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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scramble Crossings: Friend or foe for passenger interchange?

London got a new pedestrian crossing earlier this week. Instead of waiting twice when a diagonal crossing is desired, the new 'scramble crossing' clears all roads of vehicles during the walk cycle. This allows pedestrians to cross diagonally on a single 'green man' and in turn increases road space available exclusively for both cars and pedestrians.

London was by no means the first; busy crossings in Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia (to name a few places) had them before. Having all cars stopped while the entire intersection fills with pedestrians is a striking sight compared to existing crossings where cars are always moving somewhere and pedestrians are confined to narrow lines. Instead of having to wait for two red men, diagonal crossers only need to wait for one. And they're safer. So the idea has allure and may have applicability in Melbourne CBD.

The BBC report missed mentioning any possible downsides of scramble or 'barn dance' crossings. Their cycles can be longer so you may wait more. The safety gains may be negated by increasing impulsive crossing.

Although the proportion of people who cross straight versus those who need to cross diagonal depends on trip generators around the intersection, my own observations of Perth show that most pedestrians are not making a diagonal crossing. While this comment is subject to what changes are made to cycle times, changing from a conventional crossing to a scramble crossing disadvantages those crossing straight, ie the majority.

A trend in Melbourne in the last ten years has been reduced direct access to city stations. A remodelling of Melbourne Central reduced direct access from Swanston Street while the reconstruction of Spencer Street/Southern Cross Station closed the subway under Spencer Street.

Increased waiting and access time increases end-to-end trip times, as shown on the table below:

The difference between the two lines is that the first trip takes longer as passenges need to cross a road to get to a tram stop. In the second example they do not; the tram stop is directly outside the station. A zebra crossing is near enough to a seamless crossing but a signalised pedestrian crossing, especially one with long cycles, is not.

For the purpose of examining end-to-end transit times, it may be useful to regard a road crossing just like a short but frequent bus or tram service. After all familiar transit planning concepts like as span, frequency, reliability, forced transfers, DDA access and overall service levels all equally apply to pedestrian crossings.

For example, a CBD traffic light crossing may have the following service characteristics:

Service Span: 24 hours
Frequency: 120 seconds*
Max Wait time to walking/transit time ratio: 120 seconds/20 seconds (ie equivalent service level to an hourly bus route for a 10 min trip)
Reliability: 100% (you will always get a green man within the advertised frequency)
Forced transfers: Present for diagonal crossings on non-scramble crossings

(*) This represents the maximum frequency, not the average frequency. 120 seconds is clearly 'turn up and go' so there are no timetables for pedestrian crossings. Given that we are dealing with tranfers to scheduled services, we must always use the maximum wait figure to guarantee a 'connection', even if the average will be less.

What about other types of crossings?

A zebra crossing is the 'highest and best' form of pedestrian access. This is because its frequency is effectively infinite since you have right of way when you step on it (after previous cars have gone). While there is a forced transfer (you can't go diagonally through an intersection) in practice this doesn't matter as the frequency is effectively infinite. The same is true for a quiet unsignalised street as the delay caused by one or two passing bicycles or cars is neligible.

Conversely a busy road near a roundabout will have a constant stream of traffic. There is no minimum 'service frequency' for pedestrians - this is set by traffic speed, traffic volume, and the risks they are willing to take. Some times there may be a lucky break in the traffic, other times one may walk to the nearest traffic light, or simply give up. Hence both service span and reliability are both undefined, with service level being lowest during busy traffic times (up to a point - if traffic slows to a crawl this may aid pedestrian access).

In this extreme example the overall level of service provided is like an unreliable bus or train that does not reliably feed passengers to the real bus that picks up on the other side of the road. In other cases, although direct walking time to a bus stop might be 5 minutes, passengers may need to double or triple this to increase the likelihood (but never an assurance) of finding a gap in the traffic. This of course increases end-to-end travel times and reduces both overall speed and reliability.

Let's extend our service level parallel to scramble crossings. Being a traffic light type crossing their service characteristics are like those mentioned above. But there is a parallel with bus network design that I wish to tease out further.

Consider a signalised crossroads with four corners. From any one corner you may wish to go to any one of the three others.

With a conventional intersection if you want to cross diagonally you need to wait, cross one road, wait again and cross another. The extra waiting is effectively a forced interchange if we continue the transit system analogy. You didn't want to go to the intermediate spot, but the signals and traffic require you to.

In contrast, if it was a scramble crossing, you can go straight to the corner you want. There is no forced transfer via an unwanted corner and the trip is more direct.

But this comes at the expense of frequency or cycle length. Just like with buses. For a given route kilometres budget you can either have multiple infrequent routes that run to each of your preferred destinations, or you have one frequent service from which you will need to change (to other frequent services) for some trips. The infrequent option is inflexible and doesn't suit many people's needs, although those who it does satisfy get a direct trip. On the other hand the frequent model provides an attractive service for most people to most places, but at the cost of transferring.

The analogy is only partial since while scramble crossings may result in reduced frequency through longer cycles, the level is still at 'turn up and go' levels. This is unlike a bus system where the choice might be between 60 minutes for the direct service network or 15 minutes for a transfer hub based network. Still, the 60 minute approach is roughly akin to a scramble stop on a long cycle (but where you can go anywhere on the 'green man'), while the frequent service approach would be like zebra crossings or short-cycle lights where it's one at a time but the wait for each is short.

For best public transport interchange, it is essential that the act of transferring from train to bus not be regarded as a trip in itself (with its own 'forced transfer' disincentive). This requires direct 'infinite frequency' pedestrian access with a platform to stop transfer time of (say) thirty seconds rather than two minutes or more. Such 100% reliability access could be provided by a stop directly outside the station, a zebra crossing or buses that enter a train platform or Perth-style overhead ramp connected by escalator.

How does this answer the original question about the appropriateness of scramble crossings at interchange points? The answer is that, as with good transit networks, frequency is key. Scramble crossings are good if their cycle times are not significantly lengthened. But if offered the choice between shorter cycle times and scramble crossings, the importance of frequency makes the former look more attractive.

Introducing 'The Connected Transit Network'

Presented is a 2-minute video that illustrates the main differences between a transit system that forms genuine network and one that is just a set of random routes that discourage interchange.

This video is different to others presented here. It has been heavily edited and there are more pictures than talk. Picture quality (though still not great) has also been improved and there is some use of visual effects.

Melbourne's new bus zones and network connectivity

Integrated fares that provide free transfers between all modes is a requirement for transit to operate as a genuine nework. Introduced in Melbourne when patronage hit record lows and lines were under threat of closure, integrated fares contributed greatly towards transit's turnaround.

Subsequent advances gave metropolitan travel to holders of V/Line tickets and, announced this week, tidied up Melbourne's bus zone boundaries.

How do these latest bus changes improve network connectivity (from a fares standpoint)?

Probably the best demonstration is to map all the bus routes that cross a zone boundary onto a large sheet of paper. Use colours according to current zone. Then add the train lines, again identifying stations by zone.

You will find cases of different zones applying to different bus routes, even if they serve the same stops. This is hard to explain and discourages passengers from using multi-route frequent service corridors if the fare varies depending on the route number.

At other times railway stations may be in Zones 1 and 2 but the buses outside may be in Zone 2 only. This requires transferring passengers to pay an extra fare if travelling from the city, and so discourages feeder bus use. Instead many drive to the station, placing pressure on scarce parking space and sapping local bus patronage. And even if you usually walk to the station, having a bus in the same zone is a good back-up during train service disruptions.

Compare this map with the proposed zones and note the changes. Some of the stations whose passengers will benefit include:

* North Brighton
* Middle Brighton
* Bentleigh
* Oakleigh
* Reservoir
* Merlynston
* Oak Park
* Glenroy

Some major trip generators to get cheaper fares on more routes in more directions include Monash University (Clayton), Monash Medical Centre (Moorabbin), Northland Shopping Centre (Preston), LaTrobe University (Bundoora) and Sunshine Hospital (St Albans). With public transport already dominant for CBD travel, these are the sorts of major suburban trip generators that patronage will need to grow for transit to further increase its modal share.

Some of the well-served service corridors to benefit include Chadstone - Oakleigh - Monash University (Clayton), Oriel Rd (West Heidelberg), Bulleen Rd - Doncaster, Reservoir - LaTrobe University and Reservoir - Northland.

No fare system is perfect and there may still be real or perceived 'anomalies' that these latest revisions do not change. People just outside a zone boundary often want their location included in another zone or maybe put in an overlap. Having everything in a single zone is sometimes suggested but even this implies a judgement of some sort and large flat-fare networks do not necessarily offer the best compromise between 'value for passengers', 'revenue', 'simplicity' and 'perceived fairness'.

Transfer-friendly fares policy is less to do with whether (say) Box Hill is in Zone 1 or 2 than it is in ensuring that all trains and buses at a given station have the same zones to remove transfer penalties. Expressed differently, transfer penalties impose a marginal cost on the passenger, and their existence harms network connectivity. In contrast the location of zone boundaries affects the absolute levels of fares but need not impose transfer penalties if the network is zoned as one.

If I could only ask one question for each proposed public transport infrastructure, route, timetable, physical access or fares change, it would be 'Does this change strengthen network connectivity?'. In relation to these revised bus zone changes, the answer is an unqualified 'yes'.

800 minutes extra per year

A suburban bus stop whose relocation will save regular passengers up to 800 minutes per year commenced full service this morning. The stop, pictured below, cuts the number of road crossings required from the highway and shopping strip from four to one. Access time has been reduced from about four minutes to two minutes. Transfers from station platforms are also easier and are achieveable in just a few seconds from Platform 2.

Before

The videos below show access to the 888/889 bus stop at Chelsea in 2008:

Part 1

Part 2

(Two parts were needed for this video as access took such a long time).

After

The video below shows how it is as of October 10, 2009 when the stop was relocated nearer the station:

(Quicker access meant it could be filmed on one short video only.)

Saving access time...

The travel time saving quoted in the title is worth a further look. 800 minutes is over 13 hours per year. In other words well over one working day.

It applies for a walk-on passenger using the bus twice daily for 200 days of the year and holds for people going to or from destinations on Nepean Highway.

It's a bit different when transferring between train and bus. This is because a faster access time does not save end to end time if it means is waiting 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes for a connection. However there would be times when the faster access time means a bus or train that would previously have been missed can be boarded.

The potential time lost due to a missed connection is a function of service frequency. For the 888/889 intervals between departures vary between 10 and 40 minutes. The train runs more frequently, but intervals can still be 30 minutes during early mornings, evenings and Sundays.

Hence any time the improved access allows an otherwise missed connection to be made can save the passenger up to 40 minutes waiting. That is the 'best/worst' scenario and savings would usually be less. If considered along with these cases where faster access does not speed end to end time the average is likely to tend towards an 800 minute yearly average, especially given more or less random waiting times.

...and better reliability

Does the relocated bus stop also help overall service reliability, as measured by variability in end-to-end travel times? Yes it does.

Train-only passengers complain if their train is 10 minutes late and thus their arrival is delayed by that much. While this does affect many, they get off lightly compared to those who need to change to a bus. A late train may result in a missed bus and a wait of 30 or even 60 minutes until the next one.

A missed bus connection can increase end-to-end travel time by up to 50%. Anyone would agree that such variability, even if it happens once or twice a week, would be a disincentive to use public transport, or at least local buses. Afternoon peak trips to outer suburbs are most affected due to the snowballing of train delays and infrequent buses home.

A 2 minute access saving helps by making some previously dicey transfers more reliable. Instead of a 5 minute late train being enough to cause a lost connection, the train can now be up to 7 minutes late and the connection can still be made. For people making this particular connection the gain from relocating the stop is not so much reduced travel time but increased reliability.

Sensible stop location is one piece of the puzzle that makes or breaks an integrated transport network. The relocation described here will strengthen the network by reducing travel times and improving overall reliability.

South Gippsland's timed transfers

A major part of last week's timetable revisions has been a new coach network for South Gippsland and the Bass Coast. The changes include extra services, express running and a timed transfer network with hubs at Dandenong, Koo Wee Rup and Anderson. The upgraded coach services substitute for a government promise to investigate the return of passenger trains to Leongatha (which was widely interpreted as a commitment to restore service, as had been done for Bairnsdale and Ararat).

Broadly speaking the network has two key corridors, each receiving a coach every two hours (approximately) on weekdays. The first is City - Koo Wee Rup - Leongatha. It has express running between the city and Koo Wee Rup and some services extending to Yarram. The second corridor is Dandenong - Cranbourne - Koo Wee Rup and Anderson. From Anderson destinations alternate between Cowes and Inverloch, with some Inverloch services operating via Cape Paterson.

The new coach network has some clever features that only become apparent after a close study of times and connections. To assist this work a graphical timetable/map was compiled from the pictured timetables (shown below).

The first feature is an express coach service between Southern Cross Station and Leongatha via Koo Wee Rup. Eight weekday services at approximately two-hourly intervals (hourly in peak direction) operate each way. Four coaches each way run on weekends, with a common Saturday and Sunday timetable. All services run express between Koo Wee Rup and the City, with the Koo Wee Rup times scheduled to connect with other services. This is clearly offered as compensation for not restoring the train service and provides an unusually fast and frequent service for a centre of Leongatha's size.

A two-hourly weekday service also operates between Dandenong, Cranbourne, Koo Wee Rup and Anderson. This connects with trains to/from the city at Dandenong and provides a local service for communities such as Tooradin, Five Ways and Koo Wee Rup. From Koo Wee Rup the service continues to Anderson and then splits, with trips alternating between Cowes and Inverloch. These towns each receive four coaches on weekdays and two on weekends.

(click to enlarge)

Koo Wee Rup is the major hub of the area's timed transfer network, as can be seen by the near simultaneous arrivals and departures. All passengers heading towards Melbourne get a choice as to how they complete their trip.

They can either take an express coach to the city (Leongatha passengers remain on coach, passenger from Cowes or Inverloch must board the coach ex-Leongatha) or, if they want to make a local trip to Cranbourne or Dandenong, they can board either the Cowes or Inverloch coach that has come from Anderson.

A city connection from this second service is provided by changing to a train at Dandenong. However this is 30 to 60 minutes slower than the express coach, so will mostly be used by more local passengers travelling from areas such as Tooradin and Five Ways.

The arrangements at Koo Wee Rup are a good example of a timed transfer network. Coaches arrive simultaneously, exchage passengers in a five minute window, then depart simultaneously. This repeats every two hours in each direction (towards or away from city). Connections for cross-country trips (eg Anderson to Leongatha) average about 1 hour, but are fairly constant between the peaks due to the near-clockface harmonised headways used. Timed transfer networks such as this example provide many passenger benefits, including a flexibility of destinations, the option of boarding an express service and minimal waiting times due to careful scheduling.

The connection chart also reveals some interesting interchange possibilities at Anderson, although in a different manner to Koo Wee Rup. Study of the times indicate that during most of the day coaches from Cowes towards Dandenong arrive simultaneously in Anderson as coaches from Dandenong to Inverloch. While seperate arrival and departure times at Anderson are not given (unlike Koo Wee Rup) it would appear that cross-country trips like Cowes to Inverloch and Inverloch to Cowes are possible during the day with minimal waiting at Anderson.

While the number of passenges wishing to make these trips may not be high, the ability to efficiently make them adds greatly to the utility of the network for local area trips. Unfortunately the 0 minute transfer shown appears risky to the passenger and the few who notice this travel option are unlikely to chance it given the 2-hour waiting time until the next service. Providing seperate arrival and departure times and including a note advising this connection at Anderson would both be desirable improvements.

It has been a pleasure to study these services and note the care taken in their scheduling. The combination of express trips and simultaneous timed transfers operating at all times should meet both fast CBD and local travel needs. On weekdays the existence of what are close to 'memory timetables' at Anderson, Leongatha and Koo Wee Rup further aid usability.

What is a 'connecting service'?

The back of Melbourne train timetable booklets have a handy section on 'connecting' buses. This lists bus routes departing from each station and their destinations. This and Human Transit's post on transfers led me to ponder what qualifies as a connecting service.

At least in Melbourne, the term 'connecting service' is used loosely and devalues the term's potential meaning to passengers. It could be anything from an infrequent bus that departs from a busy road across from the station to a cross-platform transfer to a waiting train. In my view a genuine 'connecting service' imposes two main requirements; one physical access and the other temporal.

The access requirement means being able to get to the stop of the service that you are transferring to. If you can then the services can be described as 'intersecting'. Melbourne does this quite well; apart from a couple of cases (eg Southland and Campbellfield) if your bus goes near a railway you can be fairly sure there will be a station to change to not far away.

The time requirement is less definite and a judgement may have to be made, depending on mode and context. A 28 minute 'connection' is too short to be reliable at an international airport but is excessive for a suburban train-bus connection. However it might be just right for a connection between interurban trains at Southern Cross.

The best scheduled connections involve a bus for every train (eg 571 and 896 TrainLink services). This implies buses departing at the train service frequency ie harmonised headways. Acceptable compromises for local routes may include shorter operating hours for buses and their frequency being set to meet only every second train. However headways must first be harmonised (a bus every 30 minutes cannot reliably connect with a train every 20 minutes so does not qualify) with departures tweaked to minimise waiting. If it meets these requirements, I would describe the bus as 'connecting'.

Then there is what happens if the train is late. Are connecting services held for the train? And if so, is there a cut off time when the bus departs even if the train has not arrived, since buses have their own schedules and passengers to serve? If the answer to the first question is yes, and the policies on the second question are conveyed to passengers, then this could be defined as a 'guaranteed connection', although the guarantee could be described either as 'conditional' or 'absolute'. In Melbourne off-peak Alamein and Williamstown lines offer guaranteed connections as most of their passengers will be arriving on ex-city trains that continue to Ringwood or Werribee. A similar arrangement applies for tram routes 5 and 64 at some times of the day and probably country coaches (especially those that substitute for closed country branch lines).

To recap, there are three levels of service connectivity.

* The first is 'intersecting services', where passengers can transfer between services but no warranty can be given regarding reasonable waiting times or even if the service is still running. This applies to most buses listed as 'connecting' in the back of the train timetable.

* Secondly are the services that connect with short and predictable waiting times if both are to schedule. These require either frequent service or harmonised headways and can be regarded as genuine 'connecting services'.

* Thirdly is the highest and best level of connection, where services are held if there is late running. These are 'guaranteed connections', though the guarantee can either be 'conditional' or 'absolute'.

It would help if we used the correct term for what we mean to describe the relationship between a railway line and a passing bus route. Then terms like 'connecting service' get a firm meaning, and can become a selling point, much like Adelaide has achieved with 'Go Zone' and we have partially achieved with 'SmartBus'.

Direct running on the Frankston line - it's worth a go

A Herald Sun article reports a 'secret' plan to make Frankston trains run direct to Flinders Street instead of via the City Loop. The Opposition has slammed the idea on the grounds of the forced transfers that will occur at Richmond.

Before rushing to condemn, is it not better to step back and first ask whether the current timetable is the optimum for Frankston line commuters. Or could things be done better, with direct running one of the tools to add extra needed capacity (and frequency)?

Victorian Transport Plan, Page 53

The first thing to remember is that the Frankston line is part of the Caulfield group and shares City Loop access with lines from Pakenham and Cranbourne. The Pakenham and Cranbourne lines are now Melbourne's busiest, serving major outer growth areas. Their patronage now beats Belgrave/Lilydale, both of which have better infrastructure and superior weekday frequencies.

Frankston Station itself has a huge catchment population though the Mordialloc - Seaford portion does not (water to the west, vacant land to the east and limited buses). Patronage growth is somewhat slower than the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines due to fewer new housing estates and the lack of strong mid-line trip generators (eg a university or a major shopping centre). It's still highly patronised, but comes off second best against faster growing lines which get first pickings of any new services added. Also notable is that all three lines form the Caulfield Group, which typically has about twice as much late running than the other groups. Line-by-Line performance comparisons are here.

Then there's service levels. Peak frequency isn't particularly high. Scheduled intervals between peak direction trains on some parts of the line can range up to 17 minutes, ie inferior to the standard 15 minute off-peak service. The actual number of peak trains is little different from 30 years ago, with the major recent improvements being off-peak and Sunday frequencies.

Can passengers benefit from avoiding peak times? They can on other lines, but not on the Frankston line as peak service is only delivered during a narrow period (about 1 hour, both morning and evening). This provides no incentive to alter travel as frequency falls away or express services cease during shoulder periods.

Consistency is another feature passenges value. Since the November 9, 2008 timetable consistency has reduced for Frankston passengers as two key peak services were taken out of the loop and given to Dandenong line passengers. This has caused schedule gaps of up to 24 minutes for loop services serving stations such as Glenhuntly or McKinnon. Hence consistency has reduced and these gaps do not constitute a legible 'turn up and go' service. This is exacerbated where services either side do not run or, as can happen in the afternoon, late-running services avoid the loop and run direct from Flinders Street.

The above demonstrates that while the existing Frankston timetable may have sufficed with lower passenger numbers in the past, it is heavily strained in 2009. Any affordable ideas for improvement, no matter their source, should therefore be considered sympathetically, rather than dismissed as 'too hard' or 'controversial'.

What are the possible improvements that could come from direct running?

The first benefit is for the large proportion of passengers do not use loop stations at all, and get off at Flinders Street or Southern Cross. These passengers will all receive faster service, with the time saving similar to that of making a service run express in the suburbs (but without the problems, such as reduced track capacity and achieveable frequency). Those already using express services would see further travel time reductions.

While the percentage of direct passengers might be about half the total peak loading, it's likely to increase over time. This is because the city's two main growth areas (Southbank and Docklands) are nearest the non-loop stations. The areas nearest the loop stations grew most in the 1980s, but in the 2000s growth is swinging elsewhere.

Secondly, and most importantly, is the possibility of improved service frequency by making train operation more economical by removing 'time spent in loop' and thus increase the number of trips a train can make in a peak period. Better frequency means improved capacity and legibility as timetables become simpler and more consistent. Even customer complaints about delays and cancellations would fall as customers treat the service as 'turn up and go' rather than worrying about precise train arrival times or having to run for a train (due to the fear there won't be another for 20+ minutes).

With some increase in the number of available trains it might be possible to develop a clear two tier service pattern of local and express services operating over a longer span. Currently express services on the Frankston line have gaps that vary between approximately 12 and almost 30 minutes, with about an hour between first and last express. Stoppers in the pm peak are roughly every 12 minutes, with all now running to Frankston.

The train saving by not running via the loop has already been touched on, though not quantified in terms of achieveable frequency increases. However every little bit helps, even if it's (say) two extra trains per peak and improved shoulder peaks.

In the afternoons it may be possible to obtain further economies by running local services terminating at Cheltenham and Mordialloc, as is done in the morning and used to be done in the afternoon. While this may reduce frequency south of Mordialloc it boosts train efficiency by getting it into the city sooner to do another peak trip. Those south of Mordialloc should be content with an express train every 10 minutes (or ideally 8) over a much wider 'window' than at present. Meanwhile, those north of Cheltenham should be glad if their current 8 to 17 minute morning service (12 minute average) was boosted to a flat 10 minutes, and over the moon if 8 minutes (as was provided in the 1970s) could be achieved.

Also gaining will be those who make inner-city trips such as Caulfield to Footscray; they will no longer need to change trains or cope with unharmonised headways as the same train will run through to Laverton/Werribee. Fast cross-suburban travel will help to reduce the perception that trains are only good for CBD or 'same-line' travel. Admittedly this is a much smaller proportion of passenger numbers than CBD passengers, but the vastly improved service direct running would provide should generate extra patronage.

The Frankston line cannot be treated independently of the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines but direct running of the former should free loop 'slots' for additional Cranbourne/Pakenham trains and hence ensure any extra services can be run via the loop (aiding consistency). It is this line that presents the greatest challenges to schedulers due to its high patronage, population growth, limited infrastructure and need to share with country trains, so the additional 'wiggle room' should be welcome.

What about existing users of loop stations, which direct running would make transfer? In the morning this should not be a problem since there will remain frequent services through the loop from Richmond and Flinders Street. Some trips will take longer but improved frequency and more consistent patterns in the suburbs is a major sweetener.

The evening though is a little harder. This is because transferring from a less frequent local service to a frequent loop service imposes less transfer penalty (and milder consequences of a missed connection) than the reverse. Nevertheless if efficiency gains permit frequency increases so unique stopping patterns are consistently 8-10 minutes apart (or better) then even these problems should be mitigated as all parts are 'turn up and go'.

The above is not intended to be a thorough analysis of train scheduling, and there may be difficulties in implementing the service patterns and frquencies suggested. However it is intended to lend support to plans, 'secret' or otherwise, that could improve service on a line that needs it.

If the Frankston line is to be made to run direct, it would be desirable that this apply to all trains (including off-peak and weekend), not just an added few. An 'all or none' policy would assist network legibility, maximises frequency and provides new cross-suburban travel opportunities that current service configurations tend to hinder. The experience with the Werribee line has shown that despite some doomsayers passengers will accept a change provided other benefits such as better service frequencies are provided.

Walking's slower in the west

If you reckon walking's faster in the middle and eastern parts of the CBD than in the west you're not mistaken. As the figures below demonstrate long light cycles and the lack of or closure of station subways shrinks pedsheds and lengthens access times in the west.

Station entrances that allow access over or under major road

Southern Cross: 0 (since subway under Spencer St closed)
Flagstaff: 1 (under Latrobe St)
Melbourne Central: 1 (under Latrobe St)
Parliament: 4 (entrances at Nicholson, Bourke, Collins, Macarthur St)
Flinders Street: 1 (under Flinders St)

Source: Melway Map 1A & 1B

Traffic light cycle times
intersections with Bourke Street, walking from west to east

Spencer St(120s)|King St(120s)|William St(90s)

Queen St (90s) | Eliz St (75s) | Swanston St (60s)

A win for passenger access?

A previous post studied the 888/889 bus terminus at Chelsea and concluded that it was poorly located for easy access from either the Nepean Highway shopping strip or the railway station. An alternative stop location that could reduce transfer times by 80 to 90 percent was suggested.

The photos below show the alternative site as it was yesterday. If they are indeed the beginnings of timetable totems for the proposed Green Orbital then wisdom will have prevailed and the best possible stop location will have been chosen. And then, it is hoped, passengers will be able to bid the current stop (which takes 4 red lights and 4 minutes to reach from 100 metres away) good riddance!

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.

The new suburban train timetable: (week)Day 1

The new train timetable: (week)Day 1

Today was the first weekday test of the November 9 suburban train timetable. The main changes include (i) Single direction loop running on Epping/Hurstbridge line, (ii) Extra peak services, particularly on the Epping line, (iii) 15 minute service until after 10pm to Ringwood and (iv) Peak Werribee trains running direct instead of via the loop.

The Werribee changes, though necessary to permit increased services, was always going to create the most controversy, with some extended travel times or transfers needed.

The handling of this was exemplary so is described here.

Passengers alighting at Southern Cross (the recommended morning peak transfer point) firstly saw notices about the change on Platform 13/14. Frequent PA announcements were made. Platform staffing was provided; everyone departing the train was offered a brochure explaining the changes (below).

Loop trains were on Platform 9, so it wasn't a direct cross-platform tranfer. However signposting was provided, including arrows on the ground (below).

All up a good effort and an example for other service changes.

Passengers travelling today may have noticed the extra automated announcements on peak trains. As well as announcing next station, these contain messages to move down the aisle and to keep doors clear. Well meaning though these are, they aren't always relevant and are sometimes better not made.

An example was a peak Frankston line train this morning. At Bentleigh the train carried a fully seated load with few standees. However an automated announcement was still made when loading was comparatively light. The next announcement was made at Malvern, by which time the train was close to crush-loaded and there was little if any room to do as the announcement recommended. The optimum time to have made an announcement would have been somewhere between those two stations, but there is no way a programmed system can gauge this.

Much like trying to sell service improvements by advertising the weekly network number of trains added (instead of daily line-specific figures), unnecessary automated announcements do not exactly endear passenger confidence. The railways would do well to borrow a radio broadcasting maxim (especially relevant in this age of iPods) ie keep it live and keep it local.

This brings us to the human element. As with any job, how employees see and perform their role varies. Some train drivers make announcements above and beyond, while others say very little. Although automated announcements provide a 'tech fix' and a 'minimum standard' (if working), they are less personal (at best) and erroneous or irrelevant (at worst). Overall they are a 'second best' option. As seen with the Werribee loop change previously, keeping passenger communication live, local and human wins every time.

Multimode network maps

Some interesting comments on public transport maps are on Phin's blog to which the reader is referred for a fuller discussion.

I thought it worthwhile to provide further examples of multimode maps used in Melbourne and Victoria. They were not universal around the system and the pictures below are the main types available.

Many Melbourne railway stations had maps installed by a private company, with about a third of the space devoted to advertising. The maps themselves were high quality Melway types, showing trains, trams, buses and local streets. However while the advertising portion was updated the maps were not; hence there remain maps from Melways Edition 25 (1998) or older.

Some trams had an inner city travel map produced by The Met. This showed the CBD and near inner suburbs. It was a high quality map showing trains, trams and buses. These have become out of date and have been replaced by tram-only maps.

The Melbourne Public Transport Map was sold for $2.00 (or $2.20) at railway stations. This was a comprehensive network-wide map showing the whole metropolitan area on a single sheet. Hence while it covered all modes its scale was insufficient to travel to a particular suburban address without also carrying a Melway.

Two Melbourne-wide maps (dated 1992) are located at Flinders Street Station (Degraves St Subway and behind Platform 1). These were viewable when last visited (May 2008) but were underneath other material when the photo below was taken.

Below is a recent multimode map, showing train, tram and some bus routes. As far as I know there is only one on public display - it is inside the Met Shop in the Melbourne Town Hall.

Regional areas have had maps system-wide provided as part of the Viclink project. Below is Geelong's.

Doing the Tram Stop: Transferring between train and tram at Glenhuntly

In all cases time is of the essence so you must be on the rear carriage (train from city) or front carriage (train towards city) for any of this to work.

(i) Westbound tram (to Elsternwick)

Easy. There are stops near the station both ways you go. The closest one (B - east) requires crossing a road, the further one (C - west) doesn’t. Look for trains, check gates are open and:

From city-bound train walk east (assuming gate on down lines is open). From Frankston-bound trains walk west (assuming gate on up lines is open).

Glenhuntly is a train crossing point (see timetables where they’re normally 1 minute apart off-peak) so both might be closed.

But if you alight from a city bound train and then a Frankston bound train comes along you’re in luck as the boomgate will have held back the tram as well, while the up line will be clear to cross (gates open) on the pedestrian crossing.

(ii) Eastbound tram to Carnegie

Dicey! Again there are two stops - west and east of the line.

The west stop (D) requires backtracking and waiting at a pedestrian crossing. If there is a tram in sight you will almost certainly miss it by the time you’ve walked 4 times the most direct distance and waited for the crossing lights to change.

Unlike in the westbound direction, the stop east of the railway line (E) is about 200m away, near Subway on Grange Rd.

However if stepping from a city-bound train the rear carriages of the train will be passing by the time you’re out of the station. This (just) gives time to cross. Don’t blush as you walk past the dodgy-looking 'adult' shop or the condemned former restaurant (now empty). Then bolt along Glenhuntly Rd towards Grange road AFAP. Even assuming the tram was visible at the boomgate when you crossed, you’ll (just) be able to catch it.

The other choices (ie the nearest stop or crossing at the Grange Rd lights) will probably cause you to miss the tram unless you’re saved by another train keeping the gates down longer (or a wheelchair passenger for ditto).

If a down spark and then a Stony or Long Island comes through then your exertion will have been wasted as you’ll have close to 5 min waiting at the stop, but that’s probably better than missing it, especially during peaks when tram times vary.

Going from a Frankston-bound train to the tram has a much lower chance of success. This is because the train will have cleared the boomgates which will be up again. If you see a tram the chance of boarding it is low unless you’re saved by another train to hold it for you at the boomgates. Again the Subway/Grange Rd stop will probably be superior as you'll be moving while the tram is waiting.

If you miss the tram, don’t despair. Though its shops are decayed, unloved and scummy, Glenhuntly is a great viewing spot if you wish to watch darwin award contestant auditions. Don't become one - obey the rules and use pedestrian lights if within 20 metres of one.

Who is the unsung hero in this story? The answer is the much cursed railway boom gate. In some directions they can be the pedestrian’s friend as they open the barrier of unbroken road traffic and make train/tram access easier than it might be without them. Advocates of grade seperations (though currently popular) need to ensure that their not-that-cheap proposals benefit pedestrians and passengers at least as much as they do motorists.

Transferring at Chelsea: A case study

Today we look at Chelsea for an example where a poor stop location discourages passengers from catching buses or transferring to them from trains. Read a previous item for more information about easy and hard interchanges.

For those who haven't visited, Chelsea is a coastal suburb 30 kilometres south of Melbourne on the Frankston railway. As the largest commercial centre between Mentone and Frankston on the Nepean Highway, Chelsea is designated as a 'major activity centre' in the Melbourne 2030 plan.

As well as the train, Chelsea is the southern terminus of the 888/889 premium service SmartBus route that runs to Nunawading via Springvale Road. It is the access to this major bus route from the shops and station at Chelsea that is the subject of this post.

The following two videos show the access arrangements between Nepean Hwy Chelsea and the 888/889 bus stop to Nunawading.

Part 1

Part 2

As shown the barriers for intending passengers to reach the stop from the shops on Nepean Highway are formidable. Passengers must wait at no less than four pedestrian actuated crossings to reach the stop. Even with a clear level crossing, typical access time is over four minutes for a stop that should be reachable in one.

Because they don't have to cross the highway, transferring train passengers do slightly better; they only have three waits for the 'little green man'. However they still need to complete three sides of a square and the indirect access only encourages risk taking behavour across the unsignalised portion of the intersection (map below). Uncertain bus times may exacerbate this as bus timetables are not provided at station exits.

How can access be improved to provide the sort of well-connected hub that Melbourne 2030 advocates for places like Chelsea? We'll assume that Nepean Highway is there to stay, so that crossing will always remain. Ditto for the railway line. So that leaves the location of the bus stop, which is discussed in the next part.

Part 3

Moving the bus stop to the south side of Chelsea Rd would reduce the number of road crossings required from 4 to 1 for passengers arriving from Nepean Highway. Those transferring from the train fare even better with a reduction from 3 to 0. Train-bus interchange times could fall by 80-90%. Position relative to the existing underpass is also better; this could reduce pedestrian congestion at the current rail crossing and improve access to the southern part of the Chelsea retail strip, including the proposed Safeway Centre redevelopment.