Tag: Buses Page 3 of 6

Planning for a less snowy Snowies

Last month the New South Wales State Government released what they call a ‘Special Activation Precinct’ Masterplan and Amendment to the 2006 Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management.

I hadn’t really heard of a ‘Special Activation Precinct’ before, but it made me think of China’s ‘Special Economic Zones’ like Shenzhen, which went from being a town the size of Newcastle in 1982 to a city with the population of Sydney + Melbourne + Brisbane + Perth +…you get the idea, in 2020. That and the endless fascination the word ‘precinct’ seems to hold across all levels of government.

It turns out ‘Special Activation Precincts’ are a state government policy of the last 3 years. To quote from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment:

Special Activation Precincts are a new way of planning and delivering industrial and commercial infrastructure projects in dedicated areas in region (sic) NSW, by bringing together planning and investment support services.

So far there are two, one in Parkes and one in Wagga. Both are enormous industrial parks taking advantage of the construction of Inland Rail through the towns. They seek to streamline the delivery of rezoning and necessary infrastructure to build huge industrial parks featuring solar farms, recycling and waste facilities, logistic hubs and high intensity agriculture and manufacturing, think feedlots and abattoirs.

Now this might seem a far cry from the Snowy Mountains, but I think it speaks volumes about the government’s intention here that they’ve chosen to use this particular policy instrument to plan the future of our fragile alpine ecosystems.

The 2021 Snowy Mountains Special Activation Precinct Draft Masterplan and Draft Amendment to the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management (henceforth ‘the plans’)

The plans make the persuasive argument that much has changed since 2006 and it’s time to reassess some of the assumptions made at that time. What’s interesting here is a chance to compare the values of government 15 years apart. The 2006 plan focuses on limiting growth. In fact, in a period following on from fairly substantial growth in the Thredbo Valley in particular, the 2006 plan effectively blocks any additional growth in terms of bed numbers and seeks to wind back commercial access as leases run out.

A screenshot of the area map from the SAPM
If you aren’t familiar with the Snowies, this map from the SAP Masterplan shows all the key places. Source: NSW Government.

One example of this is the Ski Rider motel (on the Kosciuszko Road between Sawpit Creek and Sponars) which was due to have its lease expire in 2025. The 2006 plan stated in no uncertain terms that it wouldn’t be renewed, on the grounds of limiting sprawling human landuse along the road corridor.

An aerial image showing the Ski Rider Hotel
The Ski Rider lives to exist another day. Source: Google Maps.

The 2021 plan on the other hand, celebrates the growth in demand for park visitation and sets the stage to facilitate further growth as much as possible. This includes extending the lease of Ski Rider, amongst much else.

It’s a complex plan and I can’t say I’m 100% around the details, so I’ll refer you to:

The National Parks Association is a charity I support that lobbies to expand and improve our national parks as well as supporting visitation and access. The fact that an organisation that activity supports human use of national parks is so opposed to the plan is a fair indication in my mind of its abundant flaws.

What I do want to focus on is a few things that jump out at me.

Did somebody say ‘Fragile Alpine Ecosystem’?

Hello commercial air movements

Since at least 2006 commercial air movements have been prohibited in the Kosciuszko National Park. If you’ve spent any time down at the Snowies you’ll likely be aware of this as the skies are largely empty. When a chopper does come over, you know that it’s probably involved in an emergency rescue. For me, this relative quiet is an important part of enjoying what the 2006 and 2021 plans refer to as the ‘solitude and self-reliant and adventurous recreation’ that I like to undertake in the park.

The 2021 plan aims to remove this prohibition and allow commercial aircraft to take off and land at Perisher, Thredbo and Charlotte Pass. This would mean the rich and famous could chopper into our alpine resorts from Cooma Airport or Canberra.

Imagine: enjoying the blissful quiet of a snowy winter evening, watching the lights of the groomers make their way up and down the hill, only to hear the ever-increasing thrum of a chopper rotor getting nearer. The noise becomes overwhelming and you wander down to see what the emergency is. Oh, it looks like the Morrison family have decided to duck down from the Lodge (as opposed to a lodge) to take some selfies in the snow!

The serenity of Charlotte Pass Village has traditionally been taken fairly seriously in planning. Parks don’t plow the road pass Spencers Creek, so in winter you need to travel on an oversnow vehicle or a small bus, depending on how much snow cover there is. For at least the last 25 years, aside from management vehicles and these public transport vehicles, no motorised private cars have been allowed into the village in winter. It strikes me as absolutely insane to think that helicopters won’t ruin the alpine village ambience whilst acknowledging that cars will.

As well as the shuttling of those who are happy to burden the rest of us with the externalities of their convenience, we would likely see tourism operators start running chopper joy flights out of Thredbo and Perisher. It would also be possible under the plan for a company to apply to run heliskiing on the main range, an area that is currently remarkable for how peaceful and quiet it is in the winter, being only accessible on skis or snowshoes from either Charlotte Pass, Guthega or Thredbo.

Hello commercial vehicles on the Summit Trail

The second huge commercial overreach of the 2021 plans is to reallow commercial vehicles on the Summit Trail. For those that don’t know, the Summit Trail is an extremely popular walking track and boardwalk from the top of the Kosciuszko Chairlift at Thredbo to Seaman’s Hut for the summit of our highest mountain and then continuing around to Charlotte Pass. In Summer, and to a less extent the shoulder seasons, this walking track is enormously popular. As in, very popular. Like, it’s hard to explain just how hectic parking at Charlotte Pass gets on public holidays and weekends if you haven’t seen it.

The Summit Trail, looking peaceful. Source: NSW National Parks

This demand is in part why the State Government feels the 2006 plan that focused on limits to growth needs amending, and it’s easy to see their point. People really want to visit the park and we could be managing that better.

As recently as the 1960s you could drive up the Summit Trail along the Kosciuszko Road as far as Seaman’s Hut, park there and bag the easiest of the 7 summits. At some point the excellent decision was made to close the road at the Pass and turn it into a track for walkers, bike riders and the occasional park ranger in a ute. Of course, the road is maintained to allow Parks to service the facilities at Seaman’s and for emergency vehicles to get through.

The 2021 plan seeks to reallow commercial operators to use the road to run small buses for up to 20 visitors at a time. This is apparently “for the transport of multi-day Snowies Iconic Walk participants”. The Snowies Iconic Walk seems to be a project to upgrade some of the tracks around the Park to create an Overland Track style multi day hike. Why on earth tourism operators would need to run buses up the side of our highest mountain to facilitate people doing a 4 day 55 kilometre bushwalk is not clear to me.

Now with 40% more beds!

Perisher, Charlotte’s and Thredbo have hardly grown in my adult lifetime whilst the popularity of visiting the two major resorts has absolutely exploded. Note that lift ticket prices have doubled in ten years, whilst the same number of accommodation beds in each resort are still available. This seems problematic, but it’s for a sensible reason. Alpine ecosystems are extremely fragile, so much so that on the main range you can see the paths that 4WDs cut decades ago. The 2006 plan set the bounds of future development on the footprint of existing development and limited any increases in number of beds to contain the impacts of construction, vehicle movements and waste generation. The 2021 plans seeks to grow the number of accommodation beds available across the 3 resorts by 4,144, an increase of roughly 40% on what is there now.

I like to think that there is a way this could occur in an ecologically sensitive manner, but it’s hard to imagine that level of construction and inhabitation could do anything but negatively impact on the ecology of the park. I can only hope that if they do go ahead, it is within the existing bounds of the developed resorts and is done is a sensitive manner.

One possible way to increase capacity in the resorts would be focus on redeveloping Perisher, rather than Thredbo, Guthega, Smiggins and Charlotte Pass. Perisher benefits from rail access to bring in guests and goods and even take out waste. At the moment Perisher resembles a sort of sprawling suburbia/car park with a brutalist transport interchange in the middle of it. I wouldn’t be opposed to a master plan that sought to redevelop Perisher into an eco-focused walkable village along the lines of Thredbo or a miniature Whistler or Banff or Nozawa Onsen. There are ways to implement some growth in a sensitive way, but this plan doesn’t give me any real faith it will be handled well.

Nozawa Onsen in Nagano shows how a compact walkable mountain village can be. Note the distinct lack of cars in (or out of) frame. Source: powderhounds

A Bypass for Jindabyne

Aside from all that negativity about the wanton overdevelopment of one of our states most fragile ecosystems, there are a few things to like about the 2021 plans. Two of the stated key drivers for change that particularly excite me are:

  1. Prioritising people over vehicles in Jindabyne providing access and ensuring walkability and pedestrian safety
  2. The connection to Lake Jindabyne, ensuring public spaces take advantage of views andvistas, along with the provision of improved linkages to the Town Centre

I’ll be frank; I don’t like Jindabyne. Every time I drive through Jindy, which is fairly often (see above), I can’t help but think what Jindy could be. Before I had skied overseas I didn’t think much of it. It was a glorified strip mall on the way to the snow. Nothing wrong with that, it met an important need! Where else to get alpine diesel, last-minute replacement goggles and rent chains?

Now though, having seen how things are done in Canmore, Banff and Whistler in Canada and Nozawa Onsen, Myoko and Hakuba in Japan, I can’t help but think what a real tourist town alpine village can be like and wonder how on earth the auto-centric hellscape of Jindabyne is what we got stuck with!? It’s tempting to blame the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme, they did flood the valley and built the town after all. But we managed to build Thredbo with some sort of cohesive, walkable style, so why haven’t we done anything to fix Jindabyne? The way I look at it, the town has only gotten worse over those intervening years. In season it’s one long traffic jam of people trying to get out of there.

Banff is an alpine tourist town in Alberta that provides accommodation for visitors to 3 major nearby resorts. It’s got a walkable downtown, an okay bus service and heaps to do in the immediate area. Source: wikimedia

With the kind of investment the plans are talking about Jindabyne could be a player on the scale of those destinations in Japan and Canada, or the no doubt countless European examples I don’t have first hand experience of.

The good news is, the Special Activation Precinct Masterplan (SAPM) seems to be serious about realising the vision. The main thing holding Jindy back is the fact that a 4 lane highway traverses right through the guts of the town, cutting its strip-mall main street off from the lake and parklands. This will be addressed by building a ‘Southern Connector’ bypass of the town. The old highway will be cut down from 4 lanes to 2 with bike lanes, trees and hopefully footpaths that are still sadly lacking. The whole town centre will be redesigned to put the emphasis towards Snowy River Avenue and Thredbo Terrace and away from the highway. The parklands and foreshore will be dramatically improved, and lots will be rezoned, encouraging an increase in density and walkability in the town centre.

This beautiful orange line will make all my dreams come true. Source: NSW Government

Further than that, the mountain bike and walking trail infrastructure around the town is set for huge improvement which will hopefully mean that more and more outdoor recreation can happen in and around town and not take place exclusively in the National Park, which we might pause and consider, was originally set aside for ecological conservation rather than to facilitate economic growth.

They’ve also flagged the entirety of the caravan park, which takes up the best part of the town, sprawling across the lakeshore immediately across the road from the main shops, to be redeveloped into a little beach, parkland and “future development site”. You know an Australian tourist town has really made it when they finally get the caravan park out of their main street. Of course, we will lose some of the cheapest accommodation in the town, but hopefully this will be more than made up for with abundant alternatives around the place. Hopefully including some free camping opportunities nearby!

There’s lots more to the plan for Jindy, including a huge mountain bike park accessed by a gondola and a big new caravan park located further around the lake. It’s worth checking out in the masterplan.

This really feels like a chance to breath some fresh life into the town and create that year-round outdoor sport and rec hub the state government is looking for.

But still not getting serious on public transport

The SAPM makes the first real inroads into developing something resembling a proper public transport system for the Snowies. It outlines an idealised future network with year-round service on 3 limited stops bus routes; T from Jindabyne to Thredbo via Bullocks Flat, P from Jindabyne to Perisher (extending to Charlotte Pass in Summer) and G from Jindabyne to Guthega. These buses would leave Jindy Town Centre, stop at a new park and ride facility on the Southern Connector Bypass on the outskirts of Jindy before making their way to the resorts.

The proposed Snowies public transport network looks good, but the devil is in the detail. Without an affordable and frequent service and expensive car parking, it’s hard to see this network being a success. Source: NSW Government

At the current point in time there is no viable public transport options in the valleys. Greyhound head to Thredbo via Bullocks Flat (for Perisher) once a day and there’s a bunch of other operators that you can book onto for skiing day trips. But if you’re in a group (of a few as 2), own a car and a set of chains or are travelling in summer, the best, cheapest, fastest and most convenient way to get up into the mountains has always been to drive.

This has created the unfortunate situation where the roads and car parks are basically at capacity during peak times. On busy weekends in winter Thredbo literally turns cars away and at Charlotte Pass in summer the cars parked along the Kosciuszko road can extend for kilometres.

It is a classic case that the best choice for the individual is always to drive which leads to traffic jams, dangerously congested roads in wintertime and sprawling car parks.

Something needs to change, and a frequent, reliable, bus network based in Jindabyne is the obvious solution. If the accommodation of visitors is focused on Jindabyne and a large, centralised park and ride is provided for those coming from further afield, it should be quite simple to provide a good bus service, since pretty much everyone is going to one of two places.

I would think the Alpine Way is the logical route to start with, since you can change at Bullocks Flat for access to Perisher and Blue Cow via the Ski Tube.

The SAPM does outline the bones of what a future network might look like, but it doesn’t do much do indicate that there is the will to get us there. The page on improving public transport ends with the rather weak promise that:

“Over the course of the next year the Department of Regional NSW and Transport for NSW will lead an initiative to trial a shuttle service, to reduce pressure on Alpine Way and Kosciuszko Road and provide further data to support the development of a park and ride service in line with the Master Plan.”

This doesn’t seem like much of plan when we’re talking about a fragile ecosystem that experiences road closing extreme weather events and is already at capacity, oh, and we’re planning on increasing accommodation availability by 40% in the alpine villages and growing Jindabyne by at least the same amount.

The real deal is apparent on the next page of the masterplan, which states plans for more parking at Perisher, Smiggins, Pipers Gap, Charlotte Pass and Thredbo. The numbers aren’t spelled out, but if there is a more destructive thing we could do to our alpine valleys than pouring concrete and bitumen over them for the storage of private vehicles, I don’t know what it is.

The other overlooked element here is connections to Jindabyne from the outside world. As it stands you can fly to Cooma and take a bus or taxi connection to the snowfields, but short haul flights don’t really fit in with the whole ‘limiting human impacts on alpine ecosystems’ thing, so hopefully that isn’t something we foster. Instead, we need better public transport from Canberra and Sydney to Cooma and from Cooma to Jindabyne. There should be more than one public coach a day connecting Canberra to Cooma. Maybe even investigate the possibility of reopening the railway line that was closed in the 80s.

The future of our alpine resorts should be about building walkable villages with solid, all day, year-round affordable public transport connections and limited and expensive parking for those that need it. Alas, it looks like the bulk of the increase in people visiting the area will continue to do so by car.

Last but definitely not least

The elephant in the room for this whole hoo-ha is obviously climate change. The revisions to the plan of management acknowledge increasing maximum temperatures, significantly reduced precipitation and a dramatic reduction in the number of nights that are suitable for snow making. This might make the decision to build great swathes of new tourism infrastructure strange, but it isn’t. This plan is about repositioning the Snowies as a year-round destination. The snow sports focus is being phased out. The end of white winters won’t spell the end of the Snowies, not if the NSW government can help it. Instead, escape the endless heat! Climb to the top of Australia and enjoy being outdoors again, like you once did on lower climes. Lest we forget.

Public exhibition on the plans is currently open until August 23rd. You can read all about the plan and make your submission here. I would also encourage you to read what the National Parks Association of NSW have to say about the plans here.

A Glamorous Eastern Suburbs Bus Network Makeover

In the wake of the completion of the Northern Beaches bus network revamp, which I commented on a few months ago, it looks like the Eastern Suburbs are next in line. This makes a lot of sense, since there has only been some minor tinkering with bus routes since the opening of the L2 and L3 light rail lines just over a year ago.

Similarly to the Beaches changes, the focus here seems to be on route clarity, an extensive high frequency (10 minutes or better all day) network, better crosstown connections and the inevitable end of the reign of the one seat ride.

The Map

This announcement is pretty early days. They’ve put out a draft network to community consultation with a planned commencement of service in late 2021. Hence there’s not a huge amount detail on frequency or operating hours.

What they have done is release a beautiful new map. And it is beautiful. At least to my not particularly aesthetically inclined eye.

A screenshot of a proposed bus network map from April 2021, showing the area between South Coogee and Camperdown
Part of the new network map. Check out the whole thing here.

I love how prominent the heavy rail, light rail and ferry routes are. I love the highlighting of the frequent network to be on par with these other modes and how, beyond the inevitable complexity of a bus network map, you can quickly trace out the lines that might be useful for you. This is even more stark on the high frequency only network map that was on the promotional flyer.

A screenshot of a proposed frequent service bus network map from April 2021, showing the area between South Coogee and Camperdown
A similar area showing high frequency (10 minutes all better all day) services only. Super handy for casual visitors to the area.

That said I feel like the frequent and ‘local’ bus colours could be slightly more differentiated and I’m missing something that matches the yellow B1 on the Beaches map. It’s all a bit blue once you get away from the CBD.

Check out the comparison to the existing map, though!

A screenshot of the 2020 Eastern Suburbs bus network map showing the area between South Coogee and Camperdown
Clutter! Chaos! Confusion! And why isn’t the 418 shown between Kingsford and Sydenham?
You can view the full map in all its glory here.

Aside from simplifying the palette, the big news is that bus routes from adjacent regions have been included on the map! This minor change is actually a huge deal as it sets the map as customer rather than operations focused. It’s showing users what is actually there rather than delineating service by subcontractor, a situation which is unfortunately still prevalent across Greater Sydney.

My particular bug bear, the segregation of the 388 and 389, will no longer be the case! On that note I should also add that the once daily trip for the 388 looks set to survive the changes.

But where’s the B3?

I feel like this network unveiling is the death knell for the B1/BX major bus route numbering system. It’s a shame, it had such promise!

The State Government’s 2013 Sydney’s Bus Future plan set out an elaborate plan for 13 ‘rapid’ ‘turn up and go’ limited stops bus routes. In one way or another, to a greater or lesser extent, quite a few of these have been implemented.

Pretty consistent incremental improvement on the L90/B1, the 333 and the L20/M52/500x have see these corridors grow to almost meet the standards set out in Sydney’s Bus Future. There’s been a lot of increase in service on some of the other 10 rapid routes, mostly through the metrobus project, but they’re still running at closer to a 15 minute frequency and there’s not much in the way of limited stops service or bus priority anywhere in Greater Sydney.

All that to say, when the B-Line was unveiled it seemed like in years to come Sydney would be crisscrossed by high frequency, traffic prioritised buses like the B1.

But then nothing happened. Even the extension to Newport was called off.

Last year when a new network was announced for the Northern Beaches featuring a high frequency limited stops bus between Chatswood and Dee Why I was sure it was going to be the B2. It just seemed sensible. Unfortunately, they went for the much less catchy 160x.

That, and then redoing the Eastern Suburbs network without renaming the 333 to the B3 is definitely a sign of things to come. It just feels weird, we’ve got the T1 through T9, The F1 through F9, now we’ve got the L1 through L3 but the B1 is all alone by itself.

There’s really no obvious difference in operating style between the 333 and the B1. They both run 24 hours, albeit slightly altered at night, they both run limited stops, high frequency and use unique rolling stock. I guess TfNSW want to keep the B-Line stops a bit special with their next service screens and yellow trimmed seats, but if the stop at Neutral Bay meets the standard it surely wouldn’t be that hard to roll them out down Oxford Street.

Manly Vale B-Line stop and specially built park and ride car park behind it. Source TfNSW

So What’s Changed across the Network

Well, a lot. Too much to go into it all here. The main drive behind the redesign is the reduction of the volume of buses running into the CBD in direct competition with the light rail. Reading between the lines on the brochure it looks like this is a cost neutral network change, so all the extra frequency we’re getting on crosstown routes is basically coming from a reduction in radial CBD services. Given that the L2/L3 are running all day 8 minute frequency and are down to 35 minutes average trip time end to end this strikes me as a great thing!

The focus of the frequency network seems to be on direct(ish) routes, connecting multi-model interchanges and key trip generators as well as enhancing existing popular corridors. The shift to working from home for the professional classes makes the idea that we should have a peak focused CBD centric bus network seem even more irrelevant than it already was. The one seat ride legends should be glad they’ve retained as many Bent Street expresses as they have, I’m sure some of them will be phased out at the next network review in 5 years time. Hopefully we’ll have Maroubra and Coogee light rail extensions by then and an announcement of the Metro West extension to Zetland and beyond which would free up even more bus capacity for local/crosstown frequent routes.

A couple of changes I do like: I’m a big fan of the 353/400 on steroids AKA the BJ to Airport via Coogee 350 which is a totally new connection that I think will be useful for lots of different people.

I also like how the 392 provides a much improved off-peak service to Bunnerong Road and then after connecting to the light rail deviates to (the yet to open) Waterloo Metro and Redfern Station. The detractors will focus on the loss of a direct CBD bus route, but I think the ease with which you can reach a much wider variety of destinations from Matraville is a huge improvement. Plus, you’ve still got your peak hour one seat ride to Bent Street, so all is well.

The other thing that caught my eye is the opening up of the street network around Zetland and the buses being rerouted to benefit. The 304 and 392 cut a much smoother line through the area than their predecessors.

Buses After Dark

I spent far too much of my youth shuttling around the Eastern Suburbs at night and if you weren’t heading outbound, on a Friday or Saturday on a key bus route like the 380 or the 373 you were basically stuffed. It took a lot of hustle and not very much money to stand at a cold, dark bus stop waiting for a once hourly bus in the pre-tracking days, and that was on the few routes that had service. I remember wanting to get to BJ from Randwick at, like, 9:30pm and being like, oh, I guess we’ll just have to walk.

To be fair, things have changed a fair bit in the intervening years but this plan represents a huge departure from those days. The published map includes a nightbus route network which shows where you can pick up a bus at any time of day or night and it’s quite extensive. Unfortunately it’s still mostly set to hourly frequency on weekdays and half hourly on weekends. But, it’s great to see Sydney leaving behind the idea that an absolute skeletor of a public transport network is just fine after midnight.

Some Very Specific Weakpoints (IMHO)

Here I’m going to delve into some of the elements of the plan that I don’t think quite work. If you aren’t as excited about bus routing as I am, it might get a bit tedious and I’ll forgive you skimming through.

Inconsistent CBD-bound routing

I don’t quite understand why the 3 remaining Citybound Anzac Parade/Alison Rd buses are all taking different routes into the CBD. It seems like the planners have just left these routes as they were, only all the other routes have disappeared leaving them sad and alone.

During the day the 374 and 339 will run every 20 minutes and the 396 will run every 10. In the evening they’ll run at about half that frequency. After passing Moore Park the 339 will take Foveaux/Albion, the 374 will run down Cleveland Street and the 396 will take Flinders Street. This kind of makes sense from a coverage point of view, but in context, these streets are all surrounded by important transport corridors. It doesn’t seem likely that many people will stand on Cleveland St waiting fifteen minutes for a bus when they could take a high frequency 304 from Crown, 343 from Chalmers/Elizabeth or the light rail from Surry Hills.

In peak hour there’ll be a bunch of express buses on Albion/Foveaux, but the rest of the day it’ll just be the 339 trundling past occasionally.

It would make sense to run the 339/374 along the same corridor as they share a lot of common catchment in Randwick/Coogee/Clovelly. Combined, they could run down Cleveland OR Albion/Foveaux at a much more respectable 10-minute frequency. Cleveland Street is probably the more logical choice for coverage reasons, I don’t really see anyone catching the 339 to get from Surry Hills to anywhere bar Clovelly. I can see plenty of upside to this plan but I can’t think who would lose out. It just doesn’t seem necessary to run moderate frequency local buses along both corridors.

Then there’s the 396 which, out of peak, will be the only Anzac Pde bus running down Flinders Street. That means there’ll only be a bus every 10 minutes turning right out of Oxford onto Flinders, down from every 5 or so minutes today.

It’s a popular transport corridor so hopefully this level of service will cut it. I’m more concerned about evenings when I suspect lots of people will be trying to get from Darlinghurst back home with their only option being the 396 running every 20 to 30 minutes.

Unfortunately there’s not even an obvious interchange to make. I suppose if you’re heading to Coogee you could go via Bondi Junction and then take the 350. I’m not sure this is time competitive. Alternatively, you could walk half a dozen blocks to the Surry Hills light rail stop, but if you’re coming from the Cross, St Vincents or anywhere in Darlinghurst really, just getting to Taylor Square is probably enough of a walk.

I’m not really sure what the fix is here without running more buses alongside the light rail. Given that the light rail provides plenty of access to Central, another option would be to route the 339/374/396 all via Flinders Street for a 5 minute day time frequency and every 10 to 15 minutes in the evening.

The oft overlooked Grand Parade connection

The 303 extension down the Grand Parade is pretty useless at the best of times. It only runs hourly, doesn’t run at night and doesn’t really serve any especially useful interchange points before it reaches UNSW. I am probably one of the few people that has ever used it to get from South of the Cooks River to the Zetland area, so cutting it at UNSW makes sense.

My concern is that the 303 now covers the old 301 deviation through every other backstreet in Mascot which will mean that it’s no longer really a bus you would choose to catch. It feels like the 303 is predominately now a catchment service for the residents of Eastlakes, which begs the question, why extend it to Brighton-Le-Sands at all?

With the strong demand for the 420 and the 478 I think that promoting a decent service connecting the medium to high density neighbourhoods at Brighton and Ramsgate with the South Eastern suburbs is obvious. I reckon there’s enough latent demand to justify combining the 478, 479 and 303 into an every fifteen minute directish bus from Rockdale to UNSW via Brighton and Kingsford.

Unfortunately, the proposed new network makes this connection somehow even worse than it was.

No matter what you do, the 370 will always be a weakness

The 370. Obviously the reliability of the 370 has been a huge problem since forever and the improving frequency, while welcome, probably hasn’t helped greatly with the reliability. Cutting it at Sydney University seems like an okay way to deal with it, although you’ve now got the 370 and the 369 both laying over in Darlington which will might cause some congestion there. It seems like a missed opportunity to actually change the bus routes for the better.

The key issue here is that we’re getting the large volumes of students travelling between the UNSW and USyd areas to their destination via quite a roundabout route through St Peters.

From the heart of USyd on City Road to Erskineville Oval is a 2.2km walk, 22 minutes for a brisk trotting student. It’s much less as the crow flies, but we don’t have a pedestrian bridge over the Eveleigh railyards…yet. The 370 takes 15 minutes at the best of times to cover that distance. When you add in waiting time and the possibility for delays, it’s safe to say it’s quicker to walk for most.

I’d say that the vast majority of the passengers on the 370 heading down Mitchell Street are heading to Newtown Station, Broadway or somewhere in between. If the 370 was diverted down Erskineville Road it would shave 5 minutes off the journey, which isn’t insignificant.

Of course this isn’t a perfect fix and would definitely raise other problems, but I guess my point is that the 370 will always be a challenge for good bus network design. There is a strong need for reliable and frequent crosstown connections from the Inner West to the East but I’m not sure that leaving the 370 more or less as-is is the best approach here.

So much for Sydenham

While we’re on the topic of crosstown buses…what happened to the 418? As with the 400, the Burwood to Bondi Junction run was a bit long, but it can’t have been more than a few years ago it was cut off at Kingsford to resolve this very issue.

It looks like the 418 has now been cut off at Sydenham with the Eastern part of the route replaced with the 358 to Randwick.

With the increasing importance of Sydenham Station this doesn’t much matter as most passengers will be changing to trains or the metro. What will be important is the frequency of the 358.

The 418 is currently running every 30 minutes between Sydenham and Kingsford, but I don’t think this is adequate at all. Gardeners Road is the southern crosstown route and should be supporting a decent connection from Mascot and Sydenham Stations to UNSW and Prince of Wales. The new proposal suggests a 20 minute frequency which is an improvement, but inadequate to connect with the 10 minutes or better train services at Sydenham and Mascot.

I guess realistically people on the East Hills Line and the Bankstown Metro will probably just stay onboard until Waterloo/Green Square and change for the high frequency 370 there, or even go to Central and take the light rail. This seems a shame as it increases demand at already overcrowded CBD stations quite unnecessarily. I feel like there’s latent demand for a much better crosstown Gardeners Pde bus route which will only grow when Sydenham metrofies.

The 358 between Sydenham and UNSW is my pick for the next frequent bus route.

Connecting to the (Marrickville) Metro

The 307 extension is pretty funny to me. It’s great to see a bus service using the new Campbell Road connection over the Alexandria Canal, but I can’t help wondering who will actually use it. Marrickville Metro isn’t exactly a crash hot destination and the 307 doesn’t make any particularly useful interchanges either. It doesn’t quite go to St Peters Station, it picks up the 422 to Newtown, but you wouldn’t want to get stuck waiting on the Princes Hwy for 15 minutes for the next one.

I’m thinking it would be most useful as a way to connect the high density residential area at Mascot Station to the Inner West, but like I said, it doesn’t really go to any of the parts of the Inner West people would have cause to visit.

According to the summary of route changes most 307s will continue as route 352 from Marrickville Metro, so you can stay on board to reach Newtown. This is a bit confusing because it will likely compromise the reliability of the 352 which is now effectively running from Bondi Junction to Eastgardens via Marrickville Metro along some of Sydney’s most congested streets. It’s also strange because it’s only sometimes. I guess you have to try and pair the two timetables together and figure out if the 307 you’re getting on is one that continues as the 352 or not.

I’m putting money on this extension getting canned/altered pretty quickly.

Closing Thoughts

I think the key point here is that the frequency network is a huge improvement for accessibility, but once you get away from those core routes, you’re pretty much still stuck dealing with the same sorts of problems that have plagued Sydney bus users forever. Physical infrastructure is poor and bus priority is non-existent.

On the other hand, creating and highlighting a frequent network dramatically expands the reach of Sydney’s legible public transport system and will hopefully make more people feel like they can readily navigate to places on these routes, as they would with trains, the light rail, ferries or the B-Line.

It’s a pretty impressive frequent network given that there’s no increase in rolling stock or labour. It’s all coming from removing redundancy. Some will argue that this means forcing people onto the light rail, but if it’s running 35 minutes end to end it’s hard to see that that’s a bad thing. The residents of South East Sydney, and particularly the Labor members that represent them, might not be ready to let go of their CBD-centric peak focused network, but they’re going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century anyway. And they’ll be the better for it.

The Proposed South East Bus Changes are open for community consultation until June 18th. You can find out more information and give your feedback here.

The Sorry State of the 388

Sydney has plenty of worthy candidates for the title of the city’s worst bus route. The 370 is universally loathed, the late L90 (vale) had a variety of colourful nicknames and it wasn’t so long ago the 610 made getting to the Hills nigh impossible. Sydney Uni student magazine Honi Soit even published a list of 5 contenders that was subsequently picked up by the SMH.

Into this colourful company I’d like to make a nomination; the 388.

There’s something about the 388

The 388 runs from Lawson Street in Paddington to Bondi Junction. It is basically an annexed version of the more well known 389. Only a single stop (on Lawson St) isn’t also served by the 389.

The weird thing about it? It only runs once. A day. In one direction.

The entire 388 timetable
The entirety of the 388 timetable. Yep, that’s the whole thing.

I literally stumbled across the Lawson Street bus stop a couple of years ago and its existence struck me as so weird I reached out to TfNSW to find out why. The reply was a generic ‘operational reasons’ type response, which also hinted at the possibility of extending the service. This hasn’t happened and I must say I’d forgotten about it until last week, when I was surprised to find the 388 is still running!

Why, Oh Why?

The short answer is, I don’t know. My brief exchange with TfNSW didn’t clear it up so I can only speculate. I guess the starting point is to consider what’s near Lawson St and Vialoux Ave, the only stop that really benefits from the existence of the 388. Well, a bunch of things. Mainly Grammar prep school, White City tennis courts, Weigall Oval and a mixture of medium density public and private housing. I suppose the bus could meet the very specific needs of the users of one of these places. What those might be, I have no idea.

A google maps screenshot of the area around Lawson St and Vialoux Ave, Paddington
This helpful birds eye view of the are surrounding the bus stop at Lawson Street near Vialoux Ave looks great, but doesn’t explain the existence of the 388.

The bus stop in question is within a 500m of walk of both the 389 and New South Head road buses, so it’s not really wanting for access. I’d say it was a weird shopping service to get some belligerent resident to Bondi Junction, but there’s no return bus so that seems unlikely.

My guess would be it came about from some sort of scheduling anomaly, but beyond that, I couldn’t say.

Mapping the 388

Now all that is strange, but not beyond the pale for a transport agency that runs plenty of legacy low frequency routes. What’s stranger still about the 388 is that it’s actually part of a different bus region from the 389 it almost exactly replicates. This basically means that a different organisation operates the 388 from the 389.

The 389 is part of Region 6, Inner West and South operated by Transit Systems, while the 388 is part of Region 9, the Eastern suburbs, operated by State Transit. From a customer standpoint this doesn’t mean much, except for one thing: the 2 routes appear on completely different network maps.

Screenshot of the Eastern suburbs region bus network map showing the 388
The 388, all alone on the Eastern Suburbs region bus network map.
Screenshot of the Inner West region bus network map showing part of the route 389.
Meanwhile…the 389 is hanging out over here, in a weirdly empty section of the Inner West region bus network map.

This is exactly the kind of absolute chaos the current wave of network redesigns should be addressing. I spoke about the December 2020 changes to the Northern Beaches region earlier this month and plan on having a deeper look at some of the decisions made in the North West region January 2021 redesign in the near future. Hopefully, a rethink of the Eastern suburbs (and shiny new network map) isn’t too far down the track!

If you’ve ridden, driven or have any additional information about the 388 please get in touch, I need closure!

Page 3 of 6

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén