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

Zvi Leve zvi.leve at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 23:53:08 JST 2012


This is certainly a very important issue from a service perspective, but
one must not forget institutional issues. Are there mechanisms in place to
"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 at reinventingtransport.org>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
>
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list