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.

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.

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.

New Cityrail timetable for 2013

Last month a new Cityrail timetable was promised for introduction in late 2013.  What should it contain?

1. Increased Cumberland line services.  Only 5 per day apparently well utilised services is a bit of a waste of the infrastructure built.  It also reduces the incentive to put jobs into Parramatta.  The Epping-Chatswood link is given credit for Optus moving into the Macquarie Park area, but the lack of service on the Cumberland is somehow not thought responsible for the low growth in jobs in Parramatta
2. Extension of the current Chatswood terminators from Hornsby via Macquarie Park somewhere.  Not reaching the city results in these trains being under utilised.
3. Increase in Parramatta's off peak service.  4 low speed trains per hour off peak is a poor service for such a major centre, not counting Blue Mountains trains.
4. Remove Campbelltown via Granville and have a minimum 15 minute frequency for Campbelltown via East Hills and Airport.
5. 15 minute all day frequency for the South Line - currently this drops back to half hourly in the middle of the day weekdays and evenings.
6. 15 minute all day frequency to Penrith.
7. Removing city to Liverpool via Regents Park trains thanks to utilising the Lidcombe turnback.
8. Further rationalisation of stopping patterns.
9. Faster trains.

What is it unlikely to contain?

1. Increased Illawarra line trains - some say that it isn't possible to increase this while freight is still operating on the 2 track between Hurstville and Sutherland.
2. Increased Epping via North Strathfield trains, both at peak and off peak.  Increasing the peak trains would require either trimming Western Line trains or increased running into Sydney Terminal.  Increasing off peak trains seems relatively unlikely, perhaps because it would make it harder for freight to connect with Flemington.
3. Increased trains to Berowra - these have conflicts with freight and interurbans which do not apply for Hornsby terminators.
4. 10 minute frequency (or better) on the Inner West and Bankstown lines.
5. Bringing back Parramatta via Bankstown trains.  These trains are a conflicting move nightmare, and it isn't entirely clear that it is so necessary to encourage those living from Berala to Erskenville to work in Parramatta as opposed to the CBD.
6. Something to connect the Carramar to Sefton stretch to Parramatta, at least in peak.  The M91 does connect Chester Hill.  Otherwise it will be in necessary to double interchange at Birrong and Lidcombe or Cabramatta and Granville or single change at Cabramatta.
7. Faster trains.  Witness the slow downs which have recently been announced for a couple of trains on the Newcastle line from 18 June 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.