Inclusive Planning Process for Citywide Bus Network Restructuring: Experience and Impacts

Abstract

Despite an overwhelming case for the redevelopment of historically based bus networks, reviews are difficult to implement because of limited funding, equity concerns, complex technical challenges, difficulty in communicating technical issues to stakeholders, and potential displacement of existing users. This paper describes a bus network review process designed in Melbourne, Australia, to address these issues. The process adopts evidence-based planning and achieves a consensus of outcomes by using an inclusive design process with advanced analysis tools to communicate technical issues effectively to a nontechnical audience. Previous research does not directly address the practical implementation of bus review processes and tends either to focus on short-term bus planning approaches or to consider theoretical applications with limited practical value. The bus network review process developed is based on strategic studies aimed at opportunities to grow bus markets. The process is highly consultative to build stakeholder buy-in and adopts a two-stage program of (a) problem identification inputs and (b) draft network review inputs using nominal group techniques to ensure inclusive participation and quantification of outputs. The review process uses a simple-to-understand hierarchy approach to review services including assessment of access, time factors, ease of use, safety, and awareness. Graphical techniques including geographic information systems are adopted for clear and simple presentation of technical outputs. The process has been powerful in building buy-in and has resulted in A$1.4 billion (US$1.3 billion) of investment in improved services with high ridership growth outcomes. Experience and effects, including areas for future research, are outlined.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wilson

, Bauer

, Gonzalez

, and Shriver

Short-Range Transit Planning: Current Practice and a Proposed Framework. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1984.

Booz Allen Hamilton. Metropolitan Bus Plan. Report for the Department of Infrastructure, Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2003.

Furth

P. G.

, and Wilson

N. H. M.

Setting Frequencies on Bus Routes: Theory and Practice. In Transportation Research Record 818, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 1–7.

Ceder

Public Transit Planning and Operation: Theory, Modeling and Practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, Mass., 2007.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., and K. Hunter-Zaworski. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.

Balcombe

, Mackett

, Paulley

, Preston

, Shires

, Titheridge

, Wardman

, and White

The Demand for Public Transport: A Practical Guide. Report TRL593. Transportation Research Laboratory, London, 2004.

Evans

J. E.

IV TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 9-Transit Scheduling and Frequency. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Pratt

R. H.

, and Evans

J. E.

IV TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 10-Bus Routing and Coverage. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.

McCollom

B. E.

, and Pratt

R. H.

TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 12-Transit Pricing and Fares. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.

10.

Charles River Associates, Inc. TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Transit's Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.

11.

Yoh

A. C.

, Haas

P. J.

, and Taylor

D. D.

Understanding Transit Ridership Growth: Case Studies of Successful Transit Systems in the 1990s. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1835, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 111–120.

12.

van Nes

, and Bovy

P. H. L.

Importance of Objectives in Urban Transit-Network Design. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1735, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 25–34.

13.

Wirasinghe

S. C.

Nearly Optimal Parameters for a Rail/Feeder-Bus System on a Rectangular Grid. Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1980, pp. 33–40.

14.

Ceder

, and Israeli

User and Operator Perspectives in Transit Network Design. In Transportation Research Record 1623, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 3–7.

15.

Vuchic

V. R.

Urban Public Transportation. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981.

16.

Vuchic

V. R.

Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J., 2007.

17.

Fielding

G. J.

Managing Public Transit Strategically. Jossey-Bass Publishers, Hoboken, N.J., 1987.

18.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Urbitran, Inc., LKC Consulting Services, Inc., Morpace International, Inc., Queensland University of Technology, and Y. Nakanishi. TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.

19.

Toronto Transit Commission. The Service Standards Process. Toronto, Canada, 1985.

20.

Mistretta, M., J. Goodwill, R. Gregg, and C. DeAnnuntis. Best Practices in Transit Service Planning. National Center for Transit Research, University of Southern Florida, Tampa; U.S. Department of Transportation; and Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2009.

21.

Chua

The Planning of Urban Bus Routes and Frequencies: A Survey. Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1984, pp. 147–172.

22.

Nielsen

, Nelson

, Mulley

, Tenger

, Lind

, and Lange

Guide 2: Public Transport—Planning the Networks. HiTrans Best Practice Guide, 2005.

23.

Booz Allen Hamilton. Bus Improvement Strategy. Final report for the Department of Infrastructure, Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2000.

24.

Booz Allen Hamilton. Bus Improvement Strategy: International Expert Opinion Survey—Methods to Substantially Increase Bus Usage. Report for the Department of Infrastructure, Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2000.

25.

Currie

Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Plan: An Overview of Key Findings. Bus Industry Confederation National Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2003.

26.

Currie

, and Wallis

Effective Ways to Grow Urban Bus Markets: A Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 16, 2008, pp. 419–429.

27.

Currie

, Kinnear

, and Wallis

Setting Public Transport Service Standards: An Economic Approach. Australasian Transport Research Forum, Wellington, New Zealand, 2003.

28.

Currie

Quantifying Spatial Gaps in Public Transport Supply Based on Social Needs. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2010, pp. 31–41.

29.

Meeting Our Transport Challenges: Connecting Victorian Communities Overview. Victoria Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne, Australia, 2006.

30.

Delbecq

, and VandeVen

A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, No. 7, 1971, pp. 466–91.

31.

Department of Transport. Annual Report. Melbourne, Australia, 2009.

32.

Currie

, and Loader

High Ridership Growth from Extended Transit Service Hours: An Exploration of the Causes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2110, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 120–127.