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

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
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 »

boronia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:51 am

Seems people are opposed to change, rather than the actual changes.
They get hysterical whenever proposed changes are afoot without thinking about the benefits.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
mubd
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:42 am

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

Post by mubd »

boronia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:05 am
mubd wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:29 pm
The 392 (which I have an interest in, because it's my main city bus service) is half baked and the way it's set up really makes the interchange unpleasant. I've ridden the bus to the city a few times on the way to work over the past two weeks, and I definitely wanted to try the light rail...but the lack of interchange has put me off every single time. Interchanging at Kingsford is obviously very unpleasant with the minimum three crossings to get to the light rail stop. The best interchange at the moment is at ES Marks or Kensington (ES Marks is the best IMO, easy to cross two narrow lanes and the track), but the new network has the 392 turning at Todman Ave, meaning you have to wait at two crossings to interchange.
The UNSW stop seems a convenient interchange?
More so than Kingsford, but why settle for that when there's a massive purpose-built cross platform interchange which is easily accessible via a minor diversion?
Eastgardens to Kingsford is a 1-2 section fare.
buzzkill
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:44 am

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

Post by buzzkill »

J_Busworth wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:36 am
buzzkill wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:59 pm
Exactly. They used taxpayer funds to send the material. The least they could do is to link to the actual information on the cuts, incl. network map and route changes, to inform the taxpayers.

The plan seems to have a few positives, like more express buses, some useful new high frequency routes like 350 or 390x, and increases in frequency for many routes like 370 or 392. These would surely benefit many local residents, yet the MP who is paid to represent them has chosen to hide this from them.

It's a shame, in my opinion.
The effort to actually provide proper information has been quite poor. The 350/390X combination will deliver two really effective high frequency cross regional services and I don’t think the concept has been sold well enough.

As noted in the article, Taylor Square access is a sticking point. For those coming from Randwick Light Rail the easiest option is a 370 is Kensington and then changing for the 396, whilst for those in Coogee the easiest option is a 350 to Bondi Junction and then a 333. Both option whilst on paper not particularly slower than the current set up, are unattractive due to the interchange required.

The other big issue that I’ve noticed people in my area talking about is how the new network disincentivises people from Coogee from connecting with the Light Rail in Randwick. In addition to the poor interchange in Randwick. service out of Coogee to Randwick Junction appears to have quite a significant frequency cut from pre light rail. Currently off peak along the Carr Street corridor there are 12 buses an hour, that was 16 prior to the M50 being cut. Under the new proposal, it appears there will only be 6 buses an hour. Regardless of whether or not 6 buses an hour actually reflects the demand on the corridor, the service cut will make the overall proposition of using public transport less attractive.

I’d say a route from Randwick to Taylor Square of some description is now shaping up to be the mostly likely outcome of the feedback. Something like a 374 via Taylor Square to Circular Quay and retaining the 372 from Coogee to Railway Square via Cleveland Street would go a way to addressing all those concerns
From Coogee to Randwick Junction there will be both 348 and 370. It looks like at least 8 buses/hr. between them, so roughly every 7 mins. It looks not too bad to me for off-peak frequency but may be increased a bit perhaps.
User avatar
J_Busworth
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:56 am
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113TRB Ansair Orana
Location: On the X74, because it's faster than the tram
Contact:

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

Post by J_Busworth »

Last day today to give feedback on the proposed network. It will be interesting to see what comes of the feedback period, particularly given the success in getting changes in Balgowlah off the back of community consultation.
https://transportnswblog.com
RIP STA L113s 28/01/93 - 12/01/22
In Transit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 am

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

Post by In Transit »

Be careful what you wish for - North Balgowlah was largely driven by a group of local residents who wanted FEWER services…
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 »

Even if it helps the value of their precious properties?
What weak ignorant people.
NSW, the state that embraces mediocrity.
Stu
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Stu »

stupid_girl wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:43 pm If Transit Systems loses 305,308,320,348,389,440, then they may allocate additional resources to inner west.
Even though routes 305, 308 and 348 operate into the South Eastern area of region 9, I think that they will remain as Region 6.

If the current route 348 timetable remains similar after the Region 9 proposed changes, such as trips starting or ending at Tempe Depot, I couldn't envision a Region 9 bus terminating a timetabled 348 service outside of Region 6 Tempe Depot.
Dead running for the 348 in Region 6 is only minor, could Region 9 also keep the dead running to a minimum? This depends on how the shifts are built. The 348 also has driver relief in both directions outside of Tempe Depot, this reduces the amount of buses required to operate the trips.

The route 440 also has driver relief near Leichhardt Depot and no dead running between Leichhardt Depot and Bondi Jct. Region 9 could replicate this by having driver relief outside of Waverley Depot as has been done before when 440 was split between Region 6 and Region 9. The only issue is possibly the last 2 x trips from Bondi Jct. would create dead running from Rozelle back to Region 9 although this could be mitigated if those buses could dead run to another terminus such as Railway Square. The numerous short working trips would create more dead running.
HHH
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:45 pm

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

Post by HHH »

I think Region 6 could pick up some routes from Region 9, the 420 & 418 are proposed to be shortened in length which frees up room and also depends on how many Region 9 routes are high frequency. Tempe Depot is close to Redfern, Mascot & Rosebery which is Region 9 territory. I wouldn't be surprised if the 320 could stay in Region 6.

TfNSW seen to love creating loop services in recent years so more will most likely be introduced to deal with potential bus parking issues.
User avatar
J_Busworth
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:56 am
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113TRB Ansair Orana
Location: On the X74, because it's faster than the tram
Contact:

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

Post by J_Busworth »

I have no doubt that the existing TSA R6 routes that travel into notionally R9 territory will remain with TSA. That routes travel in both regions and the lack of a clear defined border between the two regions reflects the largely integrated operation that occured when STA operated in both areas.

Loss of service kilometers on the 418 and 420 will somewhat be made up by the proposed new route 469 between Sydney Uni and Leichhardt replacing the western half of the 370. Route 303 could potentially go across to TSA. Currently there is little dead running to Sans Souci as the trips are formed off 301s and 302s at Redfern or terminate in Mascot but with the new terminus in Randwick, special running from Tempe to Sans Souci could be a viable option.
https://transportnswblog.com
RIP STA L113s 28/01/93 - 12/01/22
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

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

Post by Linto63 »

Perhaps rather than gazing into a crystal ball speculating on what could happen, maybe we should stick to what is likely to happen based on a bit more solid than just gut feel? Some of these changes may happen, but we should try and avoid this developing into a fantasy network thread. There is a a place for that.
HHH
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:45 pm

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

Post by HHH »

I would expect to see at least some trips of the 420 extended to Mascot Station. There are always plenty of people who travel between Domestic Airport and Mascot Stn (1 x stop), just having the 350 (ex 400) only operate between these stops is a step backwards. I have heard of many complaints, hopefully people gave feedback to the TfNSW 'have your say' website.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
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 »

The 420 is only a recent innovation, previously there was only the 400 every 20 minutes, so it seems it will just revert to that. At best the 420 should terminate at Domestic Terminal.

Perhaps having two services to Mascot are seen as being too "competitive" to the train?
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
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 »

boronia wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:39 pm Perhaps having two services to Mascot are seen as being too "competitive" to the train?
Good. The Airport Stations tax is a joke. From what I’m aware of, they’ve already made back their money on the investment and were earning (pre-covid) close to $50million from the charge/year.
ed24
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:04 am

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

Post by ed24 »

Rather than incentivising one mode over the other, how about applying a smaller surcharge but to both buses and trains calling at the airport - then a more extensive bus network could serve the airport without needing to worry about competing with the train.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

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

Post by moa999 »


Cazza wrote: From what I’m aware of, they’ve already made back their money on the investment and were earning (pre-covid) close to $50million from the charge/year.
Who's 'they'??

The original equity owners of the Airport station who built it relatively cheap with narrow curved platforms with surcharges at all stations and lots of debt - went broke.

The current owners have a complex agreement with the state government where a higher airport fee is setoff against Mascot and Green Square which are now free (and have grown demand significantly with new development)
In Transit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 am

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

Post by In Transit »

HHH wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:12 pm I would expect to see at least some trips of the 420 extended to Mascot Station. There are always plenty of people who travel between Domestic Airport and Mascot Stn (1 x stop), just having the 350 (ex 400) only operate between these stops is a step backwards. I have heard of many complaints, hopefully people gave feedback to the TfNSW 'have your say' website.
This is the classic politician's playbook, where quality of service is determined by simplistic factors like how many routes go from A to B, instead of what actual level of service is provided. You could argue that has been TfNSW's approach for years too, as also demonstrated by the "XX hundred/thousand/million/gazilllion extra services a week" mantra that has been so common. Based on this logic, if I split a route in two and thus double the number of trips, I've achieved a massive improvement in services.

The new 350, in replacing the 400 and 420, is described by TfNSW as one of their new frequent routes (at least every 10 minutes during the day and at least 20 minutes during the evening, 7 days a week). So its not just as simple as the 420 getting removed, and all you have left is the old 400 service - in return you get a service which has the same or very nearly the same number of buses per hour as the old combined 400 and 420 service, with the likelihood that the maximum waiting time between services is either the same or even better.

For example, during the day on weekdays you currently have a 400 every 20 minutes, and a 420 every 15 minutes. That's 7 buses an hour. We know the new 350 will have at least 6 buses an hour, so you could argue that is a reduction in service. However - when you are relying on two routes with different frequencies, then you end up with bigger gaps than the number of trips might suggest.

Current departures eastbound from Domestic Terminal showing frequency between 1200 and 1300 on weekdays:
400 - 1153, 1213, 1233, 1253, 1313
420 - 1149, 1204, 1219, 1234, 1249, 1304

You can see that the services across hour are spaced every 11, 9, 6, 14, 1, 15 and 4 minutes. This compares to the 350 which we can expect will be gaps of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and 10 minutes.

So despite having 1 trip an hour more than the 350, the 400+420 gives three periods every hour where the gap between services is actually worse (11, 14 and 15 minutes) than the 350 will give (10 minutes). A backwards step? Hardly seems it to me.

On weekends the 400 and 420 both operate every 20 minutes during the day, allowing them to be timed at 10 minute intervals on the shared section - so the 350 will provide exactly the same level of service. However, with only one route its easier to manage disruptions, and whilst the 400 can be expected to have departed International on time, being the start of the trip, the 420 has come all the way from Burwood, with all the likelihood that it may not be running to time... so in this case I'd expect one route at a 10 minute headway to be more reliable in practice than two different routes converging to provide a 10 minute headway.

Another advantage of one frequent route over two infrequency routes is that an operator can manage disruptions using headway management on the single frequent route - this isn't an option with two infrequent routes, as their low frequency on their unique sections means you have to remain as close to timetable as possible.

Finally, one frequent route is easier to adjust in the future (whether it be to improve frequency, increase capacity or adjust running times) than two different routes which you are trying to keep coordinated (the 400 and 420 being a good example, where the original 20 minute frequency on both was "improved" when the 420 only was increased to a 15 minute weekday daytime frequency, leading to the increased gaps between services explained above).

It's clear that these service changes in Regions 8 and 8 and 9 are heading down a path of consolidating services on busy corridors to have fewer routes, but providing high, and importantly even, headways. This isn't revolutionary - it's regarded as good planning practice worldwide.

However, it is wide open to simplistic, often political but sometimes well meaning, attacks based on such easy to explain concepts as 2 routes good, 1 route bad... even though the facts are inconveniently different.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
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 »

Is it guaranteed that every 350 daytime service will operate to/from the airport?
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
swtt
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:49 pm

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

Post by swtt »

boronia wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:38 am Is it guaranteed that every 350 daytime service will operate to/from the airport?
Judging by the wording, it seemed so - no more Eastgardens short running.
stupid_girl
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:25 pm

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

Post by stupid_girl »

boronia wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:38 am Is it guaranteed that every 350 daytime service will operate to/from the airport?
Yes.
It is solid line instead of dotted line.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
Posts: 23803
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: The Shire

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

Post by Fleet Lists »

But keep in mind that this is all subject to change.
Living in the Shire.
In Transit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 am

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

Post by In Transit »

Quite possibly. But in the meantime it’s worthwhile dissecting the plan that’s been published, and discussing opinions… including any questions or misconceptions.
User avatar
swtt
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:49 pm

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

Post by swtt »

Was it just me, or were those PDF fact sheets for the various suburbs not easily visible when the consultation was happening?

Image
User avatar
J_Busworth
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:56 am
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113TRB Ansair Orana
Location: On the X74, because it's faster than the tram
Contact:

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

Post by J_Busworth »

swtt wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 4:39 pm Was it just me, or were those PDF fact sheets for the various suburbs not easily visible when the consultation was happening?

Image
The PDF fact sheets were definitely not there when I first looked at the changes, but they were there by the last day of the consultation period when I Wayback Archived the site and downloaded all the PDFs
https://transportnswblog.com
RIP STA L113s 28/01/93 - 12/01/22
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
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 »

Those fact sheets were changed within a couple of weeks of the first release.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Qantas94Heavy
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:16 pm

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

Post by Qantas94Heavy »

City of Sydney meeting papers have revealed a minor change to the proposed 304 route: https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.a ... sebery.pdf
TfNSW proposes to modify route 304 which operates between Rosebery and Circular Quay.
The route will no longer operate to Kimberley Grove via Rosebery Avenue but instead will
travel to Rothschild Avenue at Turruwul Park. Additionally, the bus route will no longer
operate along O'Dea Avenue and Bourke Street, but instead use Gadigal Avenue through to
Potter Street, Waterloo.
And in another note:
TfNSW is introducing articulated buses on route 343, therefore, they propose to extend the
length of the existing bus zones along Elizabeth Street and Dunning Avenue.
Route 304 will now terminate at Turruwul Park. Haven't been there since lockdown but suspect Zetland Ave won't be ready in time. The previous plan was for route 320 to terminate there, so it might continue running to Mascot shops instead.

Also, Bayside Council meeting papers seem to show route 420 operating from Burwood to Mascot Station instead of terminating at Domestic Airport: https://infoweb.bayside.nsw.gov.au/Open ... 481_AT.PDF
With the intention to improve public transport connectivity and overall transport integration,
TfNSW in collaboration with Transit Systems and State Transit Authority (STA) respectively
are proposing the following changes to the existing bus zones:

Coward Street near Mascot Station (request by Transit Systems):
  1. Coward Street Eastbound – Mascot Station Stand A – Extend the current ‘Bus Zone’ by
    24m to cater for the 306 terminus Redfern to Mascot via Eastlakes, Rosebery & Green
    Square; and
  2. Coward Street Westbound – Mascot Station Stand B – Extend the current ‘Bus Zone’
    by 24m to cater for 420 terminus Burwood to Mascot via Airport & Rockdale.
I'm guessing that they'll only send every second 350 bus to the airport. Probably with reduced airport travel they've decided it's not worth it to run more buses to the airport.
Last edited by Qantas94Heavy on Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”