They mean well, but...

Today's Herald Sun has an article about a personal safety campaign targeted at international students travelling at night on public transport. Possibly a response to student safety concerns, it is supported by major universities (and other bodies) in Sydney and Melbourne. Transport departments, industry bodies or operators appear not to be involved.

Campaigns such as Think before you travel must be designed very carefully or they can do more harm than good. It's a fine line between encouraging modified behaviour (which may lower an individual's risk) and fuelling the perception that 'public transport is unsafe'.

If too many take the latter to heart, it becomes a self-fulfilling spiral - even fewer travel, the perception of safety declines further, causing even fewer to travel until a point is reached that only trouble-makers and the desperate are travelling.

Unfortunately I believe that elements of 'Think before you travel' do risk being counter-productive.

My first worry is the name of the campaign - 'Think before you travel'. Though milder than 'Think whether to travel', there is still a message that people should voluntarily restrict their liberty and not travel (as it's a big bad world out there). Or if they do travel, drive instead of take public transport (given ads and tips focus on or near public transport, as if that's the only place where bad things happen).

In contrast, a 'Think when you travel' message, although it's a change of just one word, would be more positive, not discourage transit use and support freedom to travel as a right in a civilised society. Any such campaign should also cover driving as well as public transport to fairly reflect risk.

The point about liberty is important, especially for people from societies less free than ours. Travelling alone is not a crime. People should not be chided as being somehow reckless or irresponsible for doing so. And accounts of assaults should not blame the victim for exercising this right.

The idea that people should restrict their freedom, though apparently desirable for safety, is an acquiescence to tyranny, or the fear of it (albeit committed by criminals rather than governments). We should not accept this as satisfactory; it diminishes us all if the exercise of a significant freedom is discouraged as part of a (well-meaning) taxpayer-funded campaign.

This is particularly if campaigns discourage the exercise of liberty that is socially beneficial, which I will explain below.

There are some liberties that we accept even if (inappropriately exercised) the consequences to others range from discomfort (eg clipping nails in public) to mild harm (eg passive smoking out of doors). People are legally free to do these sorts of things but there is reliance on civil society concepts of consideration to minimise detriment to others. A polity that seeks to prohibit everything runs out of police and prisons to enforce all infractions.

However there is also a virtuous group of liberties which if exercised by one person improve things for everyone else. Walking and travelling on public transport at night is one such example due to 'safety in numbers'. Campaigns that even only slightly lessen the propensity for people to exercise such 'virtuous liberties' are counter-productive and ought not run.

A couple of the safety tips are doubtful or don't apply in all areas. One display a wariness about public transport interchanges. For example: "Avoid long waits on platforms and around Public Transport hubs. If you do have a long wait stay in well lit areas or near open shops." In Melbourne a railway station large enough to be called 'a public transport hub' will be a premium stations, with a staff presence and often enclosed waiting areas. Some car parks aren't the most savoury of places either, and I'm not sure that hanging around an open liquor store or hotel car park is necessarily safer than a station platform.

The suggestion about the guards compartment does not apply nation-wide. And that such warnings apply 'outside of peak times' as well as at night seem over-cautious. Besides being impractical if everyone did it given the good patronage of many off-peak trains in Melbourne. These points underlie the hazards of trying to apply a Sydney campaign to other cities without making changes for local conditions.

The clip ends with a message 'Are you feeling lucky - think before you travel'. Which again conveys the perception of risk or travel being a safety lottery.

The best way to increase safety on public transport is to encourage more people to use it. This means making it more attractive for people to use. For example reduced waits through frequency and co-ordination, better urban design, staffing and so forth. Carriages should be numbered inside for easier identification by people dialling 000. While a role exists in passenger education, it is extremely important that it encourages rather than discourages patronage, as may be the risk with aspects of this campaign.

Real-time information: need for, reliability and management

Real-time information has been a growth area for Melbourne’s trains, trams and major bus routes. Although less important than the service basics of coverage, span and frequency, it is still appreciated by passengers.

Available and accurate real-time information can mitigate the effects of service disruptions, particuarly on the rail network. Some passengers may choose to change or defer their trip, reducing loadings on scarce train replacement buses. And where services are delayed, reliable information allows passengers to make better use of their time, especially if the station or stop is near a shopping area. Advising of services just ahead eases crowding by spreading loadings across several trains (especially if just after a cancellation) or improving the efficiency of transfers at major stations. Hence good real-time information potentially offers substantial operational and customer service benefits.

Real-time information can vary from manual staff announcements to automated position reporting systems that transmit their data to information displays on station platforms or mobile phones. As staff rely heavily on automated systems, this item will concentrate on these.

Printed timetables are simple and reliable

Need

The need for real-time information varies across the network. I believe there are three factors (reliability, urgency and trust) that determine whether real-time information is justified or not.

Consider a suburban bus route that caters mainly for local shoppers. Passengers may not need to connect with another service or be particularly time-sensitive. Buses are almost always on time and cancellations are rare. Printed timetables fairly reflect actual times and are trusted by passengers. Low urgency, high reliability and high trust make real-time displays a frill rather than a necessity, and in any case the per passenger cost is high if installed at quiet stops.

Suburban railways are quite different. More passengers are time-sensitive, expecially those who need to change to a bus or have fixed work times. Even a ten minute train delay can increase end-to-end travel time by 30 or 40 minutes if a bus is missed.

Even allowing for measurement changes, rail delays approximately trebled since 2003. Punctuality declined from 96-97% to around 85% network-wide. It is lower again during peak periods and on long lines served by the troubled Siemens trains (around 75%). Customer satisfaction also fell as patronage rose faster than service levels, causing crowding and delays. High urgency, lower reliability and falling trust all make real-time information a high priority on the train system, second only to network strenghtening measures that increase capacity, frequency and reliability.

In between are the major bus and tram routes. Here heavy traffic and long routes can increase variability. The city-bound routes have a large commuter function, while the orbital routes feed passengers to railway stations and major trip generators. Again real-time information is desirable, providing extra assurance, especially on orbital routes where the bus might be starting its run 60 kilometres away.

The installation of real-time information in Melbourne has generally followed the above priorities. About the only exception is the busier bus corridors that offer above-SmartBus span and frequencies but provide only fixed timetables at stops.

Unreliable information can reflect poorly on a network

Reliability The extent to which an information system is worthwhile depends on whether its content is useful, provided when the passenger needs it, and can be relied on.

Required standards for the latter are high; if 99% of trains run (as is frequently attained in Melbourne) and information displays are 99% accurate then there is just as much chance of the information being wrong as the train being cancelled.

To be fit for purpose, measuring and reporting equipment (such as passenger information systems) should be sufficiently accurate to show variations in the item being measured without introducing substantial errors or uncertainties of their own. Hence in a system where 99% of services run, information systems must be operational and accurate (in this case faithfully indicating which services have been cancelled) for 99.9 to 99.99% of the time.

Information system reliability may fall during service disruptions, but should always be at least an order of magnitude better than the reliability of the underlying service. This increases trust that information is accurate (despite problems the service itself is experiencing).

In Melbourne some SmartBus displays at stops, ‘next station’ displays on the new Siemens trains and ‘next train’ displays at stations are particularly at risk of not meeting availability and reliability standards (in contrast the 1980s AVM system used for trams appears more reliable).

An inconsistent quality of information can make a transit service appear less reliable than it actually is (and undeservedly lower its reputation). And customer complaints are often as much about missing or inaccurate information as the service interruptions themselves. To lessen these risks electronic information displays must be much more reliable than the system itself, and if this cannot be attained they are best removed.

Upgraded equipment is being installed across the rail network

Management

The simplest information display systems (eg blackboard and chalk) require no special expertise to maintain. Lapses in availability (eg running out of chalk) or poor readability (due to bad writing) can be diagnosed and resolved at the local station level. The key issue here is likely to be the extent to which customer-facing staff are kept informed of short-notice service changes and disruptions.

Arrangements for managing automated real-time information are more complicated. Day to day ‘babysitting’ may be done at control desks at bus depots, operations centres or major railway stations. Faults that are beyond the control of stations and can only be fixed by centrally-deployed technically-trained personnel.

Responsibility and accountability are divided (a likelihood in any technically specialised area but accentuated through franchising) and recurring problems may be unresolved defects from two or three operators ago.

A difference between the treatment of service delivery and passenger information is that operator contracts (at least for train and tram) impose penalties for non-performance of the former each month. There is also a requirement for public reporting through ‘Track Record’ and these topics are frequently matters for media comment.

In contrast contracts specify no hard performance standards for real-time information system reliability nor the public reporting of same. While the latter is in line with other cities it does mean that (unlike service reliability) discussions of PID reliability are more anecdotal than factual.

The reliabilty of passenger information systems has a lower profile than either of the above, so is unlikely to the the topic of such special action. Nevertheless it sometimes makes the media when tested and found wanting, for instance during last Tuesday’s disruptions when it was found that the SMS alert system lacked the message sending capacity to promptly advise all subscribers.

Even if public standards existed, the extent to which a new incoming operator could or should be held liable for systems inherited from and unfixed by previous government and private operators is debatable. But in the end it boils down to contractual obligations (which the government drafts, signs, enforces and should be accountable for). Additionally the government can negotiate with the operator enhancements beyond what’s in the contract at an additional public cost (examples being the strengthening of the Comeng train air conditioners or late night services).

Conclusion

The fragmentation of responsibility, only limited accountability, the dependence on IT, the interconnection of various systems at multiple sites (of various origin and age) and use of wireless communication all increase the risk of failure.

Real-time passenger information systems are of only limited value unless they are much more reliable than the services they are intended to monitor and indicate.

If such systems are to be a beneficial part of the transit network (and passengers increasinly appear to want and expect it), increased attention will need to be paid to the management, procedures and technology that make the difference between information reliability and unreliability.

The new Casey/Cardinia bus network: high and low priorities

Earlier this year the new City of Wyndham bus network around Werribee and Hoppers Crossing was reviewed.

The Wyndham network, a result of that area’s bus review, commenced back in April. It features increased coverage through more routes, public holiday service and (generally) a 40 minute frequency seven days per week. Unlike other areas, which saw more gradual changes, the Wyndham changes all started on the one date. The network’s main compromises were the early finish on some routes (7pm vs the 9pm minimum standard) and the absence of combined scheduling to maximise effective frequency along major corridors where routes overlap. However the old network’s 40 minute frequency was retained which with trains every 20 minutes provided consistent connectivity.

Even bigger than the Wyndham bus changes is the new network for Casey-Cardinia. Despite being at opposite ends of Melbourne both areas have much in common – outer fringe suburbs, new housing, fast growth, young families and areas with low incomes and high transit need.

However more so than Wyndham, public transport service levels in Casey/Cardinia lagged development. Daytime trains run at half metropolitan frequencies (30 – 40 minutes typical) and the area contains only limited bus services. A combination of non-connecting street layouts and low train frequencies (particularly on weekends) make planning efficient bus routes and timetables a particular challenge in Casey/Cardinia.

Timetables for the new network are not yet available, so a full analysis is not provided here. However some information about routes and service levels are contained in a release from the Minister. From this it is possible to discern some priorities that have shaped the new network.

High priorities

Coverage

The first priority, probably deservedly so in a fast-growing area, is local coverage. This is in line with the Department of Transport’s strict coverage requirements (90% of residents within 400 metres of a route). Six new routes have been added and others have been extended. This is at least comparable to Wyndham as the biggest addition of new routes in recent times.

Span

The close second priority is longer operating spans in accordance with minimum standards. In many areas this means Sunday and early evening service for the first time. It will be possible to leave the city as late as 7:30 - 8pm yet be able to make the last bus, unlike now where many local buses finish before the pm peak has ended.

Simpler routes

The third priority is some route simplification. Full assessment of this will have to await release of network maps and timetables. However it looks as if the new network will remove some of the confusing peak and off-peak service variations that now exist.

Low priorities

Three areas appear to have received low priority when planning the Casey/Cardinia network. These are as follows:

Connectivity with trains

The first is connectivity with trains. Unlike Werribee and Hoppers Crossing, buses at Pakenham and Cranbourne are often not frequency harmonised with trains (see below).

Bus/train connectivity is an area that a bus review could address, and indeed consultants' reports from all areas have highlighted this as an area for improvement.

However the new (higher) frequencies announced so far have tended to reduce maximum waiting times but do not always provide for even connectivity with trains. Three examples are below:

Route 847 (replacing 839): Weekdays frequency increase from 40 to 30 minutes (harmonised), weekends increase from 80 to 60 minutes (not harmonised).

Route 894: Weekday frequency increase from 75 to 45 minutes (not harmonised) and Saturday frequency increase from 75 to 60 minutes (not harmonised).

Route 895: Weekday frequency increase from 75 to 45 minutes (not harmonised) and Saturday frequency increase from 75 to 60 minutes (not harmonised).

This continuation of non-harmonised headways appear to indicate either (a) a view that bus frequency should be maximised, even if this compromises connectivity through the use of incompatible headways (eg going for 45 minute rather than 60 minute headways to connect with weekday trains every 30 minutes), (b) a view that buses are for local school and shopper trips only and connectivity with trains or other buses is unimportant, or (c) a view that trains are insufficiently reliable to connect to.

Established areas

The second area of low or no priority has been in services to established areas, even those with low incomes and high transport needs, such as much of the City of Greater Dandenong. While many of these areas already have a Sunday service, there remain other needs such as the upgrade of local routes in Endeavour Hills to full minimum standards and a link to Fountain Gate Shopping Centre. On the latter, the current Route 842 operates only thrice daily (Monday – Friday), whereas other areas in Cardinia such as the semi-rural Emerald and Gembrook are better served.

Direct routes

Thirdly the development of frequent and direct routes (as potential SmartBus corridors in the future) have not been emphasised in the release, though some straightening of existing routes may indicate some progress towards this. Examples could include stronger links between Cranbourne and Berwick, Fountain Gate, Endeavour Hills and Frankston, as well as between Casey and the Dandenong South Industrial Area. These routes could either be stand-alone services, or, as suggested for Wyndham a combination of two local routes providing a higher combined frequency.

Conclusion

The new network promises an upgrade of buses in Casey and Cardinia to the span and frequency now general in most of the rest of Melbourne. The changes to commence shortly are likely to be the biggest single service upgrade these suburbs have received since they were first developed. However unless there is a substantial effort to improve connectivity through integrated timetabling, these services will be most useful for local travel only.