Melbourne Buses, Bus Ridership Growth and LGA Data

Metropolitan Transport Forum March General Meeting Wednesday 1st March 2017

Prof Graham Currie 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

Transport Melbourne & Buses

Bus Ridership Growth

LGA Data This papers look at Melbourne transport problems and buses, bus ridership growth, and LGA data… Issues Covered • What are the major public transport problems in service provision and development with a focus on buses • What can be done to increase bus ridership • How our new LGA data might help

…and is structured as follows

Transport Bus Ridership Melbourne & LGA Data Growth Buses

4 Introduction

Transport Melbourne & Buses

Bus Ridership Growth

LGA Data

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

6 …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 7

The bus network on weekdays...

Weekday Bus Services

Source: Currie (2003)

8 …contrasts somewhat with weekends

Sunday Bus Services

Source: Currie (2003)

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 561 506 100 623 624 Brisbane SE Busway 20,000 124 210 612 442437 564 542 T501 404 250 Sydney T-Ways 212 811135 305 627T70 683 T61 507 545 781 304 T75 503 T71 400 546 443 812785784T64407685T62 766 521 155 T63 926 0 548 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

1010 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

1111

So what do passengers think about these issues?

12 PERFORMANCE MINUS Highest IMPORTANCE RATINGS Lowest Importance Importance SPIRAL PLOT Safe at night Comfortable with strangers on PT 0.5 Reliability

Travel time compared to car Frequency 0

Can make trips to new places on PT Safe during day ‐0.5

Physical access ‐1 PT available where and when needed

‐1.5

Staff curteous and friendly Deal with disruptions quickly ‐2

‐2.5 Overcrowding Get to stops/stations

Ease of buying/using ticket Quality of service

Available at night Make connections

People I care for can use it safely Available on weekends

Source: Currie G Delbosc A (2015) Information to plan journey Get information about PT Variation in Perceptions of Urban Public Meet costs Disruptions don't happen often Transport Performance Between International Boston Brisbane London Melbourne New York Cities Using Spiral Plot Analysis' Perth San Francisco Sydney Toronto Average TRANSPORTATION 13 RESEARCH RECORD No 2538 on pages 54-

Bus Passenger Views of Improvements – Reliability, Coverage, Frequency

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)

14 How Transit Orientated is Melbourne Development – how does it related to buses?

Density –the concentration and compactness of development within geographic space

Diversity –the land use mix including the balance and compatibility of users with each other (and transit)

Design –which relates how the various land uses are combined, linked and presented in terms of ease of access and attractiveness

Source: Cervero and Kockleman (1997)

1515

The Transit Orientation of Development – OVERALL Melbourne – only in central areas

Source: Aston L, Currie G and K Pavkova (2016) ) ‘Does Transit Mode Influence the Transit-Orientation of Urban Development? - An Empirical Study’ JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY Vol 55 (2016) pp83-91

16 Transit Oriented Development – Design (walkability) and buses

Walkers Paradise

Very Walkable

Somewhat Walkable

Car Dependent

171 7

Transit Oriented Development – Density and Buses

Minimum Density (including JOBS) for Effective PT Provision (Newman & Kenworthy (2006)

181 8 Introduction

Transport Melbourne & Buses

Bus Ridership Growth

LGA Data

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

20 Behavioural evidence identifies a rank for improvement measures based on maximum possible impact • Rank based on higher patronage growth impacts: 1. Service Level Improvement (200% plus) 2. Free fares (<=40%) 3. Reliability (<20%) 4. Travel Time (<15%) 5. BRT (alone) (<10%) 6. Soft Factors (<2‐5 %)

Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets –a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429

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).

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

22 A UK study (TAS) identified network simplicity as THE most cost effective pax growth measure

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 AnnualisedRevenueCost £1 per

0.50

0.00 Service Effective High Quality Bus Stop New Buses Bus Priority Real Time Info. Simplification Promotion / Signage and Improvements Measures Service Information Branding

Figure 1 : Cost Effectiveness of Bus Improvements –UK Source : (TAS Partnership ,2002)

Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets –a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429

The EU Jupiter project identified priorities in terms of effectiveness and cost effectiveness

JUPITER Rank for Highest JUPITER Rank for Highest Cost Patronage Impacts Effective Patronage Impacts

1. Service reliability based 1. Low floor buses measures (busways, bus 2. Bus priority at traffic signals lanes, junction priority 3. New interchanges replacing 2. Frequency of service inadequate facilities; and 3. Passenger information 4. Real time passenger based measures information.

Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets –a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429

24 The Expert Survey identified Frequency, Priority and Spatial Coverage as measures most likely to grow bus markets

Factors Most Likely to Grow Bus Markets

Frequency 7 1 1 Reliability Improvements/ Priority 1 3 2 Increased Spatial Service Coverage 2 Limit Transfers 1 1 Network Simplicity 2 Reduce/Affordable Fare 1 1 Priority 1 Increased Information 2 Faster Running 1 Increased Temporal Service Coverage 1 Priority 2 Network Coordination/Integration 1 Demand Responsive 1 Bus Improvements Integrated Fares/Ticketing 1 Priority 3 Marketing /Branding 1 New Vehicles/Good Design 1 Bus Shelters, Bus Stops improved 1

012345678910

Number of Bus Experts

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

The research identified many commonalities between alternative avenues of investigation

Synthesis of Factors to Effectively Grow Bus Markets

Behavioral Evidence International Expert Survey 1. Service Level Improvement (200% plus at 1. Service Level Increases (frequencies) low service level) 2. Bus reliability Factors (like BRT ROW) 2. Free fares (<=40%) 3. Spatial coverage 3. Reliability (<20%) (where reliability poor) Best Practice Systems 4. Travel Time (<15%) BRT systems due to high service level, 5. Intrinsic BRT factors (<10%) reliability/ ROW segregation, simple 6. Soft Factors (<2 % - as a package <%10) marketing image

Bus Improvement Experience Cost Effectiveness Australia/Elsewhere 1. Service Simplification • Bus Rapid Transit Systems 2. Promotion/Branding • Increased Service Levels 3. New Low Floor Buses • Bus Priority 4. Bus traffic signal priority • CBD Free Bus Systems 5. Real time information systems

Source: Currie, G. and Wallis, I. (2008) , Effective ways to grow urban bus markets –a synthesis of evidence, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 16 (2008) 419–429

26 Introduction

Transport Melbourne & Buses

Bus Ridership Growth

LGA Data

Since 2001 PT service increased 63% (66% bus/ 36% rail, 10% tram) but ‐ but population growth continues at a faster pace…

Index of Public Transport Service Kms p.a (2001-2=100) Population Growth (M) 170

5 160 520 4.8 4.7 150 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.4 140 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 130 4.2 4.1 4.0 4 3.9 120 3.8 Vehicle Kms p.a. (2001-2=100) p.a. Kms Vehicle 3.8 3.8 3.7

Population (M) Population 3.6 110 3.6 3.6 3.6

100 3.4

-2 -3 -4 -5 0 5-6 -1 -11 01 02 03 04 0 06-7 07-8 08-9 -17e 0 0 6 20 20 20 20 20 2 2 20 3.2 2009 2010 2011-122012-132013-142014-15 Year 2015-16e201 3 Rail Tram Bus Total 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 2015-16e 2016-17e Year Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports

28 …in last 10 years, per person service increased 22% then declined since 2011 (we have declined by 9% points); recent trend is flat

Relative Service Level Per Head

121.6 120.8 120.0 119.4

Service 115.0 113.9 112.9 Levels 113.6 (Vkms 111.6 113.0 112.7 supplied) 110.0 Per Capita 107.3

105.0 105.1

102.4 101.8 101.6 100.0 100.0 100.3 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- 2016- 16e 17e

Year

Source: Department of Transport/ Public Transport Victoria Annual Reports

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 by Population Service Supplied (Green) –Highest Social Need Areas (Red)

Source: Delbosc A and Currie, G. (2011) ‘Using Lorenz Curves to Source: Currie, G. (2010) Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social Assess Public Transport Equity’ JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT needs, JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 18 (2010) 31–41 GEOGRAPHY Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 1252-1259

30 In 2016, 18 of our 30 LGA’s have below average service per resident…

DistributionWeekly of PT TotalService Km per per Resident 1000 People(Vkms per head/week, 2016) ‐ 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

MELBOURNE CITY 2,197 Very High YARRA CITY 1,079 MANNINGHAM CITY 884 High MARIBYRNONG CITY 852 STONNINGTON CITY 761 BOROONDARA CITY 754 WHITEHORSE CITY 743 DAREBIN CITY 731 Above HOBSONS BAY CITY 727 PORT PHILLIP CITY 721 Average MONASH CITY 707 MOONEE VALLEY CITY 705 BANYULE CITY 612 GREATER DANDENONG… 599 Below NILLUMBIK SHIRE 589 Average KINGSTON CITY 586 GLEN EIRA CITY 582 YARRA RANGES SHIRE 552 KNOX CITY 549 MORELAND CITY 546 HUME CITY 543 MAROONDAH CITY 524 BRIMBANK CITY 512 Low BAYSIDE CITY 499 WHITTLESEA CITY 476 FRANKSTO N CITY 429 WYNDHAM CITY 417 CASEY CITY 374 MELTON CITY 320 MORNINGTON… 318 CARDINIA SHIRE 312 Very Low

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

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)

32 Change in service is also uneven; some decline occurred 2015-2016…

Change% Changein PT inService Weekly Total per Km Resident per 1000 People (Vkms NO VLINE per ‐head/week,2015‐2016 2015‐2016)

WHITTLESEA CITY 7.8%High Increase GLEN EIRA CITY 7.8% MORELAND CITY 4.7% WHITEHORSE CITY 4.0% GREATER DANDENONG CITY 3.9% MAROONDAH CITY 3.5% Increase MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE 3.3% MELBOURNE CITY 2.8% MELTON CITY 2.5% YARRA CITY 1.9% BRIMBANK CITY 1.7% MANNINGHAM CITY 1.5% MOONEE VALLEY CITY 1.4% HUME CITY 1.2% KINGSTON CITY 1.2% HOBSONS BAY CITY 1.1% BOROONDARA CITY 1.1% DAREBIN CITY 1.1% Small WYNDHAM CITY 1.0% Increase MARIBYRNONG CITY 1.0% PORT PHILLIP CITY 0.8% BAYSIDE CITY 0.8% CARDINIA SHIRE 0.8% YARRA RANGES SHIRE 0.4% KNOX CITY 0.2% STONNINGTON CITY 0.2% FRANKSTON 0.0%CITY NILLUMBIK ‐SHIRE0.1% MONASH‐0.1% CITY Decline BANYULE‐0.2% CITY ‐5.5% CASEY CITY CASEY CITY High Decline ‐8.0% ‐6.0% ‐4.0% ‐2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

…Notably in Casey, Banyule, Nillumbik and Monash.

Change in PT Service per Resident (Vkms per head/week, 2015‐ 2016)

34 Melbourne is expected to increase in size by another 1‐2M people in 20‐ 30 years

Forecast Melbourne Population Growth

2.5 7 2.33

2.08 6 2 1.82 5 1.55 1.5 4 Growth 1.27 Population (M) Growth 0.98 3 1 Total (M) 0.67 2

0.5 0.35 1

0 0 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051

Year

Source: Victoria in Future (2012)

PTRG WEBSITE PTRG.INFO

36 PTRG WEBSITE PTRG.INFO

PTRG WEBSITE PTRG.INFO

38 Join the ITS (Monash) LinkedIn group to keep informed of our activities

391 0

40 QUIZ Which of the following are: A.= Train/Tram B.= Bus C.= Dont Know D.= Other

42 B.

44 D.

46 F.

48 H.

50 J.

QUIZ Which of the following are: A.= Train/Tram B.= Bus C.= Dont Know D.= Other

52 B.=A. Bus

The Zip – US BRT Vehicle

B.=B. Bus

Civis –BRT Vehicle

54 B.=C. Bus (?)

Paris Metro RER Rollingstock – VAL - Toulouse Metro 55

B.=D. Bus

TransMilienio BRT Bogota Colombia

56 B.=E. Bus

Civis –BRT Vehicle

B.=F. Bus

Bombardier – Concept BRT Vehicle

58 A.=G. Tram

Bordeaux Tram – Ground Power

D.=H. Other

Japanese rail firm JR Hokkaido dual-mode bus and rail vehicle

60 A.=I. Train

US Railbus Leyland body on a chassis assembled by D. Wickham & Co for the US Federal Railroad Administration

B.=J. Bus

The trolleybus (variously known as ‘trolley-coach’, ‘tbus’, ‘electroliner’, ‘street car’, or ‘trackless tram’)