Metrobus a few years on: a success?

[mandonov]

That's the easy thing to do, but I don't see any network legibility in a route from the west coming into the city to continue out west again.

In one end and out the other, I say.

[Liamena]

The point of running the metrobus between Pennant Hills and Hornsby is somewhat limited, because the train is quicker.

Except that you can go directly from Pennant Hills to Waitara, the bus is quicker for that. The train change from the northern line to the north shore line at Hornsby seems to be maximally bad in both directions, you'd think if it was bad in one direction it would be not so bad in the other direction.

[Fleet Lists]

That's the easy thing to do, but I don't see any network legibility in a route from the west coming into the city to continue out west again.

In one end and out the other, I say.

The region 6 privatisation could also have an impact on this.

[Frosty]

I don’t expect many changes to the m20 post SELR maybe they might alter the Botany terminus to either continue further to Banksmeadow or go to Eastgardens or the Airport.

Though I would maybe expect changes to the m40 & 343 since the 343 would probably no longer terminate at Kingsford.
Maybe with the m10 or m50 they could use these routes and partially replace the 370 since it’s probably one of Sydney’s worse performing routes in terms of punctuality and it’s near impossible to fix.

[simonl]

I honestly can't understand why the Libs haven't reviewed some of the weaknesses in the formula, particularly the earlier through CBD routes which made little sense at the time and still don't. ?

But isn't that the point.
It avoids the need for CBD layovers of which there is limited space. And they travel on routes were traffic is frequently unreliable making a timetable more often than not useless anyway.

Whilst I hate the term, the frequency is enough for 'turn up and go' and lack of a timetable means you don't have a bus sitting at timing points when traffic is better than average, frustrating patrons.

And compared to when the services began you now have GPS tracking and more customers with access to it.

Personally I'd be happy to see more of these long cross town routes particularly where Opal data shows pax transfer.

GPS tracking and lack of timetables also brings the ability to dynamically reallocate buses to meet demand or avoid traffic issues

What isn't the point?

CBD layover space isn't such a problem out of peak so if that's the point, why not just have a peak supplement with through routing, which also should be fully limited stops.

20 minutes on weekends and evenings is *NOT* turn up and go. Then throw in operating hours which aren't full time and it also isn't turn up and go.

Slightly different stopping patterns was pretty stupid, as were some of the terminii.

Metrobus just didn't know what it wanted to achieve and tried to achieve a bunch of conflicting requirements in the same brand, however there were a few good service increases with it.

*sigh*.

Timetables are published: https://transportnsw.info/documents/tim ... 171126.pdf Times are now also displayed at stops.

So at least there has been some progress but as boronia has pointed out, it doesn't apply in all cases. I don't think I've seen it on bus stop timetables in too many cases, if any.

[Linto63]

Did it save some seats for the ALP in 2011? I honestly can't understand why the Libs haven't reviewed some of the weaknesses in the formula, particularly the earlier through CBD routes which made little sense at the time and still don't.

So the problem is why the natural party of government haven't undone the work of the commo ALP government? Seems that the Libs agree with it, or have also been hoodwinked by the mandarins. Not only has the Metrobus network survived intact through a couple of major timetable reviews, the cross CBD concept has been expanded with routes 273/343, 378/440 and 389/443 through routed in 2015, albeit without Metrobus branding. The concept of through routing is not new, just that Sydney was late in adopting it with route 200 being the only cross CBD route until the Metrobus network was rolled out. Melbourne's tram routes have done it for decades and bus routes in London have been through routed for a century.

CBD layover space isn't such a problem out of peak so if that's the point

CBD layover (and road) space was and continues to be a problem. Hence why in 2015 many services that previously crossed the harbour bridge to terminate at Wynyard and the QVB were diverted to McMahons Point and Milsons Point and those from Broadway and the Eastern Suburbs to Circular Quay were curtailed at Railway Square and Martin Place. And it required a few rounds of further cutbacks.

The stops at Neutral Bay Junction (stand A) and Wynyard where the M20/30/40 stops do indeed show the times of those buses. Some stops still get the Hastus (?) printouts (the STA generated ones) and those do not have the Metrobus route times on them (eg. Gore Hill).

From my observations around the CBD over the weekend, it seems that those stops with timetables attached to poles (the ones that are about 30 x 15cm) list all the Metrobus times, while the larger 80 x 40cm signs inside bus shelters as pictured at Eddy Avenue don't. Would require a decrease in font size to accommodate perhaps to the point of being very hard to read, solution would be to split across multiple signs.

[boronia]

The sign at Eddy Ave has plenty of blank spaces that would have accommodated m10 times:

DSC01701 (Small).JPG (133.28 KiB) Viewed 4830 times

[tonyp]

Sydney's government bus system mimicked the tram system, that's why it didn't through-route. However, the tram system was very efficiently designed for getting great numbers of trams turned around in the city. The bus system choked up with too many buses. In Melbourne they had to through-route the trams as they had to reverse them at termini and it would have choked up on that.

[simonl]

CBD layover (and road) space was and continues to be a problem. Hence why in 2015 many services that previously crossed the harbour bridge to terminate at Wynyard and the QVB were diverted to McMahons Point and Milsons Point and those from Broadway and the Eastern Suburbs to Circular Quay were curtailed at Railway Square and Martin Place. And it required a few rounds of further cutbacks..

Last I checked all of those routes run in peak hour, so your comment doesn't address my point that the problem only really applies at that time, except in cases where layover space is provided peak only.

So the problem is why the natural party of government haven't undone the work of the commo ALP government? Seems that the Libs agree with it, or have also been hoodwinked by the mandarins.

Or more likely they are too spineless.

[Linto63]

Last I checked all of those routes run in peak hour, so your comment doesn't address my point that the problem only really applies at that time, except in cases where layover space is provided peak only.

In one of the post October 2015 purges, routes 203, 254 and 290 were permanently curtailed, not just during the peaks. Even with the reduced services, the layovers at Bligh St, Circular Quay and Clarence St (QVB end) can be fairly tight in the off peaks.

Or more likely they are too spineless.

The spineless argument may have washed if the government had just maintained the status quo, but given that it has implemented some unpopular but necessary major changes, doesn't really apply. Also expanded the through routing concept.

[simonl]

The govt hasn't implemented any changes to Metrobus that I am aware of.

[Linto63]

You made the observation that the through CBD routes made little sense.

I honestly can't understand why the Libs haven't reviewed some of the weaknesses in the formula, particularly the earlier through CBD routes which made little sense at the time and still don't.

Evidently they think the through CBD concept makes sense, given they have expanded the concept with 273/343, 378/440 and 389/443. Not under the Metrobus brand, but still the same concept.

[simonl]

I didn't mean that through CBD routes in general made little sense, I meant that the M10, M20, M30, M40 and M50 as they were implemented made little sense. I don't think I was unclear about it either.

Through CBD has obviously been expanded to facilitate the reduction in road space from the CSELR.

[GazzaOak]

I think they need to make more though services in CBD

[boronia]

The m10 doesn't make sense (but probably a bit better since they took the TH connection out), because it is usually quicker to do the two legs using regular services, changing at Railway Square (even TripFinder agrees with this). The m50 is OK, because there is no better alternative (although taking away the High St leg has put more strain back on the 391-3-5).

75% of pax on CQ services used to get off by Market St, so there is no real justification in running more services past there. Park St is an acceptable alternative for most of these people, maybe better than Bathurst or Market (now Martin Place!).

[Tonymercury]

75% of pax on CQ services used to get off by Market St, so there is no real justification in running more services past there. Park St is an acceptable alternative for most of these people, maybe better than Bathurst or Market (now Martin Place!).

I'd say more like 90%.

[boronia]

Definitely 90% by Martin Place when both stops existed.

[mandonov]

I didn't mean that through CBD routes in general made little sense, I meant that the M10, M20, M30, M40 and M50 as they were implemented made little sense. I don't think I was unclear about it either.

Through CBD has obviously been expanded to facilitate the reduction in road space from the CSELR.

Do you care to elaborate on why you think they make little sense?

[simonl]

To be honest, not greatly because it should be axiomatic. But I'll make a few points:

a) Stopping patterns were nearly but not quite all stops. Why bother with a variation then?
b) City stops were not consistent with where passengers would have to wait for existing services
c) Park St interchange was a sacred cow which added little non negative value.
d) Many terminii stopped short of where passengers were actually traveling.

[boronia]

a) m52 is an oddball. The service should have been left as L20. Are there any other L/S m** services?

b) Having different stops provides more convenience to passengers. These services have not reduced the number of regular runs, so no one is disadvantaged.

c) see b). Getting off at Park St from the east is better than Bathurst St or Martin Place for many people. Even better if you need to travel across the Bridge.

d) There are heavier loadings on the inner legs of these runs. Being able able to syphon off short distance passngers makes more space/comfort for the both short and longer distance travellers. There are a few routes in Sydney with shortworkings for this purpose.

[Linto63]

To be honest, not greatly because it should be axiomatic.

That quite a few people have noted, at least some merit in the Metrobus concept, clearly it isn't.

a) Stopping patterns were nearly but not quite all stops. Why bother with a variation then?

Thought they were all stops services, might be wrong though. Perhaps there were operational reasons for omitting some stops, perhaps they not able to accommodate bendis and for whatever reason were not able to be lengthened?

b) City stops were not consistent with where passengers would have to wait for existing services

Given that Metrobus was introduced before the purge of bus routes entering the cbd in 2015, was quite sensible to have them stop at new / less busy stops than add to problems at already busy bus stops. By and large they now use the same stops as services they share corridors with.

c) Park St interchange was a sacred cow which added little non negative value.

Park St connects with Town Hall station, and is one of, it not the, busiest stops.

d) Many terminii stopped short of where passengers were actually traveling.

Short of terminating at La Perouse or Palm Beach there will always be somebody who wants to go further. Some do seemingly go to places where few people would seek to go, e.g. the M20 between St Leonards and Gore Hill, the M30 between Newtown and Sydenham, but this is probably to do with the need to be able to turn and stable buses between runs. The M20 originally terminated at Mascot, but was later extended to Botany. At the other end IIRC it was originally planned to operate through to Lane Cove, but the local council couldn't / wouldn't make the necessary changes to accommodate.

[Frosty]

The thing the m20 terminus at Mascot it wasn’t operationally very good since the layover was on southbound side of Sutherland St after King St. Can’t remeber if the last stop was King St or Hollingshed St. Had there not been the infrastructure restrictions at Eastgardens it would of probably terminated there.

I noticed in the new timetable for the m20 there are non-wheelchair accessible trips being peak hour trips between Zetland & the City. If saw correctly I think they’re R depot runs.

[Tonymercury]

At the other end IIRC it was originally planned to operate through to Lane Cove, but the local council couldn't / wouldn't make the necessary changes to accommodate.

And now there are complaints of not enough services at Lane Cove in the peaks!

[Frosty]

I thought the people in Lane Cove are complaining about how full all the freeway CBD buses are hence demanding more services.

[Tonymercury]

Just mentions of not enough services -

https://inthecove.com.au/2017/02/14/lan ... -response/