The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 2)

Can it be done?

Still think that substantial travel time reductions are impossible without building high-speed railways under each suburb?

The following examples show how significant travel time savings could be possible, largely with existing infrastructure.

Example 1: Inter-suburban bus trip

Consider a short bus trip where the bus runs every 40 minutes. This service level is typical for middle and outer suburban routes and even some major inner suburban routes (eg 246 on Sunday evenings).

The trip takes ten minutes, with five minutes allowed to reach and leave the stop at either end. That adds up to a best case 20 minutes travel time, if you arrive at the stop just as the bus arrives. The worst case, if a bus has just been missed, is 60 minutes. While the average, assuming random arrival is 40 minutes.

This comparison shows high variability, or +/- 20 minutes from the average. The 3:1 difference between maximum and minimum trip times is entirely due to the attempt to make a short trip by randomly arriving to catch a low frequency service.

Increasing frequency to 20 minutes reduces the average time to 30 minutes, or a 33% reduction. Variability is reduced to +/- 10 minutes, or 20 to 40 minutes. For a ten minute frequency the average drops to 25 minutes, or an average 37% time saving. Variability drops to +/- 5, or a ratio of maximum to minimum of 1.4:1.

The above example shows that frequency has a dramatic effect on random arrival end-to-end travel times. Higher frequency also cuts variability, or effectively increasing travel reliability. The minority willing to plan around timetables can enjoy the benefits today, without any frequency increase. That’s unless they depend on connections, which are discussed next.

Example 2: Bus + train trip

Consider a suburb about 20km from the CBD. Its local buses run every 30 minutes and the trains every 20 minutes. The passenger is 5 minutes walk away from the bus stop. The bus trip (via a meandering route) takes 15 minutes to a stop near the station. When passengers alight the bus they need to cross a busy road to the station, which has only one entrance at the far end of the platform (assume 5 min). After that the train takes 40 minutes to the city.

The best case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 3 min (station access) + 0 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 65 minutes for the 20km trip.

The worst case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 30 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 5 min (station access – assuming 2 min traffic light cycle at crossing) + 20 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). That’s a total of 115 minutes for the 20km trip.

There’s three things to note. Firstly the worst case represents an overall speed of just over 10km/h or about double walking speed. Secondly the variability is high – the worst case taking twice as long as the best case. And, in the worst case example, the passenger is in motion for barely half the time.

Now consider the same trip above, with the following modest service improvements:

· Bus frequency upgraded from 30 to 20 minutes, to provide a harmonised connection to each train, with a consistent 6 minute connection · Bus route made more direct, to reduce travel time from 15 to 10 minutes and fund the higher frequency, but with 5 minutes added walking time · Additional station platform entrance and zebra crossing installed (to reduce station access time from 5 to 2 minutes)

The best case travel time following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + (10 min bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 66 minutes for the 20km trip. The worst case following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 20 min (wait for bus) + 10 min (bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 86 minutes for the 20km trip.

The difference is dramatic. The average travel time has fallen from 90 to 76 minutes, while the ‘worst case’ is nearly 30 minutes quicker. Variability also fell; from +/- 25 minutes of the mean to +/- 10 minutes. Better connectivity and higher bus frequency contributed most to the gain. However more direct bus routing and better pedestrian access also added smaller but no less cost-effective benefits.

Example 3: Bus + Bus trip

Finally we’ll examine a cross-suburban trip involving a change between two bus routes. This is typical for journey types in which public transport has a low modal share.

I’ll use similar assumptions to the first example. Eg 5 minute walk to and from the bus and 10 minute travel time in each bus. The first route runs every 60 minutes while the one being changed to is every 40 minutes.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 30 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 45 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 75 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 30 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are unharmonised the best connections will recur every two hours. We’ll assume an average of half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes average. But it could range from 15 to 55 minutes, or a variability of +/- 20 min from the average.

The very shortest time that the overall trip can be made is 30 minutes, with the longest 130 minutes. The average time is 80 minutes. Because time savings and delays average out, the traveller is unlikely to experience the extreme shortest and longest trip times. But if they do, that’s a ratio of over 4:1, or a variation of +/- 50 minutes.

While people may tolerate a higher variability for a short trip (Eg a 10 minute trip taking 20 minutes), it is probably true that tolerance declines for longer trips (especially if routine). Hence the letters in the paper complaining about suburban trips that take an hour by public transport but only 20 minutes driving.

There’s a couple of things that can be done to reduce variability.

Firstly the passenger could forego flexibility and use a timetable. Instead of waiting an average of 30 minutes for the first bus, they wait an average 5 minutes. This reduced variability of +/- 20 minutes is solely due to the connection between the first and second bus, which is beyond the passenger’s control. Average travel time is also reduced – by 25 minutes, which is the difference between the planned wait and the random arrival wait (ie half the frequency of the first service).

There’s also the contribution of service planning, which unlike the first response, assumes no accommodation on the part of the passenger.

Suppose the frequency of the first service was upgraded from 60 to 40 minutes. The first benefit of this is to reduce the average wait, from 30 to 20 minutes. Variability contributed by the wait for the first service is thus reduced.

The second benefit is that it matches the frequency of the second service. Such matching does not guarantee good connections but does dramatically slash variability. Let’s look at the numbers.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 35 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 55 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 20 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are now harmonised the connections will recur every 40 minutes. We’ll assume there’s been no special planning and the wait for the second service is half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg therefore involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes. Because the first leg has been harmonised to it the wait for it is now constant, variability has been reduced to zero.

Add the two legs and we have an average of 70 minutes. That’s 10 minutes down on the first case of 80 minutes. But the real gain has been in reduced variability. At best it’s 50 minutes and at worst it takes 90 minutes. This is a variability of +/- 20 minutes – well down on the earlier +/- 50 minutes. Also the ratio of maximum to minimum journey time has fallen from over 4:1 to under 2:1. Although average travel times are still slower than many would like, the improvement made from adjusting one route from a non-harmonised 60 minutes to a harmonised 40 minutes cannot be underestimated.

Again, with the earlier example one can do better. If one sacrifices flexibility and uses a timetable to catch the first service, the average travel time falls by 15 minutes (70 to 55 minutes) and variability virtually eliminated. Secondly, if planners consider that the connection between the two services is sufficiently important to be worth adjusting timetables, the connection time could be reduced from the 20 minutes average assumed here to 10 minutes. This contributes another 10 minutes, meaning a total average trip time of 60 minutes for those who don’t use a timetable and a reliable 45 minutes for those who do.

Summary and Conclusion

I have demonstrated the effect of frequency on cutting journey time. It is at first dramatic, with a point of diminishing returns being reached as frequency rises to around ten minutes. Beyond that point, unless it needed for capacity or for very short trips, its impact drops.

Also discussed has been travel time variability. Public debate on this normally concerns train reliability, and this is especially important for those connecting to less frequent buses. However the examples demonstrate indicate it can be very high for bus trips, especially those involving random arrival and connections between non-harmonised services. Harmonised bus frequencies can greatly reduce variability and make public transport more useful for trips where it’s currently weakest.

The planning approach presented here focuses most on service frequency and its harmonisation. There is less attention to infrastructure and capacity.

The former is cheap and quick, while the latter is expensive and long-term.

Both have their place in a growing city. But introducing the latter without the former means that use of the latter is poorly utilised and public transport’s potential to fully contribute to the overall transport effort is unrealised.

The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 1)

There’s been heavy discussion about the financial user cost of public transport, following the announcement of an 8.6 per cent fare rise from next month. This post is about another user cost; the longer time it sometimes takes relative to driving.

Amongst those with a choice, public transport attracts its highest share where it is time competitive with driving, notably work trips to the city. Where it’s uncompetitive passengers tend to be those with more time than money, typically due to low incomes and/or an inability to pay. This is the familiar skewed pattern of old and young in the off-peaks and city commuters during the peaks.

This is a long post, so is split into two parts. Part 1 discusses user financial costs, funding sources, trip time and trip time variability. Part 2 uses examples to illustrate the large gains possible from service and other improvements.

Two dimensions: time and money

One insight that comes from counting time as a cost is that it invites comparison with that other type of cost most commonly associated with public transport – fares. Fares are known and fixed whereas time value is less tangible but no less important.

Although lacking hard numbers, we can guess time value’s magnitude or draw inferences from surveys and modal share statistics. We know it varies with trip length, location and timing. Acceptance of slow trips and high costs varies but depends on the value placed on time and money respectively. Some rough plots of user time versus financial costs for various transport modes in Melbourne are on the graph below.

The ‘best’ is cheap and fast (bottom left) while the worst is dear and slow (top right). The other corners are occupied by fast expensive (top left) and slow cheap (bottom right). Overall user costs for each comprises dollar plus time costs, with this increasing from bottom left to top right.

Consensus that a particular mode represents good value is highest for those near the bottom left. Whereas top right is poor value and only worthwhile for those willing to bear the high overall cost. If they are not, they’ll change homes, jobs or schools to avoid it. The action is crucial; mere grumbling implies acceptance since bad transport may still be better than other choices available.

I take the view that most people are transport pragmatists, ie whichever available mode suits their time / cost value profile for a particular trip will be used. Most of the time the mode chosen (driving) is faster but dearer than public transport. This invites the question as to whether the overall user value of public transport would increase if it were faster, even if somewhat dearer.

Public transport’s place

Public transport’s detractors treat slowness as inherent but this is not necessarily so. Where transit is slow, this is due to decisions made on station spacing, route and timetable planning, street design, signal priority and allocation of road space between modes.

Skybus (also on the graph) is an example of fast public transport. Its fares are high relative to government-subsidised routes. But because it’s both fast and frequent its time costs are low. Add the two and you see that Skybus occupies a distinctive (and successful) position in the market, set apart from regular buses (with low fares but high time costs).

Is regular public transport’s position on the graph optimum?

The answer depends on what you want it to achieve.

What would happen if you changed either its user financial or time costs?

Making an already low-priced but infrequent bus service cheaper would not greatly reduce the overall user cost to the ‘average person’. This is because unless they value their time lowly, the time cost component probably outweighs the fare cost and slashing the latter won’t cut the total much.

However this conclusion ignores certain market segments. Fare cuts are more significant for those who value money more than time, ie the ‘captive passsenger’ end of the market. This segment tolerates the limited service and values the saving more than average so will probably use the service more, possibly even increasing revenue.

It’s a bit like arguments in favour of Reaganomics tax cuts; individuals pay less but incentive stimulates economic activity which increases overall tax take. Fare / patronage elasticity will likely be highest off-peak and weekends as there’s more discretionary trips made by a different passenger profile.

The above limited bus service isn’t attractive to car owners unless driving conditions are very poor. People on all but the lowest incomes may find the waiting not worth the saving. Passengers that a lowered fare attracts may have previously walked rather than driven. Cheaper buses might make individual travel more energy intensive, although public transport fuel efficiency (as measured by fuel use per passenger) improves with patronage (ie more passengers per litre).

Speeding up buses (achieved through directness, frequency and connectivity) but charging a higher fare should have a different effect. The better service may attract some who previously drove or got lifts. Existing passengers may use the improved, more capable service more. But a fare increase could mean that even though the service is better, price-sensitive passengers abandon it for their lower value discretionary trips.

Funding better transport

There’s at least three things that can be done.

* The first is to maximise effective service levels from current budgets. For example delete routes that duplicate others and use saved resources where more worthwhile. This requires a strong service planning culture, and for co-ordinating agencies to take a network view; both factors in which Melbourne has been weak. Like tidying an over-grown garden before selling your house, good service planning has high payoffs, due to this legacy. And participatory public engagement, including illustrating the service gains possible, should help build acceptance.

* Secondly there’s the possibility of differential off-peak pricing. This gives the price-sensitive a discount while preserving revenue from the less price sensitive. This segments the market and probably optimises patronage, though at expense to legibility. A difficulty here is if peak fares must rise disproportionately to retain overall revenue, and here we merge into the next point.

* The third are other measures to generate revenue. Possibilities include development of rail air space, parking taxes, hypothecated property levies or above-CPI fare increases.

All are politically difficult, especially if the fare increase has not followed tangible reliability and service improvements. Rises skewed toward peak period commuters (without whom capacity building infrastructure would not be needed) may be economically most rational, but send the wrong signals with regards modal choice if not accompanied by similar increases for driving (whether through fuel, parking or road space pricing).

This combined approach may be better transport policy but probably harder than fare hikes alone due to the larger numbers affected. While not impossible, it may require a trust in government that is lacking, particularly in states that propose then cancel major transport projects, such as New South Wales with its various metro plans.

Whereas people are willing to individually pay more for quicker travel (as witnessed by the popularity of driving versus public transport), sourcing such funds for collectively funded network improvements raises hackles. How do we break this deadlock?

Seeing improvements differently

It may be worth reviewing how we regard transport improvements.

Large transport plans may be centred on infrastructure. Its purpose is typically to relieve ‘bottlenecks’ caused by extrapolating present commuting patterns forward. Time costs may be used to justify it; studies may cite rising congestion costs and ‘lost productivity’. Infrastructure’s tangible nature invites us to draw lines on maps and build models to imagine a faster future.

Another way of thinking is to set a public transport journey time reduction target and use the best combination of infrastructure and services to achieve it. The bigger the target the higher the cost, but the more likely that public transport would win the modal share shifts envisaged in Melbourne 2030 (an increase from 9 to 20% or a patronage trebling).

A 20 to 50% cut in average public transport travel times may seem far-fetched. But considering how it could happen would sharpen our thinking about which improvements are really worthwhile. Plus it familiarises planners with the real source of delays, which passengers know but they may not.

Overall travel time and its variability

Rules for such analysis need to match where and when people live and travel. For example they must acknowledge that people live where they do and not at railway stations. They want to leave when they want, without checking a timetable. And the selection of trips used must represent travel made by all motorised modes, and not skewed towards public transport’s current profile. These rules are observed by (i) counting waiting and transfer times, (ii) assuming random arrival at the stop or station, and (iii) including a representative spread of trips (including cross-suburban, night and weekend travel, which together form a majority of all trips).

Adding the first two produces a more useful average travel time (random arrival end to end travel time) than ‘headline’ minimum in-vehicle travel times. The latter is often a dubious selling point for ‘fast rail’ projects. It’s a bit like quoting air fares without all the extras and surcharges; meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

Travel time variability also needs to be known. Which transit system is better? One where a particular trip takes anywhere between 10 and 40 minutes. Or one that at best is slower (eg 15 minutes) but at worst is faster (25 minutes). It’s no contest really; the latter’s lower variability means better reliability, especially for time-critical trips.

Average random arrival end-to-end travel time and travel time variability (for a representative sample of trips in the area) are the to key numbers planners need to pick the best from a number of route and timetable options.

Train planners may have to juggle with express running versus frequency. Service delivery is also critical; when passengers start having to catch an earlier train due to the risk of the one they want being cancelled, effective travel speeds can easily halve, especially when a connection from a bus is involved.

Tram planners have little scope for express running and frequency is generally already high. Their main problems are externally caused, especially when in mixed traffic. Although there are trade-offs between whether all services are run to the terminus or some terminate early to provide greater frequency and capacity in the busier inner core.

Bus planners have more flexibility. They must balance walking time, coverage, number of routes, use of transfers, directness and frequency. However, like trams, priority on the roads can speed travel and reduce variability. This is especially where bus priority operates at all times and not just when the bus is running late.

Part 2 will follow with examples

More frequent Sunday morning trams

One of the most enduring features of Melbourne's tram timetables has been their 30 minute Sunday morning frequency. Late morning and afternoon Sunday services were boosted to Saturday frequencies just over 10 years ago but earlier headways were left intact. Hence Sunday mornings and evenings were about the only times with a half-hourly service; at other times the rule has been 15 min or better during the day, and 20 minutes at night.

Recent morning service upgrades on St Kilda Rd routes have banished the 30 minute frequency to the first few services only; now frequencies are nearer to 20 minutes between about 8 and 10am. This is a significant improvement that recognises that people are often out and about at these times.

While it's still possible, check and compare old and new timetables for routes like the 67.

Melbourne evening train service levels - the last 36 years

Another look at Melbourne suburban train frequencies - this time for weekday evenings around 9:30pm.

Most notable are that the service cuts of the late 1970s (from 20 to 30 minutes) have started to be reversed on some lines in the last year or two. There have also been frequency improvements on outer or minor lines such as Altona, Alamein, Cranbourne and Pakenham.

What does this presentation tell us? Firstly frequency does eventually respond to patronage growth, although you need passenger numbers to double first. There is also a lag time to allow for driver training, new trains, scheduling, political commitment etc. In the meantime, and not captured here, capacity has been added by operating six car rather than three car trains to the existing timetable to relieve crowding. Both Connex and Metro added capacity and 3-car trains are much less often seen nowdays.

Will I produce presentations for weekends? Probably not since changes have been less frequent and are better described in writing.

Saturdays have seen the least change, with 20 minutes remaining as a daytime network standard for all but outer areas. The main loss compared to 1975 is the reduced Saturday evening frequency (30 to 20 minutes). The main gains compared to 1975 is that there is service over a more extensive electrified network and there are later Saturday evening trains.

Sundays are quite different, thanks to large service increases in 1999. 1975's 40 minute Sunday frequency has now been banished to Sunday mornings (some lines), Sunday evenings (some lines) and some outer areas. Elsewhere Sunday frequency has doubled to 20 minutes, making it the same as Saturday.

Melbourne interpeak train service levels - the last 36 years

A graphical or aural representation of what is traditionally written can sometimes be the quickest way to present data or offer fresh insights, such as with aural timetables.

Here's another example, this time for trends in weekday interpeak train frequency on the Melbourne electrified rail network. The thicker the line the more frequent the service. Frequencies are approximate, especially where several lines cross and I've erred on a thinner rather than a thicker line to reflect likely maximum waiting times. You can stop the video at any time. When in pause mode slide the bar to more closely compare timetable changes.

As you watch you'll see electrification extensions in outer suburbs (Werribee, Cranbourne, Sydenham and Craigieburn) and the addition of the City Loop. The Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines vanish when these are replaced with trams. Frequency upgrades to Epping, the Caulfield group, Frankston, Newport and (for a while) Werribee are also shown. The joining of Frankston and Werribee or Williamstown trains starts off as a thin line that thickens as frequency increases.

The dates are effective dates on the printed timetables surveyed. There are some gaps as not all timetables were available for this exercise. However off-peak services are generally fairly slow in changing so few if any amendments would be missed.

The people above the dates indicate patronage - one per 50 million annual passengers. Noticeable is the fall after 1975 (actual patronage bottomed out at less than 100 million in about 1980) and the slow subsequent growth. The 2000s surge is particularly clear.

The slides were made in Powerpoint and are much clearer than you see here. However Windows Movie Maker requires other formats and much clarity was lost in the conversion.

Credits: Craig Halsall for some of the timetables & free-loops.com (hard techno) for the sounds.

Our first ten minute line

Sunday marked the start of a new timetable for several Melbourne suburban rail lines. The revised timetables feature increased weekday peak services on some busy lines and six car rather than three car trains on others to lessen crowding. Metro Trains website item explaining the changes is here. 

However the most important change in terms of how passengers will view and use the train network is the new Frankston line off-peak weekday timetable. This sees train frequencies increased from every 15 minutes to every 10 minutes. And weeknight 7 - 10pm headways are down from 30 to 20 minutes, reversing most of the 1978 evening service cuts.

Even though government transport plans normally stress infrastructure over service levels, there is no question that the October 10 timetable is significant for several reasons:

Firstly it makes Frankston the first railway line to operate at a tram-style 'turn up and go' frequency (Werribee's 6 trains/hour doesn't really count due to its uneven headway). In doing so it challenges an oddity where trams run more frequently than trains, despite rail's larger catchment area, coverage of major suburban centres and greater importance of connectivity with buses.

This upgrade provides a service at least every ten minutes for the 26 stations from Frankston to Richmond. Beyond Richmond the service frays into two patterns - one via the City Loop and the other direct to Flinders Street. Like the current Werribee operating pattern, these alternating services reduce legibility and effective frequency in the CBD, so are hopefully an interim transitory step before a single operating pattern can be introduced.

Secondly, while not marketed as such, it is understood that these trains form a direct Werribee service, allowing a one-seat ride from Frankston to stations such as Footscray, Newport and Laverton. Through-routing like this was typical before the Loop commenced, so this change represents an element of 'back to the future'. Linking the Werribee and Frankston lines could improve travel speeds for cross-city trips, but care will need to be taken to avoid Werribee's reliability being dragged down by Frankston line problems (and vice versa).

Thirdly is the decision to choose the Frankston line. If you were choosing which lines deserved a higher off-peak service on the basis of likely patronage increase, the Frankston line would be unlikely to figure. Instead the lines to Ringwood, Dandenong and probably Sydenham might have a greater call. These lines have all have large middle suburban trip generators, including universities, that generate off-peak and counter-peak travel. The very high concentrations of low income earners around Sunshine - St Albans and Noble Park - Dandenong (Sydenham and Dandenong lines) also tend to generate high off-peak demand outside commuting hours.

Nevertheless the Frankston line off-peak is not what you'd call a quiet line like Williamstown, Alamein or Sandringham. It has operational advantages such as the ability to run through to Werribee. And as an experiment certain changes (eg to loop running patterns) might not be as controversial as one conducted on a busier line.

Fourthly, the change is reversing a significant decline in overall Frankston line service, both in absolute and relative terms.

The absolute decline has been in reliability. While this has occurred across the network, factors such as Siemens trains (and their speed restrictions), the number of level crossings (and consequent disruptions) and it being part of the busy Caulfield group, the Frankston line is particularly prone to delays. In rough figures, Frankston passengers experience twice as many late trains than the Melbourne average, and nearly three times as that on reliable lines such as Glen Waverley.

The relative decline can be measured against the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines, Frankston's sister lines on the Caulfield group. In the 2004 - 2009 period Frankston tended to miss out on additional services. Those that were added went to the busier and faster-growing Pakenham and Cranbourne lines instead.

June 2010 saw renewed interest in the Frankston line, with a new timetable adding peak services. While there remain timetable 'holes' of 15 minutes or more, most Frankston line stations got at least a 10 minute service, with busier stations at a five minute peak frequency approximately. The trade-off was that most of its express trains ran direct to Flinders Street instead of via the loop - speeding some but slowing others.

This interest is continuing, with this week's 50% off-peak frequency increase for all Frankston line suburban stations. The significance of this can be measured by reviewing previous service changes of similar magnitude. The last would have been back in the 1990s, where off-peak weekday services on some south-eastern suburban lines went from 20 to 15 minutes. Subsequent increases tended to favour Sundays, late evenings, peak periods or parts of lines only, leaving basic Monday - Saturday off-peak and evening service levels intact up to now.

Conclusion

The Frankston line presents both challenges and opportunities for Metro.

Challenges because its low on-time performance consistently drags down the metropolitan average, and thus the ability to meet targets.

And opportunities since the October 10 Frankston timetable is the first test of Metro's vision for a frequent-service metropolitan railway.

DART’s first day

Without the speeches, balloons and sausage sizzles that normally accompany a railway extension, today marked Day One of DART, or Doncaster Area Rapid Transit.

DART is a four-route SmartBus network serving Manningham (Routes 905, 906, 907 & 908). It’s the government’s response to calls for a railway, which would have been dearer to build and directly served a smaller catchment area.

Poster in bus

Demographics

Manningham is predominantly middle to upper class. There is a high representation of professional two-income families. Housing is predominantely detached with parking for two cars. Nevertheless new townhouses are also popular in the areas nearer the CBD (being larger than a flat or villa in the nearby blue-chip suburbs of Kew and Balwyn).

Like other north-eastern suburbs Manningham lacks a large body of low income earners. These mostly settle in other parts of Melbourne which are better served by cheap rental properties and (up to now) better public transport. It does however have a substantial immigrant population (particularly from Asia) who tend to share (if not exceed) the middle class incomes and educational aspirations of the general population.

Manningham has no substantial industrial base, with most local employment being retail and services. There is also significant commuting towards the CBD, made possible by a freeway and express buses.

It also has no university campuses, though education levels and aspirations are high. This would tend to indicate significant commuting for education puposes.

Like many other parts of Melbourne, the baby boomers who settled Manningham are ageing. However average life expectancies and health standards are above average, so the majority are likely to be active and mobile well in to their seventies and eighties.

Doncaster Park & Ride

History

In the late 19th century a short-lived tramway ran between Box Hill and Doncaster, and the road between them retains that name. Market gardening was a dominant land use and the area did not become heavily urbanised until after WWII. However comparative closeness to the CBD, proximity to the Yarra, elevated views and the rise of the motor car (which made the lack of a railway less of a hindrance) contributed to Manningham’s growth in the 1960s and 1970s. It was part of a large belt of emergnig eastern suburbs between the railway lines and beyond the tram tracks including suburbs such as Forest Hill, Glen Waverley and Wheelers Hill. Traces of Templestowe’s rural past are evident today in its acre lots and lack of kerbing on some roads.

The Doncaster railway was part of the 1969 Metropolitan Transport Plan, which set the agenda for road building over the ensuing 40 years. Recent rail extensions have all been electrifications of existing rail corridors rather than new lines. And where new lines are proposed, they are either for growth corridor outer suburbs or underneath dense city land uses. And so all of Manningham’s public transport task is handled by buses, operating either to the city via the freeway, local shopping centres or railway stations in adjacent corridors.

Before SmartBus and DART, major bus routes in Manningham typically operated every 30 minutes on weekdays and roughly hourly on weekends (though some routes had two hourly or no service). This network was augmented by peak hour freeway express services and a fairly new circular shopper route.

DART represents a doubling of service frequency and later finishes on major routes. The four DART routes and two orbital routes (which started earlier in 2010) offer a SmartBus level of service (15 minutes weekdays/30 minutes evenings and weekends). This frequency is similar to suburban trains on weekdays and less on weekends. DART spans are broadly similar to trains except for the early finish on Sunday. The upgraded routes also had their numbers changed (from 300 series to 90x series) to reflect SmartBus route numbering.

Some existing routes were changed to reflect DART’s coming, but others were not. Hence there are some overlaps between regular routes and the upgraded SmartBus services.

City terminus near Southern Cross Station

The DART Test

The introduction of DART (and intersecting orbital routes) present opportunities for examining what happens when you (effectively) double transit service, especially in an area that lacks some of the demographics conducive to usage and starts with some handicaps for this.

Manningham’s limited public transport, low population density (especially in Templestowe) and high car ownership has historically resulted in a modal share lower than suburbs served by rail.

Demographics such as high workforce participation and lack of a local university tend to lower average occupancies in between the peaks. This produces a commuter pattern more like the Sandringham line (quiet interpeak) than the Dandenong or Sydenham line (busy day and night).

Secondly, unless regional centres such as around Shoppingtown and The Pines are built up patronage is likely to be unidirectional, lessening efficiencies, even if services in the peak direction are well used. This is different to (say) an orbital or cross-suburban bus between two railway lines which will attract patronage in both directions at any time.

My hunch is that DART will bring a substantial patronage increase, as it deserves to do so. However due to less favourable demographics (ie wealthier with more choice), I suspect that patronage elasticity per service kilometre added won’t be quite as high as we've seen on the three orbital routes and certain local upgrades.

Doncaster area frequent service map

Frequent service Map 1: Melbourne's south-east

Via Jarrett Walker is advice that Vancouver’s TransLink is seeking ideas from the public for a frequent network map, to highlight high service routes and corridors.

We have never had such a map for the Melboune network. More than any other Australian city frequency here has been a function of mode. Trams are most frequent, offering ‘turn up and go’ service every 5 to 15 minutes, at least during the day. Trains are next, on 15 to 30 minute frequencies. Buses were last, typically operating every 20 to 60 minutes, with varying spans and operating days.

Although there were exceptions, if you wanted frequent travel and an assurance of being able to travel on Sunday or get home at night you would almost never catch a bus. Hence train and tram system maps (normally mode rather than area-based) were our de-facto frequent network maps.

In the last five years we have seen the extension of many bus services to 7 days and the commencement of SmartBus services, which, at least on weekdays, operate at or better than train frequencies. The generalisation that buses run less often than trains remains valid but decreasingly so. However because our network maps treat all bus routes as being equal (just like if a street directory showed local streets as thick as freeways and distributors) the higher service on the better routes and corridors is uncommunicated to passengers.

The solution is a multimode frequent service map to highlight the high-service parts of the network that can reasonably be navigated without a timetable (at least on weekdays). It would be in a simple schematic form, showing only the high-service corridors, interchange points and major trip generators. At major interchanges it would supplement but not replace metro-wide single mode network schematic maps and local multimode geographically-based street-level maps.

A possible frequent service map for the south-east suburbs of Melbourne is shown below. Interstate or international readers should note it's approximately one-third of the metropolitan area and excludes the CBD (beyond the top left of the map). The areas covered are approximately 4 to 40 kilometres from the city centre.

This map is an attempt to simplify a fairly complex network that has diverse service levels and operating spans. I have set a cut-off related to SmartBus service levels, ie a 15 minute frequency on weekdays and 30 minutes on nights and weekends. Less frequent individual routes are not shown unless they parallel other routes to form a high combined frequency along a corridor.

Line thickness is related to service frequencies for individual routes or route families, with two levels used; thick for 15 minutes or better, and thin for inferior to this. Routes or corridors with 'full-time' operating hours, ie daily service until 11pm (9pm Sunday) got solid lines. Routes offering lesser spans got dashed lines. Hence a thick dashed line would be a frequent weekday service with limited or no service at other times. Conversely a thin solid line would indicate lower frequency but wide span (like outer suburban trains). A thin dashed coloured line would typically be a 'minimum standards' route, with 7-day hourly service until 9pm. Routes offering less than this (only drawn if they added frequency to a corridor) are shown with a grey line.

Melbourne typically colours its train information blue, tram information green and bus information orange. The map above adopts these colours for train and tram lines. However because there are more bus routes legibility requires the use of several colours. The orbital SmartBus routes were identified by colour in the planning stage (eg red orbital, green orbital, yellow orbital) so I have used these colours on these routes.

Some frequent service maps concentrate on daytime frequency and offer little assistance to passengers travelling at other times. However to provide assurance that night travellers won’t get stranded, it's desirable for maps to show approximate operating spans as well (especially finish times), in an unobtrusive form. I believe this map succeeds at both, without introducing too much clutter.

The June 2010 Caulfield group train timetable - service trends

One significance of the latest train timetables is that it is the first to have commenced after the arrival of new trains. This has allowed additional peak services to be scheduled, in this case largely on the Caulfield group.

To assess the significance of this change as against others I went through my old timetables and counted the number of trains that passed Caulfield in the morning and afternoon peak periods. Suburban trains that arrived at Flinders Street between 7:00 and 8:59am or departed between 4:00 and 6:59pm were counted. The results are below:

Timetable date: No trains (am) / No trains (pm)

20 Jan 1975 (VR): 42 / 47

15 Apr 1985 (Met): 31 / 39

29 Aug 1988 (Met): 35 / 43

21 Oct 1991 (Met): 34 / 42

6 Dec 1998 (Bayside): 28 / 38

19 Nov 2000 (Bayside): 29 / 40

27 Jan 2002 (M>Train): 30 / 40

Oct 2004 (Connex): 30 / 40

15 Oct 2006 (Connex): 32 / 42

30 Sep 2007 (Connex): 33 / 43

27 Apr 2008 (Connex): 34 / 45

Nov 2008 (Connex): 35 / 46

20 Jul 2009 (Connex): 37 / 46

June 2010 (Metro) : 42 / 55

There will have been other timetables not featured above. A weakness of this simple count method is that it neglects cases where services have been extended from middle-suburban locations such as Mordialloc and Oakleigh to outer suburban termini such as Frankston and Cranbourne. So although train throughput may have fallen, service kilometres may have held up due to average longer runs.

However some broad trends are discernible, such as the following:

* A decline in peak service around 1980 (this was the point that train patronage reached historic lows), a partial recovery later that decade until another drop in the early 1990s.

* The 2000s saw a weak recovery, adding a train or so per year, though it wasn't until 2008 that train numbers had been restored to 1988 levels.

* 1975 peak service levels were only met or exceeded in the June 2010 timetable. Off-peak service levels were boosted in the 1990s, followed by Sunday service a few years later. At most stations evening services remain less today than in 1975 (every 30 instead of 20 minutes) due to service cuts in 1978.

* The effect of new infrastructure such as the third track to Moorabbin. The timetable released just after that (1988) included extensive express running that was pruned in subsequent timetables until being increased again in 2010.

* The growth of outer areas on the Dandenong line such as Pakenham and Cranbourne. Until this latest timetable this meant that nearly all timetable additions on the Caulfield group went to those areas rather than Frankston.

Comparison with patronage

How do the trends in service level compare with patronage? Patronage underwent a long decline from the late 1940s to 1980, with the drop in the 1970s the steepest (reaching a trough of 93 million trips). This fall partially reversed in the 1980s, with strong rises for several years. However the state's recession, high cancellations (due to industrial disputation) and service cuts in the early 1990s caused the decline to resume.

Later passenger numbers levelled off and started to grow slightly. For example, Department of Transport evidence provided to the Legislative Council Select Committee on Train Services indicate little patronage growth between 2000 and 2004. At best passenger numbers rose in line with population, making no progress towards achieving either the franchise contracts ambitious patronage targets or the modal share aim of the Melbourne 2030 plan.

Comparing this account of patronage with train numbers up to this time indicate a correlation - higher service levels were associated with higher patronage and lower service levels were associated with lower patronage.

2004 marked a turning point where patronage diverged from service level offered. Overcrowding increased as more passengers started riding substantially the same number of trains. At the time the government was grappling with new train contracts after the walkout of National Express. New trains arrived but these merely replaced the scrapped Hitachis rather than expand the fleet. National Express suspended driver training, causing cancellations to rise due to driver shortages. And when Connex took over the whole system their priority was to reintegrate the system by, for example, training drivers who had only been taught 'their' half.

By 2009 annual patronage had exceeded 200 million - more than double that of 1980 and about 50% up on just five years before. Extra trains were slotted in here and there, but with passenger growth exceeding service growth, overcrowding and delays intensified.

Public transport as a political issue rose in profile and the government ordered more trains. This order was later increased. The new trains started arriving this year.

The June 2010 timetable was the first to take advantage of these extra trains. This allowed a peak service increase unseen for many years. Meanwhile patronage is still growing but slower than the steep rises of the 2000s. Hence we are in a period where peak service is growing faster than patronage, marking a catch-up on the 2004 - 2009 period when patronage rose faster.

Our last Sunday-only route - the end of the 769

One requirement of a legible transport network are routes that are the same seven days a week.

Cities with less developed or patronised public transport (eg Canberra) often break this rule. In such places weekend and evening routes are combined loop services that cover the same area as two or more straighter weekday routes. Such routes may be introduced to save money as they allow a given frequency to be maintained with fewer buses. Unfortunately their reduced directness can slow travel and the extra routes and numbers can confuse passengers.

In contrast, Melbourne has generally avoided seperate weekend routes and route numbers. Instead when Sunday service was introduced it was largely provided through improved existing routes instead of new Sunday-only routes. This makes for a more legible service.

There were however two recent exceptions.

The first was Dysons Route 569. This ran from Greensborough to Epping Plaza, and operated in place of Route 566 to Lalor on Sundays. It ceased when 566 gained Sunday running on 4 June 2007.

Then there's Route 769. This served Frankston, Karingal, and initially Langwarrin. It commenced on 7 March 1999 and replaced routes 770/771 (Karingal area) and 790/791 (Langwarrin area) on Sundays and public holidays.

Route 769 changed on 30 March 2003 when Sunday service commenced on Route 791. 791 provided the Langwarrin service so 769 was pulled back to Karingal and extended north to Dalpura Circuit. Hence its function became strictly a Sunday and holiday-only substitute for routes 770 and 771, which operated Monday to Saturday only.

The final Route 769 departed Frankston at 5:05pm this afternoon with 15 passengers on board. Most had alighted by Centro Karingal with only a few staying on until the terminus in Dalpura Circuit (see picture). After a brief pause the bus returned without fanfare to Frankston via Centro Karingal, arriving at 5:47pm. A final wave from the driver drew this route to an end, with a new 7-day timetable for routes 770 and 771 commencing tomorrow.

A few metres away at Frankston Station, Connex, itself on its last day as Melbourne's train operator, serendipitously and apparently unknowingly saluted the 769's end. For, waiting at Platform 1, was a consist containg carriage number M769. This formed the next city-bound train, which departed at 5:52pm. So at least two passengers made the connection between the final bus route 769 and carriage M769.

What was 769's significance? Introduced at a time when very few Melbourne buses ran on Sundays, it demonstrated a demand existed for Sunday travel. Even though it only ran every two hours it showed that if a service is there people will use it. It may not be too much to say that its success paved the way for later more significant Sunday bus service improvements. However in 2009 the route had served its purpose and it was only fit that it was replaced by Sunday services on the regular routes in the area.

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.

Public transport to Melbourne's fringes

Public transport in Melbourne's fringe is an interesting blend of urban and rural practice, as regards mode, operator, method of traction, service levels and absence or presence of route numbering. Historical factors regarding the choice of mode, and later decisions regarding service improvement, largely determine the type of and level of service offered.

The following lists the types of services provided to fringe areas.

a. Suburban (electric) trains, currently operated by Connex.
b. Inter-urban (diesel) trains, operated by V/Line (Stony Point excepted).
c. Regional coaches (has a country destination and no suburban route number)
d. Suburban buses (MOTC minimum standard)
e. Suburban buses (limited days/hours)
f. Suburban buses (occasional service)

The above is a classification based on a mix of mode, traction method and service level. However if service level only is considered, they can be placed into two groups; 'high service' or 'low service'. High service routes run 7 days a week from morning to at least mid-evening (9pm). Service frequency is 60-90 minutes or better. 'Low service' routes run only 5 or 6 days per week and/or have restricted spans and service frequency.

The areas themselves are equally diverse. They can be established seperate cities in the line of Melbourne suburban encroachment, a string of settlements on a scenic highway towards the hills or coast or a subdivision that was empty fields until a few years ago. I have classified these as follows, noting that some areas fall under more than one group:

A. Regional cities. Self-contained centres established in the 1800s with their own suburbs, local government and local bus networks. Do not always regard themselves as being part of metroplitan Melbourne, although some of their residents commute to metropolitan area jobs. Most housing is at suburban-type densities. Examples: Sunbury, Rosebud, Mornington, Healesville.
B. Regional hamlets and villages. Long established settlements smaller than the above but with a distinctive rural or coastal flavour. Vary in size but comprise at least a general store, a primary school surrounded by a few streets of housing at suburban densities. Examples: Cockatoo, Emerald.
C. New outer suburb. Melbourne frontier areas that have been subdivided into suburban-sized lots for new housing. May be stand-alone development with no established centre (eg Doreen or Point Cook) or be an accretion to an existing long-established centre (eg Werribee, Mornington, Berwick or Hastings).
D. Semi-rural. Residents live on acreages (eg hobby farms) and often commute for work in Melbourne or the nearest large regional centre.
E. Rural. Predomiantly agricultural land uses with low housing densities. Residents work locally, often on their land or in the nearest town.

The remainder of this item will group into discuss the transport available at a selection of fringe locations, grouped by service levels available. Capital letters after each name describe the area while small letters describe the transport type (note the area descriptions are rough approximations only).

Relatively high service areas

Doreen (Cd): Leap-frog sprawl has been upgraded from 'limited service' to 'minimum standards' service in last few months.
Gembrook (Bd): Local route (695) has been upgraded to minimum standards.
Hastings (ACbd): Hastings has had its train removed and then reinstated. It is also served by buses that roughly follow the line and are more frequent (but slower) than the train.
Healesville (Ad): Like Mornington Healesville lost its train and has suburban-numbered buses provided as substitutes.
Hurstbridge (Ba): This is the least urbanised fringe area to retain a suburban train service. A suburban span at half standard frequency applies. Despite its distance from the CBD it remained in the 'middle suburban' Zone 2 when the three-zone fare system was in force.
Lara (Bbe): Effectively an outer suburb of Geelong, Lara is served by an extension of that city's bus system as well as regional trains.
Melton (ACbe): Served by regional trains and local buses.
Mornington (ACd): Previously served by infrequent trains, Mornington has had these replaced by buses in 1981. Frequency and span upgrades to these services give central Mornington the most frequent service (20 minutes) of any fringe area in Melbourne.
Pakenham (ACad): The longest Melbourne suburban line (although electrification prevously extended to Traralgon). Served by (approximately) every second daytime Dandenong line train and has recently had a boost to evening train services and local bus services.
Portsea (Bd): Has long had a seven-day service but service span and frequency has been improved since Route 788 was upgraded to 'minimum standards'. Parts remote from 788 receive a limited service from Route 787.
Rosebud (Ad): Has long had a seven-day service but service span and frequency has been improved since Route 788 was upgraded to 'minimum standards'. Parts remote from 788 receive a limited service from Route 787.
Sunbury (ACbd): Served by regional trains and local buses. Electrification plans announced but not all locals are happy.
Warburton (Bd): This area was previously rail-served but has had the service replaced by coach-style buses displaying a suburban route number (683).
Warrandyte (Bd): Served by a variety of metropolitan bus routes, some to 'minimum standards'.
Whittlesea (BCd): Served by minimum standards route.
Yan Yean (Dd): A semi-rural area passed over by the urban frontier, which is now further north at Doreen. Upgraded to 'minimum standards' service in last few months. Yarra Junction (Bd): This area was previously rail-served but has had the service replaced by coach-style buses displaying a suburban route number (683).
Yarrambat (BDd): Semi-rural area passed over by the urban frontier, which is now further north at Doreen. Served by two 'minimum standards' routes.

Relatively low service areas

Belgrave Heights (De): Route 697 limited service.
Clyde (Bcf): Receives service from a mix of suburban and regional routes.
Flinders (BF): Occasional service.
Humevale (BDe): Occasional service.
Kinglake (BDf): Once-daily service.
Koo-Wee-Rup (Bc): Served by country coaches only. However these have recently been upgraded and offer services that connect to a wide range of destinations during the day.
Manor Lakes (Ce): An outer part of Wyndham Vale. Fast-growing new housing area. Suburban housing densities.

Melbourne Airport (e): Limited service on regular services.
Pearcedale (BDf): A small settlement between Frankston and Cranbourne. Low density of housing.
Point Cook (Ce): A large area of new suburbia. Served by metropolitan buses (413, 416) operating at suburban-type frequencies but with limited days/hours.

Red Hill (BD): No service.
St Andrews (BD): No service.
Tarneit (Ce): A large area of new suburbia. Served by metropolitan buses operating at suburban-type frequencies but with limited days/hours.

Warneet (Bf): A small coastal settlement. Limited services (route 795) operate from Cranbourne.
Werribee South (BEe): A small coastal settlement remote from Werribee proper. Bus route (439) also served market garden area.
Wonga Park (De): Semi-rural acreages. Limited service.
Yarra Glen (BDf): Occasional service.

Conclusions

What are some patterns in the above list?

The first is that some relatively rural areas more than 50 km from Melbourne have quite high levels of service. Often these are ex-rail areas like Healesville, Yarra Junction and Mornington where the substitute coach provided runs more frequently than the train ever did. The 2006 regional rail timetable upgrades and the Meeting Our Transport Challenges 'minimum standards' program (for metropolitan buses) both boosted spans and frequencies in many of the better served areas listed above.

While I have not done any interstate comparisons, Melbourne appears to compare well with other cities like Perth that have very little urban fringe transport (Pinjarra, Serpentine, the Swan Valley and Mundaring for instance have limited or no service, and the twice-daily 'Australind' to Bunbury compares poorly with any of our RFR lines).

Some of the low service areas aren't very populated, so are unlikely to be a high priority for service improvements. However some might merit occasional services of the type provided under the 'Transport Connections Program' to rural areas.

Then there are the low service areas that already have high (and fast-growing) populations at suburban densities. Suburbs like Point Cook, Tarneit and Manor Lakes made it into the low service list as they are awaiting minimum standards upgrades, having been passed over in favour of other areas in the initial rounds. All of the latter (plus other low-service areas, eg around St Albans, Endeavour Hills, Frankston, Narre Warren and even Kensington Banks) are currently the subject of bus service reviews and may see improvement if likely review recommendations are implemented.

Our Top 50 Bus Routes - Part 3

The third and final part of this series is to show a frequency guide for major Melbourne bus routes and route corridors. Similar to the information in Part 2, it removes the graphs for a more concise format in route number order.

If the guide is too small to read, click for a larger version.

When accompanied by a multimode network map, information presented in this format can more easily communicate the areas easily reached by public transport. For combined routes it successfully condenses information that would otherwise require recourse to a number of timetables or a website journey planner. Hence the absence of combined service information can severely undersell the level of service actually provided.

Until very recently, what bus service planning there has been in Melbourne has been route or operator based (as opposed to suburb or network based). Where a single operator has been in charge of a corridor or area the distinction is not great. Examples where routes have been co-scheduled to provide an even headway include some 200-series National and MBL routes and some 700 and 800-series Grenda routes.

However where different operators run parallel routes (eg 216 and 456) we see wasteful service duplication, poor connectivity and low overall service (two buses arrive in a few minutes and then a long gap until the next bus). Frequency guides and maps like the above can identify these service deficits (and operational inefficiencies) and be a useful tool to optimise service.

Frequency comparison charts can also allow one to examine the allocation of resources between routes. In some cases these may be rational and meet demand or connectivity requirements. However in others they may identify an unmet need. As an example, one 15-minute weekday route runs every 120 minutes on Sundays while others run every 20 or 30 minutes. Are users of the lower service route really 4 or 6 times less likely to travel on a Sunday, or do the differences relate to historical accident and have no good reason today?

Then there are the routes that offer consistenty high service, sometimes exceeding SmartBus (particuarly on weekends and Sunday evenings). These are mainly ex-Met routes, though they include some newer train and tram link services as well. From a marketing and passenger information standpoint, should they be treated the same as a standard 'hourly to 9pm' local service, or do they deserve to have their superior service levels emphasised and promoted through maps and the like?

Our Top 50 Bus Routes - Part 2

Part 1 compared bus service levels by number of services per day. Such statistics are essential for scheduling and rostering purposes but have little meaning for the passenger. They are, in bureaucratic jargon, an 'output'.

Maximum waiting times, or service frequency, is far more useful for passengers. These are shown for each day of the week underneath the graphs in tables below:

Both the graphs and frequency tables allow some interesting comparisons.

The university-oriented feeder routes (401, 630 and 703) tended to have low ratios of weekend running. This is caused by the frequent weekday service and no or local-style weekend schedules. Fairly low weekend ratios are also found on outer eastern routes like 789/790/791 and the 888/889 SmartBus. Weekend services are particularly limited in the Manningham area, where service is concentrated on weekday commuters.

Trams are generally more frequent than trains, with the greatest differences during off-peak, evenings and weekends. This explains why the Knox Transit Link 732 (which connects to Tram 75) has a higher weekend service ratio than 571 and 896, which both feed trains.

Routes where weekend service levels are most similar to weekdays include 781/4/5 (where the basic combined frequency is 20 minutes 7 days a week) and 223, where only the Sunday timetable is significantly less.

Weekend services are important for some people but not for others. Good 7-day service makes the choice to live without a car more practical for more people, increasing loyalty and patronage. As an example, a change from 12 to 9 services per hour during a peak period would probably not dramatically change patronage (unless capacity limited) but the same change (from 4 to 1 trips per hour) on a weekend will likely influence a decision to drive. In other words, if you did not wish to buy a car, one would prefer a continually frequent route like Route 223 to one that offered a more 'peaky' service (even if more buses ran per week).

Another interesting pattern is the difference between Saturday and Sunday service frequency. Again this varies from small to great. Small differences are common with previously low-service routes where timetables were upgraded to a flat hourly frequency for each route for both days. Examples include the constituent routes of 781/784/785 and 832/833.

Large Sunday to Saturday ratios have two causes – either very low Sunday service levels or unusually high Saturday service levels that depress the Sunday ratio. An example of the former is 201/202/302, which has a sparse Sunday service compared to similarly ranked routes (refer 11-20 graph).

The author has observed that Sunday trading in the older northern and western suburban shopping strips is less prevalent than in the inner southern, eastern and bayside suburbs. Coversely the 'Saturday morning rush' tradition has probably also prevailed longer in the non-Sunday areas (in contrast Saturday afternoons are busier at 'destination' shopping malls).

Either it is demand driven by such patronage or a historical accident, but it remains true that Saturday daytime bus frequencies in the type of northern and western suburbs mentioned above approach weekday services and even trump SmartBus service levels. In all these areas Sunday buses were almost unknown until 2 or 3 years ago, when most routes got an approximately hourly service.

Examples of local routes that have a comparatively intensive Saturday service include 216/219, 220, 223, 406, 465, 467, 552 and 781/784/785. And to possibly confirm the above, all but one are in the northern or western suburbs.

Part 3 will present the frequency tables above in a different order and conclude with the benefits that combined frequency information can provide to both passengers and planners.

Our Top 50 Bus Routes - Part 1

Which are Melbourne's very highest service bus routes or route 'families'? Many would rattle off some SmartBus routes, but with one exception this isn't quite right. For there is a cluster of local bus routes that, through history and continued patronage, offer almost tram-like service levels seven days per week.

Service levels can be measured in several ways, including counting the number of services run per day or week or examining timetables for service frequencies. In this part I did the former, and the result appears below.

The first graph shows the number of services run per week for the 50 most frequent bus routes in Melbourne. In this and other graphs the total number of services is documented, even though some might be short workings and not serve all stops. I have also grouped routes where they form a 'frequent service corridor'. Others may use different groupings of related routes, so rankings of service levels may vary slightly. Click the graph to enlarge if required.

The SmartBuses are circled in orange. Blue and green circled routes are special services that connect with trains and trams respectively.

Route 732, the Knox Transit Link, has more services than any other bus route. An intensive service is provided on the portion between Vermont South and Knox City; the rest of the route offers a standard local-type service. Its high frequency is because it connects with every tram and trams run more often than either trains or buses.

Second is Route 401. This runs five days a week over a limited (daytime) span. However its 3-6 minute frequency is enough to give it its large number of services per week.

Third is a cluster of related routes towards Manningham. Fourth is the first SmartBus - the new 903. 903 (and other routes included like 703 and 732) have many short workings. All have been counted, so actual service levels along a particular section of route may be less than stated here.

The number of services running each day of the week is shown below. Large variations, both between weekdays and weekends and between Saturdays and Sundays are visible.

Part 2 will include further graphs and compare service frequencies, which is more useful for both passengers and transit marketers.

What should we do about the 703?

Human Transit has done it again. Written a post that sparks one here. Jarrett Walker's post discusses transport service projects that expand yet dilute, potentially undermining their rationale and key selling point.

Here in Melbourne the opposite has happened with SmartBus. As its network spread the basic service level offered improved. All of the recently introduced SmartBus routes have better services than the initial pilot routes (703 and 888/889).

Route 902, the Green Orbital, will take care of the 888/889 when it starts next year. However nothing has been said about the future of Route 703, the other SmartBus pilot.

Route 703's key trip generator is Monash University Clayton, which it links to numerous Zone 2 trains and buses. It also has other transport interchanges and trip generators at Brighton, Bentleigh, Clayton, Sydndal, Forest Hill Chase and Blackburn.

A 15-minute service provides a SmartBus frequency on weekdays. Saturday buses run a 30 minute headway. The Sunday frequency is 45 minutes, with the Brighton end of the route receiving no service. Evening service mostly ends before the 9pm 'minimum standards' finish for local routes. The main exception is the eastern portion of the route, which sees hourly buses until about 11pm on weeknights.

A Sunday schedule runs on all public holidays. This is different to the new local route and SmartBus standard, which prescribes a Saturday holiday timetable except for Good Friday and Christmas Day. Partially balancing this are some extra services run on those public holidays that are university teaching days.

Hence Route 703's service level is best described as a hybrid between a regular bus and a full SmartBus route. Its weekday frequency equals or beats all metropolitan local routes bar two. The 11pm service on part of the route is almost as rare. On the debit side its weekend span and holiday arrangements do not meet local bus service standards, let alone SmartBus standards. Having said that, its 30 or 45 minute weekend frequency is roughly similar to the better local routes and the other pilot SmartBus (888/889).

How does one explain 703's 'limbo' status to the general public?

The answer is 'with great difficulty', especially when trying to market other SmartBus routes.

I can see three options for Route 703, as follows:

(a) Upgrade service to full SmartBus standards, though it doesn't fit in with any proposed orbital
(b) Keep its current timetable (or a slightly improved one meeting 'minimum standards'). Remove reference to SmartBus, instead treating it as a strong local route with a good weekday service
(c) Do nothing

(a) is obviously ideal. It would require additional funding, but is probably justified by its patronage. Maybe the university could chip in, given its revenue from international students (a key passenger group) and the opportunity cost of providing parking?

(b) is cheaper, incurring modest additional running costs for slightly improved spans (2 hours extra per week, plus public holidays and full route running on Sundays). The SmartBus totems could remain, but the service might no longer be SmartBus branded.

(c) is perhaps the worst option, unless you think that keeping SmartBus branding would encourage (a) above to be implemented. But if this doesn't happen, letting 703 limp along as a 'quasi-SmartBus' with its sub local route weekend span devalues the standing, meaning and value of all other SmartBus routes, due to 703's lower service levels and the need to keep saying 'except 703' when selling SmartBus benefits.

If nothing is done 703 risks being left behind as SmartBuses' unloved parent; one of the routes that started it all and proved it worked, but upstaged by its 900, 901 and 903 offspring.

For the good of the SmartBus concept specifically, and the bus network generally, a decision of whether to nurture or end Route 703's SmartBus status would seem desirable, with the urgency increasing as the Green Orbital start approaches.

What is a 'connecting service'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

To recap, there are three levels of service connectivity.

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

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

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

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

The rediscovery of frequency

Varied improvements have ocurred to the suburban train network in the last eight years or so. Off the top of my head we have seen:

* Electrications to Sydenham and Craigieburn
* New trains
* Rebuilt Southern Cross and North Melbourne stations
* Frequent rebrandings but the restoration of stablility with Metlink signage
* Some grade seperations and duplication of track at Clifton Hill
* More premium stations and the introduction of host stations staffed during the morning peak
* More use of six-car train sets during off-peak periods
* SMS and website alerts for cancelled trains
* Fare reforms including abolition of Zone 3, more flexible 10x2 hour tickets and cheap weekend tickets
* Later finishing on Friday and Saturday
* Industrial peace; apart from a period about 4-6 months ago, service disruptions are now invariably due to other reasons

All have been worthwhile. There is however one matter that's been off the agenda; that of an improved basic service frequency. More peak trains run now compared to 2001, and these have been needed due to crowding. However you'd have to go back almost 10 years (when patronage was just over half of today's) to find a case where basic off-peak frequencies increased on any line.

That occasion was in July 1999 when after 10am Sunday train and tram daytime frequencies were increased to match Saturday's. Instead of people having to wait 30 or 40 minutes for a train the improved timetable cut this to 20 minutes. The following year M>Train boosted Sunday evening service on its half of the network from 40 to 30 minutes, again simlar to the Saturday times.

From then metropolitan train frequency improvements fell out of fashion and none ocurred for eight years. Instead policy emphasis shifted to regional rail (the main benefit of which ended up being improved frequency), the new Southern Cross Station, refranchising and a replacement for the Metcard ticketing system.

Desirable though these projects were, they did not greatly benefit the lot of the average metropolitan passenger who rode a system groaning from planned, ocurring but unbudgeted for patronage increases. This and some high-profile service disruptions revived interest in infrastructure, maintenance, scheduling and service levels. Frequency's central role in the usefulness and attractiveness of the train network is also being rediscovered.

The first advance was in the November 9, 2008 train timetables where three lines got basic frequency upgrades. Evening trains beyond Dandenong to Pakenham and Cranbourne were boosted from every 60 minutes to every 30 minutes. Now only semi-rural Hurstbridge has the 60 minute frequency on Monday to Saturday evenings. The next lowest train frequency is 40 minutes, in force on about half the network on Sunday mornings and evenings, and effective most times beyond Eltham. The other change was between the City and Ringwood, where the weekday train frequency were improved to 15 minutes until 10pm.

The next general service improvement, planned to start on July 20, 2009 was announced yesterday. The most important is a weekday frequency improvement for the Werribee line. Interpeak service levels will increase from three trains per hour to six trains per hour, making it the most frequently running suburban line. Every second train will use the express tracks via Paisley and run direct to and from Flinders Street.

With a relatively low population along the line and the lack of any mid-line trip generators, the Werribee line has lower interpeak patronage potential compared to busier lines like Sydenham, Craigieburn, Belgrave/Lilydale and Pakenham/Cranbourne. The first two get have only a 20 minute off-peak weekday frequency. Increasing these to 10 or 15 minutes would have been welcomed and may have won greater use than boosting Werribee.

Nevertheless improving Werribee's service still has large benefits, even though for the time being their weekday passengers will get a baffling mix of direct and loop running. Also there are at least three reasons why it's a good idea. The first is Werribee's population growth, which should guarantee higher than average patronage increase. The second is that the additional services cut journey times to the city as they run express (not via Altona) and operate direct to Flinders Street. 39 minutes travel time to the city is faster than that enjoyed by any other suburb 30 kilometres from the CBD. Third, and most exciting, is the future prospect of the Werribee service being through-routed to another line, eg Frankston. A 10 minute through service on such a combined line could give us a useful metro-style Footscray - Caulfield link years before the proposed tunnel is built. It should also relieve pressure on the City Loop and aid east-west suburban travel.

Another sign of the importance of frequency has come from the operator itself. In today's Age Connex advocates trains every 10 minutes during working hours to provide a 'turn up and go' service. This is unlikely to happen without government support. But it's surely a good sign that the operator knows frequency's importance and will get the opportunity to test it in less than two months' time.