[sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus - local transit

Dharm Guruswamy dguruswamy at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 5 18:50:28 JST 2012


Brendan,

I think you bring up some interesting issues. However, I would like to
take objection to the paragraph below:

 We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while
> ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get
> 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are
> very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited
> to
> local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see
> local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new
> investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated
> network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility
> services. 


What I think you ignore is that major transit infrastructure comes about
because of a failiure of the market to provide service without large
negative externalities. In Latin America in particular people prefer the
BRT lines which replaced the largely unregulated or very corrputly
regulated transit it replaces. 

I also think you are overgeneralizing when you closed your e-mail:

> Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed,
> regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and
> form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and
> those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with
> low
> car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway,
> because otherwise society cannot function.

I am in Hong Kong right now on vacation and just came from Tokyo. These
are both every deveoped cities which have a diverse and incredibly
diverse systems of public transit. I actually prefer Tokyo because the
air pollution here in Hong Kong is terrible largely because there are
too many lightly regulated minibuses and taxis plying the street. In
Tokyo all surface transport is heavily regulated and of very high
quality albeit also very expensive . My wife and I split our stay
between two hotels. We used a taxi to transfer. The taxi was new,
spotless and equipped with the latest GPS and the driver wore a suit and
tie and white gloves. In a sense you get what you pay for. No one
complains about the air pollution or congestion caused by Tokyo taxis..
they only complain about the price (about US $9 once the meter starts). 

Here in Hong KOng the MTR operates a high quality rail system but the
bus system is of every unequal quality with the fixed route buses
offering high quality services and the minibuses operating very poor
quality service. The government is trying to regulate the irregular
buses which don't even run regular routes.

The key thing in developed countries is that we stop investing in new
fixed guideway transit so indeed there are gaps in service. However, the
solution is to keep investing and not necasserily to allow new services.
Unregulated sevices are often polluting, provide poor quality service
and don't provide accessibility to the disabled. Find me a city with
extensive paratransit that doesn't have large negative externalities and
I will be on board, otherwise I'm for regulation and more regulation
because well regulated systems simply work better.

Dharm Gurusamy, AICP CTP


On Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 09:55 AM, Brendan Finn wrote:
> Dear Paul, Karl, Chris and others,
> 
> I think we have jumped across a few concepts from where this discussion
> started. As often happens, we are discussing loosely connected things
> from
> different perspectives and for different contexts.
> 
> I respectfully suggest to decouple the discussion into three strands:
> 
> 1) Solutions for mass movement of people through connected networks with
> priority to the primary axes
> 2) Solutions for diffuse movement of people in large urban areas and
> their
> hinterlands, a lot of which is not served well by the network designed
> for
> the mass movements
> 3) Solutions for the smaller scale where mass transit is less appropriate
> and/or cannot be sustained
> 
> The original article deals with toolbox items for (2) and (3), which is
> my
> interest for this particular thread.
> 
> The article referred to 'conventional wisdom' and 'investing billions to
> engineer rails, trains and buses'. I did not think the author criticised
> such expenditure, but rather tried to point out that it is not the only
> wisdom. If this is what she meant, I find I am in complete agreement with
> her. 
> 
> We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while
> ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get
> 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are
> very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited
> to
> local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see
> local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new
> investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated
> network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility
> services. 
> 
> In my opinion, whether we are talking about Brunswick, Brisbane,
> Bangalore
> or Beijing, there is a need for local and peripheral transit in addition
> to the mass transit. What I loosely call 'local and peripheral transit'
> is
> not some minor residual travel. Over the 24/7, it is the dominant travel
> in any society, it just doesn't bundle itself nice and neat for mass
> transit to serve. Travel demand, forecasting and network models have
> serious difficulty with it, and the vast majority of our transit networks
> continue to be designed around the peak work and education commute.
> 
> Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed,
> regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and
> form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and
> those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with
> low
> car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway,
> because otherwise society cannot function.
> 
> With best wishes, 
> 
> 
> Brendan.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________
> Brendan Finn          e-mail : etts at indigo.ie          tel :
> +353.87.2530286
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/06/2012 13:42, "Paul Barter" <paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a
> >chance to clarify a little.
> >
> >I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better
> >understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here
> >goes.
> >
> >I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key
> >points:
> >
> >-  Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I
> >am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying
> >that every city must make its network more connective no matter what.
> >
> >-  The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more
> >lines
> >to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service
> >frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of
> >overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective
> >network"
> >(with fewer route kms) can usually help.
> >
> >- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency
> >service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks
> >tend
> >to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to
> >the attractiveness of public transport.
> >
> >On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom <kfjellstrom at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
> >> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people
> >>writing
> >> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud
> >>'transfers'
> >> as if they are something actually good.
> >>
> >
> >PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end.
> >I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to
> >get something else which is very good:  namely, high frequencies/short
> >headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and
> >which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections).
> >
> >But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of
> >transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies.
> >Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of
> >service on each line.
> >
> >
> >> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail
> >>network
> >> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps
> >> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on
> >>buses.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are
> >a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses
> >around
> >the rail spines.
> >
> >But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks
> >is
> >die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often
> >accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail.
> >
> >
> >> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying
> >>Guangzhou
> >> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes,
> >>so
> >> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have
> >>more
> >> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
> >> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer
> >>to
> >> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
> >> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
> >> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are
> >>usually
> >> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
> >> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
> >> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
> >> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
> >>
> >
> >PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but:
> >
> >-  If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then
> >there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network.  Already
> >the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating
> >more connections or a simpler network for their own sake.
> >
> >-  On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are
> >served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may
> >have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case,
> >there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective
> >network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of
> >course).
> >
> >-  In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common
> >argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the
> >other
> >day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes.
> > I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this
> >problem.  But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift
> >to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like
> >that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you
> >mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on
> >prior
> >experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience?
> >
> >
> >> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
> >> 
> >>http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-
> >>good-for-your-city.html.
> >> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
> >> not the only disadvantage of transfers.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not
> >really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if
> >the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the
> >same
> >input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times,
> >despite the need for the connections.
> >
> >
> >> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you
> >>are
> >> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting
> >> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The
> >>reality
> >> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route
> >>overlap
> >> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially
> >>at
> >> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route
> >> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute
> >> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation
> >> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best
> >> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other
> >>transfer
> >> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to
> >>another
> >> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes
> >> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again,
> >>and
> >> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is
> >> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key
> >point
> >via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a
> >connection
> >can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the
> >payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms
> >can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems
> >with
> >connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough.
> >
> >We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in
> >cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical
> >question for specific cases.
> >
> >For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming
> >your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be
> >pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a
> >situation.
> >
> >Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have
> >to
> >> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet
> >> requirements and system costs.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also
> >become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have
> >reached
> >this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it.
> >
> >But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple
> >grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a
> >grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the
> >intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or
> >more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of
> >trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning
> >is easy.
> >
> >
> >> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer
> >> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels
> >>that
> >> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels
> >> than the 'direct-service' networks.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They
> >should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or
> >not worthwhile.
> >
> >It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
> >> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
> >> other costs of transfers.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my
> >experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely
> >aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They
> >genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are
> >generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that
> >transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as
> >possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky
> >trade-off to be faced here.
> >
> >The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and
> >connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent
> >service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it
> >will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy.
> >In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the
> >frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for
> >more people.
> >
> >
> >> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to
> >> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the
> >> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning.
> >>Similarly,
> >> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs
> >>'connective'
> >> is just another piece of doublespeak.
> >>
> >
> >PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which
> >causes confusion.
> >
> >Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation
> >that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name.  If such a
> >proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of
> >headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then,
> >yes, it would probably be a bad idea.
> >
> >I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't
> >it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the
> >network?
> >
> >Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for
> >benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about
> >"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get
> >better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high
> >frequencies)
> >
> >Hope this helps.
> >
> >Paul
> >-- 
> >Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm
> >us all less.
> >paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org
> >http://www.reinventingtransport.org  http://www.reinventingparking.org
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >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'). 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> 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'). 
-- 
  Dharm Guruswamy
  dguruswamy at hotmail.com



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list