Government announces station upgrades

(No Timetable Tuesday today as the State Government has been talking infrastructure, and, for a change, so shall I)

The current emphasis

A common criticism of the current state government's transport infrastructure agenda is that there's a heavy reliance on a small number of big projects. Any government MP can rattle them off. Eg the Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, North-East Link and, the biggest of them all, the Suburban Rail Loop. The narrative has been that population is growing fast and previous governments did little so we need these big projects to fix the backlog, provide for the future and create jobs. 

Level crossing removals

Also central to the government's agenda are the various road / rail grade separations. They are part of a multi-billion dollar project which the current government has made its signature policy. The opposition tried to whip up controversy over the elevated rail designs chosen for some stations, particularly on the Dandenong line. However 'Skyrail' has proved a master-stroke for Daniel Andrews with his government being returned with an increased majority in 2018. However even one grade separation is not cheap with a price tag of $100m, maybe $200m per site (especially if new stations are needed). 

Commuter parking

Another station-related project popular with politicians is extra commuter parking, which almost none of them would want to be charged. That seems cheap at maybe $20k per added spot if the land is there. But the economics of it are lousy. This includes the large opportunity costs in high land value areas where you could instead be building rate-paying homes and businesses on the site. Multi-storey  is one option but that multiplies per space cost greatly. 'Free' station parking is also a very generous for a small number of station users, who, even if they pay full fare (less than $2000 pa for unlimited myki Zone 1 and 2 travel) would need 12 years to pay back in fares what they've cost the community by occupying a parking space. Most train passengers are walk-ons. If you want dramatically increased patronage then only a small increase can come from park and ride since it is so space and money hungry. Also, beyond a small scale, the extra car traffic park and ride generates worsens walking and cycling conditions around stations and could delay more space-efficient feeder buses. 

Other ideas for stations

What else could you do with stations? Extra station entrances are a massively cost-effective improvement. Where stations have only one entrance at the end of a platform you are forcing people near one end to walk an extra 150 or more metres to the station. That does not seem much but when you consider the increased walking catchment that it would bring to a station it's a massive benefit. You are basically getting the same patronage benefit of building new stations without the extra maintenance costs or having to make trains stop at more places (slowing some peoples trips). I discussed this back in 2010. Since then progress has been made at some stations with extra myki readers and entrances. But much more needs to be done including at busier stations like Frankston.  

In the same category are a lot of walking and cycling improvements. We will gladly spend $200m so that cars are not delayed by trains. However we baulk at the $20k (maximum) price of a wombat crossing that will give people who walk a fair go against the ever increasing streams of traffic on the roads they need to cross for access to schools, shops and buses. For the price of one grade separation we could have had a Melbourne-wide program to build 10 000 wombat crossings throughout Melbourne in the places that most need them. 

Then there's bus network upgrades. Especially where routes overlap or duplicate there's significant scope for cost-effective improvements as frequently discussed here. Better buses could relieve pressure for parking for stations due to their better use of space and ability to move people. However the pace of bus network reform has slowed greatly since 2016, following an active decade starting from about 2006. 

The above are just three examples of highly cost-effective project areas that have hardly got a look-in due to the recent emphasis on large infrastructure projects. Big projects can capture imaginations and win votes. However they have weaknesses including historically poor records of cost-control, benefits that only start years after they are needed and cost-effectiveness numbers that need to be adjusted to look good, for instance by talking about so-called 'wider benefits'. As the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop showed, the assumptions of 1969/70 were a long way from the reality of the early 1980s when it opened (including much lower than forecast rail patronage).

Premier's announcement 

The COVID-19 crisis has turned policy on its head. Last year's forecasts in areas like population growth or projections in industries such as higher education are now worthless. Unemployment may double or triple. The State Government, in particular, has been looking for smaller projects that could be ramped up quickly to provide jobs on things that maybe we should have done in the past but didn't get around to. It's not been alone; last Friday I reported on a similar emphasis from umbrella group Transport for Everyone with plans for buses and active transport. 

And so yesterday the premier announced a $2.7b Building Works package. $328m will go on transport, creating 600 jobs. More about the transport component is on the Department of Transport's website, although there wasn't a lot of detail. 

So I got in touch with the premier's office to ask a little more about the projects. They responded very quickly with this list. 

Roads Maintenance:

Metro:  

Metro South East: 

·         Thompson Rd 

·         Mornington-Flinders Rd 

·         Belgrave-Hallam Rd 

·         Heatherton Rd 

Metro North West: 

·         Campbellfield-Greensborough Rd 

·         Eltham-Yarra Glen Rd 

·         Mount Alexander Rd 

·         Western Hwy 

Regional: 

Eastern:  

·         Phillip Island Road 

·         South Gippsland Highway 

·         Strzelecki Highway 

North Eastern: 

·         Goulburn Valley Highway 

·         Murray Valley Highway 

·         Midland Highway 

·         Murchison-Violet Town Road 

Northern:  

·         Bendigo-Redesdale Road 

·         Heathcote-Kyneton Road 

·         Kilmore-Lancefield Road 

South Western: 

·         Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road 

·         Hamilton Highway 

·         Midland Highway 

·         Surfcoast Highway 

Western: 

·         Ballan-Daylesford Road 

·         Ballarat-Maryborough Road 

·         Myrniong-Trentham Road 

·         Skipton Road 

·         Stawell-Warracknabeal Road 

PT Station Upgrades

Metropolitan stations:

• Aircraft
• Heathmont
• Huntingdale
• Anstey
• Moonee Ponds
• Royal Park
• Jordanville
• Footscray
• South Kensington

                               

Regional Stations:

• North Geelong
• Kilmore East
• Lara
• Melton
• North Shore
• Broadford

Note: Melton station is a larger upgrade which will be delivered in phases to improve the customer experience following swapping of platforms as part of the Ballarat Line Upgrade

Rubbish removal and graffiti

The $14m investment in extra routine maintenance on the metropolitan road network is a 30% increase in the amount budgetted for this year.

This will go toward removing graffiti and rubbish along roadsides, clearing up overgrown plants, trees and other vegetation and improving roadside drainage.

This will create more than 70 jobs alone and result in hundreds of different sites around Melbourne being cleaned up.

Feedback from the community will be analysed to determine priority areas for clean-up.
If there’s graffiti or rubbish on roadsides in your area, please contact the Department of Transport on 13 11 71 or on 133 RRV in regional Victoria.

Key sites that are among those that will be cleaned up are:
* Ned Kelly Bridge on the Hume Freeway
* Montague Street underpass (West Gate Freeway)
* Montague Street and Wurundjeri Way (over the Yarra River)
* Freeway pedestrian bridge signs over the Eastern Freeway, Abbotsford
* Freeway sound barriers; Monash Freeway in Endeavour Hills, Greensborough Bypass, Princes Freeway and Tullamarine Freeway

Stations to be upgraded

As time is short I'll just discuss the metropolitan station upgrade program. It would be good to get further detail on the station upgrades in due course. The sort of things you might expect from small station upgrades include better seating, lighting, CCTV, improved access (particularly for wheelchairs), passenger information displays, improved shelter and more. 

You can get a rough idea as to the significance of each station from the usage data compiled by Philip Mallis. You hardly even need to look to correctly guess that Footscray is by far the busiest with over 5 million passengers per year in 2018-9. Something that's set to continue with the new Metro Tunnel terminating there. It's also the nearest station to Victoria University, Highpoint and what will be the new Footscray Hospital. It needs a new bus interchange, passenger information and simplified local bus network with main routes running every 10 minutes. 

Huntingdale is a very unremarkable station but gets huge numbers (nearly 1.6 million boardings) thanks to the 601 bus to Monash University. It is also the last station before the Route 900 bus heads east to Stud Park. Consequently it's an important transfer point and has a newly built bus interchange nearby. 

Next down is Moonee Ponds with 858k boardings. It's not much of an interchange point with the trams and most bus routes down the other end of Puckle Street. However it's a densifying area popular with CBD workers. The biggest gift you could give Moonee Ponds is to upgrade the Craigieburn line to every 10 minutes interpeak but maps and wayfinding information so people can easily find what they need in the surrounding area (including buses and trams) is very important. 

Jordanville, with 498k boardings is next. It's had consistently solid patronage growth with numbers doubling since 2005. The area has enjoyed gentrification as people knocked down the housing commission homes common in the area. It needs improved physical connectivity with the intersecting 767 bus which also needs a service upgrade as one of the most productive routes in Melbourne's east serving destinations such as Southland, Chadstone, Deakin University and Box Hill.

Occupying number 5 spot is Anstey with 468k boardings in 2018/9. That's also had high growth being in a gentrifying area with CBD workers. Its only bus is the Route 503 between Essendon and East Brunswick. This sadly missed out on the MOTC minimum service upgrade program and has only a limited 6-day timetable unchanged for decades despite its densifying surrounds. 

South Kensington is definitely what you might call an 'ugly duckling' station. It's quieter than the others mentioned with over 400k boardings. However this has more than tripled since 2006, making it the fastest growing station. It's the nearest station to much of Kensington Banks, a 1990s urban infill project which likely contains many CBD workers. 

Royal Park, with 357k boardings is next. It's most well known for being near the zoo so is potentially used by tourists. However it's perhaps under-promoted and visitors might find the more frequent (but slower) tram more attractive. If the Upfield line ran more frequently it could be a potential tram/train interchange point. The relatively new and quite well used 505 bus passes nearby. 

Aircraft is another station that's sometimes passed over. There were even thoughts about closing it when Williams Landing was being planned. However it serves a need, with over 300k boardings. Long term it could become more prominent if the RAAF base is ever developed for housing. The main things holding it back is limited platform shelter and very poor pedestrian access from the south. Large parts of Seabrook would be walkable from Aircraft if it wasn't for a large roundabout with continuously flowing traffic coming off the freeway. 

Last is Heathmont with 273k passenger boardings. This is in a quiet treed neighbourhood in Melbourne's outer east. The main thing holding it back is its gap between interpeak trains is 30 minutes, close to the worst on the network. A fix to boost that to 20 minutes would be very cheap while also delivering a 10 minute service from Ringwood in. The nearby 679 bus is a potential feeder.

I would hope that a broad view is taken of station access and amenity when it's decided what should be done. For example Aircraft Station is operating well below potential due to very poor pedestrian access from the south due to roundabouts like this that effectively block safe pedestrian access. Multimodal information is another sore point. At other stations there is huge potential to improve information, for example through network maps, wayfinding and bus departure timetables, to enhance connectivity between modes. This could be followed up with bus network reviews to greatly simplify access from stations to nearby attractions, including, in Footscray's case, Victoria University and Highpoint. 

What are your thoughts? Do you use any of the stations mentioned above? Should they receive upgrades and what sort of improvements would be desirable. Please leave your comments below, or better still get onto your MP. 

T4E's 5-point plan to boost buses and active transport

Key transport professionals have jointly written to the Victorian Premier urging the Government’s Building Victoria’s Recovery Taskforce to focus on upgrading bus services and active transport to improve mobility for Melbourne and build jobs as part of recovery from COVID-19.

The 5-point plan seeks a new vision for buses. This includes fast tracking local bus reviews, delivering bus priority and ten new or enhanced Smart Bus corridors operating every 10 minutes. Also sought, is boosting domestic jobs in bus building including electric buses to replace polluting diesel fleets.

The signatories include many people and groups familiar to Melbourne on Transit readers including  Monash Professor of Public Transport Graham Currie, University of Sydney Business School Adjunct Professor John Stanley, Eastern Transport Coalition, PTUA and the Metropolitan Transport Forum. They emphasise that bus and active transport upgrades are quick to implement for immediate impact at a fraction of the cost of large scale infrastructure projects. Such measures are also highly cost-effective and deliver results before larger and longer term projects can. This is especially to the 70% of Melbourne which is beyond train and tram services. 

The transport groups, writing under the Transport For Everyone (T4E) banner, are united in the view that the current period of reduced patronage due to COVID-19 provides the opportunity to revise poorly performing bus routes to work the bus fleet harder to make it more useful, more productive and efficient.

Successes of frequent and regular direct Smart Bus services and University bus shuttles demonstrate

the potential to substantially upgrade poorly performing bus routes to improve access and efficiency

in services, build patronage and create jobs. 

What's in the plan? 

The plan's five points are as follows:  

1. Expanded 10 minute frequency bus network

The centrepiece of the plan is a rebooted SmartBus program (map above). The last SmartBuses were introduced in 2010. Since then Melbourne has added a million people but no new SmartBuses. The enhanced SmartBuses, to operate on a mixture of existing and new corridors, would deliver 10 minute all-day service on ten key corridors. Major destinations to benefit include Deakin, Monash, Victoria and La Trobe Universities, shopping centres at Chadstone, Box Hill, Doncaster, Northland and Highpoint, and many middle suburban train stations such as Clayton, Mt Waverley, Holmesglen, Mitcham, Heidelberg, Preston, Coburg and Sunshine. 

Some routes would be a precursor to the proposed Suburban Rail Loop, delivering almost immediate mobility benefits. A major route from Caulfield to La Trobe University via Camberwell and Heidelberg would fill a missing link in Melbourne's east, connecting seven of Melborne's rail lines, including the Metro Tunnel. Doncaster and Rowville would gain turn-up and go service with major frequency increases. Also the Highpoint/Footscray/VU cluster in the inner west would be better connected with simplified local services operating every 10 minutes.  Some routes would operate every ten minutes seven days per week, superior to existing SmartBuses which are mostly every 15 minutes off-peak, 30 minutes weekends. More detail here.

It's worth mentioning that although the ten minute network proposed is vastly expanded compared to what runs now, parts of it could be introduced cheaply without buying new buses. These comments apply for the 220, 406, 900, 903, 904, 907 corridors and possibly also 201 and 411 as well. The key to some of these is the local network reviews as mentioned next. Another benefit of boosting services is the large number of bus driver and support staff jobs that could be created, often just by working the existing bus fleet harder over more of the day.

2. Fast tracked local area bus reviews to simplify local networks 

These would support the above ten minute network and deliver more direct services every 20 minutes or better in many other areas. Revised networks could reverse patronage decline in some areas and improve utilisation of our bus fleet (which also creates driver jobs). Along similar lines to Useful Network upgrades presented here. 

3. Better bus priority to boost road capacity 'people movement'

More on-road bus lanes and traffic light 'head starts' at intersections to deliver faster and more reliable services on well-used trunk routes (presumably including the ten minute network above). This is an economical way to increase road capacity in a more space-effective manner than if everyone was in their own car. 

4. A new electric bus building industry for Victoria

Boosting domestic bus building and fit-out. Setting a target of moving to all-electric buses by 2030 to reduce diesel emissions from buses. This would contribute to better air quality and emissions reduction. The skills and job opportunities such an industry would provide is also attractive. 

5. Supporting active transport such as walking and cycling

This would deliver on current commitments to walking, cycling and to create jobs in bike sales and repair, including of E-bikes.

Conclusion

This is a quick run through the T4E proposal to boost buses and active transport. There's some great initiatives. Let's hope the government sits up and takes notice! 

Melbourne on Transit bookshop

Favourably reviewed books about transport and cities. Purchases via these links support this blog and its independent reporting (at no extra cost to you).   

Timetable Tuesday #74: Flexible route buses - cure or curse?

Local bus services rarely rate a mention in debates about transport in Melbourne. That is even though their potential to cheaply move more people for more types of trips far exceeds elite hobbyhorses like airport rail and (especially) very high speed interstate rail. 

When they do get discussed it's often in disparaging terms. Eg large noisy fume-belching buses meandering through small streets with no one on them. A solution sometimes proferred is their replacement with smaller flexible route vehicles that takes people nearer to their homes. Add an app and it becomes a fashionable part of discussions about 'smart cities' or 'mobility as a service'.

The types of people who further these discussions rarely see the inside of a public route bus. They are even less likely to talk to people who do. Their knowledge of existing networks can be abysmal, even to the extent that some are unaware that 'demand responsive' buses already run and their strengths and weaknesses are established facts. Melbourne has been running flexible route buses for as long as  many people have been alive.

Telebus

The longest running flexible route bus has been the Telebus series in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs. There's one cluster around Croydon/Lilydale and, later, another around Rowville. They were established by Croydon Bus Service in 1978 to serve then new subdivisions difficult to serve with conventional bus routes. Read the founder's ATRF paper here. Some historical timetables are on Krustylink (see the 2001 timetable book under Route 672).

The extent of the Telebus network can be seen from the shading on the maps below. Telebus is the only option in some areas while in others (notably Rowville) there are inefficient overlaps with regular bus routes because Telebuses weren't removed when new fixed routes went in about 20 years ago.

What are the differences between regular bus routes and Telebus? Catching a regular bus requires you to find the route you want on a map, look up a timetable and get to the stop a few minutes before it is due to arrive. The timetable will also show when you will arrive, handy for an appointment or connection to another service. If you know where the bus goes and it's a frequent service then you can skip all these steps, rock up at the stop and be on your way in a few minutes. Failing that, if on a main road, it should have a clockface 'memory timetable' with departures every 15 or 20 minutes as per the Useful Network. 

A Telebus requires you to look up the time the bus leaves its start point. Then you must telephone at least five minutes before the bus leaves. You mention where you want to be picked up from. The dispatcher will then give you an approximate time to be there. The time you arrive at your destination depends on how many other people have requested diversions. If it's many then your trip is slow. This is why this style of service works best on quiet routes, during off-peak times and when arrival times are not critical (eg you are not seeking to connect with trains or other buses). A surcharge, over and above your myki fare, applies if you use the flexible route option.

Telebuses operate between fixed origins and destinations with the route between them subject to the calls they get. Some stops are fixed. You don't need to call ahead or pay the Telebus surcharge if you board or alight from them. However times will vary more than for a normal fixed route bus. Some telebuses operate bidirectionally between two termini through a residential area while others are effectively a loop serving a single key destination or interchange only. 

PTV lists Telebus routes on their website page here. The founding operator started them with love but the CBD-centric Department of Transport treats them like if it's their stepmother, with an obligation to feed but not to love. Evidence of this is plain in the aforementioned link where maps are grudgingly provided (as pdfs) but links to the all-important timetables are not. Finding these requires a search that doesn't always work. Information at stops is limited too.

Links to Telebus timetables are here if you wish to browse them:

Telebus Area 1 Lilydale - Chirnside Park

Telebus Area 2 Mooroolbark - Chirnside Park

Telebus Area 3 Mooroolbark - Chirnside Park

Telebus Area 4 Mooroolbark - Croydon

Telebus Area 7 Ferntree Gully - Stud Park

Telebus Area 8 Ferntree Gully - Stud Park

Telebus Area 9 Stud Park loop

In addition Route 672 between Croydon and Chirnside Park is a regular bus route with a Telebus service operating on a section of it at off-peak times.

What are Telebuses like as a service and are they useful? Their operating  hours are like a typical 1990s Melbourne bus route, ie no service much after 7pm or on Sundays. Rowville area routes also lack Saturday service. Frequencies are roughly hourly and operating patterns vary during peak periods on some. In other words many of the criticisms against local buses also applies to flexible route buses as they are implemented here. So much for the panacea that promoters of flexible route services claim!

The Department of Transport's stern stepmother policy towards buses (ie food but not nurture) again applies. They paid to keep Telebuses running but did not upgrade them, even when many fixed routes gained minimum service standards from 2006. But, with only one or two exceptions, they also did not delete them nor convert them to conventional fixed route services. Few local bus review recommendations ever got implemented in the outer east. These would have substantially changed some Telebus routes. 

Another criticism of regular route buses is they can be underused. This looks particularly obvious when large buses, despite being necessary during peak times, are used off-peak. Are demand responsive Telebuses particularly productive?

The answer is they are not. Infrastructure Victoria regards 20 passenger boardings per bus service hour (ie roughly 1 passenger boarding per km given normal bus speeds) as a minimum threshold for a bus route to be considered productive. The average for Melbourne buses is somewhere over 20. Most Telebuses are half or less of this average. Weekday average passenger boardings per hour are as follows:

TeleBus 1 Lilydale - Chirnside Park 8
TeleBus 2 Mooroolbark - Chirnside Park 7
TeleBus 3 Mooroolbark - Chirnside Park 13
TeleBus 4 Mooroolbark - Croydon Station 10
TeleBus 7 Stud Park SC - Ferntree Gully Station 7
TeleBus 8 Stud Park SC - Ferntree Gully Station 5
TeleBus 9 Stud Park SC - Stud Park SC 8

Route 672       Chirnside Park - Croydon 15

Melbourne's outer east is not good territory for buses, with higher car ownership and lower residential densities than many other areas. Even so fixed route routes in similar outer eastern catchments generally have higher productivity than the above Telebuses. Examples include Routes 675 (33 weekday passenger boardings/bus hour), 671 (22), 677 (21) and 680 (18). Lower productivity fixed routes eg 663 (15), 679 (14) and 695 (13) are similar to the better performing Telebuses. However they are still below average for Melbourne buses and serve large areas with low population density with frequency that is arguably excessive.

681 and 682 (11-12 bph) are also poor performers, likely due to catchment overlap with the even quieter Stud Park area Telebuses (5 - 8 bph). It would seem that if you do have both fixed and flexible routes in an area more people will opt for the fixed route, even if its frequency isn't very good.

Demand responsive routes never seem to be associated with more than mediocre patronage. This is particularly in areas, such as Rowville, where there is a catchment overlap with fixed route services.

You may accept such low patronage if you deem the service essential on social equity grounds. For example to provide coverage in pockets with narrow and/or disconnected streets without usable through routes. However the first priority should be to see if a fixed route providing reasonable coverage is possible. This is because even in high car-ownership areas with unfavourable demographics for buses fixed routes seem to be more popular.

Such fixed routes might still record a very ordinary 15 to 20 passenger boardings per hour. However that's still better than flexible route buses. Also it is unlikely that, contrary what some have suggested, that there would be much of a saving if fixed route buses were converted to flexible route, unless you were also cutting service standards like hours and frequency or drivers' wages. Be wary of accepting  cost saving claims from exponents of flexible route buses until you are sure that you're comparing like for like service. 

Demand responsive 490

A bit over ten years ago sixteen bus reviews, covering all local areas of Melbourne, were done. Occasionally recommendations included demand responsive buses in hard to serve pockets. The only Melbourne one that got implemented was Route 490 in Gowanbrae. 

From a transport access point of view the suburb should never been developed since it is not geometrically possible to provide an efficient direct route, or, cheaper still, have rerouted or extended an existing service. A Glenroy to Airport West route, for example, would have provided a handy link across the north and given some useful connections for Gowanbrae. However politics overcame history, geometry and geography. A successful local campaign eventually saw a demand responsive bus to Airport West put in (more here). 

Although a similar concept to the Telebuses, the 490 is slightly different. For a start it didn't get the name 'Telebus' - this was associated with the Invicta routes in the east. And there was no surcharge for going nearer your home. Instead you could just go to designated stops (explained on the old PTV website's map, but not explained on their new site's map).

Street layout restricts where the 490 can go. It runs to the nearest larger shopping centre and tram terminus at Airport West. Despite being introduced in 2008 service levels are again like a 1990s regular bus route with only daytime Monday to Saturday service. Services are hourly with a half-hourly weekday peak service. Route 490's patronage productivity is 13 passenger boardings per bus service hour on weekdays and 9 on Saturdays, again well below average for buses in Melbourne. 

Mornington Peninsula community buses

The Mornington Peninsula has large suburban areas that never received the regular bus network coverage that other fringe suburbs have received. Elsewhere on the peninsula are low density peri-urban areas. This has created larger service gaps than other areas have. To fill some of these gaps for the most needy of its population (which it defines as seniors and people with disabilities) the Mornington Peninsula Council runs a 'dial a bus' community transport network. The network is extensive but the service is sparse, with different routes operating on different days of the week. This means that the network works for shopping and certain appointments but cannot perform the school and work travel functions that you'd expect from a regular route bus system. 

Flexibility - on whose terms? 

We already run flexible route / demand responsive buses in Melbourne. As well as regional area 'Flexiride' services in Yarrawonga and Woodend. Some routes have been going for years. Not that longevity is any guarantee of usefulness since the Department of Transport funds but rarely deletes underused routes. The apps aspect may appear novel but existing fixed route buses can also be tracked and real-time information provided. Their patronage has not set the world on fire, and on important service level features such as operating hours and frequency they often inferior to regular bus routes. 

Except for Gowanbrae the metropolitan areas that our flexible route buses operate in have not had wholesale service reviews implemented for years if not decades. If they did then it is possible that some flexible routes would have been converted to fixed routes operating over more hours of the day to provide an overall more direct and useful network. They may be more productive and thus more cost-effective than the low numbers seen for 'flexible' routes. 

As for flexibility, it's important to ask whose terms it is on. That's a familiar debate for those who follow industrial relations. Those who wield the most power have the greatest flexibility, leaving those who don't to accept what's offered. When there's a big power imbalance the stronger side (naturally) prefers direct negotiation while the weaker side generally prefers external arbitration and/or government-regulated conditions to stop the powerful side getting away with too much.

Hence the wage breakouts in 1974 and 1981 (when unions were strong) and hostility towards government moves to pause or regulate wages. Unemployment, casualisation and international competition have since weakened unions to such an extent that it's the (now) more powerful employers who, since 1985, have advocated direct negotiation and the winding back of regulated pay and conditions. The side that initially wanted flexibility to go above and beyond a previous agreement may find that their opponents use that same flexibility to go below and pay less if market conditions change.

To summarise, flexibility is good if you've got power and can dictate its terms. If you don't have power you'd rather inflexibility to safeguard against things getting worse. This concept is less familiar but equally important for transport and land use. Possibly even more so because a benefit of inflexibility (for something like a popular railway line) is you can make long-term decisions like a house purchase with a reasonable belief that transport will continue to be available long-term.

The main power passengers have is to withdraw their patronage. Which they did during several decades where service levels declined, strikes took over the system, the suburbs spread and more bought cars. As public transport became increasingly subsidised even this withdrawal of patronage mattered less. That is until you start to value public transport for its community benefits (eg congestion relief, enabling connections to opportunity, reduced carbon emissions, more efficient land uses) which tend to be highest when it is well used.

If you want that then you have to think about flexibility on the passengers' terms. One type of flexibility that may seem passenger-friendly (eg to door service) might be less so when you consider offsetting liabilities such as having to call ahead before travelling, slower trips, buses twisting and turning and less predictable arrival times.

The flexibility that counts as far as the passenger is concerned is frequent service, especially one where they can turn up and go and easily change between services with minimal waiting. Passengers also like good operating hours, direct routes, and predictable travel times. Surveys have repeatedly revealed these as priorities for most passengers.  

A good fixed network can deliver these to population catchments measured in millions for a reasonable cost. It does that by concentrating demand along a grid of frequent and well-served corridors everyone can walk to and interchange between. And because service is concentrated you can justify infrastructure upgrades such as bus shelters, good information at stops and bus priority to further speed travel and make buses more tram-like. 

In contrast flexible routes encourage dispersed demand, slow and meandering travel while tending towards lower frequency. Having to phone ahead or register on an app one's intention to travel is a barrier to use, especially if an hour's or more notice needs to be given. That's flexible for the bus operator but not at all for the passenger.  All these are in the direction of lesser usage, lesser demand, high running costs and even its eventual closure such as for this failed Sydney trial.  

Having to phone ahead or use an app is a barrier to using a flexible route bus. Especially if the argument for providing the service is largely on social inclusion rather than patronage or environment grounds. It is not uncommon for low income people to run out of mobile data. Some seniors, in particular, do not have a Smartphone to begin with. These are important considerations if you were hoping that your demand-responsive bus would be completely app-based. If you had a phone option then that's another management cost unless the service is small enough for the driver to take calls during his downtime (another source of inefficiency if the bus is sitting at a terminus). 

Transport planners, who by possessing a degree-needing full-time CBD job are in themselves elites, need to be particularly aware of the financial circumstances of their passengers. Business consultant types, with a private corporate rather than public service ethos, may be even less aware. The Grattan Institute recently reported that 10% of households had less than $90 cash in the bank. It is common for passengers to maintain low balances on their myki cards and make only small top-ups each time, lending weight to Grattan's findings. 

It's important to ask who is pushing flexible route services and how they will deliver claimed cost savings from an inherently low-productivity mode. Is it app developers who want a percentage cut of referred mobility services? Transit-illiterate tech-heads? Do some see a business opportunity in replacing moderately paid bus drivers with low-paid Uber-type mini-bus drivers on local routes? Or is it those who want to slash  apparently inefficient local bus services but are playing a pea and thimble trick to disguise a service cut in the name of 'flexibility'?

A place may exist for flexible route smaller buses. However I suspect that it will be in areas with very sparse demand or unhelpful street layouts. In other words only ever a small proportion of the network. In other areas it's better to reform local bus networks along Useful Network lines to make conventional fixed routes work better. Flexible route buses may help with a particular local issue but are not a wholesale panacea. Contrary to the hopes of people like Infrastructure Victoria's Michel Masson, their implementation will rarely free resources to boost buses elsewhere. 

A big problem is that flexible routes don't scale up well if more people start using the service. Which is exactly what you want if you want buses to be efficient, useful and economical to run. The more passengers flexible routes get the more deviations they make. That slows travel for everyone else on the bus. Hence we have Route 672 that only operates as a Telebus during off-peak times. Though even that adds complexity to the service.

To some extent it's self-regulating because some passengers will get frustrated by the slow speed and quit using buses, making travel quicker for the remaining passengers once again. However that's not a sound approach to encouraging sustained usage or growing public transport's share of trips. One solution is to reduce the number of places it will deviate to, reducing variability. Eventually it might become a conventional fixed route that is even more efficient to schedule due to consistent running times.

Whenever someone (even if they claim to be a transport expert) mentions the word 'flexible', always counter with 'Flexibility for whom'? And ask if it's necessarily a good thing. It might not be. In many cases it may be that our unloved fixed route bus network is not inherently bad, but it just needs some more attention for it to deliver real flexibility on the passengers' terms. 

An index to all Timetable Tuesday items is here.

Melbourne on Transit bookshop

Favourably reviewed books about transport and cities. Purchases via these links support this blog and its independent reporting (at no extra cost to you).