[sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus

[Alok Jain]

Such buses have long been in operation in Hong Kong and go by the name of Red Public Light Buses.

Some of the internet references..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_light_bus (read the sections under Red Light Bus and Pros and Cons of Public Light Buses)

http://asiancorrespondent.com/16930/difference-between-red-and-green-minibuses/ (Poor Man's Taxi!!)

http://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/public_transport/minibuses/red/index.html (official explanation)

There is a concerted Government effort to not issue new licenses and convert the existing ones into Green PLBs, which are regulated scheduled, fixed route, fixed fare operation.

I have personally used them many times and they offer great service specially during the night time.

Best Regards
Alok

On 29-May-2012, at 10:57 PM, Todd Alexander Litman wrote:

> There certainly is a role for demand response transit services, and in some
> cases such services can be provided efficiently by private firms, but I
> caution against assuming that unregulated privitazation is necessarily
> desirable.
> 
> My study "Contrasting Visions of Urban Transport: Critique of 'Fixing
> Transit: The Case For Privatization'" (http://www.vtpi.org/cont_vis.pdf )
> evaluates the service quality and efficiency of public and private transit.
> Contrary to frequent claims, purely private transit is generally inferior
> and inefficient. It may be profitable on a few corridors and may be
> appropriate in some niche markets, but it cannot provide integrated,
> cost-effective service throughout a region, and so fails to achieve
> strategic planning objectives, such as reducing traffic congestion,
> improving traffic safety and providing basic mobility for non-drivers.
> 
> The New York Times blog fails to understand the difference between demand
> response services that can provide basic mobility in lower-density areas,
> with high costs per trip, and grade-separated bus or rail transit, which can
> provide high quality (integrated, frequent, cost effective) service on major
> urban corridors. They are totally different services with different goals,
> service requirements and cost profiles. They are not substitutes for each
> other. An efficient urban transport system requires both.
> 
> For information on demand response transit, and the role it should play, see
> Reconnecting America's new report, "Putting Transit to Work in Main Street
> America: How Smaller Cities and Rural Places Are Using Transit and Mobility
> Investments to Strengthen Their Economies and Communities"
> (http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/PDFs/201205ruralfinal.pdf ).
> 
> I am a strong supporter of both BRT and rail transit, because their high
> service quality can attract travelers who would otherwise drive, which
> provides a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits. BRT is
> often operated by private companies, but with a high degree of central
> planning and regulation. Without that, service quality deteriorates, forcing
> all households that can afford it to purchase cars and rely on automobile
> travel, even for trips that are best made by public transit.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Todd Litman
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
> litman at vtpi.org
> facebook.com/todd.litman
> Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
> 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Richmond
> Sent: May-29-12 9:23 AM
> To: Paul Barter
> Cc: sustran-discuss
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote a book, "The Private Provision of Public Transport" about
> alternative ways of offering transit services, that included case-studies of
> both the New York and Miami jitney services and I agree with the
> brilliantly-written New York Times article. It is not misleading at all, but
> dead on target.
> 
> I disagree about the advantage of a "connective network" in locations where
> there is low demand. Such a system runs empty buses all day and forces
> people to make unnecessary changes along their route. The Brunswick example
> shows imagination in instead creating a service that has both fixed
> characteristics that cater to primary demands (the route may be circuitous,
> but it hits all major points people without cars need to go
> to) but also offers flexibility.
> 
> As to the jitneys, they are an example of the advantages of private
> enterprise. The drivers are offering this service because they are able to
> earn more than in alternative occupations available to them. Certainly, they
> are making less than in regular transit jobs, but that is not the point.
> They are might not qualify to be regular bus drivers -- and they might even
> prefer to do small-scale community oriented enterprise. The service provided
> is terrific and meets local needs far better than the conventional transit
> alternative.
> 
>                                        --Jonathan
> 
> On Tue, 29 May 2012, Paul Barter wrote:
> 
>> On 29 May 2012 14:26, Sujit Patwardhan <patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Conventional wisdom says that the way to create or improve public 
>>> transit is to invest billions to engineer rails, trains and buses. 
>>> But the Brunswick Explorer is one of many innovators that are seeing 
>>> transit as more than an engineering problem and trying to  build 
>>> transit that meets the needs of its residents.
>>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-
>>> bus/
>>> ...
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, it is an interesting item. But be careful! It is misleading (at 
>> least for places with high labour costs).
>> 
>> See http://www.humantransit.org/2011/11/new-york-times-how-to-be-co
>> nfused-about-transit.html for a thoughtful critique of this NYT article.
>> Jarrett Walker writes:
>> 
>> "Brunswick's local buses, in short, are geared to people with special 
>> needs, as small-town transit systems often are. ... These systems are 
>> absolutely laudable. ... But they are intrinsically inefficient, in 
>> terms of passengers service per unit of public cost... Serving special 
>> needs is a good thing to do, but it requires lots of staff time per 
>> passenger, so it will always have a very high cost per passenger.
>> 
>> Unless ... you pay the drivers less. Margonelli's next story is about 
>> the emerging minibuses of New York, an important private sector initiative
> ...
>> The genius of these buses is that they tolerate lower ridership 
>> (mandated in fact by their small size) but they can do this because 
>> the drivers make much less than unionized transit agency labor. ...
>> 
>> So is Margonelli really a ferocious right-wing union-busting capitalist?
>> No, she's just unclear on transit's basic geometry and economics."
>> 
>>> From the same source (Human Transit blog) here is a better example of 
>>> how
>> to do surprisingly well with public transport even in a very 
>> transit-unfriendly suburban environment with high labour costs ( 
>> 
> http://www.humantransit.org/2012/05/fort-lauderdale-yet-another-triumph-for-
> multi-destinational-networks.html).
>> The key is a 'connective network' with regular service in a grid (for
>> example) and making connections between services attractive and easy.
>> 
>> 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').
>> 
> 
> -----
> Jonathan Richmond
> +1 617 395-4360
> e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').