[sustran] Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking Outside the Bus)

Paul Barter paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org
Mon Dec 31 18:35:46 JST 2012


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
http://thecityfix.com/blog/qa-with-ashwin-prabhu-improving-bus-transport-along-major-arterials/]

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
http://www.reinventingparking.org
http://www.reinventingtransport.org
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list