[sustran] Re: integration of public transport thoughts

[Eric Bruun]

Paul,

It is well known amongst transit planners that when frequencies are
high on connecting or crossing lines, little effort has to be made 
to coordinate services, but the term "automatic integration" is one
I have not heard before. But you might be understating the importance
of joint fares as to how much connecting will actually take place. For
example, I suspect that the new Bangkok elevated rail line will be
underutilized, as the combined fare to use it as well as additional fares
on crossing routes will be unaffordable to the masses.

One issue that is also important in "integration": redistributing
capacity. If one can get excess capacity on some routes to be redeployed
to other routes, there is no increase in total network costs, but a major
improvement in service. The deregulation in the UK showed what happens
when capacity is not managed -- ridership plummeted. Major routes had
capacity increases as several operators vyed for the same passengers while
connecting routes had service cuts. The lack of connection (and
the lack of joint fares if the operators are different) caused most of
the ridership losses. A related contributing factor was the lack of user
information and instability due a non-integrated system.

A similar thing has been seen in the US along the Northeast Corridor. As
fares increased dramatically on Amtrak, additional capacity from buses was
attracted, as the poor were priced off of the trains. Now we have the
absurd situation where the only place in the US where there is excellent
train service also has very heavy parallel bus services. Yet, connections
by bus from cities not along the Northeast Corridor are almost
non-existent. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the buses as connectors
and find a pricing policy that allows the trains to carry the lower income
people?  

Eric Bruun


On Fri, 19 May 2000, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote:

> Dear sustran-discussers
> 
> I am finalising a paper for a conference. I am keen to get some feedback on
> one paragraph which deals with some ideas on public transport integration
> that I have been mulling over (inspired in part by writings by Paul Mees,
> Felix Laube and Rob Cervero).
>  
> Here is the paragraph: (keep in mind that the paper is about low-income and
> middle-income cities, not rich ones)
> 
> "Improved integration of public transport, where there is coordination in
> the planning and scheduling of all operators' routes to maximise the
> potential for easy transfers and allow random destinations to be served,
> also offers great benefits at relatively low cost (Laube, 1995). This is
> especially so for cities where public transport has already withered to
> some extent. Integration appears to be much more important in cities where
> the level of public transport service is low than in cities where public
> transport is popular and plentiful (Mees, 2000). In cities with a very
> dense network of routes with high frequency services we could say that
> there is "automatic integration" even without formalised, regulated
> integration. In this situation, passengers can usually transfer from
> service to service without great delay (although there will be a price
> penalty). Such "automatic integration" has long been the situation in many
> low-income cities, such as in the inner areas of Metro Manila where the
> network of jeepney and bus routes is very dense and the frequency of
> service on most routes is very high. However, in cities like the Klang
> Valley or (to a lesser extent) Bangkok the network of services has become
> rather sparse with low frequencies on most bus routes. This makes
> transferring from one service to another very unattractive so that only
> "captive" riders will do so. And in middle-income Asian cities with cheap
> motorcycles easily available, there are very few captive riders. In this
> context, more formal integration of the public transport system has become
> vital."
> 
> I am hoping to develop these ideas further into a fully-fledged paper and
> would appreciate feedback and suggestions of relevant references. In
> particular, I would like feedback on this idea of "automatic integration"
> and on the notion that integration was not so vital in the past but has
> become a pressing need in such cities as Kuala Lumpur where the public
> transport network has become sparse and infrequent and where there is now
> fierce competition from private modes.
>  
> Paul
> 
> 
> A. Rahman Paul BARTER
> SUSTRAN Resource Centre
> Information services for the Sustainable Transport Action Network
> for Asia and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network)
> sustran at po.jaring.my,  http://www.malaysiakini.com/sustran
>