In what is hardly news, it has been announced that Sydney's Opal Roll out is to start shortly, on the Neutral Bay ferry from 7 December 2012. What is news about this, is that there is to be free journeys after 8 journeys in a week - a foolish policy in my opinion, borrowed from SE Qld who also use the Cubic system. Similarly, there is to be a fixed dollar daily cap, which means that again long distance commuters are to get an advantage over people living more sustainable lifestyles - this seems to be borrowed from WA who have a cap but their system sensibly doesn't include AM peak journeys in the cap. Finally, there is a $2.50 daily cap for Sundays - probably borrowed from Vic. Arguably, the latter isn't too bad as it may promote public transport use on Sundays, but it does represent farebox leakage potentially.
What hasn't been announced is that there will be an integrated fare system with Opal. This should have been announced long ago.
Regrettably, it will take until 2015 until the system is fully rolled out. After all this time, if the system is on time at least it will be done.
Update 28/11/2012:
It seems that an equivalent system is being rolled at on Auckland's derided public transport system. It will be done in 2013, and is already on trains. So it looks like Sydney will be among the last significant cities in the world to have a reasonable fare policy.
Showing posts with label public transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public transport. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Cityrail Marshalls
Cityrail have introduced Marshalls on Town Hall platform 3, as detailed in
this SMH report. This is an attempted solution to the capacity limitations on the Western and lower Northern Lines which run through this platform with limited space for intending passengers. A lot of the problem has been and remains people trying to board impeding people trying to get off. The reality is that Cityrail encourage this behaviour by blowing the whistle or playing the "Stand clear, doors closing" message while people are still trying to get off. This is an unprofessional and unacceptable practice which remains to this day. It no doubt contributes significantly to the low level of regard Cityrail is held by Sydneysiders.
This practice must end, forthwith!
this SMH report. This is an attempted solution to the capacity limitations on the Western and lower Northern Lines which run through this platform with limited space for intending passengers. A lot of the problem has been and remains people trying to board impeding people trying to get off. The reality is that Cityrail encourage this behaviour by blowing the whistle or playing the "Stand clear, doors closing" message while people are still trying to get off. This is an unprofessional and unacceptable practice which remains to this day. It no doubt contributes significantly to the low level of regard Cityrail is held by Sydneysiders.
This practice must end, forthwith!
Sunday, October 7, 2012
My submission to the Transport Master Plan
Transport Sydney as well as the Sydney Morning Herald have already made some good comments on this Master Plan, as well as the Infrastructure NSW counter plan. I'm not going to repeat those comments.
Here is what my submission to Transport for NSW regarding their "Master Plan" was:
The lack of a commitment to integrated fares is a major no no for me. This is an enabler for a sizeable portion of the development of the network which should occur. The proposals for near side bus termination depend on this to succeed, for example.
There are no targets for increased mode share outside peak hour. This is clearly a reason for situation where after 9pm the M52 drops back to an hourly 520. Given that the M52 gets just over 60 boardings per trip there is clearly demand for increased service here. Another example is the 392 which only runs half hourly but gets over 50 boardings per trip. Clearly there isn't much focus on increasing patronage outside of peak hour.
The Infrastructure NSW report gets bus and light rail far more right in my opinion.
(a) There is a need for either far more express bus routes and/or far wider stop spacing. Current limited stop services such as the L94 are not sufficient to encourage people to walk further to an express stop. Adding an L92 running every 15 minutes would change this for many people.
(b) I don't see the merit in the proposed light rail between Central and UNSW. That would be running with light loads Central bound in the AM peak while buses run dead in the opposite direction, whereas the current situation means that the buses can be loaded in both directions. Possible solutions for managing the 891 queue on Eddy Ave better are one or more of:
(i) remove the shelter at stand D and move forward the stopping point of the first bus, allowing 3 or more buses to board simultaneously
(ii) move the head of the queue for intending passengers closer to where the bus stops - every second counts
(iii) when a second or third bus is approaching move passengers forward so they are ready to board when it arrives
(iv) a pedestrian overpass of Eddy Ave which would reduce traffic congestion and allow departing buses to clear the stop more quickly. This would also be far more convenient for passengers, best with an escalator and a lift on the north side of Eddy Ave.
(v) schedule more buses
An alternative is to move the pick up to Chalmers St but I do not like this solution
(c) Unless the light rail is faster through the CBD than the 20km/h permitted for the current operator, it is a pointless exercise. It remains unclear why a new light rail system would not face the same constraints as the present one.
Northern Beaches BRT as proposed is apparently unjustified, however I cannot see what prevents a bus lane northbound along Spit Rd in the AM peak to allow returning buses to queue jump the traffic crossing the Spit Bridge, other than the truck and bus speed limit. If that is really a problem, the trucks could be pushed in to the right lane. This would allow the same number of buses and drivers to carry more passengers. Similarly, upgrading the transit lanes to bus lanes and/or making them longer ought to be justified. Increased public transport use will improve the business case of the proposed BRT here.
Where is the plan for faster or more frequent services anywhere? Half hourly midday frequency on the South Line, terminating half the ECRL trains at Chatswood, only half hourly services for stations Doonside to Penrith outside of peak is poor. There used to be 4 trains per hour for stations from Doonside to Penrith. Currently outside of peak travelling by Cityrail between Paramatta and Town Hall takes 33 to 35 minutes. This should be much faster. In peak the trip between Redfern and Paramatta can be done non stop for an average speed of 57km/h. For comparison, in 1995 a non stop trip between Petrie and Northgate in Qld ran at an average speed of 75km/h. Trips between Caboolture and Petrie can still be done at an average speed of 95km/h if the train is on time.
Connecting the new Harbour crossing to Hurstville instead of Homebush seems brain damaged. After spending all that money no increase in capacity for the Western Line, which is critically overloaded? I expect you ought to be able to connect to the Inner West line between the Illawarra Junction and Macdonaldtown station, then allow the suburbans to connect with the city circle and the mains with the Harbour Bridge. Connecting to the Illawarra line means that the capacity is sent where it isn't needed and passengers bound for stations like Rockdale will not know what station to go to for their next service. The Erskenville-Sydenham sextup, done properly, would allow Illawarra line trains to run in to Sydney Terminal without masking capacity in the Eastern Suburbs Railway.
Some of the Metrobus routes are mis-designed, particularly the M50 but nothing seems to be in train to review these. Stopping at 9pm on a branded service is poor in my opinion. Smartbus is until midnight 6 days per week, BUZ is until after 11pm 7 days.
The most significant short coming of the master plan is the lack of integrated fares.
Here is what my submission to Transport for NSW regarding their "Master Plan" was:
The lack of a commitment to integrated fares is a major no no for me. This is an enabler for a sizeable portion of the development of the network which should occur. The proposals for near side bus termination depend on this to succeed, for example.
There are no targets for increased mode share outside peak hour. This is clearly a reason for situation where after 9pm the M52 drops back to an hourly 520. Given that the M52 gets just over 60 boardings per trip there is clearly demand for increased service here. Another example is the 392 which only runs half hourly but gets over 50 boardings per trip. Clearly there isn't much focus on increasing patronage outside of peak hour.
The Infrastructure NSW report gets bus and light rail far more right in my opinion.
(a) There is a need for either far more express bus routes and/or far wider stop spacing. Current limited stop services such as the L94 are not sufficient to encourage people to walk further to an express stop. Adding an L92 running every 15 minutes would change this for many people.
(b) I don't see the merit in the proposed light rail between Central and UNSW. That would be running with light loads Central bound in the AM peak while buses run dead in the opposite direction, whereas the current situation means that the buses can be loaded in both directions. Possible solutions for managing the 891 queue on Eddy Ave better are one or more of:
(i) remove the shelter at stand D and move forward the stopping point of the first bus, allowing 3 or more buses to board simultaneously
(ii) move the head of the queue for intending passengers closer to where the bus stops - every second counts
(iii) when a second or third bus is approaching move passengers forward so they are ready to board when it arrives
(iv) a pedestrian overpass of Eddy Ave which would reduce traffic congestion and allow departing buses to clear the stop more quickly. This would also be far more convenient for passengers, best with an escalator and a lift on the north side of Eddy Ave.
(v) schedule more buses
An alternative is to move the pick up to Chalmers St but I do not like this solution
(c) Unless the light rail is faster through the CBD than the 20km/h permitted for the current operator, it is a pointless exercise. It remains unclear why a new light rail system would not face the same constraints as the present one.
Northern Beaches BRT as proposed is apparently unjustified, however I cannot see what prevents a bus lane northbound along Spit Rd in the AM peak to allow returning buses to queue jump the traffic crossing the Spit Bridge, other than the truck and bus speed limit. If that is really a problem, the trucks could be pushed in to the right lane. This would allow the same number of buses and drivers to carry more passengers. Similarly, upgrading the transit lanes to bus lanes and/or making them longer ought to be justified. Increased public transport use will improve the business case of the proposed BRT here.
Where is the plan for faster or more frequent services anywhere? Half hourly midday frequency on the South Line, terminating half the ECRL trains at Chatswood, only half hourly services for stations Doonside to Penrith outside of peak is poor. There used to be 4 trains per hour for stations from Doonside to Penrith. Currently outside of peak travelling by Cityrail between Paramatta and Town Hall takes 33 to 35 minutes. This should be much faster. In peak the trip between Redfern and Paramatta can be done non stop for an average speed of 57km/h. For comparison, in 1995 a non stop trip between Petrie and Northgate in Qld ran at an average speed of 75km/h. Trips between Caboolture and Petrie can still be done at an average speed of 95km/h if the train is on time.
Connecting the new Harbour crossing to Hurstville instead of Homebush seems brain damaged. After spending all that money no increase in capacity for the Western Line, which is critically overloaded? I expect you ought to be able to connect to the Inner West line between the Illawarra Junction and Macdonaldtown station, then allow the suburbans to connect with the city circle and the mains with the Harbour Bridge. Connecting to the Illawarra line means that the capacity is sent where it isn't needed and passengers bound for stations like Rockdale will not know what station to go to for their next service. The Erskenville-Sydenham sextup, done properly, would allow Illawarra line trains to run in to Sydney Terminal without masking capacity in the Eastern Suburbs Railway.
Some of the Metrobus routes are mis-designed, particularly the M50 but nothing seems to be in train to review these. Stopping at 9pm on a branded service is poor in my opinion. Smartbus is until midnight 6 days per week, BUZ is until after 11pm 7 days.
The most significant short coming of the master plan is the lack of integrated fares.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
NWRL justification
The justification for the North West Rail Link, contains a couple of interesting points in objective 4 in section 22.3.1:
(a) 29 million trips within 5 years of its opening, which is about half the number of trips currently using the bus system in the relevant region, region 4. Obviously, people will still continue to use buses into Parramatta and other locations but I expect more than half of bus users are going to or from the CBD-Macquarie Park area.
(b) almost 160 buses are to be removed from the CBD in the morning peak. This is approximately the amount of buses which enter the CBD in the morning peak from the North West.
I have little doubt that point (b) would not actually happen within the next decade, particularly while the rail-rail interchange at Chatswood remains.
Basically, the justification does not suggest an increase in the public transport usage in the North West.
(a) 29 million trips within 5 years of its opening, which is about half the number of trips currently using the bus system in the relevant region, region 4. Obviously, people will still continue to use buses into Parramatta and other locations but I expect more than half of bus users are going to or from the CBD-Macquarie Park area.
(b) almost 160 buses are to be removed from the CBD in the morning peak. This is approximately the amount of buses which enter the CBD in the morning peak from the North West.
I have little doubt that point (b) would not actually happen within the next decade, particularly while the rail-rail interchange at Chatswood remains.
Basically, the justification does not suggest an increase in the public transport usage in the North West.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Is Western Fast Rail back on the agenda?
As I previously blogged, the current government has made a number of apparently ill thought through and half baked announcements, firstly Richmond to Campbelltown then single deck metro from the North West to Chatswood. The questions seems to be why? I suggest that they have been softening up the voters for something they may not like. What that might be is a revitalisation of the Western Fast Rail privatised project. Reports from when the Liberals were still in opposition quoted the current transport minister as saying that the project should be looked at more seriously.
This is complete supposition; but you heard it here first!
This is complete supposition; but you heard it here first!
Thursday, July 5, 2012
CBD Enhancement dropped!
Unfortunately, it seems from recent documentation that the previously planned CBD enhancement from Eveleigh to Wynyard and beyond is to not proceed. This is a decision which means that there will not be much improvement in Cityrail for decades, particularly for the Western and Northern Lines.
Giving the Western Line its own path through the CBD would be best practice. It's the busiest line on the network, and busier than the North Shore line (counting the upper Northern Line), Illawarra Line and Eastern Suburbs Line all of which have their own path through the CBD. So why not separate the network out further which will help with allowing more and stricter sectorisation? That would get these passengers out of the current Town Hall and Wynyard significantly easing platform congestion and the new platforms should be able to be built wider than the existing platforms. Alternatively with what is known as bifurcation which means that there would be 4 additional platforms per station to reduce/remove dwell time in the CBD from being the capacity restriction. This would leave Parramatta dwell times as the limitation.
The above linked documentation mentions some restrictions which are either soon to be removed or can be. Numbers 3, 4 and 9 can be easily removed, they just choose not to. In the case of number 9 which the document details removing this does mean trains need to take a slower path, however, this limitation is solved by the CBD enhancement (formerly called the Western Express) as described above, as is number 7.
Such an unceremonious dumping deserves an explanation, however the linked document above seems to be an attempt to deflect the criticism rather than explain it. It does not refer at all to the plan to increase CBD capacity along the "Metro West" alignment as originally planned, but an alternative plan which had never been publicly proposed involving a Cityrail expansion along the "Metro Pitt" alignment, which would not help the Western Line.
I just wonder if they are pushing some agenda, and if so then what? Perhaps it is just to be different from the Keneally government's sensible Western Express plan.
Giving the Western Line its own path through the CBD would be best practice. It's the busiest line on the network, and busier than the North Shore line (counting the upper Northern Line), Illawarra Line and Eastern Suburbs Line all of which have their own path through the CBD. So why not separate the network out further which will help with allowing more and stricter sectorisation? That would get these passengers out of the current Town Hall and Wynyard significantly easing platform congestion and the new platforms should be able to be built wider than the existing platforms. Alternatively with what is known as bifurcation which means that there would be 4 additional platforms per station to reduce/remove dwell time in the CBD from being the capacity restriction. This would leave Parramatta dwell times as the limitation.
The above linked documentation mentions some restrictions which are either soon to be removed or can be. Numbers 3, 4 and 9 can be easily removed, they just choose not to. In the case of number 9 which the document details removing this does mean trains need to take a slower path, however, this limitation is solved by the CBD enhancement (formerly called the Western Express) as described above, as is number 7.
Such an unceremonious dumping deserves an explanation, however the linked document above seems to be an attempt to deflect the criticism rather than explain it. It does not refer at all to the plan to increase CBD capacity along the "Metro West" alignment as originally planned, but an alternative plan which had never been publicly proposed involving a Cityrail expansion along the "Metro Pitt" alignment, which would not help the Western Line.
I just wonder if they are pushing some agenda, and if so then what? Perhaps it is just to be different from the Keneally government's sensible Western Express plan.
Monday, June 4, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)