Melbourne on transit

2012-01-18T22:16:00.003+11:00

The end

After nearly seven years the time has come to put Melbourne on Transit to sleep. It will remain online but there won’t be new posts. Comments on previous posts will continue to be accepted.

I’ve enjoyed being able to document the many changes in Melbourne public transport during this time. By and large they have been for the good; the declines up to the early 1980s and stagnation through to the early 2000s have given way to a growth unseen for generations.

So why am I ceasing posting? There is no one reason. Time is one; like this one's topic, service frequency is critical to maintain reader interest, and the headway between posts was sometimes too long. Another is that more outlets are now available, for instance magazine articles and research papers.

While I’ve been in the industry for some time, its fragmented structure invariably put me at some distance from (and in different organisations to) those for whom the topics herein were of more than academic interest. This won’t necessarily be the case in the future, and I think this is a good time to finish. Fortunately this does not leave us without a Melbourne-based public transport blog and I recommend reading and supporting Transport Textbook.

Finally, I thank the readers and commenters for their encouragement that allowed Melbourne on Transit to continue the time it did. While there is no means to measure any influence it might have had, I am heartened by some recent changes in how those charged with its planning view the network. I hope these posts encouraged such tendencies and fostered a climate conducive to making Melbourne’s trains, trams and buses move more people more effectively.

2011-12-30T21:11:00.006+11:00

Review - Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit can enrich our communities and our lives, by Jarrett Walker

An observation from last September’s Australasian Transport Research Forum conference was the abundance of academics versus the paucity of practitioners.

I define practitoners as those who plan and operate transport routes or closely work with those who do. They have their own work and don’t write books and attend conferences as much as academics and bureaucrats.

Consequently it was refreshing to find a book on public transport service planning by an experienced practitioner. The author, Jarrett Walker, is a service planner and consultant to transport agencies in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. His work was already known to me through his blog at humantransit.org

Having read books by academics such as Mees, Newman and Kenworthy, I was particularly interested in the different perspective that a practitioner might bring.

Academics thrive on research, teaching and (sometimes) political advocacy. However the affordability, practicality and acceptance of their recommendations may not frequently be tested.

Whereas practitioners need to be more practical and less theoretical. They must often work within existing resources; something academics might find limiting. Consultants can be practitioners too but won’t get work if not seen as useful.

In Human Transit, Walker describes himself as a plumber.

We don’t expect plumbers to tell us how to run our cities and our lives; unlike (say) priests, politicians and talkback radio hosts. They may hold values but cannot choose them for their clients. But they might be able to advise on the consequences of particular decisions; for instance the cheap quick fix versus the dearer but enduring repair. And they might point out that any option chosen must respect basic laws, like water flowing from high to low, for the system to work effectively.

City planners and developers deal the hand with which transit planners must work. Some decisions, notably with respect to density, are controversial. Walker, more than Mees, sees density as conducive to higher patronage. However he adds, correctly in my view, that location and geometry are equally critical when designing neighbourhoods for direct and efficient transport routes. To Walker these factors are public transport’s equivalent of the plumber’s basic laws. If disobeyed an area may never be easily or efficiently served by good public transport.

Transport networks themselves can be optimised to favour patronage or coverage goals. Networks that optimise patronage generally have direct, fast, frequent but more widely spaced routes, whereas a coverage-oriented network sacrifices directness, speed and frequency for short walking distances. Walker insists that transport authorities set a resource allocation policy between ‘patronage’ and ‘coverage’ routes.

Only after such priorities, and thus available resources, are known can the service planner design the network.

The book is a mine of simple but often neglected insights that would make public transport better. All are applicable to Melbourne. For instance the trade-off between directness, frequency and legibility on the one hand, and requiring that people change for some trips. We’re used to road maps having different thicknesses for different types of road, from lane to freeway, so why not do the same with transit maps, highlighting our most frequent,and thus most usable routes? And, on busy roads, the contribution of the humble pedestrian crossing to improving access to bus stops and the impetus it provides to gradually increase an areas’s walkability (and thus transit access).

Human Transit does what its title suggests. It forces the reader, from layperson to transport planner, to sharpen their thoughts and ask the right questions. I highly recommend it.

Human Transit is published by Island Press and is available from UNSW Bookshop.

2011-12-10T20:50:00.001+11:00

The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 2)

Can it be done?

Still think that substantial travel time reductions are impossible without building high-speed railways under each suburb?

The following examples show how significant travel time savings could be possible, largely with existing infrastructure.

Example 1: Inter-suburban bus trip

Consider a short bus trip where the bus runs every 40 minutes. This service level is typical for middle and outer suburban routes and even some major inner suburban routes (eg 246 on Sunday evenings).

The trip takes ten minutes, with five minutes allowed to reach and leave the stop at either end. That adds up to a best case 20 minutes travel time, if you arrive at the stop just as the bus arrives. The worst case, if a bus has just been missed, is 60 minutes. While the average, assuming random arrival is 40 minutes.

This comparison shows high variability, or +/- 20 minutes from the average. The 3:1 difference between maximum and minimum trip times is entirely due to the attempt to make a short trip by randomly arriving to catch a low frequency service.

Increasing frequency to 20 minutes reduces the average time to 30 minutes, or a 33% reduction. Variability is reduced to +/- 10 minutes, or 20 to 40 minutes. For a ten minute frequency the average drops to 25 minutes, or an average 37% time saving. Variability drops to +/- 5, or a ratio of maximum to minimum of 1.4:1.

The above example shows that frequency has a dramatic effect on random arrival end-to-end travel times. Higher frequency also cuts variability, or effectively increasing travel reliability. The minority willing to plan around timetables can enjoy the benefits today, without any frequency increase. That’s unless they depend on connections, which are discussed next.

Example 2: Bus + train trip

Consider a suburb about 20km from the CBD. Its local buses run every 30 minutes and the trains every 20 minutes. The passenger is 5 minutes walk away from the bus stop. The bus trip (via a meandering route) takes 15 minutes to a stop near the station. When passengers alight the bus they need to cross a busy road to the station, which has only one entrance at the far end of the platform (assume 5 min). After that the train takes 40 minutes to the city.

The best case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 3 min (station access) + 0 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 65 minutes for the 20km trip.

The worst case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 30 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 5 min (station access – assuming 2 min traffic light cycle at crossing) + 20 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). That’s a total of 115 minutes for the 20km trip.

There’s three things to note. Firstly the worst case represents an overall speed of just over 10km/h or about double walking speed. Secondly the variability is high – the worst case taking twice as long as the best case. And, in the worst case example, the passenger is in motion for barely half the time.

Now consider the same trip above, with the following modest service improvements:

· Bus frequency upgraded from 30 to 20 minutes, to provide a harmonised connection to each train, with a consistent 6 minute connection · Bus route made more direct, to reduce travel time from 15 to 10 minutes and fund the higher frequency, but with 5 minutes added walking time · Additional station platform entrance and zebra crossing installed (to reduce station access time from 5 to 2 minutes)

The best case travel time following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + (10 min bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 66 minutes for the 20km trip. The worst case following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 20 min (wait for bus) + 10 min (bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 86 minutes for the 20km trip.

The difference is dramatic. The average travel time has fallen from 90 to 76 minutes, while the ‘worst case’ is nearly 30 minutes quicker. Variability also fell; from +/- 25 minutes of the mean to +/- 10 minutes. Better connectivity and higher bus frequency contributed most to the gain. However more direct bus routing and better pedestrian access also added smaller but no less cost-effective benefits.

Example 3: Bus + Bus trip

Finally we’ll examine a cross-suburban trip involving a change between two bus routes. This is typical for journey types in which public transport has a low modal share.

I’ll use similar assumptions to the first example. Eg 5 minute walk to and from the bus and 10 minute travel time in each bus. The first route runs every 60 minutes while the one being changed to is every 40 minutes.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 30 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 45 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 75 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 30 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are unharmonised the best connections will recur every two hours. We’ll assume an average of half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes average. But it could range from 15 to 55 minutes, or a variability of +/- 20 min from the average.

The very shortest time that the overall trip can be made is 30 minutes, with the longest 130 minutes. The average time is 80 minutes. Because time savings and delays average out, the traveller is unlikely to experience the extreme shortest and longest trip times. But if they do, that’s a ratio of over 4:1, or a variation of +/- 50 minutes.

While people may tolerate a higher variability for a short trip (Eg a 10 minute trip taking 20 minutes), it is probably true that tolerance declines for longer trips (especially if routine). Hence the letters in the paper complaining about suburban trips that take an hour by public transport but only 20 minutes driving.

There’s a couple of things that can be done to reduce variability.

Firstly the passenger could forego flexibility and use a timetable. Instead of waiting an average of 30 minutes for the first bus, they wait an average 5 minutes. This reduced variability of +/- 20 minutes is solely due to the connection between the first and second bus, which is beyond the passenger’s control. Average travel time is also reduced – by 25 minutes, which is the difference between the planned wait and the random arrival wait (ie half the frequency of the first service).

There’s also the contribution of service planning, which unlike the first response, assumes no accommodation on the part of the passenger.

Suppose the frequency of the first service was upgraded from 60 to 40 minutes. The first benefit of this is to reduce the average wait, from 30 to 20 minutes. Variability contributed by the wait for the first service is thus reduced.

The second benefit is that it matches the frequency of the second service. Such matching does not guarantee good connections but does dramatically slash variability. Let’s look at the numbers.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 35 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 55 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 20 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are now harmonised the connections will recur every 40 minutes. We’ll assume there’s been no special planning and the wait for the second service is half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg therefore involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes. Because the first leg has been harmonised to it the wait for it is now constant, variability has been reduced to zero.

Add the two legs and we have an average of 70 minutes. That’s 10 minutes down on the first case of 80 minutes. But the real gain has been in reduced variability. At best it’s 50 minutes and at worst it takes 90 minutes. This is a variability of +/- 20 minutes – well down on the earlier +/- 50 minutes. Also the ratio of maximum to minimum journey time has fallen from over 4:1 to under 2:1. Although average travel times are still slower than many would like, the improvement made from adjusting one route from a non-harmonised 60 minutes to a harmonised 40 minutes cannot be underestimated.

Again, with the earlier example one can do better. If one sacrifices flexibility and uses a timetable to catch the first service, the average travel time falls by 15 minutes (70 to 55 minutes) and variability virtually eliminated. Secondly, if planners consider that the connection between the two services is sufficiently important to be worth adjusting timetables, the connection time could be reduced from the 20 minutes average assumed here to 10 minutes. This contributes another 10 minutes, meaning a total average trip time of 60 minutes for those who don’t use a timetable and a reliable 45 minutes for those who do.

Summary and Conclusion

I have demonstrated the effect of frequency on cutting journey time. It is at first dramatic, with a point of diminishing returns being reached as frequency rises to around ten minutes. Beyond that point, unless it needed for capacity or for very short trips, its impact drops.

Also discussed has been travel time variability. Public debate on this normally concerns train reliability, and this is especially important for those connecting to less frequent buses. However the examples demonstrate indicate it can be very high for bus trips, especially those involving random arrival and connections between non-harmonised services. Harmonised bus frequencies can greatly reduce variability and make public transport more useful for trips where it’s currently weakest.

The planning approach presented here focuses most on service frequency and its harmonisation. There is less attention to infrastructure and capacity.

The former is cheap and quick, while the latter is expensive and long-term.

Both have their place in a growing city. But introducing the latter without the former means that use of the latter is poorly utilised and public transport’s potential to fully contribute to the overall transport effort is unrealised.

2011-12-10T20:31:00.003+11:00

The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 1)

There’s been heavy discussion about the financial user cost of public transport, following the announcement of an 8.6 per cent fare rise from next month. This post is about another user cost; the longer time it sometimes takes relative to driving.

Amongst those with a choice, public transport attracts its highest share where it is time competitive with driving, notably work trips to the city. Where it’s uncompetitive passengers tend to be those with more time than money, typically due to low incomes and/or an inability to pay. This is the familiar skewed pattern of old and young in the off-peaks and city commuters during the peaks.

This is a long post, so is split into two parts. Part 1 discusses user financial costs, funding sources, trip time and trip time variability. Part 2 uses examples to illustrate the large gains possible from service and other improvements.

Two dimensions: time and money

One insight that comes from counting time as a cost is that it invites comparison with that other type of cost most commonly associated with public transport – fares. Fares are known and fixed whereas time value is less tangible but no less important.

Although lacking hard numbers, we can guess time value’s magnitude or draw inferences from surveys and modal share statistics. We know it varies with trip length, location and timing. Acceptance of slow trips and high costs varies but depends on the value placed on time and money respectively. Some rough plots of user time versus financial costs for various transport modes in Melbourne are on the graph below.

The ‘best’ is cheap and fast (bottom left) while the worst is dear and slow (top right). The other corners are occupied by fast expensive (top left) and slow cheap (bottom right). Overall user costs for each comprises dollar plus time costs, with this increasing from bottom left to top right.

Consensus that a particular mode represents good value is highest for those near the bottom left. Whereas top right is poor value and only worthwhile for those willing to bear the high overall cost. If they are not, they’ll change homes, jobs or schools to avoid it. The action is crucial; mere grumbling implies acceptance since bad transport may still be better than other choices available.

I take the view that most people are transport pragmatists, ie whichever available mode suits their time / cost value profile for a particular trip will be used. Most of the time the mode chosen (driving) is faster but dearer than public transport. This invites the question as to whether the overall user value of public transport would increase if it were faster, even if somewhat dearer.

Public transport’s place

Public transport’s detractors treat slowness as inherent but this is not necessarily so. Where transit is slow, this is due to decisions made on station spacing, route and timetable planning, street design, signal priority and allocation of road space between modes.

Skybus (also on the graph) is an example of fast public transport. Its fares are high relative to government-subsidised routes. But because it’s both fast and frequent its time costs are low. Add the two and you see that Skybus occupies a distinctive (and successful) position in the market, set apart from regular buses (with low fares but high time costs).

Is regular public transport’s position on the graph optimum?

The answer depends on what you want it to achieve.

What would happen if you changed either its user financial or time costs?

Making an already low-priced but infrequent bus service cheaper would not greatly reduce the overall user cost to the ‘average person’. This is because unless they value their time lowly, the time cost component probably outweighs the fare cost and slashing the latter won’t cut the total much.

However this conclusion ignores certain market segments. Fare cuts are more significant for those who value money more than time, ie the ‘captive passsenger’ end of the market. This segment tolerates the limited service and values the saving more than average so will probably use the service more, possibly even increasing revenue.

It’s a bit like arguments in favour of Reaganomics tax cuts; individuals pay less but incentive stimulates economic activity which increases overall tax take. Fare / patronage elasticity will likely be highest off-peak and weekends as there’s more discretionary trips made by a different passenger profile.

The above limited bus service isn’t attractive to car owners unless driving conditions are very poor. People on all but the lowest incomes may find the waiting not worth the saving. Passengers that a lowered fare attracts may have previously walked rather than driven. Cheaper buses might make individual travel more energy intensive, although public transport fuel efficiency (as measured by fuel use per passenger) improves with patronage (ie more passengers per litre).

Speeding up buses (achieved through directness, frequency and connectivity) but charging a higher fare should have a different effect. The better service may attract some who previously drove or got lifts. Existing passengers may use the improved, more capable service more. But a fare increase could mean that even though the service is better, price-sensitive passengers abandon it for their lower value discretionary trips.

Funding better transport

There’s at least three things that can be done.

* The first is to maximise effective service levels from current budgets. For example delete routes that duplicate others and use saved resources where more worthwhile. This requires a strong service planning culture, and for co-ordinating agencies to take a network view; both factors in which Melbourne has been weak. Like tidying an over-grown garden before selling your house, good service planning has high payoffs, due to this legacy. And participatory public engagement, including illustrating the service gains possible, should help build acceptance.

* Secondly there’s the possibility of differential off-peak pricing. This gives the price-sensitive a discount while preserving revenue from the less price sensitive. This segments the market and probably optimises patronage, though at expense to legibility. A difficulty here is if peak fares must rise disproportionately to retain overall revenue, and here we merge into the next point.

* The third are other measures to generate revenue. Possibilities include development of rail air space, parking taxes, hypothecated property levies or above-CPI fare increases.

All are politically difficult, especially if the fare increase has not followed tangible reliability and service improvements. Rises skewed toward peak period commuters (without whom capacity building infrastructure would not be needed) may be economically most rational, but send the wrong signals with regards modal choice if not accompanied by similar increases for driving (whether through fuel, parking or road space pricing).

This combined approach may be better transport policy but probably harder than fare hikes alone due to the larger numbers affected. While not impossible, it may require a trust in government that is lacking, particularly in states that propose then cancel major transport projects, such as New South Wales with its various metro plans.

Whereas people are willing to individually pay more for quicker travel (as witnessed by the popularity of driving versus public transport), sourcing such funds for collectively funded network improvements raises hackles. How do we break this deadlock?

Seeing improvements differently

It may be worth reviewing how we regard transport improvements.

Large transport plans may be centred on infrastructure. Its purpose is typically to relieve ‘bottlenecks’ caused by extrapolating present commuting patterns forward. Time costs may be used to justify it; studies may cite rising congestion costs and ‘lost productivity’. Infrastructure’s tangible nature invites us to draw lines on maps and build models to imagine a faster future.

Another way of thinking is to set a public transport journey time reduction target and use the best combination of infrastructure and services to achieve it. The bigger the target the higher the cost, but the more likely that public transport would win the modal share shifts envisaged in Melbourne 2030 (an increase from 9 to 20% or a patronage trebling).

A 20 to 50% cut in average public transport travel times may seem far-fetched. But considering how it could happen would sharpen our thinking about which improvements are really worthwhile. Plus it familiarises planners with the real source of delays, which passengers know but they may not.

Overall travel time and its variability

Rules for such analysis need to match where and when people live and travel. For example they must acknowledge that people live where they do and not at railway stations. They want to leave when they want, without checking a timetable. And the selection of trips used must represent travel made by all motorised modes, and not skewed towards public transport’s current profile. These rules are observed by (i) counting waiting and transfer times, (ii) assuming random arrival at the stop or station, and (iii) including a representative spread of trips (including cross-suburban, night and weekend travel, which together form a majority of all trips).

Adding the first two produces a more useful average travel time (random arrival end to end travel time) than ‘headline’ minimum in-vehicle travel times. The latter is often a dubious selling point for ‘fast rail’ projects. It’s a bit like quoting air fares without all the extras and surcharges; meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

Travel time variability also needs to be known. Which transit system is better? One where a particular trip takes anywhere between 10 and 40 minutes. Or one that at best is slower (eg 15 minutes) but at worst is faster (25 minutes). It’s no contest really; the latter’s lower variability means better reliability, especially for time-critical trips.

Average random arrival end-to-end travel time and travel time variability (for a representative sample of trips in the area) are the to key numbers planners need to pick the best from a number of route and timetable options.

Train planners may have to juggle with express running versus frequency. Service delivery is also critical; when passengers start having to catch an earlier train due to the risk of the one they want being cancelled, effective travel speeds can easily halve, especially when a connection from a bus is involved.

Tram planners have little scope for express running and frequency is generally already high. Their main problems are externally caused, especially when in mixed traffic. Although there are trade-offs between whether all services are run to the terminus or some terminate early to provide greater frequency and capacity in the busier inner core.

Bus planners have more flexibility. They must balance walking time, coverage, number of routes, use of transfers, directness and frequency. However, like trams, priority on the roads can speed travel and reduce variability. This is especially where bus priority operates at all times and not just when the bus is running late.

Part 2 will follow with examples

2011-12-03T06:00:00.003+11:00

The end of Melbourne's least legible bus route

Melbourne bus passengers will get less lost after the cessation of Melbourne's least legible bus route after end of service today.

Route 672, in Melbourne's outer east, sometimes runs between Croydon Station, Wonga Park and Chirnside Park Shopping Centre. I say 'sometimes' because at certain times of the day almost each trip goes a different way.

672's proliferation of timetabled deviations meant that buses often missed stops, finished at unpredictable locations, went down other streets and even went on the opposite side of the road to what maps showed.

As attested by the number of footnotes, Route 672 had no standard pattern. Footnotes appear on timetables at stops. But if you're not up for a trip to Croydon, you'll be able to read them online for the next few days.

Current 672 timetable

The first thing to read is the route description. Note how the variations take up more space than the route route itself. If you're game, try to follow these on the map. Finally inspect the timetables themselves (either the pdfs under download route timetables or individual stop timetables). One direction has no less than nine footnotes and the other no less than six.

Compare it with Monday's timetable below.

672 timetable from 5 December 2011

The description, map and timetable for the revised 672 are vastly simpler. Except for the Telebus deviate-on-demand service which remains, fine print footnotes have been almost eliminated. There are later finishes on weeknights and many more Saturday trips.

Other changes

The 672 isn't the only route that will be simplified on December 5. A good summary appears here.

Key cases where occasional deviations and extensions were removed include 691's Bayswater and Monash extensions (the latter now covered by other routes) and 664's Sunday deviation to Lilydale (a hangover from when 664 and 691 were about the only Sunday bus routes operating east of Stud Road). Other routes eg 671, 680 and 693 also lose occasional deviations or are straightened.

Span and frequency

As well as legibilty gains, there have also been span and frequency improvements.

The most common span improvements include one or two later weeknight trips and a fuller Saturday afternoon service. Frequencies have been made more regular on several routes. The largest changes include (i) a doubling of Route 693's off-peak service to 30 minutes, (ii) 664 becoming a 30 minute service along its full length (it was previously a split 20 / 40 minute service, unharmonised with trains every 30) and (iii) some weeknight frequency improvements between the pm peak period and last service around 9pm.

Overall the changes in the Invicta network reflect the biggest improvement since some routes in the area got minimum standards upgrades. They deliver substantial legibility gains without greatly changing the existing network. It's an example of a 'greater good' upgrade that should result in a net overall benefit.

2011-11-30T22:02:00.014+11:00

The high cost of bad design: Glen Waverley Station and buses

A trip last night on the Springvale Road portion of the Route 902 orbital provided some lessons on good and bad transport interchange design.

The good example is Nunawading, in Melbourne’s east. The rail was sunk (to remove a level crossing) and a new station built a couple of years ago.

The bad example is Glen Waverley, which was last redeveloped in the 1960s. This was lauded as a good example of a shopping centre / railway station development in the Victorian Railways staff magazine of the time. However, looking back, it serves as an example of what not to do.

Nunawading

What’s good about Nunawading? The station has exits directly on Sprinvale Road. The bus stop for the station is just another stop. The bus does not leave Springvale Rd. Passengers on it are not delayed. Hence it efficiently serves both passengers transferring from train and those making short local through trips, such as from Forest Hill to Doncaster Rd. Bus operating times are also reduced, making it possible to provide a direct, fast and frequent service for a given number of buses.

The ability to efficiently serve multiple trip types increases patronage and contributes to the success of the SmartBus orbitals. It also makes for a more versatile public transport network, better able to cater for the majority of trips that don’t involve CBD travel.

The old Nunawading

View Larger Map

Glen Waverley

About 30 minutes south of Nunawading is Glen Waverley. Unlike Nunawading, this is a rail terminus (though some would like it extended to Rowville, possibly via a tunnel). Most important for this discussion is the distance of Glen Waverley station from Springvale Road.

The 1960s redevelopment placed a large car park between Springvale Road and the station, with the intention that this be used by commuters and shoppers. However in doing so it severed the station from its main potential north-south catchment for buses, bicycles and pedestrians – Springvale Road.

This short-sighted design meant that buses serving Glen Waverley Station must divert off Springvale Road, pull in to the bus interchange, and then rejoin Springvale Road. The requires passage through several sets of traffic lights, lengthening the journey.

Glen Waverley

View Larger Map

Comparison

How much is Glen Waverley’s delay compared to Nunawading? Comparing Route 902 travel times between stops immediately before and after each station provides an indication.

Southbound trips between the stop at Tunstall Av (before Nunawading Station) and West St (after Nunwading station) take about 3 minutes. This is about 1km distance and includes crossing the very busy Whitehorse Road.

Southbound trips between Landridge St (before Glen Waverley Station) and Ingram Av (after Glen Waverley Station) take about 8 minutes. Again this is about 1km with a busy road crossing, so is comparable to the Nunawading example.

For a 1km trip, the five minute time difference is quite stark. Having to leave and rejoin Springvale Rd slows the bus almost down to walking pace for the better part of ten minutes around Glen Waverley. This makes it unattractive for local trips not involving the station. Whereas Nunawading’s arrangement imposes no such delay.

Cost implications

As well as wasting passengers’ time, the operational cost imposed by inefficient off-road interchanges such as Glen Waverley’s is considerable.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate substantial increases to bus running costs, which would be better spent on improving service. That’s even with a five minute delay, which would likely be higher during peak times. And the better the bus service, the higher the cost.

Route 902 has about 70 trips each weekday in each direction via Glen Waverley. A five minute penalty for each trip costs 700 bus minutes or over 11 bus hours per weekday. If a bus costs $100 per hour to run, the daily cost of the delay (not counting foregone ticket revenue from lost patronage) would be over $1000 per day, about $7000 per week or over $365 000 per year.

When multipled by the longevity of the project, the overall cost reaches into the millions. This does not include the effect on other bus routes. Nor the amount required to remedy, for instance to construct a redesigned railhead featuring a station fronting Springvale Rd along which buses would remain.

I think the main lesson from Glen Waverley is that some projects can seem a good idea at the time but impose high future costs and hobble future network development for generations.

2011-11-28T20:49:00.005+11:00

New Epping and Thomastown stations

Today was the first day of a revised Epping line timetable and the use of rebuilt stations at Epping and Thomastown. The work is an important milestone in the extension of rail services to South Morang.

Both stations were substantially complete. Only landscaping and passenger information displays needed to be completed at Epping. Thomastown was slightly less advanced, requiring completion of a small section of roofing and the bus interchange.

The photos below were taken around 7am – just as the morning peak was building up. What the photos don't capture was the somewhat festive atmosphere - plenty of staff were handing out free coffee, 'showbags', brochures, and timetables.

Epping

Thomastown

2011-11-03T21:36:00.005+11:00

More frequent Sunday morning trams

One of the most enduring features of Melbourne's tram timetables has been their 30 minute Sunday morning frequency. Late morning and afternoon Sunday services were boosted to Saturday frequencies just over 10 years ago but earlier headways were left intact. Hence Sunday mornings and evenings were about the only times with a half-hourly service; at other times the rule has been 15 min or better during the day, and 20 minutes at night.

Recent morning service upgrades on St Kilda Rd routes have banished the 30 minute frequency to the first few services only; now frequencies are nearer to 20 minutes between about 8 and 10am. This is a significant improvement that recognises that people are often out and about at these times.

While it's still possible, check and compare old and new timetables for routes like the 67.

2011-10-27T21:20:00.012+11:00

Taking a punt

The West Gate Bridge is unashamedly for cars and trucks. It has no pedestrian or cycling facilities. Its two bus routes (232 and NightRider 944) run between the CBD and western suburbs.

There is however a Westgate Punt that ferries cyclists and pedestrians under the bridge. It ran on weekends only, but government funding has allowed a weekday peak service to be added. This is currently operating as a trial, free for its first month.

The punt runs from Spotswood to Fishermans Bend. There are cycle routes on both sides. Walk-on passengers will find that the Spotswood terminal is about ten minutes walk from the station. Weekday buses run to the city from a stop near the Fishermans Bend terminus.

The free trial offer was too good to pass up, so I took the punt this morning. Usage for trips towards the city was good, at over half the boat's carrying limit (12 people). Counter-peak patronage was less, at 1 or 2. It's a fast trip - 5 or 10 minutes. With loading and unloading time one vessel comfortably provides a 20 minute frequency.

So where does The Punt fit into the transport network? It saves a lot of time for cyclists commuting between the inner-western suburbs, Port Melbourne and possibly the CBD. Those who work regular business hours may even find it faster than driving, judging by vehicle speeds on the bridge.

Its utility for pedestrians is less due to limited connectivity with other public transport services. There's the ten minute walk at the western end and the limited bus service at the eastern end. Still it may be better than land public transport options, particularly for those working within walking distance of the punt in Fishermans Bend.

A further handicap is that though Fishermans Bend appears to have reasonable job density (good for public transport) its low permeability limits bus route efficiency and pedestrian access (think freeways, fences and superblocks).

The pictures below show the punt in action.

2011-10-07T17:10:00.004+11:00

Taj Mahals or stopping points – the role of suburban stations

Though victimisation rates indicate otherwise, there is a widespread perception that people feel most safe in their own homes, somewhat safer on the street and less safe at railway stations (especially at night). If the latter holds back patronage, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Passengers frequently call for staffing, toilets and better waiting areas at stations.

And train operators face multi-million dollar annual bills to fix vandalism and clean graffiti at stations.

A way to approach these issues is to reappraise the relationship between stations and their surrounds. Relationships can be human (eg through station staff and/or ‘friends of’ station groups) or physical. Today I will discuss only the latter, since most Melbourne stations are neither staffed nor adopted by a friends group.

Go back 60 to 90 years and stations were hives of local activity. Every significant Victorian town or suburb had one. Visitors, goods and news often arrived there. Trains’ modal share was higher then than now. And there were more staff – including signallers, guards, maintenance, porters, clerks etc. Not suprisingly station facilities had to be large enough to accommodate all this activity.

While lengthening commutes and more recent patronage rises has grown the railway’s absolute contribution to the transport effort (as measured in passenger kilometres) their role has narrowed relative to that of cars and trucks. Railways in Victoria are now almost exclusively passenger concerns. And in Melbourne this is heavily skewed towards CBD area commuting, which while substantial, accounts for a minority of work trips. (Whereas trams tend to be used for diverse purposes throughout the day and local buses have a large ‘captive ridership’ role).

The only interaction that many who drive to work in the suburbs have with the railways is waiting at boom gates or hearing news reports about rail crime. The latter may give rise to perceptions that stations are unfamiliar, hostile, and unsafe, unused by ‘people like us’. This is reflected in personal safety concerns on trains and at stations, particularly at night.

How can one ‘lift the veil’ and improve perceived station safety to be no worse than any other public place? And what about other passenger concerns like toilets, staffing, information or nicer waiting areas?

Some of the best bus and tram stops comprise a simple seat under a shop verandah. They are of the street, not separate to it. Access time to local facilities (including retail ticket outlets) is measured in seconds, reducing travel times and the chance of getting rained on. Public toilets may be nearby. And no one complains about their lack of staffing.

In contrast some other types of stops, like mid-road tram safety zones, have no shelter and require passengers to cross a road. Bus interchanges may be off the main street and have limited facilities. Railway stations, especially if ringed by parking, billboards or (now) over-sized buildings may be similarly cut off.

Could the railways’ quieter stations take their cue from bus and light rail (eg Route 109’s Port Melbourne terminus)? Is there scope to give up the concept of ‘station as place’ in return for more open platforms integrated with surrounding preferably active streets (which may be seen as safer than an unattended station)?

Station - streetscape integration may require knocking down walls, removing unused buildings, taking down dividing billboards and access that puts passengers before cars. More open layouts make stations less of a mystery to non (but potential) users, and less forbidding at night. But it’s not one size fits all as vacant station buildings could be offered to community groups instead (as sometimes already done). In both cases, the community, accustomed to seeing stations as eyesores or magnets to crime, might then start to take a more charitable view. Even at the same station the differences can be marked; Mentone’s Platform 1 integrates well with the surrounding area while the Platform 2 side is shielded by billboards and parking.

If moved from the station’s fare paid area to the street outside, facilities like station toilets could serve both. Facing an active street rather than a railway could improve passive surveillance. It might be possible to involve the local community more in their siting and management, with the proviso that any relocation remain convenient to train passengers. In quieter locations one toilet (open for more of the day) could replace two and any savings used to increase the number of stations with toilets nearby.

Information is another area where transit and community needs can be brought together. Precinct maps and wayfinding signage can promote local shops and attractions as well as directing arriving passengers to buses and surrounding streets. Urban design and arts projects can strengthen these ties, with the ideal being a natural intuitive flow with signage merely consulted for confirmation and cross roads only minimally impeding access.

Some of the above is more relevant to smaller stations, preferably with edge rather than island platforms. Busier stations with more lines will always remain places in themelves and justify their own facilities and staffing. However their interface with the surrounds remains extremely important to their success.

The photos interspersed above are two stations (Grange in Adelaide, Kellerberrin in regional WA). Though minimal they appear to serve the area’s needs and interface reasonably well with surrounds.

2011-10-05T12:37:00.006+11:00

Station ramps vs lifts

ponderings from TransWA's wi-fi equipped MerredinLink train

Lifts Pros:

- Can be installed in confined horizontal space
- Lessen walking for the less mobile
- Due to their small footprint they are sheltered

Lifts Cons:

- Expensive to install
- Use power
- Can break down
- High repair costs/require specialised labour
- Limited capacity (ie low passengers moved per minute)
- Require a wait to use
- Confine users with strangers (which may make some uncomfortable)
- Not suitable for unstaffed stations

Ramps Pros:

- Cheap to install
- Don't use power
- 100% reliable
- Low maintenance costs
- High capacity
- No waiting to use
- Do not require confinement with strangers
- Suitable for unstaffed stations

Ramps Cons:

- Take up a lot of space if meet 1:14 DDA gradient standard
- Increase walking distance for able-bodied passengers (but can be mitigated if stairs also provided)
- If badly designed may reduce visibility/passive surveillance
- May not be sheltered

I think the ramps have it!

But it's not one size fits all. Where space issues preclude ramps (eg CBD stations), a combination of stairs (and/or escalators)and lifts looks to be the best of both worlds. But at stations where ramps are practical their low gradient does not adequately provide for able-bodied passengers, and either a steeper ramp or stairs is needed also.

2011-09-30T22:26:00.005+10:00

Good, Bad and Interesting things about Adelaide Transport

Presenting a paper at this year's Australian Transport Research Forum in Adelaide has provide a chance to sample that city's public transport. Here's four good, four bad and four interesting points based on observation.

The good

Go Zones. Frequent service corridors covering most inner suburbs out to about 10km from the CBD. They are extensively advertised at stops, on timetables and at the Metro Shop.

Airport accesss on regular services. J1 and J2 provide a 15 minute service 7 days a week. Service spans are very wide, with service starting before 5am even on a Sunday morning. The profile of the service is quite high - airport staff recognise the numbers and the information desk is well stocked with timetables.

Rail electrification. Project includes several new and rebuilt stations, sighted on the Noralunga line.

Glenelg tram. New extension is well patronised. It also serves major trip generators including a university, convention centre and hospital under construction.

Bad

Pedestrian crossings. Imagine a journey where after a couple of minutes travel you stopped, were paused 2 minutes, could lurch forward a few hundred metres and stopped again. This is walking in Adelaide. Long traffic light cycles at CBD intersections reduce overall walking speeds to a crawl. In the suburbs islands and seperate signals (for each direction) at divided roads further slow transfer between train and bus. The Melbourne equivalent would be if every intersection had traffic light cycles like King Street.

Infrequent trains. Unlike Melbourne or Perth, where trains form the most frequent 'spine' of the network, train frequencies are often 30 to 60 minutes, making recourse to a timetable essential.

Low bus network legibility. It is difficult for the visitor to see the logic of the bus network. If you board a bus in a CBD street you cannot be assured it will continue straight along it. There is a large number of route numbers, with various letter and number prefixes and suffixes. Buses are significantly less legible than trams in Melbourne, but there are no inherent reasons for this to be the case.

Few maps on the network. Compounding limited legibility is that while many bus stops have times, few have maps of either the route or network. The only place where there's a city-wide network map appears to be inside the Metro Shop. Go Zone network maps are similarly available on the web but not at the point of need on the system. Maps of individual routes don't seem to be nearly as common as (say) Melbourne.

Interesting

Ticket purchase on trains. Instead of at machines at stations.

Can see to the front on trains. Most systems' trains only allow passengers to see out the sides of a train. With at least some of Adelaides you can also see out the front. This gives a quite different view of the network.

Single zone tickets. The liability is a high minimum fare, though there is a cheaper short-distance ticket. The advantage is simplicity. The ratio between single and daily ticket is not dissimilar to Melbourne, making a daily tickets a good choice.

Stops are numbered. The acid test of a public transport system's legibility is whether people can find themselves to a destination at night. Large numbers on stops are viewable from the bus, so can help if trying to ascertain where you are (printed timetables refer to these numbers against timepoints). On the flip side timetables are not stop specific - they are instead full timetables where the passenger must estimate arrival times for themselves.

2011-09-24T10:18:00.002+10:00

Why even culs-de-sac with walkways are bad

There's been some debate on culs-de sacs. We all know they're terrible for pedestrian permeability.

But is providing a walkway at the end of them a panacea? Some have suggested that this provides the best of both worlds - safety for children due to the removal of through car traffic - and permeability for pedestrians.

While better than culs-de-sac without end walkways, they present some problems. Overall I think they're inferior to a grid streets (with narrowing and traffic calming where necessary).

I give five reasons why in my response to the previous link:

1. Opportunities for graffiti/vandalism. Cul de sacs create blank side fences. These are a canvas to vandals. Urban design that minimises these is good (for the same reason there should always be verges, roads and then houses facing railways – never back fences).

2. Poor passive surveillance compared to a continuous street with house frontages. Increase opportunities for vandalism and assaults against pedestrians. Criminals think they can ‘get away’ with more if there are no sightlines.

3. Low information and legibility. Walkways are less prominent in the street directory and only locals may know about them (compared to continuous streets). Trip planner type mobile apps that only consider streets that cars run on might not have detailed pedestrian access way data.

4. Impermanence. It’s not only in posh areas that cul-de-sacs can be closed. To take a random example, when it was built c1979, the end of Wimmera Court (Werribee) was open.

Now it’s closed and part of private property. Since then a shopping centre opened. Had the end remained open it would only be 10 – 12 min walk from it. Now it’s nearer to 15 min, with the perceived time longer due to less directness. I contend that a legible 10 min walk vs a less legible 15 min walk is a huge difference in walking’s attractiveness and thus its share.

Police and residents may push for closure due to apparent crime problems (see 1 above). But especially if there’s a wider pedestrian access issue that affects others from outside the street, then such calls should be resisted due to its effect on the pedestrian network. But it would have been better not to build culs de sac in the first place.

And I don’t think we should just concentrate on access between schools/shops and houses, even though this carries the higher volume – we should also consider anywhere to anywhere trips – eg kids visiting friends houses.

5. I don’t know if it’s my imagination, but in poorer areas the most derelict houses with the worst gardens, the most number of cars on blocks and sheets for curtains are gathered at the ends of courts. If that’s not factually the case it looks worse around the bowl of a court. Check out Studley Court, Laverton on google. Also front fences on houses at the ends of culs-de-sac can be casualties of wayward cars as well. Though not a believer I do think Feng shui has some good design principles, and I that a house on a cul-de-sac bowl draws the shortest straw.

2011-09-05T21:34:00.008+10:00

Should transit follow people - or people follow transit?

While not the exact subject of the post, a recent Human Transit post contains a general quote that's worth reflecting on.

This, to me, fits into a much larger agenda of insisting that everyone who makes a location choice -- especially about where to live -- should be required to acknowledge the transit impacts of that choice. Today it's still common to encounter the other sequence, in which someone (a) signs a lease or deed of sale or development agreement and then (b) yells at the transit agency because the service isn't what they desire.

This is pertinent in any city where transport service quality varies.

Here in Melbourne there are roughly three service tiers correlating with inner (0-10km), middle (10 - 30) and outer (30 - 50km) suburbs. The first is dominated by trams, normally on a 10 to 20 minute frequency, although a few ex-tram bus routes also qualify. The second has trains and/or higher service buses (15 to 30 minute frequency). Then there's the outer suburbs with buses and sometimes trains (40 to 60 minute frequency). To this may be added an exurban and near regional zone, whose service varies from nil to hourly.

The above is a broad generalisation and exceptions apply. There exist inner and middle suburbs (Kensington Banks, parts of Port Melbourne, northern Reservoir, parts of Sunshine North) with limited span, frequency and coverage. In contrast some semi-rural areas (Warrandyte, Yarrambat) have almost inner-type service levels. And others (Woori Yallock, Cockatoo) have buses running as late as in a regular suburb.

These are not academic discussions as service planning decisions have human impacts. These are disproportionate if a service (even if temporary) is introduced, relied on by a few, and then discontinued.

Take Kinglake, for example. It's a semi-rural lifetyle dormitory area north of Melbourne. People move there to 'get away from it all'. They may be semi-retired or drive to work in Melbourne's northern suburbs or the CBD itself.

It had one suburban bus each weekday to the major suburban centre of Greensborough. The area was devastated by bushfires and the government introduced a frequent 7-day service to assist with relief recovery. Average patronage was not high and the added services were withdrawn. A residents' campaign called for services to be restored. The government responded, introducing a limited service, to start next week on a trial basis.

People in Kinglake (like those in Mornington Peninsula, Pearcedale, Warneet, Kangaroo Ground, Mt Martha or Eynesbury) pay taxes and expect government services in return (including public transport). Even an affluent car-owning population in these parts may request public transport on behalf of others, eg for their teenage children with part-time jobs or elderly parents.

Unfortunately dead-end routes to semi-rural areas are unlikely to be well patronised. They require high subsidies per passenger. If the aim is the 'greatest good for the greatest number' better uses for the resources are likely to be found elsewhere. If we temper this approach to acknowlege the 'tyranny of the majority' and provide a minimal 'safety net' service to sparse areas, the extremes of under-provision are avoided but at some opportunity cost (most notably in services foregone to lower income outer suburbs or to provide main road frequent service corridors).

Jarrett's quotation suggests we should have little sympathy for those who move to a poorly served area and complain about the service. One might also add the irony of affluent city folk seeking to 'get away from it all' in an exurban hideaway but then demanding city-type services (largely paid for by others).

Moving house is a major decision and it's not unfair to expect people research where they're moving to beforehand. Such expectation of personal responsibility should rise with incomes; those who earn more by definition have more housing location choices. Families, in particular, are used to making these types of decisions, especially in relation to childrens' schooling. Ditto for some older people, though a regular suburban house has more nearby services to 'age in place' than a high-maintenance semi-rural acreage, so the latter may require an earlier move out.

I should add an important qualification. Jarrett sees a world where bus service quality is based on objective criteria like pedestrian catchments, population density or a corridor's importance. If we planned like this services are likely to be more secure since there is a reasonable alignment between service provision and demand. And cases of gross over and under servicing (neither of which are sustainable long-term) would be fewer.

However in practice we know that service levels and network need do not necessarily match. I mentioned Warrandyte and Yan Yean, both of which receive more service than density or demand alone may justify. In Yan Yean's case though, the service is only as good as it is because it is on a major cross-suburban orbital route. Provided through passenger numbers were high this may be justified, with Yan Yean being a lucky but incidental beneficiary.

Should we be shifting some responsibility for public transport on the individual? Ie should people without cars live in a semi-rural area and expect urban-type public transport? Or should there be some obligation to consider transport in location choices?

I lean towards the latter, with two major reservations.

The first is that service levels are transparently determined and fairly reflect likely demand or need. That a route runs frequently only because it was an old tram, or that it does a special extension to a long-closed hospital would not be good service planning, for example.

Given the public subsidies involved, and the allied public interest, it could be useful to weigh up the merits of more widely distributing patronage data versus holding tight. Release would likely strengthen the hand of the service planner when pressing 'greater good' cases for service reform and educate the community about the trade-offs and opportunity costs involved. Such information would also be a useful antidote against those who may lobby to retain an indirect route deviation but never used it when it ran.

Secondly, there may be a need to provide coverage to some areas to 'complete the network' or 'fulfil social needs', even though these services may not be highly patronised. However their potential opportunity costs should be acknowledged by planners and shared with the public to better inform the decision made and increase acceptance of it.

For instance running an indirect route via a street with retirement homes in a low income area may be accepted (though ideally planning policies would only approve such developments near actual or likely bus routes). Whereas the strict '90% within 400 metres' coverage requirement could be relaxed in less needy or less dense areas (eg Brighton and Templestowe), especially where alternatives like trains and high-service buses are available to most within 800 metres.

2011-08-25T20:27:00.011+10:00

The armchair bus planner

He idly leafed through the Melway street directory as a sedentary diversion from gardening outside. Such an activity could have been done anytime since about 1980 when the directory started showing bus routes as well as streets.

The page turning stopped at Map 17. Straight streets, but bent bus routes. Almost as soon as the bus would have got up speed it was time to turn the corner, hand straps swinging from side to side.

This was Hadfield, built by the Housing Commission in the 1950s. Nine miles north of the Melbourne CBD and a mile from railways either side. Boundary Road betrays a former outgrown limit, while North, South, East and West Streets reassuringly prevent those in between from getting lost.

Less known than Pascoe Vale to the south or Glenroy to the west but still deserving capitals, Hadfield is a real suburb. As opposed to a mere locality like the nearby obscure lower-case Westbreen. The ‘50s were probably the golden age of the small lettered locality name. Like Bellfield, Pennydale, Coatesville or Coonans Hill. Built after the railway ceased being a necessity for a suburb but before children and housewives routinely motored beyond it.

Three of the area’s four bus routes (513, 527, 534) go to Coburg at the south-east of the map. Three (513, 534, 536) also run to Glenroy Station, back a page to Map 16. Glenroy roughly marks the limit of pre WWII development and forms the edge of the inner suburban fare zone. Two run to quiet Gowrie while none run to busy Broadmeadows, the area's main suburban centre just off the map.

The map showed that bent routes were typical – buses would typically head west, north and then west or east. A couple seemed unsure of themselves. 534 might as well join the communists. Once out of Coburg it sways wildly left, right, left, until deciding far left, to Glenroy, was its destiny. Route 536, slightly to the north, is so indecisive that, for good or evell, trips alternate between parallel streets.

536 veers off Map 17, with a small incursion into Map 6, to 17’s north-west. Map 6 is dominated by Broadmeadows. Shopping centre, library, town hall, schools, Centrelink, police and courts. One could almost live one’s entire life there, and some may have. Plus a major railway station and two orbital SmartBus routes, including the main route to the airport.

‘Broady’ has long had big things planned for it. It’s in successive government plans as a district centre, principal activity centre or suburban central business district. The idea is that people from surrounding suburbs would take jobs there rather than in Melbourne CBD, thus decongesting trains and shortening commutes.

To make the diagonal trip from Map 6 to Map 17, one may take Widford Road as this passes over the Metropolitan Ring Road. North of the Ring Road is a community centre and a shop or two. Bus Route 538 runs behind there via back streets, no doubt to the chagrin of Campbellfield commuters. Most homes in the area are near Widford Street. Hold that thought, for unlike chewing gum on a bus seat, it may come in use later.

Flicking across to Map 7, one sees the 538 paralleling the 902 along Camp Road. There’s only a barracks and a business park, so a single route every fifteen minutes, such as the 902 SmartBus, should suffice.

Ahead and to the left is the Campbellfield Shopping Centre. It’s got the beginnings of a transit oriented hub. Just fifteen kilometres due north of the CBD on its most important road, industrial or millitary land that could suit higher and better uses, an orbital SmartBus and a train that passes (but does not stop). Here the 538 runs north along Sydney Road, and then east, eventually terminating in Campbellfield’s Somerset Estate, most definitely not designed for transport other than the car.

Despite the neighbourhood being off the highway and not on the way to anywhere else, Route 538 is not alone in these parts; Route 531 between North Coburg and Upfield also goes there. Timetables for both are time-capsules; a reminder of how buses in Melbourne used to be. Route 538 runs every 40 minutes until 7pm weekdays and Saturday mornings, while the 531 is weekdays only, operating hourly until 8pm. Two limited service routes serving the same low-density residential streets. Reread that last sentence and hold that thought.

The armchair planner’s mind sped and his felt pen quivered, with blobs forming overleaf. A messy side-to-side red has been drawn, running east, then north, then east on Map 7, over the entire Route 538. Why keep it when it almost entirely overlaps other routes?

During a candid moment he professes a slight satisfaction in wielding the pen, not unlike a dentist after an extraction or a surgeon after cutting a cancer. Although, perhaps unlike the last two, pecuniary interest is not involved. This joy is not because the planner revels in denying people a bus. Rather it is due to the opportunity made; after the cull can come the creating (with some compensating).

It remains likely that some from Somerset will still wish to visit Broadmeadows, preferably via a direct means. Deleting 538, at first glance, appears to remove this option. However the 531, which we’re keeping, terminates at Upfield Station. As does 540, which runs to Broadmeadows.

Joining the two would restore this link, albeit via the slower north than the faster south. And pay homage to existing practice, footnoted in the timetable, of the 538 and 540 being linked. Loadings should be reasonably bidirectional – some will be travelling south to the tram and Coburg, while others will be heading north to Upfield station and Broadmeadows.

Then there is the matter of service levels. Would Somerset residents prefer two limited service routes or one full service route? The latter since no stops are being denied a service. So the resources from the deleted 538 could boost the 531, giving it new weekend and early evening service, much like the 540 that it could join.

The armchair planner is tantalised by these apparently easy gains. A simpler network, fewer routes, the same coverage and better operating hours. Why did someone not think of this before?

Such euphoria potentially precedes pricking by the practicalities.

Not immediately obvious is that Routes 531 and 538/540 are run by different companies. This may test the art of the possible in management where the dreamers are fewer or don’t make the decisions.

Neither was much thought given to route lengths and service frequencies; a forty minute service may neatly meet every second train but is inefficient if the route is 41 minutes long. Then there’s other questions like whether Route 540’s current twenty minute frequency would apply over the entire extended route, none of it or only the current portion.

Still these are minor things for the dreamer, who by now has turned back a map. For he did not forget that Widford’s fate was left hanging on Map 6. 538’s deletion makes it deserving of a service to compensate, but only if made an economical part of something bigger. Unlike some previous excursions, which left a trail of unsolved problems across the pages, fixing this pleasingly returns us to where we started on Map 17, with some Map 16 changes on the side. Such circles are usually bad for the routes themselves but are good for their planning.

So the dreaming resumes. Possibilities include improving access to Broadmeadows by breaking the Ring Road’s historical barrier on route planning. And could services be improved if buses could be sped up by running routes not requiring as many turns? Maybe more straight routes and fewer L and S shaped routes.

The armchair planner partly closes his eyes. This blurs the smaller streets. He tries to imagine the main roads of Map 17.

Clear north-south routes include West Street/Cumberland Rd, and East Street/Sussex Street. One or two others are ‘maybes’.

East-west routes include Hilton Street/Box Forest Road and Boundary Road. There are others but they may be in other route’s catchments. Successful bus routes must serve several markets, for instance local shoppers as well as train connections. Given existing off-peak train frequencies, it was sometimes considered acceptable to break the grid to feed the main centres. For instance Glenroy instead of Oak Park or Coburg instead of Pascoe Vale. A bit like now but straighter.

Like a spider starting a web, his first move was a straight drop down (more or less). From the twig up at Widford Street, the bus from Broadmeadows turns right at Daley, then Morley, West, Cumberland and then east to Coburg Station, via portions of Gaffney, O’Hea and/or Bell. Hence it serves catchments of Route 536 (Morley St), 534 (West St) and 513 (most of the rest) in a roughly north – south alignment.

This modified 513 has the makings of a very strong route; Major stops at Broadmeadows and Coburg, two medium sized shopping areas in between and high directness. Given that it ends in distant Greensborough or Eltham it’s rather long, but that’s a problem for another day and another map. Glenroy loses this route but there remain others and Broadmeadows ought to attract more passengers.

The other key north-south route is 527. It’s already quite direct (with a wobble to meet Tram 55) and serves Coburg and beyond to its south. In the north though it ends with a whimper, skirting a school, a cemetery and the sometimes as quiet Gowrie Station.

‘527 deserves better than Gowrie’, the armchair planer thought. If not Broadmeadows, at least Glenroy. The aptly named Middle Street might get it there via the West Street Shops and Glenroy Road to the station. However traffic calming measures and residents may not agree. Either South or Hilton Street may be alternatives, with the former sacrificing coverage and the latter directness. Again the route has become longer and remedial treatment may be required on another map.

Sussex Street (Route 534) is a third possible north-south corridor. It’s nearer midway between Cumberland St and the railway line, so ought to be better than the parallel Derby Street, just 300 metres away. However, unless dead people can be persuaded to ride buses, Sussex Street loses its catchment north of Boundary Road. And buses on Sussex miss the Melville Road tram. It may yet deserve a service but only from the fragments left after the rest of the network has been built.

From north to south the first east-west route is the alternating 536. It’s more frequent than the 538 but it still lacks evening, Sunday and public holiday service. While some of its western catchment would be served by the extended 513, its east still needs service. The 536 could be kept but straightened, with routing via Hilton Street being the lesser evil.

Some numbers enter the dreamer’s mind. Train frequency: 20 minutes. Bus 536 frequency: 30 minutes. Existing bus run time: 20 minutes. Buses needed if route run independently (which it isn’t): 2. But if straightening could reduce the bus run time, could the two run a 20 minute headway harmonised with trains? Or if there’s more demand elsewhere, pull one off and leave a 40 minute service, meeting every second train? The hard question here is whether those in North East Glenroy will accept a faster and better connected route in exchange for a longer walk to it.

The next big thick east-west line is Rhodes Parade/Pascoe Street/Boundary Road. Its west is seved by part of the 513. Its middle has no service, though there is one in nearby parallel South Street. Its east, near Merlynston Station, has the wavering 534 from Coburg (a relatively recent gain).

Given the first move was to straighten the 513, it’s only fair that the 534 get similar treatment. The grand swap commenced above can now be completed. 513, as discussed before, now up West St to Broadmeadows. Taking its place could be 534 routed west to Glenroy via Rhodes and Plumpton.

Dreamers are prone to thinking too much of what can (should?) be without sufficiently appreciating what’s there. An example was a fleeting thought to finish the modified 534 at Oak Park instead of Glenroy. However this was soon dropped. For part of the route (as 513) is within walking distance of Oak Park Station and the route’s shopper function is best met by keeping the Glenroy connection (Oak Park having few shops). The 534’s wavering section to Coburg is for now left alone but has been marked for later scrutiny.

It was getting late and way past bedtime. Washing up from breakfast remained. Lunch was a fridge visit. And tea had not been eaten.

But a wish to avoid a sleepless night would require that Map 17’s loose ends were at least listed if not solved. There is no loss so great as a forgotten idea. These night thoughts though are the craziest – radical, controversial and often half-baked. Who was it that said nothing good happens after 2am? Luckily none can be acted upon until daylight brings reason.

For example, could 536 have been extended from Gowrie to Fawkner shops on Jukes Road? Yes Fawkner gains but it’s a slow zig-zag across Sydney Road that would likely cost frequency.

And does Broadmeadows deserve a second major route from the south? It may even be an even stronger terminus than the Glenroy suggested for Route 527. If routed via Hilton St its East Street coverage would be restored and 536 could be moved north to nearer its current route.

Then there’s Pascoe Vale Station. Like Oak Park it has no bus to the east. Would a bus from it, via Gaffney Street, to Coburg work? Economy may dictate that this be a straighter redirected 534 from Coburg, with service withdrawn from parts near Merlynston. The Boundary Rd bus would need a new number (perhaps 537) and possibly a southward turn via Sussex and Shorts for coverage sake.

The armchair planner sees both pros and cons in these late bursts of radicalism. By this hour he has not the energy to seek more compelling evidence. Although his gut does see more winners than losers.

Legibility is certainly better. Two major routes north - south; Broadmeadows to Coburg. Three lesser routes east-west; linking stations on each side. Most stops remain in use and route kilometres is much the same as now.

Though the actual streets to use are not set in stone, the big picture network appears roughly sensible, with connectivity, bus running times and their efficient usage major caveats. In nutting these out the result of the dream is now subject to judgement, study, consultation and culling in the pursuit of a network that works.

2011-08-19T19:01:00.014+10:00

The shape of Melbourne’s streets

A ramble through the street directory

It is not possible to talk about bus network design without referring to street planning, for streets represent the fist of cards from which bus route planners must choose.

City

The Central Business District forms our first grid, with its main thoroughfare and tram spine aligned NNW to SSE, though for simplicity I will describe this as north-south. Its blocks are rectangular, with the ‘little’ streets feeding into the axis streets.

To the north almost all city streets continue into others (albeit angled) as they become West Melbourne, Parkville or Carlton. To the south most streets are blocked by the river, with Swanston and Spencer Streets being exceptions. However walkers enjoy greater permeability with some pedestrian-only bridges to Southbank.

State Parliament and Southern Cross Station bookend the CBD to the east and west respectively. Bourke Street, the central partially malled shopping street, must yield to these buildings at both ends. Whereas Collins Street, its classier southern neighbour, was privileged enough to recently gain an extension at its Docklands end. Its ‘Paris end’ also exits the grid, its leftward veer dividing the politics from the money. Similar easterly access, though with a rightward turn, exists off Lonsdale and Latrobe Streets.

Much of Flinders Street is denied a river vista by Federation Square and the two-block station named after it. The building’s narrowness suits the need to maximise platform space; open skies being an advantage in the steam age. Further west, the railway viaduct squashes the river vista from this quarter of low repute, austere pavements and architectual mistakes. However Flinders, like Collins, is unconstrained by Hoddle, with its trams running east, west and then north.

Docklands is remote, windswept and a mystery to many who don’t work there. Shopping and stadium stunt access to it, via Bourke and Lonsdale, at Spencer. While the former allows pedestrian access, this walk offers insufficient instant gratification during the two block walk; the steep stairs, the railway overpass, Docklands stadium, some ramps and a pause for a busy road deter all but the leisured curious (and tall train spotters). Colour vison is wasted here; everything is a shade of grey, except for one or two still visible brown remnants from the 1970s. However those leaving Docklands are better rewarded as the bridge provides a vista down Bourke Street to St Patrick’s Cathedral.

Docklands’ north-south routes are for driving more than walking, while its finer-grained areas are beyond lunchtime range of unrushed walkers from outside. It could yet become a medieval village with few from outside. Waterfront City attempts a grid but highways or water stymie egress from most directions; it’s not like Elizabeth or Swanston where one can march north or south until one is footsore, as Henry Bolte would wish. Its east-west streets bear the same names as in the CBD proper, but not always the same vistas or tram routes.

The redeveloped Southbank features a somewhat disordered grid. Its thorougfares are either pedestrian or car; different to say Collins or Elizabeth Street where three or four modes mix. Its key pedestrian way is along the river with frequent bridges from the north bank. Vehicle access predominates to the south where roads distribute traffic from the West Gate Freeway. Unlike Docklands, Southbank shows its face to the CBD (via the river) and, its South Wharf portion excepted, is more accessible.

Suburbs

A kilometre or two away from the Melbourne Town Hall, particularly to the north and east, the angled CBD mesh gives way to a coarser but more extensive net whose streets are almost exactly north-south and east-west. The south-south-easterly St Kilda Road makes it gently diagonal in that direction, with junctions with numerous east-west roads (which are exceptionally supplied with trams thanks to the Prahran and Malvern Tramways Trust).

Grid spacing is closest in the old areas of Brunswick, Fitzroy, Richmond, previously home to small factories and the working class. Occasionally these fine-grained areas are interrupted by 1960s housing commission towers on ‘superblocks’.

Spacing widens with distance but the grid becomes no less perfect. It increases from about a half-mile in the 1920s suburbs (10 kilometres distant) to about a mile by 20 kilometres distant. These are all key roads, mostly with building frontages, and also occasionally with service roads further out. Beyond established housing a coarse grid exists as rural roads, no doubt becoming tomorrow’s arteries as suburbanisation encroaches.

Spacings between traffic lights and the roads themselves also widen with increasing distance from the CBD. For buses wide grids mean that service may also be needed on intermediate streets to provide reasonable coverage; something that 1km grids in suburbs like Mount Waverley only just avoids. But whatever their width, grids allow faster speeds and more legible bus routes; one traffic signal and no turns beats two junctions and two turns.

In some directions, particularly to the west, north and north-east, the grid may be interrupted by freeways, rivers, parks or scrap land. Fawkner to Reservoir is short geographically but distant by road, for example. The Yarra also divides and sparsens the suburbs, with only a few favoured roads granted a bridge.

Sometimes, like the bisected Bourke Street in Docklands, both halves may be similarly named, indicating either a former or intended joining. For example the Grieve Parades in Altona, which could make a fine Altona – Toyota – Sunshine industrial bus route if joined. Or the Balmorals, Crowns, Graces and Highs over in Altona Meadows. But hop over to Hoppers and the mile grid reasserts itself with the parallel Tarneit, Derrimut, Morris, Leakes, Sayers, Hogans and Heaths Roads.

Up in Sunshine West, Glengala Avenue goes some way before it hits the freeway. Had it hypothetically continued it may have given Derrimut a bus earlier (possibly an extended Route 454) instead of requiring a wait for a new route (400).

This example demonstrates that discussions about freeways and their form are not only about infrastructure priorities (eg freeways versus railways) but also about the importance of long-distance orbital versus more regionalised road access (that a half to one mile at-grade grid provides). Due to the lack of the latter in parts of the west, the Western Ring Road has been bigger for the west than Eastlink for the east, with its more contiguous development and continuous roads.

The southern portion of Sunshine West does not have an equivalent spine to Glengala Road in the north. The Avenue (which has a bus) forms the makings of a spine but its short streets to the north limits its legible pedestrian catchment. Access is possible into Wright Street but catchment streets are widely spaced compared to the less direct Talintyre Road with more branches. Neither Wright nor Talintyre have buses so some homes exceed 400 metres from one. Whereas streets with the best of both worlds (eg direct road with closely spaced side streets but not necessarily particularly high density) like Sydney Road in Coburg may have facilitated an accessible, fast and well-patronised service.

While four-way intersections are the rule, there are more at some locations. And not just at Five Ways, outside Cranbourne. In the inner-east, all roads lead to Camberwell. Camberwell’s centrality is so great, or the take-up of motoring in this affluent area so early, that it sapped surrounding suburbs of significant shopping strips. In contrast more homes are walkable from a supermarket along the less affluent Dandenong and Frankston lines.

Multi-way junctions attract the map viewer as much as they are cursed by drivers. Eyes scanning a map are naturally drawn to St Kilda Junction, Reservoir and the notorious but soon to be removed Haymarket roundabout in Parkville. Two or three roads may meet obliquely, slicing the suburban grid. Examples includer Camberwell (again), Kew, Reservoir and Footscray. However mass motorisation caused prewar accessibility to become congestion and multi-way junctions have not been favoured since.

Inside grids

There are differences as to what’s inside the grids. Inner suburbs have grids within grids, with older working-class suburbs like Brunswick, Collingwood and Richmond markedly denser than spacious Mont Albert or Malvern East.

Other planners filled their grids with curves, not unlike an arched window. That off Bay Street in Brighton boasts an inner, middle and outer circle. Albion’s Selwyn Street more successfully encloses its park but does not form the suburb’s centre. Western Glenroy’s arch is irregular, while Sunshine West’s is a neat rounded square.

Circles are rare enough to confer novelty, like knots in a timber beam, but aren’t confined to the poshest suburbs. Albert Park’s grand St Vincent Gardens is the full circle (or oval), unlike Brighton semi. Altona North must feel impoverished with just its tiny circle (called ‘The Circle’) with attempted polygons surrounding. Nevertheless it forms the hub of local commerce. St Albans’ circle daintily sidesteps its main road junction. It forms a six slice cake, with the railway splitting it cleanly in half. Commerce occupies one slice with reserves in the centre.

Central reserves are the common pattern; circle centres are too oddly shaped to subdivide and they provide a pleasant outlook for homes lucky enough to front them. Homes also provides passive surveillance for park users.

Centres however vary greatly in size. Unlike the scraps of land in St Albans’, the park in the aptly named Park Orchard’s circle is large and unbroken. It forms a large steering wheel, though three of the four spokes are footpaths rather than roads.

Not that distant is Circle Ridge in Chirnside Park. I’m guessing this surrounds a peak given the street name. If this is the case then its aim may be to angle houses to look outwards at the view instead of the usual inward park. Pakenham’s version has a literary bent and encloses a lake.

More common than circles in the postwar suburbs are curvilinear streets and then culs-de-sac. These were considered to offer greater interest to the resident and visitor while respecting land contours and calming traffic for childrens’ benefit. Unfortunately though the layout induces vehicle usage due to low pedestrian legibility and permeability. The ‘exclusive’ golf estates like Sanctuary Lakes, Chirnside Park and the unserveable Sandhurst are the biggest offenders, but the pattern is widespread.

There are sometimes access ways at the end of culs-de-sac but these lack street frontages and may be perceived as unsafe. Since local police and residents groups often support closure of access ways and alleys (to reduce assaults, theft and graffiti), such access is less permanent as that via grid streets with street frontages.

The busier arterials in these areas may lack building frontages (more the case in newer cities like Canberra than Melbourne), or, where there are still buildings, they are set back from the street with service lanes and large front parking areas. Intersections are widely spaced, and in the worst cases are controlled by roundabouts. Distances are too far for people to talk or even recognise one another in the next building or across the street, from one shop door to another.

And even if they could (eg through a GPS-based mobile phone app linked to Facebook), the limited pedestrian access only grudgingly provided at widely spaced intersections means that such roads cannot sustain the form of street life written about by Jane Jacobs. Neither this nor the curvilinear distributor street nor the cul-de-sac suit efficient ‘last mile’ bus routes; one reason for the success of trams, along with their service levels, is the walkable grid that feeds each stop.

New urbanist planning has influenced new residential street layouts more than locating new shopping centres near stations or making industrial employment areas walkable. Modern estates now have straighter or at least connected streets compared to those of the 1980s. Altona Meadows was an early example, with a dense grid not unlike older suburbs. This layout allows a single bus route (411/412) to serve a suprisingly large catchment. And while weekend services are limited, its 20 minute weekday frequency is high for a 1970s-1980s suburb.

This evolution is clearest in established outer suburbs that have grown continously for a century or more. Central Cranbourne, Pakenham or Werribee both have old-style grids. Around 1 to 2 km out several kilometres of cul-de-sacs start. Even further out is often a modified grid, less regular than the old but with a legible central street that could take a tolerably direct bus.

However there is still difficulty in connecting adjacent estates. Bridges are expensive and we're not so gung-ho about draining swamps these days. Hence Shearwater Drive in Pakenham peters out into a park and creek and there appears no provision to connect it to Meeking Drive (and thus link it to the proposed Cardinia Road Railway Station). Buses instead would need to weave on and off the main highway, slowing travel and likely partly duplicating other routes.

Street design for walkability and transit has improved over the last thirty years but not over the last hundred. And decades of impermeable layouts and controlled access roads has left us with a legacy of culs-de-sac to open, super-blocks to bust and roundabouts to remove to improve accessibility.

2011-08-05T19:28:00.004+10:00

Road transport's most civilised invention?

Safe, reliable and direct pedestrian access to transport stops is a more fundamental need than niceties like seats, shelters and real-time displays. The latter all improve the passenger experience but are of little use if access to the stop is difficult.

There are numerous ways to improve pedestrian access across roads. Their cost varies from negligible (for a zebra crossing) to many million (for an overpass). In between are treatments involving median strips or traffic lights. Their effectiveness (as measured in terms of average and maximum wait times) likewise varies. There are also trade-offs, mainly based on whether we prefer roads to maximise throughput of car traffic or facilitate access via a variety of modes.

The table below compares how well various access measures assist the passenger cross a road to reach a stop. Assessment criteria included waiting time, whether guaranteed access is provided (a roundabout or an unsignalised road that offers an indefinite stream of unbroken cars does not, for example) and cost.

While each method has its strengths and weaknesses, the humble zebra crossing stands out as the highest and best means of pedestrian access. They are also very cheap to build. I would go so far to nominate the zebra crossing as road transport’s most civisised invention.

How did I reach the three criteria?

Firstly access time. A critical part of making public transport more attractive is speeding random-arrival end-to-end travel times. Along with bus or tram priority, out of vehicle components of travel time are the easiest and cheapest to improve through attention to co-ordinated timetabling, service frequency, easier interchange and pedestrian access.

Then there’s the measure of whether guaranteed access is provided. This affects all walking trips but is particularly critical for access to public transport due to its reliance on timetables and the large time consequences (up to an hour) if a service is missed. Unlike signalised intersections, underpasses and zebra crossings, busy roundabouts or unsignalised intersections with continually flowing traffic offer no such guarantees so are major barriers to pedestrian movement.

Lastly there is cost, for which I make no apology in including. Especially in a dispersed city with thousands of intersections, a large number of low-cost improvements would probably benefit more people than a few very expensive projects. For example, 100 new zebra crossings may be possible for the cost of a single elaborate pedestrian bridge, while for motorists there are similar trade-offs between new road/rail grade seperations (cheaper) versus new bypasses or freeways (more expensive). Bus/tram priority at intersections and roundabout removals are similar low cost/high gain projects.

Zebra crossings have another virtue in that they only slow road traffic when used. Due to this and their low construction cost it is best to err on the side of too many zebra crossings than too few. And what some may see as too many assists walkability as it makes a neighbourhood more permeable on foot.

If a new crossing is so heavily used that motor traffic is significantly delayed, it should not be condemned. Rather it is evidence that it filled a previous unmet access need and has encouraged people to walk rather than drive for short trips. Most people are pragmatic rather than ideological in their transport choices, so an improvement in walking access should result in more walking.

Zebra crossings undoubtedly have their detractors.

Busy crossings may be seen as impediments to motorists, much like pedestrians see roundabouts, freeways and long ramps to overpasses. For they, along with traffic calming and even some road rules, challenge the doctrine of the ‘open road’, a presumptuous and romantic relic from early last century’s gentleman motorists and their clubs.

Mid last century’s ‘scientific’ traffic engineers also had little time for the zebra crossing due to their ‘inefficient’ obstruction of car traffic. Grade seperating various road users became the fashion. Trams were to be dismantled or buried, cars kept at level and pedestrians confined to overpasses in various proposals for central Melbourne (including from the RACV). 1950s futurist images often showed a fourth level; a swarm of commuters in helicopters.

While private motoring took off, mass grade seperations in our city centres did not. Costs were prohibitive. Road – road and road – rail seperations in established areas often cause overshadowing and urban blight, with Sunshine, Oakleigh and Huntingdale being prominent Melbourne examples.

The closing decades of the 1900s was marked by a reaction against the traffic engineer’s dominance of city planning. Examples include the 1970s freeway revolts and 1990s ‘new urbanism’ movements. Urban amenity was considered sufficiently important for the King Street bridge in Melbourne’s CBD to be removed and levelled, while pedestrian access to Southbank was improved as part if its redevelopment.

Environmental, security and physical benefits are often-cited advantages of more people walking more often. However in daily life these ‘warm and fuzzy’ factors are unlikely to influence behaviour beyond the minority who think strongly about these things.

Much greater success is likely if walking becomes attractive to the ‘transport pragmatists’ who will use whichever mode best suits the trip at hand. It is here that road transport’s most civilised invention may have benefits disproportionate to its small cost.

2011-07-18T20:37:00.007+10:00

New Route 601 commences service

Today marked the commencement of Route 601 - Melbourne's second high frequency university shuttle service. The service operates between Huntingdale Railway Station and Monash University Clayton.

While it parallels other routes (630, 630A & 900) along this busy corridor, 601 is a little different in that it is an express service that accepts prepurchased tickets only. Its 4 minute frequency is maintained until approximately 7pm, after which it drops to 12 minutes for the next couple of hours. It's one of Melbourne's shortest bus routes, with 4 - 7 minute transit times being observed.

Monash University is about 20km east of Melbourne, built on the (then) urban fringe between railway corridors in the 1960s. The campus was built around the car, with considerable space devoted to parking. The campus and surrounding business parks have grown rapidly, and the Monash precinct is one of Melbourne's key employment areas.

The campus has its own bus interchange and generates substantial patronage, most conspicuously seen in the corridor towards Huntingdale Station. It is overcrowding in this corridor that Route 601, with its four minute frequency, was set up to address.

Below are some pictures taken during the first morning's operation:

Poster advertising the new route at Huntingdale Station

The first service - 7am Huntingdale Station

Rear of first bus at Huntingdale

Bus about to depart Monash University Clayton

Service information at Monash University

2011-07-08T18:59:00.003+10:00

Arrival variability and connection success

Connectivity is the biggest determinant of public transport travel time for most trips involving a transfer. It can make all the difference between an efficient journey that’s only twice as slow as driving and one that takes three or four times as long. Missed connections also add a variability to public transport travel time that is absent from most suburban walking, cycling or driving trips. Strengthening connectivity is one of the cheapest and best ways to improve public transport.

Train arrival and departure times are logged at railway signal boxes and switched in panels at stations. Arrival times at intermediate stations can be estimated from times recorded at the nearest signal box. Such data is key to planning connectivity based on actual rather than timetabled travel times, especially if recorded over several months or more.

A cumulative graph of train arrivals can show the proportion of trains that have arrived within a specified time relative to schedule. Punctuality varies by time of day so separate graphs could exist for each half hourly or hourly block at major stations on each line along with yearly or monthly summary graphs.

The punctuality curves below are estimates only. However we know that their basic shape is about right. Arrivals more than two minutes early are rare. The time at TT +5 for each line can be obtained from Track Record and compared to the 88% performance standard. And we know the other end tends towards 100% less cancellations (normally 1 – 2 per cent).

The blue line represents an above average performer (where 90% of trains arrive on time – say on the Burnley group) while the red is a below average line (where maybe 70% of trains arrive on time – eg the Caulfield group). Long-term data would provide more robust figures unaffected by individual incidents.

Implications for bus connectivity scheduling

There is always a trade-off between waiting times and robust connections when deciding how many minutes buses should be scheduled to leave after trains are scheduled to arrive. Effective service co-ordination tends to be hardest at stations where train reliability and bus frequency are both low – the exact circumstances that make it most important to try for.

The punctuality curves show the relationship between train reliability, the probability of a connection being successful and the connection time to allow. Such data, collected for each line, would be most useful to the bus service planner who is responsible for making the abovementioned trade-offs. It would quantify popular lore as to train reliability (the extremes of ‘always on time’ and ‘never on time’ are rarely correct) and provide a better basis for bus scheduling than published train timetables.

An 80% reliability (ie a missed train – bus connection one day per week for a commuter) requires the bus to depart at least three minutes after the train arrives on the more punctual blue line and perhaps seven minutes on the less punctual red line.

For 90% reliability (ie a missed connection once a fortnight) these allowances increase to five and ten minutes respectively. At 95% reliability (ie a monthly missed connection) buses need to leave at least seven and twelve minutes after the train arrives. For suburban trips, a twelve minute connection becomes significant relative to the total journey time and a disincentive to use buses, especially during inclement weather. It is also worse than the average wait for a bus operating every 20 minutes that has not been specially co-ordinated to meet trains.

Punctuality time variability

The graph illustrate the effect of train reliability on passengers catching buses. Low train punctuality probably hurts feeder bus patronage more than train patronage due to the former’s typically lower frequencies and greater consequences of a missed connection. And where buses are scheduled to achieve more robust connections (such as aiming for 95% success) this must be paid for by longer bus waiting times most days (when trains are on or near time).

It’s a bit like insurance – pay a little now to save yourself future longer waits. The May 2011 train timetable changes that added extra running time to the underperforming Caulfield group appear to have lowered variability and probably improved connection reliability with buses.

Access time variability

Train delays aren’t the only reason for missed connections. The graphs above neglect the time to exit the station and reach the bus stop. Ideally this is under a minute where the bus stop is right at the station. Otherwise access time increases to five minutes or more where platform exits are poorly placed and/or busy roads or railways need to be crossed.

The variability of walking time is equally critical when scheduling connecting buses. High variability of access times can combine with train delays to increase overall variability and thus the difficulty of scheduling connecting buses. A greater range of possible arrival times at the bus stop either means that more connections are missed (for a given connection time allowance) or connection time needs to be lengthened (to achieve a target connection success rate). The latter lengthens waits at times when trains do arrive on time and walking conditions are favourable.

Busy unsignalised roads, roundabouts, level crossings, long-cycle traffic lights all have high access time variability. Variability for the first two is infinite, mitigated only by luck or the risk the pedestrian is willing to take.

Once traffic volumes pass a certain level, traffic lights are beneficial because they limit variability (determined by their cycle – typically 90 to 120 seconds). Traffic islands reduce variability on unsignalised roads, and may also do so on signalised roads, provided that walk cycles are sufficient to cross all lanes in both directions in the one go. No such conditions apply to simple zebra crossings, which as the highest and best form of pedestrian access, reduce access time variability to almost zero.

Active transfer management

So far I have assumed fixed train and bus timetables, with the latter’s departures timed to connect. On paper this approach would work perfectly. However in practice train delays and access impediments increase bus stop arrival time variability and reduce the success rate of scheduled connections. The remedy suggested, that of lengthening the interval between train arrivals and bus departures, improves connection reliability but slows travel on those days when trains are running to time.

One possible solution could be to schedule a tighter connection time (say 5 minutes instead of 12) but routinely hold buses if trains are delayed. This provides the fastest journey time for passengers changing from train to bus while reducing the number of missed connections.

For passengers coming off the train this is the best of both worlds. If holding buses avoids one or two ‘near misses’ per week (and their consequent 20 – 40 minute waits) the gains are large and definitely worthwhile. Note though that some bus routes intersect several train lines and holding may not be possible at all stations. Reference to train punctuality curves and surveyed passenger needs should assist bus planners decide which interchanges justify enforced connections.

One shortcoming of holding buses for trains is that it introduces variability for those bus passengers who did not come off the train. Those changing to other buses may also be affected. And holding buses for late trains reduces the efficiency and robustness of the bus network as timetables may need padding to lessen knock-on delays.

For these reasons there is a limit to the time that buses ought to wait for late trains. A holding time limit of five minutes might be reasonable for regular suburban buses; more for long-distance or less frequent routes. A longer holding time is also justifiable for the last departure for the night on each route.

The difference possible is dramatic. Even a five minute holding limit can more than halve the number of missed connections. Using the less punctual red line as an example, switching from a regularly scheduled four minute connection to a four minute connection with a five minute permissible hold time increases the proportion of successful connections from 60 to 85 per cent. Or in commuter terms, a reduction of broken connections from eight to three per month (measuring homebound trips only). Even higher gains would be possible if combined with other efforts that lessen arrival variability (eg improved train punctality and better pedestrian access).

Communication and staffing

Bus drivers will sometimes wait for running passengers from the station, thus informally achieving some of the above. But it’s a bit hit and miss. And at busy stations they may not be clear whether the train arriving is the late arrival they should be waiting for or another service. Therefore bus drivers need real-time train arrival information and a clear holding policy (which should also be well-communicated to passengers).

An even more refined method of ‘active transfer management’ for larger interchanges dominated by a single operator is to provide a despatcher (especially during afternoon peak times such as 3 to 8pm). They could be an experienced bus company employees equipped with a microphone to inform drivers and passengers of any delays and where buses need to be held. Use could also be made of web and phone applications to provide alerts to passengers still at work, on the train or waiting at stops away from the interchange.

While the staffing overheads for (say) twenty major interchanges would need to be considered the likely gains in improved travel times would probably be a greater overall passenger benefit than other possible staffing initiatives such as a similar number of tram conductors or more staffed stations.

2011-06-28T22:37:00.002+10:00

Are you a hankerer or a modernist?

I have a theory that there are two types of people around public transport in Melbourne: hankerers for the past and modernists.

Hankerers pine for an era when trains were government run, trams had conductors and buses were all run by family companies with a handful of routes (no doubt with different liveries). They write columns for The Age bemoaning the loss of tram conductors and how much better things were in the good old days. They exist in enthusisast groups or write on internet discussion boards. If employed in the industry they may occupy non-managerial positions like drivers, signallers and station staff. Some hankerers are even too young to remember the real past and live in an imagined past. Or they don’t remember the bad bits, eg the past lack of Sunday service or the sparse timetables of former branch lines (like Mornington which today receives buses every 20 minutes until 10pm seven days per week).

Hankerers may have an intense interest in a single mode and don’t always see the system as a network or accept different roles for different modes. For example they may advocate new orbital railway lines along routes where improved buses would deliver similar results for less. Neither are economic concepts such as social utility and opportunity cost their strong point. They may view modernists as bureaucrats and accountants. Like the future the past is a moving feast and there are no doubt hankerers who still vouch for the superiority of steam. Or parcel vans with conductors running between trackside factories that closed 40 years ago!

Modernists see themselves as rational and hankerers as deluded or merely backward. They dominate policy and management. Transit geeks with IT degrees seem to be modernists, as are many who’ve experienced systems overseas. Almost anything recently that has been done, from automated ticketing, station destaffing, rail franchising, unified signage and IT applications like SMS alerts, Tram Tracker and online journey planners have been modernist projects.

I should disclose that I lean towards the modernists, although not uncritically so. I laud reform like removing train guards or tram conductors if frequencies are doubled with the savings. Similarly deleting a quiet former munitions factory route plied by the ‘brown bus’ does not worry me if it frees resources for a parallel main route run at clockface frequencies harmonised with trains. I am more ambiguous about level crossing removals. They are expensive but may be a corollary to increased train throughput. Occasionally they are done well (Nunawading) but they mostly introduce urban blight (Huntingdale, Oakleigh, Albion or Sunshine) or an isolated platform waiting environment (Elsternwick or Boronia).

However I suspect that in being a modernist I form a minority. At least in this city, if the letters pages are anything to go by, vocal opinion favours the hankerer over the modernist.

Why is modernism in public transport a minority sentiment? There could be several reasons. Even if you’re under thirty you may still remember tram conductors and staffed smaller stations, provided you grew up here. Then there’s the track record. Service reliability and ticketing issues have sullied the standing of modernist projects like rail franchising and three successive new ticketing systems. The linking of scratch and Metcard ticketing with reduced staffing in the 1990s only added fuel to the hankerer’s ire. In contrast later gains such as Sunday buses, text alert services and extended concession ticket eligibility, seem to have (perhaps unfairly) been less influential in the public mind.

Go over to Perth and it’s a different story. No one hankers for the public transport of thirty to fifty years ago. Instead the popular memory is of the old diesel trains and how electrification and expansion transformed its rails from the nation’s worst to the nation’s best. And beyond the rails, the buses are more logical, legible and connected than they used to be, while the dark shed-like interchanges they served are nearly all gone. Perhaps except for senior citizens, who can still recall trams and trolleys, public transport’s past in Perth was indeed the ‘bad old days’.

An objective comparison reveals aspects of Perth’s public transport less developed than Melbourne’s. For instance stations with customer service (as opposed to security) staff are rare. Ditto for NightRider buses. Perth’s ticket vending machines do less than ours and the versatile daily tickets we take for granted are unavailable in Perth. People there still complain but don’t hanker for the past. Modernism’s hold in Perth is such that old concepts like returning trams are presented in modern terms, for example the ‘knowledge arc’ light rail proposal.

Why do we need modernism if we want better public transport? The main reason is its mindset and willingness to try something new. One old idea that no one uses public transport on a Sunday. Sunday train and tram frequencies doubled, buses gained Sunday service while fares were reduced. Patronage boomed. Similar success stories can be told about cross-suburban SmartBus routes and the NightRider services that were doubled. And again for our bus reviews where implementation improved connectivity and legibility.

More recently we are starting to rethink train operating patterns. Some may lose their expresses or be forced to change trains. Hankerers may be over-represented in opposition. However we cannot afford to turn our back on the ‘greater good’ capacity, reliability and frequency gains that timetable and operating pattern changes may entail.

The same also goes for buses. It was recently related to me how transport consultant Jarrett Walker gives people a certain amount of string to form an ideal bus network at public consultation sessions. The string could either form a network of many infrequent routes or a smaller number of direct, frequent services. This sort of engagement exposes the trade-offs needed and encourages flexibility amongst those who may previously vehemently oppose changes to ‘their’ route.

Good service planners seek to break the stalemate between limited resources and the ability to provide service improvements by reappraising the existing network’s efficiency. If hankerers are too strong (or are perceived as such) service changes will not happen, even where benefits outweight the costs. Managers will be too timid to innovate. ‘No change’ will be the path of least resistance that minimises political pressure. Long term, not changing comes at a cost; eg routes and timetables lagging modern travel needs, as ocurred on much of the Melbourne bus network during the 1990s.

Healthy modernism can be a powerful defence against inertia. Here its contribution is to ensure that public transport is planned in the public interest, patronage is maximised and the best possible network operates for the resources available. While preserving the best of the past is laudable, on no account should it degenerate into an unthinking hankering that stymies worthwhile (but sometimes risky) progress.

2011-06-27T22:34:00.004+10:00

Counting the good things

I was reading some Transperth bus service change notices and couldn't help thinking that these were almost like textbook examples of good service planning that should simplify the network (and hopefully increases patronage and efficiency).

Below are some examples, taken from the notices:

City Beach and inner northern suburbs

Western suburbs

* Wider spans of peak frequencies
* Co-scheduling two routes to provide an even 30 minute service on Sundays
* Replacing special evening/weekend only routes with the same routes running 7 days per week (something that Melbourne has already almost completely achieved)
* Some routes to become 100% low floor
* Rationalising routes to remove duplication of another service (the frequent CAT route)

Inner north

* Changes similar to above
* Renumbering a historic route number (to be in same number block as others in the area since the Joondalup line opened)
* Small service upgrades to provide an even 30 minute frequency
* Increase in one route to a clockface frequency (from 80 to 60 min) while a quieter route is downgraded from 90 to 120 min
* Truncating a route but providing a more intensive service on the remaining busier portion
* Removing an infrequent occasional deviation
* Adding new timing points

North metropolitan region

The theme is continued for the north metropolitan area. There are however some route changes which are explained with alternatives given where necessary. Also notable was a reply to requests for a bus interchange at Greenwood station - basically saying that the station wasn't designed to accommodate a bus interchange and many parking spots would need to be removed if one was to be fitted. While not being familiar with the station, the logic did not appear to stack up; unless buses were very lightly loaded, they would likely carry more people to the station than a dozen or two cars that occupy spaces for eight hours or more per day.

Overall though Transperth service change notices are excellent reading and give an interesting insight into the decisions that service planners make to improve the network.

2011-06-17T20:51:00.008+10:00

Passenger communication on a fragile network

On a rail network prone to disruption due to track faults, signal failures, loss of power, train faults and level crossing accidents, communication with passengers is critical.

This morning's power failure between Frankston and Carrum stations (due to a truck running into a power pole) caused widespread service disruptions during the network's busiest period. It also sorely tested the capabilities of each communication system available.

Passengers at unattended stations (ie the majority) have the following facilities:

1.Automated PA announcements of next train

2.Manual PA announcements (from control station)

3.Green button

4.Red button (intended for emergencies)

5.SMS alerts (sent by train control)

The strengths and limitations of each will now be discussed

1.Automated PA announcements

These announcements are broadcast via horn speakers located on light poles along the platform. Volume varies and messages are sometimes inaudible at some points along the platform (even though it's desirable to spread passenges along it to speed boarding). This is especially the case during the morning peak at stations near busy highways where peak road traffic drowns out announcements. In contrast volume is well above ambient noise at night - even to the point where local residents complain. Of course these automated announcements presuppose trains are operating so are of limited usefulness when service is suspended (unless set to disruption mode at a control desk).

2.Manual PA announcements

Manual PA announcements can be the best means of communicating to passengers at remote unstaffed stations, especially when circumstances change at short notice. These use the same speakers as the automated announcements but are far more useful in the event of disruption. This effectiveness is enhanced because control desks are able to make these specific to a particular station or for a large section of line (most useful for large-scale disruptions as on Friday).

Like automated announcements, intelligibility may be low in noisy station environments (as was the case today). Different staff have different speaking voices and levels, further affecting clarity. Control desk staff are not studio technicians and have no access to level and tone adjustments – and even if they did there’s no staff at unstaffed stations to check. While not a panacea, audio compression may help as it reduces volume changes between different voices and thus improves readability.

Frequency of announcement is equally critical, especially during peak periods where hundreds of passengers per minute are entering stations along the line. Ideally these should be every two minutes. Operational circumstances vary and it is difficult to assure quality. However intervals of up to eight minutes between manual announcements are not acceptable, especially if not all are intelligible and other communication methods are not working.

3.Green button (or ‘PRIDE’)

This is the chief means of real-time information at stations without ‘next train’ visual displays. Passengers press the green button and hear next train announcements, including ‘minutes to’. This works most of the time, but, during disruptions the ‘minutes to’ announcement may be omitted. This is most important in helping passengers decide whether they should wait or seek other transport. The system may also sometimes ‘ring out’ and not provide any annoucement. This is understood to be most likely when too many passengers at too many stations are pressing the button at once (a particular risk at unstaffed stations that haven’t seen a train for a while).

4. Red button

This is intended for emergency use only and allows two-way contact with the nearest control station. However passengers sometimes press it, either accidentally, maliciously or to enquire about delayed or disrupted services when announcements have been infrequent or inaudible. Sometimes this reminds the control desk that another PA announcement is overdue and one is given soon after.

5. Text alerts

Mobile phone text alerts are the latest way of informing passengers of service disruptions. They originate from the CBD-based train control, ie a different source to local manual announcements. Passengers can customise required information to their line and travel times and information, if given sufficiently in advance, is provided before the passenger reaches the station. Alerts are often received after the time has passed for passengers to do anything about it - especially where trains are altered to bypass the City Loop or major disruptions cause high message volumes and slow sending. Increasingly important, as more get mobile internet, will be website alerts, again issued from Metrol.

Conclusion

Each information system has its strenghts and limitations. Performance, such as clarity, accuracy and timeliness, often suffers when it is most needed, ie during service disruptions. Substantial improvements in all methods are desirable but it would seem to me that the humble manual PA announcement made locally (or to a group of stations on a line) offers the greatest potential to be cheaply improved in both quality and quantity.

2011-06-14T21:23:00.004+10:00

Two views from the bus

While buses and trams are perceived as being safer than trains at night, a major downfall is the risk of missing your stop, especially if travelling in unfamiliar territory through dark streets. Which is too much of the time at the moment, just a week out from the winter solstice!

How can this aspect of network illegibility be minimised? It would be nice if the internals of windows were less reflective. Sometimes bright internal lighting (though good for reading) swamps the dim lighting outside. Better street signage at intersections would help. Far side bus stops (also desirable for bus priority reasons) might also assist as they give the passenger more time to recognise the cross-street.

But the biggest culprit would have to be advertising that covers bus windows. The photos below, both taken around dusk, illustrate the point. The first view out is from a clear window. The second is from a covered one. The visibility differences are stark.

Along with school and charter work, advertising provides income for the bus operator. However unlike the other means of earning revenue, they significantly reduce passenger amenity. Like billboards at some stations (that interfere with passenger movement, visibility and thus public safety) it is desirable that other means of revenue are found.

2011-05-25T23:26:00.003+10:00

Two snippets

A big news day for public transport, with both tram and bus presentations and announcements.

Presentation by Yarra Trams' Clement Michel on a future revised tram network (and other topics)

Minister announces express bus for Monash University

2011-05-22T20:48:00.006+10:00

Voices of the Railways: suburban train and station annoucements

Harold Clapp famously said that railways are "95 percent men and 5 percent iron".

One duty of those 95% is informing passengers of arriving trains, delays, changed platforms or altered running. Unlike some overseas subways where different lines operate independently and rarely share track, trains can and are swapped between different lines on Melbourne's more complex network. Platforms can change at short notice and late arrivals may form trains other than those specified in the working timetable. In addition point and signal failures commonly cause delays and City Loop bypasses.

It is often platform and control staff (at stations) or the driver (on trains) who first inform passengers of delays and alterations. At other times they make safety annoucements and inform passengers of connecting services.

The multiple skills required are not always obvious. They must understand the network, think on their feet and quickly process and translate what may be incomplete information from train control into advice useful for passengers. Their enunciation must be understood by passengers of all backgrounds through varying station acoustics and public address system quality. And announcing may be only one part of the job - other roles include signalling, selling tickets or driving trains.

The video presented is a compilation of train and station announcements, recorded on the 19th and 20th May, 2011. A few are automated but most are manual. As you'll hear automated annoucements are fine if all is running to plan, but when it is not manual annoucenements rise to the fore. And it is precisely these times that they are needed most.

2011-05-15T09:49:00.004+10:00

Melbourne evening train service levels - the last 36 years

Another look at Melbourne suburban train frequencies - this time for weekday evenings around 9:30pm.

Most notable are that the service cuts of the late 1970s (from 20 to 30 minutes) have started to be reversed on some lines in the last year or two. There have also been frequency improvements on outer or minor lines such as Altona, Alamein, Cranbourne and Pakenham.

What does this presentation tell us? Firstly frequency does eventually respond to patronage growth, although you need passenger numbers to double first. There is also a lag time to allow for driver training, new trains, scheduling, political commitment etc. In the meantime, and not captured here, capacity has been added by operating six car rather than three car trains to the existing timetable to relieve crowding. Both Connex and Metro added capacity and 3-car trains are much less often seen nowdays.

Will I produce presentations for weekends? Probably not since changes have been less frequent and are better described in writing.

Saturdays have seen the least change, with 20 minutes remaining as a daytime network standard for all but outer areas. The main loss compared to 1975 is the reduced Saturday evening frequency (30 to 20 minutes). The main gains compared to 1975 is that there is service over a more extensive electrified network and there are later Saturday evening trains.

Sundays are quite different, thanks to large service increases in 1999. 1975's 40 minute Sunday frequency has now been banished to Sunday mornings (some lines), Sunday evenings (some lines) and some outer areas. Elsewhere Sunday frequency has doubled to 20 minutes, making it the same as Saturday.

2011-05-14T22:13:00.002+10:00

Melbourne interpeak train service levels - the last 36 years

A graphical or aural representation of what is traditionally written can sometimes be the quickest way to present data or offer fresh insights, such as with aural timetables.

Here's another example, this time for trends in weekday interpeak train frequency on the Melbourne electrified rail network. The thicker the line the more frequent the service. Frequencies are approximate, especially where several lines cross and I've erred on a thinner rather than a thicker line to reflect likely maximum waiting times. You can stop the video at any time. When in pause mode slide the bar to more closely compare timetable changes.

As you watch you'll see electrification extensions in outer suburbs (Werribee, Cranbourne, Sydenham and Craigieburn) and the addition of the City Loop. The Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines vanish when these are replaced with trams. Frequency upgrades to Epping, the Caulfield group, Frankston, Newport and (for a while) Werribee are also shown. The joining of Frankston and Werribee or Williamstown trains starts off as a thin line that thickens as frequency increases.

The dates are effective dates on the printed timetables surveyed. There are some gaps as not all timetables were available for this exercise. However off-peak services are generally fairly slow in changing so few if any amendments would be missed.

The people above the dates indicate patronage - one per 50 million annual passengers. Noticeable is the fall after 1975 (actual patronage bottomed out at less than 100 million in about 1980) and the slow subsequent growth. The 2000s surge is particularly clear.

The slides were made in Powerpoint and are much clearer than you see here. However Windows Movie Maker requires other formats and much clarity was lost in the conversion.

Credits: Craig Halsall for some of the timetables & free-loops.com (hard techno) for the sounds.

2011-05-10T07:58:00.001+10:00

First weekday of new train timetable

Some of the sights from around the network, filmed yesterday.

2011-05-08T13:18:00.006+10:00

All change please: New Melbourne on Transit YouTube channel

Subscribers to my YouTube channel will have noticed videos on topics not generally shared by most Melbourne on Transit readers. To reduce unwanted alerts I'm splitting my YouTube content into two channels.

The upshot is that Melbourne on Transit now has its own dedicated YouTube channel. All new videos on transport will be placed here. Some of the more significant older videos will be copied over. However to preserve links and comments I'll keep duplicates of most on the original channel, at least for now.

If you only wish to be alerted of new transport videos, please unsubscribe from VK3YE and subscribe to the new Melbourne on Transit YouTube channel.

More transport videos will be added soon.

2011-05-03T20:17:00.003+10:00

2010-2011 State Budget

Key documents from today's State budget, the first for the Baillieu government.

The whole thing

Department of Transport (basically costs and performance indicators)

Media releases (from Department of Transport website)

Capital program (what they're building)

2011-04-11T19:12:00.012+10:00

What should a good CBD periphery transport system look like? Both Chris Loader/Charting Transport and Alan Davies/Melbourne Urbanist have picked up on the fact that as soon as you get beyond a City Loop railway station the modal share for public transport halves.

This blog takes the view that while there exist ardent revheads, greenies, transit geeks and the lycra set, the majority of the population are pragmatists in their transport choices. Especially for habitual and often time-critical trips such as the journey to work.

So why isn't transit so attractive when you get much outside the Hoddle grid?

A play with the Metlink journey planner gives some answers.

Let's compare comparative travel times between similar distance middle-suburban stations and various CBD fringe workplaces. For arrival at a start time of 8:30am, the following results were had:

Laverton - Melbourne Town Hall: 33 min
Laverton - Melbourne University (Parkville): 40 min
Laverton - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 49 min
Laverton - Alfred Hospital: 51 min
Laverton - South Melbourne Market: 45 min
Laverton - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 52 min
Laverton - Waterfront City (Docklands): 54 min

Greensborough - Melbourne Town Hall: 38 min
Greensborough - Melbourne University (Parkville): 60 min
Greensborough - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 42 min
Greensborough - Alfred Hospital: 60 min
Greensborough - South Melbourne Market: 61 min
Greensborough - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 65 min
Greensborough - Waterfront City (Docklands): 67 min

Mitcham - Melbourne Town Hall: 40 min
Mitcham - Melbourne University (Parkville): 50 min
Mitcham - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 43 min
Mitcham - Alfred Hospital: 47 min
Mitcham - South Melbourne Market: 52 min
Mitcham - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 50 min
Mitcham - Waterfront City (Docklands): 60 min

Cheltenham - Melbourne Town Hall: 32 min
Cheltenham - Melbourne University (Parkville): 50 min
Cheltenham - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 43 min
Cheltenham - Alfred Hospital: 39 min
Cheltenham - South Melbourne Market: 53 min
Cheltenham - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 50 min
Cheltenham - Waterfront City (Docklands): 62 min

In every single case a trip to the CBD was faster than to a CBD fringe location.

This is even where the destination was on the same side of town as the origin (eg Cheltenham - Alfred Hospital). It could be for this type of trip that driving would be relatively more competitive than existing public transport services, and so command a higher modal share (people are pragmatic, remember). There may even be a self-reinforcing pattern; if people can't afford to buy a home in the inner suburbs near work they may choose an outer suburb on the same side of town as their work (if not always the same train line).

City fringe destinations vary in the amount of time they add compared to within Hoddle's grid.

Waterfront City is the least accessible by fast public transport - from any direction - despite its frequent trams. Compared to the CBD, travelling to it can add 20 to 30 minutes to travel time each way. For a commuter that's 40 to 60 minutes per day, or an extra week added to annual holidays. Not suprisingly its public transport modal share is just 22%, compared to double or triple that a little to the east.

Why are the variations in travel time so great?

We have an extensive suburban rail system that has metro-style operating hours but commuter-type frequencies on its fringes. We have trams, but unlike some compact European cities we don't have a dense metro in the job-dense 2-5km core (see maps by Neil Freeman) that allows for fast local travel. Instead for the 'last mile' we rely on slow surface modes, notably trams and buses, often without their own right of way.

Also the fixed rail we do have is planned and run as a suburban - CBD distributor rather than doubling as a (small) inner city metro that with its spare capacity could take pressure off trams for longer trips.

The City Loop's weekday noon reversal introduces unwelcome complexity, discourages casual travellers and prevents direct access between some city stations at certain times. Quite different from the consistency and legibility of a real metro.

For many years the possibility of getting a direct train from South Yarra to Footscray (for example) was scotched by the philosophy that everything should run via the Loop and the primacy of the CBD as a destination. The May 2011 timetable will introduce some welcome improvements for such cross-town trips, provided dwell times at CBD stations are kept down. Especially important as Flinders Street and Southern Cross are the nearest stations to Melbourne's fastest growing areas at Southbank and Docklands.

The May 2011 timetable will increase the number of trains that will run from Flinders Street through to Southern Cross. This ties in well with an important bus rerouting from last year, namely the restructuring of Port Melbourne routes (235/237/238) to operate via Southern Cross Station. This restored a rail-bus connection that vanished when the tram superstop in Flinders Street was built and buses were forced away from Flinders Street Station. Peak frequency of the Port Melbourne buses is high but further work would lift their legibility and profile.

Route 401, between North Melbourne and Mebourne University, is an example of a 'bridging the gap' frequent service that has become well accepted by those commuting from the western suburbs to Melbourne University. The trip plan above for Laverton include the 401 as its bus leg as it proved the fastest travel option. Other opportunities for 401-style service could include Melbourne University to Clifton Hill or South Yarra to Port Melbourne, although bus priority would assist in providing worthwhile savings in travel time and efficient vehicle utilisation.

It seems to me that the CBD fringe is an area ripe for future patronage growth. Unlike the CBD, where public transport modal share is near saturation, there is significant room here to grow. But this can only come about if it can get the pragmatists on board. To achieve it a fresh look at how the CBD fringe and the close job-rich inner suburbs can be better served may achieve some surprising patronage results, as demonstrated by the success of Route 401.

2011-04-01T07:15:00.004+11:00

Trains to swap sides in bold rail-bus plan

A bold plan to close up to half the Frankston line's railway stations and swap the lines that trains use is said be the first priority of Melbourne's proposed public transport authority.

Instead of trains running on the left track towards the city, as they do now, they will run on the right track. Up to half the stations on the line could be closed, with buses providing a service from a nearby major station. The track reversal aligns train platforms and bus doors, allowing easy cross-platform transfer to these new train replacement services.

It is understood that the Frankston line has been chosen to trial the plan. It was selected due to its large number of quiet stations, the presence of parallel roads on both sides of the line in some places and the line's long journey times (just 35km/h under the proposed May 2011 train timetable).

A transport insider understood to be backing the plan said cutting the number of stations would reduce the number of Siemens train speed restrictions on the line, speed travel and improve reliability. Also attractive is that fewer stations means fewer protective services officers will be needed to staff all stations at night.

The faster trip could slash travel time between Frankston and the city to 40 minutes and save several trains during the off-peak which could go to provide a ten minute interpeak service to Dandenong.

Most infrastructure is already in place, with the main outstanding work required being to turn signals 180 degrees around to reflect the reverse line running. The project is being fast tracked for commencement on 1 April, 2012.

2011-03-28T20:00:00.012+11:00

A look at Metro's May 2011 timetables

The fomerly arcane world of train timetabling has assumed greater profile in the last few years. Decades-old operating patterns, often a legacy of years of negative or slow passenger growth, have been challenged as patronage rebounded and reached record highs. The timetable has become key to how more passengers can be reliably carried on existing infrastructure. And, unlike the 2004 – 2008 period, where patronage growth outstripped service provision, the delivery of new trains is allowing significant weekday service growth for the first time in years.

The construction of rail infrastructure lagged roads in the early 2000s. Rail's pace picked up in the late 2000s, with even larger projects, such as the Regional Rail Link and Melbourne Metro, featuring in government transport plans. Though critical to how this infrastructure would be used and integration between modes, timetables and service planning had a much lower profile. The main exceptions were both outside metropolitan rail; the Regional Fast Rail service improvements and various bus service upgrades.

The highest-profile championing of the importance of timetables and service levels has come not from government, the Department of Transport nor any of its transport plans, but from Metro’s Andrew Lezala, who advocates a ten minute base train frequency and fewer stopping patterns. Higher frequency improves connectivity with other modes and encourages a spontaneous metro-style ‘turn up and go’ method of travel. Fewer stopping patterns increase legibility and reduce the complexity of trip planning; if a desired pattern runs every ten minutes instead of every thirty there’s no gain from trying other ways to get there. Also demand isn’t artificially peaked by a few infrequent super-express services, making loading more consistent and easier to manage.

It is towards this style of network that May’s timetables should be judged. In many respects it's an interim work. Weekday times only are changed, though some lines gain 6-car trains on weekends.

Some loose ends are tidied and Lezala's 'ten minute network' has spread to two lines, creating a cross-city group between Newport and Frankston. There is also a major boost to weeknight service on four lines, with their evening frequency aligning with trams but disaligning with SmartBus and trains on other lines.

In other areas new loose ends are created. Services from May are less legible, less clockface and less metronomic than our current timetable on a couple of lines. In some cases this may be a trade-off against a higher good on a nearby busier line. Or it may represent a partial implementation of a future bolder service concept.

Metro's Destination Better website explains and reveals the new timetables. It might be worth referring to these while you read the summary and commentary on the changes below.

(tables below derived from Metro material and examination of timtables - notes in blue represent service increases)

Northern group

The northern group, and especially the lines through Newport, have had the most radical change. The process of seperating Altona and Werribee trains has continued, with the former being swapped with Williamstowns to operate as a shuttle during the off-peak.

Williamstown trains now pair with Werribee trains to form an even ten minute service between Newport, Southern Cross Station and Flinders Street. These then continue to Frankston, creating a new 'cross-city' group that avoids the City Loop. Hence it will now be possible to board at Caulfield or South Yarra and have direct trains to Footscray and Newport every ten minutes without negotiating the intricacies of the Loop.

The most controversial aspect of the new timetable will be in the west.

Werribee's off-peak timetable will drop from 6 trains per hour (not evenly spaced) to 3 trains per hour (evenly spaced). This represents a frequency cut. Although it can also be said that the current timetable's higher frequency was largely wasted because the intervals between trains are uneven, there are no major mid-line trip generators to generate off-peak shopper patronage, and the alternating stopping patterns offered poor legibility and varying travel times.

As a trade-off however Werribee does receive significant peak and evening service increases. Express trains will increase from approximately every 20 minutes to every 10-12 minutes. And evening headways will shorten from 30 to 20 minutes until approximately 10pm.

Some controversy is likely to come from residents of Altona, and, to a lesser extent, Williamstown. Their even and metronomic 20 minute peak service frequency will be downgraded to the forgettable 22 minutes; stated to be the cost of delivering the boosted service to the busier Werribee, Hoppers Crossing and Laverton stations. On the bright side, Altonians should be able to get a seat on the trains that do run as they will start at Laverton and not be full of passengers from Werribee and Hoppers Crossing.

Off-peak travel from Altona to beyond Laverton and Newport will require a change of trains as the Altona service will be a shuttle between Newport and Laverton (swapped with Williamstown). In addition a trip to a loop station will require a further change at either Southern Cross or North Melbourne as off-peak trains will run direct. In the evenings Altona trains will continue to run from the city, and like other lines through Newport will have their frequency increased to 20 minutely until about 10pm.

Clifton Hill group

no change

Caulfield group

Most of the Caulfield group has its biggest changes during the afternoon peak period and evening.

Frankston's off-peak trains currently alternate between the City Loop and Flinders Street. The result is that the even 10 minute service until the city fringe is diluted by the variations in the city. The May timetable through-routes all off-peak trains to Werribee or Williamstown via Flinders Street, Southern Cross, North Melbourne, Footscray and Newport. This improves consistency and provides a new cross-city corridor with services every ten minutes. Something to watch is timekeeping; the Frankston line is Melbourne's least reliable and passengers in the west will be hoping that through-linking will not delay their services.

For many years the Burnley group has had a much wider peak service window than the Caulfield group, and particuarly the Frankston line. This blog had a comparison showing that while peak express services on the Burnley group ran for over three hours, peak hour according to Frankston line timetables was just that (5 to 6pm). The May timetable dramatically changes that - it has Frankston peak expresses running between 4 and 7pm, at approximately 20 minute intervals. This makes fuller use of the third track to Moorabbin, which before recent peak service improvements was poorly utilised.

The Cranbourne and Pakenham lines also receive timetable changes. Like Frankston the pm peak is extended. Also notable is the upgrade from a 30 to a 20 minute evening service frequency on both lines. This follows a previous upgrade that saw services beyond Dandenong improve from 60 to 30 minutes. A quirk is that weeknight trains will now run twice as frequently as weekend daytime trains.

Sandringham, which was the first, and for many years the only, line on the network to have 20 minute evening frequencies also gains from the May timetable. Here there's an increased peak frequency and a couple of early morning trains starting from Middle Brighton. Early evening service frequencies will also increase from 20 to 15 minutes.

Burnley group

This group, historically Melbourne's busiest and best serviced, will also have substantial timetable changes.

Most interesting is the post morning peak period. While its am expresses have always continued after those on the other lines have ceased, this new timetable extends them until noon. Belgrave and Lilydale off-peak trains will remain at 30 minute frequencies but will run express to the city. Trains from Blackburn will provide a 15 minute service to the quieter stations. This arrangement, to run until approximately noon, is unusual since it provides substantial express running outside peak periods and could be a test of a possible future expanded two-tier service.

Both Belgrave and Lilydale are long lines - not dissimilar to Frankston. However their approach to service planning in this timetable is very different. Whereas Frankston has a turn-up-and-go ten minute stopping all stations service, Belgrave and Lilydale will offer a timetable-critical 30 minute service with significant express running. In addition the non-major stations from Ringwood in will remain with a 15 minute service.

Hence these lines will offer an interesting contrast of high frequency/stop all stations versus low frequency/express running in outer suburbs (my personal prejudice favours the former because of the improvements to end-to-end travel speeds possible with better bus connections that higher train frequency facilitates).

Peak services on the Burnley group will also be shaken up. Alamein and Blackburn trains will run via the City Loop (instead of direct to Flinders St) in the morning. The latter provides consistency with the after-morning peak Blackburns. Glen Waverley am peaks will be removed from the loop, with transfer at Richmond suggested. However, as tends to be the pattern for other lines converted to more direct running, their passengers have been rewarded with some frequency increases.

Conclusion

The new timetable will increase the number of services on three of the (current) four railway groups. More passengers are likely to gain than lose. The most memorable innovations introduced are likely to be the cross-city through-routing, the expansion of the ten minute network and the boost to early evening services (which partially restores some of the 1978 service cuts, made when patronage was half today's and still falling).

2011-03-11T20:04:00.007+11:00

More Aural timetables: analysing individual route connections

It's been a busy week in Melbourne transport; trains off the rails at sidings, disruptions due to power glitches, new fares and major events in the city this weekend. Nevertheless I'm still doing the timetable beat thing, and here's the latest.

Earlier experiments emphasised headway harmonised networks. If the network was frequency harmonised it would produced a nice rhythm, repeating in as little time as possible. An unharmonised network would sound more random, with no dominant rhythm, or a longer rhythm with the same connections only repeating every couple of hours.

Harmonised headways is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good connectivity. A bus matching a 20 minute rail service isn't good if it departs as the train is pulling in.

What is really important is the waiting periods between when the train arrives and the bus departs. Too short and it means a missed connection, especially if the train is running late. Too long and the bus is no faster than walking.

This part quietens down the pulse (but it's still there if you listen hard) and emphasises the waiting periods. It does this by applying a tone for the duration of the wait (again 60 min = 1 second, 6 min = 0.1 second).

Because the human hear is more sensitive to pitch than duration, I also used different pitches. I went for three pitches only (low, middle and shrill) to aid recognition. A low pitch is a long wait (>15 min), a medium pitch a medium wait (5-15 min) and a shrill pitch is a short wait (<5 min) which also risks being a missed connection if the train is late. I'd have liked to differentiate between a near-ideal 6 min connection from a longish 14 min connection, but that would have meant another tone which slows recognition. So I stuck with three. Music afficiondos will hear that I've used notes - something I intend to keep doing with future aural timetables.

At the end I've got a comparison between the harmonisation possible between 20 min/38 min frequencies and 20 min/40 min frequencies. The tonal difference is quite stark. Even though it's a slighly lesser frequency, a well-timed 40 min service can provide predictable connectivity is scheduled carefully, whereas a 38 min service has a plethora of good, bad and just missed connections, happening at seemingly random intervals.

There haven't been many comments on this, so whether you think aural timetable have potential or are just a useless curiousity, they'd all be welcome here.

2011-03-09T22:04:00.004+11:00

Aural Timetables: checking the network's pulse

The previous post introduced the concept of converting timetable data into sound. The technique was suggested as a means of gauging co-ordination between intersecting routes.

Now I've got some real times. I try to apply this stethoscope-like tool to check the pulse of connectivity at selected suburban railway stations in Melbourne.

Hear the difference between unharmonised and harmonised service frequencies at these interchange points. The tunefulness of the latter demonstrates that not only does good service planning produce good connectivity, but also good sounds as well!

2011-02-26T23:00:00.010+11:00

Aural Timetables: A new tool for connectivity analysis?

A key topic here is transport timetables, especially where there are opportunities for legibility, frequent service or service co-ordination.

Those needing to make a connection typically have to juggle two printed timetables, or, more recently, use an internet journey planner which does a similar thing after comparing alternatives.

In both cases arrival and departure times are presented in visual format.

The visual approach is good for planning specific trips. It could be numerical (eg calculating connections from two columns of times, often in different booklets) or graphical (as used in train graphs, and I think proposed by Tufte).

However I'm unaware of anyone converting timetables to sounds and analysing the result by listening.

Yet aural timetables could offer some fresh insights. For example it provides a way of comparing multiple timetables simultaneously for patterns; something the eye is poor at as it can only look at one time at a time and make a subtraction.

The possibility of aural timetables has evolved from earlier analogies made between some audio/musical concepts (eg resonance, harmonics, time, beat and pulse) and transport timetabling (at least for timed transfer systems). The term 'harmonised headway' hints at this relationship.

More recently I built a drone machine as used by electronic musicians. This is a bank of variable tone generators that can make many interesting sounds and beat notes. I then saw the possibility of audio frequencies being determined by bus and train times at a particular interchange, unwittingly turning service planners into composers.

Such an instrument would be more advanced than my simple drone machine, most likely having a master oscillator and dividers to accurately provide for specific service frequencies. You would also need to shift the start and finish times for each route to reflect actual timetables.

Another approach is to do without special electronics and simply use an audio editing program. I used Audacity which features an audio tone generator just right for this purpose.

The video below explains the concept.

Unlike future videos this one is based on a hypothetical location to introduce the concept of a multi-route aural timetable likely to be useful for connectivity analysis. It starts off with a train arriving every 15 minutes. To this is added a feeder bus every 30 minutes, then another every 60 minutes. At this point the local network is harmonised and the rhythm is distinctive. Then a non-harmonised 50 minute frequency route is introduced and the rhythm (and regularity of connections) is upset. The per second pulse is restored when this service is rescheduled to run every hour. For passengers this means predictable waiting times and an effective frequency for trips involving connections no worse than that of the least frequent route.

You may need to replay this several times. First listen to tones of the same frequency to discern their interval. Once these are identified, listen to the intervals between tones (easiest at lower frequencies, eg 50 or 60 minutes).

Most significantly, note is how the 50 and 60 minute headway services start as being far apart, then arrive at once in the middle, then space further apart near the end. These actually follow a long cycle based on the lowest common multiple (ie a cycle length of 300 seconds here or 300 minutes in the real world).

Such cycles are too long to discern aurally, but a further speeding up may be required to pick this up. Conversely slowing down might help with higher frequency services.

The speed of playback affects how the mind sees these noises; either as individual beeps or rhythms different for each combination of service frequencies. This is similar to Morse code. At slow speeds (eg 5wpm) one must count dots and dashes whereas at higher speeds (eg 20wpm) each letter has a distinctive sound. The advantage of this is increased by the mind's limited memory (or persistence) of sound and memorised rhythms require less effort to distinguish and decode than counting dots. It is painful for a person proficient in the faster speed to return to the lower speed method of decoding.

The same applies to timetables converted into sound. Particularly marked is that the harmonised timetable example (15/30/60/60 minute frequencies) is easier to listen to than the non-harmonised example (15/30/50/60 minute frequencies). I think this is because the harmonised pattern has a cycle recurring every 60 minutes (1 second) whereas the non-harmonised pattern's cycle only repeats every 300 minutes (5 seconds). A series that repeats every second is easy for the brain to sync to, whereas a 5 second long rhythm would be much harder.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of listening to (rather than looking at) timetables?

For precise connections between particular services I still think that either one of the visual approaches are better. However when it comes to examining headway compatibility at stations or interchanges, the aural approach has advantages. Here we are examining the state of connectivity by literally taking its pulse.

2011-02-15T06:14:00.006+11:00

New Metro train timetables

Starting on May 8.

Major changes for Werribee, Altona, Williamstown, Frankston, Alamein, Glen Waverley and Blackburn trains, with more running direct to Flinders Street and a consistent off-peak cross-city loop between Frankston, Flinders St, Southern Cross and Werribee/Williamtown.

Altona and Williamstown shuttles swapped on weekdays.

Overhauled peak period timetables, with more services on many lines (making use of the new trains).

Off-peak frequency changes: Werribee down from 2 x 20 min to 1 x 20 min, but Newport up to 1 x 10 min.

Major weekday evening service frequency upgrades for Werribee, Altona, Williamstown, Pakenham and Cranbourne trains (30 to 20 minutes).

More at Metro Trains and Herald Sun

2011-01-18T20:25:00.010+11:00

Bringing Stations to Life: Cafe 3162 at Caulfield

Caulfield Station's Cafe 3162 opened yesterday. It's a project of Bringing Stations to Life, a Metro Trains project intended to generate activity around railway stations.

Cafe 3162 serves Asian cusine, in keeping with the international student demographics of the area. It was very quiet earlier this evening with more staff than patrons. Probably understandable given its newness and the university holidays.

The cafe is built on railway land. It abuts but is remote from Platform 4; the opportunity was not taken to add a serving window from the fare paid area (unlike McDonalds at Box Hill). For in-train cleanliness though this is probably a good thing!

Given that 'Bringing Stations to Life' is about the interaction between the station, its urban environment and community, it's worth a few comments on this aspect.

The position is across the road from Monash University and the Route 900 SmartBus stop. While just metres from these facilities, lack of zebra crossings, poor visibility (especially if there is a bus waiting) and fast traffic make direct pedestrian access poor or dangerous. If one was to use the 'approved' method to reach the cafe, ie via the zebra crossing near 7-11, the comparative advantages of the cafe's proximity disappear.

From inside the building one can see Platform 4. The view is through narrow windows covered in mesh (possibly to retard glare from the afternoon sun). The view is not reciprocated; very little of the cafe's insides can be seen from Platform 4 (at least during the day). It presents as a rusted metal edifice and passengers would have little clue that it was a cafe since its back is turned to the tracks.

Although only a day old, the building is already tatty. Graffiti (on the street side) appears easy to do and hard to remove due to its rusted surface. Maybe in time this will give what some may call 'character'.

What would I have done instead at Platform 4 Caulfield? Firstly I'd be inclined to demolish all billboards, walls and existing buildings that present a barrier between the station and the shops on Sir John Monash Drive. There would be ticket machines, timetables, toilets and perhaps a remodelled waiting room, but little else.

Secondly I'd have a second station entrance, located on the down end of the platform. Positioned at the current site of Cafe 3162 this would allow more direct access to Monash University and the Route 900 SmartBus stop. This would be aligned with a second zebra crossing and traffic calming on Sir John Monash Drive, slashing train to bus access times from about 2 or 3 minutes to about 30 seconds.

Thirdly, as part of a broader plan for the area, I would remodel access to Caulfield Plaza, providing a proper footpath between it and the station precinct.

So what's the verdict? I don't think implentation has been ideal at Caulfield due to reasons and missed opportunities outlined above. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the concept of 'bringing stations to life' is a very good one and rail operators have a constructive role to play.

The concept encompasses matters such as surrounding land uses, precinct design, passive surveillance and pedestrian access. Most of all it aims to make station precincts versatile multi-purpose spaces that nevertheless remain efficient as transport facilities.

I sometimes think that in the past stations have sometimes (unwittingly) erected barriers around them, and this gives rise to some of the negative personal safety perceptions.

In some local station cases a simple un (or modestly) fenced platform and shelter, accessible from every direction and surrounded by supportive land uses offering passive surveillance may be the way forward (similar to the Port Melbourne tram terminus of Route 109). Yes ticket checking will be harder and there may be a risk of people jumping fences. But bringing platforms closer to people have urban amenity benefits as well.

In contrast heavy concrete structures like at Moorabbin, Roxburgh Park or Sunshine distance a station from life. These rank amongst Melbourne's least attractive stations to wait for a train, as well as being a blank canvas for vandals. Grade seperations as seen at Huntingdale, Oakleigh or Boronia, though marvellous from a transport efficiency viewpoint, further isolate station platforms from main streets and thus urban life. And multiple levels create shadows which lessen passive surveillance and require more intensive policing than a single level designs with no walls and only a high canopy roof.

There are sometimes tensions between efficiency, safety and design aesthetics. Nevertheless even events such as Sunday trash and Treasure Sales (eg opposite Bentleigh Station) demonstrate how simple things bring station areas to life. It folows that a key aspect of station design is the provision of adequate space near stations (preferably open access and multi-purpose) to allow such activities to thrive.

2011-01-13T20:08:00.011+11:00

Taming Melbourne’s summer timetables

Transit authorities can choose between running the same timeable all year or introducing special summer or holiday period timetables.

All-year timetables are simplest for passengers and save on printing. However, especially during peak periods, cost recovery drops as the same schedules are running for fewer commuters over summer.

Reduced summer timetables allow service to more closely match demand and may save running costs. However they lessen legibility and inconvenience passengers. The extent of this inconvenience ranges from small to large, depending on how they are implemented.

And this is the key. A system with well-planned summer timetables doesn’t disadvantage passengers nearly as much as a system where they are a mess. While there is an elegant simplicity about networks where no summer timetables apply (eg Perth), the biggest gains in legibility relative to cost are likely to come from keeping summer timetables but overhauling their application.

Such reforms might include a reasoned selection of routes for which summer timetables would apply, a common network-wide effectiveness period of no more than two weeks (with minor exceptions for university routes) and schedules that withdraw only selected peak trips, known in advance.

Here I examine the use of summer timetables in Melbourne, their legibility for passengers and the extent to which they reflect rational service planning. This is done by asking a series of questions and listing the key findings. There will be two main conclusions; firstly that the shift away from summer timetables has benefited passengers, and secondly that the illegibility of those that remain reflects the generally higher priority of contract management and infrastructure over service planning and network integration.

How many Melbourne bus routes have summer timetables in 2010 - 2011?

Source: Summer timetables for metropolitan bus routes (note that 788 is excluded as this was a trial increased summer service).

The chart shows that more than five in six bus routes run the same service all year round. Therefore summer timetables are the exception than the rule.

Following charts will look at how their prevalence has changed, the type of routes they tend to be used on and some other facts about them.

How many Melbourne bus routes had summer timetables five years ago?

(Data courtesy Craig Halsall)

The chart shows that summer timetables were more common five years ago. The proportion of routes with them has more than halved as many bus operators switched to running a full service all year. It’s a similar story with trains; their summer timetables also ended a few years ago.

Even after this fall, Melbourne uses summer timetables more than other Australian capitals, where their use is rare. However it is understood that seasonal timetables are more common overseas.

What service changes helped the swing away from summer timetables?

This graph indicates a large gain in the number of routes with an all-year timetable. Half of this gain came from new routes, none of which have summer timetables. The other half came from upgrades to routes that had summer timetables but since dropped them. The latter were previously limited service routes that received minimum standards upgrades from the State Government.

How long do the summer reductions last?

The chart shows that most (59%) of summer service reductions last for about a fortnight. Note though that the dates shown indicate a lesser span because of public holidays on December 27 and 28 due to the weekend occurrence of Christmas and Boxing Day in 2010.

The other sizable proportion of routes (32%) go for about four weeks. The slight differences are because the operators coloured green only run summer timetables on weekdays, while MBL, coloured orange, applies summer timetables on Saturdays as well.

Although the prevalence of summer timetables has fallen, having six different summer timetable effectiveness periods across the network makes catching buses chancy at this time of year. They also reflect past fragmented service planning, whose results still confuse and strand passengers today.

Is there anything special about operators with reduced summer timetables?

The chart above shows that over two-thirds of routes with summer timetables are run by just two operators. Both companies were formed when the government franchised its Met bus services in the 1990s.

Whether a bus routes is ex-government or not has a large bearing on whether it is likely to have a summer timetable. Fewer than one-quarter of our 323 routes are ex-government. But if it is then it is over three times more likely to have summer timetables than routes that have always been privately run.

As well as introducing Sunday, early evening and public holiday services to many suburbs, another benefit of the 2006 – 2010 ‘minimum standards’ service increases has been more routes with all-year timetables.

Less than ten per cent of bus routes that have always been privately-run now have summer timetables. The gain is particularly pronounced in the northern suburbs, where operators such as Reservoir, Broadmeadows, Dysons, Moreland, Ivanhoe, Tullamarine and Ryans adopted all-year timetables as their services were improved.

There has been less movement in ex-government routes, which now form the majority of routes with summer timetables. This is entirely an issue affecting older routes. For example NBC’s Doncaster area SmartBus routes (905, 906, 907, 908) do not reduce service over summer, despite their frequent peak service (7 – 10 minutes). Similarly MBL’s relatively new Route 460 also runs an all-year timetable.

How important are the routes subject to summer timetables?

Given that only 14% of Melbourne bus routes now run summer timetables, is it such a big deal that they do, or that their effectiveness periods are not standardised?

The question is best answered by checking how important the affected routes are to the network as a whole. To do this I checked which routes (or combinations of routes) with summer timetables normally run at least every 15 minutes on weekdays, ie the same as SmartBus.

These are the following: 200/203, 201/202/302, 216/219, 220, 223, 246, 250/251/253, 270/271, 279 and 600/922/923.

Their summer timetables reduce their off-peak and/or evening frequencies except for Routes 600/922/923, where the only impact is peak-only. As the chart below shows, 19 out of the 46 routes with summer timetables (or 43%) are these high service trunk routes.

This is a high proportion compared to all routes, which mostly run at 20 to 60 minute weekday frequencies. Less than 43% of our 323 routes would be part of a significant high-service corridor, and the bulk would be quieter than the major corridors cited above.

In other words summer timetables disproportionately apply to some of our busiest trunk routes and probably affect more passengers than the ‘only 14%’ figure might indicate.

What type of service changes do the summer timetables entail?

So far I haven’t talked much about what the summer timetables are actually like and their likely impact.

Two routes (605 and 733) apply summer timetables in the most legible fashion possible. A year-round timetable applies for all but a handful of peak services, which do not run over the summer period. As these services are identified in printed and stop timetables, customers know about them in advance and there are no additional printing or bus stop maintenance costs.

Other routes (eg 293 and 295) do not withdraw services over summer. Instead times are altered slightly to reflect quieter road conditions, reduce excessive dwell times and possibly save a bus or two. As with the previous example, there are no span or frequency changes. However legibilty is somewhat reduced due to different times applying.

Then there are routes that, like the first example, reduce peak frequency. However it’s not simply about deleting trips and running the rest of the timetable as usual. Instead earlier and later services are adjusted to provide a more even but lower frequency. This approach has the advantage of avoiding ‘holes’ in the timetable. The trade-off is lower legibility and higher publicity and printing costs to advise passengers of the changes. Routes 309 and 476 (whose peak frequencies fall from 20 to 30 minutes over summer) are examples.

Next we come to routes whose summer timetables mean more than a lower peak service. Service frequencies may be lowered during weekdays, evenings and sometimes Saturday as well. 25 to 50% frequency reductions are typical but spans are generally maintained. Bus routes in this group are amongst Melbourne’s busiest and their summer timetables affects more passengers than those for other routes.

Typical examples are: 216/219, 220 & 223 (weekday interpeak 15 to 20 min, evening 15-20 to 30 min, Saturday reduced to 20 min), 246 (weekday interpeak 10 to 15 min), 279 (weekday interpeak 15 to 20 min), 367 (weekday interpeak 30 to 60 min) and 501 (weekday interpeak 40 to 45 min). 279 though contains an anomaly in that the Templestowe variation of its route actually gains frequency, from 60 to 40 min, interleaving with the 40 min frequency from Doncaster.

Summer times for other routes sometimes combine reduced frequency with shorter span. As an example Routes 270/271 fall from 30 to 60 min interpeak and have all weekday evening services deleted. Route 366 has a similar frequency drop but only has its ex-Croydon evening trips deleted.

Route 509 is different again; it preserves its 20 minute frequency but shortens span. In this case there is a slightly later start and an earlier finish. But not all the time; on Fridays the last few trips (around 7pm) keep running throughout.

There is now only one route that doesn’t run at all while summer timetables are effective. This is the peak-only Route 205, whose passengers have other routes available.

This list of variations illustrates the point that, similar to effectiveness periods, summer timetable practice vary greatly. These range from not running nominated services advised well in advance, retaining service levels but altering timetables, rescheduling peak services, reducing off-peak frequencies and shortening spans. Some routes may involve a combination.

Findings

1. There has been major success in reducing the number of Melbourne bus routes with summer timetables, with the proportion more than halved in five years. This has increased legibility.

2. Different operators have different start and finish dates for their summer timetables and no standardisation applies across the network. This lessens legibility.

3. Different operators take different approaches to reducing summer service. Again no standardisation applies across the network. Summer timetables may cut weekday peak services only, off-peak trips, weekend service, operating hours or a combination.

4. Objective service planning criteria, such as a route’s importance to the network or passenger needs, have less bearing than historical accident (eg past government operation) when it comes to determining whether its services are cut over summer. Hence summer timetables disproportionately apply to some of the network’s busiest established routes and may affect passengers more than assumed.

5. Summer timetables inevitably reduce network legibility. However their method of implementation determines whether this loss is slight or great. In Melbourne the legibility loss is particularly severe for the reasons set out in 2 – 4 above.

Conclusion

Our look at summer bus timetables in Melbourne has identified both achievement and opportunity.

The main achievement has been the large rise in the number of routes with all-year timetables. This change, largely under the State Government’s Meeting our Transport Challenges program of 2006, has increased bus network legibility and usability.

The opportunity comes from the illegibility of current summer timetable arrangements.

Suggested reforms might include using rational criteria to select routes that warrant summer timetables, a common network-wide effectiveness period and confining reductions to weekday peak services only.

Assuming no extra funding, some routes without summer timetables would need to get them to allow their removal from off-peak services and busy routes. However routes proposed for summer timetables would be objectively chosen and not face reduced off-peak times, frequencies and spans, so the overall impact should be fairly small.

While service planning has historically been a low priority in transport administration, it is crucial to building a usable system. Renewed attention to it by tackling summer timetables would lessen passenger inconvenience, improve legibility and allow buses to function as a true network rather than the plethora of fragmented, independently-planned routes as they appear to be at this time of year.

2011-01-04T22:50:00.002+11:00

Timetables and music: An attempt at synthesis

Planning timed transfer public transport networks, composing music and designing piston-based engines are very different fields. However they are all based on repetition, based on pulses, beats or cycles.

At least in the cases of transport and music, where I think the parallels are strongest, it is quite possible for a system to have multiple beats.

Music for instance may have a series of regular pulses to form a beat (possibly played by percussion). Superimposed on these may be contributions from string or wind instruments that together form the music. Two similar instruments add a ‘body’ not discernible with one, but they must be tuned and played in time with one another and the conductor’s beat.

Good playing on its own is no guarantee of a tuneful result if the music was badly composed. An occasional bar may sound musical, mostly by accident, but most others are cacophany.

It’s the same with transport. Trains and buses are the instruments. Their drivers are the players. The timetable is the sheet music they play to. Their writer are the composers. The Department of Transport is the conductor, albeit perhaps less sensitive to harmony, rhythm and music selection than its orchestral counterparts.

Buses and trains

Trains set the pulse to pull the whole network together, while buses play the more intricate pieces to provide coverage. Removing the buses, much like withdrawing the string and wind, leaves only a sparse beat and an incomplete network or composition. And the best playing will not guarantee connectivity if buses and trains play to different rhythms composed to different specifications.

If the beat of trains is based on a service every 15 minutes, while buses come every 20 minutes, the result is an unconnected network. There is still a pulse where optimum connection times repeat, but it’s a weak and infrequent one. The pulse is the lowest common integer multiple, in this case every 60 minutes, and so is longer than either the train or the bus on its own, lowering effective frequency. Multiples are even higher with incompatible non-clockface headways such as 23 or 35 minutes, making connections more random than repetitive.

The drone machine

One of my other interests is electronics. Last week I built a drone machine. This is a bank of audio oscillators that when used together creates all sorts of interesting sounds and beat notes. It also has a feature where a low frequency oscillator can trigger a higher pitched note. This creates a beeping whose interval and note can be varied. The combined sound when several such tones are generated can be quite unusual. It is similar to the early synthesisers of the 1970s.

You can hear a demonstration below

A synthesis

Using this machine raised the possibility of creating music from bus and train timetables, possibly based on arrivals and departures at a particular interchange.

The sound produced would vary according to whether buses and trains were part of a timed transfer pulse network or random arrivals at varying times and frequencies. The difference would be so marked that a brief listen by a trained ear (especially if accompanied by a spectrogram displayed on an oscilloscope) could tell almost as much about network connectivity as poring through numerous timetables.

There is no doubt that the concept is feasible. However it would need a synthesiser more advanced than the basic model demonstrated.

As with the synthesiser above, this concept requires a low frequency oscillator beating triggering a higher frequency tone for each route to be compared. The frequency of the low frequency oscillator would be proportional to the service frequency for that route. In other words a 30 minute route might beat twice a second, while a 60 minute headway route might beat once a second. This isn’t that critical; all that matters is that the relationship between the two is exact. But you need flexibility to program this to accommodate any clockface headway, and preferably non-clockface headways as well.

This would activate a higher frequency oscillator. For musical effect I would recommend its pitch be some sort of note, eg based on a certain piano keyboard key. But again not critical.

That is a single channel. Add more identical channels for each extra route. In all cases the low frequency oscillator needs to be set to be proportionate to the service frequency, while the oscillator it triggers can be a note different from the others.

All outputs are fed to a speaker via an amplifier.

A simple interchange might have one oscillator set to a 15 minute frequency (eg a train) while another is set to 30 minutes (for a bus). The train might be assigned a lower frequency note than the bus. The sound would be four low (train) beats per second, with every second one of those accompanied by a higher (bus) beat. The overall results would be an even beat. However moving the bus to a 20 or 40 minute frequency would change the relationships between the beats. The output would still be a rhythm but be uneven, repeating every second (20 min bus frequency) or two (40 min bus frequency). Probably easier to demonstrate than describe.

The limitation of this approach is that it is based on frequency only. Hence it can only measure frequency harmonisation; it will not detect if services are harmonised but their arrival provides a constant bad connection. To overcome this the starting time of pulses needs to be variable by introducing a delay that can be user adjusted. Once this is done two 30 minute frequency bus routes, one at h:05 and the other at h:20 will be evenly spaced and not on top of one another. Having to shift the onset of certain pulses by an accurate but adjustable amount requires additional circuitry. This is complex but feasible.

However the overall result should be worth it as it is true to life. And it would truly be music composed by timetablers, or more accurately the interaction of the work of several at interchange points.

2011-01-01T00:01:00.001+11:00

Happy New Year!

Best wishes to all readers and loved ones for a healthy and fruitful 2011, and may all your transit connections be as serendipitous as this pedestrian crossing!

2010-12-29T15:51:00.011+11:00

Postcard from Tasmania: Catching the 'flea'?

‘The People Movers’, a history of Melbourne’s private buses, had an account describing the multiple operators who plied busy routes in the early days. In those days, when urban route buses were profitable and regulation was light, anyone with a converted truck could skim an established operator’s patronage by trolling their route a few minutes before the scheduled times. These scavengers of the bus world were known as ‘fleas’.

The practice ended as more people bought cars, lowering profits. Governments legislated to remove ‘wasteful competition’. Later still public subsidy came with increased control of the bus industry, which consolidated into fewer hands.

An exception, where buses still pay their way without subsidy, is airport to city bus routes. Typically these are either not provided by the city’s main transport authority (Melbourne, Canberra, Hobart, Perth International) or are all-stops regular routes (Adelaide, Perth Domestic). In Sydney and Brisbane premium fare trains fulfil this role. Because of the requirement to recover costs, fares are typically several times higher than an equivalent length trip on a regular bus or train.

Melbourne’s Skybus, for example, charges $16 for a 20-25km trip to the airport. Skybus has an exclusive contract with the State Government to operate this busy service. Service levels have risen greatly and are now at ‘turn up and go’ frequencies over more hours of the day than any other transit service in Victoria.

At least for its contract term, Skybus is a monopoly. Skybus pays for this right and runs without public subsidy.

Monopolies (in many fields) often get a bad rap for poor service, high prices or both. However Skybus can claim an impressive record of service improvement (frequency boosts from every 30 to every 10 minutes are typical) and strong patronage growth, so the poor service argument cannot be sustained here.

Possibly easier to argue though is that competition can lower prices, Although bear in mind that even here Skybus is not a complete monopoly since there is competition from alternatives eg taxis (especially for couples), airport parking and even the (slower) Metro train + Route 901 trip.

To see competition in practice, lets look at the Hobart to Hobart Airport service. Like Melbourne there is no rail link and no direct regular public transport service.

The big difference with Melbourne is that Hobart has several City – Airport express bus operators.

The Airporter is run by Redline – one of the island's largest regional operators. The fare is $15 for a 20 minute trip, making it similar to Skybus. Hobart has far fewer flights than Melbourne and commensurately less frequent airport buses. Unlike Redline’s other routes, timetables are not published and passengers need to phone up and book.

Challenging Redline is the Ten Buck Bus, which offers a simlar service for 33% less. Service is from nominated city locations (mostly hotels) and a timetable is published. This has services every 60 to 90 minutes and there is no need to book. Possibly this saves the need to take many calls or manage online bookings. Unlike Redline, Ten Buck has no public CBD-based bus terminal, and, as can be gauged from their website and business card, the cheapest possible promotion.

Due to my preference for printed timetables (unless services are very frequent), I opted for the Ten Buck service. I fronted up at the main city stop about 20 minutes early and was surprised to see a Redline bus – also going to the airport – pull up shortly later.

I asked the fare and it was only $8 – about half Redline’s usual rate and 20% lower than the Ten Buck fare (not bothering to ask the question posed on Ten Buck's stop flag – ‘If it’s not $10 ask why’).

Since ‘a bus in the hand is worth….’ and I had plenty of time, I boarded the Redline. A largely unsuccessful lap around the city netted only 2 further passengers and we were off.

It was only after boarding that I realised that I might have ridden a ‘flea’. But on further consideration, was Redline’s sending of a bus to its rival's stop less that of a flea and more that of a troll, seeking to stomp on its ten buck upstart rival? Thoughts from Tasmanian readers welcome!

2010-12-28T22:04:00.014+11:00

Postcard from Tasmania: No spirit for the Spirit

In keeping with the season’s holiday mood, following are two snapshots of transport outside Melbourne. The first discusses ferry passenger connectivity facilities at Devonport, as encountered last week.

There couldn’t be any more contrast between transport facilities at each of the ‘Spirit of Tasmania’ termini. The Spirit is a large car and passenger ferry with daily night sailings with day sailings added during peak season.

Melbourne’s Station Pier is at the end of a major tram route, running every few minutes mostly on its own right of way. Pedestrian access is short, direct and legible, with excellent walking and cycling paths. A convenience store and restaurants are within sight. While less prominent, Bay Street’s shops and services are also comfortably walkable.

Devonport is Tasmania’s third city, smaller than only Hobart and Launceston. It is Tasmania’s northern gateway, welcoming backpackers and tourists to surrounding mountains, trails and farms.

The city is divided by the River Mersey. The CBD, accommodation, entertainment, tourist bureau and most housing is on the west bank. On the east is light industry, some housing and the Spirit of Tasmania ferry terminal. The ferry terminal is a stone’s throw across the water from the city centre, with land access via a bridge approximately 2km to the south.

View Larger Map

The Spirit of Tasmania and the people it brings is important to Devonport’s life and economy. Childrens’ murals on the showground’s wall often depict the ferry. The council office names Devonport as the ‘City with Spirit’. And the ship’s daily horn, what is to Devonport as church bells are to a medieval city, removes any doubt.

If the ferry is such a big thing in this town, let’s see how well the transport needs of its passengers are looked after, especially those who came without cars.

The photo shows the first impression arriving passengers get after leaving the ferry and collecting luggage.

Following are seven observations made following the day sailing on December 22, ie close to peak season.

1. The Spirit of Tasmania is scheduled to arrive at the 'out of town' East Devonport terminus at 6pm. However the Torquay ferry, which could provide a quick trip into town, only runs from 8am to 6pm, unsuitable for Spirit passengers arriving after six. The local tourist bureau confirmed services are not extended an hour in peak season to cater for the day ferry’s arrival.

2. The Merseylink town bus service operates to East Devonport via the aforementioned bridge. Route 60's nearest stop is about a five minute walk east of the ferry terminus (see map) so is potentially useful. That is until one checks the timetable, which had the last weekday bus leaving at 5:46pm. On Saturdays the last bus is at 4:00pm, while no service runs on Sundays. Again this service finishes too early to be useful for ferry passengers. In addition few town bus stops inspected had timetables, maps or route information so these service only really cater for residents, who through trial and error, already know where the bus goes.

3. Despite the absence of conventional public transport (ferry or bus) there appeared to be no shuttle bus to take alighting passengers to central Devonport, which would be a key destination for those staying or touring locally.

4. No taxis were seen in the area, despite the likely brisk business, due in part to the above limited transport options. There also appeared to be no visible taxi rank or signage indicating same.

5. Some ferry passengers had bicycles – presumably for touring. There were no defined cycle routes or wayfinding signage to guide their 4km ride into town, although the Council's Cycling Network Strategy identifies their need.

6. The tourist bureau correctly advised that the ferry terminal is about an hour’s walk from Devonport CBD. Again there was no map or wayfinding signage at the ferry terminal to assist those walking into town. Hence the sighting of of lost backpackers in an industrial area’s intersection not far from the ferry terminal.

7. The locals know their town has lousy transport, and sometimes offer tourists seen walking a lift. Although haphazard, this appears to be the most effective transport option that Devonport can offer day sailing passengers.

Conclusion

Melbourne has more than 100 times Devonport’s population. The big-city facilities at Station Pier are neither expected nor appropriate at East Devonport.

Nevertheless Devonport’s failure to provide low-cost facilities such as street maps, pedestrian and cycle wayfinding signage and taxi ranks surely reflects poorly on its support for a ferry service that Australian taxpayers subsidise (cars, not passengers, mind you). Extending either the Torquay ferry or Route 60's hours so it meets all Spirit sailings would also help connectivity.

Until then Devonport is worth visiting only to learn what not to do when it comes to connecting various transport modes or looking after disembarking passengers. As discussed last year southern Tasmania offers riper pickings for the transport tourist.

2010-12-27T21:56:00.020+11:00

Route 837's clever weekday timetable

A previous look at the new Casey-Cardinia bus network (which started last week) indicated that the new timetables improved local route coverage and span more than train connectivity, often because of incompatible bus and train headways (table below).

Cautious passengers in Casey/Cardinia should assume non-connectivity unless otherwise known, especially on weekends.

However one still sometimes finds exquisite examples of good planned connectivity. These are even more remarkable given the difficulties of planning buses around trains every 30 to 40 minutes (compared to 15 - 20 minutes on other Metro lines).

A good example is the weekday timetable for Route 837 between Berwick Station and Beaconsfield East.

Train times

Let's start by checking the area's train times.

Off-peak weekday trains to the city from Pakenham leave Berwick at :20 and :50 past the hour.

Going the other way, off-peak weekday trains from the city to Pakenham leave Berwick at :01 and :31.

Trip generators and passenger flows

Route 837's main trip generators are clustered at the Berwick end of the route. They mostly either in the main street or near the station. Hence peak passenger flow would be towards Berwick in the morning and away from Berwick in the afternoon/evening. This peak flow is only amplified by the route's service of Berwick Station, with a similar peak flow, but this time towards the City and Dandenong in the morning and away in the afternoon.

Analysis

Let's see how Route 837 meets these travel needs, especially train connectivity.

The route runs hourly on weekdays, so could potentially meet every second train if well planned.

And it does. In the morning off-peak Route 837 arrives at Berwick Station at :45. This allows a five minute connection to the train leaving at :50, which is near-optimum.

A closer look at the 837 timetable indicates that the hour spacing does not apply throughout the day. Most notable is the 75 minute gap around noon (arrivals at Berwick are 9:45, 10:45, 11:45, 13:00, 14:00, 15:00, 16:00 etc).

It's similar leaving Berwick; in this case departures to Beaconsfield East are at 8:56, 9:50, 10:55, 12:06, 13:06, 14:06, 15:06 etc.

This initially looks bad; it's not a pure clockface or memory timetable, which lessens legibility.

However let's review train connections before rushing to judgement.

The morning train connections so praised in the to city direction aren't as good the other way. For instance, the ex-City train that meets the 10:55 bus arrives Berwick at 10:31am. This is a 24 minute wait. 24 minutes is nearly as long as the entire bus trip and is high compared to the train's 30 minute frequency.

But look at what happens in the afternoon, when the altered midday spacing puts the bus departures at :06 for afternoon off-peak trips towards Beaconsfield East. With train arrivals at :01 the connection time is once again down to a near-optimum five minutes. This time, in the afternoon, it's the trips towards the city that are not so well connected.

Timetabling always involves trade-offs. It is unlikely that good connections will be consistently possible in all directions, although exceptions can exist where trains cross.

Nevertheless it is possible to select which interchange points and travel directions are most important and schedule buses accordingly. The bad connections don't go away, but they do mean that most passengers most of the time do not encounter them. And given the low train frequency, it is more important to have a bus timetable that connects than one with a perfect clockface schedule but just misses connections.

Conclusion

To conclude, Route 837's good bus/train connectivity in both weekday am and pm dominant directions is precisely the sort of good service planning that we need more of. It is made even more praiseworthy by the area's lesser train frequencies that makes the job harder yet more important for the services in the area to function as a genuine network.

2010-12-20T21:31:00.007+11:00

A season for pruning? Part 2: Options for the Sunshine – Melton corridor

Part 1 identified some ‘dead wood’ routes; that is bus routes that had a purpose when started but now largely parallel others. They would be the first place to start if looking for efficiencies on the bus network.

Redundant routes survived because new bus funding outstripped planning capability, which had atrophied in the 1990s ‘bus drought’ when there were few new services to plan. By the time expertise returned (often consultants hired for the bus reviews) money for their full implementation was running out, at least in established areas.

Scrapping redundant bus routes in favour of upgrading others a further round of improvements, but this time without large additional funding. Unfortunately there is only so much you could do with simply axing ‘dead wood’ routes as they amount to no more than a few percent of total service kilometres.

Larger change requires defter hands in which the skills of the artisan, composer and economist are at least as important as those of the axeman. Artisan because the hand requiress a careful eye and trained mind that sees the network as a whole. Composer because it is within the beat set by train arrivals that buses are best planned. And economist because they value efficiency and understand opportunity cost.

A bus corridor makeover

I will present an example where rethinking a pair of routes may improve overall service levels and connectivity. The routes chosen include the western portion of Route 216 and all of Route 456. Together they form the main bus coridor between Sunshine, Caroline Springs and Melton. Two alternatives to the current timetables are discussed. Each has its own pros and cons. Hence there is always a need to consider the ‘greater good’ since it’s difficult to make any change without disadvantaging somebody.

View Larger Map

The area and services

Sunshine is an established rail-based centre populated largely by low-income migrants who use buses heavily. Its shopping centre and timetabled crossing of trains in both directions make it an ideal interchange hub. Caroline Springs is a 1990s housing estate built remote from the railway with only a basic bus service. Melton is served by country trains and has an older core surrounded by new housing. Unlike Sunshine, Melton is polycentric, with the railway station, main street shopping strip and enclosed shopping centre beyond easy walking distance from one another. Suburban trains operate every 20 minutes to Sunshine. Two bus routes, run by different companies, leave there for Caroline Springs; Route 216 (which has come from the city) and Route 456 (which extends to Melton). Both bus routes run approximately every 30 minutes, so do not connect with trains every 20 minutes. And neither do they mesh with one another, so they do not form an even 15-minute service. In addition Route 216 terminates just short of the Caroline Springs Town Centre so its coverage is very limited.

How many buses?

It’s useful to know how many buses are used on current routes so that changes can be costed. The number of buses depends on route length and frequency. It can be estimated from the timetable, either numerically or graphically.

During weekday off-peaks Route 216 takes 20 minutes to get from Sunshine to Caroline Springs. The 30 minute service provided would need 2 buses if run as an independent route. Due to the efficiencies gained by continuing this service beyond Sunshine, the actual requirement may be slightly less – let’s assume 1.8 buses to be safe.

Route 456 takes 55 minutes to do the trip to Melton. Hence a single bus can go there and back every 2 hours, meaning that the existing 25-30 minute service would need 4 buses.

Any resource-neutral service improvement would need to use no more than 6 buses. If it could be done with 5 buses it may be possible to free a bus for a route that needs it more.

Summary of the existing service

The departure list below shows existing weekday off-peak services and their connectivity with ex-City trains arriving at Sunshine.

The above shows that each train is followed by at least one bus. However connection times can be up to 20 minutes. Being significant compared to travel times (approximately 25 minutes to Caroline Springs and similar by train to the city) connection times have a large influence on end-to-end travel speeds and the relative attractiveness of public transport.

I did not examine connections for other travel patterns (eg city-bound train to bus & bus to train, but the uneven bus service intervals indicate likely similar results.

Here’s some key numbers:

Estimated number of buses used: 5.8 approx
Connectivity with train: no
Services per hour (Sph): 4.25 (measured over 4-hour period)
Average Bus frequency (Favg): 14 min (=60/Sph)
Maximum Bus wait (Wmax): 21 min
Maximum Train-Bus connection: 20 min
Service efficiency (ie Favg/Wmax) = 67%

Although the average bus frequency is 14 minutes (between Sunshine and Caroline Springs), maximum waits can be up to 21 minutes as the routes are not scheduled together. Worst case train connections are a similar figure, although most are better.

In the sample time period there are six more buses than required to consistently connect with each (off-peak) train. Connection quality varies due to unharmonised bus headways. Just missed connections are common; on six occasions the bus departs within two minutes of the train arriving. And effective frequency is lower than the 14-15 minutes it would be if services were evenly spaced.

This represents both potential inefficiency and opportunity. For it may be possible to deliver more consistent connections and/or higher effective frequencies with the same or fewer buses.

Scope for improvement?

Some ‘back of the envelope’ attempts to improve schedules are presented below. Not being a professional bus scheduler there will be aspects missed, but the general concepts, borrowed from timed transfer networks worldwide, should still be sound. The complications posed by multiple operators serving the corridor are not discussed. There may be scope to improve efficiencies by swapping routes between operators, or routes could be shared between operators, as already sometimes occurs (eg Route 400 between Sunshine and Laverton).

Option 1: One frequent route to Melton, meeting every train.

Achieved by deleting Route 216 past Sunshine and using saved resources to boost Route 456’s frequency to 20 minutes all the way to Melton.

Approximate bus times are shown on the graph below.

Graphs like these are commonly used by train schedulers. They show how many vehicles are required to run a service and indicate connectivity at interchange points.

Time is shown across the horizontal (x) axis and location on the vertical (y) axis. The steeper the slope of the line, the faster the travel. A horizontal line means the bus is stationary, for instance waiting at an interchange. Each coloured line shows the path of a bus; in this case six are required. The dots near the top signify train times in both directions.

Some numbers below:

Connectivity with train: yes (3 to 7 min in all directions)
Services per hour: 3 (entire corridor)
Average Bus frequency (Favg): 20 min
Maximum Bus wait (Wmax): 20 min
Service efficiency (ie Favg/Wmax) = 100%
Estimated number of buses required: 6

Several points are worth noting:

* The timetable aimed to create a timed-transfer network at Sunshine. Buses arrive, trains arrive, trains depart and buses depart. Passengers can simultaneously transfer in any direction with minimal waiting.

* Sunshine station presents special opportunities for service co-ordination since trains both to and from Melbourne arrive within a few minutes of one another. This doubles the number of good bus-train connections possible. Hence a bus there and back can connect with no less than 4 trains.

* Connection times are between 3 and 7 minutes. Given the standard for on-time train running is within 4:59 minutes, anything under 5 minutes is arguably too tight. It may be possible to adjust bus times by a minute or two to increase the probability of successful connections in peak travel directions.

* Recovery time is nearly all spent at Sunshine rather than Melton (where it is only 1 minute). Spending it at Melton would mean that the bus would arrive at Sunshine too late to make train connections.

* A nine minute recovery time at Sunshine has been scheduled. Buses arrive at :57 and depart at :06, to exchange passengers with trains in both directions around the top of the hour, repeating every 20 minutes. Such dwell times heavily use interchange space, with the bay being occupied nine minutes out of every twenty. However the best measure of bus bay efficiency is passenger throughput, and it is possible that despite the dwell time this could be quite high given the large number of connection combinations possible (4 per 9 minute occupancy, not including bus-bus transfers).

* Measures that could free space at bus interchanges and/or reduce dwell times while preserving connectivity have not been explored. One example is a layover area. Here the bus empties at a drop-off only bay near the station entrance, moves to a nearby layover area and returns to the designated pick up stop in time to leave on time. Another possible tool is ‘active transfer management’ which would also speed buses, especially routes carrying through passengers, such as orbital routes. Here the bus would be scheduled to leave just after the train is scheduled to arrive (say h:04 instead of h:06), but would be held back to at least h:06 if the train is late.

* The tightness of the some bus/train connections and the very short layover at Melton may mean that this timetable might look good on paper but be fragile in practice. It is in these marginal cases where cutting running time by 2 to 4 minutes per direction can greatly improve reliability, connectivity and bus utlisation. Removal of close stops, more direct routes and bus priority at intersections are the sort of cheap projects that could make the difference here.

To summarise, Option 1 is the highest service choice, providing effectively a TrainLink service between Sunshine and Melton. It scores well for frequency, consistency and connectivity. However it does not save buses (compared to the present arrangements) and poorly serves Caroline Springs. It also removes the ability for Caroline Springs residents to catch a direct bus to the city.

I would also wonder whether the service is overkill, and if there are more deserving routes for the resources. Much of the route is sparsely populated and may not justify a 20 minute frequency (this being transit hostile development where the greatest population densities are off the highway). While it is some distance away, the corridor is also served by diesel trains, which offer a much faster (but currently less frequent) service between Sunshine and Melton.

Melton’s population growth is likely to support either a more frequent diesel train or electrification, both of which would further lessen the need for a 20 minute bus service to Melton, since changing to a local bus at Melton Station may be faster than the direct bus from Sunshine.

Option 2: Connection with every train to Caroline Springs, with every second trip extending to Melton.

This option reduces Route 456 to a 40 minute frequency, carefully timed to meet every second train. Route 216 west of Sunshine Station becomes an independent route every 40 minutes to Caroline Springs, timed to provide a 20 minute frequency over the combined portion between Sunshine and Caroline Springs (to meet every train).

The graph below shows how this service might run: (click to enlarge)

It’s messier than Option 1 since two types of service are offered. Three buses provide a 40 minute frequency to Melton with similar times to every second trip of Option 1. In between are Sunshine to Caroline Springs trips, again every 40 minutes, arranged to provide a 20 minute frequency along the common portion. The existing timetable allocated about 25 minutes to do this trip, so two buses are required to operate this service.

Some numbers:

Connectivity with train: yes
Services per hour: 3 (to Caroline Springs), (1.5 to Melton)
Average Bus frequency (Favg): 20 min (40 min Melton) Maximum Bus wait (Wmax): 20 min (40 min Melton)
Service efficiency (ie Favg/Wmax) = 100%
Estimated number of buses used = 5 (Melton 3, Caroline Springs 2)

There are several points worth noting:

* This is a lower service option for Melton, with the non-clockface 25-30 minute Route 456 service reduced to 40 minutes (also non-clockface). However unlike the current arrangement it provides a consistent connection with every second train. And if introduced in conjunction with an improved Melton train timetable the frequency cut may not be missed.

* The Sunshine – Caroline Springs portion (216) would have fewer buses and lose its direct link to the city. However it would gain better train connectivity and a less lumpy timetable. Reliabilty should also improve as delays affecting the Sunshine-City portion of Route 216/219 would be quarantined. Travel to Footscray and the City would remain possible through better train connections or changing to Route 216/219/220 bus (a combined 7.5 minute frequency) at Sunshine.

An initial draft had evenly spaced departures from Sunshine towards Caroline Springs and Melton. However return trips had two arrivals every 40 minutes at Sunshine. This is an effective frequency of 40 minutes or a 50% service efficiency – both unsatisfactory for a corridor with a current 14 minute average frequency.

A way around this is to hold each Route 216 return journey at Caroline Springs by 20 minutes. This gives us a 20 minute effective frequency and a 100% service efficiency, which are both good. However having buses lay over for about as long as they are moving is inefficient.

How could the idle time at Caroline Springs be better utilised? A look at the existing Route 216 terminus indicates it terminates in housing, distant from local trip generators. A short (2km) extension to Caroline Springs Town Centre would lessen idle time, serve a local trip generator and connect with other routes.

This arrangements may save nearly one bus compared to the current arrangements. Possible uses for this resource in the Sunshine area could include: Boosting frequency of Route 471 from 25 to 20 minutes to connect with trains, extending Route 451 north to Watergardens Station, extending Route 454 southwards to the industrial area, extending Route 417 northward to Sunshine to better cover industrial areas, later trips to Derrimut (Route 400), or extended coverage in Sunshine North are all contenders. I will not pick which is the highest priority, but some are likely to attract more patronage than economising parts of 216 and 456 would lose.

Option 3. Melton to Caroline Springs via Sunshine.

This can provide a service outcome similar to Option 2, depending on the treatment of buses at Caroline Springs. Instead of the routes being independent they are interlined, ie buses from Melton do a short trip to Caroline Springs via Sunshine and then return to Melton via Sunshine.

Due to the backtracking and dwell time at Sunshine there are no advantages in this for the passenger. It would only be considered if it allows the service to be run with fewer buses.

Conclusion

The above examples indicate the potential for service planning to improve bus network legibility and connectivity. Two options for the Sunshine – Melton corridor have been presented.

2010-12-04T23:21:00.007+11:00

After the Election

Last Saturday Victorians voted for a change of government. Below are a few observations on the campaign and the challenges facing the new government.

Rail’s rise

Public transport was prominent in the campaign, with the main topics being railway service delivery, security and staffing. Feasability studies for new lines and revised arrangements for service planning were also on the agenda. On election night the Opposition’s David Davis said that passenger discontent contributed to victories in Bentleigh, Mordialloc, Carrum and Frankston, all on Melbourne’s least punctual rail line. In contrast, buses hardly figured, except as alternatives to a Mernda railway.

Transport plans reflect rail’s growth in political importance. The 2006 ‘Meeting our Transport Challenges’ was largely about buses, especially upgraded local services and new SmartBus routes. Whereas the 2008 Victorian Transport Plan was basically a road and rail infrastructure plan, proposing the Regional Rail Link and Melbourne Metro projects.

Successive ministers heaped blame for disruptions on the rail operator. The former premier promised ‘improvements from Day One’ when the new franchise operators took over last year. Politically this hurt more than Bob Hawke's famous 'by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty' promise. Labor learned the hard way that the railway is a fragile and fractious beast whose reliability reflects past maintenance, errant car drivers and straying pedestrians more than political niceties. After a brief honeymoon, the new government, with its 'fix it' mandate, will be held to account as surely as the previously one was.

Quiet on the buses

In its last term the defeated Labor government made buses run on Sundays and after 7pm but failed to remind voters of this gain. The consensus on both sides was that buses were not politically significant, despite their extensive coverage. Accordingly the major parties promised either no or minor improvements for buses. This is one of those cases where the past record exceeded the promises; 2010 saw a record number of SmartBus routes added to the network.

The key message for those wanting better buses in 2011 is that most if not all improvements must be cost-neutral. In other words nothing much will happen unless resources can be found by withdrawing or shortening existing routes.

The choice is between a passive approach to bus service planning and few improvements, or a more active approach (including deleting or reducing services on some routes if necessary) and freeing resources for a more important route. After some time where the pursuit of economy was laid aside, transport planners will need to reacquaint themselves with concepts such as ‘opportunty cost’ and the sometimes unpleasant job of rationalising redundant services for a greater good.

All this is a big change from 2006 – 2010 where there was significant new money for bus service upgrades. Planning efficiency probably suffered because services tended to be boosted before being reviewed. And there was sometimes a reluctance to rationalise services, even when overlapped by new routes. Bus reviews came later, but by then funding had run out for wholesale implementation, especially in established areas.

Getting along on the roads

The relationship between road users was an issue in certain seats. Inner-city Liberals campaigned against extended clearway hours on roads served by trams. Clearways sped traffic flow but were vocally opposed by shopkeepers.

Bus lanes on Stud Road were also topical in the electorally critical south-east. These were seen as taking space from motorists and giving them to buses. Bus lanes can be deceptive – a relatively quiet bus lane can carry as many people as a lane full of single occupant vehicles. Nevertheless to moderate community opposition they need to be seen to be used, and this may require a more intensive service than currently runs.

Governance

First the Greens, then the Liberals. Both advocated some form of public transport authority. Labor saw no need, citing the existing functions of the Department of Transport and operators. Whether something gets done (eg bus-train co-ordination) is more important than who does it.

2010-11-17T22:53:00.007+11:00

A season for pruning?

It’s been a wet winter, the flowers are out and plants have grown fast. Gardeners are out with the shears, trimming undergrowth and unwanted branches.

Our bus network has had a similar windfall. A 15-year drought ended with many new routes being added in the last five years, a growth rate without recent historical precedent. Operating hours broadened, coverage spread and patronage surged.

Students of public administration will be aware that being required to spend large sums in a short time does not guarantee top value for money or high accountability. Careful planning and effective targeting of expenditure can be a casualty of blanket 'one size fits all' funding increases.

In public transport this could occur by boosting services on a route without regard to its network importance, relationship with other services or opportunity cost. Hence some corridors got more buses per hour but ‘lumpy’ timetables with long waits. Roads with overlapping routes were sometimes overserviced while adjacent high employment areas missed out. And buses are not all headway harmonised with trains like they are in Perth, despite our sometimes lower train frequencies making connectivity even more crucial.

The plant analogy can go further. If the bus network was a tree, parts would have strengthened greatly but others would still be weak, bushy and hardly alive. There would be many twigs, some well-placed and others with odd kinks formed years ago for reasons long forgotten. Not all supporting branches would robustly connect with trains or directly link suburbs.

Too much undergrowth can retard the funding, marketing and visibility of direct high-service routes most likely to attract patronage. Tangled scrub can also appear impenetrable, especially for commuters who drive past it on the way to the station.

If the political and economic climate favours service cuts, there can be coverage gaps. If it favours service increases there can be duplication. Our current network has both, reflecting past feast and famine. The latest feast has vastly improved buses and driven patronage to forty year highs. Nevertheless there remains great opportunity to carry even more through an efficient network that neither over or under services.

The patronage potential of buses is clearest when comparing their ridership with trams. Buses ‘should’ carry more than trams as their catchment population is higher, they exclusively serve the largest suburban shopping centres and run in the suburbs where most people live. But the actual figures are very different; 170 million for trams and barely 100 million for buses, indicating much higher service and patronage intensity on the smaller tram network.

This large disparity can’t all be due to trams’ CBD running, population density or a passenger preference for rails in tar. For there exist bus corridors that already have timetables and patronage that approach those of trams. The fact that buses don’t run on rails and overhead wires is no reason for low average patronage. However trams’ directness, legibility and frequency show aspects of successful service planning that can effectively apply to buses (as confirmed by usage of high-service ex-Met and SmartBus routes).

Both directness and legibility are a result of good planning, which is relatively cheap. Frequency costs scarce recurrent expenditure. But some can be raised internally from restructuring less efficient routes. However a growing city with a service backlog will also require increased external funding to develop the network. Such funding requests are more likely to succeed if there is evidence that the existing network is already planned efficiently and additional resources would boost rather than duplicate services.

Reviewing, untangling and making legible the bus network is key to making it more useful and boosting patronage. A good first step is to examine the current network for corridors that could be simplified. The multimode frequent service maps as presented above are useful tools for this purpose.

My examination of these maps has produced the following ‘dead wood’ portions of routes that may warrant pruning if 'greater good' gains can be obtained elsewhere:

219 (portion): Part west of Sunshine duplicates 903. A weekend variation serves areas covered by Route 471.

280/282 (portion): A local route that duplicates the 901 SmartBus along a low-density residential area (Foote St/Reynolds Rd Templestowe).

246 (Latrobe Uni extension): Overlaps with other routes between Clifton Hill and Latrobe Uni.

286 (entire route): Largely duplicated by two SmartBus routes (901 and 906) along Blackburn Rd

293 (part): Duplicated by new SmartBus Route between Doncaster Shoppingtown and Eltham (Main Rd roundabout).

295: Duplicates 903 along Station St between Box Hill and Doncaster Shoppingtown.

340/350: Overlaps with 250 between Ivanhoe and Latrobe Uni.

445 (part route): Duplicates other routes between Werribee Plaza and Hoppers Crossing Station. Truncation could allow removal of stopping restrictions (including to a local shopping centre) which lessen legibility.

478/479 (part route): Duplicates Route 477 and tram between Moonee Ponds and Airport West.

479 (City – Moonee Ponds portion): A weekend extension that duplicated by a frequent tram service.

483 (entire route): Freeway service for Sunbury. Will become less necessary after rail electrification.

500 (entire route): Duplicates 901 between Broadmeadows and Melbourne Airport. Duplicates 479 between Melbourne Airport and Sunbury.

544 (part route): Duplicates 901 between Roxburgh Park and Broadmeadows

563 (part route): Duplicates tram along a large section of Plenty Rd and 901 between Greensborough & Plenty Valley SC

623 (part route): Duplicates 626 and 900 between Chadstone SC and Carnegie. Scope for rerouting along Neerim Rd to replace portion of 624.

673 (entire route): An hourly service entirely duplicated by parallel longer routes

691 (part route): Monash Uni extension – replaced by direct high-service 900 SmartBus

694 (entire route): Largely parallels 663 & the extended 688 for all but a few stops.

745 (entire route): Four occasional routes with very low patronage

777 (entire route): A short route with few services and trip generators

Apart from removing redundant routes (relatively easy since no coverage is sacrificed), there are other things that could further simplify the network and increase effective service frequencies, preferably using resources saved from route rationalisation. The most obvious is more evenly scheduling overlapping routes that share a corridor. Other gains could come from rerouting that lessens duplication and improves coverage. Such changes won't please everyone, but not considering them may result in higher gains foregone. Some examples of this type will appear in a future post.

2010-11-16T22:13:00.007+11:00

Frequent service maps – now Melbourne wide

A pet personal project (obsession?) has been the compilation of schematic maps showing Melbourne’s frequent transport corridors, offering service every 15 minutes or better.

Melbourne’s inner suburbs have many such corridors thanks to its extensive tram network. Further out, fifteen minute weekday frequencies are available on some train lines and bus routes. Around half of our frequent bus corridors bear SmartBus branding, while the other half receive no special marketing.

While trams and trains are visible and legible, buses remain a mystery to the average traveller. Public transport is widely considered effective to get to the city but not so useful for cross-suburban trips, which dominate most people’s travel.

Simplifying the network through multi-modal frequent service maps is one way to make the network more legible and counter a major objection to buses; namely that they do not run frequently or late enough. The resultant network becomes more web or grid like, making it suitable for many more trips than the largely radial train and tram systems on their own.

I started with scribbles on taped scraps of paper. Plain shower curtains from discount shops were then tried. Windows Paint worked but smeared badly with each alteration. Finally Power Point was found workable.

Two maps for Melbourne’s eastern suburbs have previously appeared here. These have been updated and are presented with new maps for Melbourne’s north, west and inner, as below:

Melbourne west

Melbourne north

Melbourne north-east

Melbourne south-east

Melbourne inner

I will be the first to admit that these maps are not perfect.

Some maps, particularly the south-east, are way too cluttered. Deleting parallel lower service routes (so the key can be removed) and/or making each map cover a smaller area may help. The orientation of some streets (particularly the CBD) is not always ideal. And a few areas, such as around Port Melbourne and Prahran, fall within two maps but are well documented by neither.

Trying to reconcile geographic accuracy with simplicity was a challenge. So was illustrating both frequency and span. For the latter I made thickness represent frequency and line continuity represent span. Although it made the layout less clean, I wanted to show lower frequency routes that share the same corridor with high-service routes, and so boost combined frequency further.

Some of the complexity reflects the different service levels across the network. Bus routes especially don’t always fit neat categories such as (i) high service SmartBus, (ii) minimum standard local route or (iii) limited service special route. This shows that mapping can only simplify the network so much; planners need to do their bit to straighten routes and harmonise spans and frequencies as well.

In some cases I broke my own rules as the maps would have looked silly otherwise (eg half the rail network missing). For instance northern suburbs trains and western suburbs trains and trams operate every 20 minutes, and I have shown them even though the cut-off generally used was 15 minutes. If there was a rationale, it could be that people are willing to sacrifice frequency for trains’ average higher speed and comfort.

What these maps do demonstrate, however, is that frequency maps can provide a fresh way of seeing (and using) the public transport network that should be helpful for planners, providers and passengers alike.

2010-11-16T06:23:00.005+11:00

Selling frequency

Brochures intended for tram hand-holds selling the frequent lunchtime service now available on a city tram corridor.

2010-11-02T20:35:00.008+11:00

Transport safety videos over the years

A selection of sometimes hard-hitting, sometimes entertaining clips with a serious message.

2010

2009

2000s?

1992

1984

1970

1948

2010-10-23T08:44:00.003+11:00

New Frankston line timetable and bus connectivity

The major feature of the October 2010 Metro train timetable was the upgrade of the weekday Frankston interpeak frequency from fifteen to ten minutes. As frequencies increase dependence on timetables lessen. And many passengers would be treating ten minutes as a ‘turn up and go’ service.

Intersecting tram routes would also be considered ‘turn up and go’, at least on weekdays. However for buses reference to a timetable is still important to ensure short journey times.

Connectivity and effective service frequency are maximised if train and bus headways are harmonised. The extent of frequency harmonisation varies across Melbourne as each mode is often independently scheduled.

This survey shows the effect of the Frankston line train frequency boost on bus headway harmonisation for each bus route serving stations between Caulfield and Frankston.

Station – Route – pre Oct 2010 – post Oct 2010

Caulfield – 624 – yes – yes
Caulfield – 900 – yes – no

Ormond – 630 – no – yes
Ormond – 625 – yes - yes

McKinnon – 626 – yes – yes

Bentleigh – 701 – yes – yes
Bentleigh – 703 – no – no

Moorabbin – 811/812 – yes – yes
Moorabbin – 823 – yes - yes
Moorabbin – 824 – no – yes
Moorabbin – 825 – no – yes

Highett – 827/828 – no – yes
Highett – 708 – yes – yes

Cheltenham – 600/922/923 – yes – no
Cheltenham - 811/812 – yes - yes
Cheltenham – 822 – yes - yes
Cheltenham - 827/828 – no - yes

Mentone – 708 – yes - yes
Mentone – 811/812 – yes - yes
Mentone – 825 – no – yes
Mentone – 903 – yes - no

Parkdale – 708 – yes – yes

Mordialloc – 705 - n/a - n/a (peak service only)
Mordialloc – 708 – yes – yes
Mordialloc – 709 – yes – yes
Mordialloc – 903 – yes – no

Aspendale -

Edithvale – 858 – yes – yes
Edithvale – 902 – yes – no

Chelsea – 857 – yes – yes
Chelsea – 858 – yes – yes
Chelsea – 902 – yes – no

Bonbeach –

Carrum – 708 – yes – yes
Carrum – 780 – yes - yes
Carrum – 857 – yes – yes

Seaford – 780 – yes – yes

Kananook – 778 – yes – yes
Kananook – 779 – yes – yes
Kananook – 832 – yes – yes
Kananook – 901 – yes – no

Frankston – 770 – no – no
Frankston – 771 – no - yes
Frankston – 772 – yes - yes
Frankston – 773 – yes - yes
Frankston – 774 – yes - yes
Frankston – 775 – no - no
Frankston – 776 – no - no
Frankston – 779/780 – yes – yes
Frankston – 781/784/785 – no – yes
Frankston – 782/783 – yes – yes
Frankston – 788 – yes - no
Frankston – 789/790/791 – no - yes
Frankston – 832/833 – yes - yes
Frankston – 901 – yes – no

Total before: Yes 39 – No 13
Total after: Yes 39 – No 13

Notes: Routes with irregular headways (eg 703, 775, 776) are counted as non-harmonised. Only routes with off-peak weekday services are counted.

Analysis

While the move to a ten minute frequency has not changed the number of bus routes that can claim to be harmonised with Frankston line trains, to conclude that there has been no change oversimplifies the effect on individual routes.

The most significant harmonisation gain was that restored to 20 minute frequency bus routes. I say ‘restored’ because they were previously harmonised when Frankston interpeak trains ran every 20 minutes (before the 1990s upgrade to 15 minutes). Some of these routes (eg 630 and 824) were the busier services that escaped the bus service reductions in the 1980s and 1990s (which saw some weekday frequencies reduced from 20 to 30 minutes). The other harmonisation gain has been in the Frankston area, where routes to Karingal (789/790/791) and Mornington (781/784/785) now combine to provide an even connection to every second train.

The main loss to harmonisation has been to the SmartBus and near-SmartBus routes (600/922/923, 900, 901, 902 and 903). Their 15 minute frequency matched the previous interpeak train frequency on the Frankston line. The effective frequency (ie the interval between when optimum connections repeat) has increased from 15 to 30 minutes for trips involving a transfer. However many passengers are likely to treat this as a ‘turn up and go’ connection, especially if changing from the bus to the train.

Metro’s Andrew Lezala favours the introduction of ten minute interpeak train service frequency on more lines, along with similar frequencies on tram and major bus routes. The latter obviously involves the orbital SmartBus routes, which currently run every fifteen minutes.

This pattern provides a legible ‘one-size fits all’ pattern where almost every interpeak orbital service runs the full route, despite greatly varying patronage along it. However if bus patronage continues to rise and more train lines are upgraded to run every 10 minutes interpeak, a future change to a 10/20 minute frequency pattern (lower service on the quieter portions) could provide needed gains in capacity and connectivity. Efficiency would also rise as services more closely match demand. There would be some decline in legibility, as alternate services would terminate short, but this may be outweighed by the consistent connectivity achieved by matching bus and train frequencies and the higher service on the busier portions.

Conclusion

While the numbers show no change to the proportion of bus routes that are frequency harmonised with trains during the weekday interpeak, the higher train frequency has improved overally connectivity by reducing maximum waiting times. It is for this reason that the gain of a 20 minute headway service becoming harmonised is greater than a 15 minute frequency service losing it.

Nevertheless to enhance their potential as strong feeder services, the principle that SmartBus services should be headway-harmonised with trains is worth keeping, and an approach to enhance this for our orbital routes is suggested.

2010-10-20T20:24:00.005+11:00

Employment concentration and public transport service quality

Just over six months ago Alan Davies of the Melbourne Urbanist reminded us that the majority of jobs in Melbourne are (1) outside the CBD and surrounds, and (2) outside what Melbourne 2030 calls 'Major Activity Centres'. Outside the top four areas where employment is highly concentrated, is a 'long tail' of smaller centres which employ between about 1 and 2 percent of suburban centre jobs.

In descending order of significance the top four centres were Clayton, Tullamarine, Kew/Hawthorn and Box Hill.

I thought it would be worth comparing the availability of high-service public transport routes to and within these areas. This could help answer questions such as whether the largest employment centres had the best public transport, or whether historical factors, such as the era of development and presence of tram routes were more important.

Criteria used to assess service quality to these employment areas were as follows:

a. Service levels. The number of directions from which high service routes to the area is provided (at least SmartBus spans and frequencies). Lower frequency routes and branches are not counted, even though some approach SmartBus standards.

b. Travel speeds. As measured by the number of directions with services that operate on their own rights of way (eg railways, busways and segregated light rail).

c. Connectivity. Number of intersections between high-service routes.

d. Coverage. Extent to which the highest service routes are within walking distance of the highest concentrations of employment in the area. Assessed as low, medium or high.

Only regular Metcard/Myki ticketed routes were counted in this survey.

The overall rating comprises a Service, Speed and Connectivity score ( a + b + c) plus a coverage estimate for high service routes (described as low, medium or high).

Assessments by centre, starting with the largest, are as follows:

Clayton (includes area around Clayton Station, Monash University and Blackburn Rd)

a. Service levels

High service routes are as follows: Bus 900 (2 directions) and Dandenong line train (2 directions).

Total number of directions with high service routes: 4 (increases to 8 if the lower service 703 and 802/804/862 routes are included)

b. Travel Speeds

Number of directions with ROW route: 2

c. Connectivity

Number of intersections between above high-service routes: 0

d. Coverage

Train serves areas near Clayton shopping strip and Monash Medical Centre. Route 900 serves area near Monash University. Business parks and light industrial in the area are not served by the above routes. The area is pedestrian-hostile.

Overall: SSC score 6 with medium coverage.

Tullamarine

a. Service levels

High-service routes are Routes 901 and Routes 902. Route 901 offers service in one direction and Route 902 operates in both directions.

Total number of directions with high service routes:3

b. Travel Speeds

Number of directions with ROW route: 0

c. Connectivity

Number of intersections between above high-service routes: 1 (Mickleham Rd)

d. Coverage

Route 901 offers medium coverage of airport (stop is away main passenger gates). Both routes serve Mickeham Rd. Melrose Dr, Sharps Rd and Keilor Park Dr not served by above routes. The area is extremely pedestrian hostile.

Overall: SSC score 4 with low-medium coverage.

Kew/Hawthorn (area east of Princess St and from Swinburne University and north)

a. Service levels

High service routes are as follows: Tram 16 (1 direction), Tram 48 (2 directions), Tram 109 (2 directions), Bus 200/201/207 (1 direction), Ringwood/Alamein trains (3 directions).

Total number of directions with high service routes: 9

b. Travel Speeds

Number of directions with ROW route: 3

c. Connectivity

Number of intersections between above high-service routes: 3 (Kew Junction, Cotham/Glenferrie Rd & Glenferrie Stn)

d. Coverage

Most major trip generators are served by trains and trams that quality as high-service routes. Coverage is therefore high.

Overall: SSC score 15 with high coverage.

Box Hill

a. Service levels

High service routes are as follows: Tram 109 (1 direction), Bus 903 (2 directions) and Ringwood line trains (2 directions).

Total number of directions with high service routes:5 (increases to 9 if the lower service 270/271, 286, 281/293 and 281/767/768 corridors are included)

b. Travel Speeds

Number of directions with ROW route: 2

c. Connectivity

Number of intersections between above high-service routes: 1 (Box Hill Station)

d. Coverage

Good coverage within Box Hill Shopping centre and surrounds. Hospitals and TAFE colleges are near at least one high-service route. Overall medium – high.

Overall: SSC score 8 with medium-high coverage.

Conclusion

This analysis has many limitations. For instance area boundaries and job densities could have been established and the proportion of jobs within pedsheds of high-service stops should have been examined to obtain a more accurage coverage statistic. And the different local network topologies, from parallel non-intersecting routes (eg Clayton), to a single interchange point (Box Hill) to a multi-centred network (Kew/Hawthorn) could have been explored.

However the information gathered should be robust enough to show that that public transport service levels are not necessarily matched to a suburban centre’s employment significance. In particular the two largest centres (Clayton and Tullamarine) have high-quality services from fewer directions and not as many interchange points as the two smaller (but still large) centres.

Nevertheless service levels have become more equal between centres over the last five years, as tram service levels remained largely unchanged, new SmartBus routes commenced and local routes gained 7-day service. Five years ago, for instance, Clayton, the largest employment centre, had only one high-service route (the train), which missed the suburb’s biggest employer (Monash University). And less than one year ago Tullamarine, our second largest, had only occasional services. Both now have at least one high-service bus route serving the largest employer in each area.

2010-10-17T19:25:00.011+11:00

Urban plans, density and the middle class

Noel Pearson's 2010 John Button Oration (highly recommended - listen here) got me thinking about the relationship between urban plans (such as Melbourne 2030) and the relationship between it and various economic classes (especially the middle class).

To summarise, the intellectual middle class says what ought to be built and the capitalist landowning class goes off and builds, taking a risk in return for a possible profit. While planning regulations (largely drafted and interpreted by the middle-class) have some influence, the capitalist can apply the ultimate sanction, ie choosing not to build if they see no profit. This puts a limit on the strictness (or 'unworkability') of planning regulations, otherwise undersupply will be the result.

Urban planning can be seen as a tussle between a portion of the middle class (either as bureaucrats, academics or activist residents) and the capitalist upper class. The working class has a role as consumers through housing and shopping preferences. There is thus a consumer-producer relationship between the working class and the capitalist (if buying a project home for example), but the relationship between the working class and middle class is very limited.

I previously described Melbourne 2030 as a plan that favours the grouping of certain land uses (cafes, galleries, educational establishments and higher density housing) around transport hubs.

Favoured land uses represent the interests of the humanities-educated portion of the middle class plus some perceived working-class wants (or should haves). The latter being desirable to foster 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Certain other land uses, such as bulky goods retail, fast-food and (especially) light industrial, are not part of the academic's world so tend not to feature prominently in their plans. Ignoring them does not make these uses go away, instead they go to the periphery without public transport or pedestrian access (Tullamarine and Laverton North spring to mind).

Lacking capital, the interested middle classes (especially academics, bureaucrats and council planners) use plans to advance what they see as the public (or is it their?) interest against the capitalist landowning class. To the extent that they are implemented they advance the former group's quality of life and aesthetic sensibilities. A Marxist analysis would also see city planning as part of a broader contest between intellectual and capital, with each group wanting their strength to prevail.

The middle class, even its humanity educated portion, is not homogeneous. As often played out in The Age, it is deeply split on the question of housing density.

There is what I would call the 'technocratic' or 'urbanist' middle class which favours higher densities for a more compact, less sprawling city better able to be served by public transport and other services. A substantial proportion of this group would have lived in or visited overseas cities with higher densities than ours. Some may work in planning. Their arguments are both environmental and economic, with the economic one being an echo of Le Corbusier's vision of cities as being 'machines for living in'. While it is another debate, this group may be quite relaxed about the city's capacity to house a higher population (though being quite well paid they will always be able to afford to live in the city's 'better' areas).

There is common ground between this group and developers (whose profit increases with density, since fixed costs can be spread across more units). The developers need this group to argue their case, while the urbanists need the developers to allow their preferred city form to be built.

Opposed to densification (at least in their backyard) is another faction of the middle class. 'Suburban protectionists' are less enamoured with high-rise and go by names such as 'Save our Suburbs'. This group professes a wish to preserve their neighbourhood's quiet streets, leafy verges and an always-free parking spot in front of the house. High-density is also thought by residents to be associated with crime, especially if 'outsiders not like us' (eg public housing tenants) move in. Hence NIMBYs ('Not in My Back Yard') are vulnurable to accusations of xenophobia or selfishness. While another (though related) debate, protectionists often question the benefits of continued population growth in our big cities, and may propose decentralisation (for others of course) to lessen pressures on our bigger cities.

As homeowners,suburban protectionists' key economic interest is their house value.

This is especially so for the middle-class.

The biggest determinant of wealth in Australia is whether you live in your own home or rent (those who both rent and invest are a small, savvy minority). Poor people are by and large not homeowners, so values are irrelevant to them. Then there's the rich. While they may live in nice homes the genuinely financially independent hold most of their wealth (80 - 99%) in other assets, such as their own businesses, rental properties, shares and the like. In contrast the middle-class person's home is their biggest asset, with most of their other wealth (superannuation) being untouchable until retirement. Hence concern that a development may lower house values is quintessentially a middle-class concern.

The relationship that high density leads to better public transport is also disputed. 2004 - 2008 for instance saw a train patronage boom but no commensurate service increase. And if higher traffic slows buses and trams, their efficiency will fall without priority. Academic support (in the sense that successful public transport is more a function of service planning than density) is offered by Paul Mees of RMIT.

To conclude, planning and the argy-bargy that goes with it, is a game between a protectionist middle class and a capitalist class (legitimised by a technocratic middle class). The middle class has brains but no capital. The capitalists have money and can co-opt as many middle-class minds as necessary. The middle-class itself is divided. Hence we generally get a largely market-oriented plan with some urbanist features such as denser activity centres and protectionist features such a (movable) urban growth boundary.

2010-10-16T08:44:00.004+11:00

Behind the clocks: Sights and sounds of Flinders Street Station

Thousands pass through Flinders Street Station each day. However most try to spend as little time there as possible. And hurried daily users have little reason to go beyond the platforms they need.

Flinders Street Station turned 100 this year. Its condition has also been raised as an election issue, with the Liberal opposition promising a design competition to redevelop the station.

It's worth taking a leisurely wander to appreciate this grand old building. Walkers are exhorted to keep right - indicating that pedestrian congestion was high. 'Do not spit' tiles are testament to the early 20th century hygiene movement and influenza plagues. And carved signs indicate a single-function permanence absent from newer buildings.

Sounds are equally important. Water run-off, the varying character of manual announcements and the horns of trains indicate movement or intended movement. The steps of commuters provide a dull, uneven beat to buskers, whose notes bounce off hard subway walls.

See and hear all this and more in the video below.

Some high quality historical pictures of Flinders Street Station appear at Melbourne Curious.

2010-10-14T22:22:00.004+11:00

Connectivity mapping and the interisland ferry

To date Melbourne on Transit has not covered ferries. This is because, unlike Sydney, Brisbane or Perth, they are not an established part of city public transport. And while proposals for commuter ferries are sometimes made, all trials of them have been unsuccessful.

This may be because Melbourne has an extensive rail network that largely follows the populated coast, serving areas such as Williamstown, Brighton, Frankston and Geelong that might otherwise support a ferry service. In addition the narrow Yarra does not divide the city like the much wider Sydney harbour, so land modes dominate travel to every suburb, with ferries strictly for tourists.

Outside Melbourne

However outside Melbourne there are two ferries that provide a service more direct than is possible by road. These are Portsea to Queenscliffe across the mouth of Port Phillip and the Interisland Ferry between Stony Point, French Island and Phillip Island. The operators of both these services are granted an exclusive licence to serve these routes by the Department of Transport.

The Interisland ferry serves three locations; the mainland outpost of Stony Point, the uninhabited nature reserve of French Island and the tourist and motor racing hub of Phillip Island.

The timetables are presented in tabular form on the Interisland website, with tables for each island. Only departure and travel times are shown, so arrivals must be estimated. Trips mostly operate beween Stony Point and Phillip Island via French Island, but sometimes the order is different, or services only serve two locations.

Transport operators normally provide a tabular timetable and separate map to help passengers plan their trips. This suits the whole range of service levels; from a weekly bus to an intensely served tram line.

However if only a few trips run per day and route variations exist, as is often true for country services, it’s sometimes more informative to combine the map and timetable on the one sheet. Each trip would have its own line between locations, like a train graph. And instead of being on a table the arrival and departure times would be written near the end of each line.

As well as being good for spacial thinkers, a graphical timetable tells much more about how the service works. The user can follow each vehicle around its run and identify relationships between trips, such as what forms what or how many vehicles are used, that are not disclosed on a table.

Below is a timetable-map made from departure lists on the Interisland ferry website.

I have arbitrarily seperated trips into six runs (not all daily) operating from Stony Point. These show how one ferry can run a variety of trips around the islands from morning until night.

The most common trip is between Stony Point and Phillip Island via French Island. However there is also a direct Stony Point – French Island return service and a trip from Stony Point direct to Phillip Island and then French Island.

Other transport

The only other public transport serving Stony Point is the train to Frankston. This is a country-style diesel service that connects with electric trains to Melbourne. Both the train and ferry have uneven intervals between trips; in the train’s case due to a single track, and for the ferry because the operating pattern includes several trip variations.

The ferry runs a basic 7-day timetable, with extra or deleted services depending on the day of the week. In contrast, like most land transport routes, the train has different times for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

As well as the ferry, Phillip Island (whose east is joined to the mainland by road) has a coach service operating to several locations including Melbourne CBD. Although longer as the crow flies, this involves fewer changes than the two trains and ferry route via Frankston and Stony Point.

Showing connectivity

A full multimodal timetable-map for the area would have at least three versions – one for each day pattern. This would show connectivity in a more graphical form and make analysis of it easier. Each train and ferry trip could be shown graphically, with waiting times given for each connection.

The map above takes some short-cuts including showing all days on the one map and listing rather than drawing train arrivals and departures. Connectivity from Melbourne CBD is also not shown; potentially an issue on Sunday mornings where the service that feeds the first train to Stony Point is not a Metro train but a NightRider Bus.

Nevertheless having all times on the one sheet allows easier comparisons of connections. And by being able to see where a train or ferry is at a particular time, including dwell times, a graphical format should make it possible to check if any proposed time changes would increase or lessen connectivity.

Limitations

Even the best timetable presentation method may not necessarily correspond with how services are actually run. An example is the habit of some schedulers to round travel times down in the early part of the trip but add the minutes back between the second last and last timepoints. The benefit here is that though the service may appear a couple of minutes late when passing some timepoints, it arrives at the destination on time. This may lessen early running and waiting at timepoints. Early running, in particular, is objectionable, and performance standards treat it more harshly than minor late running.

In the case of the ferry, the first Sunday train arriving at Stony Point (arriving 8:01am) would appear to just miss the ferry (timetabled departure 8:00am). However my understanding (gathered when researching this piece) is that although pasengers are asked to be at Stony Point well before the departure time, in practice the ferry will wait for the train, making an apparently impossible connection work.

2010-10-12T19:13:00.006+11:00

Our first ten minute line

Sunday marked the start of a new timetable for several Melbourne suburban rail lines. The revised timetables feature increased weekday peak services on some busy lines and six car rather than three car trains on others to lessen crowding.

However the most important change in terms of how passengers will view and use the train network is the new Frankston line off-peak weekday timetable. This sees train frequencies increased from every 15 minutes to every 10 minutes. And weeknight 7 - 10pm headways are down from 30 to 20 minutes, reversing most of the 1978 evening service cuts.

Even though government transport plans normally stress infrastructure over service levels, there is no question that the October 10 timetable is significant for several reasons:

Firstly it makes Frankston the first railway line to operate at a tram-style 'turn up and go' frequency (Werribee's 6 trains/hour doesn't really count due to its uneven headway). In doing so it challenges an oddity where trams run more frequently than trains, despite rail's larger catchment area, coverage of major suburban centres and greater importance of connectivity with buses.

This upgrade provides a service at least every ten minutes for the 26 stations from Frankston to Richmond. Beyond Richmond the service frays into two patterns - one via the City Loop and the other direct to Flinders Street. Like the current Werribee operating pattern, these alternating services reduce legibility and effective frequency in the CBD, so are hopefully an interim transitory step before a single operating pattern can be introduced.

Secondly, while not marketed as such, it is understood that these trains form a direct Werribee service, allowing a one-seat ride from Frankston to stations such as Footscray, Newport and Laverton. Through-routing like this was typical before the Loop commenced, so this change represents an element of 'back to the future'. Linking the Werribee and Frankston lines could improve travel speeds for cross-city trips, but care will need to be taken to avoid Werribee's reliability being dragged down by Frankston line problems (and vice versa).

Thirdly is the decision to choose the Frankston line. If you were choosing which lines deserved a higher off-peak service on the basis of likely patronage increase, the Frankston line would be unlikely to figure. Instead the lines to Ringwood, Dandenong and probably Sydenham might have a greater call. These lines have all have large middle suburban trip generators, including universities, that generate off-peak and counter-peak travel. The very high concentrations of low income earners around Sunshine - St Albans and Noble Park - Dandenong (Sydenham and Dandenong lines) also tend to generate high off-peak demand outside commuting hours.

Nevertheless the Frankston line off-peak is not what you'd call a quiet line like Williamstown, Alamein or Sandringham. It has operational advantages such as the ability to run through to Werribee. And as an experiment certain changes (eg to loop running patterns) might not be as controversial as one conducted on a busier line.

Fourthly, the change is reversing a significant decline in overall Frankston line service, both in absolute and relative terms.

The absolute decline has been in reliability. While this has occurred across the network, factors such as Siemens trains (and their speed restrictions), the number of level crossings (and consequent disruptions) and it being part of the busy Caulfield group, the Frankston line is particularly prone to delays. In rough figures, Frankston passengers experience twice as many late trains than the Melbourne average, and nearly three times as that on reliable lines such as Glen Waverley.

The relative decline can be measured against the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines, Frankston's sister lines on the Caulfield group. In the 2004 - 2009 period Frankston tended to miss out on additional services. Those that were added went to the busier and faster-growing Pakenham and Cranbourne lines instead.

June 2010 saw renewed interest in the Frankston line, with a new timetable adding peak services. While there remain timetable 'holes' of 15 minutes or more, most Frankston line stations got at least a 10 minute service, with busier stations at a five minute peak frequency approximately. The trade-off was that most of its express trains ran direct to Flinders Street instead of via the loop - speeding some but slowing others.

This interest is continuing, with this week's 50% off-peak frequency increase for all Frankston line suburban stations. The significance of this can be measured by reviewing previous service changes of similar magnitude. The last would have been back in the 1990s, where off-peak weekday services on some south-eastern suburban lines went from 20 to 15 minutes. Subsequent increases tended to favour Sundays, late evenings, peak periods or parts of lines only, leaving basic Monday - Saturday off-peak and evening service levels intact up to now.

Conclusion

The Frankston line presents both challenges and opportunities for Metro.

Challenges because its low on-time performance consistently drags down the metropolitan average, and thus the ability to meet targets.

And opportunities since the October 10 Frankston timetable is the first test of Metro's vision for a frequent-service metropolitan railway.

2010-10-04T21:40:00.006+11:00

DART’s first day

Without the speeches, balloons and sausage sizzles that normally accompany a railway extension, today marked Day One of DART, or Doncaster Area Rapid Transit.

DART is a four-route SmartBus network serving Manningham (Routes 905, 906, 907 & 908). It’s the government’s response to calls for a railway, which would have been dearer to build and directly served a smaller catchment area.

Poster in bus

Demographics

Manningham is predominantly middle to upper class. There is a high representation of professional two-income families. Housing is predominantely detached with parking for two cars. Nevertheless new townhouses are also popular in the areas nearer the CBD (being larger than a flat or villa in the nearby blue-chip suburbs of Kew and Balwyn).

Like other north-eastern suburbs Manningham lacks a large body of low income earners. These mostly settle in other parts of Melbourne which are better served by cheap rental properties and (up to now) better public transport. It does however have a substantial immigrant population (particularly from Asia) who tend to share (if not exceed) the middle class incomes and educational aspirations of the general population.

Manningham has no substantial industrial base, with most local employment being retail and services. There is also significant commuting towards the CBD, made possible by a freeway and express buses.

It also has no university campuses, though education levels and aspirations are high. This would tend to indicate significant commuting for education puposes.

Like many other parts of Melbourne, the baby boomers who settled Manningham are ageing. However average life expectancies and health standards are above average, so the majority are likely to be active and mobile well in to their seventies and eighties.

Doncaster Park & Ride

History

In the late 19th century a short-lived tramway ran between Box Hill and Doncaster, and the road between them retains that name. Market gardening was a dominant land use and the area did not become heavily urbanised until after WWII. However comparative closeness to the CBD, proximity to the Yarra, elevated views and the rise of the motor car (which made the lack of a railway less of a hindrance) contributed to Manningham’s growth in the 1960s and 1970s. It was part of a large belt of emergnig eastern suburbs between the railway lines and beyond the tram tracks including suburbs such as Forest Hill, Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill. Traces of Templestowe’s rural past are evident today in its acre lots and lack of kerbing on some roads.

The Doncaster railway was part of the 1969 Metropolitan Transport Plan, which set the agenda for road building over the ensuing 40 years. Recent rail extensions have all been electrifications of existing rail corridors rather than new lines. And where new lines are proposed, they are either for growth corridor outer suburbs or underneath dense city land uses. And so all of Manningham’s public transport task is handled by buses, operating either to the city via the freeway, local shopping centres or railway stations in adjacent corridors.

Before SmartBus and DART, major bus routes in Manningham typically operated every 30 minutes on weekdays and roughly hourly on weekends (though some routes had two hourly or no service). This network was augmented by peak hour freeway express services and a fairly new circular shopper route.

DART represents a doubling of service frequency and later finishes on major routes. The four DART routes and two orbital routes (which started earlier in 2010) offer a SmartBus level of service (15 minutes weekdays/30 minutes evenings and weekends). This frequency is similar to suburban trains on weekdays and less on weekends. DART spans are broadly similar to trains except for the early finish on Sunday. The upgraded routes also had their numbers changed (from 300 series to 90x series) to reflect SmartBus route numbering.

Some existing routes were changed to reflect DART’s coming, but others were not. Hence there are some overlaps between regular routes and the upgraded SmartBus services.

City terminus near Southern Cross Station

The DART Test

The introduction of DART (and intersecting orbital routes) present opportunities for examining what happens when you (effectively) double transit service, especially in an area that lacks some of the demographics conducive to usage and starts with some handicaps for this.

Manningham’s limited public transport, low population density (especially in Templestowe) and high car ownership has historically resulted in a modal share lower than suburbs served by rail.

Demographics such as high workforce participation and lack of a local university tend to lower average occupancies in between the peaks. This produces a commuter pattern more like the Sandringham line (quiet interpeak) than the Dandenong or Sydenham line (busy day and night).

Secondly, unless regional centres such as around Shoppingtown and The Pines are built up patronage is likely to be unidirectional, lessening efficiencies, even if services in the peak direction are well used. This is different to (say) an orbital or cross-suburban bus between two railway lines which will attract patronage in both directions at any time.

My hunch is that DART will bring a substantial patronage increase, as it deserves to do so. However due to less favourable demographics (ie wealthier with more choice), I suspect that patronage elasticity per service kilometre added won’t be quite as high as we've seen on the three orbital routes and certain local upgrades.

Doncaster area frequent service map

2010-09-29T18:52:00.018+10:00

Headway harmonisation hits the news

Today's Age carries an article making the point that no one is in charge of Melbourne's public transport, especially when it comes to service co-ordination.

It contained several quotes on who is responsible for service co-ordination. The confusion evident only demonstrated that different parties have different ideas of what this means.

The calls for a transport planning agency have largely come about due to the gap between the integration that passengers see in fares and information and the disintegration experienced when timetables do not connect, nor are even planned to connect.

Although the Altona example given in the Age article was not a good one, the point made about the non-harmonisation of bus with train timetables is easily able to be tested.

Earlier this year I checked timetable harmonisation at selected bus/train interchanges in Melbourne and Perth.

The method for assessing harmonisation was as follows:

* If the train ran every 20 minutes and buses ran every 20, 40 or 60 minutes, this was counted as harmonised. However if the bus was every 15, 38 or 55 minutes this was not considered harmonised.

* Public holiday arrangements for buses can vary. Tthe figure given is the percentage that follow train holiday patterns (eg if train runs to a Saturday timetable the bus does as well).

* Routes planned as a combined service (eg 216/219 or 827/828) were counted as one.

* Only daytime off-peak services were examined.

* Of course the above does not guarantee connectivity; a bus every 15 minutes could consistently miss a train every 15 minutes by 14 minutes. However unless services are very frequent headway harmonisation is a pre-requisite for high connectivity. And if frequencies are harmonised it should be easier to optimise times for connectivity at the busiest locations.

The extent of bus/train headway harmonisation was found to be as follows:

Percentage of bus routes harmonised with trains by interchange (Mon-Fri/Sat/Sun/Pub Hol)

Perth - Bassendean: 67/33/100/100
Perth - Canning Bridge: 80/100/100/100
Perth - Murdoch: 100/100/100/100
Perth - Whitfords: 100/100/100/100

Melbourne - Cheltenham: 75/75/75/75
Melbourne - Clayton: 80/33/67/100
Melbourne - Craigieburn: 0/0/0/100
Melbourne - Cranbourne: 43/50/50/80
Melbourne - Dandenong: 78/86/80/56
Melbourne - Frankston: 64/67/70/77
Melbourne - Hoppers Crossing: 100/100/100/80
Melbourne - Huntingdale: 75/0/50/100
Melbourne - Pakenham: 100/0/0/80
Melbourne - Reservoir: 17/17/25/67
Melbourne - Sunshine: 30/20/40/80
Melbourne - Watergardens: 83/83/100/83

The above shows that bus/train frequency harmonisation is almost universal in Perth but variable in Melbourne. Similar comments apply for public holidays, with a network-wide standard existing in Perth but not in Melbourne, where holiday practices vary between bus operators and routes (despite substantial recent progress). Both reinforce public impressions of bus routes as complex and unreliable, contrary to the Minister's recent call to embrace bus travel.

The ability to achieve widespread connectivity in one city and patchy connectivity in another indicate that although we have authorities clearly responsible for policy and contract management (Department of Transport), ticketing (Transport Ticketing Authority), information and marketing (Metlink), the equally important function of service planning remains on the outer, despite its centrality to network usability.

My guess is that Stone's paper will conclude along similar lines. While the Age article doesn't mention this, the conference in Canberra is likely to be the Australian Transport Research Forum. If previous years are any guide, the paper presented today should later become available through the ATRF paper archive which is well worth a read for anyone with a transport interest.

2010-09-27T20:19:00.010+10:00

Three new routes

Like yesterday, today was a significant day for Melbourne buses, with three new routes commencing in Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs.

625 and 626

The first two, 625 and 626, are the successors to Route 627. This was considered by some to have been Melbourne's most confusing bus route. Passengers often boarded the wrong bus, and the travel time between the termini of this bent hairpin route was slower than walking speed.

Route 627 also operated to the pre-2006 standard for Melbourne buses, ie no service after 6 or 7 pm or on Sundays. In contrast the new routes feature improved directness, an extension to the Sandringham railway line (626) and longer operating hours including Sunday and public holiday service.

Stop at McKinnon Station

Passenger advice - 627 is no more

Brighton terminus

2 - 4 buses/hour apparently contributes more congestion than residents' SUVs

626 at Chadstone

Route 625 approaching Chadstone Shopping Centre

709

709 is an entirely new route. It serves the suburb of Waterways. This is an exclusive 'green wedge' housing development remote from existing suburbia. It has no schools or shops but residents are said to value the area's cleanliness and serenity.

While the eastern part of the suburb was walkable to SmartBus Route 902, the majority of areas were over ten minutes walk from any public transport. Route 709 provides a basic service to Waterways and Epsom estate from Mordialloc Station, operating approximately hourly until 9pm.

Sign at Mordialloc indicating the new route

Gateway to Waterways

Waterways terminus

2010-09-26T18:15:00.013+10:00

The Yellow Orbital's first day

The first trip

Today I was part of a small group who rode the maiden full-length journey of Route 901 Yellow Orbital SmartBus. We took NightRider and Skybus to reach the airport by 0600.

Our aim to catch the first bus at 0630 nearly didn't happen since the bus did not pass the location indicated as its stop by a temporary sign. Luckily one of our group had the foresight to wait elsewhere and could hail the driver who stopped around the corner so the rest could board. This appeared to be an early glitch; subsequent trips were observed by others to use the marked stop.

Not suprisingly we had the bus to ourselves for the first hour or so; it was still too early for most Sunday engagements and many facilities along the way were under construction. Patronage increased greatly on the established Ringwood to Frankston portion, with the section south of Dandenong carrying a fully seated load nearly to Frankston.

The driver paced his speed well and the bus ran to time for the entire route. There was a short recovery time at most timepoints, but this should lessen once patronage builds and extra time due to ticket sales is factored in (travel is free for the first two weeks).

Along the route

Scenery varied between light industrial (most of the route until Epping and around Dandenong), bulky goods retail (around Nunawading) to residential (around Gladstone Park, Epping, Templestowe, Knox and Frankston North). There were also forested and semi-rural pockets around Yan Yean, which by any standard now has an extremely generous bus service for its population density.

Patronage potential

The existing Ringwood - Dandenong - Frankston section of Route 901 is now established as a high patronage section. It's everything a successful bus route should be - a direct line between trip generators of regional and even metropolitan significance.

Though its environment is pedestrian hostile, the sheer size of retail trade (and workforce) along Nunawading's 'Golden mile' along Whitehorse Road should assure reasonable patronage along this section as well.

My guess is that the north-eastern portion of the route won't be so popular; its feeder role to Blackburn Station will be somewhat lessened by the DART routes which will soon offer SmartBus-standard freeway express city services to much of Manningham. It also passes through areas of suburban (but low) population density at Templestowe and rural levels of density around Yan Yean.

South Morang to Epping should be moderately used as a rail feeder, though this task will be performed by Route 571 which will operate until suburban rail reaches South Morang.

There is some industrial jobs between Epping and Roxburgh Park (especially after the Market opens) that should attract some patronage. It is also from Epping (or even Greensborough) that 901 becomes a faster service to the airport than catching a train to the city plus a Skybus.

Route 901 duplicates local routes between Roxburgh Park and Broadmeadows and Route 902 between Broadmeadows and Gladstone Park. Hence in under a year Gladstone Park has gone from having very low to high levels of transit service.

I would expect the airport portion to be extremely successful - provided that the stop is in a handy location (for both travellers and airport workers) and people know about the service. The airport precinct is a huge employment area and the route will be a big lift for the area, which until today had extremely low service levels.

Photos taken on the first trip

Promotional billboard on entrance to the airport

The old stop for the regular routes (478/479/500)

The new (temporary) bus stop sign

Broadmeadows

Roxburgh Park

Greensborough

The Pines Shopping Centre (Doncaster East)

Finishing touches at Blackburn

Arriving Frankston

Timetable at Frankston

One passenger who won't be needing a service to the airport

Departing Frankston for Melbourne Airport

2010-09-26T12:10:00.008+10:00

A new voice for Metro Trains

The changes are not simply a new voice; there are content alterations as well. 'Trains' are no longer 'trains' but 'services'. The reminder about ticketing has been extended to include Myki.

Voice timbre varies, with the male voice deep and resonant while the female voice is slightly thin and nasally. Enunication is also different and in this listener's mind the timing is less measured. For example the new speaker draws out the 'a' in Frankston but clips (or has clipped) the leading zeroes in departure times.

2010-09-25T09:51:00.004+10:00

Pedestrian strategy and who gets what

Almost unremarked in the mainstream media was the launch of the State Government’s Pedestrian Access Strategy earlier this month. It follows the Cycling strategy released previously.

Rather than explore the strategy, this post will look at how pedestrian resources have been allocated and hence reveal some of the choices and priorities of State Government policy makers to date.

Differing fortunes

Walking and public transport have had different fortunes in the last 30 years.

Metropolitan public transport patronage reached a low point in 1980. Until the early 2000s there were rises and falls, but an overall increase (generally in line with population but insufficient to increase modal share). 2004 – 2009 saw accelerated growth, sufficient to increase transit’s modal share. Preoccupied with rail franchising, refranchising and regional projects, the State Government tapped into this trend quite late but is now providing significant ‘catch-up’ funding for improved bus services and rail infastructure. In the last year train patronage growth has slowed and additional peak services on some lines have relieved crowding though peak punctuality remains too low for reliable connectivity with buses.

Page 18 of the Pedestrian Strategy tells a different story for walking. Its modal share for work commuting more than halved between 1976 and 2001, with only a slight recovery to 2006. This fall is similar in magnitude to the collapse in suburban rail travel during the 1960 – 1980 period.

Just like public transport battled suburbanisation, rising car ownership and limited bus service levels, walking’s enemies have been rising road traffic, poor suburb design, the decline of shopping strips, increased parental protectiveness and the trend to amalgamamated and/or private schooling. And although almost everyone walks, there has been no high-profile organised pedestrian lobby group, such as enjoyed by car drivers, cyclists and public transport users.

Pedestrian funding

If public transport infrastructure spending (and even basic maintenance) can claim to have been the poor cousin to road investment over most of this period, pedestrian access funding is positively destitute.

Page 13 and 14 detail pedestrian access funding over the last ten years. The total spent or earmarked to be spent comes to over $640 million. The distribution of this is as follows:

* $350 million over 10 years to make public transport accessible to people with disabilities. An additional $150 million will be spent on infrastructure to further this.

* 2008 Victorian Transport Plan commitment of $115 million for bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and walking paths (it is not mentioned how much of this has been spent, nor what portion would benefit pedestrians)

* $16 million for the Local Area Access Program (small scale access projects involving local government)

* $5.5 million on TravelSmart (basically marketing walking/cycling/public transport over driving)

* $3.5 million for Vicroads to improve crossings of arterial roads

All public transport trips involve some walking. The ease of reaching a transit stop and vehicle is a critical part of the travel experience, so improving pedestrian access improves the overall service to a wide range of passengers, not just those with impaired mobility. There is a long-standing aim to make our system fully accessible and each passing year sees more low floor buses and tram stops. Investment here accounts for $500 million of our $640 million, or about three-quarters of all claimed pedestrian access spending.

However walking is a transport mode in its own right and the majority of walking trips do not involve a connection to public transport. Its modal share (when measured by number of trips, not trip-kilometres) commonly exceeds that of public transport in many areas, especially for non-work trips.

The amount remaining less public transport accessibility improvements is about $140 million. The lion’s share, or $115 million, went to improvements involving cycling. It is not clear how much of this can be counted as an improvement for pedestrians.

Another 3% of the $640 million, or about $20 million, goes to small-scale access improvements for which pedestrians appear to be the main beneficiary. This includes a $16 million local access program for small-scale local government projects and $3.5 million for improving pedestrian access across major roads, which can divide communities and block safe and direct pedestrian movement.

The potential importance of local projects such as these cannot be underestimated. Most of the Melbourne in 2040 already exists today, and there are thousands of projects such as median strips, traffic calming, signal modifications, roundabout removal and cul-de-sac openings that would boost the walkability of every established suburb.

Although these projects are individually cheap, their sheer number means that $20 million (over several years) doesn’t go very far. Even a twenty fold increase (which would bring the amount involved to that nearer that invested in public transport accessibility) would still represent under 1 percent of Victorian Transport Plan funding and be more consistent with the stated aim of increasing walking’s share.

Finally there is the $5.5 million for TravelSmart funding. This is more properly attributed to several modes including public transport, cycling and even car pooling rather than purely walking. TravelSmart has delivered worthwhile projects such as local access maps (now at city Bike Share racks). However comparing TravelSmart’s allocation with pedestrian access improvements on main roads ($5.5 vs $3.5 million) appears to indicate that telling people that walking is better has a higher priority than making it so, at least on our busier roads.

Priorities

What priorities and biases do these funding patterns indicate?

Disability rights advocates such as Margaret Stevens strenuously argue that the pace of accessability improvements for public transport has been too slow. Melbourne has a particuar problem with its trams as most are older high floor units and many stops are still mid-road ‘safety zones’ that provide for poor access. Funding for accessibility improvements is a minority of total Victorian Transport Plan funding but represents a majority of state government pedestrian funding. Against this it could be considered to be a top priority.

In the middle are various paths, for both cyclists and pedestrians.

At the bottom are local pedestrian access projects, especially where they involve access across main roads.

These funding priorities indicate a welcome tendency to build (or improve) paths but a reluctance to improve access across main roads. A bad path (or none at all) is unattractive to walkers and should be fixed. But at least for the able-bodied it does not seriously reduce end-to-end access speeds (which is the only sound way to measure pedsheds) provided there is some space by the road.

In contrast poor access across main roads results in them forming barriers for much of the day, often barring people of all abilities from reaching bus stops (including some served by low-floor SmartBuses) by the most direct means. Long traffic light cycles similarly compress the ten-minute pedsheds of shopping centres, railway stations and bus stops, reducing the practicality of walking compared to driving.

A pedestrian access audit would find that addressing such pedestrian access deficits on main roads (which in some case may only require an altered traffic light cycle, zebra crossing or new median strip) represent a high priority that should receive a large proportion of project funding.

However the historical reality of funding, according to Pedestrian Strategy figures, is different; just $3.5 million out of $640 million funds went to Vicroads for this purpose.

The Pedestrian Access Strategy is what bureaucrats call a ‘high level’ document with many excellent ideas – if only they were implemented. Its ‘Making it happen’ section describes a governance and consultation process. However it does not give a funding amount nor an indicative works program (eg annual targets for new footpaths, median strips, pedestrian lights, zebra crossings, cul-de-sac joinings and roundabout removals).

Until such a substantive construction program commences, it would appear that Melbourne has a way to go until pedestrians are regarded as legitimate traffic rather than impediments to same, and that road managers can implement goals other than the maximisation of car traffic speed and throughput.

2010-09-22T21:32:00.001+10:00

How many bus marketing messages can you spot?

(Brighton Buses August 2009 - Dave Spencer and John Bishop)

2010-09-14T20:09:00.009+10:00

Should train network maps show buses?

Since franchising, on-vehicle public transport information has been mode (and for a while) operator-specific. The old Met-era multimodal inner-city transport maps on trams are now just a distant memory.

Passenger wishing to make connections have to be prepared beforehand, especially if alighting at an unstaffed station. There is often now wayfinding signage at station exits, but rarely bus timetables or current pedestrian-scale maps.

Having to cross a busy road only to find out that the next bus is 30 minutes away discourages interchange and spontaneous bus patronage. Whereas a bus timetable at the station exit would be visible to alighting passengers and encourages bus usage, even if it's only on days where the bus is only a few minutes away. It's also better for families as there's fewer phone calls home and fewer requests for lifts from the station.

Such details are especially important in cities where train arrivals are unpredictable and buses are infrequent; statistics demonstrate that the train-bus transfer rates for transit systems with mode-based planning such as Melbourne's is much lower than for a master-planned network like Perth’s.

One way to encourage passengers to think of the system as a versatile network (suitable for many trips) rather than a collection of routes (each capable of only a few) is to introduce multimodal elements onto mode-specific maps.

Melbourne has started doing this by indicating points where other modes can be caught with a small square, circle or triangle. However these do not indicate where the intersecting service goes, its route number, frequency, nor even if it is running on the day of travel.

Further advances could be to show intersecting routes, ending up with either a comprehensive local area map or schematic frequent service map. While such maps are useful they can introduce clutter for train or tram-only passengers, especially if applied at the metropolitan-wide scale. Possibly the best compromise are several maps at interchanges for different purposes. Examples could include a schematic metropolitan-wide railway map, a schematic frequent service map (covering about a 10-15km radius), a local pedestrian and bus map and an interchange map for large stations.

There could also be scope to introduce further multimode features on conventional single-network maps. An example is presented below.

This is the familiar Metlink/Metro Melbourne train network map with the three orbital SmartBus routes linking outer suburban stations (effective later this month). Its purpose is to convey a more versatile web-like network suitable for trips other than CBD-direction travel, especially for middle and outer suburban residents.

Detail has been kept low to avoid clutter (the main problem with adding buses). Only the orbital SmartBus routes that link most lines have been included. Hence it could reasonably replace the train-only network map (saving costs and space) without overwhelming the passenger. Additional details of local routes could be given through frequent service maps at the regional level and all-route maps for those making shorter trips. Such more specific maps are more suited to stations and interchanges than on trains, which may travel over much of the network.

2010-09-10T21:28:00.006+10:00

Frequent Service Map 2: Melbourne’s north-east

A few posts ago I posted a frequent service map for Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs to show the area’s high-service train, tram and bus corridors.

You might choose to live along these corridors if you value the choice of not having to drive everywhere. Businesses can establish in these areas and have quality public transport for their employees and customers in at least some directions. Or, if a tourist, you can travel to these locations with the confidence that service will still be running when you want to get home and that you won’t be waiting an hour if a service was missed.

Today’s map covers the north-eastern suburbs – roughly the City of Manningham with a bit either side. It was done in time for the introduction of five SmartBus routes to the area (mostly as part of Doncaster Area Rapid Transit) within the next month.

The map below shows Manningham’s frequent service network from October 4, 2010. The main routes form a grid of roughly 1 to 3 kilometre intervals. These put most of Manningham within 20 minutes walk of at least one SmartBus service. Service levels include a 15 minute weekday frequency until 9pm. At other times buses operate every 30 minutes until midnight, except Sundays where a 9pm finish applies (do people near trains and trams have later bedtimes?).

Click here for higher resolution pdf (recommended for printing or study)

As with the earlier map, continuous lines indicate long service spans and thick lines indicate the highest service frequencies. Low-frequency and peak-only routes are omitted except where they overlap much of a higher service route and boost frequencies along a corridor.

2010-09-09T22:38:00.005+10:00

Politicians, Politics and Transport Authorities

A well-attended forum on public transport took place last night at Melbourne Town Hall. Convened by the Metropolitan Transport Forum it featured speeches from the Minister for Transport, Shadow Minister for Transport and The Greens. There was a period for questions after.

Below are several paraphrased statements followed by observations and questions that could have been raised if there was time.

The Greens member recited neither the Minister’s list of projects nor the Shadow Minister’s list of objections. However he briefly mentioned two topics, that of political involvement and management by transport authority, that are worth exploring in more depth.

Martin Pakula (Minister for Transport)

Buses cannot always connect with trains as they operate at different frequencies

This is a fair description of the present for many bus routes (that might run every 38 minutes not not connect with trains every 20 minutes). However such planned non-connectivity is neither an inevitability nor something that can’t be changed.

Given that buses are largely publicly subsidised, and that you oversee a department charged with service co-ordination under the Transport Integration Act, harmonised frequencies and better connectivity should be both achieveable and affordable.

The second reason why buses cannot connect with trains is that they intersect with many train lines. For instance a SmartBus orbital might link ten stations and scheduling connections is impossible

Much like the frequencies we run our buses, the decision to design our premium routes to be long orbitals serving numerous stations was a choice not an inevitability.

Any choice has certain consequences and compromises.

However it is not correct to accept certain consequences as inevitable without acknowledging that they only came about because certain choices (which were not inevitable) were made (in this case the decision to go with long orbital routes rather than upgraded shorter routes serving fewer stations that would be easier to harmonise and ideally co-ordinate with trains).

Terry Mulder (Shadow Minister for Transport)

There will be 2 protective services officers posted at every suburban station (and major regional stations) from 6pm until last train each night. They will be able to escort passengers to their cars.

This was widely reported in the media when announced. But could the escorting service mean that those waiting for a train (going the other way) would not have staff presence for a while? And will security staff go to the trouble of changing platforms to meet every train (where possible)?

The regional fast rail project was a farce

This project did deliver significant service frequency increases to major centres (sort of a follow-up to 1981’s ‘New Deal’ timetable introduced by a previous Coalition government) and patronage has grown rapidly as a response. It also included a component of ‘catch up’ maintenance.

It is true that V/Line on-time performance is often below standard and the bar for longer trips has been lowered. This is often attributed to the suburban network’s unreliability, along which V/Line trains must travel to the city. While punctuality was said to have deteriorated since the RFR services commenced, I didn’t hear anything that convinced me that RFR was the cause of this decline.

Instead his main argument appears to be that his opponents claimed financial mismanagement of projects including myki ticketing, Southern Cross Station and RFR has meant that infrastructure basics that should have been attended to were not.

Greg Barber (The Greens)

Public transport should not be political… it should be run by an accountable public authority

While it is fashionable to argue that ‘things would be better if they were less political’, I am not sure if this is entirely feasible in public transport. This is due to its dependence on public funding for both capital and operational purposes, and hence requires parliamentary scrutiny of same.

As well as not being feasible, ‘non-political’ public transport may not even be desirable. Political decisions can close lines, reopen lines and build new lines. People pushing unfashionable issues envy those whose interest areas are 'political footballs', since at least they're getting air time. And anyone who watched the interviews with Peter Newman on Perth’s rail revival (available on YouTube) heard that the decision to go with train rather than bus for Perth’s booming northern suburbs was a political decision, whereas most industry insiders favoured bus. In this case had ‘non-political’ public transport prevailed the very successful Joondalup line might not have got built.

Also unhelpful is that the term ‘political’ has come to be synonomous with ‘party political’. However there is also a broader politics tied to public organisation (often around community or interest groups) and participation. ‘Political’ could also mean any activity where people comment on a matter of public governance or interest, for instance suggesting where a bus route should go at a public bus review meeting (such as have recently been held).

In some cases the ‘political’ can indeed result in an inferior network and service for most. This could be due to residents not wanting buses in their street, a handful wanting to retain a bus route deviation that makes the service slower and less legible for the majority, or a group who succeeds in obtaining a new route, even though that bus would have met a greater need or attracted higher patronage elsewhere.

Nevertheless there is also a principle that those in remote pockets (even if the ‘remoteness’ is due to a developer’s transit-hostile street layout) should have some service on social equity grounds. This principle is strongly supported (sometimes at the cost of frequency and directness) by the Department of Transport and the Minister (who reiterated the ‘within 400 metres of public transport’ rule last night).

I suspect that many would be surprised at the number of route rationalisations that a business-minded public transport planning authority with a strong charter to maximise patronage for its budget might make. It would certainly mark a reversal of the last few years, which have seen the combination of (a) significant funding of new services, including some new routes that partly overlap existing routes, (b) limited development of headway harmonised timetables and non-SmartBus frequent service corridors, and (c) a reluctance to prune existing routes that may have outlived their justification for existence.

If the experience of Perth’s bus route reform (an ongoing process, but started in earnest in the late 1990s) is anything to go by, a transport planning agency would likely to concentrate on (b) and (c), much of which requires little funding. Funds for (a) would likely be gladly accepted, but this depends on the government of the day (hence the political component will never be avoided).

Evidence such as patronage and patronage potential data is cold comfort to those who have lost their local service, especially if mobility impaired. However some may gain if frequency and connectivity on existing nearby routes is improved. This is why it’s better to delete superflous routes (eg 694) at the same time that existing routes (688) are boosted so that even those left with a longer walk at least gain from higher frequency).

There will be some changes that may never be accepted and there will be constant political pressure for their reversal. This could well come from the very politicians who purported to support an service planning agency.

Although we have few (if any) routes that run on a commercial basis, an approach we could follow is to have most planning on the basis of patronage potential and strategic network importance, along with supplementation for ‘social needs’ routes. These may be less direct and frequent but provide coverage to pockets that cannot be justified as being part of the core network. To a large extent even funding for these would likely be politically determined, proving again that the political cannot (and probably should not) entirely be taken out of public transport.

2010-09-07T23:05:00.001+10:00

Pedestrian Access Strategy launched

Read it here

2010-09-05T10:57:00.014+10:00

An updated 'Zen'

For a complex asset that cost so much to build, the information presented to passengers on the use of the City Loop is decidedly sketchy. As suggested here before, this may be because the City Loop is only regarded as a CBD distributor for suburban passengers (its original purpose) rather than also forming a transit system in its own right for inner-city trips.

The Metlink journey planner has revolutionised trip planning, but there remains no officially-produced printed or web publication telling people how the loop works. The only known exceptions are pamphlets issued to passengers on a particular line when alterations occur as part of a new timetable. Instead one needs to plough through timetables for each line to build a picture of how it works, something most passengers are unlikely to do.

For many years this gap was filled by the Zen and the City Loop website. It's existed for about as long as Melbourne public transport has been on the web and has legendary status amongst transport geeks.

Unfortunately, though still mostly correct, 'Zen' is showing its age, with content not reflecting changes in the last year or two.

For another purpose I started producing some Loop diagrams. Something about the Zen diagrams must have stuck in my mind since there is a signficant resemblance, despite not having looked at them for a year or more. Anyway for posterity these diagrams, based on the June 2010 timetable, are presented below.

Note that these diagrams reflect the June 2010 timetable and will change again after the 10 October 2010 timetable takes effect.