I give a user perspective. The attached documents compiled a while ago show
my bias for -
1. Reducing route numbers
2. Doing away with the concept of feeder - trunk routes
3. The above possible only when each trunk route rather than terminate
at either end of the so called trunk instead becomes a short feeder itself.
4. This means its a modified hub-spoke where buses do not terminate at
the hub but will traverse through one.
5. There is no point in plethora of short routes with ridiculously low
frequency. This applies to feeders as well especially if eventually I am
going to have spend further time for a transfer.
6. It is wrong to assume trunk routes are those which serve wide roads.
7. It is also wrong to assume that when someone transfers at a trunk
route they will travel from one end of the trunk to the other. Most
actually will end up getting off within few kilometers and very likely end
up needing another so called feeder!! 2 transfers people may accept, but
add another one and it stops working for most.
On 1 January 2013 13:12, Zvi Leve <zvi.leve@...> wrote:
> When their are many bus services, each route tends to be rather long and
> 'comprehensive': the service will bring you all the way from your origin to
> your destination, but it may make quite a few detours along the way and
> hence could take a long time. Plus the the same vehicle will be serving
> both high-demand areas and 'feeder' zones.
> A network based more closely on the location of the demand and the type of
> road network (ie feeder zones and high-volume corridors) can offer more
> flexibility: smaller vehicles serving the feeder zones and larger ones
> (perhaps even with dedicated rights of way) serving the high-volume
> corridors. Such a configuration would require transfers, but it should also
> be more flexible and robust. The feeder lines will no longer be travelling
> along the major corridors and adding to the congestion there. They can
> focus on their specific areas and provide greater service frequency. There
> will be multiple services serving the high-volume corridors (with different
> origins and destinations), so more people will have multiple options - once
> again better service frequency.
> As for how much people pay, that is the million dollar question! And that
> is where the institutional factors come in....
> Best regards,
> On 31 December 2012 20:52, Sudhir <sudhir@...> wrote:
> > I have limited knowledge in this but based on my experience transfers are
> > painful because of our poor accessibility. Sometimes I think that we are
> > planning more transfers just because we are designing the system with
> > limited buses. With transfers we are just buying time and trying to
> > the challenges for short term. Also does the user pay more because he/she
> > travels for shorter distances in different buses?
> > regards
> > Sudhir
> > --------
> > This is certainly a very important issue from a service perspective, but
> > one must not forget institutional issues. Are there mechanisms in place
> > "share" revenues across different services? Between competing companies?
> > We assume that there will be one unified transit service provider in a
> > region, but things rarely begin this way!
> > Best,
> > Zvi
> > On 31 December 2012 04:35, Paul Barter
> > <paulbarter@...>wrote:
> > > In June there was debate here on sustran-discuss over "direct service"
> > > public transport networks (which make minimising transfers or
> > > connections a high virtue) versus so-called "connective" ones (which
> > > make achieving turn-up-and-go headways a high virtue, even if this
> > > means simplifying the network and imposing more
> > > connections/transfers).
> > >
> > > See my 4 June post for example
> > > (http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/2012-June/008573.html
> > >
> > > Now Ashwin Prabu (cc'ed) at Embarq India weighs in at the CityFix
> > > blog: http://thecityfix.com/blog/in-praise-of-transfers/
> > >
> > > His focus is India, which seems to be an interesting case. His article
> > > has the provocative title "In praise of transfers" [See also
> > >
> > >
> > > ]
> > >
> > > The case for needing more transfers in order to achieve decent
> > > frequencies is usually weaker in developing countries than in rich
> > > ones. Wages of bus crews are low, densities are usually high, and if
> > > private vehicle ownership is low, demand for public transport is often
> > > very thick. This can often mean you can have the best of both worlds,
> > > with much direct service AND high frequencies. If there is an argument
> > > for a connective network in such cities, it is usually bus congestion
> > > on core corridors. Guangzhou (despite being middle-income) was an
> > > important example of many of these points in the June discussions
> > > (with a new solution to bus congestion: -- its extremely high-capacity
> > > open BRT).
> > >
> > > But here is Ashwin describing the situation in Bangalore: "Although it
> > > has a very healthy fleet size of over 6100 buses, these are used to
> > > service more than 2300 routes. So what you ultimately end up with is a
> > > system that has a large number of routes where only one bus is serving
> > > a route length of 35-40km or more. This means that you can only
> > > achieve a bus service frequency of 1 bus every 2 or 3 hours. At this
> > > low frequency, public transport is not a preferable alternative to
> > > private vehicles."
> > >
> > > I assume that service looks better than that on many corridors with
> > > several overlapping bus routes. But nevertheless, Ashwin argues that
> > > in a situation like that, reducing the number of routes and route kms
> > > would help achieve higher frequencies and make the system more
> > > attractive, even if it results in more transfers by users.
> > >
> > > The whole article is worth a look for anyone interested in this
> > > important debate in public transport network planning.
> > >
> > > More fodder for the debate?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Barter
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').