Upgrading of DART routes

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Lalor, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by krustyklo »

On the alternate route to shoppingtown via Elgar Rd, 281 and 293 services continue to follow one another every half hour, rather than provide a 15 minute frequency.
I found it interesting there were no changes to the 293 in the changes. Possibly no big deal, but my personal suspicion is that its tenure must be tenuous at best given the high level of duplication it has with the 901, 902 and 281. A cynic would suggest that there is no point using the 281 and 293 to provide a more convenient 15 minute service if one of those services were to be removed. Far better to remove one of the routes and use part of the route kms to upgrade the other to be able to claim an improvement to cover the loss, rather than improve it for less than a year then take it away again.
If the changes were redeploying buses to better meet capacity needs elsewhere then one could debate the pros and cons of the changed timetable. Unfortunately it seems to only benefit Transdev and does nothing to better utilise buses and drivers.
To be fair there were a small number of wins of increased weekend services on some routes. I suspect the overall number of route kms saved was more than was given back. The same thing happened in the north with the South Morang bus network changes when the station opened. Whilst removing the 571 was fair enough, I suspect the other changes also reduced the number of kms covered up by the route restructure and the 20/40 frequencies to replace the 25 minute and 35 minute frequencies in place before then, with some extended operating hours to sweeten the deal and proclaim improvements. Fixing odd frequencies and replacing them with clockface frequencies is a good thing, but in this case I suspect it was used to hide cuts, although I have no direct proof. In the case of the Transdev changes I am in the middle of calculating in a spreadsheet the old number of route kms for each route and will compare them with the new arrangements now and next year. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

But I agree it seems to benefit Transdev and the PTV more than passengers. I would be surprised though if it didn't reduce the number of buses and drivers required at some level, otherwise why go through the pain?
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

An observation tonight at the Park and Ride about 5.45pm is that the "well designed" facility isn't well suited at being a bus interchange. An inbound 907 was this time waiting for the 908 shuttle to arrive. There were three other buses behind it at the stop such as 207, outbound 908 and Manningham Mover services. The 908 arrived but had nowhere to drop off any passengers, had there been any. As the bus was empty the driver went forward and stopped next to the 907 bus to identify himself, after which the ex 908 bus left empty to return to the depot and the 907 followed.
The Park and Ride is heavily congested in the evening and frequently there is a queue of 1 or 2 traffic cycles of buses and cars waiting to leave. It certainly is difficult having the extra connecting buses hanging around add adds to passenger confusion working out whether a bus is an inbound or outbound service.
I also observed another 908 inbound with desto Doncaster / P&R via King St. Hopefully passengers will know where P&R is.
Bus stop signs in High St Doncaster have now been changed to reflect the truncation of route 285 between Shoppingtown and P&R via Manningham Rd and High St. Again it reflects a downgrade in utility for passengers along this section and more buses starting or finishing their journeys in the congested P&R. The pain hardly seems worth the gain.
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
BluDART
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by BluDART »

Alstom 888M wrote:
krustyklo wrote:Yes, even as an uninformed customer I get the impression things aren't going well in that area, although I'm mindful that rough sounding buses, more jammed doors on MAN Mk IIs, and a seemingly increased number of buses with fleet maintenance vehicles and tow trucks next to them could be a statistical anomaly so have been reluctant to assume the worst.
Meanwhile if a 'Scanny' goes down, it's kind of a big deal.
In regards to mechanical faults, it becoming pretty evident considering I have come across many vehicles being towed, gives me a good laugh each time; not because its a broken down bus but rather management incompetence. Certainly an interesting sight seeing a Doncaster or Fitzroy Scania being towed the first time considering how reliable Scania's are. Nonetheless got my first impression maintenance was reduced when only six months into the contract and my bus breaksdown on the freeway in bad weather in peak hour. Compared to only once during Ventura's tenure, around the fourth year of their 8 years, the yellow CB30's acceleration wouldn't engage.

On the topic of new vehicles, they are being delivered at a really slow pace compared to the designline's (even if they are somewhat 'flimsy'). Also does Gemilang have a local division to provide support and spares?
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

The discussion on Transdev and PTV performance at http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 50#p932843 probably better sits in this discussion.

It seems to me that exactly how much of the mess in Manningham is the fault of Transdev or of the PTV is debatable, but as a frequent user of bus services between Manningham and the city for over three decades I make the following observations.

The user amenity and service reliability peaked after Ventura bedded down the Smartbus routes 905-908.The transition to Transdev at first was relatively smooth but the strain started showing even before the July 27 timetable change. I suspect that PTV is the main driver of the debacle, forcing the operator to cut costs which inevitabily results in reduced user amenity.

There was no user consultation about the changes or advance notice. While the demise of some legacy routes was understandable, many of the changes were obviously designed to make it easier for Transdev at the expense of the users. In this category I would include the truncation of the 295 and 908 services as well as the demise of the 303 and 286 routes. Other reductions in user amenity are less apparent eg tighter turnarounds for drivers between runs. While the level of suburban service might be "quite good" when compared with the Melbourne average, it should be noted that in Manningham, the buses are the total public transport journey and are not feeders to train stations. Try catching a morning service along the 907 route weekday or weekend to the CBD and see why halving the frequency from "Doncaster P and R" isn't a good idea.
The July 27 changes were made worse by the Transdev desto issue and the PTV's total incompetence at communicating CBD bus stop changes to either the public or Transdev drivers.
Changes requiring passengers to make connections when they previously had through travel only works when service frequency is 5 minutes or less. Existing bus lanes are not policed or are insufficient to make services reliable. Indeed some planned improvements in Victoria Parade and Hoddle St were dropped after lobbying from "local traders".
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Lalor, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by krustyklo »

I suspect that PTV is the main driver of the debacle, forcing the operator to cut costs which inevitabily results in reduced user amenity.
Actually, much as I think the PTV avoids more blame than it should in this fiasco, this is not something I would entirely blame them for, although it was probably an unrealistic bid / bid requirements. Transdev tendered for the contract with their eyes open. They signed this document outlining what they would do in return for being paid to run the Melbourne Bus Franchise: http://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/vic ... greements/. I suspect it was on here I read it, but their bid was allegedly somewhat cheaper than the others, thus it can be assumed that is why they won the bid. The usual reason for doing so is:
  • There are a lot of costs in the system that can be removed without affecting the service. Allegedly this was the basis on which bidders bid for the tram and train franchises in the late 90s. Unfortunately they found that whilst the DoT at the time may have been supposedly overstaffed, the PTC was fairly lean and mean with little fat to cut. This was one of the factors blamed for the renegotiation of the contracts removing the unrealistic bid profile to eventually make a profit once the opportunity arose after National Express walked off in 2002.
  • There is an expectation of pent up latent demand if the service is run better with better customer service, more frequent services, longer hours of operation, etc. Whilst this is probably true in Manningham and possibly in the west, it seems that this is probably not the reason Transdev made the contract it did based on what they have since done with the cutbacks.
  • There is an expectation that being the incumbent has advantages should the government wish to change the scope of the operation. The Victorian Ombudsman / Auditor General report on Victorian Government IT contracts I'm pretty sure notes the willingness of companies to put in break even bids, or even bids that initially make a loss, to get in the hot seat so that they can make the real profits when the government inevitably changes the scope (eg Myki). The report can be found at https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getatt ... jects.aspx if it's the one I'm thinking of.
I'll let you judge why Transdev may have put in a low bid that promises to increase services at no cost to the government (read the contract linked above).
In this category I would include the truncation of the 295 and 908 services as well as the demise of the 303 and 286 routes.
If the 903 had gone to 10 minutes when the 295 was truncated as is supposed to happen in the greenfields timetable next year, it would be fair enough. Given there is now only 4 buses an hour along a fairly busy route, cutting the 295 isn't.
Truncating the 207 is fair enough.
Truncating the 908 was madness. As has been pointed out, it makes the already well used 907 overcrowded. It also dilutes what I thought was one of the main benefits of Smartbus - the willingness to alter routes. Whilst I thought the totems / technology was overkill, I liked the aspect that it made Smartbus routes seem like trams - they had expensive infrastructure that meant the routes were unlikely to be easily altered like normal bus routes are perceived to do. The 908 change so soon after introduction killed that perception.
Cutting the 286 should have occurred when the 901 went to 10 minute frequency. It would have been the same or better level of service as existed. The 286 largely duplicated the 901 after the latter's introduction - it was an obvious cut that should have occurred form day 1 of the 901 when it would have been easy to justify.
I can't really comment on the 303. For so few services a day it seems to have attracted the most noise of the lot. Maybe it should be increased if it is that popular? :?
While the level of suburban service might be "quite good" when compared with the Melbourne average, it should be noted that in Manningham, the buses are the total public transport journey and are not feeders to train stations.
That's actually my concern with Doncaster Rail, and why I easily argue against it with normal people who live in the area. Most rail lines in Melbourne only go to the CBD and run every 20 minutes. The Smartbuses run on almost every major road in Manningham every 15 minutes (soon to be 10), and connect not only to the CBD at this level of service, but also to major activity centres and railway stations via the 901, 902 and 903. Not to mention short trips, eg friend's houses. I have had people say they would like Doncaster Rail, and when I ask why their answer is "it would be great to get to the city quickly". When I point out that Doncaster Rail would go to the Park and Ride, or maybe possibly Shoppingtown, and that any journey not within 800m of those locations would need to catch a bus to the station and interchange, and take longer in doing so, people very quickly change their minds in favour of Smartbus.
Existing bus lanes are not policed or are insufficient to make services reliable. Indeed some planned improvements in Victoria Parade and Hoddle St were dropped after lobbying from "local traders".
And you have just validated the point I made in the other thread about what I think is the real issue, and one that is out of Transdev's control. Although I was glad to see motorcycle police enforcing the Fitzsimmons Lane bus lane 2 weeks ago, so it does sometimes happen!
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

I agree that if it wasn't for the traffic congestion, that Smartbuses between Manningham and the city are in many ways better than having a rail service. Also if a bus breaks down or if there is a road blockage, the subsequent disruption is more easily managed than if a train breaks down or there is a signalling fault / tree on line etc.
The problem with Smartbuses are capacity restraints. With the current frequency inbound from the P&R there are many times when intending passengers have to wait for a couple of buses before being able to stand sardine style. With the current lack of separation at the city end from other traffic and atrocious turn around facilities it will be difficult to increase the density of buses. Without a Perth style Busport or a Brisbane tunnel and bus station the only solution might be to spread the buses to more terminal locations near the CBD. Increasing route complexity would be far from ideal however.

Good to see evidence of policing of bus lanes. The Bus Lane cameras in Johnston St and the Vicroads campaign "If you want to travel in the bus lane... catch a bus" are distant memories.
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Lalor, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by krustyklo »

The problem with Smartbuses are capacity restraints. With the current frequency inbound from the P&R there are many times when intending passengers have to wait for a couple of buses before being able to stand sardine style. With the current lack of separation at the city end from other traffic and atrocious turn around facilities it will be difficult to increase the density of buses.
I find it difficult to believe that Smartbus routes are at capacity. By that I mean that it is physically difficult to run any more buses on the existing routes, as opposed to the current services being full due to not enough buses being run.

The issues arise in peak hour at the busiest time for people to want to travel. The obvious solution as you point out is for a current government to have the will and the balls to segregate traffic in the city during peak hour.

As for the other problem of the poor city terminus, I am sure it would be possible to:
  • Have a balloon loop terminus as usually happens (ie, go round the block)
  • Have multiple turning points at the end of Lonsdale St so several buses can turn at once
  • Extend some routes somewhere quieter to turn around or have a busport type place. My recollection of the busport on the one occasion I was in Perth was that it was quiet and out of the way, so presumably mainly exists to move buses somewhere to park / drivers to have breaks/ turn around out of the way before commencing their next run through busier streets. Footscray Rd isn't far away, and has suitable places to build a busport for some buses to continue to if none of the other solutions are possible.
Whilst I am sure that some of those options are not helpful, I doubt they are all useless or unachievable. Either way, when the 907 is running every 2 minutes or less, then I will consider it time to upgrade the capacity. Until then the main constraints are as a result of technical / planning issues that are reasonably resolvable with small amounts of cash and some political will, or the lack of political desire to fix the problems due to CBF, too safe seat to bother, etc. Maybe the people of Manningham should vote more strategically so they get more attention than a safe Liberal seat is likely to currently get. Having moved from the seat of Bundoora (safe Labor) to the seat of Eltham (one of the 2 most marginal in the state), the level of attention from local politicians in the lead up to the election is very different... :wink:
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

If a bus is standing room only along a freeway section then I would consider there's a need for more frequent services. With 30 minute frequency at weekends the solution is simple but when there are so many buses running along Lonsdale st that they impede each other's progress then I think there's a bigger issue.
The perth busport also is connected to a new underground rail station. This is far better than the lonsdale st terminus and southern cross station, separated by a block of construction sites and busy Spencer street
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
jamesadams7
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:20 pm
Location: North Balwyn, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by jamesadams7 »

I think the DART services can only be a serious alternative to Doncaster Rail if they have a completely segregated busway all the way from the Park + Ride to the end of Lonsdale Street (or somewhere nearby). These "bus lanes" they are painting (not constructing) do little. Not just because many motorists know they can get away driving in them, but because motorists need to cross bus lanes to make turns, etc. The new ones on Victoria Pde, right next to parked cars, are going to be a shocker. Cars delaying buses while they try and reverse parallel park into a spot. I'm starting to worry we may see car drivers 'dooring' the bus like they do bike riders, except it'll be the person opening the door who it won't end well for.

I'd like to see the busway idea developed, as it's never fully been investigated. The closest we've got would be Eddington's East West Needs Assessment (I can send the document to anyone who's interested). I think a basic design would be:
  • Separated busway down median strip of Eastern Freeway, with dedicated on/off ramps at Blackburn Rd, Doncaster Rd, Bulleen Rd and Chandler Hwy. Bus "stations" (with enclosed waiting areas and stairs/ramps/lifts) could be built at Middleborough Rd and Burke Rd, with potential for future additions.
  • At the end of the freeway, raise the busway above Hoddle Street and into the middle of the road. The centre busway would be separated from surrounding traffic with fencing/raised curbing, etc. At intersections, turning lanes would still be separated and signal operated to prevent cars ever turning in front of oncoming buses unless they have the green. A higher cost alternative would be to grade separate at major intersections. Current bus lanes could be handed over the general traffic in return for losing the centre lanes.
  • At Victoria Pde, becaue the road is so wide, there are a few options. One is possible paving the tramway and running buses down it as well.
  • At Lonsdale St, only serious option is underground in my opinion. There are far too many issues at grade (parking, cars, trucks, U-turning taxis, pedestrians, cyclists, traffic lights, etc). Unfortunately, it'd be quite expensive. Stations could be built at Parliament Station, Russell+Exhibition, Swanston+Elizabeth, Queen+William and King+Southern Cross Station, with exits at both ends, similar to current underground stations (but a lot less deeper). Then a loop could simply be built underground for seamless operation.
Manningham Council's also advocating for a similar underground grade separation on Doncaster Rd. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east ... 6895912235) I'm also aware that following the election, Council may rejig their campaign to focus on more reasonable alternatives like a busway.
jamesadams7
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:20 pm
Location: North Balwyn, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by jamesadams7 »

For all those that are interested, the contract was awarded for Stage 1 (Victoria Pde) today. It coincides with the release of Phase 1 of the Doncaster Rail Study, which scraped a cursory mention at the bottom of the Government's media release.

A lot of new diagrams and an overall map was also added to the VicRoads site, which is fairly interesting: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/plannin ... de-project

It also details the location of new bus stops. One odd placement to me is the proposed outbound bus stop at Clarendon Street. It appears they are planning on placing it in the middle of the intersection? It won't affect traffic flow, but I don't believe there is a precedent for this.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media ... treet.ashx
User avatar
RailwayBus
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.
Location: Melbourne

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by RailwayBus »

It might be inside an intersection, but keep in mind that the bus lane is skirting the outer edge of the intersection, which is a T intersection, with no road intersecting on the side the bus is on. And it being a bus lane, regular vehicles aren't allowed to turn into it. So I guess there isn't really a problem situating a bus stop there.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

Quite a bit of the project near Spring St was started a while ago then stopped. With councils losing centre parking in Victoria Parade I wonder how much is payback for the council's opposition to East West link. It might be a case of testing the councils' resolve for public transport.
If the bus lanes aren't policed however it will only be $32 million for strips of orange and green tarmac.(bus lanes and bike lanes)
My surmising is that inbound passengers wanting to connect at Parliament Station will be best to alight at the new stop in Victoria Parade west of Nicholson St, rather than stay on until the bus does a right turn from Spring into Lonsdale St and stops at the current stop half way towards Exhibition St.
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
BluDART
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by BluDART »

Having browsed the diagrams available, the new bus lanes and subsequent road configurations does not seem to assist as to rather hinder the bus system further. Not only is the new route longer(therefore more fuel use and other expenses) but it also encourages further use of Lonsdale street by cyclists who are forever hindering, slowing and blocking buses (especially in peak), one can only assume this will lead to a cyclist being crunched in the future so to speak ( saw a female cyclist try to ride between three buses once, she nearly got crunched once the traffic light went green if it weren't for the drivers vigilence).
I would rather see all bus stops but the Johnston st bus stops along Hoddle removed from the DART network as it would streamline interchanging(also the inner city asked for trains, they have already got one so they should go use it than bombard the DART network as it is).
jamesadams7
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:20 pm
Location: North Balwyn, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by jamesadams7 »

BluDART wrote:...but it also encourages further use of Lonsdale street by cyclists who are forever hindering, slowing and blocking buses (especially in peak), one can only assume this will lead to a cyclist being crunched in the future so to speak ( saw a female cyclist try to ride between three buses once, she nearly got crunched once the traffic light went green if it weren't for the drivers vigilence).
Partly agree. I think the new bus lanes are an improvement, but don't agree with putting cyclists and buses together. Indeed, cyclists should be banned from bus lanes with high-frequency routes, including Johnston Street, which delays buses every single day. Other, less-trafficked routes should be found nearby and indicated as the preferred route for cyclists.
BluDART wrote:I would rather see all bus stops but the Johnston st bus stops along Hoddle removed from the DART network as it would streamline interchanging(also the inner city asked for trains, they have already got one so they should go use it than bombard the DART network as it is).
Again, I partly agree. The 246 is already a high frequency bus route which services Hoddle Street, assisting local travel. For CBD access, they can use the trains. However, some Manningham DART users actually disembark on Hoddle Street and would be disadvantaged if all stops were to close. Many of the existing stops should be removed, as they are too close for an express route, but some should remain.

I also note 'Truro Street', the 246 stop before Johnston Street inbound, seems to have officially been added as a DART stop. It now appears on the 'Next stop' PIDs and has been added to the online timetables. This follows years of bus drivers stopping anyway for passengers on request.
philm
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:44 pm
Favourite Vehicle: A-class tram
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by philm »

jamesadams7 wrote:
BluDART wrote:...but it also encourages further use of Lonsdale street by cyclists who are forever hindering, slowing and blocking buses (especially in peak), one can only assume this will lead to a cyclist being crunched in the future so to speak ( saw a female cyclist try to ride between three buses once, she nearly got crunched once the traffic light went green if it weren't for the drivers vigilence).
Partly agree. I think the new bus lanes are an improvement, but don't agree with putting cyclists and buses together. Indeed, cyclists should be banned from bus lanes with high-frequency routes, including Johnston Street, which delays buses every single day. Other, less-trafficked routes should be found nearby and indicated as the preferred route for cyclists.
I would agree, but the problem is that Johnston Street is a very useful and direct route for cyclists heading to the Parkville precinct or the CBD. It directly connects with the Capital City Trail and Yarra Boulevard, and is also useful for intra-suburban travel in Collingwood and Abbotsford. There really isn't any other viable alternative for any reasonable distance (routes via Langridge Street are disjointed and indirect and riding Alexandra Parade you would only do if you had a death wish). Until a safe alternative route can be provided, Johnston Street is really the only viable option. The bus lanes provide at least some protection from traffic, which is better than nothing.

In an ideal world, given the awkward width of Johnston Street, you could have full time bus lanes going both ways, one general traffic lane going each way and separated cycle lanes on each side (or a single bidirectional one). Not sure if it could go past Brunswick St inbound, but it would be worth looking into. Essentially just removing the somewhat pointless and underutilised centre turning lane, remove on-street parking, make the bus lanes full time and stick some proper cycling infrastructure in. Then you could upgrade the 200/207 to Smartbus frequency :)
User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Lalor, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by krustyklo »

I would rather see all bus stops but the Johnston st bus stops along Hoddle removed from the DART network as it would streamline interchanging
The 246 is already a high frequency bus route which services Hoddle Street, assisting local travel. For CBD access, they can use the trains. However, some Manningham DART users actually disembark on Hoddle Street and would be disadvantaged if all stops were to close. Many of the existing stops should be removed, as they are too close for an express route, but some should remain.
I can't see removing stops making a lot of difference, except at times when it doesn't matter!
  • The key issues with delays will be peak hour. Between 7 and 7.50am the 246 runs every 8 minutes. After that it is every 10, with 2 odd 15 minute gaps. If I am expecting passengers to travel a few stops to interchange, then I wouldn't regard the latter as being a good enough frequency - you could well be travelling behind the bus you need (eg 907 following a 246 or vice versa) and need to wait at least 10 minutes to interchange to the next for the sake of theoretically saving a few minutes on DART routes (but see below).
  • The second issue with the above is that buses in peak hour can't really overtake a stationary 246 legitimately picking up passengers because the general road lane next to it will be full (hence why there is even a bus lane). If the 246 also has to pick up Smartbus passengers, this will delay buses even further despite many of those passengers really wanting to catch the stationary bus stuck behind the 246. In real life they will try and chance boarding the bus behind anyway meaning the system will be ignored by both passengers and pragmatic drivers or cause frustration if drivers follow the letter of "not stopping" despite the fact it has stopped anyway.
  • The next issue with the above is that if there as many people travelling from Manningham to the inner city as claimed (and anecdotal observation on the rare occasions I use the Smartbus to the city suggests it is correct), then you potentially needlessly fill 246s with passengers not needing to use those buses and overcrowding that service, meaning that to provide the feeder will need more frequent services, making providing the service more expensive. We all know how Transdev feels about that at the moment!
  • Off peak many of the above problems go away due to lower patronage and frequency of the relevant routes, but then the problem of too slow services goes away as well.
  • My understanding of transport policy over the last 15 years give or take is that the aim is to remove quirks and complications in order to make the service more legible. Hence why routes like the 207 and old 281 had pick up/set down restrictions removed, Sunday only services were modified to the normal weekday route structure, route variations for the same route are removed during route restructures, etc. This goes against this sensible policy.
I don't think DART is that broken. At best maybe limit stops to intersections along Hoddle St, but this would close negligible numbers of stops anyway and is probably not worth the effort of making people walk further. The bigger fish to fry to speed up the service without annoying passengers is better bus priority at traffic lights and proper bus lanes from the Park and Ride to/from the city. Limiting stops just complicates the system, makes people walk unnecessarily further to catch the bus or forces transfers reducing the current speed of people's journeys, and probably has more costs and unintended consequences than leaving the problem alone.

Another way of thinking of the problem is what would be the ideal if DART were treated like a tram (which is what Smartbuses are sort of trying to replicate but without spending money on infrastructure). In that case, people here would complain about stops being removed and having to walk further including at cross street interchanges based on past posts.

Equally, if we thought of DART limited stops vs allowing every stop as being like the discussions here on combing express / stopping services vs. frequent stopping services on railway lines, the usual consensus is that people's journeys are quicker overall with a frequent stopping service than with a 50/50 express / feeder stopping service with each running half the potential frequency but speeding up express journeys by a couple of minutes.

If people here still agree with those principles, then DART should be not be limited stop either.
jamesadams7
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:20 pm
Location: North Balwyn, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by jamesadams7 »

philm wrote: I would agree, but the problem is that Johnston Street is a very useful and direct route for cyclists heading to the Parkville precinct or the CBD. It directly connects with the Capital City Trail and Yarra Boulevard, and is also useful for intra-suburban travel in Collingwood and Abbotsford. There really isn't any other viable alternative for any reasonable distance (routes via Langridge Street are disjointed and indirect and riding Alexandra Parade you would only do if you had a death wish). Until a safe alternative route can be provided, Johnston Street is really the only viable option. The bus lanes provide at least some protection from traffic, which is better than nothing.
You are right, but I think an alternative route is worth investigation. Possibly, from Melbourne University, Palmerston Street, Argyle St, Sackville St, a new route through Victoria Park Station, Turner St and then connect through to the Capital City trail and/or back onto Studley Park Road. Of course, there would have to be mass-removal of on-street parking to be able to create bi-directional, Copenhagen bike lanes, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, a new bike thoroughfare would have to be ploughed through Victoria Park Station, but the station is long overdue for a rebuild, and has been earmarked for development anyway. Would be good if bike improvements and bus improvements for DART and the 200/207 could be incorporated.
philm wrote:In an ideal world, given the awkward width of Johnston Street, you could have full time bus lanes going both ways, one general traffic lane going each way and separated cycle lanes on each side (or a single bidirectional one). Not sure if it could go past Brunswick St inbound, but it would be worth looking into. Essentially just removing the somewhat pointless and underutilised centre turning lane, remove on-street parking, make the bus lanes full time and stick some proper cycling infrastructure in. Then you could upgrade the 200/207 to Smartbus frequency :)
I remember seeing proposals from the City of Melbourne (irrelevant though, as Johnston Street is City of Yarra) to widen the footpaths, create bicycle lanes on both sides, have one traffic lane each way and a centre-reversible bus lane. Not sure if it'd work but interesting proposal nonetheless.

EDIT: I found the image; alas, with no bike lanes and parking kept.
Rob Adams Johnston Street proposal.jpg
BluDART
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by BluDART »

krustyklo wrote:
I can't see removing stops making a lot of difference, except at times when it doesn't matter!

I don't think DART is that broken. At best maybe limit stops to intersections along Hoddle St, but this would close negligible numbers of stops anyway and is probably not worth the effort of making people walk further. The bigger fish to fry to speed up the service without annoying passengers is better bus priority at traffic lights and proper bus lanes from the Park and Ride to/from the city. Limiting stops just complicates the system, makes people walk unnecessarily further to catch the bus or forces transfers reducing the current speed of people's journeys, and probably has more costs and unintended consequences than leaving the problem alone.

Another way of thinking of the problem is what would be the ideal if DART were treated like a tram (which is what Smartbuses are sort of trying to replicate but without spending money on infrastructure).

Equally, if we thought of DART limited stops vs allowing every stop as being like the discussions here on combing express / stopping services vs. frequent stopping services on railway lines, the usual consensus is that people's journeys are quicker overall with a frequent stopping service than with a 50/50 express / feeder stopping service with each running half the potential frequency but speeding up express journeys by a couple of minutes.

If people here still agree with those principles, then DART should be not be limited stop either.
In regards to removing stops, I technically refer to not servicing those stops, as such it does matter as a single bus stopping along Hoddle can impede a whole procession of buses behind as drivers aren't particularly willing to overtake during the PM peak hour heading outbound (due to lack of road space and passengers) and therefore miss a set of traffic lights.
Consequently there are compromises; those 10~15% who get off at Hoddle st will be impeded but as a result you improve the the journey for the other 85% who are CBD bound.

Regarding DART is like trams, DART/smartbus is technically classified on the same level as trams by government departments, therefore an expected walking distance of 600m is defined as the radius for a catchment area from a bus/tram stop; as opposed to 800m for trains and 400m for your regular bus.

Nonetheless traffic light priority is essential in ensuring the system works to is absolute potential.
gobillino
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by gobillino »

BluDART wrote: Not only is the new route longer(therefore more fuel use and other expenses) but it also encourages further use of Lonsdale street by cyclists who are forever hindering, slowing and blocking buses (especially in peak), one can only assume this will lead to a cyclist being crunched in the future so to speak ( saw a female cyclist try to ride between three buses once, she nearly got crunched once the traffic light went green if it weren't for the drivers vigilence).
http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__d ... y-2014.pdf

Refer to Page 93 - Plan is to connect Albert St bike lanes with Latrobe St bike lanes. Never seen a detailed design for this, but seems logical, and would remove the conflict
BluDART
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:56 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by BluDART »

gobillino wrote:
BluDART wrote: Not only is the new route longer(therefore more fuel use and other expenses) but it also encourages further use of Lonsdale street by cyclists who are forever hindering, slowing and blocking buses (especially in peak), one can only assume this will lead to a cyclist being crunched in the future so to speak ( saw a female cyclist try to ride between three buses once, she nearly got crunched once the traffic light went green if it weren't for the drivers vigilence).
http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__d ... y-2014.pdf

Refer to Page 93 - Plan is to connect Albert St bike lanes with Latrobe St bike lanes. Never seen a detailed design for this, but seems logical, and would remove the conflict
Yes I have seen the plan, but obviously it does not take into view the concept of 'path of least resistance', in other words why would a cyclist bother detouring to Latrobe when they can continue their path along Lonsdale.
gobillino
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by gobillino »

provided the intersection cycles provide reasonably efficient movement from Albert to Latrobe, I have no doubt that they would! Regular commuting cyclists will make bigger deviations than that for high quality infrastructure.

I'm a reasonably confident on-road cyclist, and I personally now often make the awkward move from Albert to Latrobe. If there was proper infrastructure that provided for that connection, I'd imagine most regular cyclists would too. There's a hell of a lot of friction on Lonsdale, so I'm not sure that for a cyclist continuing on along Lonsdale would in fact be the path of least resistance.
User avatar
Alstom 888M
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 7:50 pm

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by Alstom 888M »

BluDART wrote:why would a cyclist bother detouring to Latrobe when they can continue their path along Lonsdale.
Well they actually can't in peak times, at least not safely and legally. A cyclist legally should use the centre lane, although that's quite dangerous for obvious reasons, however most cyclists; and especially the less confident and/or slower riders, opt to use bus lane. While I can't speak for Doncaster, many Fitzroy drivers have a generally negative (ranging from a quiet dim view to openly hostile) view of cyclists (and arrogant inner-north latte sippers in general) with Lonsdale Street and Rathdowne Street being common flash points.
All my posts on this board represents my personal views and opinions only. They may not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or values of those of my family, friends, colleagues, or employer.
jamesadams7
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:20 pm
Location: North Balwyn, VIC

Re: Upgrading of DART routes

Post by jamesadams7 »

A fancy new animation video is up on VicRoads' YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGsD8vb2eOU
nonscenic
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: A Transdev bus that works
Location: Templestowe, Vic

Re: "Upgrading" of DART routes

Post by nonscenic »

I noticed that the truncated 908 route mysteriously resumes through running between the Park and Ride and the city in the early hours of New Year's Day in BOTH directions :!:
This suggests that the original cuts were idealogically driven or more likely purely for operational convenience. The need to wait and change buses adds several minutes to travellers' journeys and runs the risk of missed connections, not to mention the overcrowding on some 907 journeys.
I don't think too many travellers would want to go from the Pines TO the city at 3am on New Year's Day.
After 33 years of commuting by bus, I now have a Seniors Myki and two more hours a day not stuck in Victoria parade on a Transdev bus.
User avatar
BroadGauge
Posts: 3740
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:20 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Car
Location: NSW

Re: "Upgrading" of DART routes

Post by BroadGauge »

nonscenic wrote:I noticed that the truncated 908 route mysteriously resumes through running between the Park and Ride and the city in the early hours of New Year's Day in BOTH directions :!:
It's almost as if they think there will be more demand for inbound travel after midnight, with both the 907 and 908 running, instead of before midnight when everybody is heading in to see the fireworks, when only the 907 is running (and to only a 30 minute timetable) :twisted:
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Melbourne / VIC”