MyZone tickets valid on Moore Park-Central event shuttles

In what is a positive move announced a few months ago, people heading to Moore Park can use their MyZone tickets.  Unfortunately, the overpriced tickets for the shuttles are still to be sold.

Ideally they would just make these shuttles free, which is what would happen in Qld or WA.  In the Qld case they would send the bill for the services to the promoter.  Making the shuttles free for everyone would be an equitable outcome and nearly everyone is paying a fare to reach Central anyway.  It is dubious why people who happen to hold a MyMulti ticket should receive free travel on these services - it is very unlikely these services would cause a tipping point to make it worthwhile to purchase a MyMulti.  Fare integration would make such trips of negligible cost anyway.

Making them free would save hassle with selling the tickets as well as hassle for the intending commuters.

In short, while it is a positive move that an anomaly is being reduced, this change isn't going far enough.

Draft Transport Masterplan fails

Sandy Thomas was being far too kind when called this plan a lightweight piece of fluff.  So much is missing from this plan it isn't funny. 

While the plan has numerous mentions of interchanges, integrated fares is never mentioned, and a fare structure review is mentioned only once.  The low level of importance attached to this issue is likely to soon see Sydney with a fare structure found in few places outside the third world.  The rest of Australia already has integrated fares and Auckland and Wellington are likely to get it soon.

A number of interchanges in Sydney have failed.  Edgecliff, Newtown and Pennant Hills are three which spring to mind.  At Pennant Hills, the M2 bus services are actually cheaper to use than the train, which is underutilised.  This is a perverse outcome as the bus services are more expensive to provide than feeder buses and it no doubt contributes to the negative growth which has occurred in peak rail patronage at this station.  Newtown isn't strictly an interchange but it is far faster on a train than a bus particularly in peak yet few people get off the bus to use a train there.  The lack of integrated fares are part of the problem.

While the plan has quite a number of mentions of increased frequency, it is not mentioned what services particularly are to have their frequency increased, nor the operating hours of such frequency, nor what the appropriate frequency would be.

Chapter 4 shows that the proposed southern destinations of the single deck trains are actually expected to be the least congested in 2031, which is presumably before the second harbour crossing would be built.  It also shows that the Northern Line is likely to continue to be under served.  No capacity increase is planned for Strathfield-Town Hall, unfortunately.

Chapter 4 also shows that the East Hills line to Macarthur is expected to be under served.  Didn't anyone tell them that the Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would allow trains from Macarthur to access Sydney Terminal?  Not without significant spend if the absurd Hurstville metro proceeds, but that is very unlikely anyway.

The Northern Beaches Bus Rapid Transit proposal is reprised unchanged, even though the study (strangely) found no options with benefits greater than costs.

The Light Rail proposal is just inconvenient for most people as it requires detouring via Central.  Perhaps the idea is that the via Taylor Square buses would remain but this is not explained.

While the plan suggests that rail has a low mode share to the Airport, no suggestions for action are made.  Surely the problem is that the fares are far too high and buying out the private partner is something which could be looked at.

Even if the plan's unfunded proposals are implemented, it still forecasts increased congestion, in some cases by a quite significant margin, particularly Rouse Hill-Macquarie Park.

Northern Beaches BRT study released

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has recently been studied for the Northern Beaches.  Long story short, it finds that none of the studied concepts is cost effective.  Why might this be? 

1. 24 hour bus lanes are a bit wasted if off peak services are to be kept mediocre.  I mean, for crying out loud, 20 minute weekend frequency on the L90 (to Palm Beach) dropping back to half hourly evenings and early mornings, with the L88 (to Avalon) not operating is mediocre at best.  In general, 15 minute frequency is what is needed to boost patronage as a 14 minute wait is far more acceptable than a 19 minute one.  Similarly, the L80 (to Collaroy Plateau) reverts to a half hourly 180 on Saturday and the L85 (to Mona Vale via North Narrabeen) is also half hourly.  Those heading beyond Burnt Creek Deviation are best off to avoid the all stopping services as they are about 8 minutes slower from Wynyard to Condamine and King Sts, so effectively there are only 5 buses an hour on this corridor Saturday daytimes with 20 minute service gaps, speaking generally.
2. A 6 lane Spit Bridge is hard to justify as there are already 3 lanes for the peak direction.  This does prevent the limitation of needing to reduce to a single lane counter peak, but it is easy to see that not being justified.  The Roseville Bridge is a reasonable alternative for counter peak travel for half of the Northern Beaches.
3. Option One seems to include the removal of the tidal flow arrangements on the Spit Bridge, with a single lane for cars in both directions.  This is not made clear however.
4. The suggestion of removing the L60 (Chatswood-Mona Vale via Dee Why) is bizarre.

What are alternative proposals? 

1. Have a counter peak bus lane along Spit Rd, preferably extending all the way back to the Warringah Freeway.  This likely would need to be combined with pushing trucks into lane 3 from the start of the Truck and Bus Speed Limit shortly before Medusa St.  There are no right turns until the end of the current speed limit, even if there is one immediately after its end.  This bus lane is important as it allows buses to queue jump the counter peak traffic letting them both serve the counter peak demand better and return for another peak run without requiring more buses to provide the same service.
2. Upgrading the peak direction Transit Lane to a Bus Lane between the Spit Bridge and the Warringah Freeway.
3. Actually establishing some sort of PM peak priority north of Ourimbah Rd.
4. Increase off peak services.  BUZ in Brisbane and Smartbus in Melbourne have both seen high take up of their services.  Metrobus in Sydney has been less successful, even if there are good services in there.  Services stopping at 9pm is no doubt a factor in the lack of success of Metrobus.  This would do much to reduce traffic congestion on the beaches and also help justify 24hr bus lane proposals.
5. More limited stop services outside of peak hour.  It is unclear why the L80 should downgrade to a 180 on weekends, for example.
6. Free transfers.  This will improve the service for all in that people can use a feeder and trunk model to get faster journeys.  Some will prefer a slower single seat, of course.

More generally, it is not entirely clear why median stations would be preferred over kerbside stations, nor is it clear why North Sydney termination with interchange to what are already reasonably full trains would even be proposed.

None of the options in the report break down the costs into their components, largely leaving the reader guessing.

Use of the Lane Cove Tunnel

There was recently a consultation period about removing the 613, 614, 615 and 616 bus routes from Epping Rd and sending them via Lane Cove Tunnel (which would append X to their number).  This is a welcome and overdue change. 

This also represents the last of M2 to City services going to the Lane Cove Tunnel in peak hour.  However, outside of peak there is still the half hourly 610 which goes via Epping Rd.  The best solution here is to merely extend the M61 to Rouse Hill along the 610 route and run the 612 outside of peak where justified.  Perhaps this will eventually happen.  Without the M61 it seems like there would be little in the way of service outside of peak hour between Castle Hill and the CBD.

A related question is what of STA services to the Macquarie area?  Currently the peak only 293 and 297 services are the only services which use the Lane Cove Tunnel.  Why is the 288 (QVB to Epping via Coxs Rd and Macquarie) not in this list?  The whole part along Epping Rd through Lane Cove would still be served by the 292 which has similar operating hours, and trips could be added to the latter with the money saved by the faster operation of sending the 288 via Lane Cove Tunnel.  Even the Epping to Lane Cove service is provided by the 290.

The service planning does seem to have a lot of inertia.

69 growth buses to be bought for Sydney.

Nine news report (video) that it will be in the state budget that there is to be 269 buses bought in the upcoming budget.  69 are to be "growth buses".  It leaves questions about what type of buses are to be bought unanswered.  Is it to be like for like replacement or bigger/smaller buses, and what of the replacement buses - what type?

There is a need for a number of double decker buses, not just for the M2 services to the north west, but for the Northern Beaches services such as the L90.  I do not know why they wouldn't buy double deckers, perhaps it is an unknown quantity?

Update 13/6/2012: Budget papers seem to contradict each other.  One says that all 69 growth buses are for private operators, another says that it is to be split. 140 replacement buses are for STA, that is known.  $521 million for private metro + outer metro subsidies, and $337 million for STA subsidies.  Doesn't sound like there will be much improvements to services, particularly in the STA areas on these figures.

Patronage figures from Parliament

The answer to a question about bus patronage through the Maroubra electorate, gives us some interesting data to work with.  I do not know why the 391, X92, X10 and X77 services are not included.  From 1 January 2011 through 31 May 2011:

Route	Total Boardings	Average boardings per trip
X99	12849	62.99
400	2095048	62.40
X97	12721	62.36
410	174711	59.06
M10	969263	57.60
X94	116513	54.39
392	599207	52.23
X96	52035	51.01
399	473531	46.79
395	401209	45.40
310	605740	44.74
397	388824	43.22
L94	473473	42.70
M20	729273	42.42
393	963762	41.15
396	475910	40.82
309	769593	40.61
394	378437	40.14
317	230617	36.36
376	315198	35.36
301	459514	35.30
X09	33289	32.64
353	288094	32.28
377	400737	29.93
316	172973	29.17
302	71180	28.98
L09	45463	27.86
341	63	0.15

A few conclusions seem possible from the above data:

1. 392 corridor is under serviced.  This picks up 3 trip generators - Eastgardens, UNSW and the CBD so it is possible that a number of trips see spaces occupied more than once, but even so it seems an upgrade is justified.  I would go further and say that the 392 trips should all be converted into an L92, serving L94 stops between the Kingsford nine ways and Museum, running every 15 minutes until 11:30pm 7 days a week.  The L94 should also provide the same level of service.
2. 341 could presumably be more cheaply served by some sort of para transit on demand service.
3. 316 under achieves.  It could be better removed and converted into 317 trips and improve the legibility of the service.
4. 302 under achieves.  It is noted that while this serves UNSW, Eastgardens and the CBD it seems that people don't find the service very attractive, in spite of all the destinations served and the low frequencies of the alternatives.  The route could be reviewed and perhaps folded into the 303.  Serving Central would be sure to increase the potential patronage.  There are some 303 short workings from Todman Ave to Botany, which suggests a Botany terminus could be more desirable, although I am not sure why.  Alternatively, the marketing could be the problem.
5. 376/377 corridor does not justify two routes.  If there was integrated fares, there would not need to be two routes - via Central and via Oxford St.  Those going to Central would be able to interchange.  As a former user of the common part of the 373/377 corridor, I can report that the majority of the 377 patronage comes from the common part of the corridor.
6. X09 seems to under perform.  This seems to be mostly due to train fares to Green Square station being reduced.  This route has since seen a 20% reduction (-2 trips in the PM peak), as with the X10.
7. M10 and M20 perform arguably satisfactorily.

Without the M20, there would be no connection to Central for Bourke St and the upper end of Joynton Ave.  If the M20 is to be removed, such a connection should be provided in another way.

The L09 operates counter peak only so if it isn't collecting passengers it would be dead running anyway, so I have no concern about that one.

An alternative to the proposed L92 would be an L96, based on the argument that between the 395 and 396 Maroubra Beach is busier, but that ignores the patronage which would be generated by the frequency increase as well as the patronage from the 391, which is unknown.

Basic problem is that there are insufficient service kilometres in Sydney outside of peak hours, even if this is the least severe in the Eastern Suburbs.

Opal: Integrating ticketing versus Integrated fares

Opal has been promised as the solution to Sydney's fare mediocrity.  It is not at all clear that this is correct.  What is entirely possible is that MyZone fare structure will be sold through Opal.  MyZone is not an integrated fare structure, it is a differential fare structure.  Integrated fares would require a mode blind single flag fall system.  IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) have been quite vocal against an integrated fare system.  Politicians don't like changing it much either as it leads to either some people suddenly having to pay more, or significantly less fare revenue.

What Opal will surely be is an integrated ticket, which means a single ticket which can be used on any transport mode i.e. Cityrail/STA bus/private bus/ferry.  This should free users from the need to purchase separate tickets for each mode constantly.  It is not clear whether it will free users from loading certain passes on to the card to obtain the appropriate fare, as applies with Melbourne's myki.

An integrated fare system is the first step in a transformation in Sydney's public transport.  If you are coming from Bondi Beach to the city, you should not need to pay extra to get off the bus at Bondi Junction and get on a train.  Ceasing to discourage these types of transfers would be very beneficial for the efficiency of the system overall.  The train costs the same regardless of how many people use it and has no capacity issues, however if more people use the bus then more buses must be run.  Within STA there are a number of routes and deviations on routes which only exist to remove the need to transfer.

It is possible that, like Brisbane, an integrated fare system would be implemented and the needed restructures to bus routes not occur.  There would still be some benefits in this case.  At least people can escape the George St traffic jam by getting off their morning bus at Newtown and using a train, for example.  These created spaces on the bus can also then be reused on the way to the CBD.

Every other major Australian city has already implemented an integrated fare system, including Canberra.  Adelaide did it in the 1960s.  Auckland is planning to implement it this/next year, and Wellington will likely follow.  Christchurch already has a one free transfer system.

I fear that Sydney is going to be left as the only city in the region without an integrated fare system.

STA's recent performance

STA's March 2012 Quarterly Performance information has recently been released.  In short, it shows that overall patronage has reduced as compared to the previous corresponding quarter, but Metrobus has increased.  Newcastle buses has increased slightly.  The question not addressed in this is why its patronage would decline?

One possibility is Harbour Bridge bus congestion is pushing people back to their cars.  I blogged on what I think of the plan to fix this before.

Hopefully the 8th of March, 2012 eastern region rebalancing will help send more buses where they are needed, but there needs to be much more done.

The question is, have STA actually been asked to increase public transport use?  The only performance objectives I am aware of in Sydney are about increasing public transport's market share of the journey to work or study.  So therefore it is hard to criticise the STA if they have done what they have been asked to do, even if that falls short of the mark.

Even more recently, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian is asking STA to become more "efficient", or face the possibility of privatisation.  It seems that increasing patronage would be lucky to become an afterthought.

Metrobus reviewed

Metrobus was started by the previous government, with an obvious agenda of visibility as part of its plan to attempt to at least arrest the degree with which they were to be booted out of government.

So what is good about it?  Firstly, a real bonus from Metrobus has been increasing the capacity of the vehicles.  The current restrictions on non-Metrobus buses within the STA are pretty absurd: a standard size bus is only allowed 15 standing passengers for 58 total passengers.  Even a bendy bus only allows 88 total passengers in Sydney Buses, but a Metrobus bendy is allowed 115 passengers aboard.  While there are some slight changes to the interior seats, mostly this change is simply a matter of policy.  It would be good to see this increase spread to other buses.

Secondly, overruling Treasury by actually providing public transport at non peak times is a real positive. An improved services is now provided on some cross town routes (M41, M54, M90, M91, M92) which otherwise would have been left to rot on an even more mediocre service.  Similarly, the frequency upgrade for the L20/M52 and 600/M60 is a positive.

What is bad?  All of the original routes (M10, M20, M30, M40, M50) have design issues.  It seems unlikely that they are money well spent for public transport in Sydney.  Other routes do not offer services after 9pm and have only 20 minute frequency after the evening peak and on weekends.  Shutting down at 9pm hardly makes the service dependable, and while the 20 minute evening frequency is arguably acceptable, it is less acceptable weekend daytimes when traffic congestion is still quite bad.  The 520 which replaces the M52 after 9pm runs approximately hourly, which isn't exactly good.

With the M10, it seems that the money would be better spent on increasing 39x and 436-440.  Only counter would be layover space in the CBD, but this counter cannot apply at weekends and evenings.

M20 does have a real positive in connecting Bourke St and the top of Joynton Ave with Central.  Conceivably, this service could be provided by moving the 302 & 303 or 301 to serve Central, and increase the frequency.  Moving the former pair of routes would also connect Todman Ave to Central which does seem like it should equally be a winner.  The other side of the M20, the Pacific Highway already has plenty of service, and the increase here seems overkill.

M30 provides an increase along Military Rd which is surely useful, however the other side completely avoids most potential passengers who would be waiting on Castlereagh St.  While it may well pick up a number at Railway Square and get some through passengers, this route seems to be a bit misguided on the south side.

M40 is like a 272 connected to Bondi Junction.  So perhaps south/east bound use the Cahill Expressway, extend to North Bondi and serve 333 stops, as the passengers bound for Bondi would be found on Elizabeth St?  I can live with a bias to Bondi passengers, with a side benefit of serving the eastern side of the CBD with respect to 272 corridor passengers.  Given that there are a large number of 272 passengers, it is likely there will be several takers for the M40 serving Elizabeth St on the Willoughby side during peak hour.

M50 is the worst of these in my opinion.  While this does connect Coogee with the University of NSW and the University with Central, both of these functions are already performed by routes which already exist.  It also connects Drummoyne with the city and provides a through route to UNSW.  Increasing the 370 between Green Square and Coogee would have done far more good.  Even the load factors are slightly below the all Sydney Buses average.  The good point about the M50 is serving the inner part of Victoria Rd, but I am sure that could have and should have been done by increasing 5xx series routes.

M52 is the best performing of the Metrobuses, getting nearly 60 passengers per trip on average.  This is roughly a doubling of the frequency of the old L20 so it's not really a new route at all, just a frequency increase and a rebranding.

Service kilometres have increased with Metrobus, but STA's overall patronage hasn't.  Similarly, Park St congestion has been AIUI significantly worsened by these changes.  While there are clearly good services, the case seems pretty compelling for reviewing some of the network.