New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by tonyp »

I haven't checked Millers Point for a long time but I'm surprised to see that George St North and Dawes Point are totally stripped of a bus service and Argyle Place is only served by the 311 which heads west to Hickson Rd. Prior to this, Millers Point via Dawes Point has been served since 1901 (tram).

There has been a progressive gutting out of the old grid of street public transport from the northern CBD - apart from The Rocks and Millers Point, Pitt St has long gone and now Castlereagh is gone north of Martin Place. Getting from the SE to the city via Taylor Sq will become a slender thread and the originally promised connection from the SE to Edgecliff hasn't materialised. I thought it was a poor oversight at the time not having a bus stop alongside the Moore Park light rail stop to increase the opportunity for interchange. Now I think that has become very problematic for commuters.

I imagine the 440 will need to be an artic route as it will carry Oxford St alone along with the 333 (all-door boarding anyone?). I would imagine that under this new network, there'd now definitely be plenty of justification for a tram along the Oxford St/Bondi Rd corridor.
Geo101
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Geo101 »

Getting from Botany to the Inner West (and back) is certainly a decision-making conundrum.

In the off-peak, the frequency of the 307/418 option via Mascot is tempting if the stars align, but during peak hours, it's common to miss the connection at Mascot due to delays on the 418. So better to get the bus to Redfern, train to Inner West, then bus for the final leg (and vice-versa).

In the morning, another problem, I can't get from Inner West to Botany using the two bus services for a 7am start...

So, it's generally a train to Redfern, and hope a seat is available on the 309 at Redfern, which is a couple of minutes' walk from the station.

I suppose it's a catch twenty-two for the transport planners, if the connection isn't consistent, and if the numbers subsequentially aren't there, the frequency won't be provisioned?
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Linto63 »

tonyp wrote: I haven't checked Millers Point for a long time but I'm surprised to see that George St North and Dawes Point are totally stripped of a bus service
George Street North is now southbound only with outdoor seating having taken over the northbound lane as it has done on part of Argyle Street.
tonyp wrote: ...with the 333 (all-door boarding anyone?).
Zzzzz
tonyp wrote: I would imagine that under this new network, there'd now definitely be plenty of justification for a tram along the Oxford St/Bondi Rd corridor.
Wishful thinking
Geo101
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Geo101 »

tonyp wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 10:12 pm
The outstanding matters are still getting the light rail journey time under 30 minutes and setting up a decent proximity interchange at Randwick. The present arrangement is terrible.
Rather than just quote examples from the 1950's, and taking into account safety and traffic, what realistically do you think the run-time for the CSELR could get down to?
Jurassic_Joke
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:08 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Jurassic_Joke »

tonyp wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 3:35 pm I haven't checked Millers Point for a long time but I'm surprised to see that George St North and Dawes Point are totally stripped of a bus service and Argyle Place is only served by the 311 which heads west to Hickson Rd. Prior to this, Millers Point via Dawes Point has been served since 1901 (tram).

There has been a progressive gutting out of the old grid of street public transport from the northern CBD - apart from The Rocks and Millers Point, Pitt St has long gone and now Castlereagh is gone north of Martin Place. Getting from the SE to the city via Taylor Sq will become a slender thread and the originally promised connection from the SE to Edgecliff hasn't materialised. I thought it was a poor oversight at the time not having a bus stop alongside the Moore Park light rail stop to increase the opportunity for interchange. Now I think that has become very problematic for commuters.

I imagine the 440 will need to be an artic route as it will carry Oxford St alone along with the 333 (all-door boarding anyone?). I would imagine that under this new network, there'd now definitely be plenty of justification for a tram along the Oxford St/Bondi Rd corridor.
Ohh I forgot, as someone else just mentioned, part of George St North is indeed outdoor seating, that would for now rule out the return of buses here.

As for the 440 - there already are artics running on it today. They’re however used only on the weekday morning and arvo peak hour short workings between Haymarket LR and Leichhardt, I suspect Transit Systems here is just lazily replicating the discontinued M10 model
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by boronia »

Alternatives to get to Millers Point:
*1: 431-3 use Harrington St-Argyle St instead of George St Nth. Maybe the loop along Lower Fort St as they did when the markets are working.
*2: Extend 324-5 up Pottinger-Windmill Sts
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by tonyp »

boronia wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 4:45 pm Alternatives to get to Millers Point:
*1: 431-3 use Harrington St-Argyle St instead of George St Nth. Maybe the loop along Lower Fort St as they did when the markets are working.
*2: Extend 324-5 up Pottinger-Windmill Sts
Yes I was thinking of options like that.
temer1ty
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 5:00 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by temer1ty »

Why have they not renumbered the L24 to 324X?? It will be the only STA route that doesn't conform to the new 3 digit numbering rule (except for the B1 I guess).
I mean, it probably doesn't even need to exist, it doesn't skip that many stops, only runs twice in the AM peak, and the passenger load was pretty light the few times I have used it...
Also, what happened to the government promise of the return of route 378?
Last edited by temer1ty on Fri May 07, 2021 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by tonyp »

Geo101 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 4:28 pm
Rather than just quote examples from the 1950's, and taking into account safety and traffic, what realistically do you think the run-time for the CSELR could get down to?
Comparisons with the second generation Sydney tram system are historically interesting but the operating environment is of course almost completely different. Nevertheless, the actual performance of the trams was closely identical to that of most traditional systems in Central Europe today - that is, quite quick, so it's more than an academic comparison. It's about the whole science of operating a tram system, a science that neither TfNSW nor Trandev have quite mastered. A significant part of today's issue with CSELR and IWLR is simply operational performance, once traffic light priority gets sorted.

In terms of comparisons, I'm actually quite fair with the Sydney light rail. I only look at examples in a similar urban and operating environment, generally (but far from always in the case of Europe) with their own exclusive lanes and some sort of traffic light priority (again, far from always in Europe). CSELR and IWLR actually have an operating environment advantage over most systems I'm comparing with. Gold Coast would be the closest Australian example.

The general conclusion that comes out of all these comparisons is that, over 8.5 km (the length of L2 or L3) and with 12-13 intermediate stops,the end to end journey should be no more than 25 minutes (split fairly evenly between CQ to Central and Central to outer terminus. In most discussions, I have usually adopted the position of "under 30 minutes" to give the CSELR a fairly indulgent handicap. There is really no excuse at all for 33, 35, 40 or 50 minutes. The times that have prevailed since the line opened are actually appalling by any competent international standards. (Incidentally, IWLR could also come down to about 32-33 minutes by the same comparative standards.)

So 25 minutes (accounting for wait and transfer time) is about what you need for all those SE commuters to not feel aggrieved about journey time under an interchange regime. 30 minutes is really at the level of bare tolerance.

Now for the bad news. The operation is so hopelessly micromanaged that they don't really have much hope of attaining this goal. Nothing to do with safety either, otherwise Gold Coast, Canberra operations wouldn't be possible as they are. However, getting down to 30 minutes is achievable even given the constraints.
Qantas94Heavy
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Qantas94Heavy »

A small but interesting change is switching over the SE express buses to Castlereagh St. Could this mean they'll end up swapping most of the inner west buses on to Elizabeth St?
Geo101
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:55 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Geo101 »

tonyp wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 5:10 pm
Geo101 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 4:28 pm
Rather than just quote examples from the 1950's, and taking into account safety and traffic, what realistically do you think the run-time for the CSELR could get down to?
A significant part of today's issue with CSELR and IWLR is simply operational performance, once traffic light priority gets sorted.

In terms of comparisons, I'm actually quite fair with the Sydney light rail. I only look at examples in a similar urban and operating environment, generally (but far from always in the case of Europe) with their own exclusive lanes and some sort of traffic light priority (again, far from always in Europe). CSELR and IWLR actually have an operating environment advantage over most systems I'm comparing with. Gold Coast would be the closest Australian example.
What about comparison with the 96 & 109 in Melbourne? (Leaving out the IWLR for this post)

If we disregard the city sections, what about the performance of Randwick & Kingsford to Central v's Port Melbourne & St Kilda to Casino (Southbank)

Just reading off the timetables on a weekday:

109 Pt Melb 17:02 to Casino 17:12 ~ 10 minutes (2.7 km)
96 St Kilda 17:05 to Casino 17:21 ~ 16 minutes (3.6 km)
L2 Randwick 18:37 to Central 18:54 ~ 17 minutes (5.4 km)
L3 Kingsford 18:32 to Central 18:50 ~ 18 minutes (5.6 km)

Obviously different distances and amount of traffic lights. etc, but surely both are reasonably comparable as in a mixture of LR and street running?
User avatar
swtt
Posts: 5666
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by swtt »

Looking at the new network map and frequent routes, it looks like whilst ANZAC Parade has "lost" a large number of buses (6 per hour in the off peak) from Kingsford to City, plus all of Route 393/372/373, a lot of these will have been redeployed to other new frequent routes.

I think at the end of the day, the same number (or more) buses/drivers will still be required.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by tonyp »

Geo101 wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:31 pm
What about comparison with the 96 & 109 in Melbourne? (Leaving out the IWLR for this post)

If we disregard the city sections, what about the performance of Randwick & Kingsford to Central v's Port Melbourne & St Kilda to Casino (Southbank)

Just reading off the timetables on a weekday:

109 Pt Melb 17:02 to Casino 17:12 ~ 10 minutes (2.7 km)
96 St Kilda 17:05 to Casino 17:21 ~ 16 minutes (3.6 km)
L2 Randwick 18:37 to Central 18:54 ~ 17 minutes (5.4 km)
L3 Kingsford 18:32 to Central 18:50 ~ 18 minutes (5.6 km)

Obviously different distances and amount of traffic lights. etc, but surely both are reasonably comparable as in a mixture of LR and street running?
I don't usually compare with Melbourne because it's a notoriously slow system too, plus it is an optional stopping system which makes performance comparison difficult. However, Casino to St Kilda Station (Fitzroy St) is 4.8 km and takes 14 minutes in both directions, that's an average speed of 20.5 km/h. There are 7 intermediate stops, but non-compulsory. Casino to Beacon Cove is 2.9 km and takes 9 minutes in one direction and 10 minutes in the other, that's an average speed of 19.3 km/h or 17.4 km/h. There are 5 intermediate non-compulsory stops

Central to Randwick is 5.5 km and takes 17 minutes one direction and 19 minutes the other direction (quite an odd "achievement" for the same distance on the same track!), that's an average speed of 19.4 km/h or 17.3 km/h. There are 5 intermediate compulsory stops. Central to Kingsford is 5.5 km and takes 18 minutes in one direction and 19 in the other, that's an average speed of 18.3 km/h or 17.3 km/h. There are 6 intermediate compulsory stops.
Nugget
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Nugget »

A lot of the complaints and comparisons that I hear, and this goes for a lot of the public transport in Sydney, is centered around the traditional notion of a single seat journey. The system has to be able to adopt a system that allows for transfers and encourages them rather than in essence duplicating routes at choke points because everyone expects a single seat journey.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by tonyp »

Nugget wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:54 am A lot of the complaints and comparisons that I hear, and this goes for a lot of the public transport in Sydney, is centered around the traditional notion of a single seat journey. The system has to be able to adopt a system that allows for transfers and encourages them rather than in essence duplicating routes at choke points because everyone expects a single seat journey.
Australian cities have luxuriated in single seat journeys for too long. The larger cities are now too large to sustain this.
Merc1107
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:38 pm
Favourite Vehicle: MAN 18.310, MB O405NH, L94
Location: A Coastal City

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Merc1107 »

In smaller cities it is appropriate in some contexts, particularly where transferring increases journey time either through the transfer, or to a slower mode. If the public transport option is already uncompetitive with car travel times, and cost is equivalent to a car, you don't want to be frightening would-be passengers away.

Somewhere as big as Sydney though, you wouldn't expect a light rail to be slower than a conga-line of buses such that the latter remains a preferable option!
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by boronia »

In real terms, the LR is not "slower than a conga line of buses". The times along George St are probably similar to previous equivalent bus trips along the same section. Comparing time tables is odious, because buses rarely kept up with indicated times.

People seem to be comparing end to end times. Again, not fair because the tram takes a longer route to get to CQ. As probably more people now travel to points west of George St to east of it, the save in walking time to/from Elizabeth St could balance the extra tram time.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Swift »

Good point on the tram giving access to George St from the east. George St is the true heart of town and it was a nuisance having to walk from Lizzy St to anywhere (especially with the cut in bus stops), which is really one edge of the CBD. George St is nice and central.
I don't miss the grotesque traffic sewer of the George St of old either.
Last edited by Swift on Mon May 10, 2021 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Linto63 »

Doesn't matter how you slice and dice the numbers, to date the light rail has not delivered an overall improvement to the Sydney transport network, and in some cases has made things worse.
grog
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 am
Location: Sydney

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by grog »

That is quite an assertion.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Swift »

Linto63 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:42 pm Doesn't matter how you slice and dice the numbers, to date the light rail has not delivered an overall improvement to the Sydney transport network, and in some cases has made things worse.
Even if it has, was it worth the inconvenience and cost?
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
User avatar
swtt
Posts: 5666
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by swtt »

Swift wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:18 pm
Linto63 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:42 pm Doesn't matter how you slice and dice the numbers, to date the light rail has not delivered an overall improvement to the Sydney transport network, and in some cases has made things worse.
Even if it has, was it worth the inconvenience and cost?
Yes.
User avatar
Swift
Posts: 13247
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:23 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Swift »

Appreciate the monosyllabic response. Short and sweet. Good on you.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Linto63 »

Swift wrote: Even if it has, was it worth the inconvenience and cost?
Not really, only the hardest of tram advocates think it had been successful, most people consider it a bit of a dud.
Cazza
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:26 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New bus network arising from CSELR (L2/L3) opening

Post by Cazza »

Probably because the surrounding bus network competes with it, not compliments it and there is still a lot of room for improvement regarding traffic light priority and increasing speeds in some sections. The thing I still find ridiculous is that (for example) along the Moore Park busway or High St, the B-light will be green (or white for Mr Technical out there) but the T-light will still be red for some time, making the tram slow (sometimes nearly to a complete stop) before it changing to "green". I noticed this in Tressteleg's latest tram cab ride (https://youtu.be/ma8P5HexczA) as well as the painfully slow speeds in some sections, especially across South Dowling St and George St (the constant slowing for red T-lights doesn't really help either).

The L2/3 lines still have untapped potential, as is a massive improvement in capacity from bus services (especially between UNSW and Central). It's up to whether the government realises this and makes move towards it becoming a much quicker, easier and seamless trunk route and connector to/from the south east.

The Gold Coast is a great example that can be looked towards regarding tram priority, so much so that they can reliably turn trams around in 5 mins or less at Broadbeach South's single track terminus for 12 odd hours a day.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”