Bus routing strategies in a transit market: A case study of Hong Kong

Abstract

Abstract Conventionally, the objective of transit routing is often set either to minimize the total operational cost, subject to a given level of service quality, or to maximize the service quality at a given acceptable cost. In a deregulated, commercial‐based environment however, such as bus and railway operations in cities of the UK and Hong Kong where several private firms compete in route‐based or area‐based market, routing becomes one of the means for higher returns rather than just for cost saving. In such a case, how do the transit providers set up their routes for profit‐maximization? Will the routing based on the provider's objective meet the user's objective? How do government regulations and policies affect the choice of transit provider's routing strategy? To answer these questions, we first examine the relationship between the objectives of users and transit providers, set up criteria for transit routing quality, and then investigate the possible routing configurations/patterns for a hypothetical case. These criteria include (1) the load factor of transit, (2) the level of route directness, (3) the level of route overlapping, and (4) the total number of routes and (5) the average of route length. These measures are finally applied to a real case in Hong Kong to examine the route changes of Kowloon Motor Bus from 1975 to 1995. The result of the empirical case reveais how key measures such as load factor are controlled by the bus operator and affected by government policies and how the bus routing pattern was adjusted to meet users' need. Facing the dilemma as evident in Hong Kong between the route directness and the efficiency of road use, we suggest that a rational multi‐modal routing structure be put in place if an institutional solution is introduced so that bus and other transit modes can form a sharing program or an alliance.

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 — 8 citations exist upstream.

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