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

The high cost of bad design: Glen Waverley Station and buses

A trip last night on the Springvale Road portion of the Route 902 orbital provided some lessons on good and bad transport interchange design.

The good example is Nunawading, in Melbourne’s east. The rail was sunk (to remove a level crossing) and a new station built a couple of years ago.

The bad example is Glen Waverley, which was last redeveloped in the 1960s. This was lauded as a good example of a shopping centre / railway station development in the Victorian Railways staff magazine of the time. However, looking back, it serves as an example of what not to do.

Nunawading

What’s good about Nunawading? The station has exits directly on Sprinvale Road. The bus stop for the station is just another stop. The bus does not leave Springvale Rd. Passengers on it are not delayed. Hence it efficiently serves both passengers transferring from train and those making short local through trips, such as from Forest Hill to Doncaster Rd. Bus operating times are also reduced, making it possible to provide a direct, fast and frequent service for a given number of buses.

The ability to efficiently serve multiple trip types increases patronage and contributes to the success of the SmartBus orbitals. It also makes for a more versatile public transport network, better able to cater for the majority of trips that don’t involve CBD travel.

The old Nunawading

View Larger Map

Glen Waverley

About 30 minutes south of Nunawading is Glen Waverley. Unlike Nunawading, this is a rail terminus (though some would like it extended to Rowville, possibly via a tunnel). Most important for this discussion is the distance of Glen Waverley station from Springvale Road.

The 1960s redevelopment placed a large car park between Springvale Road and the station, with the intention that this be used by commuters and shoppers. However in doing so it severed the station from its main potential north-south catchment for buses, bicycles and pedestrians – Springvale Road.

This short-sighted design meant that buses serving Glen Waverley Station must divert off Springvale Road, pull in to the bus interchange, and then rejoin Springvale Road. The requires passage through several sets of traffic lights, lengthening the journey.

Glen Waverley

View Larger Map

Comparison

How much is Glen Waverley’s delay compared to Nunawading? Comparing Route 902 travel times between stops immediately before and after each station provides an indication.

Southbound trips between the stop at Tunstall Av (before Nunawading Station) and West St (after Nunwading station) take about 3 minutes. This is about 1km distance and includes crossing the very busy Whitehorse Road.

Southbound trips between Landridge St (before Glen Waverley Station) and Ingram Av (after Glen Waverley Station) take about 8 minutes. Again this is about 1km with a busy road crossing, so is comparable to the Nunawading example.

For a 1km trip, the five minute time difference is quite stark. Having to leave and rejoin Springvale Rd slows the bus almost down to walking pace for the better part of ten minutes around Glen Waverley. This makes it unattractive for local trips not involving the station. Whereas Nunawading’s arrangement imposes no such delay.

Cost implications

As well as wasting passengers’ time, the operational cost imposed by inefficient off-road interchanges such as Glen Waverley’s is considerable.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate substantial increases to bus running costs, which would be better spent on improving service. That’s even with a five minute delay, which would likely be higher during peak times. And the better the bus service, the higher the cost.

Route 902 has about 70 trips each weekday in each direction via Glen Waverley. A five minute penalty for each trip costs 700 bus minutes or over 11 bus hours per weekday. If a bus costs $100 per hour to run, the daily cost of the delay (not counting foregone ticket revenue from lost patronage) would be over $1000 per day, about $7000 per week or over $365 000 per year.

When multipled by the longevity of the project, the overall cost reaches into the millions. This does not include the effect on other bus routes. Nor the amount required to remedy, for instance to construct a redesigned railhead featuring a station fronting Springvale Rd along which buses would remain.

I think the main lesson from Glen Waverley is that some projects can seem a good idea at the time but impose high future costs and hobble future network development for generations.

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

Today was the first day of a revised Epping line timetable and the use of rebuilt stations at Epping and Thomastown. The work is an important milestone in the extension of rail services to South Morang.

Both stations were substantially complete. Only landscaping and passenger information displays needed to be completed at Epping. Thomastown was slightly less advanced, requiring completion of a small section of roofing and the bus interchange.

The photos below were taken around 7am – just as the morning peak was building up. What the photos don't capture was the somewhat festive atmosphere - plenty of staff were handing out free coffee, 'showbags', brochures, and timetables.

Epping

Thomastown

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

Taj Mahals or stopping points – the role of suburban stations

Though victimisation rates indicate otherwise, there is a widespread perception that people feel most safe in their own homes, somewhat safer on the street and less safe at railway stations (especially at night). If the latter holds back patronage, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Passengers frequently call for staffing, toilets and better waiting areas at stations.

And train operators face multi-million dollar annual bills to fix vandalism and clean graffiti at stations.

A way to approach these issues is to reappraise the relationship between stations and their surrounds. Relationships can be human (eg through station staff and/or ‘friends of’ station groups) or physical. Today I will discuss only the latter, since most Melbourne stations are neither staffed nor adopted by a friends group.

Go back 60 to 90 years and stations were hives of local activity. Every significant Victorian town or suburb had one. Visitors, goods and news often arrived there. Trains’ modal share was higher then than now. And there were more staff – including signallers, guards, maintenance, porters, clerks etc. Not suprisingly station facilities had to be large enough to accommodate all this activity.

While lengthening commutes and more recent patronage rises has grown the railway’s absolute contribution to the transport effort (as measured in passenger kilometres) their role has narrowed relative to that of cars and trucks. Railways in Victoria are now almost exclusively passenger concerns. And in Melbourne this is heavily skewed towards CBD area commuting, which while substantial, accounts for a minority of work trips. (Whereas trams tend to be used for diverse purposes throughout the day and local buses have a large ‘captive ridership’ role).

The only interaction that many who drive to work in the suburbs have with the railways is waiting at boom gates or hearing news reports about rail crime. The latter may give rise to perceptions that stations are unfamiliar, hostile, and unsafe, unused by ‘people like us’. This is reflected in personal safety concerns on trains and at stations, particularly at night.

How can one ‘lift the veil’ and improve perceived station safety to be no worse than any other public place? And what about other passenger concerns like toilets, staffing, information or nicer waiting areas?

Some of the best bus and tram stops comprise a simple seat under a shop verandah. They are of the street, not separate to it. Access time to local facilities (including retail ticket outlets) is measured in seconds, reducing travel times and the chance of getting rained on. Public toilets may be nearby. And no one complains about their lack of staffing.

In contrast some other types of stops, like mid-road tram safety zones, have no shelter and require passengers to cross a road. Bus interchanges may be off the main street and have limited facilities. Railway stations, especially if ringed by parking, billboards or (now) over-sized buildings may be similarly cut off.

Could the railways’ quieter stations take their cue from bus and light rail (eg Route 109’s Port Melbourne terminus)? Is there scope to give up the concept of ‘station as place’ in return for more open platforms integrated with surrounding preferably active streets (which may be seen as safer than an unattended station)?

Station - streetscape integration may require knocking down walls, removing unused buildings, taking down dividing billboards and access that puts passengers before cars. More open layouts make stations less of a mystery to non (but potential) users, and less forbidding at night. But it’s not one size fits all as vacant station buildings could be offered to community groups instead (as sometimes already done). In both cases, the community, accustomed to seeing stations as eyesores or magnets to crime, might then start to take a more charitable view. Even at the same station the differences can be marked; Mentone’s Platform 1 integrates well with the surrounding area while the Platform 2 side is shielded by billboards and parking.

If moved from the station’s fare paid area to the street outside, facilities like station toilets could serve both. Facing an active street rather than a railway could improve passive surveillance. It might be possible to involve the local community more in their siting and management, with the proviso that any relocation remain convenient to train passengers. In quieter locations one toilet (open for more of the day) could replace two and any savings used to increase the number of stations with toilets nearby.

Information is another area where transit and community needs can be brought together. Precinct maps and wayfinding signage can promote local shops and attractions as well as directing arriving passengers to buses and surrounding streets. Urban design and arts projects can strengthen these ties, with the ideal being a natural intuitive flow with signage merely consulted for confirmation and cross roads only minimally impeding access.

Some of the above is more relevant to smaller stations, preferably with edge rather than island platforms. Busier stations with more lines will always remain places in themelves and justify their own facilities and staffing. However their interface with the surrounds remains extremely important to their success.

The photos interspersed above are two stations (Grange in Adelaide, Kellerberrin in regional WA). Though minimal they appear to serve the area’s needs and interface reasonably well with surrounds.

Station ramps vs lifts

ponderings from TransWA's wi-fi equipped MerredinLink train

Lifts Pros:

- Can be installed in confined horizontal space
- Lessen walking for the less mobile
- Due to their small footprint they are sheltered

Lifts Cons:

- Expensive to install
- Use power
- Can break down
- High repair costs/require specialised labour
- Limited capacity (ie low passengers moved per minute)
- Require a wait to use
- Confine users with strangers (which may make some uncomfortable)
- Not suitable for unstaffed stations

Ramps Pros:

- Cheap to install
- Don't use power
- 100% reliable
- Low maintenance costs
- High capacity
- No waiting to use
- Do not require confinement with strangers
- Suitable for unstaffed stations

Ramps Cons:

- Take up a lot of space if meet 1:14 DDA gradient standard
- Increase walking distance for able-bodied passengers (but can be mitigated if stairs also provided)
- If badly designed may reduce visibility/passive surveillance
- May not be sheltered

I think the ramps have it!

But it's not one size fits all. Where space issues preclude ramps (eg CBD stations), a combination of stairs (and/or escalators)and lifts looks to be the best of both worlds. But at stations where ramps are practical their low gradient does not adequately provide for able-bodied passengers, and either a steeper ramp or stairs is needed also.

Good, Bad and Interesting things about Adelaide Transport

Presenting a paper at this year's Australian Transport Research Forum in Adelaide has provide a chance to sample that city's public transport. Here's four good, four bad and four interesting points based on observation.

The good

Go Zones. Frequent service corridors covering most inner suburbs out to about 10km from the CBD. They are extensively advertised at stops, on timetables and at the Metro Shop.

Airport accesss on regular services. J1 and J2 provide a 15 minute service 7 days a week. Service spans are very wide, with service starting before 5am even on a Sunday morning. The profile of the service is quite high - airport staff recognise the numbers and the information desk is well stocked with timetables.

Rail electrification. Project includes several new and rebuilt stations, sighted on the Noralunga line.

Glenelg tram. New extension is well patronised. It also serves major trip generators including a university, convention centre and hospital under construction.

Bad

Pedestrian crossings. Imagine a journey where after a couple of minutes travel you stopped, were paused 2 minutes, could lurch forward a few hundred metres and stopped again. This is walking in Adelaide. Long traffic light cycles at CBD intersections reduce overall walking speeds to a crawl. In the suburbs islands and seperate signals (for each direction) at divided roads further slow transfer between train and bus. The Melbourne equivalent would be if every intersection had traffic light cycles like King Street.

Infrequent trains. Unlike Melbourne or Perth, where trains form the most frequent 'spine' of the network, train frequencies are often 30 to 60 minutes, making recourse to a timetable essential.

Low bus network legibility. It is difficult for the visitor to see the logic of the bus network. If you board a bus in a CBD street you cannot be assured it will continue straight along it. There is a large number of route numbers, with various letter and number prefixes and suffixes. Buses are significantly less legible than trams in Melbourne, but there are no inherent reasons for this to be the case.

Few maps on the network. Compounding limited legibility is that while many bus stops have times, few have maps of either the route or network. The only place where there's a city-wide network map appears to be inside the Metro Shop. Go Zone network maps are similarly available on the web but not at the point of need on the system. Maps of individual routes don't seem to be nearly as common as (say) Melbourne.

Interesting

Ticket purchase on trains. Instead of at machines at stations.

Can see to the front on trains. Most systems' trains only allow passengers to see out the sides of a train. With at least some of Adelaides you can also see out the front. This gives a quite different view of the network.

Single zone tickets. The liability is a high minimum fare, though there is a cheaper short-distance ticket. The advantage is simplicity. The ratio between single and daily ticket is not dissimilar to Melbourne, making a daily tickets a good choice.

Stops are numbered. The acid test of a public transport system's legibility is whether people can find themselves to a destination at night. Large numbers on stops are viewable from the bus, so can help if trying to ascertain where you are (printed timetables refer to these numbers against timepoints). On the flip side timetables are not stop specific - they are instead full timetables where the passenger must estimate arrival times for themselves.

Arrival variability and connection success

Connectivity is the biggest determinant of public transport travel time for most trips involving a transfer. It can make all the difference between an efficient journey that’s only twice as slow as driving and one that takes three or four times as long. Missed connections also add a variability to public transport travel time that is absent from most suburban walking, cycling or driving trips. Strengthening connectivity is one of the cheapest and best ways to improve public transport.

Train arrival and departure times are logged at railway signal boxes and switched in panels at stations. Arrival times at intermediate stations can be estimated from times recorded at the nearest signal box. Such data is key to planning connectivity based on actual rather than timetabled travel times, especially if recorded over several months or more.

A cumulative graph of train arrivals can show the proportion of trains that have arrived within a specified time relative to schedule. Punctuality varies by time of day so separate graphs could exist for each half hourly or hourly block at major stations on each line along with yearly or monthly summary graphs.

The punctuality curves below are estimates only. However we know that their basic shape is about right. Arrivals more than two minutes early are rare. The time at TT +5 for each line can be obtained from Track Record and compared to the 88% performance standard. And we know the other end tends towards 100% less cancellations (normally 1 – 2 per cent).

The blue line represents an above average performer (where 90% of trains arrive on time – say on the Burnley group) while the red is a below average line (where maybe 70% of trains arrive on time – eg the Caulfield group). Long-term data would provide more robust figures unaffected by individual incidents.

Implications for bus connectivity scheduling

There is always a trade-off between waiting times and robust connections when deciding how many minutes buses should be scheduled to leave after trains are scheduled to arrive. Effective service co-ordination tends to be hardest at stations where train reliability and bus frequency are both low – the exact circumstances that make it most important to try for.

The punctuality curves show the relationship between train reliability, the probability of a connection being successful and the connection time to allow. Such data, collected for each line, would be most useful to the bus service planner who is responsible for making the abovementioned trade-offs. It would quantify popular lore as to train reliability (the extremes of ‘always on time’ and ‘never on time’ are rarely correct) and provide a better basis for bus scheduling than published train timetables.

An 80% reliability (ie a missed train – bus connection one day per week for a commuter) requires the bus to depart at least three minutes after the train arrives on the more punctual blue line and perhaps seven minutes on the less punctual red line.

For 90% reliability (ie a missed connection once a fortnight) these allowances increase to five and ten minutes respectively. At 95% reliability (ie a monthly missed connection) buses need to leave at least seven and twelve minutes after the train arrives. For suburban trips, a twelve minute connection becomes significant relative to the total journey time and a disincentive to use buses, especially during inclement weather. It is also worse than the average wait for a bus operating every 20 minutes that has not been specially co-ordinated to meet trains.

Punctuality time variability

The graph illustrate the effect of train reliability on passengers catching buses. Low train punctuality probably hurts feeder bus patronage more than train patronage due to the former’s typically lower frequencies and greater consequences of a missed connection. And where buses are scheduled to achieve more robust connections (such as aiming for 95% success) this must be paid for by longer bus waiting times most days (when trains are on or near time).

It’s a bit like insurance – pay a little now to save yourself future longer waits. The May 2011 train timetable changes that added extra running time to the underperforming Caulfield group appear to have lowered variability and probably improved connection reliability with buses.

Access time variability

Train delays aren’t the only reason for missed connections. The graphs above neglect the time to exit the station and reach the bus stop. Ideally this is under a minute where the bus stop is right at the station. Otherwise access time increases to five minutes or more where platform exits are poorly placed and/or busy roads or railways need to be crossed.

The variability of walking time is equally critical when scheduling connecting buses. High variability of access times can combine with train delays to increase overall variability and thus the difficulty of scheduling connecting buses. A greater range of possible arrival times at the bus stop either means that more connections are missed (for a given connection time allowance) or connection time needs to be lengthened (to achieve a target connection success rate). The latter lengthens waits at times when trains do arrive on time and walking conditions are favourable.

Busy unsignalised roads, roundabouts, level crossings, long-cycle traffic lights all have high access time variability. Variability for the first two is infinite, mitigated only by luck or the risk the pedestrian is willing to take.

Once traffic volumes pass a certain level, traffic lights are beneficial because they limit variability (determined by their cycle – typically 90 to 120 seconds). Traffic islands reduce variability on unsignalised roads, and may also do so on signalised roads, provided that walk cycles are sufficient to cross all lanes in both directions in the one go. No such conditions apply to simple zebra crossings, which as the highest and best form of pedestrian access, reduce access time variability to almost zero.

Active transfer management

So far I have assumed fixed train and bus timetables, with the latter’s departures timed to connect. On paper this approach would work perfectly. However in practice train delays and access impediments increase bus stop arrival time variability and reduce the success rate of scheduled connections. The remedy suggested, that of lengthening the interval between train arrivals and bus departures, improves connection reliability but slows travel on those days when trains are running to time.

One possible solution could be to schedule a tighter connection time (say 5 minutes instead of 12) but routinely hold buses if trains are delayed. This provides the fastest journey time for passengers changing from train to bus while reducing the number of missed connections.

For passengers coming off the train this is the best of both worlds. If holding buses avoids one or two ‘near misses’ per week (and their consequent 20 – 40 minute waits) the gains are large and definitely worthwhile. Note though that some bus routes intersect several train lines and holding may not be possible at all stations. Reference to train punctuality curves and surveyed passenger needs should assist bus planners decide which interchanges justify enforced connections.

One shortcoming of holding buses for trains is that it introduces variability for those bus passengers who did not come off the train. Those changing to other buses may also be affected. And holding buses for late trains reduces the efficiency and robustness of the bus network as timetables may need padding to lessen knock-on delays.

For these reasons there is a limit to the time that buses ought to wait for late trains. A holding time limit of five minutes might be reasonable for regular suburban buses; more for long-distance or less frequent routes. A longer holding time is also justifiable for the last departure for the night on each route.

The difference possible is dramatic. Even a five minute holding limit can more than halve the number of missed connections. Using the less punctual red line as an example, switching from a regularly scheduled four minute connection to a four minute connection with a five minute permissible hold time increases the proportion of successful connections from 60 to 85 per cent. Or in commuter terms, a reduction of broken connections from eight to three per month (measuring homebound trips only). Even higher gains would be possible if combined with other efforts that lessen arrival variability (eg improved train punctality and better pedestrian access).

Communication and staffing

Bus drivers will sometimes wait for running passengers from the station, thus informally achieving some of the above. But it’s a bit hit and miss. And at busy stations they may not be clear whether the train arriving is the late arrival they should be waiting for or another service. Therefore bus drivers need real-time train arrival information and a clear holding policy (which should also be well-communicated to passengers).

An even more refined method of ‘active transfer management’ for larger interchanges dominated by a single operator is to provide a despatcher (especially during afternoon peak times such as 3 to 8pm). They could be an experienced bus company employees equipped with a microphone to inform drivers and passengers of any delays and where buses need to be held. Use could also be made of web and phone applications to provide alerts to passengers still at work, on the train or waiting at stops away from the interchange.

While the staffing overheads for (say) twenty major interchanges would need to be considered the likely gains in improved travel times would probably be a greater overall passenger benefit than other possible staffing initiatives such as a similar number of tram conductors or more staffed stations.

Passenger communication on a fragile network

On a rail network prone to disruption due to track faults, signal failures, loss of power, train faults and level crossing accidents, communication with passengers is critical.

This morning's power failure between Frankston and Carrum stations (due to a truck running into a power pole) caused widespread service disruptions during the network's busiest period. It also sorely tested the capabilities of each communication system available.

Passengers at unattended stations (ie the majority) have the following facilities:

1.Automated PA announcements of next train

2.Manual PA announcements (from control station)

3.Green button

4.Red button (intended for emergencies)

5.SMS alerts (sent by train control)

The strengths and limitations of each will now be discussed

1.Automated PA announcements

These announcements are broadcast via horn speakers located on light poles along the platform. Volume varies and messages are sometimes inaudible at some points along the platform (even though it's desirable to spread passenges along it to speed boarding). This is especially the case during the morning peak at stations near busy highways where peak road traffic drowns out announcements. In contrast volume is well above ambient noise at night - even to the point where local residents complain. Of course these automated announcements presuppose trains are operating so are of limited usefulness when service is suspended (unless set to disruption mode at a control desk).

2.Manual PA announcements

Manual PA announcements can be the best means of communicating to passengers at remote unstaffed stations, especially when circumstances change at short notice. These use the same speakers as the automated announcements but are far more useful in the event of disruption. This effectiveness is enhanced because control desks are able to make these specific to a particular station or for a large section of line (most useful for large-scale disruptions as on Friday).

Like automated announcements, intelligibility may be low in noisy station environments (as was the case today). Different staff have different speaking voices and levels, further affecting clarity. Control desk staff are not studio technicians and have no access to level and tone adjustments – and even if they did there’s no staff at unstaffed stations to check. While not a panacea, audio compression may help as it reduces volume changes between different voices and thus improves readability.

Frequency of announcement is equally critical, especially during peak periods where hundreds of passengers per minute are entering stations along the line. Ideally these should be every two minutes. Operational circumstances vary and it is difficult to assure quality. However intervals of up to eight minutes between manual announcements are not acceptable, especially if not all are intelligible and other communication methods are not working.

3.Green button (or ‘PRIDE’)

This is the chief means of real-time information at stations without ‘next train’ visual displays. Passengers press the green button and hear next train announcements, including ‘minutes to’. This works most of the time, but, during disruptions the ‘minutes to’ announcement may be omitted. This is most important in helping passengers decide whether they should wait or seek other transport. The system may also sometimes ‘ring out’ and not provide any annoucement. This is understood to be most likely when too many passengers at too many stations are pressing the button at once (a particular risk at unstaffed stations that haven’t seen a train for a while).

4. Red button

This is intended for emergency use only and allows two-way contact with the nearest control station. However passengers sometimes press it, either accidentally, maliciously or to enquire about delayed or disrupted services when announcements have been infrequent or inaudible. Sometimes this reminds the control desk that another PA announcement is overdue and one is given soon after.

5. Text alerts

Mobile phone text alerts are the latest way of informing passengers of service disruptions. They originate from the CBD-based train control, ie a different source to local manual announcements. Passengers can customise required information to their line and travel times and information, if given sufficiently in advance, is provided before the passenger reaches the station. Alerts are often received after the time has passed for passengers to do anything about it - especially where trains are altered to bypass the City Loop or major disruptions cause high message volumes and slow sending. Increasingly important, as more get mobile internet, will be website alerts, again issued from Metrol.

Conclusion

Each information system has its strenghts and limitations. Performance, such as clarity, accuracy and timeliness, often suffers when it is most needed, ie during service disruptions. Substantial improvements in all methods are desirable but it would seem to me that the humble manual PA announcement made locally (or to a group of stations on a line) offers the greatest potential to be cheaply improved in both quality and quantity.

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.

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.

First weekday of new train timetable

Some of the sights from around the network, filmed yesterday.

What should a good CBD periphery transport system look like? Both Chris Loader/Charting Transport and Alan Davies/Melbourne Urbanist have picked up on the fact that as soon as you get beyond a City Loop railway station the modal share for public transport halves.

This blog takes the view that while there exist ardent revheads, greenies, transit geeks and the lycra set, the majority of the population are pragmatists in their transport choices. Especially for habitual and often time-critical trips such as the journey to work.

So why isn't transit so attractive when you get much outside the Hoddle grid?

A play with the Metlink journey planner gives some answers.

Let's compare comparative travel times between similar distance middle-suburban stations and various CBD fringe workplaces. For arrival at a start time of 8:30am, the following results were had:

Laverton - Melbourne Town Hall: 33 min
Laverton - Melbourne University (Parkville): 40 min
Laverton - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 49 min
Laverton - Alfred Hospital: 51 min
Laverton - South Melbourne Market: 45 min
Laverton - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 52 min
Laverton - Waterfront City (Docklands): 54 min

Greensborough - Melbourne Town Hall: 38 min
Greensborough - Melbourne University (Parkville): 60 min
Greensborough - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 42 min
Greensborough - Alfred Hospital: 60 min
Greensborough - South Melbourne Market: 61 min
Greensborough - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 65 min
Greensborough - Waterfront City (Docklands): 67 min

Mitcham - Melbourne Town Hall: 40 min
Mitcham - Melbourne University (Parkville): 50 min
Mitcham - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 43 min
Mitcham - Alfred Hospital: 47 min
Mitcham - South Melbourne Market: 52 min
Mitcham - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 50 min
Mitcham - Waterfront City (Docklands): 60 min

Cheltenham - Melbourne Town Hall: 32 min
Cheltenham - Melbourne University (Parkville): 50 min
Cheltenham - Epworth Hospital (Richmond): 43 min
Cheltenham - Alfred Hospital: 39 min
Cheltenham - South Melbourne Market: 53 min
Cheltenham - Citylink Business Park (Port Melbourne): 50 min
Cheltenham - Waterfront City (Docklands): 62 min

In every single case a trip to the CBD was faster than to a CBD fringe location.

This is even where the destination was on the same side of town as the origin (eg Cheltenham - Alfred Hospital). It could be for this type of trip that driving would be relatively more competitive than existing public transport services, and so command a higher modal share (people are pragmatic, remember). There may even be a self-reinforcing pattern; if people can't afford to buy a home in the inner suburbs near work they may choose an outer suburb on the same side of town as their work (if not always the same train line).

City fringe destinations vary in the amount of time they add compared to within Hoddle's grid.

Waterfront City is the least accessible by fast public transport - from any direction - despite its frequent trams. Compared to the CBD, travelling to it can add 20 to 30 minutes to travel time each way. For a commuter that's 40 to 60 minutes per day, or an extra week added to annual holidays. Not suprisingly its public transport modal share is just 22%, compared to double or triple that a little to the east.

Why are the variations in travel time so great?

We have an extensive suburban rail system that has metro-style operating hours but commuter-type frequencies on its fringes. We have trams, but unlike some compact European cities we don't have a dense metro in the job-dense 2-5km core (see maps by Neil Freeman) that allows for fast local travel. Instead for the 'last mile' we rely on slow surface modes, notably trams and buses, often without their own right of way.

Also the fixed rail we do have is planned and run as a suburban - CBD distributor rather than doubling as a (small) inner city metro that with its spare capacity could take pressure off trams for longer trips.

The City Loop's weekday noon reversal introduces unwelcome complexity, discourages casual travellers and prevents direct access between some city stations at certain times. Quite different from the consistency and legibility of a real metro.

For many years the possibility of getting a direct train from South Yarra to Footscray (for example) was scotched by the philosophy that everything should run via the Loop and the primacy of the CBD as a destination. The May 2011 timetable will introduce some welcome improvements for such cross-town trips, provided dwell times at CBD stations are kept down. Especially important as Flinders Street and Southern Cross are the nearest stations to Melbourne's fastest growing areas at Southbank and Docklands.

The May 2011 timetable will increase the number of trains that will run from Flinders Street through to Southern Cross. This ties in well with an important bus rerouting from last year, namely the restructuring of Port Melbourne routes (235/237/238) to operate via Southern Cross Station. This restored a rail-bus connection that vanished when the tram superstop in Flinders Street was built and buses were forced away from Flinders Street Station. Peak frequency of the Port Melbourne buses is high but further work would lift their legibility and profile.

Route 401, between North Melbourne and Mebourne University, is an example of a 'bridging the gap' frequent service that has become well accepted by those commuting from the western suburbs to Melbourne University. The trip plan above for Laverton include the 401 as its bus leg as it proved the fastest travel option. Other opportunities for 401-style service could include Melbourne University to Clifton Hill or South Yarra to Port Melbourne, although bus priority would assist in providing worthwhile savings in travel time and efficient vehicle utilisation.

It seems to me that the CBD fringe is an area ripe for future patronage growth. Unlike the CBD, where public transport modal share is near saturation, there is significant room here to grow. But this can only come about if it can get the pragmatists on board. To achieve it a fresh look at how the CBD fringe and the close job-rich inner suburbs can be better served may achieve some surprising patronage results, as demonstrated by the success of Route 401.

Trains to swap sides in bold rail-bus plan

A bold plan to close up to half the Frankston line's railway stations and swap the lines that trains use is said be the first priority of Melbourne's proposed public transport authority.

Instead of trains running on the left track towards the city, as they do now, they will run on the right track. Up to half the stations on the line could be closed, with buses providing a service from a nearby major station. The track reversal aligns train platforms and bus doors, allowing easy cross-platform transfer to these new train replacement services.

It is understood that the Frankston line has been chosen to trial the plan. It was selected due to its large number of quiet stations, the presence of parallel roads on both sides of the line in some places and the line's long journey times (just 35km/h under the proposed May 2011 train timetable).

A transport insider understood to be backing the plan said cutting the number of stations would reduce the number of Siemens train speed restrictions on the line, speed travel and improve reliability. Also attractive is that fewer stations means fewer protective services officers will be needed to staff all stations at night.

The faster trip could slash travel time between Frankston and the city to 40 minutes and save several trains during the off-peak which could go to provide a ten minute interpeak service to Dandenong.

Most infrastructure is already in place, with the main outstanding work required being to turn signals 180 degrees around to reflect the reverse line running. The project is being fast tracked for commencement on 1 April, 2012.

A look at Metro's May 2011 timetables

The fomerly arcane world of train timetabling has assumed greater profile in the last few years. Decades-old operating patterns, often a legacy of years of negative or slow passenger growth, have been challenged as patronage rebounded and reached record highs. The timetable has become key to how more passengers can be reliably carried on existing infrastructure. And, unlike the 2004 – 2008 period, where patronage growth outstripped service provision, the delivery of new trains is allowing significant weekday service growth for the first time in years.

The construction of rail infrastructure lagged roads in the early 2000s. Rail's pace picked up in the late 2000s, with even larger projects, such as the Regional Rail Link and Melbourne Metro, featuring in government transport plans. Though critical to how this infrastructure would be used and integration between modes, timetables and service planning had a much lower profile. The main exceptions were both outside metropolitan rail; the Regional Fast Rail service improvements and various bus service upgrades.

The highest-profile championing of the importance of timetables and service levels has come not from government, the Department of Transport nor any of its transport plans, but from Metro’s Andrew Lezala, who advocates a ten minute base train frequency and fewer stopping patterns. Higher frequency improves connectivity with other modes and encourages a spontaneous metro-style ‘turn up and go’ method of travel. Fewer stopping patterns increase legibility and reduce the complexity of trip planning; if a desired pattern runs every ten minutes instead of every thirty there’s no gain from trying other ways to get there. Also demand isn’t artificially peaked by a few infrequent super-express services, making loading more consistent and easier to manage.

It is towards this style of network that May’s timetables should be judged. In many respects it's an interim work. Weekday times only are changed, though some lines gain 6-car trains on weekends.

Some loose ends are tidied and Lezala's 'ten minute network' has spread to two lines, creating a cross-city group between Newport and Frankston. There is also a major boost to weeknight service on four lines, with their evening frequency aligning with trams but disaligning with SmartBus and trains on other lines.

In other areas new loose ends are created. Services from May are less legible, less clockface and less metronomic than our current timetable on a couple of lines. In some cases this may be a trade-off against a higher good on a nearby busier line. Or it may represent a partial implementation of a future bolder service concept.

Metro's Destination Better website explains and reveals the new timetables. It might be worth referring to these while you read the summary and commentary on the changes below.

(tables below derived from Metro material and examination of timtables - notes in blue represent service increases)

Northern group

The northern group, and especially the lines through Newport, have had the most radical change. The process of seperating Altona and Werribee trains has continued, with the former being swapped with Williamstowns to operate as a shuttle during the off-peak.

Williamstown trains now pair with Werribee trains to form an even ten minute service between Newport, Southern Cross Station and Flinders Street. These then continue to Frankston, creating a new 'cross-city' group that avoids the City Loop. Hence it will now be possible to board at Caulfield or South Yarra and have direct trains to Footscray and Newport every ten minutes without negotiating the intricacies of the Loop.

The most controversial aspect of the new timetable will be in the west.

Werribee's off-peak timetable will drop from 6 trains per hour (not evenly spaced) to 3 trains per hour (evenly spaced). This represents a frequency cut. Although it can also be said that the current timetable's higher frequency was largely wasted because the intervals between trains are uneven, there are no major mid-line trip generators to generate off-peak shopper patronage, and the alternating stopping patterns offered poor legibility and varying travel times.

As a trade-off however Werribee does receive significant peak and evening service increases. Express trains will increase from approximately every 20 minutes to every 10-12 minutes. And evening headways will shorten from 30 to 20 minutes until approximately 10pm.

Some controversy is likely to come from residents of Altona, and, to a lesser extent, Williamstown. Their even and metronomic 20 minute peak service frequency will be downgraded to the forgettable 22 minutes; stated to be the cost of delivering the boosted service to the busier Werribee, Hoppers Crossing and Laverton stations. On the bright side, Altonians should be able to get a seat on the trains that do run as they will start at Laverton and not be full of passengers from Werribee and Hoppers Crossing.

Off-peak travel from Altona to beyond Laverton and Newport will require a change of trains as the Altona service will be a shuttle between Newport and Laverton (swapped with Williamstown). In addition a trip to a loop station will require a further change at either Southern Cross or North Melbourne as off-peak trains will run direct. In the evenings Altona trains will continue to run from the city, and like other lines through Newport will have their frequency increased to 20 minutely until about 10pm.

Clifton Hill group

no change

Caulfield group

Most of the Caulfield group has its biggest changes during the afternoon peak period and evening.

Frankston's off-peak trains currently alternate between the City Loop and Flinders Street. The result is that the even 10 minute service until the city fringe is diluted by the variations in the city. The May timetable through-routes all off-peak trains to Werribee or Williamstown via Flinders Street, Southern Cross, North Melbourne, Footscray and Newport. This improves consistency and provides a new cross-city corridor with services every ten minutes. Something to watch is timekeeping; the Frankston line is Melbourne's least reliable and passengers in the west will be hoping that through-linking will not delay their services.

For many years the Burnley group has had a much wider peak service window than the Caulfield group, and particuarly the Frankston line. This blog had a comparison showing that while peak express services on the Burnley group ran for over three hours, peak hour according to Frankston line timetables was just that (5 to 6pm). The May timetable dramatically changes that - it has Frankston peak expresses running between 4 and 7pm, at approximately 20 minute intervals. This makes fuller use of the third track to Moorabbin, which before recent peak service improvements was poorly utilised.

The Cranbourne and Pakenham lines also receive timetable changes. Like Frankston the pm peak is extended. Also notable is the upgrade from a 30 to a 20 minute evening service frequency on both lines. This follows a previous upgrade that saw services beyond Dandenong improve from 60 to 30 minutes. A quirk is that weeknight trains will now run twice as frequently as weekend daytime trains.

Sandringham, which was the first, and for many years the only, line on the network to have 20 minute evening frequencies also gains from the May timetable. Here there's an increased peak frequency and a couple of early morning trains starting from Middle Brighton. Early evening service frequencies will also increase from 20 to 15 minutes.

Burnley group

This group, historically Melbourne's busiest and best serviced, will also have substantial timetable changes.

Most interesting is the post morning peak period. While its am expresses have always continued after those on the other lines have ceased, this new timetable extends them until noon. Belgrave and Lilydale off-peak trains will remain at 30 minute frequencies but will run express to the city. Trains from Blackburn will provide a 15 minute service to the quieter stations. This arrangement, to run until approximately noon, is unusual since it provides substantial express running outside peak periods and could be a test of a possible future expanded two-tier service.

Both Belgrave and Lilydale are long lines - not dissimilar to Frankston. However their approach to service planning in this timetable is very different. Whereas Frankston has a turn-up-and-go ten minute stopping all stations service, Belgrave and Lilydale will offer a timetable-critical 30 minute service with significant express running. In addition the non-major stations from Ringwood in will remain with a 15 minute service.

Hence these lines will offer an interesting contrast of high frequency/stop all stations versus low frequency/express running in outer suburbs (my personal prejudice favours the former because of the improvements to end-to-end travel speeds possible with better bus connections that higher train frequency facilitates).

Peak services on the Burnley group will also be shaken up. Alamein and Blackburn trains will run via the City Loop (instead of direct to Flinders St) in the morning. The latter provides consistency with the after-morning peak Blackburns. Glen Waverley am peaks will be removed from the loop, with transfer at Richmond suggested. However, as tends to be the pattern for other lines converted to more direct running, their passengers have been rewarded with some frequency increases.

Conclusion

The new timetable will increase the number of services on three of the (current) four railway groups. More passengers are likely to gain than lose. The most memorable innovations introduced are likely to be the cross-city through-routing, the expansion of the ten minute network and the boost to early evening services (which partially restores some of the 1978 service cuts, made when patronage was half today's and still falling).

More Aural timetables: analysing individual route connections

It's been a busy week in Melbourne transport; trains off the rails at sidings, disruptions due to power glitches, new fares and major events in the city this weekend. Nevertheless I'm still doing the timetable beat thing, and here's the latest.

Earlier experiments emphasised headway harmonised networks. If the network was frequency harmonised it would produced a nice rhythm, repeating in as little time as possible. An unharmonised network would sound more random, with no dominant rhythm, or a longer rhythm with the same connections only repeating every couple of hours.

Harmonised headways is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good connectivity. A bus matching a 20 minute rail service isn't good if it departs as the train is pulling in.

What is really important is the waiting periods between when the train arrives and the bus departs. Too short and it means a missed connection, especially if the train is running late. Too long and the bus is no faster than walking.

This part quietens down the pulse (but it's still there if you listen hard) and emphasises the waiting periods. It does this by applying a tone for the duration of the wait (again 60 min = 1 second, 6 min = 0.1 second).

Because the human hear is more sensitive to pitch than duration, I also used different pitches. I went for three pitches only (low, middle and shrill) to aid recognition. A low pitch is a long wait (>15 min), a medium pitch a medium wait (5-15 min) and a shrill pitch is a short wait (<5 min) which also risks being a missed connection if the train is late. I'd have liked to differentiate between a near-ideal 6 min connection from a longish 14 min connection, but that would have meant another tone which slows recognition. So I stuck with three. Music afficiondos will hear that I've used notes - something I intend to keep doing with future aural timetables.

At the end I've got a comparison between the harmonisation possible between 20 min/38 min frequencies and 20 min/40 min frequencies. The tonal difference is quite stark. Even though it's a slighly lesser frequency, a well-timed 40 min service can provide predictable connectivity is scheduled carefully, whereas a 38 min service has a plethora of good, bad and just missed connections, happening at seemingly random intervals.

There haven't been many comments on this, so whether you think aural timetable have potential or are just a useless curiousity, they'd all be welcome here.