Buses

<html><body>
The Age's transport reporter Adam Carey broke the news that Transdev - the operator of one-third of Melbourne's bus network - has initiated a market-lead proposal to bring a modern Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system to Melbourne's East.

The proposal would see road and freeway medians taken over by dedicated bus lanes - including using the wide median in the Eastern Freeway - as well as raised platform stops scattered along the line, The Age <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bid-to-pave-over-doncaster-rail-reserve-for-melbournes-first-rapid-busway-20170601-gwie1z">reports</a>.

A dedicated fleet of new vehicles would operate the services and as the bus lanes would be located in road medians, the vehicles would require doors to be located on both sides to allow for boarding/disembarking on the right side.

The Age's report states that Transdev proposes services run every three minutes in peak with a journey time of 30 minutes to a new Southern Cross terminus and the vehicles would have a capacity of 150 passengers. In short, the proposed system would operate much like a rail line, just with large capacity buses.

<h2>Comment</h2>

Busways have been proposed in Melbourne in the past and there are a myriad of international examples to look at for inspiration - Transdev in a media release even pointed out it runs similar systems in <a href="https://www.transdev.com.au/media/13417/20170608-doncaster-brt-media-statement-final.pdf">Bogotá, Nantes and Rouen</a> - however this would appear to the be first with any teeth.

Transdev has outlined that the proposal will evolve as consultation begins and thankfully they have committed themselves to this. Because, from the initial reports, there is a yawning gap in the scope: The Age reports that the infrastructure (and I'm assuming the premium-level services) would begin at Donvale, opposite Tunstall Square.

The gap is between Tunstall Square and Nunawading, a natural terminus for the BRT if ever there were one. Nunawading is a premium station which sees good weekday and weekend services that can connect passengers from the BRT to Ringwood, Box Hill and beyond. It could also connect passengers from the outer reaches of the Lilydale/Belgrave lines with a fast and frequent service into Doncaster.

New pieces of public transport infrastructure, as a rule, should maximise connectivity, not simply pushing the same barrow of, for the most part, ferrying suburban commuters to the inner-city like all our current rail lines do.

Notwithstanding the governance merits of this proposal being implemented as a PPP with the terms highlighted in The Age report (it appears Transdev would lock themselves into operating the services for 30 years), terminating this infrastructure at Nunawading naturally leads into turning the entire Springvale Road corridor - all the way to the bay - into a BRT at a later stage.

Melbourne's smartbus routes are routinely hailed as a success and at a conceptual level, this Transdev proposal - if the same type of infrastructure and new bus fleet were to be implemented in other parts of the city - would be an upgrade to the smartbus services in the Springvale Road corridor.

Heading south from Nunawading station, Springvale Road serves many of eastern Melbourne's primary job centres: The Tally Ho business park at Burwood Highway, Glen Waverley &amp; station, Brandon Park at Ferntree Gully Road, the entire eastern edge of the Monash NEC with two high profile intersections at Wellington Road and Springvale junction, Springvale &amp; station, Keysborough and Edithvale station.

Many more major arterial roads which have either 4 or 6 lanes and a median would also be an obvious candidate for study on how to bring high-quality, fast and frequent public transport to the suburbs as well.

One wonders what could have been possible had the infrastructure to support BRT operations as part of the recently announced <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/planning-and-projects/melbourne-road-projects/outer-suburban-arterial-roads">$1.8 billion PPP to upgrade arterial roads in Melbourne's west</a> been included.

In fact, this should be part of VicRoads modus operandi, how to get higher people, not vehicles, throughput on our arterial roads in part by sequestering existing lanes and in another part adding new dedicated bus lanes for high-frequency bus services.

Overall, it's a welcome addition to the debate on how to transport Melburnians around Melbourne and the consultation process will be one to watch.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-buses/E106_3866.jpg">Marcus Wong</a>.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Transdev's Doncaster & Donvale BRT proposal: a welcome addition to the public transport debate

<html><body>
In a <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/labor-backs-investment-in-better-bus-services-and-community-consultation">media release</a> distributed on Tuesday morning the Andrews Government has announced it will not proceed with proposals to alter the bus network which Transdev Melbourne operates. For a summary of the now rejected proposal, see <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hundreds-of-bus-services-in-melbournes-west-and-north-face-being-cut-to-service-citys-east-20150413-1mk1no">this Age report</a> from Monday.

Transdev Melbourne - an operator which runs approximately 30% of Melbourne's bus network - originally sought to cut elongated routes, such as the orbital smart bus routes, and reduce frequencies on multiple northern and western routes in order to boost capacity in the east and south where patronage growth is reportedly strongest.

The Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan has stated "rather than cutting buses in one area to increase buses in another, the Andrews Labor Government will develop a more balanced bus network plan in consultation with the community." Furthermore "demand for buses is growing faster than any other mode of transport, and we need to make sure they continue to meet the needs of our community.”

The State Government is now set to establish a new Ministerial consultative group encompassing new transport forums based around municipal areas. The bodies are set to look at ways to 'expand and improve public transport, including buses'.

<h2>Comment</h2>

One can only hope the new Ministerial consultative group conducts a root and branch - or spoke and hub - review of Melbourne's entire bus network. Smart buses are the offspring of the previous Bracks/Brumby Labor government and it appears the current Labor Government doesn't want to mess with that legacy as much given they have now rejected a proposal which would have seen the elongated orbital routes broken up into smaller segments.

In the series of news reports about the proposed changes a common theme became apparent: the longer smart bus routes were used more in some sections (east and south) compared to others (north and west). The proposal sought to address this by splitting routes so that buses ran over shorter routes in order to improve punctuality.

There's logic in the idea of splitting routes but I can't find much logic in reducing frequencies in a city where the population is growing - especially through the northern suburbs where there are over <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbourne-development-numbers-moonee-valley-moreland-darebin">100 projects which will yield 9,000-10,000 apartments</a> across the municipalities of Moonee Valley, Moreland and Darebin.

While many of the proposals, projects at sales and those currently under construction are focused on the radial public transport routes in suburbs closer to the centre of the city, it would be naive in the extreme to assume the current light and heavy rail networks will be sufficient to cater for the influx of people who will be moving to these municipalities and travelling between them.

South of Bell Street a dense network of cross-town bus routes currently exists however frequency is patchy with some routes running more often than others and the proposed changes would have seem a reduction of services on Bell Street itself.

The announcement of new transport forums is positive however I believe the consultantive groups should be cautious given the Government has announced they will be based around local government areas. Does that mean each municipality will hold its own forum or will the forums focus on groups of municipalities in the different regions of the metropolitan area?

The worst possible outcome will be if forums are conducted in municipal pockets where hyper-local interests are likely to overrule regional transport goals thus entrenching oddities like <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/bus-routes-which-need-improvement-the-506">dog's leg deviations</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/is-it-time-to-reconfigure-the-moonee-ponds-transport-interchange">bus termini that fall short</a> of connecting with other public transport modes, low frequencies and reduced hours of operation.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transdev_Melbourne_number_972_(8253AO)_Custom_Coaches_bodied_Scania_in_PTV_livery_on_route_250_in_Queen_St,_December_2013.jpg">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Spring Street rejects Transdev bus network changes

<html><body>
Moonee Ponds is an activity centre that for the most part flies under the radar, in terms of redevelopment currently happening and what can happen in future. The biggest landholder in the region is the Moonee Valley Racing Club and yesterday <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/moonee-valley-racecourse-apartment-plans-pared-back-by-planning-minister-richard-wynne-20150325-1m7kzf">The Age reported</a> on how the Planning Minister Richard Wynne has gazetted an updated development plan for the home of the Cox Plate.

In terms of access Moonee Ponds has quite the repertoire of public transport options. Trains serve the western end of the centre, trams run up and down Mount Alexander Road/Pascoe Vale Road and Ascot Vale Road hosts the terminus for route 82, one of the very few suburb-to-suburb tram routes across Melbourne. There's also a major bus interchange next door to the main tram stops for the 59 tram in the Mount Alexander Road median.

But like all over Melbourne, the connections between modes (and routes) could be better. A lot better.

As a very regular user of all three modes in the area, top of the priority list for fixing is the bus interchange. At present, it sits in the very busy median of Mount Alexander Road, which makes access from either side of the road a real problem.

There are multiple signalised pedestrian crossings however priority is given to vehicular traffic. The wait times often frustrate pedestrians, who see the bus they want to catch (only metres away) pull away as traffic lights change, as it is often the only time buses can exit the interchange.

There are 11 separate bus routes which converge on the existing Moonee Ponds Interchange:

<ul>
<li>Southerly approach (via Ascot Vale Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/784_Bus404.pdf">404 Footscray to Moonee Ponds</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/1666_Bus472.pdf">472 Williamstown to Moonee Ponds</a>
</li>
	<li>Easterly Approach (via Ormond Road and Mount Alexander Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/5456_Bus505.pdf">505 Moonee Ponds to Melbourne University</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/5607_Bus504.pdf">504 Moonee Ponds to Clifton Hill Station</a>; (via Dean Street) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/844_Bus506.pdf">506 Moonee Ponds to Westgarth</a>; ​(via Wilson Street / Pascoe Vale Road / Kellaway Avenue) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/845_Bus508.pdf">508 Alphington Station to Moonee Ponds</a>
</li>
	<li>Northerly approach (via Mount Alexander Road) <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/827_Bus475.pdf">475 Moonee Ponds to East Keilor</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/8091_Bus476.pdf">​476 Moonee Ponds to Hillside</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/829_Bus477.pdf">477 Moonee Ponds to Broadmeadows Station</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/834_Bus483.pdf">483 Sunbury Station to Moonee Ponds</a>, <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Routes/PDFs/841_Bus501.pdf">501 Moonee Ponds to Niddrie</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>A new Moonee Ponds Interchange?</h2>

What to do with a chunk of land which lays barren right in the heart of an activity centre? Turn it into a car park! That's the dirty little secret of the current Reading's site - <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/leighton-initiate-the-readings-moonee-ponds-transformation">bought last year by Leighton</a> then <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/leighton-seeks-to-offload-their-moonee-ponds-super-site">promptly put back on the market</a> in February - it's everything that an activity centre should not have: an open-air car park.

With all the development site buying and selling in the heart of Moonee Ponds and a new masterplan for the racecourse getting the nod from the Planning Minister, we're no doubt about to see an upswing in development activity in Moonee Ponds. And it's time there was an overhaul of Moonee Ponds' public transport access as well.

Much of Mount Alexander's median strip to the north of the current bus bay has had a once over with new landscaping. I think it's time the bus bay moved out and the median reverted back to open space.

But where would buses go?

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zNF8lPbNaAaM.kCmFLjqUkGvM" width="100%"></iframe>

The map works on the basis of removing the existing bus terminus/interchange; Hall Street is extended through to the other side of Mount Alexander Road as a one-way (eastbound) bus-only road, and the tram tracks on Ascot Vale Road are duplicated and terminated adjacent to the existing route 59 tram stop.

In this scenario buses would run in a continuous anti-clockwise loop through Mount Alexander Road, Homer Street, Margaret Street and Hall Street. If a series of bus stops were placed in Homer Street, Margaret Street and Hall Street - in the latter's case particularly near the intersection of Mount Alexander Road - then passengers would be deposited and could be picked up in three key areas: Moonee Ponds Central, Moonee Ponds Station and near the existing bus bays for tram connectivity.

Extending Hall Street would likely be the largest portion of the project in terms of roadworks (and cost), however it's conceivable there would be need to widen Margaret Street - eating into the existing station car park - to allow buses to stop at the station without impacting traffic flow and both Homer and Hall Streets would require removal of speed bumps.

The added bonus of extending Hall Street, for vehicular traffic on Mount Alexander Road in particular, would be the two existing pedestrian crossings, roughly 50 metres apart, could be combined into one.

Not to mention, terminating the route 82 tram alongside route 59's stop would eliminate the three crossings pedestrians are required to make at present - if they wish to connect between either service - and similarly eliminate one of the two existing crossings pedestrians must make, if they wish to connect between the 82 tram and Moonee Ponds bus services.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ascot_Vale_and_Mount_Alexander_Road_at_Moonee_Ponds_Junction.jpg">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Is it time to reconfigure the Moonee Ponds transport interchange?

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/corinne-mulley-106">Corinne Mulley</a>, University of Sydney.

News of a new bus route will most likely be greeted with indifferent silence, but lobbying for a new train line can keep thousands of potential commuters busy for years on end. It seems that everyone loves rail!

In Australian cities, the answer to the question “how do we improve public transport?” is almost invariably, “with a rail project”. But why? Because, say supporters, rail will make it easier for commuters to get into the city to get to work.

This focus is misdirected for a number of reasons. First, it doesn’t make sense to decide on a mode of transport without having a serious discussion about how many people travel and where to.

We need separate figures on how many people want to make these trips now and how many are likely to want to make these trips in the future. Then we can think about mode.

Second, to focus on the CBD does not make sense. Increasingly, jobs are being decentralized because most governments have a land use policy which is building a hierarchy of centres within cities.

Third, a focus on the CBD when the CBD accounts for only a small proportion of jobs overall does not seem to be for the greater good.

In Sydney and Melbourne, approximately 10% of metropolitan employment is in the CBD; it’s over 20% in Paris and over 15% in Singapore.

Moreover, public transport has to do more than get people to jobs (although commuting is very important) - these other trips are not necessarily to or from the CBD.

In systems predicated on travel to the CBD it is often difficult to get from one side of town to the other.

In Sydney, for example, even where the best transport links exist it is difficult to go by public transport from the Inner West to the Eastern suburbs without changing and without it taking a long time.

In fact, these type of journeys often compete badly with the private car on travel time and on cost - public transport fares (especially when there is no integrated fare system) being much more than the running costs of a car.

To improve this situation, the first step is to consider where services now go, where people go, and where they would like to go.

If public transport links the places people want to go - where they go to work, shop, go to the doctor or take the kids to child care - public transport investment can start to shape urban growth as we build along transport routes.

Improvements which make it easier for more people to get where they want to go on public transport are the projects which we need to implement. These projects improve the lives of existing passengers as well as helping to get people out of their cars.

So how do you choose the right mode to get this job done? Public transport passengers want frequent, reliable and quick journeys. Rail services are perceived to do well on each of these characteristics because rail services usually have their own right of way, separated from other traffic.

Passengers think that modes that share the road with cars and freight - modes like trams and buses - will be delayed and slowed by other traffic, so they prefer trains.

But to prefer trains on this principle does not make sense: road-based buses can be given their own right of way, protected from other traffic.

They can be as fast or faster than commuter based rail - as demonstrated by the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit systems around the world of which the TransMilenio in Bogota is an excellent example.

A second argument is that the rail can carry more passengers than buses. This is not true.

In an urban context, light rail on its own right of way can have a service capacity of between 5,000 and just over 20,000 passengers per hour in one direction.

Brisbane’s South East Busway carries 15,000 passengers per hour, Bogata’s TransMelenio’s Bus Rapid Transit carries 45,000 passengers per hour.

No-one talks about how much cheaper road-based systems are. US evidence points to infrastructure cost for dedicated buses being approximately one third of light rail costs.

This means that for a fixed amount of money, you can have three times as much bus dedicated road space as rail. For many cities this could lead to transformational change. And in terms of running costs, rail might be cheaper in some cases but it is important to compare like with like.

As for emission costs, it all depends on the type of propulsion in use. Electric rail vehicles are cleaner than diesel buses but not significantly cleaner than electric buses. And no electric propulsion is clean if the electricity production is ‘dirty’.

Rail is often seen as being more permanent and leading to economic development benefits.

If permanence is what increases land value and provides greater economic development, then fixed infrastructure road-based bus systems, such as BRT, can provide this too (and the academic literature is beginning to show this is true).

So when might rail be sensible over a bus based system? If the existing network is wholly rail then building new connections to this system might be justified, rather than starting with a new technology for a link. But this is rare.

Most of the arguments in favour of rail stem from cultural differences.

Passengers often perceive buses are for poorer people and this influences how the community feels about buses. More time and money spent solving the cultural differences would be an effective way of ensuring that our public transport systems are improved with value for money enhancements and not by rail links imagined to be what the customer wants.

All this might come over as a lobby for the bus. It is not. It is a plea to consider carefully what the problem is and the most appropriate, cost effective solution.

There is little point to building a new rail link unless it significantly adds to travel opportunities or satisfies the travelling needs of passengers now or in the future.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/45/count.gif" width="1">

Corinne Mulley does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> in April 2011. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/getting-public-transport-right-means-less-emphasis-on-rail-45">original article</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

Getting public transport right means less emphasis on rail

<html><body>
<div class="rtejustify">
	That's one of the recommendations from the <a href="http://www.ces.vic.gov.au/victorias-environment/state-of-environment-victoria-2009-2013" target="_blank">State of Environment Victoria 2013</a> report. </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	The SOEV 2013 report quotes Sir Rod Eddington's observation of the 'Pursuit of "iconic" projects at the expense of small projects' as not being optimal and in section 4.3.5.1 on <a href="http://www.ces.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/230918/J_CfES_SoE-report_PartB-G4_382-495_lo-res_reduced.pdf" target="_blank">page 453</a>, the report goes on to explain cheaper and more effective public transport options can be brought to those who currently have access to mediocre levels of public transport by ramping up investment in bus services.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	Notwithstanding the broad nature of the report, to have such a specific recommendation aiding sustainable communities via significant bus investment is telling.  The Public Transport debate tends to revolve around the big ticket items: Melbourne Metro, the entire PTV Heavy Rail plan with buses and trams seemingly put to the wayside.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="519" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/transit_modes_at_a_glance_SOEV_2013_page_443.jpg?itok=2Z6RvgSa" width="702">
</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	The above graphic can be found on page 443 of the report and provides a brilliant rundown on the costs of implementation, the time to start services and potential ridership of different modes of Public Transport.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	If there is one thing that could be looked upon as a great positive from the past 50 years of auto-centric suburban expansion in Melbourne. it's the scale and capacity of the road network which has over time come along with it.  Wide medians, wide lanes and wide corridors - think Springvale Road, Cheltenham Road and Stud Road in the East for example - are all prime examples where prior State Governments have begun to see the potential in investing in better bus services via the Smart Bus network.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	Yet, to date Smart Bus has been the highest profile road-based Public Transport investment.  In essence the difference between a Smart Bus service and a 'normal' bus service is unique livery for the fleet operating the routes, higher frequency of service, longer operating hours, extraordinarily long routes and real time information at select bus stops.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	Whilst strong growth in patronage can be <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV/PTV%20docs/Research-and-statistics/Bus-patronage-growth-December-2011.pdf" target="_blank">demonstrated</a> for Smart Buses, might we query whether expansion of the Smart Bus network is the best course of action for Melbourne?</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	Buses run on roads.  Melbourne has a robust and expansive road network.  You don't need to install expensive real time information bus stops to run buses more frequently.  Route straightening, frequency increase on weekdays and weekends and greater investment in fleets and drivers can easily be marketed directly to local users.  </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	As the below graphic illustrates, convenience is one of the highest reasons for not catching Public Transport.  Given the depth and breadth of our road network, there should be no excuse for investing in a bus route network which utilises this great asset.  And to make it all work, frequency of service - whether it is a major arterial route or a collector - should be the absolute top priority.  </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	Notwithstanding the number of people who would scream blue murder at the thought of their road network being taken over by buses (by way of extended bus lanes to allow multiple routes running on major corridors at higher frequencies) or trucks, in the outer suburbs where I grew up, the bus was looked upon as the poor man's transport.  Trains?  That's how you got to the city.  But to get to Fountain Gate?  You drove, or had your parents drive you.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	This is the very culture and mentality that needs to be attacked head on and the buses are the cheapest and most rapidly deployable mode of Public Transport in arsenal to win not just the battle, but the war on congestion and basic service access.</div>
<div class="rtejustify">
	 </div>
<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="359" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/selected_reasons_for_not_using_pt_SOEV_2013_page_452.jpg?itok=M8HSEZkL" title="Select reasons for not using Public Transport - SOEV 2013 report, Page 452" width="702">
It's interesting the collective 20% from the transport survey above who nominated "Need to carry passengers, equipment or tools" or "Own vehicle needed" seem to be some of the loudest voices when it comes to a Public Transport versus Road expansion debate on mainstream media outlets - yet as this study shows, they're quite a significant minority.    
If balance of transport modes and dwelling type for a growing Melbourne is the aim of the State Government of the day and into the future, then why aren't buses prioritised over say, the Mernda Rail extension?   Bus drivers are the fastest and cheapest to procure and train, bus routes are the cheapest to implement and they're a vehicle type which can run on infrastructure that already exists.
The SOEV 2013 report's authors ought to be commended for focusing on the blindingly obvious Public Transport mode which will have the greatest effect on new growth areas as well as aiding the network effect in existing areas for a future sustainable Melbourne.
</body></html>

Melbourne needs more focus on buses: SOEV 2013 Report

<html><body>
With the federal election now done and dusted, its almost hard to remember a time when Tony Abbott wasn't PM. For those of us who actually miss the spin, gaffes and broken promises of an impending election (aside from the ones our esteemed PM still provides), never fear - the state election is only 12 months away - even less if Geoff Shaw manages to alienate yet another subsection of the Victorian population before then.  For those of you who would rather stick pins in your eyes than endure another campaign, there is a light at the end of the tunnel (and not the East-West kind) - the next election has promised to be fought with a strong focus on everyone's most cherished everyday experience - public transport!
Whilst public transport was an issue at the last state election (remember Ted Ballieu's war cry to 'fix the problems'?), that will pale into insignificance compared to the role it will play in the 2014 poll, thanks to everyone's favourite boondoggle - the East-West tunnel. Having won the last election promising a raft of rail projects, they quite inexplicitly back flipped and decided to build a road tunnel instead.  Whilst the common perception is that it will do nothing to ease congestion, and with no business case to even justify its existence, the government's motive to pump $8 billion into it is the biggest mystery since the 1980s asked 'Who shot JR?'.  Whilst it has provided opposition leader Daniel Andrews a much needed bat to whack Premier Napthine around the head with, the tunnel's location has also provided plenty of ammunition for one of the Greens' and PTUA's favourite obsessions - the Doncaster Rail Line.
The PTUA's and Greens' obsession with Doncaster is the stuff of legend.  In fact, if Doncaster Rail was a person, they'd both be charged with stalking.  Whilst the benefits of the Melbourne Metro and high capacity signaling are obvious, they continue to bang the Doncaster drum with monotonous regularity.  The romance of it makes for a great sob story - 'The people of Doncaster have been waiting 90 years for this' we're constantly told.  Anyone would think that Doncaster is a remote village that has to wait for a twice a week horse and cart service to visit the big smoke in Melbourne.  The much improved DART bus service is all but forgotten when it comes to talking about existing alternatives. So is a Doncaster rail link really needed? Or even viable for that matter?
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/art-doncaster_rail-620x349_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy www.theage.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/art-doncaster_rail-620x349_1.jpg?itok=PzN2NmdH" title="Image courtesy www.theage.com.au" typeof="Image"></a>
Doncaster should be, in theory, the perfect rail project.  With a ready made reservation down the middle of a freeway, there are no debates about underground or overground, route or compulsory acquisitions; important factors when retro fitting rail through brownfield sites; but the list of negatives are just as striking.  Whilst a freeway makes for an obvious route, no one actually lives on a freeway. The distance to housing is even more pronounced in the case of the Eastern Freeway, as much of it runs through parkland. This means walk up patronage is already reduced, removing one of the major draw cards of catching public transport in the first place.  To address this, large park and rides would be be required at EVERY station (5 are planned), not just at the terminus at Doncaster Rd or Doncaster Hill.  Not only would parkland be consumed to build them, patronage is also restricted by the size of the car parks.  This in turn removes motivation to catch the train - 'Why bother driving to the nearest available car park? I may as well drive all the way in...'.
The 2nd major problem is cost where some ridiculous figures have been bandied about to build it.  A report by Curtin University, RMIT and engineering firm Arup claims it could be done for the bargain basement price of $840 million, whilst the PTUA claim they could build stage 1 to Bulleen for a paltry $100 million.  Melbourne's most recent completed rail project, the South Morang extension, cost $498 million, for a 3.5km extension with 1 new station and no tunnels (though there was a grade separation at Cooper St).  Doncaster is a 12km line with 5 new stations and major tunneling involved at both ends; the Doncaster Hill tunnel being especially tricky as it requires an uphill tunnel that would be the deepest in Melbourne.
This makes those quoted figures look absurd.  Hardly surprising given the $840 million figure was based on Perth's Mandurah rail line - a project built almost 10 years ago and through predominantly greenfield sites. The PTUA figures are just downright irresponsible - in the current environment of high infrastructure costs, it's most unlikely they couldn't even build the incredibly complex interchange at Collingwood for $0.1 billion, let alone the track, wires and station.  I'll run the length of the entire rail line naked if they could build it for under double that figure!  More sensible quotes seem to start at $3 billion (Collingwood to Doncaster Park &amp; Ride) and go up to about $11 billion for the whole shebang (to Doncaster Hill + tunnel from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross).
Complicating matters further is the issue of patronage.  Some outlandish claims have been made here too; one study even claiming that the Doncaster line could carry about 100,000 passengers a day equating to 20,000 per station, somewhat unlikely numbers for a predominantly suburban line with no interchanges.  As a reference point, the network's busiest non loop station is Footscray, carrying about 15,000 a day and it's a major metro rail/vline/tram/bus interchange.  Furthermore the recently completed Doncaster rail study showed a train would actually take few cars off the road, with the majority of passengers coming from the previously mentioned DART bus.  Regardless of the numbers, just running trains to Doncaster would put extra strain on the Clifton Hill - Flinders St section.
The South Morang Line is already bursting at the seams, and with South Morang now the fastest growing suburb in the country, its thirst for capacity is only going to get bigger.  Compromising this with a new line that will carry a questionable number of passengers is simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  The only way to avoid this is to build the Clifton Hill to Southern Cross tunnel, which will probably be needed to de-couple the South Morang Line regardless.  But of course, this tunnel can't be built until the Melbourne Metro tunnel is built first.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/731929-train-line1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image courtesy www.ycat.org.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/731929-train-line1.jpg?itok=_ig8teJX" title="Image courtesy www.ycat.org.au" typeof="Image"></a>
Whilst the Doncaster rail line is hardly on my Christmas wish list for 2013, I'm not saying we should throw it on the eternal scrap heap.  It may very well be viable, even necessary down the track with the current number of apartment developments being proposed for Doncaster itself, demand could eventually outstrip the capacity the DART buses can deliver.  The Clifton Hill - Southern Cross tunnel will already be built, ensuring the Doncaster wont take capacity away from the South Morang line (or Mernda line by then, or hopefully Whittlesea line), allowing money to be used for the necessarily large park and rides.  And as was recently suggested, maybe the Eastern Freeway will be tolled, providing the bulk of the required funds for the project, as well as an extra incentive for people to use the train instead.
Doncaster, Rowville, Melton electrification, Mernda Extension are all great future projects, but to use some of Paul Keating's terminology, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is the 'Black Caviar' of transport projects.  It is the only project that benefits the whole network, whilst transforming it into a true rapid transport network.  It could be argued that high capacity signaling would also be universally beneficial, however we wont see its full potential if we don't remove the bottlenecks that only de-coupling will provide.  In a day and age where high infrastructure costs reduce us to picking winners, the Melbourne Metro tunnel must be our first priority - not a disproportionately expensive suburban line with dubious benefits.
Whilst the Greens &amp; PTUA's hearts may be in the right place with its unconditional support of public transport, choosing to back populist projects over more necessary ones is hardly helping the cause.  The only way we can stop misconceptions like the East West tunnel is to be united on its opposition.  The public has spoken loudly in its support of public transport over roads - its time the PTUA took one for the team and supported all those voices, not just a select few.  Bring on the State election!
 
Further reading
<a href="http://www.doncasterrailstudy.com/">http://www.doncasterrailstudy.com/</a>
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

Is DONcaster rail, is good?

<html><body>
A lot of the Public Transport advocates were licking their lips on Monday when the former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett was quoted as saying <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/borrow-to-build-rail-network-kennett-20130811-2rq88" target="_blank">"There's not a major world city that doesn't have one [an underground rail network]"</a>.  I've always admired the former Premier's drive, regardless of what happened under his leadership, Jeff Kennett is through and through a Melbourne #1 man and is not afraid to say it.

What is Kennett talking about you might ask? A good question, but suffice to say he's more than likely referring to an operationally independent rail network serving the densest parts of the city - or the future densest parts of the city.  Whilst it's generally understood heavy rail running on high frequencies is the best transport mode to support a large amount of people living or working in a specific area there are a lot of ancillary issues which need to be worked out first.

The existing network can partly fill the role of a mass-transit line, as <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/melbourne-metro-saviour-of-the-outer-burbs" target="_blank">Phil Sturrock</a> wrote back in April.  The Melbourne Metro project is about streamlining existing train line running - adding more capacity to the centre of the city via a new tunnel connecting at two of the five existing rail nodes in the CBD whilst also extending the branch lines further to the East and West.  Whilst the Melbourne Metro tunnel is still likely to be utilised as a commuting method from the outer and middle ring areas into the city, there's a possibility the original Melbourne 2030 goal of having pockets of density surrounding many existing stations might become a reality.  This will be made possible depending on the outcome of local Government planning scheme change (now the Planning Minister has given local Government areas new zones to implement) which is currently underway.

PTV's own <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">Network Development Plan</a> already outlines two new underground lines that will cross the city and service the most densely populated suburbs and the future ones.  As part of the plan a new tunnel beginning at Clifton Hill would cross the inner north connect with Southern Cross and then across the Yarra into Fishermans Bend in approximately 20 years - coincidentally when it's expected Fishermans Bend's redevelopment will be in full swing.  Whether this plan is executed along the lines (pardon the pun) as outlined remains another story but it gives an idea on how Government sees Melbourne's development occurring in future: toward the West.

Funding the plan is naturally the sticking point - I put up a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/buying/heres-why-a-gst-rate-increase-should-be-on-the-table" target="_blank">proposal</a> on Sunday just past to increase the GST and the extra revenue raised would then only be used for Transport Infrastructure expansion - we also need to look at the current issues facing Melbourne's public transport system and I believe it's the humble bus.  We simply don't use them enough; if we are to make any large long-lasting impact which would force commuters to rethink their transport options, we need VicRoads and PTV to knock their heads together with a road-based public transport plan just as in-depth (or grandiose?) as the PTV's Network Development Plan but for recalibrating road space.

Other media reports recently about property acquisition as part of a potential widening of Punt Road from the Yarra to St. Kilda Junction perked my interest - I thought: smart if the extra lanes are to be dedicated to buses so we could get a high frequency Bus Rapid Transit line running from Fitzroy St in St.Kilda all the way up Punt Road and Hoddle Street and then the Stonnington City Council could rezone the land around Punt Road allowing further development intensity around the newly created rapid transport corridor.  Alas, it's all about fitting more private vehicles on the road with minimal mention of buses.  Surprise Surprise.

It's interesting to watch organisations such as VECCI and RACV on Twitter - the RACV is the number 1 advocate of a "balanced" transport policy and ever so meekly supports extra investment in Rail, however I'm yet to see a tweet or link to statement which supports truly balancing our road network giving much higher-priority and new infrastructure for road-based Public Transport.  We have a large, robust and good road network - in a sense we have benefited greatly from mass-suburban expansion since the 1940s and 1950s - Governments have focused on building high quality road ways.  

Our problem is that just too many of us are using them in private vehicles.  An architect acquaintance of mine who was born and lived most of his life overseas puts it quite succinctly: Australia grew up with the car and finds it too hard to think otherwise.

As Melbourne nears it's bicentenary I think it's safe to say we don't really need to lobby overly hard for large-scale big ticket rail projects, the State bureaucracy has for over a decade shown a small and incremental change in thinking.  Throw in the climate change &amp; new-world environmentalism mass-media coverage feeding into it, and shifting to public transport or arguably more importantly more sustainable transport modes like cycling and walking is well understood.  What really needs to happen is shifting attitudes toward road-users.  Some road users will never give up on their cars in favour of other modes - this will take 1 or 2 generations to make that kind of behaviour whittle away into an insignificant minority - and there are people and business where public transport just cannot provide an alternative for them to travel to work or actually do their job, but the rest of us who occasionally drive when we could use an alternative: that's the significant majority of our city which policy must target.

It doesn't matter if it's Lakeside Pakenham or St. Kilda; Mernda or Brunswick the humble bus has the greatest scope to challenge attitudes and help the same people make the shift away from roads congested with private cars and truly balancing road usage.  Car users need to understand that roads have never always been there for cars and roads should never just be there for private vehicles.  As both sides of political spectrum balance on the big ticket projects - the State Government hasn't mothballed Melbourne Metro, it's just prioritised East-West before it - focus needs to shift road capacity toward prioritising buses, and in the inner city for trams.  It'll be a hard slog, but it's one which will have the most dramatic impact no matter where you live, work or play in Melbourne.

Whilst I applaud Jeff Kennett for speaking his mind on the use of public debt to building rail lines, this needs to happen in parallel with rebalancing road usage - after all, the best way to feed a train station is a bus.
</body></html>

Comprehensive underground rail networks are fine, but what about the bus?

<html><body>
In a previous job, I used to work for a mail house in Laverton North.  For those who don't know where that is, it's an industrial area in the west, wedged between Laverton, Derrimut and Altona North.  Traditionally a heavy industrial area for the petrochemical industry, in recent years it has grown in size significantly to include not only factories but light industrial/warehouses/showrooms as well.  Linked to this growth has been the somewhat burgeoning cafe and (takeaway) restaurant scene, which has helped make this area one of the major employers in the western region.

Given this is not a residential area, it goes without saying apart from a few dedicated souls that spend the night at the office, 100% of the workforce need to commute to work.  Despite 3 buses servicing this area, cars, by far and away, still make up the vast majority of mode share.  Why is this the case?  Because not for the first time, PTV have got this region's bus routes sewn up in a tangled mess.

The 3 routes serving Laverton North are: the 400, the 414 and the 417.

1 - The 400 mainly serves the correctional facilities in the area. Starting at Laverton Station, it stops at Port Phillip Prison, The Metropolitan Remand Centre and the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (Women's Prison), before terminating at Sunshine Railway Station via Deer Park.  An obviously important service, it however circumnavigates the majority of the 'business park' precinct.

2 - The 414 also starts at Laverton Station, before running along Cherry Lane, Geelong Rd through Brooklyn, West Footscray before terminating at Footscray Station.  A good trunk route in the inner west, however it merely scrapes the sides of Laverton North.

3 - And that leaves us with the 417. Also starting at Laverton Station, it travels north before following a loop course around the precinct before returning to Laverton Station.  And herein lies the problem.  

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/3469_Bus417.gif" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-351px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_351px/public/pictures/article-images/3469_Bus417.gif?itok=LOqWQB1D" typeof="Image"></a>

An example - according to PTV's journey planner, if I catch the bus from Laverton Station at 8am and get off at the corner or Fitzgerald Rd and William Angliss Drive, it takes less than 15 minutes.  However to catch the bus back after work, I can't just cross the road and catch the bus going in the opposite direction.  I have to continue in the same direction, doing a massive loop and blowing out my return journey to 1/2 an hour - double my morning journey!  This differential can blow out even more, depending on where I get on/off the route.

To add even less incentive to getting the bus, there is a distinct lack of bus shelters on the route.  Laverton North is a very open and sparse area, making exposure to the elements a real concern.  There are not many trees or any tall buildings around, so standing at a bus stop in the pouring rain or 35 degrees without a shelter hardly sugar-coats the route with incentives for people to use it in all weather conditions.

How do PTV fix this?  There are 3 basic options:

1 - Run the route in reverse in the afternoon.  This would ensure everyone's AM trip is the same as their PM trip.  However this would increase the PM trip for the commuters on Pipe Rd and Cherry Lane.  And given the amount of factories in the area, who presumably operate on different shifts, this may not make any difference for commuters working hours outside of the traditional 9-5.

2 - Run buses in both directions!  This may require more buses, but if buses are running in both directions, frequency could probably be reduced.  Currently they run every 15 minutes (in peak), if you reduced this to 30 minutes (each bus) and staggered the two directional services by 15 minutes, you'd still get a bus every 15 minutes, alternating between a clockwise and anti-clockwise option.

3 - Chop Cherry Lane from the route.  The Cherry Lane section is already covered by the 414 bus, and so would reduce the travel time of the 417 loop considerably.

One of these options, plus some extra bus shelters, would surely increase incentives for more workers in this area to use the route.  Traffic in the surrounding Laverton area, especially on the Princes Freeway and Sayers Rd, is a nightmare in peak periods.  The recent addition of Williams Landing Train station, coupled with an improved 417 bus route, could go a long way to alleviating it.
</body></html>

Bus routes which need improvement: the #417

<html><body>
Growing up, I couldn't believe we had no train to the airport. I could catch a train to such distant wonderlands as Hurstbridge, Tecoma and Tyabb (albeit on a 'Red Rattler'!); towns so small and far away that to most people they sound mythical. Yet if I wanted to catch a train to the airport, located in Tullamarine, a suburb just 17km from the CBD, I was left scratching my head whilst dad inserted half his weekly wage into the parking machine in order for us to pick Grandma up on her return from Europe.

Any friends which visited from overseas/interstate would look at me gobsmacked and laugh. “What, there's no train? I thought you said Melbourne was the most liveable city in the world”!

Tullamarine Airport opened fairly recently (1970) in the infrastructure scheme of things. Its predecessor, Essendon Airport (still used for charter and general aviation) also didn't have a rail link, making this continued oversight even more frustrating. Admittedly, the new Tullamarine site was chosen for its relative lack of surrounding housing, theoretically making future expansion an easier proposition. If you look at the debacle that is currently the search for a site of Sydney's second airport, this foresight has turned out to be worth its weight in gold!

43 years on, we still have no end in sight with regards to high capacity (although we do have high frequency) public transport to and from Tullamarine. Multiple rail routes have been mooted – branches from the Craigieburn and Upfield lines, a direct underground line, and a branch from Albion-Jacana standard gauge freight and interstate corridor, as well as an extension of the tram line from Airport West.

Some of these have now been wisely cast aside:

<ol>
<li>The tram line would take much too long. The tram trip from the airport to the city would be almost certainly be in excess of an hour, resulting in a longer trip than a flight from Melbourne to Adelaide or Sydney!</li>
	<li>An underground line would be much too expensive. Underground heavy rail costs about 10 times the cost of heavy rail at grade. And given the much needed 9km Melbourne Metro tunnel has been estimated to cost $9 Billion, the cost of an underground airport link could approach double that.</li>
	<li>A stopping all stations trip via the Craigieburn/Upfield lines would take much too long, and there are too many capacity/signalling problems as it is to run extra express services.</li>
</ol>
That leaves the Albion-Jacana branch line as the only viable option. In some ways it makes sense – The Southern Cross – Sunshine section is currently being upgraded as part of the RRL, so the only new rail line needed is dual track alongside the standard gauge lines in the Albion corridor and a relatively short deviation from Airport West to the airport terminal. When PTV released their multi-decade plan recently choosing this as their preferred option, all seemed right in the world. Except...

<figure class="align-left"><img alt="" height="217" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/0801rail_links-300x0.jpg" title="Source: The Age" width="300"><figcaption>Source: The Age</figcaption></figure>Until last year I just accepted my fate and drove to the airport. However I finally got sick of Melbourne Airport's exorbitant parking prices (the most expensive in the world – more than London Heathrow or JFK New York!) and decided to do something I promised myself I would do for years – catch Skybus!

It was a great experience – it ran direct from Southern Cross to the terminal door, ran every 10 minutes so no need to book a seat, and best of all, only took 20 minutes!

Given the airport train is tipped to take 20 minutes (via Southern Cross option) and up to 30 minutes (via Melbourne Metro Tunnel option), is it really worth spending billions of dollars on an option which wont get us there faster than the current option?

Consider this:

<ol>
<li>Skybus runs direct from Southern Cross Station to the airport, the same as a train would.</li>
	<li>Skybus runs every 10 minutes 24 hours a day. Metro trains do not currently run overnight – running extra trains would be more expensive than running extra buses.</li>
	<li>Skybus is scalable. If extra services need to be added at a later date, buying extra buses is much cheaper than buying extra trains! I also assume that special airport trains would have to be purchased, as current metro trains do not have any luggage storage capacity.</li>
	<li>Skybus costs $17 one way and $28 return, comparable with Sydney's airport train. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">There has recently been talk of the government subsidising the fare and installing Myki readers on the buses</a>, thus reducing the cost of a trip to the equivalent of a zone 1 / 2 fare.</li>
	<li>There is no guarantee a train would actually increase mode share over the bus. Both Sydney's Airport Link and Brisbane's Airtrain were initial disasters, with low patronage levels forcing Sydney's train into administration and Brisbane very nearly following suit. They both survived, however even today their mode shares are only 8% and 11% respectively. Skybus' mode share is a tick under 9%. Not bad all things considering.</li>
	<li>Skybus only takes 20 minutes off peak, but up to 40-50 minutes during peak hour. The last point is obviously the most contentious. However its one solved by creating bus express lanes on the Tullamarine Freeway. There is a risk people and organisations such as the RACV will cry foul about the effect this will have on car traffic, however road projects currently underway and planned by the Tullamarine airport authority such as extending &amp; upgrading Airport Drive enabling another high capacity road from the Western Ring Road into the airport would go a long way to alleviating the current crunch at the end of the Tullamarine Freeway.</li>
</ol>
<figure><img alt="" height="271" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/292854-airport-road%20%282%29.jpg" title="Source: Herald Sun" width="482"><figcaption>Source: Herald Sun</figcaption></figure>CityLink and more vigorously Melbourne Airport, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/skybus-lane-faces-fight-20130103-2c7ib" target="_blank">are of course against this proposal</a>. They make a fortune from the borderline criminal parking rates they charge, and aren't keen on this stopping any time soon. It is ridiculous when you think about it – what other organisation in the world would actively campaign against having yet another high quality access method lead directly to their facility?

It is time governments of all persuasions toughened up and stopped pandering to these bully boys, and put an end to this decades old impasse. Reconfiguring the freeway lanes, subsiding the fare, and most of all, promoting the hell out of Skybus, will be orders of magnitude cheaper than building heavy rail. And we can do it now, and not have to bicker about budgets and the best route for the next 10 years. With a fast, fast efficient airport link we can continue to deserve the title of 'the most liveable city in the world', not 'the laughing stock of the developed world' which our current non-existent solution is.

And my non-Melbourne friends will finally stop laughing at me!
</body></html>

Melbourne, a city of two tales - Skybus vs The Airport Train

<html><body>
Melbourne has many bus routes that resemble, putting it politely, interesting, logic in the path they take from point A to point B. A route I'm intimately familiar with is the #506, it runs from Moonee Ponds Bus station in the middle of the Moonee Ponds Junction to High St Westgarth generally along the Dean St / Dawson Street / Glenlyon road corridor forming a cross-town route through Brunswick and Fitzroy North. It connects with or runs very near 6 tram and 3 train radial routes.

Like many non-smart bus routes around the city, the #506 is subject to limited operational hours, poor frequencies out of peak, on weekends and no Sunday service. The route itself has a straight-forward enough terminus at Moonee Ponds albeit the bus station has a 500m walk to the Moonee Ponds Station. As soon as the route crosses the Moonee Ponds creek, it diverts off the main road into quiet suburban streets in Brunswick West, crossing Melville Road (and the #55 tram) at an <a href="https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Brunswick+West&amp;hl=en&amp;ll=-37.767431,144.943034&amp;spn=0.003528,0.008256&amp;sll=-37.860283,145.079616&amp;sspn=1.804138,4.22699&amp;hnear=Brunswick+West+Victoria&amp;t=m&amp;z=18&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.767431,144.943034&amp;panoid=DfFYd2XzocSpvBBonmaPJQ&amp;cbp=12,121.9,,0,0.7" target="_blank">unsignalled intersection</a>, then makes a right turn into another suburban road (generally clogged with traffic in peaks) and then rejoins the main road it diverted off not 500m away.

Dog's leg routes are common and I had always wondered about this route. I once asked a driver about this peculiarity, the driver proceeded to explain it was a left over from the days when bus and tram routes competed with each other. Think 1950s and 1960s. In an age where we don't have active Public Transport mode competition, the decision to keep this diversion which slows down the route by adding extra streets to the total length and crosses a major road without signals, defies logic. Smith St, the diversionary street running parallel to Dawson Street is 150m to the north - a minimal extra walk should a realignment of the route occur.

Between Grantham St and Nicholson Street the route is as you would expect: straight along Glenlyon Road and connects well with the Sydney Road, Lygon St and Nicholson Street tram routes. The route then follows Nicholson Street for 500m and then diverts off into another back street which has one-way traffic calming measures in place to dissaude drivers from using the route instead of the parallel Holden Street to then connect with St. Georges Road, Merri Parade and then its terminus at the intersection of Westgarth and High Streets.

Frequency matters and this route just doesn't have it. Brunswick West has a population density twice that of your average outer suburb, yet transport planners think residents just want to go in and out of the city - tram frequencies in off-peak and on weekends are excellent, yet this route, the #508 and many east-west routes north of the #506 have shoddy frequencies at best outside of peaks.

Brunswick, like many suburbs 5km from the city, has excellent radial access to the CBD, but still many residents rely on private transport to travel 3-5km cross-town to the next adjacent suburb. This is plainly obvious when you observe the East-West roads throughout the inner north - they're snarled with traffic in peaks and not that much better off peaks and on weekends.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/506_map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="#506 PTV route map from Moonee Ponds to Westgarth"><img alt="" class="image-article-half-width-290px" height="612" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_half_width_290px/public/pictures/article-images/506_map.jpg?itok=kGSup8dl" title="#506 PTV route map from Moonee Ponds to Westgarth" width="290"></a>

<figcaption>#506 PTV route map from Moonee Ponds to Westgarth</figcaption></figure>The first thing I'd change would be the dog's leg in Brunswick West. Like the Hope Street route further north which was recently discontinued due to the lack of patronage, the #506 does itself zero favours running adjacent to a larger public transport corridor less than 500m away. Very low rates of interchange between modes can be squarely blamed on the poor integration of the high frequency and very useful #55 tram running north south and the poor frequency #506 bus running east west.

The answer is completely remove the diversion and have it follow Dean Street and Dawson Street the whole way interfacing with 3 tram stops along the short stretch of Dawson Street between Melville Road and Grantham Street. A 15 minute off-peak and weekend bus frequency interfacing with a 12 minute #55 tram frequency will offer an incentive for roughly 15,000 people living between Brunswick Road and Gaffney Street in Brunswick West / Coburg / Pascoe Vale South (within easy walking distance of the #55 tram) a one change solution to travel to either the Moonee Ponds or Sydney Road activities districts without a car.

Secondly, the terminus at both ends stop short of major interchanges. At the Moonee Ponds end, the bus station which has a lot of routes and frequency in and out of the area misses out on capturing transfer passengers from Moonee Ponds Station as there is a large walk in between the two (you can easily argue all the bus routes which terminate at the existing terminus are in the same boat).

<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/finally-readings-moonee-ponds-for-sale" target="_blank">As Moonee Ponds is well on the way to becoming a major CAD in its own right</a>, it's high time VicRoads, PTV and the Moonee Valley council got together and started the planning process to move the bus station deeper into the Moonee Ponds CAD - if not for the reason of integrating the many bus routes terminating in the area better with trains, but for the inevitable increase in density and therefore public transport needs of the area.

At the Westgarth end, the bus route stops short of Westgarth station and does not interface well with Merri station on the South Morang line at all. Simply extending the route 150m to the east to interface directly with Westgarth station (forming a loop) would further enhance the network effect when you take the Hurstbridge line into account. Similarly combining frequency on Holden Street between Nicholson Street and St. Georges Road appears to be a curious no no - removing the route from the parallel back-street, like the Brunswick West diversion, would simplify the route and have buses directly service the retail hub around the St. Georges Road/Holden Street intersection.

If we can't even get bus routes right in the inner / middle ring of the city to more efficiently serve areas where buses are best suited, what hope is there for the outer public transport-starved suburbs of the city?

Do you live near a bus route that you would use more often if the service levels were improved or the route was realigned? Urban.com.au knows there are many right across the metro area and we want to enlist the help of locals to point them out. <a href="/contact" target="_blank">Contact us</a> or leave a comment below so we can start documenting the lunacy of our bus routes and start a discussion on how we can improve them.

<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-buses/page/4" target="_blank">Visit Marcus Wong's Bus gallery of routes in the vicinity of the #506.</a>
</body></html>

Buses

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Buses

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News