Network planning and design for public transport success - and some pitfalls

Abstract

Our intention has been to show that network planning and design can be a decisive factor for public transport success. We also recommend some important elements of planning philosophy and design principles for the public transport network. However, what constitutes good practice or bad solutions depends on the context. Therefore, there is no definite recipe for success. In this paper, the emphasis is on high quality public transport that is able to replace car use as a significant measure to create a more sustainable and environment friendly city region on a long-term basis. In most urban regions in the developed world, this is a major concern of transport policy. Therefore, by high quality solutions we mean solutions for public transport systems that are able to be a competitive alternative to the motor car for urban travel. This is a far-reaching quality ambition, which means that it is difficult to find practical examples that fully live up to the expected level of quality for all components of the public transport system. In order to fund the quality needed, the public transport system must also be cost-efficient. The costs of operation also influence the level of fares that users must pay. Therefore, both efficient use of resources and high quality service to the passengers is required. Good network planning can make a very significant contribution towards both objectives. On the other hand, there are a number of very serious pitfalls that decision-makers might fall into, if they do not reflect properly on their planning philosophy and network design strategies. Making the right or wrong choices at a strategic level can decide between success and almost complete failure. Statistics on public transport trends and market share in urban regions

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.