Level-Based Approach to Public Transport Network Planning

Abstract

The public transport network level is defined and is used to describe the performance and future improvement of the public transport system in Zurich, Switzerland. A public transport level is a specific type of service designed to serve a particular market. “Service” is defined as a combination of vehicles, infrastructure, and operating characteristics. A pure level occurs when the service is targeted specifically at one particular market. A hybrid level occurs when a service is targeted to serve several markets. Urban travel is generally described as three markets: short, inter mediate, and long-distance trips. Consequently many cities have developed three-level public transport networks: surface buses and trams to serve short trips, rapid rail to serve intermediate trips, and regional rail to serve longer-distance trips. Often, by design or for historic reasons, cities have additional levels, fewer levels, levels that are not precisely matched to their markets, or all three. For example, two-level networks are often found in medium-sized cities. Their advantage is lower costs, and their main disadvantage is a mismatch between transport mode and market that manifests itself in capacity limitations. The level concept to help analyze and plan public transport service is useful because it focuses attention on matching service qualities to markets. This approach, used here to analyze the success of the public transport system of Zurich, Switzerland, and to provide a structure for planning improvements that will be needed to meet rapidly increasing public transport demand, could help other cities design or redesign their public transport systems to be more attractive and efficient. More specifically, the approach could show how two-level public transport networks would be a viable option for medium-sized cities and large cities with dispersed settlement patterns.

Urban Services on Regional Rail: Local and Network-Based Methodologies for Evaluating New Stations in Toronto

“…According to their description, regional rapid transit functions between commuter rail and urban rapid transit, characterized by reliance on park and ride lots and long stop spacing like traditional commuter rail, but providing more extensive urban service than a typical commuter rail service. Nash and Levinson's regional rapid transit systems are comparable to the two-level, hybrid networks that Orth et al observe in the European context and rely on a single rail service to provide both suburban and urban transit (1,4).…”

“…Hermann Orth et al set out a standard three-level transit network to serve three different trip lengths – short, medium, and long – but note that many cities deviate from this structure ( 1 ). Typically, systems that deviate from the structure operate two-level hybrid networks.…”

“…This network typology may serve medium-sized cities well, but has an inherently lower capacity than a three-level network. Orth et al cite the example of Zurich, Switzerland where a two-level network functions well but is reaching capacity ( 1 ).…”

Alternate Criteria in LP Solutions of Public Transport Line Planning

“…These requirements lead to the following problem formulation: to find a positive real number y and non-negative integers q l , (line l choice indicator), x lj (number of vehicles on l in the j-th period) for each j = 1, …, g and l ! L 0 such that max y " (17) , ,…”

“…In the current paper, the one-level approach is adopted in the formulations of the line creation problems to be solved. Here, an a priori distinction of "levels" is not included, i. e. specific types of service designed to serve particular markets like in [17] for Zurich in Switzerland. Neither are there distinguished public transport subsystems of "higher" and "lower" levels.…”