Melbourne Buses, Performance, Progress and Futurespublictransportresearchgroup.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... · 5.49 5.71 Frequency Buses running more often in peak hours 5.23

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


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


Year

Popula

tion (

M)


*

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


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


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



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)



CASEY CITY

23

…Notably in Casey, Banyule, Nillumbik and Monash.



Change in PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week, 2015-

2016)

24

PTRG WEBSITEPTRG.INFO

25


26


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 %)


30

Bus improvement experience (Australia) suggests major BRT revisions,

network restructuring and free CBD services (tram in Melbourne)


• 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)


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.


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


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


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


Year

Po

pu

latio

n (

M)


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

http://www.linkedin.com/search-fe/group_search?pplSearchOrigin=GLHD&keywords=ITS+Monash

http://www.linkedin.com/search-fe/group_search?pplSearchOrigin=GLHD&keywords=ITS+Monash

Documents

Melbourne Buses, Performance, Progress and Futurespublictransportresearchgroup.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... · 5.49 5.71 Frequency Buses running more often in peak hours 5.23