New Route 601 commences service

Today marked the commencement of Route 601 - Melbourne's second high frequency university shuttle service. The service operates between Huntingdale Railway Station and Monash University Clayton.

While it parallels other routes (630, 630A & 900) along this busy corridor, 601 is a little different in that it is an express service that accepts prepurchased tickets only. Its 4 minute frequency is maintained until approximately 7pm, after which it drops to 12 minutes for the next couple of hours. It's one of Melbourne's shortest bus routes, with 4 - 7 minute transit times being observed.

Monash University is about 20km east of Melbourne, built on the (then) urban fringe between railway corridors in the 1960s. The campus was built around the car, with considerable space devoted to parking. The campus and surrounding business parks have grown rapidly, and the Monash precinct is one of Melbourne's key employment areas.

The campus has its own bus interchange and generates substantial patronage, most conspicuously seen in the corridor towards Huntingdale Station. It is overcrowding in this corridor that Route 601, with its four minute frequency, was set up to address.

Below are some pictures taken during the first morning's operation:

Poster advertising the new route at Huntingdale Station

The first service - 7am Huntingdale Station

Rear of first bus at Huntingdale

Bus about to depart Monash University Clayton

Service information at Monash University

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.

Are you a hankerer or a modernist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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