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

[Colin Hughes]

Interesting discussion about direct versus connective services and I wanted
to bring up another dimension of this in addition to frequency and  total
travel time: capacity. I am currently overseeing some research on the
TransOeste BRT on the far south side of Rio de Janeiro. Currently, it has a
large bus terminal which connects many feeder routes to the BRT. And while
the BRT there has a peak frequency of 4 minutes or so, capacity does not
meet demand so most users are waiting in a queue for 2-3 buses to go by
before they can board. That means the waiting time is actually double or
triple the frequency interval, in addition to the time and trouble it takes
to cross platforms to access the BRT. On TransOeste this is also a function
of the fact that most users are riding more or less from end terminal to
end terminal.

I also agree with Sudhir that whether or not the user is charged for the
transfer is really important to users. The average fare of a user in
Guangzhou decreased significantly with the BRT because the BRT brought free
transfers on the corridor (as well as volume-discounted smartcard payment
options).  Adding up the time-cost of the time and cost of transferring is
a good way to compare the relative total costs of a direct vs. connective
service.

//c



On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM,
<sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org>wrote:

> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         sustran-discuss-owner at list.jca.apc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..."
>
> ########################################################################
> Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in
> your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that
> you are responding to. Many thanks.
>
> About this mailing list see:
>     http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> ########################################################################
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking     Outside
>       the Bus) (Paul Barter)
>    2. Re: Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking
>       Outside the Bus) (Zvi Leve)
>    3. Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking     Outside
>       the Bus) (Sudhir)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Barter <paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org>
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Cc: aprabhu at embarqindia.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:35:46 +0800
> Subject: [sustran] Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking
> Outside the Bus)
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Zvi Leve <zvi.leve at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Barter <paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org>
> Cc: aprabhu at embarqindia.org, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:53:08 -0500
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Direct vs connective networks again (was Re:
> Thinking Outside the Bus)
> 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').
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sudhir <sudhir at cai-asia.org>
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org, aprabhu at embarqindia.org,
> zvi.leve at gmail.com
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 09:52:12 +0800
> Subject: [sustran] Direct vs connective networks again (was Re: Thinking
> Outside the Bus)
> I have limited knowledge in this but based on my experience transfers are
> painful because of our poor accessibility. Sometimes I think that we are
> planning more transfers just because we are designing the system with
> limited buses. With transfers we are just buying time and trying to manage
> the challenges for short term. Also does the user pay more because he/she
> travels for shorter distances in different buses?
>
>
> regards
>
> Sudhir
>
>
> --------
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ================================================================
> 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, please go to
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>



-- 

Colin K. Hughes | Director of National Policy & Project Evaluation

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy

New York City + Washington, D.C.

Office +1 212-629-8001| www.itdp.org

*Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
Promoviendo el transporte sostenible y equitativo en todo el mundo*