Timetable Tuesday #99: The upgraded Mornington Peninsula bus network (and some enhancements)

The biggest initiative in this year's otherwise sparse state budget (for service) were much called for bus improvements on the Mornington Peninsula. Buses are the only public transport on the Port Phillip side. None south of Mt Martha currently operates at the minimum service standard of hourly until 9pm Monday to Sunday. They didn't get all they wanted but the Shire of Mornington Peninsula can take some credit thanks to the Better Buses campaign they ran last year. 

Proposed upgrade

An announcement video appears on local MP Chris Brayne's Facebook page. 

I've mapped a summary  below (click for a clearer map): 

How many buses do the upgrades need? 788 is a little under two hours end to end. A look at Ventura bus tracking shows three buses are out on a normal weekend (80 minute frequency). A check on a weekday afternoon (around 4:30pm) indicated five buses out to run the 40 to 50 minute frequency. An improvement to every 30 minutes would need two more buses. Assuming some extra run time, one of those extra buses might run on weekends to enable an even 40 minute service. 

With minor exceptions in the peak of the peak, the 781 to Mt Martha runs hourly. Run time is fifty minutes. The extension would greatly boost coverage and cut backtracking for some trips. However the extra length to Dromana would tip it to over an hour and require an extra bus.  

The 887 is roughly every 2 hours with an hour trip time each way. That means it uses one bus. We're not told whether its frequency will stay at every two hours or whether it will increase (say to hourly). If the latter an extra bus will be needed. 

Hence this upgrade should require a minimum of three and possibly four new buses. 

Limitations of announced upgrades

The above represents the biggest improvement to local buses for at least ten years. However it doesn't address all the area's transport needs. For example coverage remains an issue with many areas served either by infrequent routes like 786, 787, 886 or receiving no service at all. 

Even though the freeway 887 will offer a quicker trip to Frankston its frequency will likely be much lower than the 788 (currently it's every 120 minutes, and I'm tipping no better than every 60 minutes). Hence there will still be many times when people will get the 788 to arrive at Frankston earlier than if they waited for the 887. That leads one to question the usefulness of the 887, especially if there are network alternatives that deliver wider benefits to more places on more days of the week.  

Peak frequencies on the upgraded routes remain unattractive even after the upgrade. No single bus route beyond Frankston to the south is better than every 30 minutes, with 60 minutes most common. 

Frankston is a major rail terminus with a large commuter catchment. Few can walk to the station and buses are not useful to most due to their low frequency. Same applies for the Stony Point train. Pressure on car parking, notably all-day commuters that are taking spots that could be used for local shoppers, is likely a driver behind local moves to extend rail electrification to Langwarrin or Baxter. The feds waved some money but the state said no. So the project is a non-starter, despite the wishes of some. More background in a post from last month.  

With four routes (781, 784, 785 and 788) Mornington is better served than areas further south. However some routes are indirect. Also all but the 788 have a 60 minute base frequency, making them unattractive for commuters who instead add parking pressures around Frankston and Seaford stations.  

An alternative network 1

What if you wanted to address some of the wider issues the budget's option didn't? 

For instance given the state didn't kick in for the Baxter rail extension, should it offer an alternative to relieve commuter parking issues in Frankston? Frankston's role as a walkable transit-oriented centre (or even a car-oriented commercial centre) is incompatible with it being clogged with unattended commuters' cars. They just take up space and don't contribute to local commerce during the day. In economic terms the lost business is a deadweight loss caused by not providing commuters sufficient  alternatives to parking in Frankston, like usefully frequent bus services from the peninsula.   

Some of the most populated parts of residential Mornington, around Bentons Square, only get indirect buses to Frankston. The 785, for instance, comes just hourly. Total travel time to Frankston is almost 50 minutes. That's an intolerable addition to an already slow train trip exceeding an hour to the CBD. A revised network might permit a faster and more frequent service to thousands more people from the area.  

Below is a concept network (click for a better view): 

Key points include: 

* Potentially faster run for the 788, especially for trips to Monash University and Frankston Hospital, by routing via Moorooduc Hwy (as limited stops service). The weekday frequency would be four times that provided by the current 887 with longer operating hours plus weekend service. 

* Faster and more frequent service to Monash University, Frankston Hospital and Frankston Station for most of Mornington East/Osborne by operating Route 785 via Moorooduc Hwy (as limited stops service) and doubling its frequency.

* New Moorooduc Park & Ride on Moorooduc Hwy. Intended to relieve parking pressure in the Frankston CBD, hospital university precinct by providing a high quality express bus service every 15 minutes to these destinations. The location chosen would be served by the boosted 785 and 788 whose timetables would be offset to provide a combined 15 minute frequency on weekdays and a 20 minute service on weekends.   

* More direct Mornington - Hastings cross-peninsula travel. Current travel requires backtracking via Frankston interchange. The rerouted 785/788 and a new Moorooduc Hwy pedestrian crossing near Frankston-Flinders Rd (desirable for other reasons) would enable a more direct change to Hastings buses 782 and 783 and cut 6 km of backtracking.    

* Minor routing changes for 781 and 784 to retain coverage. 781 would operate to Dromana as per the Budget proposal but could have a minor straightening in Mornington. 784 would alter to provide 'mop up' coverage on streets missed by changes to other routes.  

* Deletion of Route 887 with resources put into the upgraded Route 785. Passengers going to Monash University and Frankston Hospital would instead get a more frequent trip on the rerouted 788, with a 7 day service available. 

As always, there would be trade-offs. Removing the 887 would extend travel times from Rosebud to Frankston. However as it's unlikely to be a frequent service there would be many times where the slower but more frequent 788 gets you there faster. 

While Mornington East/Mt Martha East gain greatly, Mt Eliza loses the 785. That reduces its service from three to two buses per hour. Ideally the remaining 781 and 785 should be staggered to provide an even 30 minute service. Also notable is that Mt Eliza has several schools that would no longer have the 788 nearby. There may need to be school deviations, special trips, or timed transfers to cater for this. On the positive side parts of Mt Martha will gain a direct bus to Mt Eliza thanks to the 781's extension. And if a 20 minute combined service to Mt Eliza is thought desirable then 781 and 784 could be boosted to run every 40 minutes at additional cost. 

An alternative network 2 (Southern Peninsula)

The next network concentrates on southern peninsula improvements. It could be done independently of the Mornington ideas presented above. However the map below shows both concepts.   

Key points include: 

* Reforming the 788 to a two-route 787/788 corridor to provide 7 day direct Frankston services to large parts of Rye, Blairgowrie and Sorrento remote from Point Nepean Rd. Service kilometres would be similar to the 788's 2020 budget improvements, so there are no cost increases. However coverage would be better spread west of Rye, replacing the existing complex and infrequent 787 service on this section. Route 787 and Route 788 trips would be evenly spaced over the common Rye to Frankston portion. PTV, which is not particularly good at these things, would be required to provide legible multi-route information at all stops, even if manual processes have to be resorted to.   

* Joining the existing 786 with the remaining (eastern) part of the 787 at Rye. The map shows this as a single through route (labelled 786) to Dromana. Additional service kilometres could boost operating hours including 7 day service. Although an improvement the extended 786 is still quite complicated. A suggested simplification is to split it into two routes, eg 793: Dromana - Rosebud and 794: Rosebud to Rye. On weekdays one of those routes could extend or deviate to Chisholm TAFE on Boneo Rd to replace Route 886. 793 and 794 trips would be timed to connect to the 787/788 corridor at Dromana and Rosebud where possible. 

Conclusion

Presented are some alternative approaches to improved buses on the Rosebud side of the Mornington Peninsula. There are swings and roundabouts but overall I think it has some substantial benefits. Please let me know what you think in the comments below including other ideas you might have. 

PS: An index to all Timetable Tuesday items is here.

Building Melbourne's Useful Network Part 72: Surrey Hills/Mont Albert for the proposed station

On Wednesday some rail announcements were made. Some level crossing removals would be fast-tracked and a new station would be built at Pakenham East. One of the projects mentioned concerned Surrey Hills and Mont Albert stations. Both, just 800 metres apart, would be replaced by one station in between. This would enable level crossing removals at Union Rd and Mont Albert Rd with the rail placed in a trench. 

In a presentation on Wednesday evening Box Hill MP Paul Hamer said that the merging was necessary due to the local topography and bends in the rail line. While some existing stations are on bends this is not considered desirable for new stations due to varying gaps between the platform and the train. And some initially attractive design concepts might have unacceptably deep trenches and long climbs for station users due to the topography. 

You can see the placement of the proposed station on the project map above. 

While technically in the suburb of Mont Albert the new station will be nearer the existing Surrey Hills Station. That station, in one of Melbourne's most expensive suburbs, has historically been well looked after in terms of its staffing (it being a premium station), the number of peak trains it gets and it still being in Zone 1 (when that mattered for the cheaper fares). It is also local to nineties premier Jeff Kennett. Mont Albert is unstaffed, receives fewer trains but is still in Zone 1. 

The local seat of Box Hill reliably returns Liberal MPs except when Labor polls exceptionally well like it did in 2018. However, like a clutch of eastern suburb seats, even a minor anti-government swing in 2022 will see it return to the Liberals. While there will be political sensitivities, the view from government appears to be that the popularity of level crossing removals should outweigh any backlash from what might be seen as the closure of a station. 

Such boldness was not the case before 2018 when decisions were made to choose trench rather than the better, faster and cheaper elevated rail at certain Frankston line sites. 'Skyrail' on the Dandenong line hadn't been completed when the Frankston line projects were announced. And Labor could quite easily lose Box Hill yet still retain office whereas if they lose seats like Carrum, Mordialloc and Bentleigh then they will almost certainly lose power. The level crossings will be gone in 2023, with the area likely to be still a building site in the election lead-up.  

Level crossings have affected how we plan buses. Due to long boom gate down times there has been a tendency for routes to avoid crossing the tracks to ensure reliability. You can see this in areas like St Albans, Essendon and Box Hill/Blackburn.  Removed level crossings potentially end these barriers and routes can potentially operate straight through. However there has been few if any substantive bus network reforms arising from level crossing removals. Indeed in some cases bus connectivity has got worse with removals such as Mentone moving the station entrance further from buses. 

Whatever the past sins at other sites, Surrey Hills/Mont Albert may have a good case for bus network reform despite their high income skew being less favourable for patronage than nearby Box Hill. There may also be a perceived need to 'give something back' in return for a station being deleted as well as the seat's slim electoral margins. Carrum's level crossing removal, that involved elevated rail, is an example of things being 'given back' to mitigate local concerns. Additions to the project included the new Karrum Karrum bridge extending Station St and a new beachside park. However the failure of Carrum Station to have entrances on both sides of McLeod Rd, the closure of Eel Race Rd's connection to the Nepean Hwy and the extension of McLeod Rd to Nepean Hwy with high traffic volumes has made walking conditions worse, not better. 

Existing network

Surrey Hills is a long-established high income suburb. Bus route numbers have changed but fifty years ago the area had three routes fairly similar to what runs now. East-west transport connections are strong. These include the Ringwood train line, the 109 tram to the north, and, further north the 302/304 bus corridor. All run to the Melbourne CBD every 15 minutes or better on weekdays. 

Canterbury Rd is the main exception. It's a busy traffic route but has no buses running more than a short distance along it. Useful Network Part 14 proposes a Box Hill - Canterbury Rd - Ringwood bus to connect major destinations. The portion of Canterbury Rd between Camberwell and Surrey Hills has a parallel train line with close stations so arguably does not need a bus. However the section between Surrey Hills and Box Hill is more distant (especially when the station relocates) so does need a bus. I'll say more on that later. 

North-south access, such as would be required for circumferential travel and to feed trains and trams, is very poor.  None of Surrey Hill's three bus routes operate 7 days. Operating hours are also limited and typical frequency when services do run is every 30 to 60 minutes. 

The Useful Network map below shows the void in north-south service. 

The train is the fastest way into the CBD for those near walking distance of it. Areas further north have slower trams and buses. However the absence of frequent north-south bus routes make the travel times for those hoping to take advantage of trains' faster speed volatile. 

All buses in the area go to Box Hill, which makes sense given it's such a major destination. However some take an indirect path to get there (612) or they needlessly overlap the 109 tram (284). Meanwhile, as mentioned before, Canterbury Rd is conspicuously missing a service. 

Revised network options

Sometimes you can come up with a revised network that unambiguously makes a lot of 'greater good' improvements. I didn't find that the case here. 

In these circumstances it's worth plotting several options. Each will have strengths and weaknesses. The eventual network chosen may well be a hybrid, combining features of several. Another side-benefit of having developed multiple options is that you are less wedded to the strength of your only plan. The latter can lead to dogmatism when discussing network revisions with others. 

Hence I will present three potential future bus networks, each assuming the current number of routes in the area. I do lean to one but won't disclose that here. Also I've made assumptions about road and station access arrangements that may or may not hold. So regard them as broad concepts only. 

Network Option A

This could be called the 'All routes lead to Box Hill' option. In that it's like the current network but routes are a bit more direct with less overlap. 

More specifically 612 is straighter, providing a highly desirable Canterbury Rd service. To maintain its straightness Chatham, despite its fewer number of trains, is proposed over the combined Surrey Hills/Mont Albert station which would require a deviation. Replacing 612 in the north is a rerouted 284 which is moved off the tram line. On that it should be noted that the tram was extended to Box Hill in 2003 but the bus route never got changed. Route 766 could get a minor change to serve more of Union Rd. 

What are the limitations? The new combined station has only one bus (the 766) instead of two for Surrey Hills now (612, 766). And Canterbury Rd's gain with the 612 is at the expense of Union Rd that loses service at some stops. All of the missed stops are near the frequent tram, though it does mean that Surrey Hills station and shops lose a connection from the north. 

The trade-offs here are similar to that encoutered for any smaller station near a major centre. Do you run buses to the nearest station (good for commuters) or do you run them to the nearest large centre, which in Box Hill's case has many jobs, education places and hospital beds? Laburnum Station on the other side has similar issues if you were to examine its bus network. However an offsetting gain that should prove popular would be if all three routes got upgraded to operate 7 days until at least 9pm. 

As for frequency, the straightened 612 may be a candidate for a Useful Network upgrade to every 20 minutes, although its southern half remains indirect like a less frequent local route. As might the 766, though due to its proximity to the 903 you might only do it if (a) the 903 is rerouted away from it, eg via Deakin University and (b) it receives a stronger southern terminus. 

Network Option B

This one is philosophically different to Option A. It is nearer to a pure grid with priority given to getting passengers to their nearest station rather than a big centre like Box Hill.  

Route 612 would have only a minor change to serve the new station. 

However Route 284 and 766 would be amalgamated to form a north-south route via the new station and linking trams north and south of the line. The arrangement would reduce service kilometres as neither route would go to Box Hill. Ignoring issues such as the routes currently being run by different operators, that could potentially enable some modest frequency improvements. And instead of having no buses parts of Union Rd would have two routes, providing a better feeder to the station. 

Parts of Mont Albert Rd would lose buses while Canterbury Rd would not gain anything. The combined 284/766 route might attract peak usage as a feeder but both the northern and southern termini are weak destinations, especially off-peak. That's unlike Box Hill that's busy all day. Hence patronage may not meet expectations. Also there will be complaints about the two routes withdrawn from Box Hill. 

The main beneficiary will be the new station, which will have feeder routes going both north and south. All routes would be upgraded to 7 days with longer hours but the indirectness of the 612 and the weak termini of the 284/766 may weaken the case for either to be upgraded to a Useful Network 20 minute frequency off-peak. 

Network Option C

This is a hybrid. It keeps all current routes running to Box Hill. And it keeps buses on Union Rd. Three routes directly serve the new station, more than any previous option. However there are some downsides. While 612 is more direct to Box Hill, 766 is much less direct and 284 somewhat less direct.  The option preserves buses at all existing stops but does not help Canterbury Rd. As well this network is quite complex, no simpler than current. All routes should get 7 day service as a minimum. 

Conclusion

What are your thoughts on buses in Surrey Hills and Mont Albert? Does any option stand out or is there another that could be better still? Are there gains from casting the net wider, such as rerouting 302 or 903, providing stronger termini for the 284 and 766 or even a Deakin University connection from the north, such as by rerouting 284? Or should more have been said about boosting peak frequencies, and if so which corridors justify upgrades? Please leave any comments below. 

PS: An index to all Useful Networks is here.

Timetable Tuesday #98: How Melbourne doesn't do summer seasonal transport

When Sydney knows that a busy shopping and beach season is coming up they will put on extra buses, trams and ferries. Lots of them. Like 1200 extra trips per week this summer. The state government recognises that when places attract thousands public transport is key to making them work.  And visitors appreciate the choice because they know that driving to busy places is a nightmare. 

What does Melbourne do? Yawn. We boost our infrequent bus 788 on the Mornington Peninsula from every 80 to every 40 minutes on weekends for a month. One month. Not even the whole school holiday period. Despite the peninsula being a schoolies destination hosting thousands more people over summer. 788's increase is welcome but it's barely 40 extra trips per week. We also add an Oakleigh - Chadstone shuttle bus. And sometimes there's one serving Highpoint. But that's about it. 

Self-appointed 'technology visionaries' are known to bloviate on so called 'demand responsive' or flexible route buses as being the way of the future. Despite forty years of mostly failed trials, transport department executives, who should know better, also make sympathetic noises. But when real transport demand spikes to the point of existing bus services under their stewardship being overloaded, they are nowhere to be seen. Funny that!

The problem is certainly not a shortage of them. The Victorian Department of Transport has 142 executives according to its annual report. With a median pay of $210k that's an executive wages bill north of $30m pa. 

How many of that 142 do you think have (and use) discretion to add buses when demand calls? 

Zero.

Ramping up bus service to respond to demand in the suburbs is just not the done thing here. 

Instead we accept the gridlock that, like clockwork, happens each year. Not that those who should see it often do, with the average exec rarely beyond earshot of a tram ding unless they've driven to Daylesford. Few successfully internally advocate for improved service levels like how Sir Robert Risson did for trams' retention. The recent state budget amply demonstrated that. 

While buses are potentially flexible, especially when the date of their need is known months in advance, the institutional processes that govern their timetables are not. On this the Department is basically paralysed, leaving bus operators to cope the best they can on gridlocked roads. 

Black Friday's bumblings

Take the so-called 'Black Friday' sales last week. These generate massive traffic disruption around major shopping centres. Chadstone, for example, had an estimated 100 000 visitors that day. The problem though was not too many people but too many cars. An issue that well organised buses are uniquely equipped to solve. 

Instead the opposite happened. Transdev, the bus operator, routed the 903 orbital SmartBus away from the very shops people would want to visit during the sales. People going to the sales had to transfer to a shuttle bus. Below is what they said on their website: 

I make no criticism of Transdev; what they did might have been for the best under circumstances of road gridlock, little priority for buses and no apparent leadership from the DoT. 

They were between a rock and a hard place. If they didn't skip stops then the 903, Melbourne's busiest bus route, would have been severely disrupted. And because it's long (four hours) and not always frequent, delays could have caused bunching with half-hour or more gaps between services. On the other hand diverting buses removed their potential as a low stress way of workers and shoppers to travel without the parking hassles. 

Was Transdev's stop skipping officially sanctioned by the Department of Transport?  I don't know. But it wasn't listed as a disruption on the PTV website on the day. Thus passengers were being kept in the dark. So much for DoT's mantra of 'simple, connected journeys'. 

This last Friday isn't the only problem date. Take Boxing Day, which also generates large sales. Buses then operate on either a Saturday timetable (buses mostly every 30 - 60 minutes, with some finishing at midday), or, if it's a Sunday, a Sunday timetable (up to hourly waits, with some routes not operating). Neither service level is suitable for the potential increased patronage or as an alternative to driving. See Daniel Bowen's write-up on Boxing Day 2017 for background. 

Comparison with other major events

Contrary to the impression that might have been gained, the concept of planning transport for major events that thousands flock to is not unknown here. Melbourne even bills itself as Australia's events capital. We are fortunate that most venues are near high capacity train and tram services that generally operate at reasonable daytime frequencies. There are also processes for major event organisers to notify the Department of Transport well in advance so that potential disruptions to public transport can be worked around and (potentially) additional services scheduled. 

Shopping centre sales like Black Friday, Boxing Day, the lead up to Christmas and those in January have many characteristics of major events. Eg they are planned well in advance, occur on the same days each year and are highly promoted. Visitor numbers can be comparable to a major sporting event. They also generate heavy traffic flows that gridlock surrounding streets and disrupt public transport. 

The latter alone justifies classifying them as major events (like sporting matches and concerts) with transport plans drawn up. While that carries a cost (that the event organiser should contribute to), frequent regular public transport given fast passage to and through a centre can contribute to a sale's success. 

Then there's beach transport. Our beaches are mostly better set up with more trains and trams than those elsewhere. However trains typically parallel the shore so are less useful for travel from inland areas. 

Such travel needs buses like the three SmartBus orbitals and local routes. On weekends these typically operate every 30 to 60 minutes, compared to every 10 to 20 minutes for trains. Apart from that the main service gap is on the Mornington Peninsula where the 788 bus (mostly) every 80 minutes valiantly jostles with weekend tourist traffic for its two hour run from Frankston to Portsea. Such infrequent buses stuck in traffic provide a limited and unreliable service ill-equipped to take many cars off the road. 

Four steps to better seasonal and event transport

What should we do to make our network more robust and reliable so that it's useful on busy days when it should be the default mode of choice? After all many who don't otherwise take public transport will ride it to the football, the tennis, the races or the show. Would it not also be reasonable for it to have a similar role on other occasions where movement fails if too many people drive?  

Here are four possible steps to improvement:

1. Split the SmartBus orbitals for improved network robustness

Our long orbital bus routes permit long trips to be made without changing buses. However that comes at a cost. I’ve often mentioned how orbital SmartBuses can have catchments that vary from apartments to semi-rural. The effect of having a single frequency for the whole route is that dense areas have too little service and sparse areas receive too much. Another issue is that a traffic snarl on one side of town can have knock on reliability effects on the other. 

Shortening very long routes, starting with splitting the SmartBus orbitals into two to four segments, allows optimisation of service levels and isolating delays to only the section affected. Confining delays reduces the effect of traffic problems and speeds the timetable’s recovery from them. And better allocating service kilometres allows improved frequency where the people are. This is beneficial during busy times, even if no extra seasonal trips are added. 

The orbital most affected by traffic around shopping centres is the 903 since it serves Essendon Fields DFO, Northland, Doncaster Shoppingtown and Chadstone to name a few. Two of those centres were skipped by the 903 on Friday as noted before. A 903 orbital split proposal with some wider benefits is discussed here.

2. Upgrade service frequency where justified throughout the year 

I’ve previously looked at bus routes that, because of their high usage, need service upgrades (examples here, here, here and here).  They tend to fall into two categories; those with fairly dense migrant-rich bus-using residential catchments (eg Tarneit, Sunshine, Springvale and Craigieburn) and those serving major shopping centres and universities (notably in the Box Hill – Monash – Chadstone area). The busiest routes tend to have a bit of both. 

Patronage on major shopping centre routes, particularly on weekends, is high even when there are no special sales. Boardings per service hour can be two to four times higher than for regular bus routes. Especially on weekends busy routes such as the 733 and 900 justify frequency upgrades from every 30 – 60 minutes to every 10 – 20 minutes. Chadstone's main highway bus from Dandenong, the 800 past the premier's electorate office, runs only every two hours on Saturday afternoons and not at all on Sunday. Meanwhile Route 468, Highpoint's bus connection to Essendon and the Craigieburn line, is only every 40 minutes on Saturday and nothing on Sunday. 788 on the Mornington Peninsula also needs an upgrade though, in one of its few bus service initiatives, the 2020 state budget will deliver one by 2022. 

High frequencies put more buses on the road. This relieves crowding, lessens long waits and makes services more robust in the event of delays (almost entirely due to car traffic). Costs can be reduced if we simplify networks as discussed most Fridays in Useful Networks. But easy ways for buses to move is also required as you'll see next.  

3. Add bus priority on congested sections 

A bus system becomes operationally unworkable and unattractive for passengers to use if traffic delays buses so they can’t keep to timetables. Extra ‘fat’ could be put into schedules but this costs extra vehicles to maintain a specified frequency and means waiting at time-points when roads are quiet. And buses become incredibly slow, especially when waiting and connection times are added, with overall end-to-end travel speeds often in the 15 to 20 km/h range. 

The gold-standard form of bus priority is a dedicated way that gives buses a free run, uninterrupted by other traffic. Melbourne is big enough for these to be considered around key hubs including major shopping centres. Several ‘bus wormhole’ ideas are outlined here. If they had complete separation, buses could have provided the high capacity transport that centres like Chadstone need rather than be crowded out by cars on days when they are most needed. 

A level below that is dedicated lanes on roads. However they are only justified where bus frequency is very high. Where this is not so and bus lanes appear almost empty to drivers the political pressure to remove them becomes overwhelming (as happened on Stud Rd whose main bus route, the 901, runs only every 15 minutes, even in peak times). 

More modest measures include short queue jump lanes, signal priority at intersections and temporary traffic management during peak times (including events like sales) at pinch points. These can be highly cost-effective in areas where there are many bus movements, such as around shopping centres. However it is again best that the bus network has been made simpler and more frequent. And there needs to be planning and staffing, which gets us onto the next point. 

4. Treat seasonal events that attract large crowds such as large sales and holiday seasons as major events with important transport needs 

Such serious treatment includes events having their own transport plans. These should be drawn up months in advance with stakeholders such as bus operators, shopping centres and local government. These plans could cover matters such as information for passengers, altered access and parking arrangements for drivers, traffic management including active bus priority, mode shift and extra services where required. The emphasis should be on making public transport an enabler of improved access rather than a passive victim of gridlock.  

Conclusion

Because we’ve been weak at network reform and aligning service levels to need, Melbourne’s bus network is especially fragile when it comes under pressure from increased patronage or car traffic. Its low profile and poor reputation also means that its potential role as an enabler of access and movement is either disregarded or ignored by departments and governments who should know better.  

Points 1 to 3 above seek to make the bus network more useful and robust at all times, not just during special events. Point 4 ensures that events that generate surrounding area traffic have a transport plan that embraces rather than stymies public transport access. Following these points would put buses in a better position to contribute to the overall transport effort for everyone’s benefit.  

PS: An index to all Timetable Tuesday items is here.