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.

Happy New Year!

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

Postcard from Tasmania: Catching the 'flea'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney's multimodal ticketing and lessons from Travelcard

Each city has its special difficulties when it comes to some aspect of public transport. For example, Brisbane has infrequent off-peak trains and Perth lacks a genuine daily ticket. Canberra has limited weekend services while Adelaide's diesel rail system is outdated (currently being electrified). Melbourne can design a sensible fare structure but has found each successive new ticketing system since 1990 heavy going.

Sydney's most obvious failing would have to be its unintegrated fares. Especially for a self-proclaimed 'world city' so dependent on tourism and international business. Most Australian state capitals introduced integrated fares 30 or so years ago. Sydney alone has lacked the political and organisational will to follow suit.

Furthermore it has institutionised fragmentation through a curious body called IPART. While its bailiwick covers a wide range of NSW government utilities and services and could well be useful in these areas, in transport it produces lengthy, earnest and probably unread reports that appear to entrench fragmented fares by treating each mode seperately.

What integrated tickets Sydney offers are either too cheap or too expensive and have limited appeal. The cheap options (eg the $2.50 Pensioner Excursion and Family Funday Sunday tickets) only work for a minority of passengers such as pensioners or families travelling together on a Sunday.

Meanwhile the $18.20 Day Tripper excludes private buses yet covers the outer reaches of the CityRail network. In the absence of other integrated fare daily tickets covering all modes within a smaller area, the Day Tripper is too overpriced to be a serious choice for either CBD-based tourists, locals visiting from the middle suburbs or regular commuters.

Hence if you're not a senior (or family travelling together on a Sunday), you'd often have to purchase separate tickets for seperate modes. And even if you stuck to the same mode, the lack of a time component (eg the 2-hour tickets used in Melbourne) incurred a penalty for transferring or otherwise interrupting the trip.

So although Sydney fares were reasonable value for the simple commuter trip involving one operator or mode, travel soon got expensive for the sort of diverse multimodal trips public transport must attract to gain modal share. In recent years Melbourne's transit patronage has boomed while Sydney's has lagged. Although it has existed for many years, Melbourne's multimodal fare system deserves at least some credit for this diverging performance.

A small proportion of the 193 different types of tickets currently used for travel on Sydney's public transport (according to the Tourism Task Force).

Hence it is pleasing that the liabilities of Sydney's ticketing mess has at last been officially recognised. The government's response, announced today, is the proposed Myzone fare system, intended to apply across Greater Sydney.

Myzone's key changes appear to:

* Simplify ticketing for each mode by amalgamating seperate section tickets into a smaller number of 'fare bands' (effectively larger sections)
* Apply the same rules to State Transit and private bus services
* Introduce a series of trimode tickets (applying for suburban train, bus and ferry, but not light rail, monorail, airport rail or Countrylink)

Unlike the established zone and time-based fare systems in Melbourne and Perth, Myzone remains based on section tickets without a time component. The justifications for this, which appear weak for interstate readers, is given here.

The claim that coencentric zonal-time based systems are biased towards CBD travel is not convincing. If anything they cheapen long-distance tangential trips not via the CBD, eg Frankston to Ringwood via Stud Road (in Melbourne) or Campbelltown to Blacktown (in Sydney).

Aiming to equalise fares to remove this anomaly would require a patchwork-style neighbourhood fare system, such as Melbourne tried during the 1980s. The experience here was that as most trips are either local or CBD-based any possible revenue gain was outweighed by the added complication of neighbourhood boundaries. As a result Melbourne had returned to a coencentric zoning by 1989 and will shortly be extending this model statewide.

There is no reasons given for time-based tickets (of less than a day) not being suitable. As mentioned previously, the time-based approach is superior for those who want a public transport system to be more than a single mode conveyances for city workers, school children and pensioners because of the added network versatility of free transfers.

Will the 'Mymulti' tickets win public acceptance compared to the 'Mytrain', 'Mybus' and 'Myferry' single mode tickets? The answer will depend on ticket range, pricing and availability.

Mymulti's ticket range is explained here. The emphasis is clearly on CBD commuters, as evidenced by the availability of weekly, quarterly and yearly tickets and the city-based distance rules applied. These distances apply in bands of (i) up to 10km, (ii) up to 35 km, and (iii) unrestricted. It's worth noting that these bands apply to Cityrail travel only and outer-suburban bus and ferry travellers can use any of the above tickets. Regular commuters who can afford periodical tickets are likely to gain substantially through this change.

What about the tourist or suburban resident visiting the city or even their local shopping centre? Unless they are a gunzel travelling trains, ferries and buses all day, Mymulti's $20.00 go-anywhere daily offers good versatility but poor overall value. In many cases paying single fares will remain cheaper so 'Mymulti' will be of limited use (unless they're staying near the city for three days and think far enough ahead to buy a $41 weekly).

Many tourists will not need the $20 daily's coverage. Instead the most pressing need is for a cheaper ticket allowing worry-free multimode travel within say 10km of the CBD. A widely available $8-10 multimode daily ticket would sew up most of the tourist and inner-suburban resident market.

Even if individual mode tickets remained cheaper, the sheer versatility of a well-priced daily would surely make it a winner. The equivalent (and highly successful) Melbourne Zone 1 Daily ticket costs $6.80. However the Sydney market could bear slighly more, especially given the inclusion of ferries, which tourists value. This ticket might just be the daily version of the 'MyMulti 1'.

Similar comments apply for the local visiting the city from a middle suburb. $20.00 for a daily fare is too high and does not encourage the use of multimode tickets. Instead a multimode daily ticket costing around $12 to 15 would do much better and not be dissimilar to Melbourne's Zone 1+2 daily ($10.60). This could be the daily version of the 'Mymulti 2'.

There is no doubt that today's changes are a positive step for fare integration in Sydney. But even allowing that the current multimode offerings may be transitional, having just one very expensive MyMulti daily ticket that covers too great an area is mistaken given that a good value set of daily tickets should form the foundation of a sound integrated fare system. Given that MyMulti weekly and quarterly tickets do come in a range of prices that would more closely reflect travel needs the failure to extend this principle to daily users appears an oversight that does not encourage the use of multimode tickets, and in the longer term, the phase out of single mode tickets.

Sydney would do well to look at the success, nearly 30 years ago, of Melbourne's Travelcard. This started in 1981 as a simple daily ticket available in all zone combinations (6 required for a 3 zone system). And just like Sydney in 2010 it was offered alongside single-mode tickets for trains, trams and buses.

Melbourne's Travelcard experience showed that if you're going to do multimode ticketing, some good value and widely available daily tickets are the best products to start with. Longer term tickets can come later and will be demanded if the daily product is good enough.

Why should a multimode daily come first? Firstly it's operationally simple. It can be introduced alongside single mode tickets, whether these be single-use or 2-hour, section or zonal. Secondly passengers understand it. Thirdly it's a popular ticket type. Dailies require low commitment from the passenger (most people know they'll need it for the trip home) and if priced well can provide good value.

What about its pricing? Multimode tickets should be priced attractive relative to single-mode tickets. They can be more, but not that much more. This is so that single mode tickets can be absorbed into the multimode equivalent after one or two annual fare rises. To properly balance revenue and value for the customer, it is probably optimum to provide a selection of daily tickets appropriate for the zones of travel. Melbourne has done this but Perth and Sydney have not. However the number of ticket combinations rises exponentially, so the number of zones needs to be kept down (even 4 or 5 may be difficult).

Multimode ticket availability also has to be good and at least that of single mode tickets. Daily (and shorter term) tickets need to be available from bus drivers, but MyZone tickets appear not to be available through this means.

Once multimode dailies are widely used, weeklies and monthlies would be the next priority (replacing single mode periodicals). This would encourage more regular commuters to use multimode ticketing. A 5xDaily product (on the single card) could provide a crude bulk purchase but flexible use option.

Further progress would require integration at the sub-daily level (whether section, single-trip or 2-hour zonal tickets). Fares for cash single-mode tickets would be adjusted over 2-3 years until they became no cheaper than multimodes, so then a phase-out would raise no controversy.

The other benefit would that the range of tickets would be less but those that remain would become more versatile and permit more flexible travel (including free transfers). Once sections vs zones are sorted out it would then be possible to consider time-based tickets and a genuine 10x2 hour-type product (preferably with automatic daily conversion).

With such a unified fare system, a Smart Card ticketing may be practical, although by then the main reforms for the customer will have already been achieved, in making multimode travel easier and ticketing easier to understand. Sydney wasted a lot of money on a Smart Card system (the abandoned 'T-Card' project) without getting the fare system right first.

The changes announced today for Sydney are a welcome though still inadequate step towards the sort of fare integration that passengers in other Australian cities have enjoyed for many years.

Merry Christmas

Public transport operators around the world conveyed the Christmas message through decorated trains and buses or writing their own carols.

Below are some of the best.

Chicago:

Sydney:

West Midlands (UK):

Vienna:

Brisbane:

Sweden:

Local operators such as Ventura got into the spirit, with a decorated bus operating Route 903 around Melbourne suburbs. No holidays for the drivers though; thanks to recent bus service improvements, there will be free Christmas Day service operating on over 200 of the city's 350 train, tram and bus routes.

In almost all cases a standard Sunday timetable will operate, with special reduced Christmas-only timetables having being made extinct. With few exceptions in metropolitan Melbourne, routes that run on Sundays will almost always be running on Christmas Day.

Merry Christmas to all readers, commenters and their families, and best wishes for a safe and happy 2010.

Miscellany from the web

Several items spotted on the web lately are too good to pass up.

National Library of Australia archive of Australian newspapers allows you to read articles from a selection of Australian newspapers between 1803 and 1954. Even better is that it has a search engine that you can refine by cities. User 'travla' has been posting a sample of articles on the various transport forums, but searching yourself on the NLA site will reveal many others. A goldmine!

Passionate Parisian bus drivers have got together to produce a website all about their Route 38 bus, which can trace its history all the way back to 1632. Available in both French and English, you've find it fascinating, even if you've never visited France.

Some cities, such as Perth, have allowed Google use their transit schedules. Clicking on bus stop locations gives you the times of the next two services from each route departing from that stop. I'm not sure how it copes with service updates and disruptions, but again it's interesting to have a play.

System Review: Hobart Metro - Part 2

Hobart's bus routes and services were discussed in Part 1. This time we look at the Greencard smartcard ticketing system, which has recently started in Hobart after earlier commencement in regional cities. This is particuarly topical for Melbourne as we are introducing our own smartcard ticketing, due to start later this year.

I ordered a Greencard through the Metro website last month. Like Perth (but unlike Victoria which currently has a seperate website for myki), smartcard ticketing is an integral part of the main operator or transport agency website.

This went smoothly except for the question which asked the customer to nominate a default trip, which is the travel they most regularly make. As a visitor, I had no regular travel patterns so couldn't easily answer that question. I can't remember whether I ended up leaving that section blank or nominated the shortest trip as a default. Greencard's FAQ states that passengers making other than the default trip must tell the bus driver before touching on so he can adjust the fare accordingly.

The requirement to nominate a default trip (and advise the driver if different) is the single biggest difference between Hobart's Greencard and other systems such as Perth's SmartRider and Victoria's Myki. The latter two are genuine smartcard systems that require the passenger to tag off so that they can automatically calculate the fare. Instead of being a genuine smartcard, Greencard is more like an 'electronic purse' that relies on passengers to tell the driver if their fare will vary from the default. However this means that unlike SmartRider or Myki, Greencard passengers do not need to tag off at the end of each trip. One wonders about the potential for fraud - ie passengers making longer trips boarding with a Greencard set up for a shorter fare and not telling the driver.

Greencard arrived in the post a couple of weeks later. Its covering letter explained how to add credit (on the bus, at agents or online - allow 2 days for the latter) and create an online account (similar to registering a SmartRider or Myki). It also stated that the nominated default trip had been programmed. The card was free but had no credit loaded.

On arrival in Hobart the first job was to top up the card. I did this at the Metro Shop inside the GPO. Unlike Melbourne's Myki, with a $1 minimum top-up, Greencard requires $5 minimum. Happily this was not too much more than the off-peak daily fare ((4.50) as I didn't need use for more than a day. As stressed to me at the shop, those staying longer can top up with a larger amount for an extra 25% credit (eg $20 buys $25 worth of credit).

The first boarding was not successful. Although the driver could see I had $5.00 on the card (added about five minutes before), the fare could not be deducted so he waved me on. This had been his third case whe he'd seen this happen.

This brings us to another difference between Greencard and SmartRider/Myki. Buses in Perth and Melbourne have multiple touch points near both front and rear doors. With Greencard buses only have a single touch point on the driver's console (see below).

The consequence of this is that boarding passengers must form a single file past the driver, and those with a ticket must queue behind cash passengers. The result is slower boarding than with other systems, that as a minimum have a validator or reader on the right of the front door, and often readers elsewhere in the bus as well.

Greencard operated successfully on all subsequent bus trips. I saw the remaining balance on the validator's display fall as my fare changed from a single to a daily.

How many passengers use Greencard? My guess is that a quarter or less used it. However all my travel was during off-peak times, where most passengers were youth or pensioners. Greencard penetration may well be higher during peak school and work commute times.

How is Greencard promoted? Some buses carry all-over Greencard advertising, as pictured. There is also prominent mention on the Metro website and the Metro shop has a brochure explaining Greencard.

To conclude, Greencard is as bare-bones as a contactless RFID-based ticketing system can get. The manual 'tell driver' method of fare calculation means that it is not a genuine automated smartcard. The lack of card readers away from the driver is another short-cut that cannot deliver the full reduction in bus boarding times that automated ticketing can bring. However my experience is that Greencard (mostly) works, and it may be adequate for a small city's bus network.

System review: Hobart Metro - Part 1

I've been spending much of the past week in Hobart and, while time was limited, rode the buses for half a day. Here's some observations about the city and its bus network, called Metro.

1. The city

Hobart is a hilly city, with settlement in long and narrow strips along both banks of the Derwent River. Distinguising features that affect the transit network include (i) one-way streets in the CBD, (ii) the limited number of east-west river crossings and (iii) often due to topography, a limited permeable grid street layout. Hobart's population is roughly 200 000, ie a little smaller than Geelong. Hobart has very good roads largely built with federal government funding.

2. Network coverage

Metro buses cover most built up areas, with this branding applying to urban bus systems in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie. There are however some exceptions, with Metro operating far out into the country side and regional operators serving some trips that would normally be regarded as metropolitan. More later.

Metro routes offered are a mix of regular services, express routes (notably to far northern suburbs such as Bridgewater) and weekday shopper trips. Some of the latter operate as 'Doorstopper' services, for which an extra fare is required for off-route diversions (similar to Melbourne's Telebus).

3. Service spans

7-day running is provided in most areas but there are also many weekday-only shopper and school routes. Major routes arrive in the city before 7am Monday to Friday, with first arrivals after about 8am on Saturday and after about 10am on Sunday. Last services from the city finish around 10pm Monday to Thursday, with a later finish on Friday and Saturday night. In common with the the smaller capital cities Sunday service is essentially daytime only.

4. Service frequency

As a rough average for a local route, this would be about half-hourly on weekdays, hourly on Saturdays and every two hours on Sunday. Monday to Thursday evening frequencies are about every two hours, with extra service on Friday and Saturday nights.

5. Fringe area legibility

A weak point of some transit systems is information, especially where there are multiple operators. Some country areas can be in the 'metro' system (with Metro format route numbers and fares) while other destinations nearer the CBD may be served by regional coaches only.

An example of this fragmentation is that Metro operate both Channel and Bothwell services feature on the Metro website despite their considerable distance from the CBD (these are considered 'non-urban' services). Conversely the Cambridge Homemaker Centre (near Hobart Airport) has urban-type travel needs but receives a limited country service to Richmond. Not being a Metro service details need to be looked up on the Tassielink site and attracts country fares. Redline and O'Driscoll are other operators that serve Hobart fringe areas.

This is much like Victoria before Viclink/Metlink started. Ten years ago there was limited fare integration, no single comprehensive timetable website, no journey planner, and fragmented or sketchy information. There are however signs of progress; a brochure dated September 2009 advises that Metro non-urban routes will move to a zonal fare system with free transfers to Metro services.

6. Identification of frequent service corridors

Hobart has a number of frequent service routes, with buses every 15 minutes or better on weekdays. As far as I can tell, these apply on the following groups of routes:

* Hobart - Glenorchy
* Hobart - Rosny Park - Shoreline Central
* Hobart - University of Tasmania (with some gaps)
* Hobart - Kingston (with some gaps)

In some cases the frequent service applies along a common corridor (eg Hobart - Rosny Park) but in others services have common origins and major intermediate stops (eg Hobart - Kingston) but fan out in between.

The coverage of this 'frequent service network' is one of Metro's strengths and the main difference between the transit networks of Hobart and Geelong.

Steps Metro has taken to develop and promote its high-service network include:

* Service scheduling: Routes have clockface timetables. The timetables for related routes are meshed to provide an even (or at least frequent) combined headway over the common section of route.

* Interchanges: Routes that form part of the frequent combined service depart from the same stop at interchanges. Departure times are given in composite form to emphasise the frequent service offered.

* Timetables: In some cases simplified timtables showing only the high frequency portion of the route are printed (eg Glenorchy - Hobart). In newer cases (eg Hobart - Shoreline Central) the fact that it's a high frequency service is emphasised on the cover - both in words and the letters 'HF' where the timetable number would normally be.

The above represents a partial development of the high-frequency concept compared to Adelaide's 'Go Zones' where the concept is well established and promoted. Examples where Hobart could develop further include signage at stops, identification on maps (due in part to the lack of maps at all), limited promotion on the Metro website, more consistent weekend and evening service levels and improved printed timetables.

7. Interchanges

These get a thumbs up. Hobart CBD, Rosny Park and Glenorchy all have 'transit malls' in the heart of local shopping precincts.

Timetables there are well maintained and there wasn't much vandalism.

Another appealing feature of Metro interchanges is that at every stop there is a clear map showing the location of every other stop in the interchange, along with the route numbers and destinations served. This saves transferring passengers from having to walk all over an interchange to find the stop if they want to change to another bus route.

This shows that Metro understands the following:

* bus to bus interchange is important
* alighting passengers have information needs as much as boarding passengers
* passenger information needs at interchanges are more complex than regular bus stops so the information at them deserves extra effort

I also liked the location of stops within the interchanges visited, especially for related routes that form a turn-up-and-go frequent corridor to a major destination. For instance at Rosny Park you just need to wait at one place for all the direct services to Hobart, and it's never very long until a suitable service arrives.

Metro's parsimony with route maps has been noted elsewhere and applies equally to interchanges where area maps would be desirable (such as done in Perth). However precint maps are sometimes provided, as with this example from Rosny Park.

8. Signage

The typical Metro stop has a flag showing the stop number only. This is opposite to Melbourne, where we use this space to list route numbers and destinations instead. While the Melbourne approach is more expensive to produce and maintain, I have no doubt as to which is more informative for the passenger.

A substantial minority of stops have timetables but none seem to have maps. As an spacial navigator, I found this disconcerting at stops, interchanges and in some printed timetables.

9. Printed timetables

A bit of a dogs' breakfast at the moment. It looks as if Metro is part way through revising their format and I happened to visit when they were half way through the change.

As an example the Glenorchy frequent service timetable (24/9/2007) is a printed A3 sheet with no map. Glenorchy local timetables are in A5 format and maps are sometimes hard to read due to their lack of colour and the number of routes shown.

In contrast southern and eastern services are a conventional coloured DL-sized format with much improved geographically-based maps (though with less detail than Sydney or Perth timetables). Changes in 2009 include a Perth-style numbering of timetables by region (eg S1, S2 etc), and in some cases but not others, listing route numbers on the front cover.

10. Customer service

Much like Melbourne's Met Shop, Metro operates a retail outlet inside a major civic building, in this case the General Post Office. This contains ticket sales and Green Card top-up facilities, along with self-serve timetables for Metro and Tassielink routes.

11. Patronage

Buses travelled on seemed reasonably well used. As would be expected around noon on a weekday, most passengers were either old or young, with working age almost absent.

Conclusion

For an Australian city of its size, Metro Hobart offers a relatively high level of service. In Australia/NZ it would be superior to Geelong and Darwin, about on a par with Canberra and inferior to Christchurch (which has 'big city' service levels).

While Hobart is not growing as rapidly as other Australian capitals, Metro seems to be moving from a 'small town' transit system to one suitable for a larger city. Evidence of this can be seen by its new timetable format (with maps), the steps taken towards a frequent service network and its early adoption of a basic form of smartcard ticketing. The 'small town' features we currently see, eg lack of maps at interchanges, a reluctance to use route numbers in some places and poor service integration in fringe areas will hopefully disappear in due course.

Routes taken

The following are recommended as a good sample of Hobart services. These form an anticlockwise circuit around both bridges. You need to be in the city shortly after 10am to make all connections as 682 and 694G run infrequently.

Airporter: Airport - City Airport shuttle
615: City - Camelot Park One of the Rosny Park high frequency constituent routes. With river views.
615: Camelot Park - Rosny Park see above
682: Rosny Park - Lindisfarne Weekday shopper service
682: Lindisfarne - Rosny Park see above
694G: Rosny Park - Risdon Vale - Glenorchy Interesting route up east shore and over Bowen Bridge.
180: Glenorchy - Hobart Circuitous route covering the older part of Moonah and West Hobart

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.

Cheap fares in Australian capitals

A good post from Lifehacker compares discount public transport ticketing options between Australian cities.

And for those flying there's also a post on cheap airport to city transfers.

Sydney versus Melbourne

A trip to Sydney last weekend allowed me to compare public transport and land use between it and Melbourne. Sydney does better than us in some things and worse than us in others. Below are the top fourteen differences found between the two cities' transport.

Seven things Sydney does well

1. Co-locating major shopping centres near railway stations

Major examples visited include Blacktown, Chatswood, Hornsby, Macarthur, Macquarie Centre and Parramatta. These centres are either incorporated in the station complex (Blacktown, Parramatta) or accessible via a short, wide mall (Chatswood, Hornsby).

Melbourne's best example of a station integrated shopping centre is Box Hill. Greensborough, Frankston, Ringwood (Eastland) and Sydenham (Watergardens) are adjacent to but are less integrated with the station. More common though are our larger centres, such as Chadstone, Craigieburn Town Centre (proposed), Cranbourne, Forest Hill Chase, Northland, Southland and Werribee Plaza which are all away from stations.

2. Density of residential and commercial development around some suburban stations

Much higher suburban densities apply in Sydney than Melbourne, with multi-storey buildings seen at stations 20km or more from the CBD. Parramatta is a key example, having evolved as a second CBD, being handier to the western suburbs than Sydney CBD.

The pictures show development around Chatswood and Milsons Point respectively.

It is worth mentioning though that some centres are highly unbalanced and contain high density residential but not shopping or offices of a commensurate standard. An example is Epping, which should have better shops for its housing density. In this case the development of the car-based Macquarie Centre (now linked by rail) might have affected Epping's viability.

3. Wide operating spans

A plus for Sydney, with the difference most apparent on Sunday mornings for trains. This is because Sydney operates a passenger-friendly uniform weekend timetable, with no variations between Saturday and Sunday timetables. The effect of this is that first trains have arrived in the Sydney CBD by 6am versus after 8am for Melbourne.

The other main examples of good spans are (i) All-night NightRide buses that operates all nights of the week, mirroring the suburban train network, (ii) 24 hour service on some busy State Transit routes and (iii) 24 hour service on the Light Rail.

Countering this are spans for some outer suburban bus routes, which can be more restrictive than Melbourne since we introduced 7 days/9pm service to many of ours.

4. Wayfinding signage, maps and bus route directories at stations

This is done effectively, as shown in the examples below (Blacktown and Macquarie University Stations).

5. Maps in printed timetables

These are of high quality, at least in STA printed timetables. Metrolink bus stops have similar maps.

6. Physical interchange between train and bus

Often you don't even need to cross roads, and, as this example from Lindfield shows, there is sometimes even direct access from the platform.

7. A more versatile and legible City Loop

Trains operate in both directions and there is no midday reversal or different weekend operating patterns. This makes it better for within-CBD trips than ours; a major advantage for them given their lack of our tram grid network.

Seven things Sydney does less well

1. Fares and ticketing

A lack of integrated fares and confusing ticket types was the most important failing observed during the trip. While it maintains a bureaucracy to write 200-page reports about the most trivial of fare rises, the NSW Government lacks the will and ability to fix a problem that other cities like Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne solved more than 25 years ago. Apart from inconveniencing passengers, the absence of a proper city-wide fare system has also led to the abandonment of the partially-installed 'T-card' smart card project (Card reader at Lindfield Station below).

If you transfer between train and bus you will likely need to pay another fare. If you need to break your journey you'll also pay as tickets are good for a single ride and not a time period, as in Melbourne. Certain railway stations, being privately built, attract special surcharges that range from the merely annoying to the rather steep.

Sydney does not have a fare system as such. Rather there are multiple systems for train, airport train, State Transit bus, private bus, T-way, light rail, ferry, monorail etc. There are many different ticket types but each one doesn't do very much. It probably doesn't matter if you make the same trip each way and do not change modes or break your journey, but otherwise travel can be very expensive indeed. Tourists get even more confused, and have to work out the best deal from the pile of fares brochures pictured below.

In contrast, because of its integrated fare system, Melbourne provides all its fare information in a single simple brochure and the best choice for tourists (Daily ticket, usually Zone 1 only) is (a) clear, (b) versatile, (c) widely obtainable, and (d) good value for money.

2. Base frequency of trains

Off-peak Cityrail services commonly operate every 30 minutes (though exceptions exist). Because most major stations get trains on two or more lines, this generally means they receive four trains per hour. However many of the smaller stations on one line or bypassed by expresses only get two trains per hour.

This service level is similar to Adelaide or Brisbane (weekday off-peaks), somewhat inferior to most of Melbourne 3 or 4 trains per hour, and greatly inferior to Perth (4 trains per hour). The capital (and labour) intensive Cityrail network cannot be automatically be associated with a 'turn up and go' frequent service (like a European subway, or even Perth trains during the day) and passengers are more reliant on timetables and journey planning than they should be.

While the flip side of infrequency can be faster service at major stations due to off-peak express running, my own view is that this is only justified once service frequencies are already high (eg 10 - 15 minutes). If this cannot be achieved then my preference is for the Melbourne pattern, ie few off-peak expresses but giving all stations a somewhat higher base frequency.

3. Frequency and spans of some bus services (particularly private)

To be fair limited frequency and span is not unique to Sydney and can be found in suburbs of any Australian city. Also noted was a marked difference between the service on the Parramatta - Liverpool T-Way (wide span and reasonable frequencies) to the lesser offerings available on the T-Way to Rouse Hill. The example below is better than many, but still includes some non-clockface running that may not consistently connect with trains.

4. Information at many bus stops, especially a lack of maps

Even some heavily patronised State Transit stops (eg Sydney Airport) have extremely rudimentary information. Sometimes the only information provided is route number, final destination and times, with details of intermediate stops and maps missing. This contrasts with the maps contained in printed timetables which were praised above.

5. Lack of differentiation of premium and regular bus routes

Again not unique to Sydney, with Adelaide (Go-Zones) and Brisbane (BUZ) showing the way forward. And to be fair it should be pointed out that more Sydney Bus routes offer high service than usual in other cities, so the State Transit name might already be associated with good hours and frequency (much like trams are in Melbourne).

The new Route 10 'Metrobus' service between Kingsford Smith and Leichardt (via the CBD) was particularly puzzling. It is marketed as a frequent premium service for which a timetable is not required (and is not provided at stops or in leaflet form). Service frequency is 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak and 20 minutes weekend. Buses are air-conditioned and low-floor and all stops have route maps.

This could almost qualify as a premium service except for two things. Firstly the 9pm finishing time is earlier than all the 'regular' routes around Leichardt, which combine to provide a very high quality service until midnight or later. Secondly the 20 minute weekend service frequency does not really qualify as 'turn up and go' and unless services are very frequent a full timetable should have been provided. As it is the combined timetables at stops include all routes except 10. There is also a consistency issue; other regular State Transit routes offer more frequent service but these (correctly) still have printed timetables.

6. Legibilty of bus network in the CBD

Admittedly this suffers when compared to Melbourne trams, which together with their frequent service and the grid street layout, provide the 'gold standard' unlikely to be equalled elsewhere.

Central Sydney is less planned and has a larger number of distinct bus routes versus Melbourne's fewer, and apparently straighter trams. There dominant feature appears to be a 'spine' up George Street with a number of interchanges around the city (eg Railway Square & Circular Quay). Some overall 'network' information at stops would be nice, although to relieve crowding it might be thought better if people making short CBD trips walked instead.

7. Vandalised trains

No pictures will be published, but there was more evidence of external tagging (and even murals) than in Melbourne. Train insides were also dirtier and likely to be graffitied. The ability to see out of train windows is limited, though scratching is less than in Perth. Limited visibility within double-decks, with their split-level design and poor communication between carriages (compared to our Siemens) might increase vandalism opportunities and lower perceived safety. On the credit side though, Melbourne is the nation's capital for lineside graffiti, and Sydney was cleaner in this regard.

Other observations

Noticed in Sydney was much higher (over?)staffing on the rail system. For example most stations were staffed and there were more in each station. Trains still have guards. Transit officers were sometimes seen at stations but never on trains travelled on. Neither were tickets checked.

DDA access in Sydney has yet to catch up to Melbourne, where all but one stations are accessible. However where access was provided this was commonly through lifts (which has staffing implications). Also, unlike Melbourne, many suburban stations have been rebuilt and modernised. This indicates that like Perth, Sydney prefers to knock things down, whereas Melbourne will mostly retain. Similar observations apply to the CBD, where Melbourne retained more of its built heritage than Sydney, and espedially Perth, where any building over 40 years old is a rarity.

The other consequence of this cultural difference is whereas Melbourne will leave a rail based shopping strip alone to lose status and gracefully decline (as shoppers flock to the greenfields car-based mall two kilometres away), Sydney is more inclined to demolish an existing rail-based strip and build a Westfield right there. The Melbourne approach works where there is a robust strip shopping tradition and to preserve heritage, but risks building 'two cities' and entrenching car-dependence as the mismatch between the location of major nodes and the rail system widens. In contrast, Sydney's 'knock down and co-locate' recipe, though it lacks the 'character' of our successful strips like Chapel Street, Puckle Street or Glenferrie Road, represents better transport/land use planning and is preferred in outer areas where existing shopping strips are weak, in decline and can't be saved.

While the same buckled signal cable housings seen in Melbourne was also seen in Sydney, the track in Sydney was of better quality, due to their higher use of concrete sleepers. The times when track work is done is no mystery either, with many line occupations on weekends. My first train trip in Melbourne after returning felt like flying with mild turbulence. Thanks to their long-standing program to eliminate them, level crossings are rare in Sydney but remain widespread in Melbourne.

The trip was a success and many things were seen that are not described above. Thanks to Scott & Damo for their ideas and guidance before and during it.

Melbourne Public Transport Standards Review

Booz & Co (who are also doing some bus reviews for DoT) have also been busy researching on service standards for Melbourne public transport overall.

Read their review here 

[2024 update - archived link here https://web.archive.org/web/20091026200532/https://transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/DOIElect.nsf/$UNIDS+for+Web+Display/C221874DC287B4C9CA257522001694AC/$FILE/booz_and_co_public_transport_standards.pdf ]

My main observation was that though the report include a list of things that individually contribute to service (eg amount of rail infrastructure, span and frequency) it stopped short of trying to bring it all together to form an overall measure.

As a result reading the report provided a bunch of statistics that did not convey the user experience and the extent to which this varied between cities. Here's just a few questions one might ask:

* Is the public transport in my suburb good enough to go somewhere on a Sunday or stay out until 11pm?
* Can I rock up at a station or stop and expect a service in a few minutes in peak hour or should I instead plan the trip beforehand?
*Or is the train likely to be faster than driving, and if I need to catch a bus will the connection be good?
* What proportion of suburbs get a service every fifteen minutes or better?
* Are summer and public holiday service arrangements standard across the network or does each operator or route do its own thing?

These are the sorts of questions that a robust set of service standards (and study of same) would address. I have a rough idea of service levels and characteristics in some of the Australian cities mentioned. Melbourne trams good, Perth trains good, Adelaide buses good, Perth connectivity good, Brisbane trains poor off-peak, Melbourne's trains extensive, Sydney ticketing terrible etc. However I'm not sure if this report would convey this sense to the general reader (or policy-maker) so we know where Melbourne sits.

Another thing the report could usefully have done is to define an overall service standard for its client; especially since page 4 says service standards are 'largely undefined'!

The service standard method mentioned before on these pages involving coverage, frequency and span seems as good a starting point as any:

V % of the population within W minutes walk of a service that runs at least every X minutes between Yam and Zpm, seven days a week.

The figures to insert depend on what the policy maker wants the public transport network to do - ie compete with driving for many trips, or to provide a social welfare type service. For example:

* If you wanted to make it a high standard network intended to win modal share, V = 90%, W = 10 min, X = 10 minutes, Y = 6am and Z = midnight.

* If public transport is more a social service then W might be 5 minutes, X every 60 minutes and Z = 7pm.

* A network somewhere in between might have a substantial grid of primary routes where X = 15min, Y = 6am, Z=midnight supplemented by local secondary routes where X = 30 or 60 min, Y=6am and Z=9pm.

Of these three the last option could be achieved in Melbourne fairly quickly. The use of service standards to reduce the myriad variations in bus service levels to a three tier system of primary, secondary and tertiary routes with harmonised hours, frequencies and holiday arrangements would permit the sort of network legibility, information and marketing that other cities take for granted.

A good service comparison between cities might set a moderate to good level of service (such as an Adelaide Go-Zone) as a reference. The study would compare the proportion of the population within 10 minutes walk of that level of service. All Australian cities are likely to have only a minority of the population near a service of that quality, but it would be a substantial minority and comparisons would be readily made. In particular Melbourne's tram network would stand out as exceeding this level, while most of its buses (including some SmartBuses) would not exceed it. The latter would also be true of Perth for its buses, but it's train network would meet the standard, unlike Adelaide's or Brisbanes. And this sort of comparison would more closely align with the user experience mentioned above.

Robust service standards along the lines of that above can be very useful to a co-ordinating departmet. They would then flow into network design, service levels and then marketing. Adelaide excels here with it's 'Go Zone' buses where passengers are assured of a 15 min weekday/30 min evening and weekend frequency and wide operating spans and the service is marketed as a coherent network. And Brisbane has 'BUZ zones', offering services every 15 minutes until late at night. Instead of drawing from as many overseas cities, these concepts could have been proposed as practical, local and achieveable examples of effective service standards and marketing. Unfortunately, despite being raised in the body of the report, the need for genuine service standards did not make it into a conclusion, recommedation or summary of key points.

Now onto some specific points. All are fairly minor, but I can't resist mentioning them.

Page 4. Trams are ignored in the service comparison tables, presumably because other cities don't have anything matching it (although Sydney Buses could have been surveyed). In a survey this would tend to unfairly work against Melbourne bus frequencies since in other cities trams' purpose is performed by high-frequency bus routes (eg Adelaide's Go Zones').

Page 4. The report is correct in that 'Track Record' is not the place for train span and service frequency standards. However these are specified in the train operating contracts. Information from these could have been provided rather than the columns left blank. Again this make us look less favourable.

Page 7. The claim that Perth has a standard 15 minute train service might better have been qualified as only applying during the day (Monday - Sunday) with some minor exceptions. Perth's night trains run every 30 minutes - ie similar to Melbourne Monday - Saturday (Sunday some lines). Hence the report oversells Perth's night services, when they are better regarded as comparable to us.

Page 8. While Perth's 'late night' trains do run later than Melbourne, it should be noted that this is at the cost of frequency - every 60 minutes instead of ours every 30 minutes. A true comparison would also factor in trams and NightRider buses, which have seen substantial boosts lately.

Page 9. The 10-20 minute evening train frequencies quoted for Melbourne are unrepresentative since they only apply to stations between the city and Footscray, Clifton Hill, Ringwood, Caulfield or Sandringham. Claiming a 30 minute average would have led to more robust findings. Claiming a wider range of peak frequencies such as 3-20 minutes would also have helped since the quoted 5-10 minute pm peak headway is only seen at a minority of stations.

Page 10. No Australian rail system beats Perth's consistent 15 minute daytime 7-day off-peak frequency, but nevertheless the claim is made that Melbourne performs better off-peak. If we were to make such a claim for Melbourne, it would have to be on a geographic and multimode basis, with trams included.

34.8km/h: not too bad

Today's Herald Sun is reporting Vicroads figures stating that average morning peak hour travel speed has fallen to 34.8 km/h. This is a decline from 37.5km/h in 1999/2000. The tone of the article was generally critical of the government for 'not doing enough to fix road bottlenecks' and complaining that 'drivers were spending more hours per year getting to work'.

What the article does not do is compare the 34.8km/h average speed with the situation in other cities or with alternatives such as public transport. If it did it might find that 34.8km/h in a large city might still be rather fast.

Let's look at other cities. Generally CBD traffic is slower than suburban traffic, and definitions of cities and urban boundaries around the world vary. But here's a few examples from around the world:

* Los Angeles (highway speeds as low as 5 or 10 miles/hr)
* Dublin (average 13km/h)
* Various UK cities (We're faster than London, faster than Bristol and comparable with Birmingham) Average for English urban centres approx 15-20 mph
* Sydney (22km/h on major roads - article from Herald Sun's Sydney sister
* Perth 30km/h on Mitchell Freeway

The quick survey above is not definitive, but compared with those places, our 34.8km/h (21 mph) does not compare unfavourably.

What about public transport? Travel speeds vary greatly, so here's a 'basket' of trips to provide a range. The Metlink journey planner was used to calculate travel times, selecting the quickest trip departing the origin around 8:00am. Distances are approximate. Waiting times are not included, but neither were parking times in the driving speed statistics reported above.

* 50 Jukes Rd (Fawkner) to Broadmeadows Town Park: 8km @ 55 min = 9km/h
* Durham Rd/Glengala Rd (Sunshine West) to Victoria University Ballarat Rd (Footscray): 10km @ 45 min = 13 km/h
* Glendale St/Whitehorse Rd (Nunawading) to Doncaster Shoppingtown: 10km @ 40 min = 15km/h
* Pascoe Vale Rd (Oak Park) to Melbourne Exhibition & Convention Centre (Southbank): 17km @ 1hr:08 = 15km/h
* 1000 Glenhuntly Rd (Caulfield South) to 600 St Kilda Rd: 8km @ 31 min = 16km/h
* Tooronga Rd/High St (Glen Iris) to Monash University (Clayton): 14km @ 52 min = 16 km/h
* Beach St/Dandenong Rd West (Frankston) to State Library (City): 40km @ 1hr:06 = 36km/h

Looking at these trip times, it is difficult to achieve a travel speed of more than 20km/h by public transport. For these transit passengers, a 34.8km/h average travel speed would halve commute times and seem in the realm of fantasy.

Public transport at its best (eg frequent express trains) can exceed the average peak driving time, as the Frankston example shows. The gap in favour of public transport may be even wider if 'to CBD' roads move slower than the 35km/h average. However as soon as either the origin or destination ceases to be almost next door to the station or a transfer is involved, travel speeds might fall by a third or more and driving becomes faster.

To summarise, Melbourne's 34.8km/h average morning peak road traffic speed is not necessarily slower than elsewhere and is about twice the speed of public transport for all but direct train trips. Contrary to the Herald Sun article, maybe our drivers don't have it too bad after all!

Transperth SmartRider: A user review

The last part of this Transperth special will test the SmartRider smartcard ticketing. This is very relevant for Melbourne as we will be getting a similar system called Myki.

Comments here relate to standard (full-fare) SmartRiders; different arrangements apply to concession SmartRiders issued to students and seniors. These notes are my impressions gained from three days of travel throughout the Transperth network. Background information and a user guide can be found on the Transperth website SmartRider section.

Obtaining SmartRider

SmartRider can be got from a Transperth InfoCentre (these are located in Perth CBD or retail sales outlet. With 40 suburban outlets, the SmartRider sales network is smaller than the old Multirider network which comprised most delis and newsagents. SmartRiders last indefinitely so passengers would need to make only one special trip to obtain one.

The minimum outlay for a standard SmartRider is $20. This comprises the $10 card cost and a minimum $10 of travel credits. The $10 card cost isn't completely 'dead money' however since it allows you to go into negative balance.

Tagging on and tagging off

Passenger obligations are stated on the Transperth website. Very simply you tag on at the beginning of your trip and tag off at the end if you pass a SmartCard reader. There are some minor exceptions and variations, generally dealing with train/bus transfers and interchanges where both the station and bus interchange are in the same fare-paid area.

You can walk through somewhere like Perth Station if you have a SmartRider - if you don't linger for too long you will not be charged a fare. Previously Perth Station was 'open' and anyone could enter and leave without a ticket.

There are trips where you don't tag off at the distant location. An example might be travelling to a suburban interchange (such as Warwick) for transport study purposes. You don't leave the fare paid area so don't tag off there. 20 minutes later you return back to Perth and tag off there. In this case I was charged a $1.50 default fare on return and there is no way of the system knowing how far I went.

In one case I tagged on/off too many times when transferring from a bus to a train. The result was that the barriers at Perth wouldn't open on my exit. This was cured by an attendant (which are at all barriers) tagging on so I could tag off.

Boarding and alighting

Bus boarding is fairly quick assuming two queues at the door. The left queue is for people who need service from the driver (purchasing paper tickets, topping up, enquiries). The right queue provides fast entry for those who just need to scan a SmartRider.

I didn't test this, but given that people adding value also need to go over to the reader to tag on, this might slow boarding.

Passengers were generally used to tagging off. However it was not possible to assess how many didn't tag off but should have. A possible risk is that people who misplace their wallet during the trip (eg put it in their bag) may delay the bus while the driver waits for them to tag off.

Ticket inspections

I was asked for my ticket once when using SmartRider (towards the end of a night train trip to Fremantle). Transit officers carry small card readers that scan tickets. These operate quickly and are probably faster than visually checking paper tickets and then asking about zones or concession entitlements. Inspectors don't need to physically see a SmartRider and are quite willing to scan through wallets, etc.

Adding value

The biggest discounts (25%) apply if you choose to have your SmartRider automatically topped up ('autoloaded') from your bank account. Adding value manually is meant to give a 15% discount on most cash fares - we'll discuss this in detail later.

Fourteen locations (twelve stations and two bus terminals) have 'add-value' machines. Payment is by EFTPOS only at twelve of these locations, with Perth and Fremantle also having machines that take notes.

Compared to Melbourne (where nearly all of its 200+ stations have ticket vending machines that take coins, selected notes and EFTPOS) this is a very small network with limited payment options. The assumption appears to be that most passengers will opt for autoload, internet/telephone payment or add value elsewhere.

Perth's less extensive rail system and generally better bus/train co-ordination means that a higher proportion of Perth train passengers arrive at the station by bus than in Melbourne. This and the limited station facilities makes the ability to add value on buses very important.

Bus drivers accept notes for the purpose of adding value and will add the full value of the note presented (ie no change given). This was my preferred method of adding value. It worked well.

The passenger puts their card on the driver's ticket machine and gives the driver a note. The card is then topped up and the driver gives the passenger a receipt (which is not a ticket).

The trap in this is that unlike buying a ticket on a Melbourne tram (which is pre-validated) topping up on a bus does not also tag on for you. Hence after topping-up you must still tag on. Failure to do so may result in you being charged a higher default (penalty) fare.

No use was made of adding value by telephone or internet. However having to register with BPay appears to be an unnecessary complication and makes use less convenient than dealing directly, as Metlink does with its phone and internet Metcard sales. The other disadvantage of BPay is that payment is not immediate and may take up to five working days to come through.

Registering SmartRider

Passengers buying Standard SmartRiders can elect to register their card. The benefits of this are twofold; (i) if you lose your card you can prevent others from using it and (ii) review your travel and fares charged online (more later).

Registering can be done online, by phone or by filling out a form and dropping it into a SmartRider outlet. This form requires your name, home address and a SmartRider password. The password is limited to a few choices such as your town of birth or a favourite colour, presumably so that you can be prompted if you forget it.

I lodged a paper registration form last Saturday but in hindsight this wasn't necessary as I registered online yesterday.

Viewing your travel patterns on the web

A major attraction of SmartRider is being able to view your travel patterns (and fares charged) on the web. To take advantage of this feature you need to:

* Register your SmartRider
* Register with TravelEasy on the Transperth website

Registering SmartRider has been discussed previously. Registering for TravelEasy requires you to provide a user name and password. There is a warning that the TravelEasy password is different to your SmartRider password but I used the same password for both with no ill effects.

Needing two passwords is a burden that contributes to user attrition and disengagement (especially if users are returning to a service after not using it for a while). It would be desirable if Transperth was able to combine these passwords and have only one for all its relationships with a customer.

A quirk was the address information required when registering for TravelEasy.

Strangely they only want your street name, not your house number and street name. This information requested is incomplete so they aren't going to need it to write to you; maybe it's a form of cross-checking against your full address provided when you registered for SmartRider.

When it comes to entering your suburb you can choose from a drop-down menu. This lists all Perth suburbs with an 'other' at the top of the list. This is good in that they made provision for country and interstate passengers. However selecting 'other' does not provide a space to type in your suburb, so again it can't be that important.

The first thing I tried was to enter my (Melbourne) street in the street field and selected 'other' in the suburb list. This didn't work and I couldn't register. I then exited and tried my (Melbourne) street in a Perth suburb (I picked Alexander Heights - the first on the list). Despite the fictional address it worked and I could successfully view my SmartRider records.

As a user-interface this is very buggy and raises more questions than answers. Why request only partial information such as addresses missing house numbers? Why allow an 'other' selection but neither provide a window to enter the data? Why allow an 'other' selection but not allow it to work? Why force the user to enter wrong data to make it work?

However once these foibles have been got around the SmartRider travel record display was very good and one can print or save the data.

Travel data

Shown below is a data extract for travel on September 3, 2007.

To make it clearer, the trips made were as follows:

* Victoria Park - Perth
* Perth - Rockingham
* Rockingham - Safety Bay (actually the same bus as the above but tagged off and on anyway)
* Safety Bay - Rockingham
* Rockingham - Rockingham Beach
* Rockingham - Fremantle
* Fremantle - McIver
* McIver - Carlisle
* East Victoria Park - Victoria Park

The formatting you'll see below isn't as good as on the Transperth website. The salient details are date, time, route number, location, zones and remaining balance. Data is presented in reverse order.

Sep 3 2007 5:49PM 000026 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 177T 1 11730 ALBANY b Mcmillan 0 NORMAL Stored Value 6.83

Sep 3 2007 5:47PM 000025 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER BUS 177T 1 11727 ALBANY b Kent 6.83

Sep 3 2007 5:47PM 000024 Synthetic TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 177T 1 11727 ALBANY b Kent 0 DEFAULT Stored Value 6.83

Sep 3 2007 5:00PM 000023 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER RAIL 1 2782 Carlisle 6.83

Sep 3 2007 4:45PM 000022 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value RAIL 0 2777 McIver 0 NORMAL Stored Value 6.83

Sep 3 2007 4:44PM 000021 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER RAIL 0 2777 McIver 6.83

Sep 3 2007 4:44PM 000020 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value RAIL 0 2777 McIver -1.53 NORMAL Stored Value 6.83

Sep 3 2007 4:11PM 000019 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER RAIL 2 2773 Fremantle 8.36

Sep 3 2007 4:08PM 000018 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 126T 3 10431 FREMANTLE S4 -3.57 NORMAL Stored Value 8.36

Sep 3 2007 3:25PM 000017 Normal TAG ON INITIAL BUS 126T 5 16788 ROCKINGHAM S6 11.93

Sep 3 2007 12:18PM 000016 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 113F 6 17217 KENT b Patterson 0 NORMAL Stored Value 11.93

Sep 3 2007 12:03PM 000015 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER BUS 113F 6 16784 ROCKINGHAM S2 11.93

Sep 3 2007 11:24AM 000014 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 117T 6 16792 ROCKINGHAM S10 -2.20 DEFAULT Stored Value 11.93

Sep 3 2007 11:24AM 000013 Synthetic TAG ON INITIAL BUS 117T 6 21406 GR OCN a Tryall 14.13

Sep 3 2007 11:14AM 000012 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 117T 6 17346 SFTY BY b Vista 0 NORMAL Stored Value 14.13

Sep 3 2007 10:41AM 000011 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER BUS 117F 6 21358 CHARTH a Coral 14.13

Sep 3 2007 10:33AM 000010 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 117F 6 16792 ROCKINGHAM S10 -4.00 NORMAL Stored Value 14.13

Sep 3 2007 9:46AM 000009 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER BUS 866F 1 12228 BUSPORT A7 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:55AM 000008 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value RAIL 0 2776 Perth 0 NORMAL Stored Value 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:51AM 000007 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER RAIL 0 2776 Perth 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:50AM 000006 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value RAIL 0 2776 Perth 0 NORMAL Stored Value 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:49AM 000005 Normal TAG ON TRANSFER RAIL 0 2776 Perth 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:38AM 000004 Normal TAG OFF - Stored Value BUS 211T 0 10087 ST GEORGES SM -1.87 NORMAL Stored Value 18.13

Sep 3 2007 8:20AM 000003 Normal TAG ON INITIAL BUS 211T 1 10067 SHEPPER a Axon 20.00

Fare calculation

"SmartRider is designed to always calculate the lowest fare applicable" Transperth SmartRider Guide, page 21.

The day started with $20.00 balance and ended with $6.83 balance, or a SmartRider fare of $13.17.

This compares with a cash fare of only $10.30. I calculate this on the basis of a $2.20 zone 1 ticket for the pre-9am travel then an $8.10 daily for the rest of the day.

My estimation is that the cap should have been reached during the Perth - Fremantle trip. This trip should have attracted a lower charge, with subsequent trips charged at $0.00.

Had everything worked properly, the correct total SmartRider fare would have been only $9.97. This is calculated by adding the daily fare of $8.10 to the pre-9am $1.87 fare (see Transperth fare table). This is a difference of more than 30% on the actual fare charged and leads one to doubt to quote above.

The proof of the pudding: Does SmartRider guarantee the best fare?

The short answer, based on my brief experience, is no!

While SmartRider may be acceptable for people making two regular trips a day, complex travel can confuse the operation of the fare cap. And the amounts concerned are not trivial, with the difference over 30% in the example above.

Passengers travelling a lot in a day are safer buying an $8.10 cash daily so there can be no chance of overcharging. This is even if they start before 9am and need to purchase an extra ticket for any early trips.

More testing will need to be done to confirm whether this is a one-off or a regular ocurrence with SmartRider; usage on the other two days approached but did not exceed the daily fare cap so was not a fair test.