Fixing Melbourne’s Transport Now – Putting Customer Service First Transport for Melbourne Friday 9th August 2019; 1:00p.m.-4:30p.m. 60 Leicester Street Carlton Near Queen Victoria Market Melbourne VIC 3000
Improving Public Transport (Buses) in Melbourne – a customer focus
Prof Graham Currie FTSE Public Transport Research Group Institute of Transport Studies Monash University
Institute of Transport Studies (Monash) The Australian Research Council Key Centre in Transport Management Introduction
What customers want
Buses in Melbourne
Progress
Opportunities This presentation suggests ways to improve PT (buses) in Melbourne with a focus on customer perspectives … Issues Covered • What do customers want? • Whats the context for buses • Whats our progress in improving services • Opportunities for improvement
3 …and is structured as follows
What customers Buses in Progress? Opportunities want Melbourne
4 Introduction
What customers want
Buses in Melbourne
Progress
Opportunities Melbourne thinks Night Safety, Reliability and Frequency are the most IMPORTANT issues in PT… PT Issue IMPORTANCE
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 54-64
6 …a view common to most international cities
PT Issue IMPORTANCE
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 54-64
7 In PERFORMANCE terms, Melbourne thinks Night Safety is very poor, disruptions, travel time vs car and quality of service are also concerns PT Issue PERFORMANCE
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 54-64
8 Compared to international cities; Melbournes concern with performance is generally higher for almost all issues PT Issue PERFORMANCE
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 54-64
9 For bus passengers, reliability, coverage and frequency are their biggest concerns Bus Passenger Opinions on Bus Improvement Priorities
Improvement Options Individual Score Average Score Buses arriving and departing on time 6.22 6.16 Reliability Buses connecting well with other transport 6.10 services Weekend services provided 5.93 Temporal 5.71 Service Buses operating until late at night on 5.49 Coverage weekends Frequency Buses running more often in peak hours 5.23 5.23
Improved bus service information at stops 5.27 4.90 Information Customer information buttons at stops 4.52 Safer pedestrian crossings at bus stops 4.85 4.64 Safety Lighting and video surveillance at bus 4.43 stops Improved shelter and seating at stops 5.06 Comfort 4.55 Making it easier to get on and off buses 4.04 Speed/TT Bus trips take less time 4.11 4.11 Bus services operating closer to home 4.14 Spatial 3.71 Service Coverage Buses operating to new destinations 3.27
Notes: Scores range from 1 to 7 Source: Smart Bus project. Passenger and local community reseearch (YCHM, Nov. 1999)
10 Introduction
What customers want
Buses in Melbourne
Progress
Opportunities Buses ARE Melbourne’s public transport for most residents, which is a problem….
• 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
Port • In 1996 the Metropolitan Phillip strategy team identified Bay 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 0 10 20 Western Port kilometres
12 …because there arent many
• 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
Port • In 1996 the Metropolitan Phillip strategy team identified Bay 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 Weekday Service Frequency (2006) Weekday Service Span distance of rail services Peak Off Peak 0 10 20 Weekday Western Port kilometres AV. MELBOURNE 40m 50m AV. MELBOURNE 06:46-18:53 13 The bus network on weekdays...
Weekday Bus Services
Source: Currie (2003)
14 …contrasts somewhat with weekends
Sunday Bus Services
Source: Currie (2003)
15 Frequency drives Australian ridership performance
120,000
111
200 100,000
700 (903) T80 130 80,000 410 402 150 703
508 900 60,000 527
160 220
552 901 Boardings per route km route per Boardings 40,000 120 Melbourne Bus 180 271 541 555 Melbourne Smartbus 125 888 140 800 T65 Adelaide NE Busway 889 850 170 307 T500 561 506 623 100 624 Brisbane SE Busway 20,000 124 210 612 442437 564 542 T501 404 250 Sydney T-Ways 212 811135 305 627 T70 683 T61 507 545 781 304 T75 503 T71 400 546 443 812785784T64407685T62 766 521 155 T63 926 548 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Vehicle trips/annum
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
1616 In general our bus service level is poor compared to world practice
Source: Pan D (2013) ‘Key Transport Statistics of World Cities’ Journeys Sept 2013
1717 New Data – 1.8M Melbourne residents have no access to high frequency public transport’ ; 38% of residents, 62% in the outer suburbs
18 Melbournes gap in PT access, affects 1.4M residents and is the largest problem in Australia
19 Yet Melbourne outer suburban areas have the highest population growth rate in Australia
Source : Charting Transport (www.chartingtransport.com)
20 Introduction
What customers want
Buses in Melbourne
Progress
Opportunities Since 2001 PT service increased 57% (74% bus/ 42% rail, 14% tram) but - but population growth continues as well…
Index of Public Transport Service Kms p.a (2001-2=100) Population Growth (M) 180
5.2 170 5.1 5.0 5 160 4.8 4.7 Rail 4.6 150 Tram 4.5
2=100) 4.5 - Bus 4.4 4.3 140 Total 4.2 4.1 4.0 130 4 3.9 3.8
Population (M) Population 3.8 3.7 3.6 120 3.6 3.6
Vehicle Kms p.a. (2001 p.a. KmsVehicle 3.5 110
Year
100 3
2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
2007-8
2005-6
2003-4
2001-2
2017-18 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
2019-20t
2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2009-10
2018-19e 2019-20t Year Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
22 …per person service increased 21% then declined since 2011 (we have declined by 15% points); recent trend is an increasing pace of decline
Relative Service Level Per Head
Melbourne - Public transport timetabled kms per capita each year
38 37.1 37.2 37 36.4
36
35.0 35 34.5 34.3 34.2 33.9 34 33.7 33.7 33.4 32.9 33 32.7 32.3
32 31.4 Vehicle per Kms Headof Population 31.2 31.2 30.8 31 30.7
30
YearYear
Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports
23 Melbourne is expected to grow to 8M by ~2050; we will be the size of London today in 30 years
Forecast Melbourne Population Growth Growth (M) 9 8.02 8 7.02 7 6.06 6 5.11 5 4.17 4
3 10km
2 20km 1 30km 0 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 40km
Year Greater London = 8M pop
Source: Victoria in Future (2016)
24 So how does Melbourne today shape up to London today? – we have a lot of catch up to do
Melbourne London Trains 200 1,000 Buses 2,000 8,000
10km 10km
20km 20km Port Phillip Bay 30km 30km
40km 40km Greater London = 8M pop
0 10 20 Western Port kilometres Metropolitan Melbourne 25 Where is tram and bus priority? – SmartBus; downgraded?
26 Introduction
What customers want
Buses in Melbourne
Progress
Opportunities INVEST, INVEST, INVEST, INVEST – SERVICE LEVELS
28 Year INVEST, INVEST, INVEST, INVEST – TRAM/BUS RAPID TRANSIT
29 We need to look out for the Trackless Tram; lots of potential but not yet proven
The Evidence
• Much less cost that Light Rail • No tracks, no removal of below ground utilities • No overheads (batteries) • Lighter than buses of same size • LRT ride quality, performance & capacity • 15km range on a 10 min terminus recharge • $2-3M per vehicle (LRV=$6-9M) • Deliver a new transit Source: Prof Graham Currie – July 2019 system in 3 months Source: Prof Peter Newman – October 2018
30 Contact us via our website PTRG.INFO, LinkedIn or Twitter
Professor Graham Currie FTSE Director, SEPT-GRIP, PTRG
www.ptrg.info
31