View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Australian Research Council Key Centre in Transport Management
Institute of Transport Studies (Monash)
Prof Graham Currie
Director
Public Transport Research Group
Institute of Transport Studies
Monash University
Eastern Transport Coalition
October Meeting
City of Whitehorse, 379-396 Whitehorse Rd, Nunawading CIV3131
Thursday 26th October 2017
Melbourne Buses, Performance,
Progress and Futures
Introduction
Performance
Progress
Futures
3
This paper looks at Melbourne bus performance, progress and futures
Progress? FuturesPerformance
Introduction
Performance
Progress
Futures
5
Buses ARE Melbourne’s public transport for most residents, which is a problem….
0 10 20
kilometres
Port
Phillip
Bay
Western Port
• Over two thirds of
Melbourne can only be
serviced by bus
services since rail and
tram services lie
considerable distances
from where people live
or where they want to
travel to
• In 1996 the Metropolitan
strategy team identified
that 2.16M Melbournians
lived In areas where
buses were bus was the
only means of access to
public transport. 0.98M
lived within access
distance of rail services
6
…because there arent many
0 10 20
kilometres
Port
Phillip
Bay
Western Port
• Over two thirds of
Melbourne can only be
serviced by bus
services since rail and
tram services lie
considerable distances
from where people live
or where they want to
travel to
• In 1996 the Metropolitan
strategy team identified
that 2.16M Melbournians
lived In areas where
buses were bus was the
only means of access to
public transport. 0.98M
lived within access
distance of rail servicesWeekday Service Frequency (2006)
Peak Off Peak
AV. MELBOURNE 40m 50m
Weekday Service Span
Weekday
AV. MELBOURNE 06:46-18:53
7
The bus network on weekdays...
Weekday
Bus Services
Source: Currie (2003)
8
…contrasts somewhat with weekends
Source: Currie (2003)
Sunday
Bus Services
9
Frequency drives Australian ridership performance
9
220
271
304
305
307
400
402
404
407
410
437442
443
508
527
552
561
564612
623 624
627 683
685 766
781
784785
800
811
812
850
926
700 (903)
703
888
889
900
901
503
506
507
521
541
542
545
546
548
T500
T501
100
111
120
124
125
130
135
140
150
155
160
170
180
200
210
212 250
555
T61
T62
T63
T64
T65
T70T71
T75
T80
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Bo
ard
ing
s p
er r
ou
te k
m
Vehicle trips/annum
Melbourne Bus
Melbourne Smartbus
Adelaide NE Busway
Brisbane SE Busway
Sydney T-Ways
Source: Currie, G. and Delbosc A (2011) ‘Understanding bus rapid transit route ridership drivers: An empirical study of Australian BRT systems’ TRANSPORT POLICY Volume 18, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 755-764
10
In general our bus service level is poor compared to world practice
10
Source: Pan D (2013) ‘Key Transport Statistics of World Cities’ Journeys Sept 2013
11
So what do passengers think about these issues?
12
Source: Currie G
Delbosc A (2015)
Variation in Perceptions
of Urban Public
Transport Performance
Between International
Cities Using Spiral Plot
Analysis'
TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH RECORD
No. 2538 on pages 54-
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Safe at night
Reliability
Frequency
Safe during day
PT available where and when needed
Deal with disruptions quickly
Get to stops/stations
Quality of service
Make connections
Available on weekends
Get information about PT
Disruptions don't happen oftenMeet costs
Information to plan journey
People I care for can use it safely
Available at night
Ease of buying/using ticket
Overcrowding
Staff curteous and friendly
Physical access
Can make trips to new places on PT
Travel time compared to car
Comfortable with strangers on PT
Boston Brisbane London Melbourne New York
Perth San Francisco Sydney Toronto Average
Highest
ImportanceLowest ImportancePERFORMANCE MINUS
IMPORTANCE RATINGS
SPIRAL PLOT
13
Improvement Options Individual Score Average Score
Buses arriving and departing on time 6.22
Reliability Buses connecting well with other transportservices
6.10
6.16
Weekend services provided 5.93TemporalServiceCoverage
Buses operating until late at night onweekends
5.49
5.71
Frequency Buses running more often in peak hours 5.23 5.23
Improved bus service information at stops 5.27Information
Customer information buttons at stops 4.52
4.90
Safer pedestrian crossings at bus stops 4.85
Safety Lighting and video surveillance at busstops
4.43
4.64
Improved shelter and seating at stops 5.06Comfort
Making it easier to get on and off buses 4.044.55
Speed/TT Bus trips take less time 4.11 4.11
Bus services operating closer to home 4.14SpatialServiceCoverage Buses operating to new destinations 3.27
3.71
Notes: Scores range from 1 to 7
Source: Smart Bus project. Passenger and local community reseearch (YCHM, Nov. 1999)
Bus Passenger Opinions on Bus Improvement Priorities
Bus Passenger Views of Improvements – Reliability, Coverage, Frequency
Introduction
Performance
Progress
Futures
15
[OLD] Since 2001 PT service increased 63% (66% bus/ 36% rail, 10% tram) but - but population growth continues at a faster pace…
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
2001
-2
2002
-3
2003
-4
2004
-5
2005
-6
2006
-7
2007
-8
2008
-9
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
2015
-16
2016
-17e
2017
-18e
Rail Tram Bus Total
Index of Public Transport Service Kms p.a (2001-2=100)
Year
Vehic
le K
ms p
.a. (2
001
-2=
100)
3.6 3.63.6
3.73.8
3.83.9
4.04.1
4.24.3
4.3
4.44.5
4.6
4.7
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
2001-2
2002-3
2003-4
2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9
2009-1
0
2010-1
1
2011-1
2
2012-1
3
2013-1
4
2014-1
5
2015-1
6
2016-1
7e
2017-1
8e
Population Growth (M)
Year
Popula
tion (
M)
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
16
[NEW] Since 2001 PT service increased 67% (70% bus/ 37% rail, 11% tram) but - but population growth continues at a faster pace…
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
2001
-2
2002
-3
2003
-4
2004
-5
2005
-6
2006
-7
2007
-8
2008
-9
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
2015
-16
2016
-17
2017
-18e
Rail Tram Bus Total
Index of Public Transport Service Kms p.a (2001-2=100)
Year
Vehic
le K
ms p
.a. (2
001
-2=
100)
3.6 3.63.6
3.73.8
3.83.9
4.04.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.95.0
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
2001-2
2002-3
2003-4
2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9
2009-1
0
2010-1
1
2011-1
2
2012-1
3
2013-1
4
2014-1
5
2015-1
6
2016-1
7
2017-1
8e
Population Growth (M)
Year
Popula
tion (
M)
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
*
Note: * More bus services sooner initiative (~$2.5M 2016-2020); New bus services initiative ($.3M-$9Mp.a. 2015-2020)
17
[OLD]…in last 10 years, per person service increased 22% then declined since 2011 (we have declined by 9% points); recent trend is flat
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
100.0
101.8102.4
100.3
101.6
105.1
107.3
111.6
113.9
121.6
119.4
120.8
112.7113.0
113.6112.9
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-
10
2010-
11
2011-
12
2012-
13
2013-
14
2014-
15
2015-
16
2016-
17e
2017-
18e
Year
Relative Service Level Per Head
Service
Levels
(Vkms
supplied)
Per Capita
18
[NEW]..in last 10 years, per person service increased 21% then declined since 2011 (we have declined by 12% points); recent trend is decline
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
100.0
101.8102.4
100.3
101.6
105.1
107.3
111.6
113.9
121.6
119.4
100
101.8102.4
100.3
101.6
105.1
107.3
113.9
120.8121.2
118.5
112.4111.3
110.4109.7
109
120.8
112.7113.0
113.6112.9
111.6
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-
10
2010-
11
2011-
12
2012-
13
2013-
14
2014-
15
2015-
16
2016-
17
2017-
18e
Year
Relative Service Level Per Head
Service
Levels
(Vkms
supplied)
Per Capita
19
Melbourne has BIG inequity in PT service– many high need areas with no service areas on the urban fringe; bus is a big part of this
Service Supplied (Green) – Highest Social Need Areas (Red)
Source: Currie, G. (2010) Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 18 (2010) 31–41
Source: Delbosc A and Currie, G. (2011) ‘Using Lorenz Curves to Assess Public Transport Equity’ JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 1252-1259
Service Supplied by Population
20
In 2016, 18 of our 30 LGA’s have below average service per resident…
2,197 1,079
884 852
761 754 743 731 727 721
707 705
612 599 589 586 582
552 549 546 543
524 512 499
476 429 417
374 320 318 312
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
MELB OURNE CITY
YARRA CITY
MANNINGHAM CITY
MARIBYRN ONG CITY
STONNINGTON CITY
BOROONDARA CITY
WHITEHO RSE CITY
DAREBIN CITY
HOBSONS BAY CITY
PORT PHILLIP CITY
MONASH CITY
MOONEE VALLEY CITY
BAN YULE CITY
GREATER DANDENONG…
NILLUMBIK SHIRE
KINGSTON CITY
GLEN EIRA CITY
YARRA RANGES SHIRE
KNOX CITY
MORELAND CITY
HUME CITY
MAROONDAH CITY
BRIMB ANK CITY
BAYSIDE CITY
WHITTLESEA CITY
FRANKSTON CITY
WYNDHAM CITY
CASEY CITY
MELTON CITY
MORNINGTON…
CARDINIA SHIRE
Weekly Total Km per 1000 People
Very High
High
Above Average
BelowAverage
Low
Very Low
Distribution of PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week, 2016)
Source: PTRG analysis of the GTFS file data for Melbourne. Includes bus, rail and tram. Weekly data extracted for the week 19th- 25th
Sept 2016. Data production undertaken by Phillip Boyles and Associates
21
Cardinia, Mornington & Melton have lowest service/head; Melbourne,
Yarra, Manningham and Maribyrnong, the highest
Source: PTRG analysis of the GTFS file data for Melbourne. Includes bus, rail and tram. Weekly data extracted for the week 19th- 25th
Sept 2016. Data production undertaken by Phillip Boyles and Associates
Distribution of PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week,
2016)
22
-5.5%
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
2.5%
2.8%
3.3%
3.5%
3.9%
4.0%
4.7%
7.8%
7.8%
-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%
CASEY CITY
BANYULE CITY
MONASH CITY
NILLUMBIK SHIRE
FRANKSTON CITY
STONNINGTON CITY
KNOX CITY
YARRA RANGES SHIRE
CARDINIA SHIRE
BAYSIDE CITY
PORT PHILLIP CITY
MARIBYRNONG CITY
WYNDHAM CITY
DAREBIN CITY
BOROONDARA CITY
HOBSONS BAY CITY
KINGSTON CITY
HUME CITY
MOONEE VALLEY CITY
MANNINGHAM CITY
BRIMBANK CITY
YARRA CITY
MELTON CITY
MELBOURNE CITY
MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE
MAROONDAH CITY
GREATER DANDENONG CITY
WHITEHORSE CITY
MORELAND CITY
GLEN EIRA CITY
WHITTLESEA CITY
% Change in Weekly Total Km per 1000 People NO VLINE - 2015-2016
Change in service is also uneven; some decline occurred 2015-2016…
High Increase
Increase
SmallIncrease
Decline
High Decline
Change in PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week, 2015-2016)
Source: PTRG analysis of the GTFS file data for Melbourne. Includes bus, rail and tram. Weekly data extracted for the week 19th- 25th
Sept 2016. Data production undertaken by Phillip Boyles and Associates
CASEY CITY
23
…Notably in Casey, Banyule, Nillumbik and Monash.
Source: PTRG analysis of the GTFS file data for Melbourne. Includes bus, rail and tram. Weekly data extracted for the week 19th- 25th
Sept 2016. Data production undertaken by Phillip Boyles and Associates
Change in PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week, 2015-
2016)
24
PTRG WEBSITEPTRG.INFO
25
PTRG WEBSITEPTRG.INFO
26
PTRG WEBSITEPTRG.INFO
Introduction
Performance
Progress
Futures
28
Bus Ridership Growth…we did a world review of methods of
substantially increasing bus ridership - here are the findings
Issues Covered
• Behavioural studies (elasticity of demand)
• Bus Improvement Experience
• International Expert Delphi Study
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
29
Behavioural evidence identifies a rank for improvement measures
based on maximum possible impact
• Rank based on higher patronage growth impacts:1. Service Level Improvement (200% plus)2. Free fares (<=40%)3. Reliability (<20%)4. Travel Time (<15%)5. BRT (alone) (<10%)6. Soft Factors (<2-5 %)
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
30
Bus improvement experience (Australia) suggests major BRT revisions,
network restructuring and free CBD services (tram in Melbourne)
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
• Ranking of measures based on patronage impacts:1. Bus Rapid Transit Systems (market growth in the order of
20% - 70% at a corridor level)2. (Free) CBD Distributors (market growth around 50% - 200%
affecting CBDs)3. Bus Network Area Restructuring (network-wide market
growth around 10-30%)4. Express Bus (market growth around 15% - 30% but only
affecting route catchments)5. Increased Frequencies/Minibus (market growth 10% - 40% at
mainly a route level)6. Bus Priority Measures (10% - 50% at a route group/corridor
level)7. Bus Marketing/Passenger Information, including TravelSmart
(up to 20% at an area level).
31
A UK study (TAS) identified network simplicity as THE most cost
effective pax growth measure
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Service
Simplification
Effective
Promotion /
Service
Branding
High Quality
Signage and
Information
Bus Stop
Improvements
New Buses Bus Priority
Measures
Real Time Info.
An
nu
alis
ed
Re
ven
ue
per
£1
Co
st
Figure 1 : Cost Effectiveness of Bus Improvements – UK
Source : (TAS Partnership ,2002)
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
32
The EU Jupiter project identified priorities in terms of effectiveness and
cost effectiveness
JUPITER Rank for Highest Patronage Impacts
1. Service reliability based measures (busways, bus lanes, junction priority
2. Frequency of service
3. Passenger information based measures
JUPITER Rank for Highest Cost Effective Patronage Impacts
1. Low floor buses
2. Bus priority at traffic signals
3. New interchanges replacing inadequate facilities; and
4. Real time passenger information.
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
33
The research identified many commonalities between alternative
avenues of investigation
Behavioral Evidence
1. Service Level Improvement (200% plus at
low service level)
2. Free fares (<=40%)
3. Reliability (<20%) (where reliability poor)
4. Travel Time (<15%)
5. Intrinsic BRT factors (<10%)
6. Soft Factors (<2 % - as a package <%10)
Bus Improvement Experience
Australia/Elsewhere
• Bus Rapid Transit Systems
• Increased Service Levels
• Bus Priority
• CBD Free Bus Systems
International Expert Survey
1. Service Level Increases (frequencies)
2. Bus reliability Factors (like BRT ROW)
3. Spatial coverage
Best Practice Systems
BRT systems due to high service level,
reliability/ ROW segregation, simple
marketing image
Synthesis of Factors to Effectively Grow Bus Markets
Cost Effectiveness
1. Service Simplification
2. Promotion/Branding
3. New Low Floor Buses
4. Bus traffic signal priority
5. Real time information systems
Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429
34
So what do I think we should do with buses?
35
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
2001
-2
2002
-3
2003
-4
2004
-5
2005
-6
2006
-7
2007
-8
2008
-9
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
2015
-16
2016
-17
2017
-18e
Rail Tram Bus Total
Index of Public Transport Service Kms p.a (2001-2=100)
Year
Ve
hic
le K
ms p
.a. (2
001
-2=
100
)
3.6 3.63.6
3.73.8
3.83.9
4.04.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.95.0
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
2001-2
2002-3
2003-4
2004-5
2005-6
2006-7
2007-8
2008-9
2009-1
0
2010-1
1
2011-1
2
2012-1
3
2013-1
4
2014-1
5
2015-1
6
2016-1
7
2017-1
8e
Population Growth (M)
Year
Po
pu
latio
n (
M)
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
We have to invest ; not to keep up, but to EXCEED growth…
36
…we need to stop going backwards and go FORWARDS per capita
37
On balance Mass Transit is Effective; Social Transit is Weak and hard to
justify
Mass transit Social transitNetwork characteristics Direct service; long stop
spacing; low densityCircuitous service; short stop spacing; high density
Operational characteristics
Frequent, long spans Infrequent, short spans
Ridership High LowSocietal benefits Reduced congestion,
agglomeration benefits, economic benefits
Increased social inclusion, environmental justice
Customer type Choice CaptiveTypical demographics Employed persons,
younger age groupsUnemployed, retired, very young and very old, ethnic minorities
38
I favour Route Concentration over Social Transit and seeking new 1st/Last
Mile solutions (including longer walk access)
High density/ low frequency High frequency/ low density vs.
+ area coverage
– frequency
↯ waiting time, reliability
+ frequency
– area coverage
↯ first/ last mile problem
Route ConcentrationSocial Transit (is Dead)
Source: Graphics from the SEPT-GRIP PhD Research of Nora Estfaller
39
e.g. strong uptake route 798 Cranbourne/ Selandra Rise
• Connects to Cranbourne train station and shopping centre
• Runs every 20-30 minutes
• Good service span
– 5:30 – 22:30 weekdays
– 6:30 – 24:00 Saturday
– 7:00 – 21:30 Sunday
Long Walk Access Distance to a quality frequency
Route 798
Source: Delbosc A, Currie G, Nicholls L and Maller C (2016) Social Transit as Mass Transit in Suburban Greenfield Development' TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD Vol 5 2543, pp. 62 –70
40
Uber/Lift is a bus problem but also (with car/bike share) a possible 1st/Last
Mile solution (but this might be wishful thinking)
Uber/Lyft Impact on PT in USA
• net change 6% reduction• net increase for rail
(+3%)• net decline for bus (-6%)
and light rail (-3%).
Source: Clewlow RR and Mishra GS (2017) ‘Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States’ ITS UC Davis
41
We need more (and better resourced) SmartBus
Tram
• Streetcar/Light Rail
• 23 routes/ 500 cars
• High frequency; 7.5
min headway
• Short Routes; Round
Trip Time = 110 mins
SmartBus
• 8 routes
• 200 buses
• Low frequency; 15
min headway
• Long Routes; Round
Trip Time = 238 mins
42
For DART; its time to talk city bus tunnels like Brisbane (perhaps
part of future rail/Metro 2?)
43
Bus Rapid Transit (Rubber Tired Rail) or LRT should be part of the plan
including urban densification as part of project…
44
Bus Rapid Transit; Rubber Tired Railways; cost effective but not as good?
45
There may be new ways to bring the Train to the City
469
www.worldtransitresearch.info
47
Public Transport Research Group
WEBSITEPTRG.INFO
48
Join the ITS (Monash) LinkedIn group
to keep informed of our activities
Recommended