Bus-train integration (was Free Ride (Victoria))

["Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au>]

John Wayman <trecker@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
392f9f22$0$2617@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:392f9f22$0$2617@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> "> 2. Buses seem to be left out once again - they are the poor relation
> public transport in Melbourne.
> >
> Thank god for that! The route I drive on (route 627) is more than 5
minutes
> late most of the day, mostly due to delays at boom gates and traffic
lights.

I can quite believe this.  I notice that at Carnegie when one sees the level
crossing
down during the day, there is very often a bus in the traffic.  Unless one
is willing
to wait up to a period up to and exceeding the train's service headway, bus
to
train transfers at Carnegie from the Koornang Rd services (623/4/7) are
neither
easy nor predictable.  Train to bus is even worse as the frequency of bus
services
 varies between limited and non-existent. Also the location of bus stops
(which are not always easy to find and lack timetables in this part of
suburbia)
 and relation to pedestrian crossings and station entrances do not always
help.

> All bus routes will need to be reviewed and achievable running times and
> timetables set. This will be important, especially since many bus routes
run
> down streets where the speed limit is to be reduced to 50km per hour from
> January.
> The government will have to buy a few more buses, revise timetables and
> arrange changes in traffic light cycles for operators if on time operation
> is to be attempted.

On the exising routes, yes.  But I'm not convinced that the current bus
routes
 serve travel needs particularly effectively.   The current circuitous
routes may
 avoid transfers for some journeys, but if routes are straightened out and
the
extra bus/kilometres are used to increase service frequency (ideally from 30
to
15 min to coincide with trains) and transfer facilities are improved,
people's
willingness to transfer will increase.  It will then be possible to more
easily
make a wide range of jouirneys by public transport. More direct routes
will make travelling by buses more like navigating a car - quite easy in a
grid city like Melbourne, where straight streets lend themselves to straight
routes.

Your own route 624 is an example of an extremely slow and winding route.
The timetable says it takes 25 min from Oakleigh to Chadstone (via
Holmsglen).
There are no less than 6 railway crossings between Oakleigh and Kew on
those trips via Koornang Rd (Holmsglen, Holmesglen Stn, Carnegie, Caulfield,
Tooronga Stn, Auburn stn).  624 splits into two routes in the
Caulfield/Carnegie
area but joins up later.  Most confusing and not user-friendly.   The
slowness,
 poor frequency and lack of rail integration makes walking the better option
for
 many trips. Not your fault though!

627 is even more of an embarassment.  It is a fairly tight hair
pin for most of its length.  Get onto one 627 on part of Koornang Rd and
you have a quick ride to Chadstone, then Oakleigh.  At the exact same stop
on the same side of the road, board another 627, and you go to Oakleigh,
then
 Chadstone!  If you board on the other side, you end up either in Brighton E
or Elsternwick. Most confusing.  Not only do cutomers have to watch for the
correct route number and be on the correct side of the road (fair enough and
part of catching buses), but they also have to read the destination signs
(not always easy to read, wrong or missing).   At the very minimum, this
route
should be split into two at Oakleigh or Chadstone, with one bit given a new
route number (626?).

623 is the best route of the lot. Apart from the Mt Waverley station
deviation, it
is reasonably direct.  Travel times are reasonable, and make this route more
worthwhile than making multiple transfers involving trains. There is even a
Saturday afternoon service - something you don't always get on Melbourne
buses!

Overall, I think their is a need of a review of bus routes and timetables.
Routes should
run as straight as possible (though there will be howls from people who do
benefit from
deviations) to increase travel speed.  In suburbs served by rail, buses
should fulfil
local travel requirements as well as feeding stations and providing
cross-radial travel that
the trains don't do.  Running times and frequencies should be extended to
rail standards.
Where this isn't possible (eg a semi-rural area, or a circuitous route that
has been designed
to meet a particular need (eg elderly people), the service frequency should
always be a
multiple of the train headway (eg if the train is 15 min, 30 or 60 min links
in better than
40, 50 or 70 min).  In Melbourne's east, the better bus routes are 20
minutes, and the
train is 15 min.  Not good integration!

As is mentioned in Paul Mees book 'A very Public solution, major roads
should normally have only one very frequent route running down them, not the
plethora of
circuitous, infrequent, inefficient services we have at the moment.
Attention also needs to
be given to making transferring to another service easy at almost evey major
intersection or
station.

Unless proper attention is given to integration and service issues such as
ease of transfers,
direct routes and service frequency, PT will remain irrelevant to most trips
Melburnians make.

Peter