• Advertisement

Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:51 pm

Not really...some of the implementation issues of the 601 were dealt with by the depot, but most of the big issues were dealt with by their head office staff. Just to give you a couple of examples:

- We wanted three new buses for 601 for the launch. The head office rearranged their buses across all their depots to ensure that three new vehicles could be assigned to this service. This required some juggling.

- They worked really hard to get the new service in place by second semester last year at relatively short notice

- They agreed to make the changes to 630A with about three weeks notice.

- They provided staff and buses for the launch of 601

At the end of the day, we are spending about a million dollars a year on 601 - and Eastrans knows that if they can provide the service well, and make it a success, then it will likely increase the chances of more services being added. They treat the Victorian Taxpayers as valued customers, and work hard to make sure they do everything they can to make it work. Most impressive.

This is constrasted with some other operators for which everything is too hard, they want to be spoon fed, no initiative, etc... I guess like any industry, there are excellent people and ordinary people. Eastrans are one of the good guys.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby E.L.Wood » Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:31 pm

revenue wrote:Not really...some of the implementation issues of the 601 were dealt with by the depot, but most of the big issues were dealt with by their head office staff. Just to give you a couple of examples:

- We wanted three new buses for 601 for the launch. The head office rearranged their buses across all their depots to ensure that three new vehicles could be assigned to this service. This required some juggling.

- They worked really hard to get the new service in place by second semester last year at relatively short notice

- They agreed to make the changes to 630A with about three weeks notice.

- They provided staff and buses for the launch of 601

At the end of the day, we are spending about a million dollars a year on 601 - and Eastrans knows that if they can provide the service well, and make it a success, then it will likely increase the chances of more services being added. They treat the Victorian Taxpayers as valued customers, and work hard to make sure they do everything they can to make it work. Most impressive.

This is contrasted with some other operators for which everything is too hard, they want to be spoon fed, no initiative, etc... I guess like any industry, there are excellent people and ordinary people. Eastrans are one of the good guys.



Thanks for that insight Revenue,

I guess we can speculate as which operators are easy to work with and which ones aren't, but in the end it's not something which could or even should be discussed in a public forum, but it is good to hear a positive report about an operator who is earning their part of what is after all "our money"
yolo seems to be a bit of a trend!
User avatar
E.L.Wood
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: sitting at the Computer sometimes
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Favourite Vehicle: PMC Adelaide bodied Elwood

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby cal_t » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:10 pm

I disagree. I think it is healthy to find ways to improve. There is a culture of 'I've been here longer' than you or 'that's the way it's always been done' in the industry and we should all look towards the private sector to see ways to innovate, improve service and to improve culture.

There's not enough room or the right forum to exchange ideas and to improve each others' businesses.

Given most of the routes come under grandfather rights, I would be safe to assume there are operators out there who don't wish to change a thing, providing the service is run. And on-time. Which should be the aim for moving people from A-B.

However, with a very good public transport system in Melbourne, it is time to look at customer service strategies and improving information provision. We know the trains, trams and buses can run. And 9 times out of 10, they are run nearly perfect from an logistics operational perspective.
——
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. Other user ‘CAL’ & 'cal-creativist’ are not my pseudonyms; I am not associated with their posts.
User avatar
cal_t
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Favourite Vehicle: Deckers; LRVs

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:20 pm

I do agree with Cal_t that the public transport industry does tend to be too heritage focused. There certainly isn't a constant drive to innovate and create efficiencies in some areas. This has the unfortunate result that things tend to get really bad and then you have a 'big bang' approach to change. For example, the industry was incredibly inefficient during the 1980s. There was no real reform - no major staff efficiencies were progressively introduced. Then under Kennett there was a massive shake up, and staff numbers were almost halved for train and tram operations (and yet the number of services delivered grew slightly). If there had been progressive reform over a number of years, then there wouldn't have been a need for a massive change in a relatively short space of time. A culture of innovation and trying new things is in place with some operators, but not others.

I think there are a range of areas where there are efficiencies that could be progressively introduced, but I think that many operators tend to ignore them for the sake of the easy life - and then every so often a major shake up comes along.

Of course the operator response to this would be that when they want to innovate there is no money (eg. if you give me X money, then this means I would be able to make this small change which would provide a large improvement). I understand that frustration.

Personally, I think the characteristics of good bus operators are those who take customer service seriously (making sure they make expectations clear about what drivers should do), an operator who makes sure they mark as many services in timetables as being accessible as possible within their fleet limitations, an operator who identifies where it might be appropriate to assign particular vehicles to particular routes in a special livery to promote a service, an operator who ensures that the buses are stocked with timetables and information posters, an operator who ensures they let BusVic know when they have a particular fare evasion problem so that the AOs can be sent to target it, an operator who promptly reports damage to bus stop signs/timetable cases/bus stop shelters to the appropriate person, an operator who makes sure that the vehicles are clean and gets the driver to de-litter the vehicle regularly, an operator who takes the initiative to do publicity when new services are introduced and work with their local community, etc...

And there are many operators that do every one of the above. :) Also plenty that don't.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby cal_t » Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:45 pm

That was an excellent snapshot into the industry, Revenue.

So in keeping with the theme of change and continuous improvement in mind, and of course, with the purpose of this not to shame and name, where should the source of change come from? Should it be the government, operators or a mix of both?

In terms of getting involved in the industry, where could one start to seek a position to help with this change process?
——
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. Other user ‘CAL’ & 'cal-creativist’ are not my pseudonyms; I am not associated with their posts.
User avatar
cal_t
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Favourite Vehicle: Deckers; LRVs

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:26 pm

cal_t wrote:So in keeping with the theme of change and continuous improvement in mind, and of course, with the purpose of this not to shame and name, where should the source of change come from? Should it be the government, operators or a mix of both?


The answer is both.

But the capability of each has varied over time and with the type of innovation.

Blind spots exist in both and it is well to be aware of them. Eg where operators planned timetables (such as with odd frequencies or bad connections) to minimise bus usage rather than network connectivity. Or on the government side, the need to be mindful of political sensitivities and their opportunity costs such as less direct routes and less frequent service. {there is an antidote to the latter, called public engagement, and the North Americans seem more advanced than we are, though we went some way with the bus reviews}

Our governance structure of public transport (community service obligations, reliant on government subsidy, inability to set own fares or freely plan routes) means that unless a change is very cheap it won't happen if not backed up by government. Though if you didn't have government support then the vast majority of routes wouldn't pay their way and would cease to exist. So the relationship between government and bus operators is extremely important in building the best affordable bus network.

The dominant role of government (as a funding source and sometime service planner) doesn't completely lock the industry out of change or innovation. Eg the Bus Association was able to win political support for unprecedented bus service improvements at a time when (Melbourne) trains and trams were standing still. And there's other non-service innovations listed later that operators have experimented with.

Key bus service innovations in Melbourne have probably been:

* early 1980s: Integrated multimodal fares (government) followed by off-system purchase options

* 2000s: use of the web for information. First under operator websites then Metlink. Followed by online journey planners, mobile apps and real time information. (mix of government and operator)

* 2000s: more low floor buses (govt DDA requirements)

* mid 2000s: timetables at all stops (government program)

* late 2000s: Local buses running on Sundays and after 7pm (government program)

* late 2000s: SmartBus frequent cross-suburban routes (government program)

* 2012 - : Harmonisation of bus and train timetables (effectively a govt policy)

The above were largely government initiatives, requiring significant funding in most cases.

Operator initiatives I can think of include:

National's use of minibuses, section fares and a network that took advantage of a commuter belt with a freeway but not a railway.

Invicta's Telebuses http://www.buslines.com.au/invicta/history.html Also http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/resea ... cs/425.pdf (if you can tolerate the terrible font)

Ventura's real time service alerts http://twitter.com/#!/venturabus And their experimentation wtih alternative fuels.

Keeping the business going also required a canny breed of innovation - especially in the years before subsidies. There the main battle was in competition with the railways and other bus companies. Some innovations may not be seen by the passenger, but things like route consolidation, depot location, rostering, fleet management all made the difference between survival and oblivion. Dysons history is a great read for this aspect.
Last edited by PaxInfo on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby cal_t » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:50 pm

Here's one to think about- If our population grew large enough, we could have operators applying to a body like NSW's IPART to set/change fares, so that operators take on that innovation role. The transfer of risk is probably too high in that sort of system, as providing a service to the public in less dense areas is important. So what would happen if we were to moved to a mixed model system?

Should there be a mechanism where operators should be free to operate more services on corridors of growth? An example is National's own marketing research into an extended route into the Heidelberg area, in which the DoT did approve such a route.
——
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. Other user ‘CAL’ & 'cal-creativist’ are not my pseudonyms; I am not associated with their posts.
User avatar
cal_t
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Favourite Vehicle: Deckers; LRVs

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:21 pm

cal_t wrote:Here's one to think about- If our population grew large enough, we could have operators applying to a body like NSW's IPART to set/change fares, so that operators take on that innovation role. The transfer of risk is probably too high in that sort of system, as providing a service to the public in less dense areas is important. So what would happen if we were to moved to a mixed model system?


One precedent might have been the 571. Started as a a trial service on its own fare and eventually included into Zone 2. And more recently the end of the 683, following political interest in it.

If transport is desperately bad and people are willing to pay more for a better service then it would seem fair for a mechanism to exist to allow that (to reconcile willingness to pay with funding that better service).

Hence the rationale behind toll roads or premium fare services like Skybus.

National effectively had a non-integrated revenue stream with their section fares. It was removed without a whimper. Invicta still has its Telebus surcharge. Then there's the West Gate Punt's fare. These amounts though are probably smaller than the 'real cost' if there was no government subsidy. A couple of years back an experiment was tried to provide a premium fare coach between the city and the Mornington Peninsula. It wasn't sufficiently supported and lapsed.

A disintegrated fare system introduces its own distortions. The greatest harm is that it discourages interchange, even though the most efficient network planning requires it (refer to anything by Jarrett Walker). Less transparent payment methods (eg Smartcards) may make it apparently smoother than buying individual tickets from the driver but it's still second-best compared to what Melbourne has now.

Integrated fares also ensure that our bus service planning can proceed without too much worry as to fares. Eg we've just removed the 571 bus that paralleled the new train without any worries as to fares. Whereas in cities without integrated fares restructuring routes not only may force a transfer but a fare hike and second ticket as well. Adding to the political cost of service reform, meaning it won't happen and you have a fragmented transport system something like Auckland's or worse.

Because patronage responds to service more than fares, it's probably better to have integrated fares but innovative service planning than the reverse. But if fares overall are too low then you might end up with no service planning!
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby system improver » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:28 am

Based on my observations yesterday, there are still a few problems. With a fifteen minute train frequency between 10am and 3pm, at least every second 601 from Huntingdale (leaving every 4 minutes) runs empty, completely empty, to Monash. It would have been better to use the 630A funding to provide a 15 minute frequency on the 630 between 9.30am and 3pm. And, not surprisingly, between 9am and 10am, whilst some 601 buses (which have met a train) run standing room only, a 900 whizzes past half empty. With a bit of thought (and minor roadworks), the 601 from Monash should unload under the overpass which will free space for the 900 stop to be moved around the corner. If the 630 was a 15 frequency, it could share the same spot as the 900, provided someone thinks about their timetabling so that they leave at different times.

Until and unless our buses run at the same frequency as the trains they meet (or somewhere near it), we are a long way from a coordinated transport system. Patch up jobs work well for a while but only cover up a bigger problem.
User avatar
system improver
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 439 times
Favourite Vehicle: 1949 MBA Seddon

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:11 am

With a fifteen minute train frequency between 10am and 3pm, at least every second 601 from Huntingdale (leaving every 4 minutes) runs empty, completely empty, to Monash.


I think it is worth pointing out that there are actually eight trains an hour (four in each direction). Customers transfer to/from the 601 from both the up and down trains.

Yes, there are 601 services that are empty or nearly empty in the Huntingdale to Monash direction. However, almost every service carries someone from Monash to Huntingdale. In the AM peak, around 10% of patronage is actually counter peak.

Now, here is the interesting part. Even with the odd trip with no one on it, the 601 buses are still the most heavily utilised buses in Melbourne. They have more passenger boardings per vehicle than any other bus route. The patronage growth on the Monash - Huntingdale corridor has been massive.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that the four minute frequency provides customers with the reassurance to catch this service. They know that if trains are late, there will be a service waiting for them.

It would have been better to use the 630A funding to provide a 15 minute frequency on the 630 between 9.30am and 3pm. And, not surprisingly, between 9am and 10am, whilst some 601 buses (which have met a train) run standing room only, a 900 whizzes past half empty.


It would have looked a bit odd running a 15 minute service on 630 during the day, and a lower frequency at peaks, but I'm ok with doing things like that. The problem is that one additional bus would not have enabled the service frequency to be increased to every 15 minutes. The 900 issue we have talked about with having the 900 double stop if required.

I think the key issue with 601 is that it demonstrates that if you provide a high frequency service, that does not require a timetable, and does not rely on connections, then the public response and patronage growth will be very good. Yes, the high frequency means that occasionally there is a trip with only a few passengers, or no passengers, on it. But that happens plenty of time elsewhere in the network. The distinction with 601 is that the empty running helps provide a high quality service from Monash to Huntingdale - and provides customers with reassurance. If the 601 service had been designed to link with every train service (eg. timetabled connections), then I think that customers would not have trusted the service as much, and that patronage would have been dramatically lower.

And as I said, the 601 buses are the most heavily utilised in the system - so the odd empty trip is probably a relief to the drivers! ;)
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby system improver » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:17 am

revenue wrote:...It would have looked a bit odd running a 15 minute service on 630 during the day, and a lower frequency at peaks...

The 630 runs every 12 minutes (with the odd 14) during the peak.
Last edited by system improver on Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
system improver
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 439 times
Favourite Vehicle: 1949 MBA Seddon

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:21 am

Ah yes, right you are.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby system improver » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:30 am

The important issue, in my view the only important one for a true system, is connectivity between buses and trains. There are some people who ride past Clayton and get off at Huntingdale and catch the bus back. But how bizarre is that? Is that really a good sign of a system? How about we fix Clayton before Brighton. More than 90% of 601 passengers come from down trains. Clearly, if they run every 15 minutes, then running a connecting bus every 4 minutes is going to lead to ridiculous levels of over supply, especially when 900 and 630 services also operate the route.

Most of the work done to get a better service to Monash was very welcome and I realise that there is not an infinite amount of money to be spent. But, because of that, I don't like to see money wasted.
User avatar
system improver
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 439 times
Favourite Vehicle: 1949 MBA Seddon

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:42 am

I disagree with you about most people using 601 coming off 'from city' trains. There are a very large number of customers on trains from Dandenong - for the simple reason that it is faster. If you spend an extra couple of minutes on the train you get to connect with a bus that runs express, runs frequently and takes less time. One of the reasons that patronage soared at the start of semester one is that lots of first years who didn't have established travel patterns started connecting at Huntingdale as that's what the journey planner says is the fastest trip and because of the promotion by Monash Uni.

I don't think it is problematic at all for customers to stay on the train for one more station and catch the 601 - because it gives them a faster trip.

Your comments about 'over supply' come from a misplaced belief that the objective is to make sure that every trip is as heavily utilised as possible. That's one perspective - but for this scenario I don't think it is the right way of looking at it. The service being provided is what the customer want. They don't want a service that perfectly matches up with every train and bus - because their perception is that too much could go wrong with that (eg. what if my train is late, what if I miss the connection). The level of service being provided is being driven in part by a customer desire to have a frequency that does not required coordination - and is a true turn up and go service. It is only because of the high frequency levels that patronage grew so much.

To suggest that the 601 buses, which carry more people per vehicle than any other bus route in Melbourne, are over servicing, means that we should cancel most bus routes in Melbourne - because every other route carries fewer people per vehicle by any measure (passenger kilometers, boardings, etc.).

If buses were exactly matched with train arrivals - it would have resulted in fewer passengers than have resulted from advertising the service as every four minutes - as the current service is viewed by customers as being very robust and reliable, and the alternative would have been seen as more risky.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby dbowen » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:34 pm

revenue wrote:I disagree with you about most people using 601 coming off 'from city' trains. There are a very large number of customers on trains from Dandenong - for the simple reason that it is faster.


Chatting to a bloke at Lynbrook Station last Sunday, he said he'd been driving to work at Monash Uni, but now that the station had opened, he'd be catching the train to Huntingdale and jumping on the bus from there. There does seem to be a great deal of awareness of the 601, and a view that it's a good option even from the Dandenong direction.

Daniel
dbowen
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:26 pm

The 601 is going really, really well.

I think that it really does show that sometimes you need to potentially 'over service' in order to deliver a product that customers can understand - and are therefore more likely to use. A clear simple message is really important - and sometimes it is worth running a few additional services to create that product. For example, if the 601 was "every four minutes until 10am, and then every six minutes until 3pm and then up to every five minutes until 4pm and then back to every four minutes until six and then every six minutes until seven" then you might potentially be able to save some money. However, because the message is more complex, you would end up with a lot less patronage than "every four minutes from 7am to 7pm".

Sometimes providing a few extra services is important to create a product that customers can understand. Which means they catch it. Which means more revenue.

You could argue that 601 is actually a profitable public transport service given the patronage.

So I think that is probably a key question to consider - where on the network can a small number of additional services result in a very clear message for customers that is clear, marketable and timetableless?

I think there a few places on the network where we could market that "Between X and Y, you get Z services".

For example, Box Hill to Doncaster - a few routes combine to provide a very high quality service. But is there a clear message that can be sold there?
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby BroadGauge » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:22 pm

revenue wrote:For example, Box Hill to Doncaster - a few routes combine to provide a very high quality service. But is there a clear message that can be sold there?

Actually they did until your department diverted the 293 to run via Elgar Road. Now the off-peak bus frequency of six trips per hour is less than it used to be in the pre-SmartBus days when routes 291/293/295 combined to provide 8 buses per hour along Station Street, which didn't bunch unlike the 903 and 295 often do.

At least the 903 alone provides a very good peak frequency, but on Sunday which is a busy shopping day where you get a 903 roughly every 30 minutes, and the random extra 295s once every 2 hours, not anything fantastic especially compared to the 10 minute train frequencies it connects with.
User avatar
BroadGauge
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:20 pm
Location: Nyah West
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 178 times
Favourite Vehicle: Cash Express Train

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby dbowen » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:06 pm

revenue wrote:But is there a clear message that can be sold there?


"Every ten minutes to everywhere" :-)

I would hope at the very least to see a time when there's an expectation that at least train, tram and Smartbus run frequently, every day of the week.

Daniel
dbowen
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby PaxInfo » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:18 pm

revenue wrote:So I think that is probably a key question to consider - where on the network can a small number of additional services result in a very clear message for customers that is clear, marketable and timetableless?


Before thinking of additional services, it might be worth looking at what's currently there and whether that can be made simpler and more evenly spaced. Then identify cases where we're 'almost there' and add services to fill the timetable gaps.

The successful 401 and 601 are both short trips that link a railway station with a major attraction up to a few km from it. Other universities and the bigger shopping centres are the next obvious candidates. They feature prominently in the list below:

SHOPPER - STATION SHUTTLES

1. Cheltenham - Southland SC. Already 11 buses/hour off-peak weekdays, about half that on weekends. This is spread thinly over 7 different route numbers and 3 stops distant from one another at Cheltenham. At least on weekdays legibility more than extra services is needed. In other words fewer route numbers leaving from fewer stops but with each route running more frequently.

2. Chadstone - Oakleigh Like Cheltenham - Southland it's more a legibility than service level thing.

3. Hoppers Crossing - Werribee Plaza. Also Narre Warren - Fountain Gate Similar to Southland - Cheltenham or Chadstone - Oakleigh but there's less service to work with. So it's even more important to co-schedule existing services and see what can be done with an extra bus or two slotted in.

UNIVERSITIES

4. Footscray - VUT. At the cost of reduced directness it may be possible to divert 223 to be nearer the campus and give more services. Also the Footscray - Yarraville section of 223 is not far from a 15 min frequency bus (472) and a 10 min train. This part of 223 was a tram, but it's tempting to look at whether 223's Footcray - VUT - Highpoint frequency can be increased from 15 to 10 min if some or all 223 trips were truncated at Footscray.

5. Frankston - Frankston Power Centre - Monash Uni - Frankston hospitals - Frankston Station. A clockwise circular route could work since the main generator (the university) is equidistant either way. Neither Power Centre, Uni, or Hospital passengers would need to cross roads as in all cases the bus stop would be right outside - you'd be getting almost taxi quality service. Ideally 10 min frequency timed to connect with arriving trains.

An alternative is to ditch the circular route idea, serve the uni and hospitals only, and try to interleave an extra bus or two between modified existing routes made more legible.

6. Latrobe Uni Bundoora via Oriel Rd It looks like there's enough already to have a high frequency, but it's currently fragmented between routes eg 246 extension, 250 and 340. Look at further reducing the number of routes and making what's left more frequent (we've already had 350 deleted recently).

7. Templestowe Village - Box Hill - Deakin Uni. Already exists (Route 281) but may be possible to double frequency to 15 min, largely within existing resources by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The 'robbery' in this case is deleting Routes 293 and 768 and putting the resources into doubling 281 (which would also add Sunday service, at least for Templestowe - Box Hill). Greensborough would lose its direct service to Box Hill, and would have to change at Shoppingtown. Coverage of Montmorency could be retained by extending 582 to Greensborough, making it bidirectional and reducing its frequency. Lowish density and car owning eastern Eltham loses it's possibly excessive 20 minute frequency (even on Sundays!) but in exchange gains a faster bidirectional route and a direct service to its nearest big centre (Greensborough).

EMPLOYMENT AND AIRPORT

8. Airport West to Melbourne Airport First step is to scrap 478 and fold services into 479 between Melbourne Airport and Airport West only. On its own this should allow a frequency increase from as bad as every 2 hours to 30 - 40 minutes - greatly boosting service to an underserved area. Those frequencies still aren't that attractive so you'd add a bus or two for a 15 - 20 minute frequency if possible.

9. Southern Cross Station to Port Melbourne. The latter is a major employment area with somewhat limited access from many directions. Daytime frequency is already reasonably good, but there may be room for legibility gains (eg rationalising 235/237/238 into two routes). I'm not sure if the very limited Saturday service needs to be kept but should the peaks run longer and later?

We could be doing so much better with the bus network. If you compare the relative area served by buses and trams its patronage should be higher than trams but instead it's less.

The best service planners (eg Transperth) often rationalise services to allow a higher good elsewhere. The penalty for not acting is not being able to proceed with the service improvement and patronage gain.

The down side is that some may have to walk further to their bus (hopefully faster and more frequent). Emotions can run high and such restructuring needs public support or at least acceptance. That's where the need to engage with passengers, bus companies and drivers during the planning process is incredibly important.

I like the public workshop participation model developed by Jarrett Walker where the public are given a certain service kilometre allocation and are invited to form their network from it. This then gives them a better understanding of the trade offs between frequency and coverage. Even those adversely affected may come away with a grudging appreciation of why (for example) Route 563 or 571 was scrapped and that why this was the right thing to do.

Other methods of engagement for simpler changes is simple yes/no questions, which can be delivered easily online these days. An incredible number of bus users have smartphones or at least the internet at home and many of those who don't can be reached through seniors clubs etc. We had consultation with 626 but the difference there was that the process was driven by residents who didn't want buses in their street rather than passengers choosing between different service options.

An example are the routes that run until 11pm on weeknights but only every 2 hours on Sundays. Would passengers prefer an hourly Sunday service in exchange for giving up their after 9pm weeknight services? Only way to find out is to ask them.
Last edited by PaxInfo on Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:51 am, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
PaxInfo
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby cal_t » Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:49 am

The MBL West Gate Freeway route seem to be pretty heavy in the mornings, might not benefit from TUAG services all day, but certainly warrents a frequency timetable instead of set times in the peak.
——
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. Other user ‘CAL’ & 'cal-creativist’ are not my pseudonyms; I am not associated with their posts.
User avatar
cal_t
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Favourite Vehicle: Deckers; LRVs

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:34 am

dbowen wrote:I would hope at the very least to see a time when there's an expectation that at least train, tram and Smartbus run frequently, every day of the week.


I think that time will come - but it won't come at once. And if you can't market parts of the network where it has been delivered, then the chances of it being expanded at an appropriate rate will be small.

For example, the current message of "from 10am to 7pm on weekends, trains operate every ten minutes from the city to Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston' is pretty good.

The 601 message of "every four minutes from 7am to 7pm on weekdays during semester".

So, I think there are opportunties to market key corridors where there are high frequency services during particular spans of hours. I don't believe you shouldn't market a service just because at certain times it doesn't provide a high quality service. For example, if you can market a good frequency during shopping hours, or weekdays, or during the day, or whatever.... then you have a good message.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby tranzitjim » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:29 am

revenue wrote:
dbowen wrote:I would hope at the very least to see a time when there's an expectation that at least train, tram and Smartbus run frequently, every day of the week.


I think that time will come - but it won't come at once. And if you can't market parts of the network where it has been delivered, then the chances of it being expanded at an appropriate rate will be small.

For example, the current message of "from 10am to 7pm on weekends, trains operate every ten minutes from the city to Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston' is pretty good.

The 601 message of "every four minutes from 7am to 7pm on weekdays during semester".

So, I think there are opportunties to market key corridors where there are high frequency services during particular spans of hours. I don't believe you shouldn't market a service just because at certain times it doesn't provide a high quality service. For example, if you can market a good frequency during shopping hours, or weekdays, or during the day, or whatever.... then you have a good message.


While I may be off topic, you say the 10 minute frequency currently for trains, are only on Saturday and Sunday, Is Monday to Friday still the 15 minute frequency?

Even better to dbowens request, via my www.fightforsmartbus.info I campaign for a minimum frequency of 60 minutes for all SmartBus routes, 24/7

A 10 minute frequency for SmartBus routes at least 9am to 5pm, 7 days a week would be nice and would be happy to support that. Although that is not a focus of my website.
tranzitjim
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Melbourne Victoria Australia
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:40 am

Of course it would be nice to have high frequency services at all times - and good luck with your campaign on that. But my point is that the 601 provides a good example of a targetted, simple message that has worked. There will be other instances where a similar message can work well, either now or with minor service changes.

You can't wait until you have ten minutes everywhere before you start promoting public transport.

Promoting the 601, promoting the existing ten minute services on weekends, are all important - because if you can't get patronage to increase on these services - why would you bother funding more of them? :wink:

Why would the Victorian Government fund 10 minute weekend services on other lines, unless it had been a sucess on the lines that had been improved? Frankly, if there isn't a significant patronage increase from ten minute services to Frankston, Dandenong and Ringwood on weekends during the day - what would be the point of expanding it out to other lines? I'm overstating to make a point - unless you can market these sorts of improvements and drive patronage, then there will be limited desire to do further expansions of the same kind.

Frankston is ten minutes during the day on weekdays.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby system improver » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:15 pm

revenue wrote:Why would the Victorian Government fund 10 minute weekend services on other lines, unless it had been a sucess on the lines that had been improved? Frankly, if there isn't a significant patronage increase from ten minute services to Frankston, Dandenong and Ringwood on weekends during the day - what would be the point of expanding it out to other lines? ...

The service improvements we are seeing are a result of the Metro contract. No additional government funding is being provided.
User avatar
system improver
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 439 times
Favourite Vehicle: 1949 MBA Seddon

Re: Huntingdale to Monash Uni Clayton shuttle

Postby revenue » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:19 pm

Ultimately the Government pays for all services - whether it was funded as part of the base franchise agreement, or a variation to that agreement as a new requirement, ultimately the taxpayers fund the services! :D
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Melbourne / VIC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests