Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2010

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.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Hemily B. Trends Affecting Public Transit's Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Actions. American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2004.
2. Balcombe R., Mackett R., Paulley N., Preston J., Shires J., Titheridge H., Wardman M., and White P. The Demand for Public Transport: A Practical Guide. Report TRL593. Transportation Research Laboratory, London, 2004.
3. Currie G., and Wallis I. Effective Ways to Grow Urban Bus Markets: A Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 16, 2008, pp. 419–429.
4. Nielsen G., Nelson J., Mulley C., Tenger G., Lind G., and Lange T. Guide 2: Public Transport—Planning the Networks. HiTrans Best Practice Guide, 2005.
5. Mees P. A Very Public Solution: Transport in the Dispersed City. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
6. Currie G. The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, pp. 41–55.
7. Horowitz A., and Thompson N. Evaluation of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities. Final report. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 1994.
8. Vuchic V. R. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J., 2007.
9. Thompson G. Planning Considerations for Alternative Transit Route Structures. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1977, pp. 158–168.
10. Brown J. R., and Thompson G. L. Service Orientation, Bus–Rail Service Integration, and Transit Performance: Examination of U.S. Metropolitan Areas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2042, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 82–89.
11. Brown J., and Thompson G. Examining the Influence of Multidestination Service Orientation on Transit Service Productivity: A Multivariate Analysis. Transportation, Vol. 35, 2007, pp. 237–252.
12. Capineri C., and Kamann D. Synergy in Networks: Concepts. In Transport Networks in Europe: Concepts, Analysis and Policies (Button K. J., Nijkamp P., and Priemus H., eds.), Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 1998.
13. Terzis G., and Last A. Guide: Urban Interchanges—A Good Practice Guide. European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 4th RTD Framework Programme, Woking, Surrey, United Kingdom, 2000.
14. Department of Treasury and Finance. Victorian State Budget Paper No. 3: Service Delivery. Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
15. Newman P., and Kenworthy J. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
16. Australian Railway Association. National Passenger Transport Agenda. Kingston, Australia, 2006.
17. Department of Transport. Annual Report. Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
18. Loader C., and Stanley J. Growing Bus Patronage and Addressing Transport Disadvantage: The Melbourne Experience. 10th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Hamilton Island, Australia, 2007.
19. Currie G. Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Plan: An Overview of Key Findings. Bus Industry Confederation National Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2003.
20. Victoria Department of Infrastructure. Meeting Our Transport Challenges: Connecting Victorian Communities Overview. Melbourne, Australia, 2006.
21. Currie G., and Shalaby A. S. Success and Challenges in Modernizing Streetcar Systems: Experiences in Melbourne, Australia, and Toronto, Canada. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2006, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 31–39.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2010
Issue published: January 2010

Rights and permissions

© 2010 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Graham Currie
Public Transport, Institute of Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Building 60, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Chris Loader
Transport Planning and Policy, Bus Association Victoria, 450 Graham Street, Port Melbourne, Victoria 3207, Australia.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 282

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 18

  1. Integrated Public Transport Timetable Coordination and Vehicle Schedul...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. How does an open system bus rapid transit (BRT) facilitate inter and i...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. How Does the Location of Transfer Affect Travellers and Their Choice o...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Hybrid methodology for improving response rates and data quality in mo...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Comparison of Bus Network Structures in Face of Urban Dispersion for a...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Extending public transit accessibility models to recognise transfer lo...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Modelling the net traffic congestion impact of bus operations in Melbo...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Assessing interchange effects in public transport: A case study of Sou...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Transfer penalties in multimodal public transport networks
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Stated preference survey for estimating passenger transfer penalties: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. How network structure can boost and shape the demand for bus transit
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Design of suburban bus route for airport access
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Assessing Interchange Effects in Public Transport: A Case Study of Sou...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Optimal Coordination Strategy for an Integrated Multimodal and Multiop...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Transfer penalty estimation with transit trips from smartcard data in ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Metro commuters’ satisfaction in multi-type access and egress transfer...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Evaluating the impact of bus network planning changes in Sydney, Austr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Assessment of Potential Improvements to Metro–Bus Transfers in Bangkok...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub