buses can go faster too. That could deliver speed and frequency benefits now for negligible cost, while establishing the corridor for a potential light rail for improved future capacity. If it's a choice between 'grab what you can now' or 'push it into the never-never', I'm in the first camp.
TRT's PR video conveys the impression to lay viewers that high speed requires their special vehicles (and associated depot and maintenance costs). This is not so. With more direct routing and appropriate priority over other traffic conventional buses can go faster too. That could deliver speed and frequency benefits now for negligible cost, while establishing the corridor for a potential light rail for improved future capacity. If it's a choice between 'grab what you can now' or 'push it into the never-never', I'm in the first camp.
A more direct, faster Route 900?
Below is one concept for a faster Caulfield to Rowville Route 900 bus. I'm not saying it's the best idea out there. Like anything there will be 'swings and roundabouts'. But its advantages with regards to speed, frequency, implementation time and value for money would likely make it a front-runner for any state government investigation of the corridor's transport needs. And it's scalable in that you can start with existing buses and stops now, with upgrades later as needed.
The pros
* Faster travel by making 900 about 2km shorter and removing 8 turns. Maybe 10 min off all up.
* Provides a fast direct alignment for Chadstone Activity Centre that more housing is proposed in, including to Metro Tunnel trains at Caulfield
* Provides a fast direct alignment for Chadstone Activity Centre that more housing is proposed in, including to Metro Tunnel trains at Caulfield
* Connects the south-east's two biggest trip generators with a direct driving-competitive route that delivers early speed and frequency benefits of various tram and trackless transit proposals
* Scope to deliver more service for no extra cost due to abovementioned run time savings. The top candidates would likely be (a) 10 min interpeak weekday service (b) 15 minute weekend frequency and (c) operating hours that better match trains (notably Sunday evenings).
* Complements needed wider network upgrades involving routes such as 630, 802 and 804.
* Makes it no longer necessary for Monash to run its Caulfield - Clayton intercampus bus, with a potential partnership to use the money saved to upgrade other Monash-serving routes instead
* Scope to deliver more service for no extra cost due to abovementioned run time savings. The top candidates would likely be (a) 10 min interpeak weekday service (b) 15 minute weekend frequency and (c) operating hours that better match trains (notably Sunday evenings).
* Complements needed wider network upgrades involving routes such as 630, 802 and 804.
* Makes it no longer necessary for Monash to run its Caulfield - Clayton intercampus bus, with a potential partnership to use the money saved to upgrade other Monash-serving routes instead
The cons
* Oakleigh Station loses buses to Monash and Chadstone as 900 no longer goes via there
* Huntingdale Station loses bus frequency to Monash as 900 no longer goes via there
* Rowville loses connection to train at Huntingdale as 900 no longer goes via there
* Overlap of several routes along a portion of Princes Hwy at Oakleigh East
It's worth noting that some of the above cons can be mitigated by upgrading or reconfiguring other routes. For example:
* Oakleigh station already has many routes to Monash and Chadstone, including 800, 802 and 804. In addition Route 903 operates to Chadstone. When taken as a group they operate frequently on weekdays. Operating hours and weekends are an issue but that can be fixed, as discussed here for 802 and 804, with wider benefits extending as far as Dandenong.
* Huntingdale station already has good weekday frequency to Monash via the 601 university shuttle. The 900 provides weekend service that the 601 doesn't. However the loss from removing the 900 can be offset by upgrading the popular Route 630 to run every 20 minutes or better 7 days per week with longer operating hours. This also has wider gains, in this case west to Ormond and Elwood.
* A rerouted Route 900 would mean that Rowville passengers would no longer be able to change to a train at Huntingdale. Instead they'd need to remain on the bus to Caulfield. However they would gain from improved Route 900 frequency and better train connections. There is also scope for other Rowville area bus network reform that would provide much more of the suburb with bus connections to nearer stations (as the current 900 only covers a fraction of the suburb around Stud Park). A less radical variation could retain the 900 route via Huntingdale but, with more turning movements, directness and travel time would be worse.
It is true that the cost of a direct Princes Hwy Route 900 is that it overlaps portions of existing routes. However the existing Route 900 also overlaps other routes between Oakleigh and Huntingdale and the new overlap is less costly when measured in minutes. In any event it would only be a temporary problem; when the Monash SRL station opens Route 900 could be run via Ferntree Gully Rd as per the Trackless Rapid Transit proposal.
On another matter, if it is considered important that Burlington St retains a frequent service then 802 and 804 can be moved there from parallel Atherton Rd with little change in kilometres operated. This is not an important change and may only be done if wider bus network reform involving the poorly used 704 and the 742 (that inefficiently overlaps with much of the 693, with which it could be merged) is attempted.
* Huntingdale Station loses bus frequency to Monash as 900 no longer goes via there
* Rowville loses connection to train at Huntingdale as 900 no longer goes via there
* Overlap of several routes along a portion of Princes Hwy at Oakleigh East
It's worth noting that some of the above cons can be mitigated by upgrading or reconfiguring other routes. For example:
* Oakleigh station already has many routes to Monash and Chadstone, including 800, 802 and 804. In addition Route 903 operates to Chadstone. When taken as a group they operate frequently on weekdays. Operating hours and weekends are an issue but that can be fixed, as discussed here for 802 and 804, with wider benefits extending as far as Dandenong.
* Huntingdale station already has good weekday frequency to Monash via the 601 university shuttle. The 900 provides weekend service that the 601 doesn't. However the loss from removing the 900 can be offset by upgrading the popular Route 630 to run every 20 minutes or better 7 days per week with longer operating hours. This also has wider gains, in this case west to Ormond and Elwood.
* A rerouted Route 900 would mean that Rowville passengers would no longer be able to change to a train at Huntingdale. Instead they'd need to remain on the bus to Caulfield. However they would gain from improved Route 900 frequency and better train connections. There is also scope for other Rowville area bus network reform that would provide much more of the suburb with bus connections to nearer stations (as the current 900 only covers a fraction of the suburb around Stud Park). A less radical variation could retain the 900 route via Huntingdale but, with more turning movements, directness and travel time would be worse.
It is true that the cost of a direct Princes Hwy Route 900 is that it overlaps portions of existing routes. However the existing Route 900 also overlaps other routes between Oakleigh and Huntingdale and the new overlap is less costly when measured in minutes. In any event it would only be a temporary problem; when the Monash SRL station opens Route 900 could be run via Ferntree Gully Rd as per the Trackless Rapid Transit proposal.
On another matter, if it is considered important that Burlington St retains a frequent service then 802 and 804 can be moved there from parallel Atherton Rd with little change in kilometres operated. This is not an important change and may only be done if wider bus network reform involving the poorly used 704 and the 742 (that inefficiently overlaps with much of the 693, with which it could be merged) is attempted.
Conclusion
Better transport for the Chadstone / Monash area is highly desirable given the area's current intense activity and the expectation of more, especially with regards to housing.
There is interest in improved transport, as demonstrated by the various schemes promised or proposed. What perhaps isn't there is the will to commit money to large capital works, with the risk that nothing will get done for a decade or more for this corridor.
However this should not be regarded as an inevitability with a highly cost-effective bus concept that complements both the Metro Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop discussed here. Furthermore, while providing good speed and service now, it could set the groundwork for a future higher capacity mode when the capacity need arises.
Wish to comment on the housing activity centre plans? You have until September 29 to do so.
There is interest in improved transport, as demonstrated by the various schemes promised or proposed. What perhaps isn't there is the will to commit money to large capital works, with the risk that nothing will get done for a decade or more for this corridor.
However this should not be regarded as an inevitability with a highly cost-effective bus concept that complements both the Metro Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop discussed here. Furthermore, while providing good speed and service now, it could set the groundwork for a future higher capacity mode when the capacity need arises.
Wish to comment on the housing activity centre plans? You have until September 29 to do so.
Index to other Useful Network items here
2 comments:
Hi There Peter. Many thanks for your blog. I've been following for a while and the route of many issues in Melbourne seems to be frequency, frequency and frequency. It seems that anyone who knows anything in this space agrees, and any trip to Sydney will remind one of our this deficiency in Melbourne, whether on trains, trams or buses. Given this, do you think the matter of hopeless frequencies we see in Melbourne is on the radar of policy makers? Is there some reason the planners and government people have been reluctant to increase frequency? Will there be a time when we see the light in Victoria and increase frequencies to make them usable and helpful? Or is there some kind of disconnect amongst policy makers?
Thanks James - there could be several reasons. Eg politically here building stuff is seen as more important and more visible than service. We've passed through a period of insanely low interest rates and it was considered OK to borrow money to build stuff. But not OK to borrow to run frequent service, which needs recurring funding. That's harder and no one likes paying more tax. Yet Sydney has been able to get a better mix of infrastructure and service than we have despite the same economic settings we have. So it might come to internal leadership and competence. Those who build politically supported infrastructure are an A-team in their own well resourced project authorities while the rest are a sort of remnant B-team remnant with indifferent or less politically favoured leadership who are unable to successfully internally advocate stuff like frequency to government (including ministers who genuinely want to do good things). Hence things like complex Bus Plan proposals can wither while independent advocacy that hits the right spot politically can work.
Post a Comment