Public Transport Network Strategy

PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK STRATEGY:

planning and implementation Public Transport Network Planning | Semester 1 | 2016 Albert Chong | 541366

1 Introduction Public transport is increasingly asked to serve a wide range of objections, from relieving traffic congestion to providing mobility for those who are disadvantaged. It is asked to make efficient use of its allocated resources.

1.2 Subject Area - current routes Trains Stations and Lines • •

Glen Waverley Line - Easy Malvern, Holmesglen Dandenong/Pakenham Line - Caulfield, Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale, Oakleigh Frankston Line - Glen Huntly, Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh

The traditional function of public transport has been ‘to provide mobility for people without access to cars’ (Mees et al. 2010). However, Melbourne’s current perceived performance is poor from the community’s perspective as this is partly due to indirect, infrequent and poorly connected services (Mees, 2000). As such public transport in the Melbourne context does not necessarily guarantee mobility as outer suburb patrons may have limited accessibility within a specific timeframe as compared to people who live in the inner suburbs (Kelly & Donegan, 2015).

•

1.1 Age old density debate and the network approach

Bus Routes

Mees (2000) recognises the return benefits of the “network effect” whilst obviating the need for the density debate. Density may have an effect, but other significant factors such as strategic policies regarding modal choice and the allocation of resources have equal weight and influence. Burke and Dodson (2014) highlight that transport policy that solely relies and focuses on ‘urban densification will fail to meet its objectives if does not also address network design, integration and operational issues’.

•

Whilst in cities of high density such as Hong Kong, Tokyo and New York City are clear examples of density having an impact on ridership and patron usage, this is not necessarily applicable to the context of Melbourne. In the Australian and Melbourne context, high density is only concentrated primarily within the CBD and inner suburb areas.

Much of Melbourne is low density urban sprawl. One of the key aspects of the network approach is to achieve high levels of transit service to low density dispersed areas. Relative examples of this context can be found in Vancouver and Zurich, cities that will be explored as precedents of best practice.

Tram Routes • •

•

•

• • • • • • • • • •

Routes 3 & 3a - East Malvern to University of Melbourne Route 5 - Malvern (corner of Burke Road and Wattletree Road) to University of Melbourne (seven stops outbound and seven stops inbound in the chosen area). This line terminates in the site.

Route 67 – Glen Huntly (corner of Truganini Road and Glen Huntly Road) to University of Melbourne (seven stops outbound and seven stops inbound in the chosen area.) This line terminates in the site.

612 - Box Hill to Chadstone via Surrey Hills, Camberwell and Glen iris 623 - Glen Waverley to St. Kilda, via Mount Waverley, Chadstone and Carnegie 624 - Kew to Oakleigh, via Caulfield, Carnegie or Darling, and Chadstone 625 - Elsternwick to Chadstone, via Ormond and Oakleigh 626 - Middle Brighton to Chadstone, via McKinnon and Carnegie 701 - Oakleigh to Bentleigh, via Mackie Road, Brady North 703 - Middle Brighton to Blackburn, via Bentleigh, Clayton, Monash University (SMARTBUS service) 733 - Oakleigh to Box Hill, via Clayton, Monash University and Mount Waverley 767 - Southland to Box Hill, via Chadstone, Jordanville and Deakin University 822 - Chadstone to Sandringham, via Murrumbeena and Southland 900 - Rowville to Caulfield, via Monash University, Chadstone (SMARTBUS service) 903 - Altona to Mordialloc (SMARTBUS service)

Figure 1 - Site Outline

1.3 Subject area The area in question is highlighted as the dashed box in figure 1. The subject area is located approximately 16 kilometres south east of Melbourne CBD. There are a range of key stakeholders ranging from: the local community, local councils (City of Glen Eira, City of Monash, City of Boroondara), Vicroads, Public Transport Victoria (PTV), local businesses and key institutions just to name a few.

Main activity nodes and destinations located in the chosen area is separated into distinct categories: (bolded are considered major attractors)

effective or efficient connectivity to other transport services. While there are dominant key institutions and destinations within the subject site, there exists poor connections between the modes. Services do not coordinate and complement one another, nor do they offer easy and simple transfers. For example, the distance between tram route 67’s final stop and Carnegie train station is a 900 metre walk; approximately 600 metre walk to the commercial strip of Koornang Road – a difficult walk for the elderly or those with a disability.

Figure 2 - Concept map of nodes and street structure

Recreation

Caulfield Racecourse

Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre

(GESAC)

Gardiner’s Creek

Monash University Caulfield Campus

Education

Holmesglen TAFE – Chadstone Campus

Hughesdale Primary School

McKinnon Secondary College

Monash University – Caufield Campus

Moorabbin Hospital and Specialist Centre

(Monash Medical Centre on map)

Solway Primary School

Valkstone Primary School

Activity Centre / Shopping Centre

Bentleigh Activity Centre Bentleigh East Activity Centre Carnegie Activity Centre McKinnon Activity Centre Murrumbeena Activity Centre Oakleigh Activity Centre/ Oakleigh Market Chadstone Shopping Centre

Destinations just outside subject area

Brighton Secondary College

Brighton West Primary School

Caulfield Park

Caulfield Primary School

Holmesglen TAFE – Moorabin Campus Key destinations outside subject area

Brighton Beach

Glen Waverly Activity Centre

Monash Children’s Hospital Clayton

Monash University – Clayton Campus

Southland Shopping Centre Many routes servicing the area are laid out in a mostly scattered grid layout (see figure 2). They are identified as mostly servicing main thoroughfares and covering ground in attempt to decrease large areas that are not serviced. It was observed how that these services exist and are rolled out without

Chadstone

McKinnon Secondary College GESAC

Moorabbin Hospital

1.4 Providing for the public A snapshot of bus patron complaints is enough to simply frame the problems with buses in Melbourne and the issues that require immediate addressing.

An article from The Age newspaper highlights ‘the many daily inconveniences and indignities endure by Victoria’s bus passengers’ (Carey, 2016).

Issues encountered and talking to the community whilst on the field trip is an excellent gauge of what the public thinks about the current network within their area. Problems such as unpleasant and confusing transfers due to vague signage and long distances between mode stop is just one example encountered. Other issues arose from talking with the community and their desire for greater convenience was evident such as a either a link between key destinations and greater accessibility to services.

2 Best Practice Inspiration for the proposed network are drawn from a variety of precedents considered best practice in either its overall successful network or a specific facet of the project. It should be noted that while most precedents are globally renowned, it is also important to explore successful projects locally in Melbourne.

2.1 Toronto Toronto’s public transport model demonstrates that public transport could be a viable alternative to the car, but only if ‘routes were designed to be direct and support fast services, and if interconnections between routes were made convenient by coordination of regular timetables throughout the day’ (Burke & Dodson, 2014). Mees (2000) discovered that whilst Melbourne’s system suffers from indirect and infrequent services resulting in a poorly connected network, Toronto’s system contrastingly offers its patrons an efficient system with frequent services and easy transfers.

Timetable coordination has provided the Swiss with the best possible frequency between service modes to key destinations as well as flexible trips. Over the last decade, the city of Zurich extended its public transport network which has resulted in increased public transport patronage across all modes and an increase in walking and cycling (Buck & MeierBukowiecki, 2011). Zurich’s transport network is an excellent precedent in which successful network planning has transformed an existing system to efficiently utilise all resources; a viable approach not just within the subject area, but across the wider network as well.

2.3 Local example - Brimbank A local example of creating networks can be seen in Brimbank. PTV’s intervention resulted in a ‘10% patronage growth within the first six months’ (Loader et al. 2015) due to a redesign of the network and increasing services. Additionally, the Brimbank precedent also provides the basic framework for assessing network performances from a local Melbourne context.

2.2 Zurich Aside from the physical nature of Zurich’s ‘triangle town’ where the geometry allows for direct journeys between different nodal points, it is the Swiss system of timetable planning which would be explored. Their coordinated timetabling has allowed for a more efficient use of existing resources which, in turn, enabled increased patronage (Stone, 2013).

Will Hussler (1994) highlights the critical importance of high service frequency in creating a successful network:

‘The network of trams and buses work on a four to eight minute frequency during the day... It is important that the frequency of services remains under ten minutes. If it is over ten minutes, changing from one line to another is not attractive. With a ten minute frequency you have a network effect’.

Zurich Tram Interchange

2.4 Concepts – Squaresville and HiTrans As a homogenous city a travel demand that is dispersed on a grid-iron street pattern, “Squaresville” is ideal for application in the context of the subject area. It illustrates the key idea behind network planning of ‘serving the maximum number of possible journeys with the minimum of operational resources’ (Mees et al. 2010). The key takeaway concept from this best practice theory is that transfer-based systems allows for increased accessibility and opportunities for patrons through transfers. It should be highlighted that sometimes transfers can lead to inconvenience. As such careful planning and design as well as community feedback will be required to ensure transfers are pleasant.

The HiTrans best practice guide distinguishes the hierarchical differences between routes and lines.

Simplicity, line structuring and stable operating patterns are concepts emphasised in created a network of efficient routes. Not only would it be easier for passengers to comprehend, but it would also build upon the previous concept of simple transfers and tie into timetable coordination across all modes of transport.

3 Proposed Network A dense network of different modes of transport results in short, varied and direct connections that improve access to goods and services for the community.

In Zurich and Paris, timetabling is supply driven rather than demand led. This aspect combined with a high quality service across the network during the day would provide the partial solution to software upgrades needed to create a network.

It is acknowledged that the early phases of this network plan will adhere to the strict budget imposed by the client, whilst creating a network within the selected area. Ideally interventions within the site would eventually filter out to the wider network through progression of different phases of the network plan.

Another software aspect that would require careful planning is traffic signalling and priority given to public transport. This needs to be related to timetable coordination but enhanced with real time data. Given the poor hypothetical where the train arrives at the station, but the bus is just across the road at the intersection stopped at the lights.

This scenario illustrates multiple issues at different scales. From the lack of real time data that benefits public transport at the broader network scale, to the transport patron sitting on the bus watching helplessly as their train leaves, detailed planning given to tweaking timings will be a “ripple effect” of benefits across the network.

Demographic analysis, community consultation and site visits will help inform in designing a cost-effective network which will address the community’s needs in early phases. In creating a network through the selected area, immediate changes can be instigated through rerouting buses, increasing frequency during peak hours across all modes whilst coordinating times that allow for transfer times. Next phase of change can be infrastructural improvements through possibly double decker buses and real time data of services.

Using the concepts put forward in HiTrans best practice guide to simply reroute existing routes will simultaneously eliminate duplications whilst emphasising modal share. If ‘public transport has a reasonable modal share’ across the network, the provision of high quality bus services which fulfils a dual role of rail feeder and connecting major nodes would prove to be a viable economic solution (Mees, 2000). This is contrasted by the current business as usual bus network where routes meander through local roads in order to cover a larger area (see Existing routes).

Key initiatives • Economical bus network due to grid shaped street layout.

• Passengers willing to change modes and/or transfer to complete long journeys.

• Predictable peak times - requiring only two extra buses.

3.2 Hardware upgrades Physical infrastructure is also key to a successful network. Small scale simple initiatives such as digital signs that show next services could be the beginning as seen in the photos below. Stop upgrades at identified key nodes would play a major role in upgrading existing infrastructure to complement previously mentioned software upgrades.

Improving key transfer nodes and integration with other modes such as train stations will help create the “illusion” of a shorter transfer time. Put simply, if a space is nice, commuters may be willing to wait longer. Physical layouts of transfer nodes and attention to details such as short walking distances, protection from weather are key elements to be considered (Nielsen, 2005).

3.1 Software upgrades Easy transfers require attention to timetable coordination. If transfers are to be promoted, timetables must logically be restructured to minimise wait times. This, in turn, requires either ‘rigorous coordination on the pulse-timetable model, or frequent services on all routes’ which is regarded as a best practice precedent (Mees, 2000). current conditions (left) versus upgraded smart stop (right)

CBD Darling

Alamein

Holmesglen

East Malvern

61 2

3, 3a Caufield

90 69 0 9

623

Carnegie

623

800

Murrumbeena

Glenhuntly 67

693

Hughesdale

767 624

Ormond

Oakleigh

822

625

978 900

630

McKinnon

733

626

Monash University Clayton Campus

703

903 Sm artB

us

Bentleigh

979

Patterson

3.3 End result • • •

Buses act as feeders for rail transit which are treated as trunks feeding the CBD. Buses also act as connectors between key nodes - connecting the community and improving accessibility to a variety of services.

Frequency of buses remaining under 10 minutes - pulse timetabling that is supply driven (six departures per hour minimum).

• • •

•

Integration of all modes at multiple locations.

Clear and consistent line structure with direct routings and fast operations.

Wider network: provision of a ‘ready-made’ service to major destinations outside selected area. For example, connecting both Monash University Campuses – Caulfield and Clayton.

Remaining service kilometres from routes removed or shortened should be used to bolster peak hour.

4 Phasing and Integration It is the collaboration between the different stakeholders that will ensure success. From local government working together across boundaries and the local community to the management at PTV; all stakeholders will need to discuss and form partnerships.

To achieve the proposed network, a development framework is outlined to coordinate the many factors required to achieve a basic transit network.

A common denominator of successful network planning is ‘the role of the public in bringing about change’ (Mees et al. 2010). Public transport intended for public use should obviously have level of input at a local level. Community consultations would be a starting initiative to bring the public on board, but considerations must be made for those who do not attend said meetings for various reasons such as language barriers, inconvenient times and so on. Simple strategies such as interactive displays at stations and stops could be a playful method of interacting with the public. Technology could be another platform for the public’s voice.

At the end of the day, the public may need to be aware of changes, but it is equally important that they have a say or can influence what potential changes may be. Like the Brimbank case, PTV should be ‘seeking to conduct further research, including engaging with customers’ in order to further develop network design to accommodate growing patronage (Loader et al. 2015).

4.1 Rerouting and synchronization Timetable coordination and removing/rerouting existing routes to match proposed new network.

This phase will primarily be focused on improving bus services through “software” upgrades. Primarily focused on rerouting existing routes and salvaging service kilometres from routes that duplicate will allow for consolidation of new routes with increased frequency. Simultaneously, pulse timetabling as seen in the Zurich precedent will allow for simple transfers with a short waiting time. Success in this first stage will lead to developing the next phase.

4.2 Infrastructure provision – small scale Focused on physical “hardware” upgrades, this phase will be about providing patrons with stop redevelopments such as the construction of shelters and digital timetables showing next services.

Providing a pleasant area to wait and real time services for patrons are just the first stages of stop upgrading.

4.3 Assessment and fine turning A framework of assessment comprised of patron usage, community feedback and traffic light signal timing will help fine tune the network’s pulse timetabling. This final phase will be a cycle to be repeated for an optimised network which could lead to large infrastructure projects (grade separations and new stations). Major bus terminals such as the upgrades at Chadstone Shopping Centre but at key locations across the subject site would be part of future project developments in tying the overall network together.

The Brimbank precedent provides the basic assessment framework and benchmarking for the proposed network within the subject area. Factors such as average weekly patronage before and after network changes as well as timings between modes will be key assessors of a successful network.

Assessments will lead to adjustments in frequency and span to match demands as a response to analysis conducted.

Coordinating timetables for easy transfers

4.4 Key investment areas Development of the network and services within the subject area will be within 1 year timeframe and should be based around: • Enhancing current capacity, particularly lines that service stations and major destinations.

• Transformational projects that will help inform future developments in proximity to stops as well as the stops themselves. Figure 3 shows a scenario where on street parking is repurposed for bus stop usage: relatively simple method of stop upgrading.

• Reinforcing newly rerouted bus routes whilst simultaneously creating development opportunities. Public transport can act as a catalyst for diverse and intensive land use projects. Careful thought must be given to a project’s integration with the transit system, particularly ground level interfaces.

• Maintaining public interest in the proposed network and convincing the public of its potential. For example, persuading local businesses that the removal of on street parking for bus stop upgrades does not necessarily detract from their business profits.

• Reporting back to the community as a form of assessment as well as providing easy to understand data in visual form would be an incentive for the public to support the new network. Particularly if data shows increased satisfaction and patron usage.

Figure 3

Current street section

Bus stop upgrade

5 Concluding Remarks The network approach has resulted in the creation of many globally successful public transport networks. Benefits range from increased patronage, improved public space, creating new development opportunities and providing accessibility for those who were previously disadvantaged; all without drastically increasing expenses and using excess resources. It is important to continuously revaluate a system and make constant adjustments to achieve optimal performance.

As a total package, the network effect offers potential improvements for public transport, not just within the selected site, but to Melbourne’s broader transport system.

Implementation and Assessment Cycle

REROUTING and SYNCHRONISATION

ASSESSMENT and FINE TUNING INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION

References Bell, K 2015, From squareville to triangle town: geometries for public transport network planning, paper presented at the SOAC, Gold Coast, Australia.

Burke, M & Dodson, J 2014, Suburban Density: Disrupting the Density Debate, in B Gleeson & B Beza (eds), The Public City: Essays in Honour of Paul Mees, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Buck, M & Meier-Bukowiecki, Y 2011, Ten years of the Zurich mobility strategy – lessons learned and outlook, Stadt-Zuerich, Switzerland, viewed 16th April 2016, <https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/dam/stzh/ted/Deutsch/taz/Mobilitaet/Publikationen_und_ Broschueren/Mobilitaetsstrategie/english_documents/004_Mexico_2011_Mobility_Strategy_Zurich.pdf> Carey, A 2016, Passengers driven round the bend by bad experiences on buses, published 21 April 2016, <http:// www.theage.com.au/victoria/passengers-driven-round-the-bend-by-bad-experiences-on-buses-20160421gobz02.html>.

Hussler, W 1994, ‘Public transport in Zurich’, Transport solutions for Sustainable Cities Conference, Oxford.

Kelly, J.F. & Donegan, P 2015, ‘Cities and Social Connection’, in J.F. Kelly & P Donegan (eds), City Limits: Why Australia’s Cities are broken and how we can fix them, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 64-76.

Loader, C , Landgon, N, Robotis, E 2015, Bringing Better Buses to Brimbank – Implementing Bus Network Reform in Melbourne, Austaliasian Transport Research Form 2015 Proceedings, Sydney, Australia.

Mees, P 2000, A Very Public Solution: Transport in the Dispersed City, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Mees, P, Stone, J, Imran M & Heilson, G 2010, Public Transport Network Planning: a guide to best practice in New Zealand Cities, New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, New Zealand.

Stone, J 2013, Planning for affordable transit infrastructure and service expansion: two European case studies, paper presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum, Brisbane, Australia.

Walker, J 2012, ‘Connections or complexity?’, in J Walker (eds), Human Transit: How clearer thinking about public transport can enrich our communities and our lives, Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 147-157.

Images Figure 1: PTV, City of Glen Eira, viewed 20 May 2016, <http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Localities/PDFs/16_ Glen_Eira_LAM.pdf>.

Zurich Tram Interchange: Zurich Tourism, viewed 18 May 2016, <https://www.zuerich.com/en#footer>.

Current conditions (left): Chong, A 2016, PTNP16 field trip photo, taken 22 March 2016.

Upgraded smart stop (right): Bowen, D 2010, Bentleigh Smartbus sign (when it worked), taken 9 May 2010.