New Sydney and Outer Metro bus contracts (as from 2020)

[Linto63]

Unless TfNSW has a maximum number of regions or percentage of regions that one operator control, and this would had to have been made clear to bidders from the outset, legally it has to accept the bid that scores best against the assessment criteria. Often those assessing the bids won't know who is who with the bids redacted with names only attached to bids in the later stages. Although in practice, they may be able to work out who is who from previous bids.

Bids for all regions were lodged before the first was awarded, so likely that the big players are still involved in the remaining ones up for grabs. Bidders could withdraw their other bids if successful in one tender, maybe on the basis that they only wish or the strength of their balance sheet, dictates that they can only expand so much, but wouldn't be a problem for CDC.

Word on tranche 2 is that there will be some consolidation and that one incumbent operator is out of the running.

[J_Busworth]

Certainly more consolidation is on the cards for the remaining contracts. The consolidation of 12 and 14 with CDC was not at all surprising.

In the case of the existing consolidation of Regions 10 and 13, it would not surprise me if there was a split between these regions. A combination of a combined Region 3 and 13 and a combined Region 5 and 10 would make for similar operational efficiencies to the existing 10 and 13 consolidation. In fact, unless TfNSW wanted to consolidate all four of these regions into a singular mega-region, a 3 and 13 plus 5 and 10 combo would likely serve as the most logical outcome.

Regions 2 and 15 is the other logical consolidation opportunity at this stage. I would also argue that Regions 6 and 9 would probably work well as a consolidated region, like they operated as prior to 2018, but that isn't going to be on the cards for some years now.

[Aurora]

I would also argue that Regions 6 and 9 would probably work well as a consolidated region, like they operated as prior to 2018, but that isn't going to be on the cards for some years now.

The difference with Regions 6 and 9 though is the much higher patronage and therefore larger infrastructure footprint and more intense timetables that operate there compared to the others that have much lower patronage on a per region basis.

[Fleet Lists]

In the case of the existing consolidation of Regions 10 and 13, it would not surprise me if there was a split between these regions. A combination of a combined Region 3 and 13 and a combined Region 5 and 10 would make for similar operational efficiencies to the existing 10 and 13 consolidation. In fact, unless TfNSW wanted to consolidate all four of these regions into a singular mega-region, a 3 and 13 plus 5 and 10 combo would likely serve as the most logical outcome.

From a geographic point of view I would agree with the combination of region 3 with 13 and region 5 with 10. However Metrobus routes 91 and 92 would need to be split to achieve this as both operate right through regions 10 and 13. In fact I have been surprised that this has not been done before these regions were put up for tender as was done with the STA regions.

[Fleet Lists]

I would also argue that Regions 6 and 9 would probably work well as a consolidated region, like they operated as prior to 2018, but that isn't going to be on the cards for some years now.

Correcting, regions 6 and 9 have operated as separate regions since 2005 when the regions were first introduced and have never operated as a consolidated region, although from 2005 to 2018 they were both operated by Sydney Buses/STA.

[Linto63]

However Metrobus routes 91 and 92 would need to be split to achieve this as both operate right through regions 10 and 13.

Not necessarily, region 1 (route 611), region 6 (routes 320, 389, 440 and 530) and region 9 (route 200) operate deep into other regions. Although the precedent in the lead up to the break up of State Transit was to split most of the the Metrobus and cross-regional routes.

[J_Busworth]

I would also argue that Regions 6 and 9 would probably work well as a consolidated region, like they operated as prior to 2018, but that isn't going to be on the cards for some years now.

Correcting, regions 6 and 9 have operated as separate regions since 2005 when the regions were first introduced and have never operated as a consolidated region, although from 2005 to 2018 they were both operated by Sydney Buses/STA.

Perhaps on paper they were considered to be seperate operational regions, but in practise that was never truely enforced.

In reality many routes include Routes 303, 305, 308, 348, 370, 400, 410, 418, M10, M20, M50 and others were jointly operated by depots either side of the divide. It’s debatable where the boundary between Regions 6 and 9 actually lies, given the extensive debate over Route M20 and the swapping back and forth of routes between the two regions since the spilt.

The spilt of Regions 6 and 9 has lead to some poor operational outcomes like the spilt of the 370 and 400 (which they still haven’t got quite right). Hopefully these mistakes won’t be repeated with the spilt of the remaining Metrobus routes if that comes to fruition.

[Fleet Lists]

But that did not only apply to regions 6 and 9 but applied to all STA regions. And was one of the advantages of having multi region operators not just STA.

It also applies to Transdev regions 10 and 13 where routes M91 and M92 and others, operate deeply between regions which I have questioned in a previous post concerned the new contracts.

And it will also be interesting to see what happens between CDC regions 4 and 12 now that they will be neighbouring under the new contracts.

[Linto63]

Perhaps on paper they were considered to be separate operational regions, but in practise that was never truely enforced.

Statistics such as on time running were reported by region in State Transit's 2022 annual report, so evidentally the regional splits existed in practice as well as on paper.

In reality many routes include Routes 303, 305, 308, 348, 370, 400, 410, 418, M10, M20, M50 and others were jointly operated by depots either side of the divide.

There were State Transit routes operated by multiple regions other than just between 6 and 9, e.g. routes 136 and 144 were operated by 7 and 8, 200 and 343 by 7 and 9, 89x UNSW services by 8 and 9. There were probably others.

The spilt of Regions 6 and 9 has lead to some poor operational outcomes like the spilt of the 370 and 400...

The split of route 370 was warranted, given that demand on the former section beyond Glebe Point Road was far less than on the rest of the route and didn't justify the frequency. The 400 was far too long and suffered shocking punctuality, it did need to be split.

[In Transit]

Clearly the split of the 370 was the price to pay for a substantial improvement in the frequency on the remaining 370 (which is by far the bulk of the route, both in patronage and in length). I'd suggest that would have happened irrespective of STA's regions being tendered out, as it represents sound planning strategy. Routes like the 343 (when operating through to Chatswood) and 340 had similar issues where demand was not even across the route, and splitting the route allowed concentration of resources on providing better frequency (and capacity) on the busiest section.

The 400 split does appear to have been more driven by the separation of region 6 from the rest of STA at the time - however as Linto63 says it may have been a well known route but its length was highly problematic. It needed to get fixed one day. It wasn't even that frequent for much of its length - overall frequencies on the replacement routes are better, and in all cases with more capacity. The 400 used to get held up as the busiest bus route in Sydney - well no wonder, when it was effectively multiple routes strung together. It certainly would not have had the highest loadings per km operated.

Regions don't really need a defined boundary - it's better that routes can be allocated based on efficiency and availability of resources (in particular depot space and depot locations). At one stage (not sure if they still do) Adelaide went to great pains to identify regional boundaries, which required a whole page of street names defining very precise (and absolutely irrelevant) contract boundaries, for little value. This makes sense to procurement specialists at tender time, but doesn't help the ongoing planning and delivery of an integrated public transport network. Its bad enough when service planning prioritises operational considerations above all others, it's even worse when it's constrained by arbritary contractual barriers.

[Stu]

Perhaps on paper they were considered to be seperate operational regions, but in practise that was never truely enforced.

In reality many routes include Routes 303, 305, 308, 348, 370, 400, 410, 418, M10, M20, M50 and others were jointly operated by depots either side of the divide. It’s debatable where the boundary between Regions 6 and 9 actually lies, given the extensive debate over Route M20 and the swapping back and forth of routes between the two regions since the spilt.

Each region has routes that are attached to that region as a part of the contract.
Route sharing between regions is purely an operational decision by an operator who operates two adjoining regions.

[Stu]

It also applies to Transdev regions 10 and 13 where routes M91 and M92 and others, operate deeply between regions which I have questioned in a previous post concerned the new contracts.

Interesting times ahead regarding region 10 and region 13 and routes M91 & M92.
Possibilities:
- both regions retained by a single operator (incumbent or
new).
- both regions split up.

If both regions are operated by a single operator, I am thinking that the routes mentioned above may remain as (end-to-end) and only renumbered for route number uniformity.

If the regions end up being operated by two separate operators, then I think that routes M91 & M92 will be both split up and renumbered.

[stupid_girl]

Yes that could then be reworded to
"One question is how far can CDC stretch themselves, are they happy with what they now have, or have they submitted for more?"

A bus region contract's net worth is more closely related to the service kilometres than the geographical area. Without those figures, I think annual patronage is a reasonable proxy. Roughly speaking, Region 4,12,14 combined is only as busy as Region 7 or 8 alone and much less busy than Region 6 or 9 alone. CDC must have ample resources for expansion.

By the way, Region 3,5,10,13 combined is still much less busy than Region 6 or 9 alone. It may not be a bad idea to combine 3,5,10,13 into a mega region. In contrast, combining Region 6 and 9 is probably too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Me ... #Patronage

[Campbelltown busboy]

It also applies to Transdev regions 10 and 13 where routes M91 and M92 and others, operate deeply between regions which I have questioned in a previous post concerned the new contracts.

Interesting times ahead regarding region 10 and region 13 and routes M91 & M92.
Possibilities:
- both regions retained by a single operator (incumbent or
new).
- both regions split up.

If both regions are operated by a single operator, I am thinking that the routes mentioned above may remain as (end-to-end) and only renumbered for route number uniformity.

If the regions end up being operated by two separate operators, then I think that routes M91 & M92 will be both split up and renumbered.

The M92 is basicly a more direct version of the 962 between Padstow and Sutherland it does help that the 962 goes to East Hills. The M92 is just a 962 without the Illawong and Menal marketplace loop diversions between Padstow and Sutherland

[Fleet Lists]

The M92 is basicly a more direct version of the 962 between Padstow and Sutherland it does help that the 962 goes to East Hills. The M92 is just a 962 without the Illawong and Menal marketplace loop diversions between Padstow and Sutherland

\NO - the M92 goes on to Parramatta where the section to Parramatta is believed to be the busier one.

[Campbelltown busboy]

The M92 is basicly a more direct version of the 962 between Padstow and Sutherland it does help that the 962 goes to East Hills. The M92 is just a 962 without the Illawong and Menal marketplace loop diversions between Padstow and Sutherland

\NO - the M92 goes on to Parramatta where the section to Parramatta is believed to be the busier one.

That's true but the section of the M92 between Bankstown and Sutherland does largely follow a similar route to the 962

[gilberations]

However Metrobus routes 91 and 92 would need to be split to achieve this as both operate right through regions 10 and 13.

Not necessarily, region 1 (route 611),

Route 611 is a Region 4 route that barely enters region 1.
Region 1 however does have the 730 that goes deep into region 4, but similarly Region 4 has 616, 663, and 643 plus N70/1 that operate deep into Region 1, and the 608 and 643 that operate entirely within region 1 and should be Region 1 routes!

[Fleet Lists]

I would not include N70/1 here as all Nightride routes operate through a number of regions. They are not strictly region routes.

Otherwise I agree that other multi region routes exist and there are others in other regions.

I only raised routes M91 and M92 which should for consistency with the ex STA and CDC be split where they cross region boundaries.

Personally I think that doing it for the STA routes was not necessarily the right thing to do.

An efficient transport system requires such routes,

[Merc1107]

I don't see the rationale for splitting routes purely to satisfy arbitrary boundaries. Different if the split is for efficiency or better planning and happens to coincidentally meet a contract boundary.

[gilberations]

I would not include N70/1 here as all Nightride routes operate through a number of regions. They are not strictly region routes.

Otherwise I agree that other multi region routes exist and there are others in other regions.

I only raised routes M91 and M92 which should for consistency with the ex STA and CDC be split where they cross region boundaries.

Personally I think that doing it for the STA routes was not necessarily the right thing to do.

An efficient transport system requires such routes,

You have to admit though, the 608 and 643 are an interesting anomaly in that both routes are fully within Region 1 but operated by the Region 4 operator.

The 608 (Windsor to Rouse Hill via Windsor Rd) originally continued to Castle Hill along the old 610 route as far as Castle Towers, but I recall it was truncated to Rouse Hill some time in 2008? When they decided there was no need for it to duplicate the route. This run was shared by Hillsbus and Westbus, however when Busways took over Region 1, it did not become a joint Busways Hillsbus route. Interesting though that different operators have historically shared routes, some even forcing bus transfers to different operators, the most obvious being the Red Arrow (now 630) Blacktown to Macquarie Park, shared by Westbus (and then Hillsbus) and Harris Park Transport, but now of course just Hillsbus

[gilberations]

I don't see the rationale for splitting routes purely to satisfy arbitrary boundaries. Different if the split is for efficiency or better planning and happens to coincidentally meet a contract boundary.

Sometimes there is a natural boundary’s though, for example Region 1 & 4 are separated by Old Windsor Road

[iamthouth]

Gilberations, the boundary between Region 1 and Region 4 is actually Boundary Rd at Box Hill all the way to Maraylya, and Windsor Rd to Rouse Hill, so route 643 is entirely within region 4. Route 608 was a region 4 route, but operated out of efficiency from Windsor Depot by CDC. The timetable has since been turned around, so the short turnaround is at Windsor Station.

But there is certainly an opportunity to align routes to depots better across Sydney, which would translate to savings for TfNSW.

On your other historical point, Coastal Liner (Hunter Valley Buses) and Busways still share routes on the Central Coast.

[Fleet Lists]

Interesting though that different operators have historically shared routes, some even forcing bus transfers to different operators, the most obvious being the Red Arrow (now 630) Blacktown to Macquarie Park, shared by Westbus (and then Hillsbus) and Harris Park Transport, but now of course just Hillsbus

That was not the only Red Arrow route. Amongst others there was also the Bankstown Parramatta via Chester Hill Red Arrow route operated by Chester Hill Bus Service and Delwood. Although there are now a number of routes between Bankstown and Parramatta I dont think there is one via Chester Hill.

But of course these Red Arrow services were before the days of regions,

I was also going to write about route 608 but I think Iamthouth has covered that sufficiemtly.

[Xplorer]

I assume whatever happens to Region 10, 989 will remain as a subcontracted service to Maianbar & Bundeena Bus? Just wouldn’t make much sense for whatever operator of Region 10 to even try to operate that service from their depot outside of the said area

[Campbelltown busboy]

I assume whatever happens to Region 10, 989 will remain as a subcontracted service to Maianbar & Bundeena Bus? Just wouldn’t make much sense for whatever operator of Region 10 to even try to operate that service from their depot outside of the said area

A loop route with 3 services a day with once weekly trips to and from Miranda. The passenger levels on the 989 must be not good for the service to be extremely limited