I have been informed of a bus network plan, and feel it needs to be posted here.

The link is thus: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/files/22 ... AGENDA.pdf

WHAT IT HAS:Information about Transdev network for 2015, including many changes to the bus network.

WHO PUBLISHED:The Glen Eria city council

TRANSDEV starts on #12

MAP OF INTEREST is in #29

The rest of the document seems to be of general council matters.


http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/files/22 ... AGENDA.pdf
-----------------------------------------

What the plans seem to include

#903 - No longer runs to Altona, rather it bends back towards Footscray
#903 - seems to be moved to cover much of the #904 in the west?

#703, North of Clayton is included in their network, But 900 is not.
#901 gets split into two.

And other changes too.

Very hard to read what the map says, but I have picked up on the following
901 and 902 have been split and slightly routed
- 901 southern section - The Pines to Frankston
- 901 northern section - Eltham to Broadmeadows?
- 902 southern section - The Pines to Chelsea
- 902 northern section - Doncaster SC to Melbourne Airport
Neither route appears to serve Airport West.

- 903 southern section has been re-routed to Footscray (as mentioned above), but does a very awkward detour from Sunshine to Footscray via Yarraville
(combined with the second half of route 223)
- 903 northern section has been slightly re-routed and I think it now covers La Trobe university? (or Northland, correct me if wrong)

- 703 extends from Blackburn to The Pines, perhaps this route will be handed over to Transdev as an upgraded Smartbus, hence why 900 has been omitted from the map.

New cross city routes
Magenta route - Altona to The Pines (combining routes 232 and 905)
Black route - Sunshine to Mitcham (combining routes 216/219 and 907). Coverage to C Springs/Deer Park/Sunshine Park most likely will be covered by the new Brimbank bus upgrades.

Very hard to read what the map says, but I have picked up on the following
901 and 902 have been split and slightly routed
- 901 southern section - The Pines to Frankston
- 901 northern section - Eltham to Broadmeadows?
- 902 southern section - The Pines to Chelsea
- 902 northern section - Doncaster SC to Melbourne Airport
Neither route appears to serve Airport West.

- 903 southern section has been re-routed to Footscray (as mentioned above), but does a very awkward detour from Sunshine to Footscray via Yarraville
(combined with the second half of route 223)
- 903 northern section has been slightly re-routed and I think it now covers La Trobe university? (or Northland, correct me if wrong)

- 703 extends from Blackburn to The Pines, perhaps this route will be handed over to Transdev as an upgraded Smartbus, hence why 900 has been omitted from the map.

Well that breaks quite a few journeys! I hope they do a lot more research before going ahead with that network. If nothing else, quite a few people travel between Eltham and Doncaster / Box Hill area - most 902s in peak hour will easily pick up the best part of a dozen people heading for either east of Shoppingtown, Box Hill TAFE changing at Shoppingtown, and Shoppingtown itself. The only option under this network is train to Greensborough or infrequent 513 to the Main Rd roundabout.

Whilst I think swapping the 901 and 902 between Greensborough and Fitzsimmons Lane is a good idea and would make more sense than the current arrangement in some ways, I think that the other issue with this network is that the Smartbus routes have only been introduced in the last 4-5 years. Just as people have gotten used to the possible direct journeys, the route network is set to dramatically change. In at least one extreme case I am aware of, someone bought a house knowing it was on the 902 directly to work east of Doncaster - a journey which will be broken under this plan.

Still, it explains how Transdev plan to meet their franchise commitment to operate 10 minute services on weekdays and more frequent services at other times - by removing much of the duplicated kilometrage of the Smartbus network itself and culling the ends such as between the Tullamarine freeway and Airport West, as well as other parts such as along the Maroondah Hwy. It also breaks the connection between Heidelberg and Northland that was a missing link for years by deviating it via LaTrobe University. I wonder how Ventura feel about that given it competes directly by duplicating two of their routes. Maybe they have just found a buyer for Ivanhoe...

krustyklo wrote:Well that breaks quite a few journeys! I hope they do a lot more research before going ahead with that network. If nothing else, quite a few people travel between Eltham and Doncaster / Box Hill area - most 902s in peak hour will easily pick up the best part of a dozen people heading for either east of Shoppingtown, Box Hill TAFE changing at Shoppingtown, and Shoppingtown itself. The only option under this network is train to Greensborough or infrequent 513 to the Main Rd roundabout.

You're right that it completely breaks a link there, and traveling via Greensborough or changing buses at a roundabout are both ridiculous options for that journey. Another point to make is that the 907 doesn't use the bus interchange at Shoppingtown and anybody connecting to it in order to travel further east would need to walk a full block down to Doncaster Road - so will a 1 bus trip become a cumbersome train + bus + walk + bus journey?

I'd agree with them though that two high frequency routes are not needed on Fitzsimons Lane though.

krustyklo wrote:Still, it explains how Transdev plan to meet their franchise commitment to operate 10 minute services on weekdays and more frequent services at other times - by removing much of the duplicated kilometrage of the Smartbus network itself and culling the ends such as between the Tullamarine freeway and Airport West, as well as other parts such as along the Maroondah Hwy

Indeed, but it surprises me that they're planning on introducing a Smartbus service between Ringwood and Warrandyte as part of the 901 south route - isn't that far more pointless than running a service to Airport West is? Infact I recall a thread here a few weeks ago where someone proposed extending the 906 along there, and everybody thought it was a silly idea.

If they think that Warrandyte is significant enough on population grounds to deserve a SmartBus service in two directions then perhaps I should campaign for the 901 to be extended beyond Melbourne Airport, won't ever happen but would service about seven times the population that Warrandyte has!

krustyklo wrote:It also breaks the connection between Heidelberg and Northland that was a missing link for years by deviating it via LaTrobe University. I wonder how Ventura feel about that given it competes directly by duplicating two of their routes. Maybe they have just found a buyer for Ivanhoe...

Not to mention that it makes the route far too indirect west of Heidelberg to use it for any through journeys, it already being bad enough now going via Northland and getting a sightseeing tour of the carpark.

There's still route 513 I guess, but shouldn't the Smartbus be the most quick/direct route, not the other way around?

It is clear that this indicative network is designed to maximise coverage in the areas that they currently service whilst reducing duplication in order to re-allocate resources.

This would be the reason for some of the more interesting changes, ie: 901-south via Warrandyte, which in my opinion makes a lot more sense for Warrandyte than the current bus into the City spending almost all of its route on a freeway or duplicating routes on Blackburn Road, which is complete overkill. A smart bus linking to a shopping centre and a nearby railway station is much more suitable.

Looking at the map, I think one thing people may have missed is that it appears the 903 might be split at La Trobe Uni, rather than just diverting via it. Note the two red blobs beside the Uni which may indicate the end of the line.

The only major part of this that I dislike is the 903-west chucking a u-turn in Sunshine and heading in the same general direction that it came in. I think that it would be better for this route to terminate in Sunshine, and have the Footscray leg as a separate route (either stand alone, or linked with whatever replaces the route between Sunshine and Caroline Springs).

But while on the topic of 903, I'd also shift the terminus of the eastern half from La Trobe to Northland to minimise transfer inconvenience surrounding what is currently a through journey.

I'm really liking the extension of the 232 into Altona. This is something I've thought should happen for a long time, and especially now that during the daytime a trip from Altona to Melbourne Central requires three trains.

I'm also a little disappointed that their indicative map of premium routes doesn't have anything linking Southland and Sandringham. This would be a great opportunity to consolidate the 600/922/923 with one trunk route (and perhaps a local route to cover anything missed, if required). Hopefully there will still be some consolidation undertaken in this area, even if they remain local routes.

But it is still early days and anything could happen between now and implimentation.

RailwayBus wrote:It is clear that this indicative network is designed to maximise coverage in the areas that they currently service whilst reducing duplication in order to re-allocate resources.

This would be the reason for some of the more interesting changes, ie: 901-south via Warrandyte, which in my opinion makes a lot more sense for Warrandyte than the current bus into the City spending almost all of its route on a freeway or duplicating routes on Blackburn Road, which is complete overkill. A smart bus linking to a shopping centre and a nearby railway station is much more suitable.

Looking at the map, I think one thing people may have missed is that it appears the 903 might be split at La Trobe Uni, rather than just diverting via it. Note the two red blobs beside the Uni which may indicate the end of the line.

The only major part of this that I dislike is the 903-west chucking a u-turn in Sunshine and heading in the same general direction that it came in. I think that it would be better for this route to terminate in Sunshine, and have the Footscray leg as a separate route (either stand alone, or linked with whatever replaces the route between Sunshine and Caroline Springs).

But while on the topic of 903, I'd also shift the terminus of the eastern half from La Trobe to Northland to minimise transfer inconvenience surrounding what is currently a through journey.

I'm really liking the extension of the 232 into Altona. This is something I've thought should happen for a long time, and especially now that during the daytime a trip from Altona to Melbourne Central requires three trains.

I'm also a little disappointed that their indicative map of premium routes doesn't have anything linking Southland and Sandringham. This would be a great opportunity to consolidate the 600/922/923 with one trunk route (and perhaps a local route to cover anything missed, if required). Hopefully there will still be some consolidation undertaken in this area, even if they remain local routes.

But it is still early days and anything could happen between now and implementation.

The 900 is not shown as it is not a Transdev route!
The area south of North Road or Elsernwick appears to have been abandoned altogether, perhaps the 600/922/923 would pass to Ventura as compensation for the 703 north of Monash Uni? Presumably the Liberals(if still in power in 2015)wouldn't
let services be abandoned in Louise Asher's electorate. But is is only an indicative concept at this stage.

What you see is Transdev's 2015 Greenfields route concept design that is only indicative. I have an actual printed copy of Transdev's powerpoint that includes these bits of info (courtesy of Transdev, providing me one).

From I have been able to interpret from the document, there are plans for 23 Premium services that are to mimic trains and 16 high level connectors.
-906 seems to have disappeared or been re-routed
-907 seems to have been extended across to the west providing east-west service
-901+2 split into two
-new services to Victoria Gardens? in Abbotsford
All in all a major shake-up is identified in this concept, and that if anything similar does progress, it will certainly annoy customers used to the current network. Although its still just a concept.

Interesting, but I'm apprehensive. Although a series of very high frequency routes is good, it shouldn't come at the expense of what were fairly regular convenient services for many before.

A few more observations:

• Along with the 905 through-routing to the west, it appears to also follow some of the path of the 203 down Bulleen Rd/Kilby Rd in North Balwyn and onto the freeway at Chandler Highway. (magenta line)
• The 200/1/3/5/7 routes appear to have been truncated into one route between the City and Kew (?), or possibly the Willsmere roundabout. This would require interchange for most of the former passengers travelling towards Kew or the university, a service which is at capacity each morning peak. (yellow line)
• As mentioned above, two new routes to Victoria Gardens from Elsternwick via Williams Rd, and Orrong Rd, before merging at Burnley Station onto Burnley St (red and green lines)
• 250/1/3 have been rationalised into one route, but only to Port Melbourne and not to Garden City. It will also terminate at Queen Vic Market rather than through running, with a separate northern route between Clifton Hill Stn and Northland (orange lines)

Wow! It's great to see Transdev thinking quite out the box on this, not just modest tweaks to cut duplication or add the odd new link. As with all network reviews, some good and some bad, not sure it's going to work in it's current form, but some giant leaps that could improve parts of the network.

A dramatic change to the 903 that appears not to have been touched on yet is the modification to operate via Highpoint instead of Keilor East. I assume this would replace Ryans 468 & along with part of the 215, but give Ryans back exclusive rights along Buckley St, one of Melbourne's busiest train feeder routes. This should make a stronger corridor for the 903. Will be interesting how such a change would impact the planned Brimbank network changes, with the plans suggesting 408 will be diverted off McIntyre Rd to avoid duplication with 903 in Sunshine North.

I also note with interest planned changes to the DART network:

As mentioned by jamesadams7, 905 will no longer hop on the freeway at Bulleen Rd but appears to incorporate Kilby Rd in North Kew (traditionally a well served corridor but via Studley Park Rd & Johnston St). Hopefully this would incorporate a stop near the Kew Cottages housing estate, which currently only has a limited weekday service. Sending the 207 on the slight detour via Kilby Rd and Princess St instead of direct down High St would retain a direct Kew service for these residents. It's not clear if the bus would continue to Altona via the 232, although I note both routes share the same colour.

906 would appear to have been dropped, at least as a DART service - one would hope that it would be at least kept as a peak express route (especially given the demand it receives), although I'd argue there'd be more value sending the 906 to Ringwood than the 901 to The Pines (as I discuss in more detail below)

907 appears to be extended onto Sunshine via a single alignment through Maidstone & Braybrook. Given both the 216/219 and 220 corridors are well used in the west, this could prove controversial if the other roads don't at least receive a "local direct" level of service. As the existing Footscray depot cross-town routes show, long routes via the CBD are often subject to reliability issues, so we can only hope runtimes are robust enough.

908 appears unchanged.

305 upgraded to become a new DART route for George St, however instead of running along Manningham Rd and Thompsons Rd, it will instead follow Doncaster Rd to the freeway. This would solve the issue of deviating the 305 out of it's way for Shoppingtown passengers, but not sure there needs to be two DART routes less than a kilometre apart. The 305 however already receives a good service at most times (e.g 15 min off-peak between Shoppingtown & The Pines, 30 mins weekends between Bulleen & The Pines), so only a modest upgraded needed.

309 also becomes a DART service west of The Pines, replacing the 901 SmartBus along Reynolds Rd - probably a more logical choice than these residents having a SmartBus route to Blackburn or Greensborough. Two DART routes on High Street allow a downgrade of service levels on 908 in the inter-peak to 20 mins less controversial (as suggested in the contract document).

jamesadams7 wrote:250/1/3 have been rationalised into one route, but only to Port Melbourne and not to Garden City. It will also terminate at Queen Vic Market rather than through running, with a separate northern route between Clifton Hill Stn and Northland (orange lines)

I also note the of merging the 250 & 340 (as per the bus review), while 246 appears to be now just as Elsternwick - Clifton Hill route. La Trobe Uni students in Thornbury will now have to travel via Northland & change buses, but the 903 west changes would appear to accommodate these students reasonably well (in addition to the current 550).

jamesadams7 wrote:The 200/1/3/5/7 routes appear to have been truncated into one route between the City and Kew (?), or possibly the Willsmere roundabout. This would require interchange for most of the former passengers travelling towards Kew or the university, a service which is at capacity each morning peak. (yellow line)

Without seeing a full version of the map, it is possible that the yellow line represents a common "premium" corridor, rather a single route. Maybe beyond Kew Junction only selected trips continue to Doncaster as per the current 201 or 207, but not a full premium route. It would be silly to truncate the routes from the north-east at Kew Junction with a change onto another bus along Studley Park Rd and Johnston St.

It's not clear to me if all Belmore Rd buses still reach the City on that map, it does appear that the freeway section is shown as a dotted line (peak only perhaps?). I'd personally like to see the Belmore Rd route run via Kew Junction at all times outside the peak, but upgraded to full SmartBus standards as compensation for the slight increase in journey times to those travelling from Balwyn North.

jamesadams7 wrote:As mentioned above, two new routes to Victoria Gardens from Elsternwick via Williams Rd, and Orrong Rd, before merging at Burnley Station onto Burnley St (red and green lines)

It would be great if this idea finally takes off, and should hopefully relieve both corridors which currently just duplicate the CBD train and tram options from the inner south-east, and carry low to moderate patronage for their generous service levels. In the current form they are a little more than a historic accident that dates back to separate fares for trams and private buses and are a drain on limited resources.

I'm not sure if both routes need to operate past Burnley Station though. Two premium routes might be excessive, especially given there is none today.

krustyklo wrote:Well that breaks quite a few journeys! I hope they do a lot more research before going ahead with that network. If nothing else, quite a few people travel between Eltham and Doncaster / Box Hill area - most 902s in peak hour will easily pick up the best part of a dozen people heading for either east of Shoppingtown, Box Hill TAFE changing at Shoppingtown, and Shoppingtown itself. The only option under this network is train to Greensborough or infrequent 513 to the Main Rd roundabout.

Whilst I think swapping the 901 and 902 between Greensborough and Fitzsimmons Lane is a good idea and would make more sense than the current arrangement in some ways...

Looking closer at the map, it would appear the 902 will follow the 293 alignment through Montmorency, instead of straight down Para Rd. This would be a sensible option to rationalise service in this area, meaning no more duplication between the 293 and 902.

As for Eltham losing their direct link to Doncaster Shoppingtown - it may be possible that the 281 would be reinstated back to Eltham as a local direct route, albeit via a slower alignment. This would at least avoid the transfer at Main Rd roundabout.

On Eltham, I have observed that the 902 also provides option for a number of VCE boys from Whitefriars College travelling when they travel outside the times of their 4 overcrowded school buses to/from the wider Eltham area (with change from 271 at Tunstall Square) - this is example where the new network will cut options unintentionally.

Krustyklo wrote:I think that the other issue with this network is that the Smartbus routes have only been introduced in the last 4-5 years. Just as people have gotten used to the possible direct journeys, the route network is set to dramatically change. In at least one extreme case I am aware of, someone bought a house knowing it was on the 902 directly to work east of Doncaster - a journey which will be broken under this plan.

Yes, this is a concern of mine too - one of the issues with bus networks and their legibility is they can subject to change too often, and that can scare off some patronage, sometimes for good - how many times has the Manningham Bus Network been recast now since the late 1980s?!

The SmartBus orbital routes should been seen as more like train and tram corridors, and only subject to once in a generation change. If these changes get up, I can just see in 5 years time we will have another approach for them.

My own marathon trip on the 902 will be disrupted too if these changes go ahead, as it will require me to change to the 907 at Donvale. (OK given that there is a 10 min service on both routes though). While this is still much better any options than existed prior to 2010, it will still be noticeable and will influence future house buying choices I make.

I do wonder if sending the 902 to The Pines is a logical option anyway - although it allows the 273 to be culled, there is moderate patronage from south of Nunawading travelling to Doncaster Shoppingtown & surrounds, whereas in comparison the 273 carries very little passengers north of Doncaster Rd, and The Pines is hardly a destination for those south of Nunawading (who could easily just go to The Glen or Forest Hill Chase). The housing density to the east of Springvale Rd would also not lend itself to a SmartBus corridor. To mention there are many more trip generators & apartments along Doncaster Rd than on the northern end of Springvale Rd, enough that it can probably accommodate two SmartBus routes (even if there is a 10 min service on both).

I do support the idea to run the 902 to the Airport, which will make the trip to Greensborough and Doncaster quicker, and may pick up a few more travellers happy to sacrifice 30 minutes to avoid paying a SkyBus fare and the need to transfer vehicles, however as others have said, it would be a shame for this to happen if meant they would sacrifice the SmartBus between Broadmeadows and Airport West, especially for Gladstone Park residents. Maybe one on the political parities is gearing up to promise the missing section of the green orbital, which could cover Werribee to Broadmeadows and incorporate this section, which would be a good outcome.

RailwayBus wrote:This would be the reason for some of the more interesting changes, ie: 901-south via Warrandyte, which in my opinion makes a lot more sense for Warrandyte than the current bus into the City spending almost all of its route on a freeway or duplicating routes on Blackburn Road, which is complete overkill. A smart bus linking to a shopping centre and a nearby railway station is much more suitable.

Three months ago this was the option on many on the board "We don't even need smart buses to Warrandyte, let alone an indirect smart bus through the middle of nowhere to Ringwood with bugger-all catchment opportunities. There are plenty of more pressing smart bus requirements than this.", a statement which I would largely agree with. (Many years I ago I naively suggested that the 901 should run via Warrandyte, probably when the original Orbital plans came out, which would have seen the 901 run via Shoppingtown duplicate the 902 along Doncaster Rd and Williamsons Rd).

Extending the 906 to Ringwood would achieve the same outcome as extending the southern half of the 901 to The Pines - a link to the local shopping centre (The Pines), a link to the local regional shopping centre (Eastland) and a link to a nearby station (Ringwood) - I am not quite sure how this "makes a lot more sense" than the other idea of reinstating the old 304?

As for the 906 duplication along Blackburn Rd with the 286 & 901 - given the lack of a train service in East Doncaster, and the 906 providing the fastest CBD option for these residents, it's hardly overkill - in the peak, despite the 4 to 10 min headways, it's not uncommon for passengers at stops closer to the freeway not even able to board the first bus that arrives due to heavy loadings, and almost all peak services have standing loads. Outside peak times, the route still enjoys moderate loads. The short-term answer to balance demand with service would be to run a 15 min peak frequency from Ringwood and Warrandyte with shortworkings providing a 5 min service between The Pines & CBD, with artics or deckers added as a medium term option.

Of course, the obvious answer to rationalise services on Blackburn Rd is to drop the 286 altogether (with the 273 operating to Blackburn and Box Hill instead of Nunwading to cover the streets east of Surrey Rd & Whitehorse Rd), the SmartBus to Blackburn is adequate enough, and Box Hill passengers can change to a frequent trains.

RailwayBus wrote:only major part of this that I dislike is the 903-west chucking a u-turn in Sunshine and heading in the same general direction that it came in. I think that it would be better for this route to terminate in Sunshine, and have the Footscray leg as a separate route (either stand alone, or linked with whatever replaces the route between Sunshine and Caroline Springs).

It almost seems their thinking was for operational purposes as much as anything - a good way to get 903 drivers back to Footscray for meal breaks, sign on/off etc. It doesn't seem to be a logical link with anything beyond Sunshine, especially as a SmartBus (even your idea would be too indirect from Caroline Springs or Deer Park residents wanting a one-seat ride into Footscray).

I guess the idea is partly to provide a service along Francis Street for the new Bradmill housing estate, but these residents would probably rather a link to Altona Gate Shopping Centre than the back way into Sunshine - a better option from Francis St would be to extend the existing 223 from Highpoint right through to Altona Gate.

RailwayBus wrote:But while on the topic of 903, I'd also shift the terminus of the eastern half from La Trobe to Northland to minimise transfer inconvenience surrounding what is currently a through journey.

Agreed. The 551 can continue to provide a direct link from Heidelberg to La Trobe Uni, maybe with further peak upgrades in due course.

RailwayBus wrote:I'm really liking the extension of the 232 into Altona. This is something I've thought should happen for a long time, and especially now that during the daytime a trip from Altona to Melbourne Central requires three trains.

I still think people will be turned off once they experience a few delays on the Westgate. At the very least, I'd hope any extension had no impact on the 411/412 providing a link from Altona North into Footscray, which run at fairy decent weekday headways (although mediocre on weekends).

RailwayBus wrote:I'm also a little disappointed that their indicative map of premium routes doesn't have anything linking Southland and Sandringham. This would be a great opportunity to consolidate the 600/922/923 with one trunk route (and perhaps a local route to cover anything missed, if required). Hopefully there will still be some consolidation undertaken in this area, even if they remain local routes.

Definitely - the creation of the 600/922/923 was one of the poorer decisions made during the August 2002 network improvements after several successive off-peak upgrades to the 600 during the mid to late 1990s than had built on the success of the original 901 Railway Bus.

Reinstating old 823 loop in Beaumaris would provide adequate enough coverage to the remaining sections for Cheltenham & Southland access, but it should run hourly in each direction, not two-hourly as was the case (and carried very few as a result).

E.L.Wood wrote:The area south of North Road or Elsernwick appears to have been abandoned altogether, perhaps the 600/922/923 would pass to Ventura as compensation for the 703 north of Monash Uni? Presumably the Liberals(if still in power in 2015)wouldn't let services be abandoned in Louise Asher's electorate. But is is only an indicative concept at this stage.

Most in Louise Asher's electorate would be probably happy to see the removal of mostly empty buses from their neighbourhood. I am not saying that in jest either - a decent local service between St Kilda and Sandringham is all that is needed for the area west of the Sandringham line, as CBD commuters simply take the much faster train. Extending the 630 to St Kilda and sending the 600/922/923 to Elsternwick instead could be an alternative option but service rationalisation in Brighton is long overdue.

Meanwhile, the 605 & 625 can cover the slack in the Elsternwick - Gardenvale area (ideally with some modest upgrades to evening and weekend services on 605 that would benefit the whole length of Kooyong Rd).

As for the changes to 703, and being part of Transdev's Greenfields network - this appears to be from left field. Wonder what Ventura thinks of the prospect of losing another of their original routes.

I would have thought running the northern half of 703 down to Clayton was important, but I guess if they want to split the route it has to be done somewhere, and a split at Clayton would cut the direct access to Monash Uni from Bentleigh and Brighton, along with the direct link between the two campuses of Monash Medical Centre. I wonder if the Centre Rd section of the 703 is upgraded as a SmartBus as part of these changes (as compensation to Ventura) or is left with it's current service levels.

Kind Regards


Craig

I was under the impression that Transdev isn't allowed to alter any of the Smartbus routes.

It's still only an indicative plan at this point in time, so it's likely that it'll go back to the drawing board a few more times.

There seems to be some worthwhile changes, but others (ie. 903 reroute) are less so. I'll reserve full judgment for later when a final plan is released.

Belmore Rd buses do appear to continue through the city. Looking closer, the light green line can be seen running alongside the black line through Lonsdale/Queen Sts and actually terminating at North Melbourne/Queen Vic market.

One more point I forgot to mention above, but just because a route based on the 703 is displayed on the map doesn't necessarily mean that Ventura will be losing anything. It could simply be a case of a 703 successor that runs in both Ventura and Transdev exclusive areas becoming a shared smartbus service which both operators could be contributing resources too. Of course, we don't know what will be the case and what won't, and if this plan will even happen in the form displayed above, but I think any suggestions that Ventura would be losing something are premature considering this is only an indicative plan at this stage.

I was under the impression that Transdev isn't allowed to alter any of the Smartbus routes.

I would hope so. I'm pretty sure I heard that part of the logic of using full totems with special equipment rather than just bus stop flags was to define the Smartbus routes as being a lot more fixed than the ordinary bus network which had the reputation of being highly confusing and variable. Whilst this point would be somewhat arguable in terms of journey opportunities and typical journeys for major routes (how many have REALLY substantially changed in the last 25 years (ie since say 1988)? Certainly around my area, although there have been superficially a number of changes as housing estates have grown, the core network has been mostly the same. In fact, in some ways the South Morang changes probably did more to put things back to how they were in 1988!

However, if the Smartbus routes are up for the sort of changes being proposed, however refined they may be over the next 6 or so months before more detailed planning is done (refined suggesting these will be the core network principles with some changes and tweaking), it will mean that all of the Smartbus routes commenced in the last 5 years will change dramatically. That is not about to engender confidence in Melbourne's buses as being a stable transport mode - if something with a higher level of fixed infrastructure can change so readily, how can you plan to rely on it for everyday travel over the next 10 years like you can the fixed rail networks we have? Or other bus services with mere poles and flags that can be moved on a whim should a transport planner choose to do so?

I can see what Transdev are trying to do. I really can. They are trying to eliminate every single point of duplication they can to be able to afford to provide a 10 minute core network at no extra cost compared to the current one - thus fulfilling their franchise obligations. That is really the problem. The network provided will be one which WORKS FOR THE OPERATOR, not necessarily the current passengers. This may well be an unintended consequence of a too-clever-by-half contract specification - but it is what it is. If I were to cut through the marketing bumph about putting passengers first and being rewarded for increasing patronage, I would hazard a guess that the contract was( not unreasonably) bid for on the basis of removing uneccessary cost in order to turn a profit from the franchise. I suspect the rewards for increased patronage are relatively measly in comparison. I could be wrong - but it is certainly how many other public transport franchises in the world have been dealt with once they have been won (speaking about franchised and private operations in general rather than specifically Transdev).

Unfortunately it means that the expectation will be that passengers interchange. I have no problem with this in principle, in fact to be fair from where I live I could make the same journey to work with one interchange so am not particularly badly off. Often I walk from Shoppingtown anyway to improve my physical health and fitness. However, many passengers will need to change twice. In fact, many people already change once (eg Eltham to Box Hill, Craig's Whitefriars example) - they will have another change foisted upon them. And sadly I don't share Craig's optimism that the 281 will be extended back to Eltham - and if it does it will be slower and less frequent than the current option of the 902. This is not a dealbreaker - I know people who use the Manningham Mover to get from Doncaster Rd to near The Pines simply because it is a one seat journey that takes them marginally closer to where they want to go and the time is of less relevance. However, for some it will probably make a currently doable journey too slow. The devil will be in the detail about whether interchange is painless, or similar to the annoyance and time wasting it often is now. The Doncaster example given above will be a good litmus test. If passengers interchanging are expected to walk from the shopping centre interchange to Doncaster Rd, we can assume that it is an operator driven network. It is a 5 minute fast walk for me - for the elderly or parents with young kids it will be a deal breaker through one of two less than pedestrian friendly paths (through the shopping centre which is quick at 8am when I do it, much slower and annoying once the centre opens and is busy with shoppers; or round the outside which is exposed to the elements and has the less than pleasant view of the loading docks and less than pleasant smell of a collection point for rubbish bins).

If I still lived in Bundoora and this was the network which appeared, I would probably be looking at second hand cars to undertake my work journey currently done by bus. I suspect my friend who got a new job in Airport West and commutes from Greensborough via 902 several days a week when his wife needs the car will be too. That may or may not matter if more people find it convenient than those who don't - but I suspect for the first few years there won't be any passenger bonuses as existing passengers inconvenienced leak in small trickles in higher numbers than the number who eventually discover the more frequent services over time and find they may be useful.

It's still only an indicative plan at this point in time, so it's likely that it'll go back to the drawing board a few more times.

There seems to be some worthwhile changes, but others (ie. 903 reroute) are less so. I'll reserve full judgment for later when a final plan is released.

The problem is that although it will go back to the drawing board, the basic principles are the same. An obvious example from left field is that Smartbuses are not reasonably sacrosanct, nor is any part of the Smartbus routes. Airport West to Tullamarine Fwy, Eltham to the roundabout, the direct route between Northland and Heidelberg - these are current parts of the network that will no longer be if this plan comes to fruition. EVERYTHING is up for grabs, there are no guarantees that any individual part of the current network will be served post 2015. That is a game changer.

You can reserve full judgement until once a final draft is released - but a final draft is fairly final. There will be no major changes from a final draft - so now is the time to have input wherever possible given the long lead times needed to do detailed planning between signing off a final draft and commencing new services. Especially if you wish to challenge the assumptions behind designing a new network - I suspect these would be mostly fixed in stone by now anyway. I'm guessing ranting on here wouldn't count for much - but I can only live in hope given I have no idea of when or how the public will be given input, if at all.

There is a difference between judging a final plan and making life choices as a result (ie, keep using the bus or buying a car if you don't like it) vs. trying to influence a plan you think is less than optimal in its current form before that form solidifies enough to start checking out carsales.com.au

Transdev are trying to save cash at any point they can.
Ask Bridgestone when they last paid their bill.

dex wrote:Transdev are trying to save cash at any point they can.
Ask Bridgestone when they last paid their bill.

Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting?

I will be very sorry to see our beloved 901 ablished in its currenbt form - because it passes the end of my street and is convenient for journeys in both directions. So the service along Maroondah Highway will be abandoned? Presumably, the thinking is that any "passengers offering" can catch the train?

Is is assumed that attempts to provide a public transport service to/from Melbourne Airport have been unsuccessful?

There would be considerable cost involved in abolishing the redundant SmartBus stops?

I can see a possible need for a SmartBus style route on the 216/219 corridor between Sunshine and Footscray. It is a very well patrnonised section.

It's fair to say the other ends of the 216 and 219 are not well patronised.

Presumably the future holds ongoing major and substantial changes to Melbourne's bus network?

What role should bus enthusiasts play in the development of a network for modern Melbourne?

Paul in Melbourne

Paul_Nicholson wrote: Is is assumed that attempts to provide a public transport service to/from Melbourne Airport have been unsuccessful?

There would be considerable cost involved in abolishing the redundant SmartBus stops?

I can see a possible need for a SmartBus style route on the 216/219 corridor between Sunshine and Footscray. It is a very well patrnonised section.

It's fair to say the other ends of the 216 and 219 are not well patronised.

As for the 901, I personally wouldn't use that service, as I'd like the fastest and most direct route into the city and not wander through the northern suburbs to connect with a train.

Smartbus stops can be relocated, however it may be possible that any new 'Smartbuses' such as the 216/219 may simply retain their flags and have them re-numbered if necessary. Also, don't think any more buses will move onto Smartbus livery, given all that time and effort on moving into PTV livery.

Everyone needs to remember that this is a map of premium services, not smart buses. The two things are related but are not the same. A premium service does not necessarily need the fancy stuff thatssmart buses have, even though that would be desirable.

Though it does seem in a couple of areas that they might be two "half-premium" routes that combine to form a premium corridor, eg: Burnley Street, or Belmore Road. This is just my interpretation though, could be open for correction.

Paul_Nicholson wrote:Is is assumed that attempts to provide a public transport service to/from Melbourne Airport have been unsuccessful?

Given there will still be a "Premium route" to the Airport linking to trains at Broadmeadows, I don't think that is the case.

Instead, they have realised that current 901 alignment does not provide the fastest route between the Airport, Greensborough and Doncaster, which should be a sensible option for those wishing to avoid going via the City and paying the premium SkyBus fare, even though the direct bus may be slightly slower. A look at the timetable would suggest an off-peak 902 would get you from Doncaster to the Airport in about 90 minutes.

The main downgrade here seems to be cutting the premium link between the end of the 59 tram at Airport West and Broadmeadows via Gladstone Park, which would be a shame, especially at times when the indirect 477 is not running.

Kind Regards


Crag

And you need to remember that other operators will also have timetable and route changes at this time, so from only going from one document, you will not see the full spectrum of changes that are actually occurring at this and how they will impact on each other.

Does anyone have any info on what changes will be happening this July for Transdev?

Willie wrote:And you need to remember that other operators will also have timetable and route changes at this time, so from only going from one document, you will not see the full spectrum of changes that are actually occurring at this and how they will impact on each other.

Hopefully this is the case - past experience also tells us there are several cases that the introduction of the SmartBus routes in 2010 did not necessarily impact other routes, such as:

207 services still operate to Donvale, duplicating the 902 and 907 along Doncaster Rd

286 maintained along Blackburn Rd, duplicating the 901 and 906 along Blackburn Rd

500 still running every 2 hours between the Airport & Broadmeadows, instead of redirecting resources to improve the 479 between Aiprort West & Sunbury (a change rumoured to be happening later the year, 4 years since the 901 began serving the Airport)

544 continuing to operate between Roxburgh Park & Broadmeadows duplicating both the 901 along with the train (removed 6 months after 901 commenced)

563 running between Greensborough & South Morang over much the same alignment as the 901 other than the Apollo Parkways section (not scrapped until 18 months later)

Obviously there were some changes to local routes too (introduction of 858, truncation of the 281, 364 and 571 plus the extension of 735 spring to mind) but it's not surprising that some of us are sceptical that this may not be a proper 'whole network' approach.

Kind Regards


Craig

And you need to remember that other operators will also have timetable and route changes at this time, so from only going from one document, you will not see the full spectrum of changes that are actually occurring at this and how they will impact on each other.

As someone who uses the network to travel to and around the Manningham area, I can probably safely assume I don't need to consult other operators. It is unlikely for example that Dysons will suddenly be told to run a route from Eltham to Shoppingtown.

It would also seem odd that even where the Transdev changes are in areas where other operator's services are run to assume that existing routes can be changed to fit in with Transdev's proposals. For example, Ventura might have a few ideas about whether the Transdev routes should parallel theirs. Bear in mind that the oft-quoted Waverley Transit vs. Dept of Transport court case resulting in a ruling that the bus companies own their traditional routes. I would be surprised if that has changed during any subsequent contract negotiations with the bus industry.

Even if comments made above suggesting that Transdev might operate non-premium routes over these sections or that other operators might replace these services in PTV driven network changes are true, it still means that either:

• Transdev are operating a less frequent service over those parts of the routes than currently exists. For example, if Transdev replace the Eltham to Templestowe section of the 901 with an extended 281 then they are replacing a 15 minute frequency with excellent hours of operation with a 30 minute one that has much more limited hours of operation.
• Other operators will need to be given more money to upgrade services - odd given that the Transdev contract stipulates that the changes should be at no cost to the PTV. Upgrading other operators services to a similar standard to that which exists now would appear to fulfil the immediate contract by moving costs to other companies. This seems unlikely so what will be cut to provide the replacement services at little or no extra cost?

Now lets look at the scenario where other non-Transdev routes and services are changing to fit in with the Transdev changes. Given the major changes being made to the Smartbus network, it would be reasonable to expect other changes to be significant too, if not quite as much. These changes would need to:

• Occur at exactly the same time as the Transdev ones. Otherwise people's travel patterns will change in response to the mismatched service. In some cases it will be to other PT services or modes, in many cases it will be to a car as driver or passenger. Do I trust the PTV to get this right? Are they resourced properly to make wholesale changes? I honestly can't say.
• Not provide materially worse services. Given some of the smaller regional network changes such as South Morang, I don't have that confidence. Seriously, replacing regular interval services with 20/40 minute services?

I'd like to be optimistic. To be fair I could live with the changes and in some ways they may suit me better. In many others though, they would leave me worse off and I suspect many others. I think the thing armchair network planners often forget is that lines on a map of frequent services are all very well. But people don't care if the various lines on a map between where they are now and where they want to go are big bright and solid indicating a high level of service. What they want to know is can they get from A to B in a timely convenient fashion, with some trade offs depending on journey purpose and personal factors such as cost, age, holding a current driver's license, etc. If they need to change 3 times with an inconvenient 5 minute walk at an interchange point then the bold lines mean nothing. If there is one change at a comfortable well thought out interchange with decent facilities, then it is not a problem - in fact it may be an opportunity (I didn't mind a 10 minute wait for the bus when changing at Ivanhoe station because it meant I had time to get and enjoy a coffee). My concern is that the network changes break too many links at once at places where interchange is not pleasant or easy.

For more thoughts on interchange, here is an excellent Human Transit article: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why ... -city.html
Notably he states that :

There is considerable documentation behind the addition of this kind of factor, but the unpleasantness of the connection experience depends on many details of how the connection works. If two buses or trains arrive on opposite sides of a platform, facing one another five meters apart, with their doors open at the same time, walking out of one and into the other is a pretty low level of inconvenience for most passengers. If the connection involves getting off a bus, crossing a busy street, and waiting for another bus not knowing when it will arrive, the inconvenience is much greater.

So the configuration of the connection matters. Transfer penalties are based on a crude averaging of many different types of connection experience, so good interchanges will reduce these penalties. Modeling assumptions about a "transfer penalty" (as distinct from the time the connection takes) deserved to be scrutinized: What kind of connection experience was used to calibrate the model?

Craig wrote:

Paul_Nicholson wrote:Is is assumed that attempts to provide a public transport service to/from Melbourne Airport have been unsuccessful?

Given there will still be a "Premium route" to the Airport linking to trains at Broadmeadows, I don't think that is the case.

Instead, they have realised that current 901 alignment does not provide the fastest route between the Airport, Greensborough and Doncaster, which should be a sensible option for those wishing to avoid going via the City and paying the premium SkyBus fare, even though the direct bus may be slightly slower. A look at the timetable would suggest an off-peak 902 would get you from Doncaster to the Airport in about 90 minutes.

The main downgrade here seems to be cutting the premium link between the end of the 59 tram at Airport West and Broadmeadows via Gladstone Park, which would be a shame, especially at times when the indirect 477 is not running.

Kind Regards


Crag

My observations are that the Airport West Shoppingtown-Gladstone Park section was poorly patronised.Much of the patronage from Broadmeadows on both smartbuses was to Gladstone Park.I agree with this change,especially with an accompanying(and mooted)redirection of resources into an improved 479 Sunbury-Airport-Airport West service.Hopefully this will serve Essendon Fields Shopping Centre/Essendon Airport and DFO ,Essendon.This gives a missing link to these centres from the north west.Also an opportunity should be taken to straighten up the 477 with more robust run times to retain and improve this as the successful "all stations" Broadmeadows-Moonee Ponds link.
I also like the concept of the Premium route being rerouted from Essendon-Sunshine via Highpoint .As Craig says this will produce a very strong corridor.The existing 468 Ryans service operating on a 40 minute frequency from Essendon-Highpoint is a good performing route.Extending to Sunshine with more frequency should produce strong patronage growth.I trust Ryans will be compensated for the loss of the 468 so they can operate another service to their high standards.
However the premium route extension from Sunshine-Footscray is an odd move,as Krustyklo says.Terminating the premium service at Sunshine and leaving the Sunshine-Footscray 216/219 and 220 services as City terminators make sense.Why change that as these services are successful services?

Paul_Nicholson wrote:I will be very sorry to see our beloved 901 ablished in its currenbt form - because it passes the end of my street and is convenient for journeys in both directions. So the service along Maroondah Highway will be abandoned?

I hope not, the 901 between Ringwood and Blackburn is an order of magnitude better than the dribble of a rail service we get this side of... Richmond... during the day and at night (which also affects Glen Waverley and Alamein as well). It also stops between Ringwood and Heatherdale so it's somewhat useful for me, unlike the 742 which runs at a useless 40min-hourly frequency and runs through the back streets (Bond St/New St) servicing the market which isn't there (Costco has enough buses on Ringwood Street, albeit all with poor frequencies aside from the 364 on weekdays). Granted, the moved the bus stop to Churchill Street so it better serves the residential square (and the many apartments being built in the area) between the bypass and Bond Street, but why is the bus stop still called "Ringwood Market" and the same poor timetable left unchanged with every second AM service from Ringwood cut back at Heatherdale?