Let's play a game. Name a service that you'd like to get at a suburban train station that you don't normally do.
A) Working myki or metcard machine? Regular stops? A working toilet? Bzzzt. Wrong?
B) ATM? YES and at all premium stations please. A single ATM hardware that accepts software and firmware upgrades from multiple banks. A touch screen device where you can select your service provider and not get other bank charges. That's a thought.
C) Mail Box - Why doesn't the mail man catch a train?
D) A GP - not feeling well? Let the GP send you home with a certificate before you get on the train and affect other commuters, let alone your work colleagues.
The list goes on. It's a high time metro outlines a minimum set of standards for premium stations beyond the 10 year old paradigm of regular stops and manned stations. Let's put the "P" back in Premium ay?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Myki lessons and the way forward
The myki concept in itself is decent, but the project has been plagued with very poor project management and implementation. Myki is a casestudy on how NOT to build a smart card system, compared to "successful" implementations like Octopus and Oyster. So what did the other smart cards do right that we didn't? I'd suggest two things: 1) they weren't overly ambitious from the start 2) they had a quick transition period from their old systems.
Firstly, the Oyster card was first issued to the public with a limited range of features. Myki was overambitious from the start. From offering a myki money system that wasn't fully tested, to beginning with online topups rather than top ups at stations. This was a radical change from the existing metcard system, which in turn required an education campaign. The focus at the start should have clearly been to build a low risk system that worked and that was familiar enough to existing metcard users so they could easily make the transition.
Lesson 1) They should have built a virtual metcard using myki equipment. Offering the exact same tickets as metcard (2hr, daily, weekly, monthly, etc), but using myki touch on and off technology. Myki money, online topups, etc could have been phased in later when fully tested or killed off if the government ran out of money.
Secondly, unlike the Octopus system which forced users to transtition to their new system within the first 3 months, we've had a year of two parallel system running with no end date for metcard in sight. Hence, why there has been a low uptake of the myki system. This is obviously a bad situation to be in.
The dilemna is mainly caused by the poor myki money rollout, where people just don't have confidence that the correct fare will be calculated. How can you force commuters to adopt a system that they're not sure will work? The solution is you don't.
The way forward from this mess is to isolate myki money from the rest of the system, so that it's not integral to the way the system works. As I mentioned previously, exact equivalent metcard fares need to be offered on myki pass (2hr, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and all the variants). If commuters are not confident in the myki money calculations they can now bypass it by buying prepaid fares on the myki pass system. This therefore negates the need for metcard readers, ticket top up machines, and paves the way for a full rollout of myki topup machines.
Lesson 2) The only way to have quick adoption is to force people to upgrade to a RELIABLE system.
Firstly, the Oyster card was first issued to the public with a limited range of features. Myki was overambitious from the start. From offering a myki money system that wasn't fully tested, to beginning with online topups rather than top ups at stations. This was a radical change from the existing metcard system, which in turn required an education campaign. The focus at the start should have clearly been to build a low risk system that worked and that was familiar enough to existing metcard users so they could easily make the transition.
Lesson 1) They should have built a virtual metcard using myki equipment. Offering the exact same tickets as metcard (2hr, daily, weekly, monthly, etc), but using myki touch on and off technology. Myki money, online topups, etc could have been phased in later when fully tested or killed off if the government ran out of money.
Secondly, unlike the Octopus system which forced users to transtition to their new system within the first 3 months, we've had a year of two parallel system running with no end date for metcard in sight. Hence, why there has been a low uptake of the myki system. This is obviously a bad situation to be in.
The dilemna is mainly caused by the poor myki money rollout, where people just don't have confidence that the correct fare will be calculated. How can you force commuters to adopt a system that they're not sure will work? The solution is you don't.
The way forward from this mess is to isolate myki money from the rest of the system, so that it's not integral to the way the system works. As I mentioned previously, exact equivalent metcard fares need to be offered on myki pass (2hr, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and all the variants). If commuters are not confident in the myki money calculations they can now bypass it by buying prepaid fares on the myki pass system. This therefore negates the need for metcard readers, ticket top up machines, and paves the way for a full rollout of myki topup machines.
Lesson 2) The only way to have quick adoption is to force people to upgrade to a RELIABLE system.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Melbourne Bike Share: Replacing helmets with Insurance
Insurance
-State government
-Melbourne City Council
-TAC - Registration of bike riders?
-Personal insurance - RACV offer a product - Must be affordable.
Improving bike share infrastructure
- bike lanes
- restricting bike riders without helmets to bike lanes
Behaviour
-Speed Limits within Bike Share Zone - Melbourne City Limits
-Enforcement - Fines / Demerit points to correct behaviour.
-Defensive bike riding courses
Timeframe (minimum 2 years before renewed helmet laws)
- Continue to develop bike infrastructure
- Helmet promotion campaign in the mean time.
- Debate and introduce new laws providing choice.
- Introduce insurance products
- Can bike share survive 2.5 years with helmet laws?
-State government
-Melbourne City Council
-TAC - Registration of bike riders?
-Personal insurance - RACV offer a product - Must be affordable.
Improving bike share infrastructure
- bike lanes
- restricting bike riders without helmets to bike lanes
Behaviour
-Speed Limits within Bike Share Zone - Melbourne City Limits
-Enforcement - Fines / Demerit points to correct behaviour.
-Defensive bike riding courses
Timeframe (minimum 2 years before renewed helmet laws)
- Continue to develop bike infrastructure
- Helmet promotion campaign in the mean time.
- Debate and introduce new laws providing choice.
- Introduce insurance products
- Can bike share survive 2.5 years with helmet laws?
Friday, July 16, 2010
More Brumby greenwash
On the 15th of July, the Victorian government announced plans for a $100 rebate on registering hybrid vehicle in a press release named "VICTORIA TAKES ACTION TO LEAD NATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE".
How is offering a rebate on hybrid vehicles taking the lead on climate change? Shouldn't we be discouraging people from buying personal vehicles and using more public transport? Investing more in public transport would undoubtedly be a more effective measure. The problem for Brumby is investment in public transport isn't percieved to be acting on climate change. He needs to be seen to be doing something.
So wink, wink, nudge nudge, a plan to support the Victorian manufacturing of Hybrid Camry's gets a subsidy disguised as action on climate change.
Good work Brumby, you really pulled the wool over my eyes this time.
How is offering a rebate on hybrid vehicles taking the lead on climate change? Shouldn't we be discouraging people from buying personal vehicles and using more public transport? Investing more in public transport would undoubtedly be a more effective measure. The problem for Brumby is investment in public transport isn't percieved to be acting on climate change. He needs to be seen to be doing something.
So wink, wink, nudge nudge, a plan to support the Victorian manufacturing of Hybrid Camry's gets a subsidy disguised as action on climate change.
Good work Brumby, you really pulled the wool over my eyes this time.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Bums on Seats - Melbourne Bike Share Challenge
Based on anecdotal evidence the Melbourne Bike Share sheme is struggling, which is a shame, because it's a great initiative. Below are some thoughts on how we can get some extra bums on seats and make the scheme more of a success.
1) Temporary Bike Stations - We know Universities are busy during the week and normally quiet during the weekend. Conversely, places like the MCG or Docklands football stadium are busy on the weekends, but would have a hard time justifying their existence on weekdays. Do bike share stations needed to partitioned into Weekday and Weekend stations to reflect this reality?
A key to getting the bike share scheme to work is getting as many stations out to places people frequent. Justifying a station such as the MCG could be hard based on 7 day patronage figures, but opening stations at the MCG just on the weekends could be a work around for this problem. Excess bikes from Melbourne University could be shifted to the MCG on weekends.
Understanding that Melburnian's travel habits are not rigid, is a key to a dynamic system and one that would maximize utilization.
2) Discounts - It doesn't take a genius to figure out that bike share patronage will be down on a rainy day. This will always be the case, but can some people be enticed to use the system on rainy day by offering discounts? Will a 50% discount be enough to entice people? What about extending the free travel period from 30 minutes to 60 minutes on a rainy day to factor in the wet?
The crux of getting this discount scheme to work is semi "real time" notifications. Push notifications via mobile phones or SMS notifications for subscribers can be sent at 6:30am in the morning. If rain is forecast or detected, a message offering discounts to users and a reminder to bring a helmet should be sent.
Further patrons should be able to register their favourite stations. If a station is underforming, discount notifications can be sent to users to encourage patronage.
3) Loyalty program - I like getting my free cup of coffee after 10 drinks, and i'm sure bike riders would appreciate a free ride after X amount of trips. It's a simple and effective way to encourage repeat patronage.
4) Bike share Buddies - Much like myki mates, the initial reaction from many Melburnians is confusion on how the scheme works. Having volunteers available to explain and demonstrate the features will be a key part of getting bums on seats.
5) Better integration with city wide festivals - Melbourne is a city of festivals. The Food and Wine festival, the Melbourne International Film Festival, Melbourne Open House and The Melbourne Internation Comedy Festival to name a few. These festivals use venues scattered around the city, and are excellent candidates to promote the use of bike share. Cross promotion and using the "bring a helmet" slogan would be benefitial for all.
1) Temporary Bike Stations - We know Universities are busy during the week and normally quiet during the weekend. Conversely, places like the MCG or Docklands football stadium are busy on the weekends, but would have a hard time justifying their existence on weekdays. Do bike share stations needed to partitioned into Weekday and Weekend stations to reflect this reality?
A key to getting the bike share scheme to work is getting as many stations out to places people frequent. Justifying a station such as the MCG could be hard based on 7 day patronage figures, but opening stations at the MCG just on the weekends could be a work around for this problem. Excess bikes from Melbourne University could be shifted to the MCG on weekends.
Understanding that Melburnian's travel habits are not rigid, is a key to a dynamic system and one that would maximize utilization.
2) Discounts - It doesn't take a genius to figure out that bike share patronage will be down on a rainy day. This will always be the case, but can some people be enticed to use the system on rainy day by offering discounts? Will a 50% discount be enough to entice people? What about extending the free travel period from 30 minutes to 60 minutes on a rainy day to factor in the wet?
The crux of getting this discount scheme to work is semi "real time" notifications. Push notifications via mobile phones or SMS notifications for subscribers can be sent at 6:30am in the morning. If rain is forecast or detected, a message offering discounts to users and a reminder to bring a helmet should be sent.
Further patrons should be able to register their favourite stations. If a station is underforming, discount notifications can be sent to users to encourage patronage.
3) Loyalty program - I like getting my free cup of coffee after 10 drinks, and i'm sure bike riders would appreciate a free ride after X amount of trips. It's a simple and effective way to encourage repeat patronage.
4) Bike share Buddies - Much like myki mates, the initial reaction from many Melburnians is confusion on how the scheme works. Having volunteers available to explain and demonstrate the features will be a key part of getting bums on seats.
5) Better integration with city wide festivals - Melbourne is a city of festivals. The Food and Wine festival, the Melbourne International Film Festival, Melbourne Open House and The Melbourne Internation Comedy Festival to name a few. These festivals use venues scattered around the city, and are excellent candidates to promote the use of bike share. Cross promotion and using the "bring a helmet" slogan would be benefitial for all.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Analysis: The Melbourne Metro Transport Plan
The government has finally realeased details of the Melbourne metro plan, analysis as follows:
An interchange or provision for an interchange should be provided at Lloyd street for connection with the Upfield and Cragieburn lines. This is currently not included in the plan.
The Arden metro should be located adjacent to Abbotsford st and Queensberry st to provide connections with the 57 West Maribynong tram. The Arden metro will likely see high rises spring up in North Melbourne. The government and local councils should work in concert to protect Errol St and heritage buildings in the area.
Consideration should be given to a new tram line servicing Docklands via the Arden metro to fully activate the North Melbourne Area. Connections to multiple tram line is essential to create a "CBD" type concentration.
The placement of the Parkville metro is excellent. It services the hospitals, university and research hubs in the area. Further it has excellent connections to tram lines down Flemington rd and Royal parade.
Consideration should be given to the effects of tram patronage once the Parkville metro opens. Should trams continue to terminate at the university or should a new terminus, perhaps at Docklands be used? It should be noted that this plan doesn't solve or address the Docklands blackspot.
I believe the location of the North and South CBD metros are appropriate and pragmatic. They take into account trains that travel through the loop and those that run direct to Flinders st. There will be those that a dissapointed that the new metro doesn't tread new ground. Perhaps with a stop that is not already well serviced, say Lygon St, though it's understandable that costs are kept manageable.
Lastly, I agree with the reasoning in the placement of the Domain metro. It will act to reduce peak loads on trams down St Kilda rd which should be commended.
An interchange or provision for an interchange should be provided at Lloyd street for connection with the Upfield and Cragieburn lines. This is currently not included in the plan.
The Arden metro should be located adjacent to Abbotsford st and Queensberry st to provide connections with the 57 West Maribynong tram. The Arden metro will likely see high rises spring up in North Melbourne. The government and local councils should work in concert to protect Errol St and heritage buildings in the area.
Consideration should be given to a new tram line servicing Docklands via the Arden metro to fully activate the North Melbourne Area. Connections to multiple tram line is essential to create a "CBD" type concentration.
The placement of the Parkville metro is excellent. It services the hospitals, university and research hubs in the area. Further it has excellent connections to tram lines down Flemington rd and Royal parade.
Consideration should be given to the effects of tram patronage once the Parkville metro opens. Should trams continue to terminate at the university or should a new terminus, perhaps at Docklands be used? It should be noted that this plan doesn't solve or address the Docklands blackspot.
I believe the location of the North and South CBD metros are appropriate and pragmatic. They take into account trains that travel through the loop and those that run direct to Flinders st. There will be those that a dissapointed that the new metro doesn't tread new ground. Perhaps with a stop that is not already well serviced, say Lygon St, though it's understandable that costs are kept manageable.
Lastly, I agree with the reasoning in the placement of the Domain metro. It will act to reduce peak loads on trams down St Kilda rd which should be commended.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Doyle stuffs up City of Melbourne street signs
The rebranding of the City of Melbourne's street signs has turned into a farce. When Doyle revealed the new logo last year, it was inferred that there would be a slow rollout and logos would be replaced on a as needs basis. Basically when something was broken, it could be replaced and when stationary with the new logo ran out, stationary with the new logo would replace it. At a modest cost to city rate payers. Not so!!
Street signs with the new logo are now randomly popping up in Melbourne's streets, in a manner that quite confusing. On a random inspection of North Melbourne's Streets I found 3 different street signs within one block. With one intersection, the corner Howard St and Victoria St, there were street signs with two different logos on light pole.
But the surprising thing is they can't even get street signs with the new logo consistant.
Notice the subtle differences? The Victoria st sign has a smaller M logo, is in capitals and lacks street numbers! Taking off street numbers is a huge step backwards. Rate payers are paying for an update that provides less information. Absolutely appalling.
No wonder Doyle wants to charge a $4 night parking fee. He needs to find money to fund these wreckless and wasteful spending sprees. Not quite what you'd expect from a supposed economic conservative ex lib. Bring back John So I say!
Street signs with the new logo are now randomly popping up in Melbourne's streets, in a manner that quite confusing. On a random inspection of North Melbourne's Streets I found 3 different street signs within one block. With one intersection, the corner Howard St and Victoria St, there were street signs with two different logos on light pole.
But the surprising thing is they can't even get street signs with the new logo consistant.
Notice the subtle differences? The Victoria st sign has a smaller M logo, is in capitals and lacks street numbers! Taking off street numbers is a huge step backwards. Rate payers are paying for an update that provides less information. Absolutely appalling.
No wonder Doyle wants to charge a $4 night parking fee. He needs to find money to fund these wreckless and wasteful spending sprees. Not quite what you'd expect from a supposed economic conservative ex lib. Bring back John So I say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)