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 Kms perHead of 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 Port Phillip Bay 20km 20km 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.