Should transit follow people - or people follow transit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Average patronage was not high and the added services were withdrawn.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I lean towards the latter, with two major reservations.

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

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

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

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

Are you a hankerer or a modernist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voices of the Railways: suburban train and station annoucements

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing Stations to Life: Cafe 3162 at Caulfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The search for Melbourne's best railway line

Supposing you were moving to Melbourne and planned to commute to the CBD area by train. You had no pre-conceived suburb preferences and based your location choice soley on train service quality. Which train-served suburb or area would you pick?

The following are some key measures of service quality:

* Service frequency, both peak and off-peak. Can you 'turn up and go'?
* Service delivery. How common is it for trains to be cancelled?
* Service reliability. Do trains usually run on time?
* Comfort of travel. Are trains free of overcrowding?

Statistics on all the above are available from the following sources:

Timetables reveal service frequency. Delivery and reliability statistics are reported each month. The twelve month average is most useful here. Train loading figures are collected by the Department of Transport.

A look through these indicate significant variations between lines for frequency, reliability and comfort/crowding. Variations were fewer for service delivery, with almost all lines having around 99 percent of trains running. For this reason only frequency, reliability and comfort are needed for this survey.

An A to E scale is used to allow easier comparison. These are as follows:

Frequency

A = 3 to 10 minutes
B = 11 to 15 minutes
C = 16 to 20 minutes
D = 21 to 30 minutes
E = >31 minutes

Reliability

A = 96 - 100%*
B = 92 - 96 %*
C = 88 - 92%
D = 84 - 88%
E = less than 84%

(*) Exceeds compensation threshold.

Comfort

A = not indicated in DoT load chart
C = feature moderately in DoT load chart
E = feature prominently in DoT load chart

Line by line comparisons are tabulated below. Peak frequency figures are for am services from the terminus unless otherwise indicated. This is based on maximum intervals and service is usually higher at stations identified (+). Ratings are given in order of peak frequency/ offpeak frequency/ punctuality/ comfort.

Werribee (Werribee): C+/B+/C/C
Werribee (Altona): C/C/C/C
Williamstown (Williamstown): C/C/B/B
Sydenham (Watergardens): B+/C/B/E
Craigieburn (Craigieburn): C+/C/C/C
Upfield (Upfield): C/C/B/A

Epping (Epping): B+/C/B/C
Hurstbridge (Hurstbridge): E+/E/C/C
Hurstbridge (Greensborough): B+/C/C/C

Belgrave (Belgrave): C+/D/C/B
Lilydale (Lilydale): C+/D/B/B
Belgrave/Lilydale (Ringwood): A+/B/B/B
Belgrave/Lilydale (Auburn): A+/B/B/B
Alamein (Alamein): D+/B/A/A
Glen Waverley (Glen Waverley): B+/B/B/A

Pakenham (Pakenham): D+/D/E/E
Cranbourne (Cranbourne): C+/D/D/C
Pakenham/Cranbourne (Clayton): A+/B/C/D
Frankston (Frankston): B+/B/E/C
Frankston (Glenhuntly): C+/B/E/C
Sandringham (Sandringham): B+/B/B/A

The winner is:

The Glen Waverley line has good peak and interpeak service frequencies and high reliability without the crowding of some other lines. Parts of other lines score higher on some individual items but Glen Waverley presents the best overall package for the commuter.

Customer service counters at city stations

In two months or less Victoria will have an (almost) statewide ticketing system based on durable Myki smartcards and short-term cardboard tickets. Ticket machines will dispense tickets for both metropolitan and country trips and staff will be able to sell tickets to any destination. Smartcard users on non-reserved services will not need to visit a booking office at all.

This stands to change the way customer service is delivered, especially at the larger stations with multiple ticket offices. We may end up with fewer locations that do more as the distinction between V/Line and metropolitan blurs.

For posterity, I though it would be worthwhile to document counter service at the CBD's second and third busiest stations immediately before Myki commences. Approximate usage is given, but this is a rough guide only and some (like luggage for long distance services) may be very 'peaky'.

Melbourne Central

A CBD station served by suburban trains that operate via the City Loop (ie most of them). A significant mid-city hub underneath a shopping centre.

Main entrance to platforms (well-used)

Here you see a full-service metropolitan train counter and a limited-service counter for V/Line (ie country services). The latter's opening hours are limited (closing during the pm peak) and not all payment methods are accepted.

Access from Swanston Street and the City Loop's midday reversal both work against the V/Line booth at this location. For most of its opening hours there are no direct trains to Southern Cross and passengers must join their train at North Melbourne. This makes either Flinders Street or Southern Cross more suitable locations than Melbourne Central for starting a V/Line journey.

Southern Cross

The city's newest station building served by nearly all of Victoria's suburban, country and interstate trains. Located next to the growing Docklands precinct and sees heavy use during sporting events.

Collins Street end

Metropolitan Tickets (well-used)

Regional Tickets (currently busy with long queues at popular times)

Information (well-used)

Myki (currently quiet but likely to become much busier)

Bourke Street end

Metropolitan Tickets (well-used)

Regional Tickets (quieter and well worth the walk from Collins St)

Luggage (generally quiet)

I will not speculate on what will happen when Myki is introduced and more of the routine purchases are done by machine or automatically. At a large multi-level site like Southern Cross there is a trade-off between the number of service locations, efficiency (expressed in customer waiting time and staffing) and fast, convenient access to a service desk.

A smaller number of service locations may increase average walking times but reduce waiting times and their variability. For instance two differently located booths might each have a window open but one might be quiet and the other busy. In contrast one booth with two windows open is more efficient as it reduces variability in waiting times. Walking time may be longer but the waiting time saved may exceed that during busy periods. Rostering is also easier for a single location and more staff can be more readily be put on (in busy times three people may be justified). However care nees to be taken that the number of windows open is as near as possible to staff present to speed service.

Why housing's 'Zone 1' price premium is no longer justified

Estate agents and property investment spruikers will tell you that one of the benefits of buying an inner suburban home is its cheaper fares (for city commuters) than a place beyond about 15km from the city. Anecdotally many buyers and renters seem to value this criteria as well. 'Located in Zone 1' is perhaps not quite as coveted as being in the catchment of a so-called 'good school' but it's not far off, especially for childless couples.

Three years ago I demonstrated out that the higher mortgage payments of a dearer inner suburban home generally outstripped the savings in fares. Unless the Zone 1 suburb 14km from the CBD had amenity benefits that the Zone 2 suburb 16km out didn't have, the fare difference is not worth paying much of a premium for if buying a home.

To put it in dollar terms, the difference in monthly fares for a full fare passenger is about $60 per month or $15 per week. Double that for a two income household (both taking public transport to a city job) and half that for a concession passenger. $15 per week is just under $700 per year, or the same as 7% interest on $10 000 owing. And $10 000 is trivial where average house prices are over $100 000 different between adjoining suburbs on opposite sides of the zone divide.

Has anything changed in 2009? Average house prices are generally higher than in 2006 but interest rates are lower, so the difference in mortgage payments between then and now even out.

While we have a metropolitan fare system that generally works well, don't let anyone tell you it is immune from change. For example, in the last 30 years we have seen section-based fares with fine increments, one type of zone system, its abolition in favour of a neighbourhood system, another type of zone system and lately its significant modification with new flat fare tickets.

The two major fare changes in the last five years or so are:

The first is a gradual flattening of the fare system. Longer trips are now a lower fare multiple of the shortest trips. Each recent trend has been in this direction. Examples include the abolition of both the cheapest fares (Rail+2, Short-Trip, National Bus section tickets) and the dearest fares (Zone 3, V/Line fare reductions). In 2006 only Seniors could get flat fare tickets (the Seniors Daily).

Since then new ticket types, starting with the Sunday Saver, school student periodicals and then the Weekend Saver, extended flat fares to new groups of passengers. Free travel at certain times has been extended, with the Early Bird and Sunday Pass being examples. While trips that involve zonal tickets still remain in the majority, zones are becoming irrelevant for an increasing amount of travel.

The second change is what is likely to happen with Myki ticketing. Nominally this involves no change to fares or zones. However people who select the 'Myki Money' option won't need to think about zones if they don't want to; instead they will just top up when their balance gets low. Fare zones become less of a 'barrier', which can happen with otherwise flexible tickets such as the 10 x 2 hour. Finkestein argues that users of roads with electronic toll collection are less mindful of the amount they pay than where toll collection was manual. There is no reason to suggest that passenger behaviour will be different with public transport smartcards.

To summarise, both flatter fares and less awareness of exact payment amounts will make fare zones less important in real life. Unless flat fares completely take over, distance (or its modern proxy of zones) will remain one of the main bases of calculating fares along with travel time, time of travel, and method of ticket purchase or payment.

While there is a great deal of appeal in buying in a Zone 1 suburb, it is desirable to know the real factors that attract people to the area. These are things like general amenity, facilities, walkability and quality of transport which do affect quality of life. While Zone 1 status doesn't hurt, the lower fare won't save much money compared to the likely higher price paid to buy into the area. Contrary to what the property agents and promoters claim, Zone 1 isn't worth paying much of a premium for if the area otherwise satisfies 'high amenity' or 'value for money' tests.

Inside a bus review workshop

Community workshops for the current round of metropolitan bus reviews, covering 9 Melbourne municipalities are drawing to a close, except for some outer areas.

Who goes to them and how are they run? How can hundreds of disparate opinions be reflected in a revised bus network that's convenient, simple and affordable?

Meetings typically involve the following in attendance:

* Members of the public – numbers vary but probably average about 20 – 40
* Representatives from community, welfare and special interest groups – at least 5
* Local government councillors and/or staff – at least 3 or 4
* State members of parliament – 1 or 2
* Representatives from the Bus Association of Victoria – 1 or 2
* Managers from local bus companies – 2 or 3
* Staff from the Department of Transport – 2 to 4
* Staff from the consultants running the workshop – 4 or 5 (either Parsons Brinckerhoff or Booz & Co)

Each review area comprises two or three local council areas. About 4 to 6 day and night meetings might be held for each review. Attendees are arranged on tables of five to eight with a facilitator to collate ideas and report views to the wider meeting.

Two rounds of workshops are run. The first round is to harvest ideas through three exercises.

The first exercise asks people “what's good about buses”. Participants are invited to write three points – one idea per page. These are put up on a board by the facilitator. Examples of answers might include bus cleanliness, coverage of shopping centres and friendly drivers.

The second exercise is similar but asks people “what's bad about buses”. Typical answers include limited operating hours, poor frequency and coverage gaps.

Both exercises are aimed at big issues affecting the whole bus network – specific matters are dealt with later. Each participant has ten 'votes' to allocate to each main issue on the board. Through this process the three top issues are discovered and the facilitator reports the table's findings to the whole meeting.

The third exercise is the longest and most detailed. Participants write their ideas for improving specific routes – again one per page. Typical ideas might include making a particular route more direct, more frequent or operate over longer hours. Other comments might include better connections with trains, new routes to fill a coverage gap and improved information.

These ideas, together with input from submissions and other meetings, are collated and used by the consultants to shape a draft network. Attendees are shown this when they are invited back to a second round of workshops.

The second round uses the draft network as a starting point for further evaluation and discussion. These are generally held several months after the first round of workshops in the area.

The consultants final report goes to the Department of Transport, which, after ascertaining the resources available and liaising with the Minister's office and bus operators, decide what parts will be implemented.

The review process has been occurring for a little under two years. Most areas are part way through their reviews with the final two areas (CBD and inner-north) to be done by 2010. In that time 'Phase 1' route changes have been made in some areas that were reviewed first. These 'Phase 1' changes are typically span improvements and minor extensions, with larger network changes planned in the later phases.

As with almost anything occurring over several years, there have been some refinements and changes of emphasis. Three things spring to mind.

* The first was an improvement in the voting for the first two exercises. Initially attendees where given 'ten dollars' to 'spend' in the form of sticky dots to be placed on a board next to their highest priorities. The problem with this was better to 'vote' last to swing the results in your favour (you wanted your issues to be in the top three) while not 'wasting' votes. Some reviews this year (particularly by Booz) used a secret ballot process so voting order could not dictate your 'vote'.

* The second difference was the changing role of the Department of Transport representatives relative to the consultants at the workshops. In 2008 Department staff often gave the opening address and acted as table facilitators, so there was high engagement with attendees. 2009's workshops saw a much lower profile, with presentation and facilitation roles being performed by the consultants instead. A nice gesture though is the Department giving attendees souvenir buses (not always available in 2008 workshops) as pictured above.

* The third variation appears to be in the terms of reference and the treatment of non-route matters, such as span and frequency. 'Service span' and 'service frequency' were two of the top three issues for improvement suggested at every workshop held. However participants at some 2008 second round workshops (eg Wyndham) were encouraged to comment only about the routes; not span, frequency or connections. Other sessions covered both, recognising the trade-off between the two given limited resources. This difference is reflected in reports after the round two workshops; the ones that discussed service levels suggested some service frequencies and the importance of harmonised headways for reliable transfers. It remains to be seen what the trend for 2009 will be.

While the current review process is our most effective yet mechanism of area-based bus service planning, some changes have occurred outside it. The main example is Manningham, where routes were restructured (eg the 280/282 'Manningham Mover' and other local routes changed) before the findings of that area's bus review were available. If the 'Manningham Mover' is found to be inconsistent with the review (which, if like others, will recommend more direct routes with longer operating hours), some participants may begin to ask whether the reviews are being accorded their due seriousness.

This post has discussed process more than any previous, and it is appreciated that this would bore some readers. At the parliamentary level, political toing and froing isn't everyone's cup of tea and at the administrative level the pace of change can sometimes test people's patience.

While it can't please everyone, the review process is an exercise in citizen engagement to design the sorts of services that meet taxpayer's needs. The draft networks seen so far fairly reflect community demands. It is hoped that the will so expressed prevails and we'll start seeing a revitalised bus network in more suburbs.

Promoting the bus reviews

Local area bus service review meetings have been running this week and last. The companies doing them for the Department of Transport are Parsons Brinckerhoff and Booz and Co.

Below are some examples of how the reviews are being promoted to increase participation.

1. A billboard outside the meeting venue. This was erected about a week before and is directly visible from the area's main bus stop across the street.

2. A locally-prepared information leaflet and questionaire. Provided on a table in the nearby public library. Includes a network map and some simple questions to answer.

3. A poster on a bin advertising the meeting. With tear off phone numbers.

4. A similar notice but on a shopping centre notice board. Some are also posted inside buses.

Connex Customer Information Centre opens

Yesterday was the first day of the Connex Customer Information Centre at Flinders Street Station. The centre is open seven days a week and is on the main concourse, inside the fare-paid area.

The opening presents a good opportunity to discuss the sort of customer service passengers need and how this is best provided.

Passengers are best divided into regular commuters (who make frequent routine trips) and occasional travellers (eg tourists and those who don't normally use public transport). The information needs of these groups vary, as per the table below.

Basically occasional passengers need detailed individual advice, while regular passengers just want their ticket or timetable with a minimum of fuss. At very busy stations it may be desirable to seperate the routine transaction from the trip assistance role so regular commuters are not delayed. The arrangements at Flinders Street appear to do this in that there are ticket windows for sales and the new information centre for more detailed queries.

Just like in a shop where you can ask questions about a product before buying, passengers need to be able to ask about a service without needing to buy a ticket first. This means that the main enquiry desk needs to be immediately outside the fare paid area, as all staffed suburban Melbourne stations do with their booking offices and Transperth does with its InfoCentre at Perth Station. Doing this makes the information booth accessible to those likely to need it (see table above).

As well as helping passengers board the right train at Flinders Street, there are other information needs that a full information centre can be expected to meet. This includes advice for the onward journey; passengers may alight at an unattended station and may need bus information for the next stage of their trip. Planning here may determine whether passengers board the next train or get a later one for a better bus connection.

Because no one (except gunzels) ends their trip at a railway station, Connex passengers alighting at Flinders Street need to be looked after for the next stage of their journey. This might include directions to a particular address or details tram and bus services. Best practice (as done in Perth) is to have all timetables available, but as a minimum in Melbourne all tram/bus timetables for the CBD, major trip generators and major suburban routes need to be carried.

Disruption information is largely electronically delivered through passenger information displays and PA announcements. An information desk may have a role, although sheer passenger numbers may not necessarily allow individual attention. The effectiveness of this depends on the extent to which information is conveyed to the staff and their awareness of possible alternative tram and bus services (both rail substitute and regular).

The concept of expanding customer information at major stations is to be commended. However placing the main information booth so it can be accessed off the street and providing tram/bus information are both essential for the idea to reach its full potential.

Why don't they just get along?

It has been my privilege to observe, know or work with people in various parts of transport. This has exposed me to competing (and often strong) views on the merits and limitations of other people or organisations.

I might be talking to Y and they might be proposing many things that Z supports. But when I ask Y's opinions about Z they might be quite dismissive. In return Z might be similarly contemptuous of Y, even though the people concerned haven't even met. But on the substantive issues (in my possibly naive opinion) I find more similarities than differences between the protagonists.

This leads me to the following conclusions:

* Transport policy, planning and debate is a play. All the key individuals act and say things largely determined by their set role (eg operator, bureaucrat, academic, activist, media etc).

* There is consensus amongst all the above actors that a larger role for public transport is in the public interest.

* There is a somewhat lesser agreement on the projects and policies are most needed to handle increased patronage. Nevertheless there is more commonality than some would have us imagine. For example, I believe that important things like (i) reforming the way the City Loop runs, (ii) tram priority, and (iii) buses headway harmonised with trains would command broad support - probably 80% or more. And even the bigger debates (Dandenong triplication and Eddington's rail tunnel) are more about means than ends.

Having established that there is more agreement than is generally acknowledged it now remains to explain the intensity of some of the squabbling.

I attribute this to the three Ps; Politics, Position and Personality (and background).

First politics. Public transport (like roads) is largely publicly funded. The proportion that isn't (ie fares) is publicy collected through the Metcard system. Franchisees look after the operations but policy, planning and new projects rests with the government. As public transport involved politics, we need to have an idea of how the system works.

There is always more demand for public services than taxpayer dollars to fund them. The democratic political system provides a mechanism for the people to elect members (mostly from a political party) to form a parliament. Some of these members (nomally from the largest party) get to be ministers with responsibility over a portfolio such as transport. Senior ministers are also a member of cabinet which sets the general direction for the government and approves major decisions.

The department oversees contracts with the operators, develops policy, plans for future needs and provides advice to the Minister. A minister can also refer matters to her department for its advice.

Policies and proposals can be developed by departmental staff, come to the department from outside or be requested by the minister. For example, an innovative manager could introduce a revised ticketing rule, or the government might reduce fares. Overcrowding might force action such as additional train purchases.

The exit of an operator might cause a revision to franchising arrangements. Matters may get in the media or be the subject of lobbying; these might force action (eg New Years Eve) or the Minister to ask for a review (bicycles on trains). Operators themselves might press for change, for instance the 2003 campaign by BAV to improve bus services (leading to the MOTC bus improvements from 2006).

The point is that democratic politics can be adversarial. There are always more demands than resources to satisfy them. if politicians are convinced there is broad support for public transport then they might put more resources into it. Lobbyists might seek to grab media headlines to demonstrate support for their cause. Then the government commits additional resources and instructs the department to implement.

A more co-operative style of advocacy relies less on megaphones and media. It is more technocratic than political. This is the one that seeks to forge relationships with bureucrats rather than speak to their masters through media sound-bites and public rallys. Graham Currie exemplifies the first approach; Paul Mees the second.

Position is to do with acting the roles in the big play mentioned above.

Key actors, with some quick notes, include: Operator professionals (Connex, YT, bus operators)

Work for one of the operators, often for many years. Experienced in operational matters. Respect own technical rigour and proud of what they do. Sometimes view media reports, activists and some academics with suspicion because they 'get it wrong'. Because of where they work, they might not always see 'bigger picture', the passengers' view or view transport system as a whole. Variations exist between the 'lower level', 'skilled technical' and 'managerial' strands.

Bureaucrats (eg DOT)

Good knowledge of political process, policy, contracts and regulations. Network knowledge varies greatly. Favour a co-operative method of working over 'megaphone lobbying' that speaks over the department's heads or worse. May be variations between the 'skilled technical' and 'managerial' strands.

Activists (eg PTUA)

Good overview of system as a whole (as seen by passengers). Value independence highly. Articulate and effective relationships with media. Perceived within the industry as being 'negative' with limited relations with middle levels in bureaucracy and operators of most modes. Distrust some bureaucrats and professionals as belonging to an 'entrenched culture of failure' from the PTC days.

Academics (attached to one of the universities)

See bigger transport picture well. Generally strong media profile and contributors to public debate. Not always good with technical details. Either 'collaborators' or 'crusaders' - depending on personality.

Enthusiasts/Gunzels

Either (i) already work in the industry, (ii) aspire to work in industry, (iii) don't work in industry or (iv) unemployable. Network knowledge is excellent, though can sometimes be single mode only. Mindset ranges from being able to see things from a passenger's perspective to 'the operator is always right'. Impatient when the media or activists get it wrong.

The above groups are not necessarily fixed; there are people who've belonged to two, three or more. Academics have become activists, gunzels have got industry jobs, and industry people have joined the Department.

However it is possible to find some differences that (mostly) hold up and might further explain why people with similar views in a similar field don't get along.

This is personality and background. Here I will make some quite sweeping generalisations that nevertheless might account for some of the irrational reasons for difference.

As a general rule, the operators are 'blue collar'. They contain large numbers of 'frontline staff' who man the stations, drive the trams and service the buses. These jobs do not need university degrees as all the specialist skills are taught in-house and on-the-job. Unionisation is high and incomes aren't bad. This is the Labor of Chifley and Calwell.

In contrast, bureaucrats are 'white collar'. Almost all have degrees. This is Whitlam or Keating Labor, though you might find some Greens in there as well. There will also be some Liberals, but 'tertiary educated', 'urban' and 'government employee' all point to a left-liberal majority.

That's the two groups of insiders. What about the two groups of outsiders?

Gunzels (who aspire to run the operators). There's exceptions, but I think most are blue-collar-ish.

Activists (who aspire to run the Department or tell it how it should be run). Well they've all got degrees, just like the bureaucrats.

See a pattern? It's almost like there's two strands, most clearly identified by formal education. I could go on about Zone 1 versus Zone 2, values intellectual vs practical, refugee rights vs border protection, art vs sport but won't for lack of evidence.

I can't help wondering if there's some sort of socio-cultural thing that pits each group against one another and makes them hate each other. Just look at many Railpage discussions if you want any doubt of how the gunzels view the activists. Higher up the tree (operators versus bureaucrats) similar differences may exist, but discussed with more decorum, always about substantive issues and generally not in public view (unless one counts subleties in media comments).

But it's not just differences that can cause conflict; commonality can lead to 'competition'; for instance between the degreed 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. Insiders might support a particular 'outsider' policy but be unable to get it through the department. Then it might make a big splash in the media, the government adopts it and the 'outsider' claims all the credit.

Similarly operator people can be (often rightly) dismissive of the more 'feral' gunzels. However the door should not be completely closed since some gunzels have made successful transport careers.

To sum up, those involved in transport, whether as operators, bureaucrats, activists, academics or enthusiasts have more in common than some arguments you hear indicate. Thus the differences must be due to other factors. I have attempted to describe some them, including the nature of the political process, the roles people have and the characteristics and backgrounds of the participants.

A gunzel's guide to transport work

So you've been riding trains, trams and buses for half your life and you want to make it your career?

Whether you're 14, 21 or 61, it's not too early (or late) to prepare.

This article has some tips to get you on your way.

Do you really want to?

The first thing is to ask yourself whether it's better to have work that's related to your hobby or to keep them separate.

Many gunzels keep transport as an interest – not as work. Some wouldn't have it any other way - they'd lose interest in the hobby if transport was work. Transport jobs might also include hours and rosters that aren't helpful for that once-in-a-lifetime train movement you wish to photograph.

Others find that their hobby increases interest in their work (and vice versa). For them a job in transport is ideal and they'd work nowhere else.

Think about what you want. If you still want to work in transport, keep reading!

Dos and Don'ts

Even if you're at school and won't be applying for anything for a few years, there is one golden rule when going about your gunzelling:

Don't be a jerk!

Chances are you'll want to get with a train, tram or bus operating company. There's not many of them and you might already know who you want to work for. It's not cool to piss them off as they'll never forget when you go for a job. 'Haven't I seen you before?!'.

Dumb behaviour includes walking where you shouldn't (eg sidings or depots), pinching stuff, rudeness or blocking doorways. Ditto for not having a valid ticket or concession; if you don't pay how can you expect them to pay you? Whinging loudly about trivial stuff no one can change (eg bus livery) says more about you than what you're on about, and none of it's good.

Don't let mates pressure you into stupidity even if you think you're alone. You might still be seen by a signaller or someone on a passing train. Some transport employees are also gunzels - with cameras – and you wouldn't want to be the latest show on Vicsig or YouTube. Saying no to your group is hard but just think about the transport job you'd be missing out on. Walk away if in doubt – go be a bus gunzel and admire the stop.

When talking to bus drivers and station staff respect that their first responsibility (and why they're paid) is to run the service and help customers. Most are not gunzels and don't need to be. So respect the fact that not all will be interested in you seeing 317M, especially if there's others waiting. There's other stuff that isn't exactly wrong – eg asking for 20 copies of the one timetable – but don't do it. And don't crap on about gunzel politics and whose bitching about whom to drivers, OK?

Same applies to internet forums, even if you use a fake screen name. The nastier you are online, the more others will find your real name and/or gossip behind your back. Apart from being civil to other users, good forum etiquette includes not going off-topic, searching before asking questions, not making false claims or laying on the blame after accidents. Passing off other people's photos or websites as your own work is also a no no.

Even if they hardly post, many transport professionals do read the forums and know what's going on. Even guys who are shy in person can be real pricks on the keyboard – it's like they have a split personality. Don't be one of them and wreck your job chances.

With the nasties done, what about the good stuff?

It's pretty much what they tell you at school. You've got to be nice to people, present well and string a sentence together. Good writing is every bit as important as copying down that train consist right and is a must if you want a senior job.

As for school marks, the higher they are the broader the choice. Doing really well will allow you pick more uni courses. If it's something like engineering this can lead to much interesting railway work.

Education and work experience

Education requirements vary widely between 'white collar' and 'blue collar' jobs and between employers.

I do not know of anyone in DOI who doesn't have a university degree. Some have postgraduate qualifications as well.

In contrast there are Year 12 leavers who've risen to senior positions in Connex by age 21 while their student mates are doing the dishes with HECS debt on the side. So generally speaking if it's 'operational' or 'specialist' you don't need a degree (as training is in-house) but if it's more general, policy or marketing (eg operator head offices, DOI or Metlink) then you will probably need a degree.

Any previous work experience will be better than none. If it even vaguely relates to what you're applying for, so much the better. For instance if you want a station host job (which is all about customer service) and you've got some retail experience then you're half way in. Bus drivers will need a clean driving record and again good customer service skills. If you can somehow get a casual job in the industry (eg doing passenger counts) then that also helps.

Promotion may be through internal or external advertising and may follow a period of secondment. The large operators have their own training arrangements. If you're the right person, promotion can be quick; I've seen people get from base level to middle level in two to four years.

What sort of jobs?

The more junior roles are at the 'coal face' serving customers. For example barrier staff, station host or station officer.

Conductors work in V/Line while both Connex and Yarra Trams employ Authorised officers who have to be accredited by the Department of Infrastructure.

Then there are the driving jobs, which in order of training are bus, tram and train. V/Line conductors.

Station officers can progress to become qualified in safeworking and signalling. They either get more senior at stations or can move to jobs elsewhere, such as at timetabling or train control.

There are maintenance jobs at tram/bus depots & Mainco, who does maintenance work for Connex. Engineers are also sought after for infrastructure projects.

Office jobs include marketing and public relations at the operators, Metlink or DOI. DOI also has jobs in policy areas open to graduates.

Because there is a small number of large employers and vacancies are advertised internally, the best approach is to start at a base job, master it and then apply for other positions.

How do you find out about jobs going?

All the usual stuff like newspaper advertisements and websites. There might be notices up at stations, trams or buses advertising vacancies.

Companies may also use recruiting agencies or websites (eg Hoban for Connex or Seek for Metlink).

Another thing you could do is (when they're not busy) ask existing staff (especially if they're younger) what they did to get in and how they like their job.

Is being a gunzel a disadvantage?

Being seen to display an intelligent interest is a benefit. If portrayed the right way your interviewer will see this and will consider your application favourably.

If the interest is seen as either too narrow or too obsessive then it's a turn-off and there is definitely a gunzel stereotype that some will not warm to. Luckily you have control over how you present yourself, and if you have other experience (eg retail) you should push that to make your application stronger.

While there's a few similarities between (say) model railways and the job you're going for, there are more differences when you're dealing with real people and real trains. It's OK to mention a transport interest at the interview. But don't then reach for your photo album and give the interviewer a lecture on Siemens vs X-traps!

Rather you should be more sensitive than normal to conversation flow, answering the question and interpreting cues from the interviewer so you know when to stop. If in doubt mention the interest very briefly and say that you can elaborate if desired.

Know yourself

This is all the standard stuff they (should) teach at school about knowing your strengths, weaknesses and trying to marry them with the job requirements and what they will be asking at the interview.

Some people prefer for their job not to be their hobby, so think about that angle before you decide for sure.

However some special comments apply to gunzels. Some are shy and/or have Aspergers tendencies. If this is part of your personality you need to develop skills in areas such as recognising non-verbal cues from interviewers, refraining from lecturing, knowing when to stop and being tolerably articulate on what they really asked about.

Conclusions

Don't be a jerk

Learn about roles and talk to people

Know yourself

© 2008

What should bystanders do?

Public transport is well, err, public, so passengers may see things motorists darting from remote-controlled garage to multi-storey car park don't.

Should bystanders render assistance or does this create other problems? There's some good discussion over on John Quiggin's blog after a woman suffered a stroke at a Brisbane bus stop.