Infrastructure Vic congestion report

[krustyklo]

Can be found at http://infrastructurevictoria.com.au/si ... 202018.pdf. There is significant analysis on both the road and PT network, with a significant focus on bus services, both good and underperforming. When I get an opportunity, I'll try and summarise the key issues, but some interesting highlights include recommendations to upgrade bus services, especially the Doncaster area routes during the North-East Link disruptions to try and get people to shift from car to bus to try it in the hope they'll prefer it after the road is completed; and to replace low performing bus routes / areas with other lower cost services such as demand responsive services, ride sharing , and others. An interesting related quote is

Melbourne’s metropolitan bus network is the largest of all public transport services in Victoria by service kilometres. It has the biggest operating and maintenance expenditure by mode after trains yet accounts for just 16% of public transport use23 (Figure 13).

The map on page 38 showing which routes are performing to an acceptable level (green - defined as 20 boardings an hour or more) and which are not (red) is worth a look too. I have reservations about the methodology as I suspect the colouring is by route rather than route segment (I very much doubt the 901 between Greensborough and South Morang has 20 boardings an hour!) but worth a look nonetheless.

[MAN 16.242]

The map on page 38 showing which routes are performing to an acceptable level (green - defined as 20 boardings an hour or more) and which are not (red) is worth a look too. I have reservations about the methodology as I suspect the colouring is by route rather than route segment (I very much doubt the 901 between Greensborough and South Morang has 20 boardings an hour!) but worth a look nonetheless.

Sure is by route than segment. Another example being is 216/219/220 showing poorly out west when in fact the west side is very very busy.

[krustyklo]

Sure is by route than segment. Another example being is 216/219/220 showing poorly out west when in fact the west side is very very busy.

Whilst more information than currently available, it would be much better for public discussion if smaller segments were shown. I suspect some of the longer routes serving multiple purposes would have parts that are busy and quieter parts. It may well even have helped Transdev sell the service cuts to the north and west in their Greenfields plans if boardings vs. costs of running the service were shown, although the risk of analysing particular services / segments is ignoring the network effects, in the same way closing loss making branch lines reduces the cost effectiveness of the trunk lines.

[MAN 16.242]

It may well even have helped Transdev sell the service cuts to the north and west in their Greenfields plans if boardings vs. costs of running the service were shown, although the risk of analysing particular services / segments is ignoring the network effects, in the same way closing loss making branch lines reduces the cost effectiveness of the trunk lines.

Actually if Transdev had done that it might made it even harder sell some of the cuts. While the Orbitals are less busy out west & north the former MBL routes out west are among some of Transdev busiest sections on their network. Some proposed cuts to ex MBL routes out west were quite harash i.e They proposed the 216/219 corridoor would go from 15 to 30 minutes Saturday mornings a 50% Cut!

[krustyklo]

Actually if Transdev had done that it might made it even harder sell some of the cuts. While the Orbitals are less busy out west & north the former MBL routes out west are among some of Transdev busiest sections on their network.

Depends on where. It would be safe to assume that the eastern parts of the 901/2/3 are busy given they were busy frequent routes before becoming the orbitals. Wasn't the 700 (now 903) one of the busiest routes in Melbourne? Ditto the 888 (now 902) and 665 (now 901) although the services levels are better now, especially on weekends. I suspect it will take a decade or more for the orbitals to bed in even more and I suspect introducing good quality services in the north would be a factor in the large increase in patronage. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the growth is from the new parts of each orbital route, and what proportion is growth on busy sections building on existing good quality routes in the east. If the northern patronage is as poor as Transdev feeling they could cut those sections may suggest, then I am surprised there was no attempt to justify them with boarding figures. There would be easy targets such as Greensborough to South Morang and Templestowe to The Pines (yet those sections are improving in patronage based on observations using them). Even so, most parts of those routes would have better patronage than the services that previously existed, even the weaker parts.

I maintain that there are many people who like to feel that their tax money is being wisely used on services as much as they may be pro- or anti-PT. If transparent data can be provided in an easy to digest format such as the boarding maps in the report, then we can have a mature conversation about what cuts can be made, and where investments can be made in growing services sustainably as the report suggests is desirable. Especially given there are people pushing politically convenient narratives at the expense of reality. For example, a recent conversation on Twitter with someone who turned out to be a former Liberal political adviser who was claiming that 150 car parks are a better use of money on the Eltham line than better bus services for $4 million because buses (presumably in Eltham although a face value interpretation suggested all buses) ran empty anyway - then claimed the 902 as their example!

Some proposed cuts to ex MBL routes out west were quite harsh i.e They proposed the 216/219 corridor would go from 15 to 30 minutes Saturday mornings a 50% Cut!

Fair comment - that's rubbish unless justified by genuinely empty buses. How are the current arrangements with the split routes east and west of Sunshine going?

[MAN 16.242]

Fair comment - that's rubbish unless justified by genuinely empty buses. How are the current arrangements with the split routes east and west of Sunshine going?

The section west of Sunshine is not a quite route but is less busy than Sunshine - City section. The split has brought lot of benfits for those west of Sunshine as it allow it to be harmonised with 456, have connections with trains & improved punctuality due not being affected by city delays(expect some trips formed by a 216 or 220.

East of Sunshine no real benefits as the timetable is still the same. Though the planned split in city which if still goes ahead with see Sunshine - City sectioned improved inculding more services for this busy section and has none of harsh cuts out west propsed in the Greenfiled proposal. This plan would still see cuts south of city but that's much less busy.

[Heihachi_73]

Noticed some traffic monitoring strips have recently been installed in Ringwood near the Eastland area. The strips have been placed in Ringwood/Bond/New Sts (which a common ratrun to avoid up to four traffic lights and a red light/speed camera). The sooner they ban right turns (in both directions) at the Eastland end of Bond St the better, the other streets immediately north of Bond St already have that rule and don't get anywhere near as much traffic; Bond St is becoming just as bad as Hoddle St these days. I haven't checked to see if the strips are on Maroondah Hwy or Warrandyte/Wantirna/Bedford Rds or anywhere else yet, just noticed them on the 742 and outside Eastland when I had to go to the post office.