melbourne on transit

2008-07-23T19:01:00.000+10:00

Outer suburban communities and rail electrification

There is little doubt that electrification to Sunbury, if it happened, would be a patronage success, just as the previous Werribee, Cranbourne, Sydenham, and Craigieburn electrifications have been.

While travel times and comfort might be somewhat inferior on the electrified service, their longer operating hours and tripled frequency have more than compensated. The increased patronage means that public transport is successfully meeting more people's travel needs. This is a good thing, especially if it takes trips away from its main competitor, the private car.

There are however certain local factors and personalities in Sunbury that have given rise to some opposition to an improvment that would be uncritically welcomed elsewhere (eg South Morang). This could come from a 'coalition' of the following:

1. Existing peak hour train commuters worried they would lose their comfortable inter-urban seats and have to stand on a crowded electrified suburban service. In contrast all the residents of South Morang would lose is a (slower) bus.

2. Local activists who see improved rail as being bad for their community. Objections raised include crime, vandalism, noise, litter and sprawl.

This is possibly less a debate about transport than the sort of place Sunbury should be. Unlike accretions to the suburban sprawl like South Morang or Rowville, Sunbury sees itself as a large country town seperate from Melbourne. Sunbury has many local community groups, affordable housing and locals recognise others in the main street.

Like 'green change' areas such as Eltham, it may be that local residents jealously protect their lifestyles from outsiders, sprawl and development to the point of paranoia verging on xenophobia.

Suburban standard rail service is seen as 'the thin edge of the wedge' and a step towards Sunbury losing its seperateness and becoming an anonymous suburb. Long time residents might express apprehension of 'ferals' moving in and the area becoming more like less favoured suburbs such as Dallas, Doveton or Melton.

Of course freeways can have similar effects to rail extensions in encouraging outer suburban development. So-called 'ferals' can drive (and steal) cars as much as riding trains, but this does not seem to be accepted as an argument against roads that bring Sunbury closer to Melbourne (eg the Calder and Tullamarine freeways). Such roads seem to be widely lauded in these parts with any opposition being on broader environmental rather local community or business 'protection' grounds. Instead local business people see the shorter travel time to Melbourne as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

The flip side of neighbourliness in rural communities is protectionism, and this can lead to resistance against change, urbanisation or outsiders. A vocal local can be well-known by many and be perceived to carry a degree of influence. Or equally importantly, they may be regarded as representative of community wishes by outsiders.

One such local activist is Steve 'Jack' Medcraft, who is fiercely against rail electrification. A google search will reveal a most colourful character, whether it be in his council activities, activities as a real estate agent, convenor of 'People Against Lenient Sentencing', sporting activity and more. You can be sure his voice is heard in many places around the community.

Get 20 such people together and you can assure the outside world that locals don't want electrification; though more may support it they may be less vocal or not have any fear campaigns to run.

2008-07-18T18:53:00.000+10:00

Submissions on Eddington

Hours of reading.

2008-06-28T20:40:00.001+10:00

Multimode network maps

Some interesting comments on public transport maps are on Phin's blog to which the reader is referred for a fuller discussion.

I thought it worthwhile to provide further examples of multimode maps used in Melbourne and Victoria. They were not universal around the system and the pictures below are the main types available.

Many Melbourne railway stations had maps installed by a private company, with about a third of the space devoted to advertising. The maps themselves were high quality Melway types, showing trains, trams, buses and local streets. However while the advertising portion was updated the maps were not; hence there remain maps from Melways Edition 25 (1998) or older.

Some trams had an inner city travel map produced by The Met. This showed the CBD and near inner suburbs. It was a high quality map showing trains, trams and buses. These have become out of date and have been replaced by tram-only maps.

The Melbourne Public Transport Map was sold for $2.00 (or $2.20) at railway stations. This was a comprehensive network-wide map showing the whole metropolitan area on a single sheet. Hence while it covered all modes its scale was insufficient to travel to a particular suburban address without also carrying a Melway.

Two Melbourne-wide maps (dated 1992) are located at Flinders Street Station (Degraves St Subway and behind Platform 1). These were viewable when last visited (May 2008) but were underneath other material when the photo below was taken.

Below is a recent multimode map, showing train, tram and some bus routes. As far as I know there is only one on public display - it is inside the Met Shop in the Melbourne Town Hall.

Regional areas have had maps system-wide provided as part of the Viclink project. Below is Geelong's.

2008-06-22T11:18:00.000+10:00

Why don't they just get along?

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

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

This leads me to the following conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucrats (eg DOT)

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

Activists (eg PTUA)

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

Academics (attached to one of the universities)

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

Enthusiasts/Gunzels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-06-19T21:22:00.000+10:00

Doing the Tram Stop: Transferring between train and tram at Glenhuntly

In all cases time is of the essence so you must be on the rear carriage (train from city) or front carriage (train towards city) for any of this to work.

(i) Westbound tram (to Elsternwick)

Easy. There are stops near the station both ways you go. The closest one (B - east) requires crossing a road, the further one (C - west) doesn’t. Look for trains, check gates are open and:

From city-bound train walk east (assuming gate on down lines is open). From Frankston-bound trains walk west (assuming gate on up lines is open).

Glenhuntly is a train crossing point (see timetables where they’re normally 1 minute apart off-peak) so both might be closed.

But if you alight from a city bound train and then a Frankston bound train comes along you’re in luck as the boomgate will have held back the tram as well, while the up line will be clear to cross (gates open) on the pedestrian crossing.

(ii) Eastbound tram to Carnegie

Dicey! Again there are two stops - west and east of the line.

The west stop (D) requires backtracking and waiting at a pedestrian crossing. If there is a tram in sight you will almost certainly miss it by the time you’ve walked 4 times the most direct distance and waited for the crossing lights to change.

Unlike in the westbound direction, the stop east of the railway line (E) is about 200m away, near Subway on Grange Rd.

However if stepping from a city-bound train the rear carriages of the train will be passing by the time you’re out of the station. This (just) gives time to cross. Don’t blush as you walk past the dodgy-looking 'adult' shop or the condemned former restaurant (now empty). Then bolt along Glenhuntly Rd towards Grange road AFAP. Even assuming the tram was visible at the boomgate when you crossed, you’ll (just) be able to catch it.

The other choices (ie the nearest stop or crossing at the Grange Rd lights) will probably cause you to miss the tram unless you’re saved by another train keeping the gates down longer (or a wheelchair passenger for ditto).

If a down spark and then a Stony or Long Island comes through then your exertion will have been wasted as you’ll have close to 5 min waiting at the stop, but that’s probably better than missing it, especially during peaks when tram times vary.

Going from a Frankston-bound train to the tram has a much lower chance of success. This is because the train will have cleared the boomgates which will be up again. If you see a tram the chance of boarding it is low unless you’re saved by another train to hold it for you at the boomgates. Again the Subway/Grange Rd stop will probably be superior as you'll be moving while the tram is waiting.

If you miss the tram, don’t despair. Though its shops are decayed, unloved and scummy, Glenhuntly is a great viewing spot if you wish to watch darwin award contestant auditions. Don't become one - obey the rules and use pedestrian lights if within 20 metres of one.

Who is the unsung hero in this story? The answer is the much cursed railway boom gate. In some directions they can be the pedestrian’s friend as they open the barrier of unbroken road traffic and make train/tram access easier than it might be without them. Advocates of grade seperations (though currently popular) need to ensure that their not-that-cheap proposals benefit pedestrians and passengers at least as much as they do motorists.

2008-06-12T22:18:00.001+10:00

Doing the Bus Stop: how the class of '92 learned bus safety

Almost every child gets lessons in road safety at some point in their schooling. Students may learn through police visits, on-road demonstrations or educational videos.

One of the latter was recently bought in a Hobart junk shop for very little. Called 'Doing the Bus Stop', this 1992 VHS video features 'Hail the Bus Driver' set to catchy rap lyrics popular at the time.

It's cheesy, it's dated and some in it will groan when viewed now ('were we really like that?!'). However as well as the laughs it's got a serious side and is well-worth reviving on today's media. Total play time is about 15 minutes, with each part around three minutes.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6 (ending and credits)

(Apologies for the poor video reproduction - images photographed direct from TV screen with digital camera)

Note: Video (C) Vicroads 1992. Reproduced with permission.

2008-06-08T20:02:00.004+10:00

Transferring at Chelsea: A case study

Today we look at Chelsea for an example where a poor stop location discourages passengers from catching buses or transferring to them from trains. Read a previous item for more information about easy and hard interchanges.

For those who haven't visited, Chelsea is a coastal suburb 30 kilometres south of Melbourne on the Frankston railway. As the largest commercial centre between Mentone and Frankston on the Nepean Highway, Chelsea is designated as a 'major activity centre' in the Melbourne 2030 plan.

As well as the train, Chelsea is the southern terminus of the 888/889 premium service SmartBus route that runs to Nunawading via Springvale Road. It is the access to this major bus route from the shops and station at Chelsea that is the subject of this post.

The following two videos show the access arrangements between Nepean Hwy Chelsea and the 888/889 bus stop to Nunawading.

Part 1

Part 2

As shown the barriers for intending passengers to reach the stop from the shops on Nepean Highway are formidable. Passengers must wait at no less than four pedestrian actuated crossings to reach the stop. Even with a clear level crossing, typical access time is over four minutes for a stop that should be reachable in one.

Because they don't have to cross the highway, transferring train passengers do slightly better; they only have three waits for the 'little green man'. However they still need to complete three sides of a square and the indirect access only encourages risk taking behavour across the unsignalised portion of the intersection (map below). Uncertain bus times may exacerbate this as bus timetables are not provided at station exits.

How can access be improved to provide the sort of well-connected hub that Melbourne 2030 advocates for places like Chelsea? We'll assume that Nepean Highway is there to stay, so that crossing will always remain. Ditto for the railway line. So that leaves the location of the bus stop, which is discussed in the next part.

Part 3

Moving the bus stop to the south side of Chelsea Rd would reduce the number of road crossings required from 4 to 1 for passengers arriving from Nepean Highway. Those transferring from the train fare even better with a reduction from 3 to 0. Train-bus interchange times could fall by 80-90%. Position relative to the existing underpass is also better; this could reduce pedestrian congestion at the current rail crossing and improve access to the southern part of the Chelsea retail strip, including the proposed Safeway Centre redevelopment.

2008-05-27T19:15:00.002+10:00

Service costs and spreading the peak - 2

As well as fares and frequency, another way to spread the peak is to provide express services during shoulder peak. Generally expresses are even more 'peaky' than train frequency. This is good for inner-suburban passengers (as it gives inner suburban stations a broad peak of frequent services) but less favourable for outer suburban commuters who have increased travel times relative to if they travelled during the height of the peak.

The following times indicate the first and last peak direction express trains passing through Caulfield (or Camberwell). 'Express service' is defined as one not stopping at five or more stations*.

AM Peak

Belgrave/Lilydale: 5:46am - 10:20am
Cranbourne/Pakenham: 6:12am - 8:36am
Frankston: 7:43am - 8:47am

PM Peak

Belgrave/Lilydale: 3:40pm - 7:37pm
Cranbourne/Pakenham: 4:41pm - 6:06pm
Frankston: 5:16pm - 6:21pm

(*) Based on 30/9/07 timetables, which are out of date. Will be updated with new data.

The main limitation of the above spans is that they change according to where you draw the line on the number of stations the expresses miss. For example, there are many trains that express through three stations. This will broaden the span - to most of the day in the extreme case of the Frankston line where it becomes meaningless.

Because it's better to spread the peak and this requires both service and behavioural changes, I opted only to include the faster express trains. This is in line with passenger behaviour - passengers able to will prefer the faster expresses, even if the travel time saving is small. Shoulder travellers on some lines pay a penalty in reduced service frequencies and/or fewer expresses, and tackling this is helping to spread the peak and increase efficiency.

What do the above lists show? The Belgrave/Lilydale lines have wide peak express spans, with express services running well into the shoulders. The Frankston line has very narrow peak express windows (literally 'peak hour'), although it has many lesser expresses outside those times and during the day. Cranbourne/Pakenham has expresses opearating during most peak times. The most conspicuous gaps where there are no or slow expresses are on the Frankston line before 5pm and on both the Cranbourne/Pakenham and Frankston lines from about 8:30am. These early finishes do not encourage 9:30am starting, though if this was encouraged the after 6pm services also need attention.

The narrow express peaks on the Frankston line warrant further attention. Planning for it is complicated by the interplay with the other Caulfield group lines. Service priorities are elsewhere and nowhere is the competition fiercer but on the Caulfield group. The number of Frankston expresses appear to be held back by a need to provide a service to inner suburban stations (Malvern - Hawksburn) that cannot be satisfied by existing Carrum, Mordialloc, Cheltenham, Westall and Oakleigh local trains alone.

Current arrangements have the advantage of relieving the burden on the Cranbourne/Pakenham line (which has heavier patronage but less infrastructure). However Frankston is also a long line with its own distinct needs. These are a wider selection of expresses to serve areas beyond about Moorabbin and more frequent service closer in.

This makes the concept of a two-tiered service based on frequent local and express trains running over a longer span attractive with better use of the existing third track to Moorabbin. However it could also mean that some zone 1 stations (eg Glenhuntly or Carnegie) may lose express trains, and more services would miss the loop, running direct to Flinders Street.

To summarise, spreading the peak by making shoulder peak service more attractive is a viable way to improve capacity and network efficiency. While it can't cope with meeting long-term requirements, it's a worthwhile short and medium term strategy to relieve pressure on the network and has an exceptional return per dollar spent.

2008-05-21T20:12:00.002+10:00

Service costs and spreading the peak - 1

What gives best 'bang for the buck' when it's decided to use service levels as a lever to boost patronage or change patronage patterns (eg spreading the peak)?

Whether you look at it from the customer side (better services) or the supply side (costs and resources), the answer is rather 'lumpy' and not linear.

As an example, adding an extra three trains per hour to a subway service that's already running every three minutes isn't going to make the service that much better, assuming the existing system is already reliable and is not overcrowded. On the other hand, using them to increase an hourly service to every fifteen minutes is a major boost and makes the service much more attractive.

On the supply side, the costs in boosting services escalate as follows:

Stage 1: Existing infrastructure sufficient, existing rolling stock sufficient, need to train/roster more drivers.

Stage 2: Existing infrastructure sufficient, need more rolling stock, need to train/roster more drivers.

Stage 3: Need more, infrastructure, need more rolling stock, need to train/roster more drivers.

Stage 1 is the fastest and cheapest, while Stages 2 and 3 are the dearest and take longest.

Additional peak capacity is likely to require Stage 2 or 3. In contrast, major improvements to off-peak services only require Stage 1. This explains why the marginal costs of increasing off-peak patronage is lower than increasing peak riders. If some of the latter can be induced to shift their travel times to shoulder peak periods, total patronage grows and the large fixed costs of rail are spread across more passengers, increasing efficiency.

Against this is a question as to transport's role in society. Should transport adapt itself to people's lifestyles, or should we expect people to change their living according to what suits the transport system? The former will obviously cost more than the latter, since more Stage 2 and 3 improvements will be needed to cater for a sharp peak. However public transport economics can't afford to impose itself too heavily on passengers, since more will find driving more attractive, train patronage will stagnate and modal share will fall.

To date the main measures that have been taken to spread the peak include:

1. Local bus improvements. Many routes now finish at 9pm instead of 7pm. This may lengthen the evening peak, although there is still a frequency penalty for those leaving work after about 6pm.

2. An 'early bird' ticket. A special ticket providing free travel for train travellers (only) who reach their destination by 7am. Intended to spread the morning peak.

3. Some increases in shoulder period train services.

The following graphs compare current service provision across the AM and PM peaks on several popular lines. For those not from Melbourne, the lines can roughly be described as follows: Belgrave/Lilydale: 3 tracks for better peak expresses, high service levels and low catchment population growth; Cranbourne/Pakenham: 2 tracks, moderate to high service levels and high catchment population growth; Frankston; 3 tracks for better peak expresses, moderate service levels and moderate catchment population growth. All are at least 40km long and have stations every 1 to 3 kilometres. Suburban services on the latter two lines also have to share with goods and/or country trains.

All trains that pass through the nominated points are counted; even when they do not stop. Using a moving time period (rather than fixed 30 minute blocks) would be better, but is not needed for broad comparisons.

Apart from the intensive services on the Belgrave/Lilydale line, the major distinguishing feature is its extended morning peak. This compares to the Dandenong line (especially) where service falls to off-peak levels by 9am. In this regard the Frankston line does better, though its frequency is less during the 'early bird' period.

During the evening, the broad peak on the Belgrave/Lilydale line is again apparent. Frankston again has the shortest peak, with the period of significantly enhanced service lasting for about two hours. Possibly due to its third track and relaxed capacity constraints the general pattern is that the Frankston line runs faster expresses (but fewer of them) than the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines, which has more stopping trains, but better frequency.

Of the lines surveyed, the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines have the least infrastructure, the most non-suburban trains to share with, the highest overall patronage and the greatest patronage growth. This causes its peak services to be under a degree of pressure unseen on the Belgrave/Lilydale line, as reflected in the reliability statistics. This makes it the most attractive candidate for peak spreading, particularly around 9am, 4pm and 7-9pm.

2008-05-20T18:48:00.000+10:00

My Grandma owned a car

Transport academics and leaders talk about the future for Melbourne public transport (2 parts).

Discussion at the Future Melbourne wiki.

2008-05-15T21:31:00.000+10:00

Investment, risk and success: making interchanges work

Though they sound like something from a business seminar, today I will demonstrate that these finance-like concepts are key to effective passenger interchange.

To transfer from a train to a bus requires investment in both time and physical effort. Ideally this effort is small, as with efficient interchanges and able-bodied passengers. But in others passengers may need to climb stairs, negotiate busy roads and walk several hundred metres. Especially in poor weather or with older passengers the 'investment' and energy is significant. And passengers do make calculated decisions based on these hard-headed criteria.

Still on the business theme, there's risk and success. Risk is the chance of the attempted transfer not working. If the passenger perseveres, the main consequence is a long wait (if a bus has just been missed). If they abandon the transfer, the passenger might retrace their steps, walk home or call a taxi. In both cases they are unlikely to risk the transfer again, assuming they have alternative transport. Success, in contrast, generates repeat patronage the next time that trip is needed.

Successful interchanges require the following:

1. Low investment/low commitment. It should not require much effort to make the transfer. Should it not work out, little time will have been wasted, and other routes or alternative transport can be used to complete the journey with minimum delay.

2. Low risk/high success. Information increases certainty and certainty lowers risk. If the bus is not due for a while, passengers must know about it as soon as they alight the train (eg from bus timetables at station exits), and not until after they've trekked to the bus stop on the other side of a major intersection. The waits themselves can be minimised by co-ordinated bus scheduling. Variability in access time and the chance of missing buses can be reduced with direct walkways, underpasses and crossings. Good wayfinding signage improves navigability and passenger errors. All these lower risk and increase the chance of success.

To summarise, low investment, low risk and a high chance of success is what makes a winning business proposal. Successful transport interchanges are no different.

A successful interchange

The diagram below shows a small but successful transport interchange. The three elements that make it so include information, access and service co-ordination.

Some of the new bus/rail interchanges on the Perth suburban rail system can claim to score highly, since passengers can scarcely alight from a train without bumping into a bus timetable. Werribee in Melbourne is one of our better examples, with good access and service co-ordination, but some limitations with information.

An unsuccessful interchange

Below illustrates a poor interchange. Passengers alighting from the train have no idea of bus times. Station exit locations maximise walking distance. The road might be difficult to cross as no provision has been made for pedestrians. There is a high chance the bus will have left before passengers will have been able to reach it, but long waits are equally likely due to poor service co-ordination.

Epping Station* is one of our better examples of a poor interchange, with its main redeeming feature the co-ordinated TrainLink bus.

(*) Though monies have recently been budgeted for this interchange to be upgraded.

2008-05-14T19:28:00.002+10:00

Crowds, delays and late-running - Part 2

It's only slightly harder to find a parking spot in a car park that's 91% full than one that's 90% full. It might take 33 seconds instead of 30 seconds, for example. However it's twice as hard to find a spot where it's 99% full instead of 98% full. Finding one would take twice as long on average. And when it gets really full, from 99 to 99.9%, you'd expect parking would take 10 times longer, since there's only 1/10 the number of free spaces.

This is the rule that even a tiny increase in usage of a system nearing capacity causes service faults (or more accurately, their impact) to rise exponentially.

In Melbourne we are currently experiencing the same on our peak-hour trains. Operators struggle to meet performance targets and rising patronage is cited as the key reason why. Today's stats compare to five years ago, where the likelihood of your train being late or cancelled was 50 to 70% less, but patronage was also lower, and if your train was cancelled you were more likely to be able to board the next one.

Studying lateness and cancellation figures is useful but don't always tell the full story, especially as seen by the passenger. In some cases a cancelled train may be effectively replaced by the previous running late, and the overall impact might be negligible. But in others, even a 2 minute delay could cause buses or other trains to be missed, resulting in 15 - 60 minute delays. Similarly the cancellation of a busy service might lengthen waits as passengers are unable to board the next three or four crush-loaded trains.

For simplicity, let's assume that trains can carry 1000 people crush-loaded. An on-time morning peak train approaching Station A already has 800 on board. As 80 people board at this station, all can board.

The same is also true for the next station (Station B). By the one after that the train will be full, but assuming some alight (eg a nearby school is a popular destination) then Station C's 80 people should also just be able to fit on.

The situation changes if the train departs late.

For a start there will be more on the platform at previous stations, as some intending to catch the following train will have started walking on. The total number of people walking through the validators at all stations before Station A could be 50 persons per minute (but may be more).

If all these people board, and the train departs the terminus 3 minutes late, then that's at least 150 extra people on board by Station A. With 950 people already, and at least 80 wishing to board, then at least 30 will be left behind. With the crush load train presenting at Stations B and C, most of their passengers will be unable to board.

Why did I say 'at least'? The graphs in Part 1 show that as a train approaches capacity, boarding time rises exponentially. So the train will likely be 5 or more minutes late at Station A, and even later down the line. And in that time more people (say 5 or 10 more per minute on average) will have passed through the validators at Stations A, B and C, all expecting to catch the train. So the train could well be full even before it reaches Station A.

Hence we have three station platforms of passengers, increasing every minute, unable to board the train. The next train, assuming it left on time might be emptier than usual on leaving the terminus, as some of its passengers will have boarded the previous late-runner. And for a while it might even be only a couple of minutes behind that train, its progress retarded by the slower-loading train in front. However as it travels more of its passengers will be comprised of those left behind than the increasingly delayed earlier train, and early arrivals for the train after that. So the second train that started on time could end up also being late and crowded.

On the busier lines in Melbourne, this and the following several trains will also be leaving passengers behind. And at the more inner stations (especially those served by one line only and bypassed by expresses) passengers may need to wait for several trains to pass before being able to board. This causes the actual delay experienced to be higher than what might be apparent from train running data alone (as some trains were unboardable).

To summarise, a line with frequent trains that are not crush-loaded (eg Belgrave/Lilydale) will outperform ones that are (Pakenham/Cranbourne and Sydenham lines) in reliability. Belgrave/Lilydale are nearer the 90% carpark full level, while the others are like 99%. And it's much easier to find 100 passener places in a hurry to clear a platform on the former than the latter.

2008-05-13T20:52:00.002+10:00

Crowding, delays and late-running - Part 1

A points failure, lightning strike or level crossing accident delays thousands of passengers on a busy line. Some get frustrated and blame the train operator. Others take refuge in a good book. But for me such incidents are beneficial in that they force me to think about them and their management. I confess that blog postings here would be fewer if I lived on a shorter, quieter and less delayed line!

The following graphs illustrate some links between passenger loading, delays and their propagation (click for a larger image).

2008-05-10T21:06:00.002+10:00

Low-tech passenger information

Passengers would need to be blind or stupid not to notice this:

One way to advise of cancelled trains:

Simple? Yes. But blackboards do the job, cost almost nothing and reflect well on the station staff involved. They are labour-intensive, especially if they need to be changed and/or are on platforms away from the main building. It is at large stations and nearby bus stops that electronic displays come into their own, at the cost of flexibility and (possibly) loss of local control.

2008-04-28T19:34:00.003+10:00

Why fast interchange matters

a response to a Railpage discussion about Box Hill and the importance of minimising bus-train interchange time

There's worse interchanges than Box Hill, but best practice is that train to bus interchange should be maybe 30 - 60 seconds via just one ramp, steps or escalators (eg Werribee, Boronia or newer Perth suburban stations).

And it should not be possible to exit any suburban railway station without almost bumping into a bus timetable or information - something that is denied to Box Hill passengers.

Every minute longer in bus-train access times lengthens bus standing times by 2 minutes, assuming a co-ordinated pulse timetable system. This reduces the capacity of bus interchange and is poor efficiency. Where stations are midway along a bus route (and not at the end like Box Hill) long bus dwell times can also increase journey time for through passengers.

Two 'perfect connection' examples, both assuming a 4 minute buffer to allow for late trains/buses.

* 1 minute station - bus access time (ie good design)

Bus arrives: 9:55am
Access time: 1 min
Wait time: 4 min
Train Arrives/Departs 10:00am
Access time: 1 min
Wait time: 4 min
Bus departs 10:05am

(min bus dwell time 10 min)

* 3 minute station - bus access time (ie poor design)

Bus arrives: 9:53am
Access time: 3 min
Wait time: 4 min
Train Arrives/Departs 10:00am
Access time: 3 min
Wait time: 4 min
Bus departs 10:07am

(min bus dwell time 14 min)

The general concept is better explained in the diagram below:

Time is money. Multiply that extra 4 minutes by the number of bus movements per day, and then per year. It's big bikkies! Or try to economise by skimping on connections, but since that may add 30 minutes to passenger travel times it's a false economy as they'll drive instead.

In short, each second counts, and no effort should be spared in improving interchange, whether the delays be caused by poor initial design (Box Hill), a botched redevelopment (Melbourne Central) or placing car ahead of pedestrian access (most places - Caulfield example below).

2008-04-25T20:16:00.005+10:00

Service standards for buses

When people front up to a bus stop, they don't know what to expect.

For a start (unlike a tram stop or railway station) it might not have a timetable.

But assuming it does, the timetable can show a big variations in services. For instance, it may run frequently on weekdays but not at all on Sundays. Some services operate weeknights but not on Sundays, while other go Sundays but not weeknights. Regular routes may provide a superior service to SmartBuses on some days but not others. Public holidays and reduced December/January timetables are other causes of confusion as there are no network-wide standards.

Since the service levels of some bus routes can be low, it is easy to tar all with the same poor brush. And this is understandable given that even a single route can be simultaneously good or poor depending on the day of the week and time of the year.

The SmartBus program provides a premium and visible level of service on five routes. Currently they are all in Melbourne's east but eventually they will extend around the northern and western suburbs via proposed orbital routes. Except possibly for peak times, SmartBus provides a consistent level of service on weekdays. However weekends and evening SmartBus services still have a way to go, with some regular non-SmartBus routes offering superior service.

At the local level there are the minimum standards improvements which will give local routes at least a basic hourly service until 9pm and standard public holiday service arrangements. Over 200 of Melbourne's 300 bus routes are to be upgraded, and we are currently just under half way through.

When minimum standard upgrades are finished, it will be possible to talk about a minimum service standard of a bus at least every hour until 9pm. And given the 90%/400 metre rule, we could add it would be within a 5 minute walk of most homes as well.

Left out of this is a big body of busyish routes that are neither SmartBuses nor quiet local routes. They may serve shopping centres, universities or a major corridor. They may be highly patronised routes, such as the 200-series out to Sunshine or 250/251 to Northland/Latrobe University. Or they might be the only direct link for some suburbs missed by trains or trams (eg various City-Doncaster routes). Many of these already operate to quite high service standards, and even, as noted before, run more frequently and later than SmartBuses.

It is these intermediate/'nonSmart' routes that are currently getting a bad deal. They don't get the promotion or infrastructure of SmartBus services. Neither have they had the public holiday standardisation of local routes. Where these services comprise two or three similar routes, timetables may not always be in composite form, so Joe Public can't readily see the higher service level offered. Unlike SmartBuses or local routes they don't have documented service standards. To the passenger it's just another route number, and study of a timetable is needed before knowing whether the route is hourly until 7pm or every 20 minutes until midnight. These good but 'non-smart' routes will never reach their potential until this is addressed and their superior service is highlighted.

The solution to all this is contained in a media release quoting Bob Cameron, the Member for Bendigo West, when announcing upgraded local bus services in Bendigo.

The salient sentence is this:

"There will be services at least every 30 minutes on prime routes and every hour on secondary routes,” Mr Cameron said.

Since the hourly 9pm 'minimum standards' are just that - minimums - we can label all those routes that conform as 'secondary', just as Mr Cameron did for Bendigo's quieter routes.

SmartBuses are usually better than that, so it's logical that they are 'primary'. Ditto for the 'nonSmart' routes if their service level is high enough. Document these primary standards, make some minor improvements to ensure adherence and standardise public holiday arrangements and we've effectively doubled the SmartBus network for very little cost. After all, who really cares if a bus is 'smart' or otherwise if it's like Route 220 and runs every 15 minutes until after 11pm?

The few routes that conform to neither primary or secondary status (perhaps because they are peak-hour only or serve semi-rural areas), can be labelled 'tertiary'.

Once we have a proper primary/secondary/tertiary standard, it can be explained easily to passengers; just as the MP did in his one-liner. We can say things like: Primary routes have a bus at least every 15 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes until midnight and secondary routes are at least hourly until 9pm. This exercise now is impossible since current timetables have dozens of variations and requires hundreds of words to explain.

Primary service can be promoted at stops, in timetables and on websites similar to what Adelaide does with its 'Go Zones'. Local public transport maps at all railway stations and bus interchanges would show the primary routes as thicker lines. The remaining secondary and tertiary routes would be thinner lines.

By differentiating primary and secondary routes, and heavily promoting the former, we've created a quite different, more versatile and more usable bus network. And this should translate into higher bus patronage overall, with the potential of upgrading popular secondary routes to primary status.

And we've met the challenge set at the beginning, which was to ensure that passengers know what service to expect, just as they do now with trains and trams.

2008-04-25T17:43:00.000+10:00

Using a Metcard ticket vending machine

A short video explaining how to use the Metcard ticket vending machines found at Melbourne railway stations. Versions of the smaller coin-only machine pictured are also used on trams.

Metcard machines will be with us until Myki smartcards start in about two years.

2008-04-07T18:45:00.002+10:00

Professional versus political in service planning

The interplay between professional opinion and politics and the resultant services we get is always worth watching. The priorities that prevail are particularly noticeable during times of significant growth, such as we're currently seeing with Melbourne's bus network.

I count the operators, industry associations, private consultants, transport academics and (marginally on this topic) Metlink as the 'professionals' who pride themselves on their expertise. The 'politicians' comprise community groups, local governments, MPs, ministerial staff and the Minister herself who are 'generalists' but know what they want from a transport system. In the middle of this interplay is the Department of Infrastructure which has professional and political elements and must reconcile both.

Objectives naturally differ between the two main groups, which is why their priorities will vary. Despite what one group may say, both are necessary. Decisions and funding come from the politicial while expertise comes from the professional. Professionals need to humour the political process and the occasional publicity tricks, while politicans must acknowledge that networks aimed to please everyone end up pleasing no one.

Professionals

A bus network designed by professionals to maximise patronage would probably comprise frequent buses running along a grid of main roads with bus priority. Not only would it have the highest patronage, but such a network would also have the highest farebox recovery ratio, the highest boardings per kilometre, the highest average bus loading and the lowest greenhouse emissions per passenger.

This means a more legible network with fewer but more frequent and longer running routes. Poorly used routes might be withdrawn if it can be demonstrated that higher patronage is possible by improving services elsewhere. Hence passengers may need to walk further to their nearest bus stop. Key performance measures would include direct routes, wide service hours and high frequencies.

Politicans

The 'politicians' network emphasises route coverage - even to areas that could never sustain a well-used bus service. This produces impressive network maps, but generally low service levels. Network legibility suffers as routes are split and occasional deviations are introduced in response to lobbying from constituency groups. Politicans' preference of coverage over frequency is not recent; recall the railway 'Octopus Acts' of the 1880s which proposed miles of unviable rail lines and others that only saw weekly trains.

In its defence, the politicians' network gives priority to social need over maximising patronage, efficiency or environment. And of the socially needy, the organised might receive preference over the casual passenger by scoring a deviation that lengthens the latter's trip.

A high route coverage standard is generally provided, but at the expense of other important patronage attractors such as directness, operating span and frequency. This has meant that the politician's network mainly provides a social service for people without cars and has a low potential to grow patronage or further environmental goals. An example politicians performance measure might be something like '90% of the population is within 400 metres of a service', with little concern over whether the service is every ten minutes or twice a day.

What is our current network like?

The existing local bus network is more like the politician's network than the professionals network. In some ways this is understandable given that perhaps 80% of bus operating costs come from the taxpayer (not the farebox) and thus must pass through political hands. The routes that approximate nearest the professional's network (ie direct and frequent) are the SmartBus routes and some inner-suburban routes that have retained tram-like service levels.

Recent and proposed changes

Elements of both the political and the professional can be seen in recent and proposed changes.

Case study: Gowanbrae and Route 490

A recent triumph of the political (and hence, in a way, democracy) is the proposed Route 490 to Gowanbrae. This is an enclave isolated by freeways, railway and a river. It has no shops, services or public transport. Its roads are too narrow for standard buses and there is only one way into the suburb, making an efficient service to the nearest railway station impossible to provide.

No sane urban planner would have recommended Gowanbrae be developed in its current inaccessible form. And this error having been made, no efficiency-minded transport professional would recommend a bus since other areas have greater merit. Transport-wise Gowanbrae is a basketcase, and perhaps the only efficient public transport project possible would be a high quality cycleway to Glenroy Station!

Socially there is a case to provide transport to an area currently distant from it. And politically, active residents and council have lobbied for years. Their patience was rewarded; last week the Minister for Transport announced that Gowanbrae would soon get a bus service. Everyone was happy and no one has yet been impolite enough to mutter phrases like 'opportunity cost'.

SmartBuses

SmartBuses are at the other end of the spectrum. Direct, fast (if provided with priority), frequent and (ideally) connected with trains, they make the public transport network far more versatile and not just a feeder for CBD workers. As existing SmartBuses have shown, this is exactly what is needed to boost patronage. Hence all in the 'professional' camp support SmartBuses, even if some have reservations about orbital routes.

Local routes

Local routes are somewhere in between. The main changes to them at the moment are the 'minimum standards' upgrades. These will upgrade most local routes to at least an hourly service until 9pm seven days a week. This compares to the 7pm finish/6 day running that was normal until 2006.

Is this mainly 'political' or 'professional'? My answer is a bit of both.

There is no doubt that minimum standards were needed. No professional or politican who supported improved buses could oppose them. So I call that a consensus. Even though the light evening patronage on some might make the professionals wince and prefer a more intensive service on the popular routes.

However the order in which services were upgraded cannot be the making of a transport planning professional. As an example the lightly used Route 701 was one of the first to benefit. On the other hand popular nework-strategic routes like 665 and 737 had to wait until 2007 or 2008. Though this doesn't matter much anymore (since many important routes have now been upgraded) the order that it was done does give some insight to the process; criteria other than network utility or patronage potential must have been key.

Bus reviews and current service planning

With a few exceptions, the minimum standards program represents an upgrade to existing routes. The bus review process reaches further, promising revised local networks.

The interplay between professionals, politicans and the public has been fascinating during the reviews currently underway. The results of these are yet to be seen, though much of what is said (and public sentiment) has favoured the 'professional' aims of directness, operating hours and frequency over the political. However the politcal has not been completely absent, since there have been calls from groups or councils for deviations, extensions or improved coverage, especially in newer areas.

Current service planning appears to be driven by the following standards:

* 90% of the metropolitan population within 400 metres of transport (high target)
* Most routes running until 9pm, 7 days a week (moderate target)
* A 'safety net' 60 minute service frequency for local services (low target)

Both political and professional influences are apparent. If there is a skew it it towards the political, as seen by the high coverage target. The main effect of such a high target is that with a given level of resourcing it is harder to make more local routes run every 15 or 20 minutes instead of 40 or 60 minutes.

A slacker coverage target eg '80% within 800 metres' combined with a tougher hours/frequency target eg 'at least every 15 min day/30 minutes night' is likely to be favoured by professionals and deliver better patronage outcomes. However this will leave large areas (not just Gowanbrae) without service, so these need some modification since the political calculus is adverse (removing service from 100 people is 'courageous' even if 1000 people benfit from an improved service nearby).

Thus we might end up with a compromise approach where we have a breakdown of (say) 40% primary routes (every 15 min to better than minimum hours), 40% secondary routes (every 30 min to minimum hours) and tertiary routes (say every 60 min). This mix would greatly lift the status of the sub-smartbus but direct local routes and provide a far better network than SmartBus + trains alone. If the bus reviews can result in the implementation of that sort of service, then it should be possile to reasonably satisfy both professional and political tendencies.

2008-04-05T22:11:00.001+11:00

A gunzel's guide to transport work

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

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

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

Do you really want to?

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

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

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

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

Dos and Don'ts

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

Don't be a jerk!

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the nasties done, what about the good stuff?

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

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

Education and work experience

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

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

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

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

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

What sort of jobs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you find out about jobs going?

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

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

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

Is being a gunzel a disadvantage?

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

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

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

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

Know yourself

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

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

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

Conclusions

Don't be a jerk

Learn about roles and talk to people

Know yourself

2008-03-30T19:27:00.002+11:00

Route 900 SmartBus - a video presentation

Here is a recording made during a trip on SmartBus Route 900 to Rowville earlier this afternoon. Stop facilities, information, interchanges and patronage are some of the topics mentioned.

For non-Melbourne readers, Route 900 is an east-west bus route through Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs. It runs every 15 minutes weekdays and every 30 minutes evenings/weekends between Caulfield Railway Station and Stud Park Shopping Centre in Rowville. Major trip generators served include Chadstone Shopping Centre, Oakleigh Station and Monash Univesity campuses at Caulfield and Clayton.

Route 900 patronage is high between Caulfield, Chadstone, Oakleigh and Monash Univesity. It is lower east of Monash University. However it provides a useful service to eastern areas and links with all other current SmartBus routes (700, 703, 888/9 & 901).

2008-03-03T22:02:00.003+11:00

Route 401's first day

Today was the start of services on bus route 401, a limited stop service operating between North Melbourne Station and Melbourne University. The route is designed to relieve pressure on the City Loop by allowing passengers to get a direct bus to Royal Melbourne Hospital/Melbourne University instead of going via Melbourne Central and changing to a tram.

Services run Monday to Friday between 7am and 7:30pm. 401's frequent service (three minutes peak and six minutes off-peak) is unheard of for a Melbourne bus route. In addition it is a prepay-only route, meaning that passengers need to have a ticket beforehand and can't buy one from the driver.

Signage was provided at North Melbourne to market the new route. Staff were also posted at major stops to hand out leaflets and assist passengers.

Healthy patronage has been reported by others who were present earlier in the day. As would be expected there's a one-way bias, with afternoon services from North Melbourne being very quiet (1-3 people) and somewhat more usage (5 - 15) on trips towards North Melbourne.

Journey time between North Melbourne and Grattan Street is approximately 10 minutes. When the bus reached Lincoln Square North, another 10 minutes was required to go round the block to Grattan Street due to near-gridlock in Swanston Street. In the afternoons at least this choke-point is the main impediment to obtaining greater efficiencies.

Below are some photos taken during the pm peak.

2008-02-14T23:22:00.000+11:00

So much to read, so much to write, so little time

* Transport legislation review submissions are now viewable on the DOI website

* A must-read. Download the Transport Demand Information Atlas

* Route 901 SmartBus starting after Easter. View the timetable here.

* A heap more bus routes will be getting minimum standard services in the next few months as part of Stage 3 MOTC upgrades. Plus upgrades to Routes 551 and 561 will improve links between Latrobe Uni and local railway stations.

* Submission writing time: Four bus service reviews are now underway.

2008-01-12T19:45:00.000+11:00

Buses replacing Trams: Swanston Street

Buses are replacing the tram service on part of Swanston Street, Melbourne's busiest tram thoroughfare. Approximately half of Melbourne's tram routes are in some way affected by this weekend's occupation, which is due to trackworks.

The co-operation of hundreds of people, whether in construction, service delivery and information, is requires to make this large project a success. Below are some pictures of the day's work.

The information

The service

The works