Bus Network Planning for Transfers and the Network Effect in Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Although passengers dislike transferring, efficient transit systems should facilitate transfers to provide auto-competitive citywide access. This paper reviews bus transfer behavior in Melbourne, Australia, to understand causal factors. It also explores network effects: high ridership associated with frequent services or simple (grid) networks or both. Half of bus users make transfers, mostly to rail. The number of tram and bus transfers is generally low; however, in inner and central business district areas where trams run, they dominate. The young, students, males, commuters, and riders with periodical or full-fare tickets have high bus transfer rates. Middle-aged and older groups, off-peak riders, riders on shopping trips, and concession ticket holders have lower rates. Weekday peak hour commuters have high transfer rates. Frequent or longer-distance bus route types, simpler or straight route alignments, commuter services, and routes that require transfers have high transfer rates. Schedule coordination with rail increases transfer rates, but only a little. A modest but significant relationship (R2 = .25) between the volume of transfer trips and average service frequency was shown. High transfer volumes occur where at least one route has a frequency of 10 min or better. Current bus plans propose a 15-min-based grid route network. These findings suggest that major routes need at least 10-min headways to generate high transfer rates. A high bus transfer subnetwork was identified with features consistent with the network effect; however, conclusive proof of the network effect remains elusive. In simple terms the network effect, though intriguing, remains an unsubstantiated theory that informs good practice but should be treated with caution when applied in the real world.

Stated preference survey for estimating passenger transfer penalties: design and application to Madrid

“…The survey sample was drawn from a diverse population of commuters travelling by urban bus and metro in the city of Madrid. In common with other researches [8,16], the survey was restricted to commuters due to their higher transfer rates [17]. This research considers commuters to be people who periodically and recurrently travel between their place of residence and their place of work or study.…”

Definition of Planned and Unplanned Transfer of Public Transport Service and User Decisions to Use Routes with Transfers

“…Studies (Guo and Wilson 2004;Ceder et al 2009) have shown that commuters are only willing to tolerate the inconvenience caused by transfers if the perceived benefits of selecting a route with transfers are greater than the direct route. A number of studies (Liu et al 1997;Vande Walle and Steenberghen 2006;Bamberg et al 2007;Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral 2007;Guo and Wilson 2007;Iseki and Taylor 2009;Currie and Loader 2010;Guo and Wilson 2011;Sharaby and Shiftan 2012) have been conducted to identify the operational and psychological factors that dictate the inconvenience felt by transit users when undertaking routes with transfers. These studies have indicated the importance of including transfers in the planning stage of an integrated transport system.…”

Evaluating the impact of bus network planning changes in Sydney, Australia

“…Currie and Loader (2010) reviewed bus transfer behaviour, identifying half of bus users make transfers, mostly to rail. Currie and Loader conclude that high transfer volumes occur where at least one route has a frequency of 10 min or better, but conclusive proof of the network effect remains elusive.…”