Choosing the right public transport solution based on performance of components
Planners often focus on a specific mode too early in the design and selection process, especially on the choice between bus and rail technology. It may be that available Right of Way (RoW), alignment characteristics and other design features are more important. In this paper, we first identify the principal components central to performance of a particular role common to all major Public Transport (PT) investments. The primary aim is to offer a more mode-neutral alternative selection process that benefits from ex-post cost and performance information about a substantial number of actual PT systems broken down into these components to the extent that is possible. Less quantitative components and features, such as passenger experience, scalability, and implementability are then discussed for their role in increasing or diminishing the attractiveness of alternative candidate component packages in the desired range of the quantitative criteria. The results show that investment costs increase with the degree of separation of RoW, regardless of rail or bus technology, with rail having an additive “technology premium”. Higher Average Operating Speed (AOS) reduces investment in vehicles and the Operating and Maintenance (O&M) cost, regardless of technology. At low/moderate passenger traffic densities, Semirapid Bus modes have lower O&M costs than Semirapid Rail. At the highest densities, Rapid Rail and Regional Rail modes exhibit clear economies of scale. For mixed street running, rail-related components cause a far more expensive total investment on per unit of Productive Capacity (PC) basis. As the required PC increases, rail modes become consistently less expensive. The main conclusion is that in order to improve value-for-money of PT it is critical to develop innovative component technologies and construction techniques, which are not necessarily rail or bus specific.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Brons, M.; Givoni, M.; Rietveld, P. 2009. Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43(2): 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.08.002
Bruun, E. C. 2013. Better Public Transit Systems: Analyzing Investments and Performance. Chapter 3: Route and Network Analysis. Routledge, UK, 57–105.
CEREMA. 2014. Transports collectifs urbains (TCU): évolution 2007–2012. Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et l’aménagement (CEREMA). 521 p. (in French).
Colliers International. 2009. Parking Rates: Global CBD Parking Rate Survey 2009. Available from Internet: http://www.colliers.com
Currie, G.; Delbosc, A. 2013. Exploring comparative ridership drivers of bus rapid transit and light rail transit routes, Journal of Public Transportation 16(2): 47–65. http://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.16.2.3
Currie, G.; Delbosc, A.; 2014. Assessing bus rapid transit system performance in Australasia, Research in Transportation Economics 48: 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.012
CUTA. 2013. Canadian Transit Fact Book: 2012 Operating Data. Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). Available from Internet: http://cutaactu.ca
De Oña, J.; De Oña, R.; Eboli, L.; Mazzulla, G. 2016. Index numbers for monitoring transit service quality, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 84: 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.018
Dell’Olio, L.; Ibeas, Á.; Cecín, P. 2011. The quality of service desired by public transport users, Transport Policy 18(1): 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.005
Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, Á.; Cecín, P. 2010. Modelling user perception of bus transit quality, Transport Policy 17(6): 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.006
Dell’Olio, L.; Ibeas, A.; Dominguez, A.; Gonzalez, F. 2012. Passenger preference analysis: light rail transit or bus versus car, Transport 27(3): 276–285. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2012.719839
Finn, B.; Heddebaut, O.; Kerkhof, A.; Rambaud, F.; Lozano, O. S.; Soulas, C. 2011. Bus à Haut Niveau de Service: Caractéristiques fondamentales et recommandations pour la prise de décision et la recherché. Rapport final: COST TU0603. Coopération européenne dans le domaine de la recherche scientifique et technique [European Cooperation in Science and Technology]. 226 p. (in French).
Flyvbjerg, B. 2007. Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 34(4): 578–597. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32111
FTA. 2013. The National Transit Database (NTD). US Federal Transit Administration (FTA), US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, US. Available from Internet: https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd
Givoni, M.; Rietveld, P. 2007. The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel, Transport Policy 14(5): 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.004
Hensher, D. A. 2016. Why is light rail starting to dominate bus rapid transit yet again?, Transport Reviews 36(3): 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1155851
Hensher, D. A.; Mulley, C. 2015. Modal image: candidate drivers of preference differences for BRT and LRT, Transportation 42(1): 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9516-7
Hensher, D. A.; Stanley, J. 2003. Performance-based quality contracts in bus service provision, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37(6): 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00006-5
Hensher, D. A.; Stopher, P.; Bullock, P. 2003. Service quality – developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37(6): 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(02)00075-7
Jarzab, J.; Lightbody, J.; Maeda, E. 2002. Characteristics of bus rapid transit projects: an overview, Journal of Public Transportation 5(2): 31–46. http://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.5.2.2
Mulley, C.; Hensher, D. A.; Rose, J. 2014. Do preferences for BRT and LRT vary across geographical jurisdictions? A comparative assessment of six Australian capital cities, Case Studies on Transport Policy 2(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2013.11.001
Ney, S. 2009. Resolving Messy Policy Problems: Handling Conflict in Environmental, Transport, Health and Ageing Policy. Routledge. 224 p.
Paget-Seekins, L.; Muñoz, J. C. 2015. Contested space for mobility: conflicts over busway projects in developing cities, in TRB 94th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 11–15 January 2015, Washington, DC, US, 1–16.
Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Salling, K. B.; Leleur, S. 2011. Transport appraisal and Monte Carlo simulation by use of the CBA-DK model. Transport Policy 18(1): 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.007
Stutsman, J. 2002. Bus rapid transit or light rail transit – how to decide?: Los Angeles case study, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1793: 55–61. https://doi.org/10.3141/1793-08
Thompson, G. L.; Matoff, T. G. 2003. Keeping up with the joneses: radial vs. multidestinational transit in decentralizing Regions, Journal of the American Planning Association 69(3): 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978021
TRB. 2003. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service: Manual. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100. Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, US.
Vuchic, V. R. 2007. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. Chapter 4: Transit system performance: capacity, productivity, efficiency, and utilization. Wiley, Canada. 149–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470168066.ch4