Integration in Urban Public Transport Systems

Vahid Poorjafari^[1] 

   Mohammad Poorjafari^[2]

Abstract

The considerable growth of car-based trips in cities over the past decades has increased the importance of enhancing public transport as an alternative to compete with cars. Since the diverse public transport modes (e.g. MRT, LRT, bus, etc.) are being planned and constructed, especially in developing countries, the necessity of coordination and cooperation of these modes is becoming more and more critical. This paper focuses on the concept ‘Integration’ in urban public transport to reveal its significant role in increment of public transport ridership by providing more reliable and seamless trips. Also the aspects of integration at different stages of policy and operation are discussed in this paper. Furthermore, it investigates the process of implementing integration in public transport systems in two case studies (Brisbane and Singapore) in order to clarify the practical steps have been taken by these cities towards public transport integration and the results they have achieved. 

Keywords:

integration, public transport, urban intermodal transport

1. Introduction

The number of urban trips has been increasing dramatically over the past decades. The main reason for this growth are the change of trip patterns, dispersal of urban activities and the sharp increase in car ownership and use in cities [1].  However, by considering the daily increment in environmental emission, specifically air pollution produced by vehicles, and the limitation of natural resources, it is obvious that increasing of car-based trips is a critical threat to the global environment. In addition, the congestion is a big issue in urban areas which negatively affects the people’s lives in different aspects. With this in mind, the improvement of public transport systems, as a sustainable alternative to car-based trips, is becoming more and more crucial amongst decision makers. Consequently, the extension of different public transport modes, such as rail and bus, are given special attention and considerable budgets are invested on this purpose. However, in car-dependent cities improvement of public transport systems alone may not lead to reduction in car-based trips [2]. In fact, dispersion of public transport modes and services, even where there is a variety high quality individual public transport modes, are less likely to compete successfully with cars.

Although there is a wide range of factors which affect the performance of public transport systems, ‘integration’ is considered as a key factor that can make the public transport as a competitive alternative to private cars. By increasing the importance of effective public transport systems, there has been growing interest in the development of integrated public transport services in the recent years so that it is considered as a contemporary topic amongst researchers in the field of transportation. However, there is still considerable confusion in the concept of integration in terms of definition, aspects and implementation [3]. In other words, nobody has an absolute view about the integration in public transport although there are plenty of literature and articles about new technologies in public transport systems and modes [4]. 

This paper presents the concept of integration in public transport systems by exploring the associated literature and investigates its different aspects and levels. Also the influence of integration on public transport performance is evaluated in the rest of this paper by examining two successful examples of integrated public transport systems. Finally, it presents some recommendation which can improve integration in public transport systems.

2. The concept of ‘integration’ in public transport

The term of ‘integration’ in public transport or ‘integrated public transport’ is similar to the concept of intermodal which is generally used for the transport of goods. This concept is generally defined as a system that provides seamless (or ideally door-to-door) public transport services for passengers. However, there has not been a standard definition of this term yet [2]. In fact, the concept of integration in public transport is discussed and advocated in a variety of studies but rarely defined.

The word ‘integration’ used in public transport covers a wide range of concepts. For instance, some studies define it as ‘the way parts of the public transport network are embedded in the total mobility chain’. However, NEA [4] defines integration by further and more comprehensive statement as:

“ The organisation process through which elements of the passenger transport system (network and infrastructure, tariffs and ticketing, information and marketing, etc.) are, across modes and operators, brought into closer and more efficient interaction, resulting in an overall positive enhancement to the overall state and quality of the services linked to the individual travel components.”

This definition emphasises that integration is a process rather than a state and it is assumed to be less efficient and less close in the absence of an appropriate process. Furthermore, it refers to all characteristics of the passenger transport service, including infrastructures, tariff and information systems and especially the authorities and organisations which are involved in planning, managing and running the public transport systems. This definition even goes further than the borders of public transport systems and includes wider integration with other transport modes (e.g. walking, cycling and private cars) and other non-transport services such as town planning and environmental and social policies [4]. Moreover, this definition clarifies that integration refers to both inter-modal and intra-modal issues. That is, it covers not only the interaction between different public transport modes, but also within each mode, by itself. In one word, integration refers to the speedy, convenient and economical connection of services provided by public transport systems in order to make up complete journeys for passengers from their origins to the final destinations [5].

3. The objectives of integration in public transport

The car-based trips are considered as door-to-door journeys. Thus, if public transport systems are planned to compete with the private cars to reduce the number of car trips in cities, they should be capable to provide as the same kind of services as possible. These systems are increasingly being planned to facilitate the transfer between different public transport modes in order to provide seamless services for passengers. In fact, the objective of ‘integrated public transport’ is to provide a seamless service using two or more modes in order to achieve a high level of modal share by attracting more passengers, especially car users [6]. In other words, integration is aimed to increase the ridership of public transport systems in competition with private cars. Hence, it should be noted that integration is not a target by itself and implementation of it is not an end. In contrast, integration is a package of policies and activities that can improve public transportation system connectivity and reliability and make it more attractive travel alternative to the cars.

4. Aspects of integration in public transport systems

There is a variety of measures and practices to increase the integration within and amongst public transport systems. However, these measures and activities can be classified into five broad categories as follow:

1. Physical integration

The close and ease of access at mode interchanges can enhance public transport services significantly. This not only includes the physical connections between public transport modes but also refers to the connectivity of public transport modes and areas surrounding the stations and stops.

As every trip begins and ends on foot, walking should be appropriately integrated as one of the transport modes to the public transport systems. In this term, interchanges between transport modes are where the most barriers exist. Therefore, the main aim in this case is to minimise the obstacles related to the transfers. Walkways should be carefully designed to facilitate the transfer of passengers from one mode to another [2]. Facilitating of transferring between modes by reducing the walking distances and providing well-designed ramps and stairs can guarantee ease and safety of transfers amongst modes.

A fundamental element of a seamless public transport journey is the need to reduce the costs associated with interchanges. These costs can affect the demand for public transport in terms of the influences that interchanges have on waiting time, transferring time between vehicles, the attendant risks and inconvenience. Some studies have highlighted that the desirability of interchanges is influenced by interchange attributes, including personal security and travel information.

Hine and Scott [7] state that personal security is as a major issue especially in interchanges on dark mornings and late night. Also for trips where walking distances are over 5-10 minutes, at both origin and destination stages, public transport systems become increasingly unattractive.

2. Network integration

Generally, public transport services are more attractive when they are given over a comprehensive network. Network integration is often interpreted as the formation of a structure where performs a specific role in the system, making use of its relative benefits. This concept is also referred to the coordination and the links between long-distance public transport networks and local public transport networks. Based on this principle, the various modes have to be utilised according to their relative advantages by accumulating streams of passengers to higher ranking modes, like railway systems. Moreover, it plays as important role at the service planning stage, which consists of route and timetable design, by ensuring that services provide attractive ‘connection’ to each other in both terms of time and transfer conditions. Therefore, this aspect is classified to the integration of route network and timetable (scheduling).

• Route Network:

This term is normally referred to the connectivity of the route network of different public transport modes. Bus and rail systems should be integrated in their own right and also these two separate networks should further complement each other. Feeder services (e.g. buses, trams and light rail systems) should be designed so that they maximise the ridership of trunk routes where mass transit modes operate on. Network integration is closely linked to physical integration and both of them contribute towards the integration of infrastructure [2]. This has significant effects on the planning of fixed infrastructure, including main interchanges. Network integration not only should be considered at the both stages of planning and operation, but also it should be satisfied in terms of the coordination in investing on the infrastructures and main interchanges between public transport modes. Also at the operational level, it is referred to predicted or unpredicted excess demand or service disruption are taken into account by providing guaranteed interchanges, helpful information and alternative services in cases of delays or service failures [4].

• Scheduling:

While a plenty of literature offers some broad conceptual assistance to public transport planners in terms of providing a better structure of routes and lines, a considerable proportion of the technical literature concentrates on ‘scheduling’ problems in public transport systems. Scheduling analysis is often highly mathematically oriented to operational or safety analysis rather than being related to the practical considerations of route networks. Guihare and Hao [4] emphasise the mathematical optimisation and maximisation equations of algorithms rather than practical planning principles that are normally followed by planners to achieve seamless ‘network effect’ in public transport operation. However, Neilsen et al’s [4] suggest the methods which are more practical and easily-applied in comparison with these approaches. Instead of mathematical computer model, they suggest easily creating a simple sketch map of public transport routes to combine the information from the network map and the timetables to have an important basic tool for network planning. In other words, while scheduling tasks are certainly important in designing a fast efficient network, planners should look first to network design in order to overcome the network problems and weaknesses. Although scheduling of services on individual lines is important to maximise their capacity (e.g. high-frequency metro systems in contemporary cities), wider attention should be paid on the network connectivity especially in dispersed metropolitan areas with fewer high capacity trunk lines [4].

3. Fare integration

This aspect of integration is simply referred to use a single fare ticket or card for multiple services which facilitates the transfer between modes. The two distinct issues of tariff and ticket integration are often considered as almost the same to the concept of integration itself. In fact, ticketing integration and fare integration are meant to facilitate traveling from the view of passengers. In other words, it is to remove the obstacles of using different services, such as different prices between similar journeys provided by a single of multiple operators or the different ticket types between two or more transport modes [4].

Although transfer of tickets between services may lead to some loss of revenue, the ridership increment would compensate this if the public transport is made more attractive [5]. In addition, Rebates can also be considered as an incentive for those who transfer from on mode to another.

4. Information integration

A comprehensive, easy-to-use passenger travel guide is a critical element of a successful multi-modal travel.  Stations and stops are decision making points over the public transport networks. Therefore, the signage should be appropriately designed at bus and rail stations to convey effective information to passengers.

In one word, information integration states that the system is recognised as ‘one’, with unified set of concepts and a common language in the communication towards the passengers. The integrated information is aimed to remove the barriers of utilisation of the system and to inform the passengers about the possibilities of travel offered by the system as a whole, both within and outside the public transport system [4]. Information Technology (IT) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can play important roles in this aspect of integration by providing clear, brief and timely information. The information should be clear, brief and timely. Furthermore, giving special attention to the elderly and the disable is a key point in terms of information integration.

5. Institutional integration

Although the operational integration in public transport, like integration of fares, information and services and infrastructure, have always been crucial, a further form of integration is required to facilitate and guarantee implementation of other integration aspects. This form is directly relevant to strategy formulation. Institutional integration, which is sometimes entitled ‘wider integration’, considerably affects other aspects of integration mentioned in the previous parts. This is involved in two main issues. At the lower level, it means the integration of public transport systems in their own right; between different modes and operators; and also with other transport systems (e.g. private cars, taxis, cycling and walking), at the stages of investment, service planning and operation. At the higher level, it is referred to the integration with other policy frameworks which are associated with transport policies, including urban planning, environmental policies and social systems (e.g. health, social services and educational systems) [4].

A common institutional framework is the key instrument land-use planning, travel demand management and integrated public transport services. This integration is vitally important to improve the cooperation and coordination amongst authorities/governmental agencies and public transport sectors and also between private and public operators.

Such integration can occur in four extensive ways [3]:

• Integration between policy instruments involving different modes
• Integration between policy instruments involving infrastructure provision, management, information and pricing
• Integration between transport measures and land use planning policies; and
• Integration with other policy areas such as health and educational systems

In practice, there are some overlaps between these areas. However, a carefully designed integrated strategy, especially in terms of integration between modes and also between transport measures and land use are more likely to achieve the objectives. The European Commission’s guidance on the preparation of Sustainable Urban Transport Plan [3] classifies the integration between agencies and authorities as follow:

• Horizontal integration between agencies and departments within a city administration
• Spatial integration between adjacent local authorities; and
• Vertical integration between local, regional, national and European administrations.

It should be noted that such integration requires a common understanding of these agencies’ objectives and recognition of their relative importance. Definition of integration as an objective itself makes the situation more unclear rather than clarifies the issue. Therefore, it should be clarified that what integration is designed to deliver instead of looking at it as an end in itself.

5. Integration effects

There has been an increasing recognition over the past two decades that public transport operates most successfully when it is planned as a unified network to provide seamless multi-destination travel rather than individual lines that only serve single trips.  A variety of studies have shown that public transport systems which are designed around widely distributed networks offer wider choice of trip in comparison with those attempt to cater for every potential origin-destination combination by supplying routes to satisfy these travel opportunities [8]. In other words, the conception of public transport as a networks rather than individual routes can generate higher level of patronage due to unexpected trip making behaviour that the network can support. This surplus of ridership, which is entitled ‘network effect’, is beyond what is generally expected by planners based on the conventional single-route cost-benefit analyses. Therefore, planning of public transport systems as seamless integrated networks rather than as a series of individual routes is critical in order to enable these systems to compete with private cars and attract as car users as possible.

6. Case studies

As described, the main effect of integration in public transport systems is to increase the patronage by providing more convenient, reliable and attractive services. Although it is difficult to isolate the effects of implementing integration measures on patronage increment of public transport, there are some successful cases that can reveal its positive influences.

In this part of the paper, the experience of two cities which have been putting effort towards integration in public transport are evaluated.

6-1. South East Queensland

Queensland is a state of Australia located in the north-eastern section of the mainland continent. The South East Queensland (SEQ) region extends from the Gold Coast to the Sunshine Coast and west beyond Ipswich (Figure 1). This area includes Brisbane, which is the capital city of Queensland with the population of 1.1 million people. The area is in excess of 6300 km2 and rail, bus and ferry services are provided by different operators and public transport are owned by both public and private sectors.

Historically, the lack of integration amongst the different public transport modes was recognised as an obstacle limiting public transport patronage in SEQ [9]. A mix of zonal and distance-based fare structure was utilised by different public transport modes (e.g. Queensland Rail (QR) ‘CityTrain’, Brisbane Transport bus and ferry services) until July 2004. Although some rail-bus service coordination had been introduced, the capacity to deliver ‘seamless’ multi-operator and multi-modal travel over this area was limited.

Figure 1-   South East Queensland (SEQ) area

• Institutional Integration:

In June 2002, the Queensland Government announced a commitment to develop of an integrated public transport system in SEQ. A new authority, ‘TransLink’, was established to lead and deliver an integrated urban transit system that is used and valued by the people of SEQ [9]. TransLink was given the authority to deliver integration over four key areas:

1. One ticket- by integrating the tickets and standardising fares
2. One network- by centrally planning and coordinating all major public transport routes, services, connections and infrastructure
3. One system- by marketing the system through consistent branding and passenger information
4. New contracts- by negotiating new contracts with public transport operators.

• Fare Integration:

The integration of fares and tickets was implemented by TransLink in July 2004. This included introduction of a new zonal fare structure and a range of fully integrated fare products delivered by existing fare collection equipment. A new smart card, go card, was introduced in 2008 by TransLink for use on the TransLink network. This card is currently used widely by passengers instead of tickets so that this card is used in more than 60% of public transport trips.  Figure 2 demonstrates the growth of go cars usage compared to paper tickets in 4 quarters of 2009-10.

• Network Integration:

In terms of Network Integration, a network plan was released by TransLink in March 2005 in order to integrate and improve public transport services and infrastructure in SEQ. This plan focused on the re-structuring of the network to improve services to growing suburbs, improve the connectivity of services and make public transport more frequent and reliable (Streeting & Barlow2007, p.3). Furthermore, this plan contained the transport infrastructure upgrade plans, which specified the proposed investigation, planning and design of all infrastructures over the next 20 years.

Figure 2-  The usage of the integrated fare (go card) in SEQ public transport in four quarters of 2009 [10]

The whole of these steps taken towards integration in SEQ public transport system over the years resulted in the growth of the public transport patronage. Total public transport trips increased to 135.9 million in 2004/05, by 9.7% increase. This increase was repeated in 2005/06 by increasing the public transport trips to 151.7 million trips, equivalent to growth of 11.6%. This upward trend in public transport patronage has been sustained (Figure 3) so that it reached to 181.8 million trips in 2010.

Figure 3    The trend of public transport patronage in SEQ [10]

Since there is a variety of factors that affect public transport ridership (e.g. population growth, car ownership rate, petrol price variation, etc.), it is complicated to determine the role of integration in the growth of public transport patronage. However, some analyses conducted in this case have shown that the benefits of integration (i.e. fares, ticketing, services and infrastructure, etc.) made a highly significant contribution to SEQ public transport growth [9].

6-2. Singapore

Singapore has a population of 5.07 million in 2011. Singapore is famous for their higher modal share in public transport. It has successfully implemented congestion pricing since 1975 to reduce car trips to the CBD and utilised a variety of measures to encourage public transit usage. In recent years, this city has paid a particular attention on the integrated public transport in order to improve the connectivity of transport modes so that public transport becomes a practicable alternative to cars and reduces road congestions and environmental emission [2].

•  Institutional Integration:

The process of institutional integration has taken many years, as in many other cities. The establishment of TransitLink in 1989 was the first step in this respect. In 1995, Land Transport Authority was formed which undertook both functions of planning and regulatory for public and private transport. Traditionally, the SBS Transit provided nearly all the bus services in Singapore until Trans-Island Bus Services (TIBS) began operation in 1983. The Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT Group) became in charge of operating all heavy and light rail services. In 2002, TIBS was merged with SMRT Group in order to integrate the institutional framework of the public transport.

Although there are some overlaps and consequently some competition between the bus networks of SBS Transit and TIBS, each operator is in a good position to provide integrated services within its area.

• Physical Integration:

The North-East Line, which was opened in June 2003, has all its stations well-integrated with adjacent activity centres. Moreover, LRT lines act as feeder services to this line and are integrated with local neighbourhood and adjacent buildings [2]. In addition, more attention is paid on the architectural design of new MRT stations, especially in terms of accessibility to other modes (e.g. linkways from station entrances to bus shelters). Safe and easy walk paths and elevators have been provided for the passengers, especially for the aging population and the disables.

• Network Integration:

The government has given attention to network integration, as well. With further investment in MRT/LRT, it has been important that the bus network and the rail network are appropriately integrated. The government put the effort to use the bus /LRT network only as a feeder service to MRT to reduce the congestion on arterial roads. Therefore, it reduces unnecessary duplication of services and improves the utilisation of the system. In changing the role of the bus network, it has been assumed that the current bus users are not penalised with a walking distance by longer than the current 300 m to catch a train [2].

• Fare Integration:

A magnetic stripe, stored-value TransitLink fare card was introduced in Singapore in 1990 for bus and rail as a fare integration measure. Also a contactless smart card, called the EZ smart card, was introduced in 2002 as a unified fare card for all MRT, LRT and bus services. This card has been developed so that it can be used for other transport purposes (e.g. park-and-ride facilities) and small retail purchases. This system has had a significant effect on the efficiency and operating cost of the public transport system because it provides seamless travel commuters travelling with different public transport modes. A trial study has revealed that the boarding time of a bus has been decreased by 62% in comparison with cash payment [2]. Moreover, rebates have been assigned to the intermodal transfer as a financial incentive for the public transport passengers. A rebate of S$0.25 is given to an individual passenger from an MRT station to a bus within 30 minutes.

• Information Integration:

In order to implement the information integration, a service company, TransitLink, was established in 1989 to produce travel guide and coordinate public transport information (e.g. routes, timetables and multi-modal data) at interchanges. This company provides coordinated and comprehensive information about travelling on different modes of public transport in a single book, which is updated every year. The electronic version of this book is also available on the internet. In addition to annual TransitLink Guides, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has implemented the Traveller Information Services (TIS) to provide real-time information on public transport system. All of MRT stations and major bus stops are being equipped by information panels which give the passengers essential real-time information, such arrival and departure times of different modes. Also a new colour coding for MRT/LRT lines has recently been introduced so that a unified alphanumeric coding is utilised in the all stations. Similarly, the signage system is assumed to be extended to bus interchanges, bus stop and taxi stands.

Figure 4 shows the increase of public transport ridership in this city over the past 15 years. Studies have shown that the modal share of public transport was 63% of all motorised trips during morning peak in 2004. However, the Government’s target is to increase this share to 70% by 2020 [11]. Therefore, the government put emphasis on ‘well integrated’ public transport system in the Land Transport Masterplan in 2008. This plan states that the rail and bus systems must work in partnership to provide a comprehensive network with seamless connectivity, reliable and comfortable services to make the public transport able to compete with cars.  

Figure 4    The trend of public transport ridership in Singapore  [12]

7. Conclusion

This paper has presented the concept of integration as a key factor in enhancement and improvement of urban public transport systems. As described in this paper, integration measures and activities are involved with all aspects of public transport systems at the stages of planning, management and operation. All of these measures, which are classified to physical, network, fare, information and institutional integration, are aimed to provide reliable, attractive and seamless travel for public transport users in order to attract as many car-based trips as possible to public transport and to reduce the problems caused by car-based trips in cities.

In order to reveal the effect of integration on public transport performance, two cities which have taken some steps towards integrating their public transport systems were evaluated in this paper. As mentioned, both cities have experienced the growth in their public transport patronage over the past years. Despite this fact that it is not easy to determine how much the integration measures have contributed in their public ridership, it is obvious that it has had significant influences on improving the performance of those public transport systems.

Integration is not a definite status and should be improved continuously within different public transport modes and also between public transport and other transport modes. Integration can be implemented and achieved in different levels. These levels can be from a minimum form of integration at the operational levels, like integrated information and/or fare. However, the higher level of integration is achieved by extending its border beyond the public transport systems by involving other modes of transport and other policies, like land-use planning, social and environmental policies. In other words, successfully implementation of integration requires the commitment of all associated organisation and authorities. Therefore, a common policy framework can be an effective instrument to advance coordination and cooperation between these public/private bodies. This is more critical in the cities where diverse public transport systems, such as rail and bus systems are under design and construction.

References

1. Ibrahim, M F. Improvements and integration of a public transport system: the case study of Singapore.  Elsevier Science Ltd. 2003, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 205-216.

2. Luk, JYK & Olszewski, P. Integrated public transport in Singapore and Hong Kong. Road & Transport Research. 2003, vol.12, no.4, pp.41-51.

3. May, A D, Kelly, C & Shepherd, S. The principles of integration in urban transport strategies. Transport Policy. 2006, vol. 13, pp. 319-327.

4. NEA Transport research and training. (2003). Integration and regulatory structures in public transport, Transport studies unit, University of Oxford.

5. Simpson, B J. (1994). Urban Public Transport Today, E & FN Spon, London.

6. Austroads Research Report (2008), Best Practice on Improving Level of Service for Freight Vehicles, On-Road Public Transport, HOV and Emergency Vehicles, Austroads, Sydney.

7. Hine, J & Scott, J. Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange.  Transport Policy. 2000, vol.7, pp. 217-226.

8. Dadson, J, Mees, P, Stone J & Burke, M. (2011). The Principles of Public Transport Network Planning: A review of the emerging literature with select examples, Griffith University, Brisbane.

9. Streeting, M & Barlow, R. Understanding key drivers of public transport patronage growth-recent South East Queensland. International Conference Series on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport. 2007, Hamilton Island, Queensland, Australia.

10. TransLink Annual Report 2009-10, TransLink Transit Authority, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

11. Singapore. LT Masterplan . A People-Centred Land Transport System. 2008.

12. LTA Annual Reports, Land Transport Authority, Singapore, <http://www.lta.gov.sg>.