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.

New Epping line timetable starts today as rebuilt Epping and Thomastown stations open

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20111118150730/http://www.metrotrains.com.au/About-us/News/Upcoming-changes-to-the-Epping-Line.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clear the platforms!

Record population growth is taxing city infrastructure, bringing demands on it to do more. Metro CEO Andrew Lezala has forecast doubled patronage and extra services. More trains, more drivers, a less fragile network and changed practices will be needed to deliver the promised metro-style service.

Both the first rail franchise contracts and the Melbourne 2030 plan set ambitious patronage targets unbacked by substantial network improvements. The patronage gains happened but at the cost of deteriorating reliability. Anticipated further growth and the rise of trains as a political issue led the government to announce major new expenditure on rail infrastructure.

I often imagine how the current railway would cope with doubled or tripled patronage. Existing small delays, whether to trains or people flow, would become major if the current network is asked to handle higher loads without modification.

A rethink of the rail network to maximise passenger throughput will be required. Attention will need to be paid to every pinch point in the system. Everything from pedestrian access to ticket validation to platform space to train boarding to timetabling that maximises service frequencies could be up for review.

The following, now accepted as normal, may vanish if we are to double or triple the railway’s carrying capacity:

* Traffic lights near stations that require pedestrian to wait 90 seconds to cross (eg Spencer Street). This causes crowding on street corners opposite stations in peak periods. The expensive solution requires more subways, such as exist at Flinders Street or Parliament. Cheaper ways to disperse passengers quickly could include a pedestrianised plaza or street in front of the station (eg Flinders Street between Swanston and Elizabeth) or shorter traffic light cycles.

* Ticket barriers that do not respond instantly. Current barriers take a second or so to respond to Myki (or Metcard). If the test barriers inside the Myki discovery centre are any guide the new barriers will be almost instantaneous.

* Trains remaining at platforms for too long. Platform space will become scarcer at major city stations as schedulers try to squeeze in more services. Functions that require trains to be at the platform for more than a minute or so (eg driver changes) may need to be done at outstations where space is less tight. Additional platform staff (or even first aid officers) may need to be stationed at busy points to speed the deployment of wheelchair ramps or assist ill passengers. Such scheduling and staffing changes will be cheaper than adding platforms to city stations, especially if substantial underground works are required.

* Passengers waiting on platforms. Waiting costs the passenger time and the railway valuable platform space. Platform occupancy is a function of passenger numbers x average wating time. Maximising commuter throughput requires more frequent trains to sweep platforms of waiting passengers. Fewer distinctive stopping patterns would also mean the train currently at the platform is boarded by a higher proportion of those on the platform, clearing more space for the next train’s passengers streaming down the stairs.

* Fewer stopping patterns and higher frequencies will create a different mentality amongst passengers, much like already exists if catching a peak period service to say Caulfield, North Melbourne or Camberwell. Passengers will be encouraged to think in terms of ‘turn up and go’ instead of catching a particular train, at least during peak times and increasingly peak shoulders as well. Real-time information will stress ‘minutes to’ over scheduled arrival time. Such ‘turn up and go’ service levels represents the greatest good for the greatest number and help connectivity with buses and trams. However some trade-offs may need to be accepted, for instance passengers for stations such as Glenhuntly, Surrey Hills or Glen Waverley may lose their expresses, while fringe areas such as Cranbourne or Hurstbridge may have shuttles instead of direct services.

* System performance will be measured more in terms of maintaining train throughput than exact timetable adherence. In other words a peak period where all train are delayed by a few minutes but intervals remain fairly short will hardly be noticed by passengers. Whereas a 20 minute halt caused by a faulty train, ill passenger or points failure would represent a major disruption. Infrastructure maintenance could stress ‘improving reliability’ and ‘preventing breakdown recurrence’ over merely keeping the system going and it is noted that significantly higher maintenance funding is part of the new train contracts.

* ‘Access engineering’ for station facilities, platform utilisation and people flow will also become important. Currently we see this during major events, such as New Years Eve, where one way pedestrian flows are enforced. Other ways to increase efficiency include appropriate and well-placed passenger information (badly placed PIDs can cause their readers to block direct paths and confused wanderers can slow the flow of others), designing infrastructure and services to provide for cross-platform transfers (instead of negotiating ramps and platforms), discouraging loitering near entrances and clearing ‘junk’ from platforms.

There are no doubt other changes that would be required to accommodate metro-style railway operation and higher patronage. However some would be surprisingly cheap to implement. An example of this is the clutter on some major station platforms that is currently hindering access, reducing waiting space and reducing possible passenger throughput.

The following pictures provide examples of platform clutter at some major stations. This might not have hindered a railway carrying 100 million trips per year, and the facilities may have provided some convenience. However once patronage exceeded 200 million trips with the aim to double again, the clutter may become more of a hindrance.

Richmond: A long line of unbroken wind barriers reduces permeability for those wishing to make cross-platform changes. Richmond can be widswept place to wait on a cold day, so removal is not recommended. However seperation of wind breaks would make the platform more open.

Richmond: clutter near entrance/exits. Ideally this would be further along the platform to spread people along it and discourage gathering near entrances.

Richmond: large billboard on platform. Again reduces permeability and visibility (a potential safety issue at night). While removing the billboard would cost advertising revenue, the amenity gains for passengers would likely outweigh this. And, provided that changing the signage could be done without disrupting train services, there may be scope for the track pit to be used for billboards.

Southern Cross: luckily not permanent, this barrier was erected due to roof damage caused by hail about two weeks ago.

Flinders Street: a billboard right near the stairs slows exit (and thus keeps the platform more cluttered than it should be). People looking at timetables may also block others. A more appropriate position for advertising may be in the more spacious station concourse.

Flinders Street: A kiosk selling some of the greasiest food known to man! The rent helps pay the bills, but its footprint takes up scarce room that a metro system may require for its passengers.

Flinders Street: A cluttered exit on a suburban platform.

Flinders Street: In contrast to the above, Platform 10 is open with no clutter near entrances/exits. Making all platforms like this might increase a station's throughput capacity, or at least improve comfort for passengers. There will need to be some seating, though a frequent metro service will make this less necessary than now where off-peak intervals between services are typically 15 to 40 minutes.

Small usability improvements for public transport

A great deal of transport project funding is already committed through major transport plans whose projects are typically long-term and infrastructure-based. It will be a while until the major ones come to fruition. A lot of the rest is recurrent expenditure.

Our growing population still has unmet travel needs and public transport is being asked to take on a larger role.

Hence there is a real need for transport improvements that are not expensive but can increase the usability, capability and thus patronage of transit services. Such improvements can either be one-off small infrastructure projects or a few extra services inserted at times when existing timetables are lacking.

Below is a list of examples, grouped by benefit. Their benefits are typically both local (by improving access for a particular area) and network-wide (as traits such as coverage, legibility and frequency are improved).

ACCESS AND CATCHMENT ENLARGEMENT

Frankston is a case where the station entrances south of the station is remote from most surrounding houses and further than it needs to be from a shopping centre. Passengers coming from these areas often need to backtrack to board the train, increasing their walk by 300 - 400 metres.

This extra distance is a large percentage of a station's 800 metre pedshed. Adding a northern platform entrance at 'X' would speed access for thousands of users and increase the station's 800 metre pedestrian catchment to include more residential areas off Beach Street.

The map below shows how the northern part of Patterson Lakes is physically near but just outside a station's pedestrian catchment for want of direct roads or walking paths. A narrow pedestrian/cycle bridge across the channel plus upgraded bicycle storage at Bonbeach Station would cheaply extend the reach of the rail network and provide a faster journey time than changing to a bus.

CONNECTIVITY

A common problem faced by transit is how to serve major destinations (such as universities and shopping centres) that are just beyond a railway station's pedestrian catchment. Southland Shopping Centre has a very frequent bus service from Cheltenham Station. However buses may depart from any of three widely spaced stops, so getting the next bus to Southland has always been a case of pot luck. Modifying routes to serve the same stops could allow the full benefits of the high frequency service provided to be realised.

The timetable for Route 517 below is an instance where buses cannot reliably connect with trains due to their unharmonised service interval. The effect is widely varying end-to-end trip times (making the bus a last-resort transport option) and the need for passengers to carefully pick trip times to avoid excessive waiting.

Sometimes slightly less frequency can mean better service. In the example below, reducing 517's Saturday headway from 38 to 40 minutes and Sundays from 55 to 60 minutes would at least provide constant interval connections with every second or third train respectively.

SERVICE SPAN AND FREQUENCY

There are certain times where span and frequency do not represent desired or actual travel patterns.

An instance of the former is the period immediately after the pm peak. Spreading the peak increases both efficiency and patronage. A way to encourage this is to more attractive shoulder-peak train services, such as higher frequency and express services. Critical times could be 9-10 am inbound and 6 - 8pm in the outbound. As stations are already staffed and the trains already exist, the main resources needed would be drivers and maintenance staff.

One area of unserved patronage demand is Sunday morning, where many people attend suburban markets or (sometimes) early sporting events in the city. NightRider buses have finished and the first outbound arrivals in some outer suburbs are not much earlier than 9am. Melbourne is a particularly late starter compared to Sydney, whose trains start much earlier on Sunday morning.

Unlike a frequency increase, bringing the Sunday start of service forward by 60 - 90 minutes represents an increased span. This shortens the period available for track work on Saturday night. In addition the increased span increases staffing costs at premium stations, which are staffed from first to last train.

If the cost of funding the extra 1-2 hours station staffing per week is an issue, it may be possible to find some offsetting savings by closing staff service at non-safeworking stations earlier, for instance just after the last 'up' train rather than the last 'down' on (say) a Sunday night. This would reduce customer service as regards ticket purchase facilities, toilets and perceived safety through staffing on Sunday evening. However based on a greater good argument, it may be that that the new patronage attracted by the new early Sunday trains would exceed those dissuaded from riding the last couple of Sunday evening down trains.

LEGIBILITY

One of my hobbyhorses, familiar to regular readers, the route below would be better off split into two route numbers (even if services continue to through-route via Chadstone).

Legibility is improved if a standard arrangement across all routes applies for public holidays. There have been rapid recent improvements and a majority of bus routes now have similar patterns to trains. However those as yet unstandardised are some of the busiest services in Melbourne, such as the case below:

EFFICIENCY

Addressing access and usability issues such as the above are relatively cheap, although some would involve recurrent expenditure. Costs in all cases would likely be in the low millions as opposed to hundreds of millions to billions for major projects. Nevertheless inefficiencies should still be identified and removed, especially if there exist improvements that provide larger benefits for the same expenditure.

The following are examples of routes that were useful when they were commenced but appear to no longer serve a useful function as new or upgraded alternative routes now exist.

Sources: Timetables - Metlink Victoria Pty Ltd, Maps - Melway Publishing 2007 & Google Maps.

All Change, All Change, All Change!

A short movie showing rail replacement bus operations between Blackburn and Mitcham due to the road-rail grade seperation project at Nunawading. This state and federal government funded project will sink the railway line, remove the level crossing at Springvale Road and replace the railway station at Nunawading, in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. Some views of the new station are also shown.

Pictures from North Melbourne

Taken this morning from the recently redeveloped North Melbourne Station. Click to enlarge.