Adelaide Bus Network Simplification Ideas

[TT]

The 300 does run on weekends and public holidays. Some other suburban connectors also run on weekends, like 361 and part of 600, or at least Saturdays like 100.

[jibb]

In the "Invitation to Tender for Adelaide's Bus Services" on the SA Governments Tender website some time ago, where the Government is seeking expressions of interest to operate our bus services, it stated that new operator/s would be expected to scrap underperforming routes, deliver better services for less money and adapt to new emerging transport options.
The Government will expect them to grow patronage, and enable simplification of the Adelaide Metropolitan Bus Network.
Improved integration of bus services with other Public Transport Modes, more frequent and faster services and less underutilized services. I suspect the network as we know it today will change rapidly over the next 4-5 years, and expect to see "on demand" services such as those introduced in Sydney by Bridj.

[howlerbus]

The 300 100 etc needs to run more often and there needs to be more of these routes, this has worked well in Melbourne with the Smartbus orbital routes which are very well used.

[Route 506]

Another thing i think we need to get rid of is the alphabet soup of the numbering system. There are so many H's, C's W's, M's, G's, etc i no longer really know what bus goes where anymore.

+1 - Absolutely agree. Sooner the better, it wouldn't be that hard to change

[jibb]

Looking at the Government's plan for SAPTA and the Bus Network-it states;-
" Establish a set of Public Transport planning guidelines for a simpler, more understandable bus network that is fully integrated with tram and train services.
Establish a Bus, Tram and Train network with frequent, regular and tailored routes to simplify and enhance the Go-Zone concept"

[Crispy!]

Another thing i think we need to get rid of is the alphabet soup of the numbering system.
There are so many H's, C's W's, M's, G's, etc i no longer r/eally know what bus goes where anymore.

It would clearly make more sense if the 300 Anti Clockwise was 300A
and Clockwise 300C, we need to get rid of these short workings and make new cross surbuban routes perhaps for peak and nights.
don't need these 300, C (Urrbrae?) Currbrae? 300G (Glenelg). 300H Glen Osmond ("Hlen Osmond)? 300J (Klemzig) Jlemzing? 300M (Marion) 300U (Flinders Uni)

[bigrobbo]

While we have a State Government that clearly wants to save money on Public Transport, and a public that just wants to get one bus from their home to the city (and rely on their cars), we will sadly not get these changes.

My biggest fear is that we will have night and weekend route amalgamations like we did in the 1990s (the 248, W90, 503 and 443 are examples of these amalgamations still running today).

Or, worse still, our night and Sunday services are cut right back.

I am not being political, just telling it as it is. Labor spend more money on public transport, Liberal find ways to cut waste without consulting actual regular public transport users.

[Merc1107]

... a public that just wants to get one bus from their home to the city (and rely on their cars), we will sadly not get these changes.

With a population like Adelaide's (in the usual Australian form - spread out over a considerable distance), there probably aren't enough public transport users to run a network where frequencies are good enough for reliable interchanging between buses or cross-town travel, except where buses are timetabled to connect to and from specific services. Even in Perth, frequent, direct, cross-suburban routes are really only possible in areas relatively close to the city. An East-West rail link is only just about to commence construction...

Another thing i think we need to get rid of is the alphabet soup of the numbering system. There are so many H's, C's W's, M's, G's, etc i no longer really know what bus goes where anymore.

Speaking as an outsider, it can be tricky enough to figure out what goes where without the alphabet-soup. Are lots of these minor deviations that could be noted in a timetable instead?

[Eurostar]

All M44s to Golden Grove should go via Surrey Farm Drive, The Grove Way, The Golden Way and vice versa to City or council/dpti install traffic lights at The Golden Way/Surrey Farm Drive intersection

[Route 506]

... a public that just wants to get one bus from their home to the city (and rely on their cars), we will sadly not get these changes.

With a population like Adelaide's (in the usual Australian form - spread out over a considerable distance), there probably aren't enough public transport users to run a network where frequencies are good enough for reliable interchanging between buses or cross-town travel, except where buses are timetabled to connect to and from specific services. Even in Perth, frequent, direct, cross-suburban routes are really only possible in areas relatively close to the city. An East-West rail link is only just about to commence construction...

Another thing i think we need to get rid of is the alphabet soup of the numbering system. There are so many H's, C's W's, M's, G's, etc i no longer really know what bus goes where anymore.

Speaking as an outsider, it can be tricky enough to figure out what goes where without the alphabet-soup. Are lots of these minor deviations that could be noted in a timetable instead?

Probably one simple thing to start this elimination process is getting rid of completely unnecessary letter routes such as H20C (East side), H21, H30C (East Side), H33C (East side) as none of these services travel via Henley Beach Road, G10C (North side) is another as it doesn't travel via Goodwood Road. I'm sure there are more, but this would surely be the first simple steps to change.

While we have a State Government that clearly wants to save money on Public Transport, and a public that just wants to get one bus from their home to the city (and rely on their cars), we will sadly not get these changes.

My biggest fear is that we will have night and weekend route amalgamations like we did in the 1990s (the 248, W90, 503 and 443 are examples of these amalgamations still running today).

Or, worse still, our night and Sunday services are cut right back.

I am not being political, just telling it as it is. Labor spend more money on public transport, Liberal find ways to cut waste without consulting actual regular public transport users.

Yes I remember these Sunday and Night Loops - another one the 509 which was an amalgamation of the then 507 and 508, before the 503 came in to replace the 505 and 508. 140 covering the 141 and 142, and the list goes on. Let's hope we don't return to those dark days, but with this Government I think anything could be possible, except productive progress....

[odie8888]

reinstate the J3 operating using the 541 bus route path to and from the airport on weekends.542's that sometimes form the basis of the 541 become feeders that can use buses from newton or mile end or wherever a torrens transit depot is.

[TA3001]

The J1 and J2 services currently overlap anyway, and still run hourly at night. The J3 is just a hybrid of the other two, so why waste dosh to have another artic picking up two passengers at the most?

The patronage between Harbortown and Glenelg is not nearly enough to justify having a higher night frequency than say North East Rd.

[odie8888]

how about a 545 through to salisbury from golden grove village using the existing 415v path and have the services exist like they do as through runs between 2:35pm all expresses except for the final two on weekdays and then a full service city-golden grove,not everyone drives who lives in the north.i started thinking of the pedare and kings baptist grammar school students in all of this.it would make life a lot easier on the parents not having to do the pick up and drop off's for the kids old enough to get a bus on their own.

[Bus-1809]

The key is to use Route Kilometres wisely. That being, high frequency services where they are needed and less frequent services where patronage doesn't justify a Go Zone. On saying that, Go Zones need to be abolished in favour of high frequency routes, not just sections of routes.

Efficient connections need to be made between Buses and Trains, as well as Feeder Buses with O-Bahn buses and other Mainline services at bus interchanges etc... For those who don't understand connections, it is essentially where a bus is timetabled to arrive at a station, 5 minutes prior to the departure of a train or Mainline Bus Service, allowing passengers a smooth flowing journey accross multiple routes. Connection information is also reflected in timetables, and where it's bus to bus, if the bus completing the feeder service becomes the mainline service, that information is also shown on the bus destination display.

Keeping the Adelaide Connector, or 99C or whatever the free inner city bus is called these days, is a good idea, however a re-branding and dedicated buses for the service with a special livery. These can be things like 1901 and other demonstrators, or even a couple of 12xx L94's or something... God forbid, even a couple of NL202's like the old days.

If the 300 can be realigned to serve more shopping centres, universities, train stations, bus interchanges or other useful things, then by all means adjust it to do so. Short workings on these runs are ok, during peak hours and towards the end of the night, where it's close to get a bus back to it's depot or the like.

Drop the multiple short workings on suburban services, as they are an inconvenience, especially where a route has multiple short workings. There are some where it works ok, but not all routes.

Drop the alphanumerical numbering (again, short workings). Short workings where applicable can have the same route number as the full service, however this information can be relayed via the destination panel/supp boards, if they are still used in SA.

Run K320's and K360's after hours and on weekends where route patronage justifies it. Better to have a half full linc in my opinion, than a rigid with a crush load.

Plenty of other things that can be done, where needed too.

[PhilH]

Reviving this thread in view of the failure of the latest proposals. I've been thinking about some of the routes I know, and some small-ish changes that can be made to them. Firstly, dealing with routes around (or fairly close to) my old stomping grounds in Valley View - 271, 273, 361, 503, 507.

Retain as is - 271, 503
CANCEL - 273 and 507 (both covered by 271 to different degrees, and by various O-bahn routes on Sudholz Road).
Divert - 361 from Nelson Road/Helen Terrace/Flockhart Avenue/Wright Road, extend along Grand Junction Road then up North East Road, Reservor Road, Smart Road to TTP, taking over the top end of the 507 (the old 360 route).

Current 507 passengers north of Grand Junction Road have a few options for getting buses to the city, depending on where they are on NE Road and nearby streets, and which side of the road they are - some would have a short walk to the 503, some could walk to the 271, some could get the 361 and get off at the stop just before Wandana Avenue and walk around the corner (and uphill!) for the 506, and some might take the 361 in the other direction to TTP and get one of the myriad city-bound O-bahn buses.

Valley View residents who would lose their direct route to Port Adelaide and the western end of the 361 could get the 503 and then cross Grand Junction Road using either the median strip, or walk to the pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Nelson Road.

At the other end, passengers on NE Road south of Gilles Plains currently using the 273 would have a somewhat awkward change to other services if stops 29 and 30 remain where they are now, unless they could be moved closer to the intersection of NE and Sudholz Roads? The northbound stop 30 could probably be moved south to just in front of Gilles Plains Shopping Centre, but I'm not sure whether a similar move to the southbound stop would put it too close to the slip lane (not being a driver myself, I don't know if that's an issue or not).

Anyway, your thoughts please - I don't expect that this is a perfect solution!

[Route 506]

Reviving this thread in view of the failure of the latest proposals. I've been thinking about some of the routes I know, and some small-ish changes that can be made to them. Firstly, dealing with routes around (or fairly close to) my old stomping grounds in Valley View - 271, 273, 361, 503, 507.

Retain as is - 271, 503
CANCEL - 273 and 507 (both covered by 271 to different degrees, and by various O-bahn routes on Sudholz Road).
Divert - 361 from Nelson Road/Helen Terrace/Flockhart Avenue/Wright Road, extend along Grand Junction Road then up North East Road, Reservor Road, Smart Road to TTP, taking over the top end of the 507 (the old 360 route).

Current 507 passengers north of Grand Junction Road have a few options for getting buses to the city, depending on where they are on NE Road and nearby streets, and which side of the road they are - some would have a short walk to the 503, some could walk to the 271, some could get the 361 and get off at the stop just before Wandana Avenue and walk around the corner (and uphill!) for the 506, and some might take the 361 in the other direction to TTP and get one of the myriad city-bound O-bahn buses.

Valley View residents who would lose their direct route to Port Adelaide and the western end of the 361 could get the 503 and then cross Grand Junction Road using either the median strip, or walk to the pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Nelson Road.

At the other end, passengers on NE Road south of Gilles Plains currently using the 273 would have a somewhat awkward change to other services if stops 29 and 30 remain where they are now, unless they could be moved closer to the intersection of NE and Sudholz Roads? The northbound stop 30 could probably be moved south to just in front of Gilles Plains Shopping Centre, but I'm not sure whether a similar move to the southbound stop would put it too close to the slip lane (not being a driver myself, I don't know if that's an issue or not).

Anyway, your thoughts please - I don't expect that this is a perfect solution!

Some good and practical ideas here PhilH. I would agree with most of this and I would think most 507 passengers would be pretty happy with these options although I would expect North East Road to remain a 30 mins frequency on Nights & Weekends. Only other suggested option which I don’t know if it would be better or not is to bring back something like the old 508 travelling as per the current 503 to Ardtornish then turning right onto Grand Junction Road, left Reservoir Road right into Smart Road. 507 stays as is currently. 271 then turns left at Grand Junction Road and follows current 503 route to TTP. Ideally the 271 will run alternate half hour to the 361 giving the Valley View run to TTP a regular service. If the 273 is scrapped perhaps the other 271 (similar to old 272) can run straight up North East Road same as 507 and will run on alternate half hour to 507 giving NE Road to TTP a 30 min weekend service.
Changes needed - 273, 503 scrapped 361, 507 continue, and modified 271 (one via Valley View, other via NE Road let’s cal it’s 272) and 508 introduced.

As for South of NE Road at Gilles Plains passengers can catch 271 or for Paradise a short walk to Stop 28 or 29D on Sudholz Road for 208, 502 or to Stop 29C for 506,507 services to Paradise. I dare say PhilH’s suggestion would be more viable running wise

[Eurostar]

One I've thought of this morning. Now that Torrens run both 228 and J1 if 228 was to deviate via the Lyell McEwin and times adjusted they'll have a Go Zone beteeen Elizabeth East and Salisbury Heights

[Eagle Eye]

One I've thought of this morning. Now that Torrens run both 228 and J1 if 228 was to deviate via the Lyell McEwin and times adjusted they'll have a Go Zone beteeen Elizabeth East and Salisbury Heights

The J1 doesn’t service all stops so that would have to change for it to be a Go Zone.

[leftyandy76]

Is there any reason why on demand service's shouldn't be part of the mix in certain parts of the metro and/or the hills areas as part of the simplified ideas?

[hillsbus]

One I've thought of this morning. Now that Torrens run both 228 and J1 if 228 was to deviate via the Lyell McEwin and times adjusted they'll have a Go Zone beteeen Elizabeth East and Salisbury Heights

The J1 doesn’t service all stops so that would have to change for it to be a Go Zone.

Also J1 services finish quite early from Elizabeth to Golden Grove - last service is around 6-630pm

[Admet75]

Something tells me that we might see some other changes that will be similar to the ones that were proposed that were canned.

For example we know the Libs hate extending tram and train lines- they are very anti-rail and most probably that the RAA and other Road lobby groups donate a fair chunk of donations to the Liberal Party.

My idea would be to extend some of the short workings such as 178S, H30S to Paradise Interchange which will create a Go-Zone along these corridors. Another solution would be to make sure that while they really desperately wanted to destroy the Aberfoyle Hub services to only feeders why not just make it feeders at the new Flinders Station during the off-peak and direct city services via Flinders Station in the peak hours.

The reality is that this Government wanted to do a sneaky and probably blame the bus contractor for the mess. No consultation was undertaken before the changes only when the changes were announced and it was like they said "this is the changes that are going to happen whether you like it or not"- however, in many of the changes website there was constantly that the final product may be a little different but I am convinced it would have been only different in Liberal held seats and Labor Seats would have suffered the most.

[The Phonj]

The existing H30 between the City and Rostrevor doesn't meet the current Go-Zone criteria at weekend nights, and during the middle of the day on weekdays.

Regardless, the extension of either or both services to meet Go Zone criteria through to Paradise would require a not so insignificant amount of resources; as I don't believe that there is any 'new' money going into public transport, what service(s) would you reduce (and how) to make the improvements that you propose?