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.

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.

Pedestrian Access Strategy launched

Read it here

Stimulating public transport

This week the Prime Minister announced billions of dollars in cash handouts and funding for various projects to 'stimulate the economy'. The object appears to be, in Keynes style, to get people spending and thus retain jobs. There are some things like home insulation subsidies, road blackspot fixes and community facilities that might benefit. However the spirit of the personal handouts appears to be that it matters less where the money goes than if it ends up being spent. Besides most of those working aren't too badly off at the moment; lower interest rates and lower petrol prices are bringing relief to the key outer suburban 'mortgage belt' electorates.

But what if you had a stimulus package to spend on public transport? What sort of things would be in it, and what would be missed? Given the emphasis is on short-term spending on quick projects, very large rail and road projects would not be included. And though highly desirable, and necessary to maximise use of public transport infrastructure, off-peak and shoulder-peak service frequency increases involves some recurring funding so might not be sustainable if funded by a one-off 'stimulus measure'. Hence while important, they won't qualify for money from this particular bucket.

So having excluded them, here's my list of top five transport projects that would deliver lasting benefits from stimulus money.

1. Small scale pedestrian access improvements. Each metropolitan municipality might have an average of 50-100 such projects, which might include zebra crossings, underpasses, traffic islands, roadworks, roundabout conversion to traffic lights, cycle modification, etc. These would be focused around shopping centres, bus stops and railway stations, and also larger roads where there are long intervals between safe crossing points.

2. 1000 kilometres of new cycleway to form a new city-wide network, including grade-seperation with roads on major routes. This rate of construction is several times that which currently occurs.

3. Modification of suburban streets in transit-hostile neighbourhoods. This might include widenings (to permit bus movements), modified roundabouts (to permit buses), opening of culs-de-sac (to permit more direct bus, cycle and pedestrian movement) and new pedestrian and bicycle bridges over rivers and creeks between suburbs. The latter would expand the pedsheds of bus stops and railway stations and reduce backtracking. On larger roads, minor works to assist bus and tram movement could also be done, perhaps complementing the worthwhile 'blackspot' program.

4. An expansion of passenger information, with bus information at railway stations and general information in 'main streets' off the system. Travelsmart-style maps at interchanges and in public places would also identify key walking and cycling routes.

5. A program of works to improve train reliability and make the currently fragile network more robust. This might include projects such as accelerated concrete sleepering, better security for often vandalised trains, lightning protection of vulnurable signal boxes, track duplications, communication improvements and more.

A veritable shopping list for sure, but doing them would kill two birds with one stone; 'stimulate the economy' and deliver improvements of enduring value. At least the higher taxes we'll have to pay in the future to support increased public debt will have had something to show for it in this period of building.

Must there always be a 'bad side'?

Go to almost any rail-based retail strip in Melbourne and you'll find a 'good side' and a 'blighted side'.

The good side has the busy shops; the bad side has the empty shops, derelict buildings, tattoo parlours, pawnbrokers, sex shops, secondhand dealers and other low-rent and marginal uses.

The reason is visibility and pedestrian access. A thriving retail shopping strip caters to many needs and tastes. You won't want to go into every shop, but if there's one across the road that grabs you, one expects to be able to walk directly to it and be inside within 20 or 30 seconds. Poor visibility, waiting or backtracking kills the shopping experience and reduces customer count and sales. This is because the number of shops one can impulsively entered in a 30 minute visit to the strip is reduced. If people can't get adequate and accessible variety they they'll go elsewhere (eg a large shopping centre where the traffic problems are left outside in the car park).

This goes some way to explain why shopping strips based around or near traffic sewers (North Road Ormond or South Road Moorabbin) are failures, while those based around smaller streets (Puckle Street Moonee Ponds or Koornang Road Carnegie) are successes. And along the same street, eg High Street Preston, those sections with closer intervals between pedestrian signals win more shoppers than those that don't.

Nevertheless traffic along a shopping street (or more precisely long gaps between pedestrian crossings and long cycles for those that exist) isn't the only enemy of easy access to shops. Railway lines or major highways, running across a shopping street can divide an area, reducing visibility and/or access. Shops require much closer links between them than do houses; customers often go from shop to shop, but people seldom go from house to house in a street. Not only does visibility have to be good, but retail shops need to be almost adjoining and on the same level to maintain interest and encourage the shopper to 'drop in'.

Anything like a major highway or railway line violates the need for good sight and quick access and condemns the less favoured half of the shopping strip to decline (*). An underpass helps, but not if it is indirect and results in extra walking (as many low-grade DDA-compliant ones can be). Overpasses have similar problems. Even the 'cage' appearance of at-grade gates or booms reduces sightlines, even though in 80% of cases these won't be closed and access is faster than the perception of same.

What about grade seperation of road and rail? Local retailers appear to like this and think it will fix all their problems. While there may be other benefits of grade seperation, fixing a divided retail strip is not necessarily one of them. Indeed it could make matters worse; making a two dimensional problem into a three dimensional problem, further 'killing off' the less favoured side.

Oakleigh, Huntingdale, Sunshine and Richmond station grade seperations are all failures from an urban amenity standpoint. All have caused or encouraged significant urban blight in the overpasses' shadow. Even Elsternwick, which I have praised before, has it's 'bad side' of the line, as Reuben points out (and it was that post which encouraged this one).

If grade seperations aren't the cure for divided shopping strips, what is? I don't think there is one given the clear sightlines and continuous access required within a shopping strip for it to function as a whole. In this case it might be better to admit defeat and rezone the 'blighted sides' of shopping strips from 'retail' to 'residential - high density' with mixed uses also permitted.

This has a number of benefits. For a start it increases the pedshed of the railway station and local shopping strip, generating custom for both. While residents of this area will need to cross the railway or road to reach the shops this is acceptable since once over the line access between all shops in the strip will be good. Urban blight will be minimised since the retail strip will no longer be divided and there will be increased pedestrian traffic from local residents. And if the strip needs to be expanded, some houses could be rezoned mixed use or commercial towards the unblocked end of the strip.

(*) Reservoir seems to be one exception - with two active shopping strips on both sides of the railway.

More from the Pedshed Series: Pedestrian and transit access around intersections

The areas around intersections are hotly contested on the road network. Frequently public transport comes off second best, with bus stops and pedestrian crossings planned or moved mid-block to add more lanes or room for turning cars.

The video below looks at the corner of Springvale Rd and Wells Rd in Chelsea Heights. This intersection is 30 kilometres south of Melbourne at the start of one of Melbourne's busiest roads. Topics covered include provision of footpaths, traffic lights versus roundabouts, location of bus stops and access to major trip and job generators.

Why fast interchange matters

a response to a Railpage discussion about Box Hill and the importance of minimising bus-train interchange time

There's worse interchanges than Box Hill, but best practice is that train to bus interchange should be maybe 30 - 60 seconds via just one ramp, steps or escalators (eg Werribee, Boronia or newer Perth suburban stations).

And it should not be possible to exit any suburban railway station without almost bumping into a bus timetable or information - something that is denied to Box Hill passengers.

Every minute longer in bus-train access times lengthens bus standing times by 2 minutes, assuming a co-ordinated pulse timetable system. This reduces the capacity of bus interchange and is poor efficiency. Where stations are midway along a bus route (and not at the end like Box Hill) long bus dwell times can also increase journey time for through passengers.

Two 'perfect connection' examples, both assuming a 4 minute buffer to allow for late trains/buses.

* 1 minute station - bus access time (ie good design)

Bus arrives: 9:55am
Access time: 1 min
Wait time: 4 min
Train Arrives/Departs 10:00am
Access time: 1 min
Wait time: 4 min
Bus departs 10:05am

(min bus dwell time 10 min)

* 3 minute station - bus access time (ie poor design)

Bus arrives: 9:53am
Access time: 3 min
Wait time: 4 min
Train Arrives/Departs 10:00am
Access time: 3 min
Wait time: 4 min
Bus departs 10:07am

(min bus dwell time 14 min)

The general concept is better explained in the diagram below:

Time is money. Multiply that extra 4 minutes by the number of bus movements per day, and then per year. It's big bikkies! Or try to economise by skimping on connections, but since that may add 30 minutes to passenger travel times it's a false economy as they'll drive instead.

In short, each second counts, and no effort should be spared in improving interchange, whether the delays be caused by poor initial design (Box Hill), a botched redevelopment (Melbourne Central) or placing car ahead of pedestrian access (most places - Caulfield example below).

BYO boltcutters?

What do you take when you're planning a public transport trip? The following might be a reasonable list:

(i) Ticket (remember BATBYGOBSTOPL?)
(ii) Timetable
(iii) Timepiece
(iv) Street directory or other map
(v) Boltcutters

Boltcutters?

Yes.

If you want to take Route 440 to get to Werribee Plaza from the houses pictured (Melway 205 G2 & H2), and don't wish to duck (or jump over) the chain you'll need to do a round trip of some 340 steps (west to the Purchas Street intersection) for a break in the chain. Or get out the boltcutters and make your own path.

It's only a bit better if you live nearer to Purchas Street. Although it runs through the middle of the established Riverdene subdivision (built c1980) and is a logical collector of pedestrian traffic, no bus stop has been provided for it at Heaths Rd. Instead passengers must either use the stop pictured or board near the Italian Club across the water channel. As is familiar to veterans of the tram stop debates, having stops midway between streets increase walking compared to if they are located at intersections.

The cul-de-sac layout of the area already doubles walking time for many local trips compared to a porous grid-style layout. Bad stop placement and poor foot access to them (eg having to negotiate chains or uninterrupted traffic) means that public transport isn't effective either.

The example demonstrates that road builders alone can't be trusted to do the right thing for either pedestrians or public transport. Hence it is important that plans for new and redeveloped subdivisions be checked for pedestrian and transit amenity. Fortunately for Heaths Rd, the solution is simple - some boltcutters and an extra stop.

The battle of the crossings

What is the best way of providing for pedestrian access across railway lines? Car drivers generally despise boomgates and want some sort of grade seperation. Train-car or train-pedestrian accidents at level crossings are usually serious and disrupt services for an hour or two. If reducing the number of level crossings reduces the number of accidents, a grade-seperation program should also help train reliability.

However other factors (as well as the cost involved) can come into play as the following from local newspapers demonstrate:

'Split Road and Rail'

Caulfield-Glen Eira Leader article

From the above it sounds that an underpass might be the go. If not for cars, at least for pedestrians. But the following article, along with some reported incidents, suggests that tunnels have safety issues of their own.

'Tunnel of Fear'

Dandenong Leader article

I have visited the Noble Park underpass. The residents are right; it's narrow, visibility is poor and it's cut off from areas of human activity. The wall and right-angled bend when heading south don't help either. Streets are usually safer than claimed, but the underpass as stands doesn't present a good impression or encourage people to use public transport.

Is the suggestion of an overpass any better? Apart from the long ramps required for an accessible overpass (which unduly delay pedestrians) these are not cure-alls, as the poor reputation of Kananook station attests. And whether they are over roads or railways, it is not unknown for people to throw objects or even themselves from them, so safety issues different to underpasses arise.

Every access method has benefits and risks. Pedestrian overpasses are merely ugly, while those involving roads can ruin half a station precinct, such as can be seen at Sunshine, Moorabbin, Oakleigh or Huntingdale. A rough table comparing the attributes of at-grade crossings with underpasses and overpasses is below.

No one option is clearly superior, but it's notable that the strengths and weaknesses of at-grade pedestrian crossings versus underpasses are complementary. Overpasses are a half-solution, normally inferior to other types.

My conclusion is that having both underpasses and at-surface crossings in the one area combine the benefits of both. For example, if poor safety is perceived, pedestrians can choose to use the surface crossing with good visibility. On the other hand, if a train is coming or there are large crowds, then the underpass offers convenient access.

Parliament's fastest escalator

Recent frequent trips through Parliament station (which also explains the lack of posts) have had me compare the speeds of the various escalators. In particular, the ones between platforms 1 & 2 up to the barriers.

To do the experiment, you stand on the escalator (left hand side please!) level with another standee on the next escalator. Hoping that the other person has remained on the same step you compare whether they're in front or behind when you're near the top.

Having done this during the am peak for three consecutive days this week, I can confirm that the up escalator nearest Platform 2 is the fastest. It has consistently beaten the two escalators towards Platform 1 (the fourth nearest Platform 1 was going down).

What was interesting was the variability in the speed difference. On Monday and Wednesday the difference was greatest, with the escalator nearest platform 2 about 3 metres in front by the time it reached the top. In contrast, Tuesday was more even, with the difference being about 1 metre.

Research is continuing. But in the meantime, if you want a fast ride to the top, then it's the escalator nearest platform 2 that will do the job.

UPDATE 29 September: The last two days have seen escalators operate in different directions. My favourite was going down, so people going out had to use the three on the right. Of these the one nearest platform 1 was much faster than inner (platform 2 side). Inner escalator, platform 1 side was the slowest.

UPDATE 3 October: Escalators switched back to old pattern. Up nearest Platform 2 is once again the fastest.

Public Transport Guidelines for Development: why they're needed

I briefly mentioned that the draft was available for comment a few days ago. Any doubt as to their importance was scotched yesterday afternoon when I rode bus Route 840. This route goes from Berwick to Berwick via half the known universe and takes an hour to do so.

On leaving Berwick Station I passed underdeveloped land near the station, brand new new housing estates, a few large shopping centres, some slightly older housing estates and vacant land.

There were a few swings and bumps (due to roundabouts) and circuitous running due to poor street layouts. Many school children were dropped off but few passengers were picked up. Even if the buses were more frequent (current off-peak service is hourly) travel would still have been indirect and excruciatingly slow.

Suburbs like Berwick and Narre Warren are why the guidelines are needed. They are full of neat houses, nice parks, views and even the odd lake. However traffic on surrounding roads is terrible and public transport even worse. With the way these subdivisions have been planned, with circuitous internal streets unsuited to direct bus routes, fences backing onto main roads creating poor passive surveillance for cyclists, and pedestrians considered second class it is hard to see how non-car transport modes can be effective and efficient, either now or in the future.

I hope these Guidelines will help the planning of future suburbs. Note that they're still in draft form and submissions close next Monday, so read it and put one in. I thought that there is more to it than just bus stops and roundabouts, and give a list of pointers in my submission (pdf 120k).

Russ over on Civil Pandemonium also has a few words to say.

To conclude, it's one thing for there to be a bus in a street near you. It's quite another for it to provide efficient and effective transport that people other than schoolkids and oldies will want to use. Planning suburbs for a choice of effective transport modes is the first step to attracting people to public transport. It's not the be all and all (factors such as service planning and integration are also crucial) but if done properly it would give new suburbs a good start that places such as Narre Warren and Berwick have been denied.