Bus station và bus stop
Bus Stations and Terminals The size and nature of a terminal may vary, from a roadside bus stop with no facilities for passengers or bus crews, to a purpose built off-road bus station offering a wide range of facilities. If the number of vehicles arriving and departing is low, a roadside bus stop, with no facilities, will normally be adequate. With a large number of vehicles arriving and departing, it may be necessary to provide off-road bus station facilities for the convenience of passengers and to reduce traffic congestion. Terminals versus stations The term bus station is normally used to refer to an off-road location with at least basic facilities for passengers, while a terminal may be a fully equipped bus station but might equally be merely a point in the road. In many cities the majority of passengers start and end their journeys at bus stations, and a significant proportion of operators’ revenue may be collected at these points. Stations and terminals are important elements Local bus services in many towns and cities are centered on bus stations. Often there are large stations in the central area, with smaller ones at the outer ends of the routes. There may also be intermediate stations, especially at points where many passengers interchange between different bus routes, although most intermediate passengers on urban services board and alight at roadside bus stops. Bus stations may also be used for parking between journeys for buses which are away from their home bases. But they should not normally be regarded as long‑term parking facilities, particularly in locations where land is expensive. When they are not required for loading, buses should be parked elsewhere, preferably at depots where there are facilities for vehicle servicing and cleaning. Buses should not normally be permitted to park in streets adjacent to bus stations. Efficient systems limit bus time at stations In practice it is necessary to achieve a realistic compromise with regard to parking at bus stations. While it’s expensive to provide parking space at city centre terminals, it can also be expensive and inefficient for buses to be driven for long distances to remote parking areas, particularly if traffic congestion is a serious problem. It may be appropriate for bus operators to be charged for parking on a time basis to discourage them from parking their vehicles for too long. Calculating these charges should take into account the cost of providing parking facilities. But it should not be so high that it encourages operators to park their vehicles elsewhere when this would be uneconomic or undesirable not only to the operator but to the community. Locating bus stations for urban services There are a number of considerations in deciding the best location. The location should be where routes should logically connect or terminate, as determined by passenger demand patterns. If the station is used as an intermediate stopping point on routes passing through, it should be conveniently located for passengers joining or leaving vehicles. Sometimes the location of stations for different classes of vehicles is influenced by the catchment areas of the passengers. For example, the majority of people using air conditioned buses may live in a different part of the city from those using standard services. An efficient urban bus route network in any medium or large city will inevitably require a large number of terminal points, not only at the ends of each route but at various intermediate points where some vehicles may turn short. Simple terminal points do the job It’s often appropriate, where the road layout permits, for buses to follow a loop round the block at the end of the route, standing between journeys at a roadside stop at some point in the loop, or immediately before or after it. Similarly, bus stations en route will be required only where demand justifies their provision. As a guide, an off-street bus station may be justifiable if the number of buses standing simultaneously loading, unloading or waiting to depart regularly exceeds 10 or 12, although much will depend on the road layout, and the volume of other traffic. If the road is very wide and there is little traffic, roadside bus stops may cater adequately for up to five buses loading simultaneously on each side of the road. If suitable off-street terminal sites are not available it’s usually preferable for routes to terminate on-street, even in central areas, rather than for terminals to be sited at inconvenient locations. Efficient routing minimizes the need for terminals Where bus stations are required, they should be located near to points of high demand for maximum passenger convenience. The location of stations is often determined primarily by the availability of sites, and as a result they are often in inappropriate locations, causing inconvenience to passengers using them, and increasing vehicle operating costs by increasing the distances traveled. Central area terminals can create congestion Where there are several central terminals, there are normally different terminals serving different groups of routes or destinations. Each terminal should ideally be located close to the corridor served by its group of routes. This minimizes the number of buses crossing the central area and reduces traffic congestion caused by buses. But it may mean that the majority of passengers must walk some distance into the centre to complete their journeys, and passengers interchanging between routes may be seriously inconvenienced by having to walk from one terminal to another. An alternative is to allocate routes to terminals in such a way that every route crosses the city centre before reaching its terminal. This may increase passenger convenience, but may also increase the level of traffic congestion, and requires a greater number of buses to provide an equivalent service. While urban bus services are often severely hampered by traffic congestion, the buses themselves may also contribute to congestion in the city. In particular, city centre bus terminals can cause severe traffic congestion through the concentration of buses arriving and departing. This is particularly so where buses load at the curbside rather than in off-street bus stations. Operating from suburb to suburb can decrease congestion Additional advantages from this type of operation are that bus utilization may be improved by reducing the number of times when a bus has to turn. Additional links are also provided for passengers whose journeys take them across the city centre. A potential disadvantage is irregularity of services, caused by eliminating the opportunity to compensate for traffic delays by adjusting layover times at central terminal points. Although such delays may be reduced through minimizing bus-induced congestion. Where routes are linked to operate across the city centre, there can be a benefit in providing facilities for passengers to interchange between routes. These facilities may take the form of purpose-built off-road facilities, or roadside bus stops with shelters, perhaps linked by pedestrian bridges or subways. With these kinds of facilities, the location should not require buses to deviate significantly from their routes; otherwise much of the benefit of operating through services is lost. However, with appropriate routing, it should be unnecessary for the majority of passengers to transfer between bus routes in the city centre, and extensive interchange facilities should not be required. Off-street bus stations in city centers are, in any case, often a wasteful use of expensive land, although this may be offset by the development of property above the station. See also Infrastructure requirements Page 2A monopoly may be publicly or privately owned. In almost all cases, instituting a public monopoly structure is inadvisable. The experience of developing countries around the world shows that public monopolies fail to deliver a sustainable public transport service. There are several inherent disadvantages of a public monopoly system. Poor service because of a lack of competition is a typical example. Another is the inability of public monopolies to generate sufficient funds to pay for bus maintenance and investment in infrastructure. A privately owned monopoly, unless effectively regulated, may also have serious disadvantages. A common problem is exploitation of the users, by offering inadequate or unsatisfactory services at excessive fares. As with the public monopoly, there is a tendency for staffing levels, wages and other costs to rise at a faster rate than they would have done under a competitive regime. In addition, depending on the financial incentive program and the extent of the government's powers, there may be a tendency for service quality to be poor, with the service catering only to those with no choice of transport mode. Page 3
Legal Aspects This broad definition includes how the term monopoly is commonly used where it describes a situation where one producer or supplier, because of the large size of the market it controls, can suppress effective business competition in that market and thus enhance the price of its products or services. However the term monopoly also means — and this is how it should be understood here — the exclusive right granted by the state to one person or persons to sell a product or provide a service within a given area. This turns something that was once a common right into a privilege. Where the exclusive right is granted by the state to a public body it’s a public monopoly. A public monopoly, in the context of urban bus transport services, entails the right of a municipal government or of a public transport authority to provide, to the exclusion of all others, urban bus transportation services within their areas of jurisdiction. Two kinds of public monopolies While many municipal services can be sub-contracted to a third party, if the municipal government is granted a monopoly over the provision of urban bus transport services it will most likely operate those services:
Public transport authority Often this statutory public transport authority will be responsible for the provision of urban transport services, not only by bus, but also by metro, light rail, ferry or any other available means of urban public transport. When many modes of public transport are involved, the public transport authority can provide the urban bus transport services either directly or through a functional or legal subdivision of it (e.g., a business unit or a separate bus company). Page 4
Area Contract: Gross Cost Normally these contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. During a transition period, however, negotiated area contracts may be awarded on the basis of negotiation with an incumbent bus operator. If the financial basis of the contract is payment to the operator of a specified sum to provide the specified service for a specified period, with all revenue collected being for the account of the authority, it’s known as a gross-cost contract. An area contract will be appropriate if:
System design for a gross-cost area-contract must take into account: Page 5
Area Contract: Net Cost Normally these contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. During a transition period, however, negotiated area-contracts may be awarded on the basis of negotiation with an incumbent bus operator. Under a net-cost contract the operator provides a specified service for a specified period and retains all revenue. The authority pays a subsidy to the operator if the bus services in an area are unprofitable. If the services are profitable, the authority pays the operator a royalty. Under a net-cost contract the operator has to forecast both his costs and his revenues. An area contract will be appropriate if:
System design for a net-cost area contract must take into account: Page 6
Route Contract: Gross Cost Normally these contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. During a transition period, however, negotiated contracts may be awarded on the basis of negotiation with an incumbent bus operator. A gross-cost contract pays the operator a specified sum to provide a specified service for a specified period. All revenue collected is for the authority. A route contract is appropriate if the authority wishes to:
A gross-cost contract is appropriate if the authority wishes to:
The major disadvantages of a gross-cost route contract are:
System design for a gross cost route contract must take into account: Page 7
Public Monopoly with Management Contract The senior management team of this system might not be on its payroll. Instead, a specialist team of managers, usually from the private sector, may be engaged under contract, selected by tender or other means. This situation is called a public monopoly with management contract.
Major disadvantages of a public monopoly with management contract
A public monopoly should only be considered under limited circumstances
System design for a public monopoly with management contract must take into account: Page 8
Route Contract: Net Cost Normally these contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. During a transition period, however, negotiated route-contracts may be awarded on the basis of negotiation with an incumbent bus operator. Under a net-cost contract the operator provides a specified service for a specified period and retains all revenue. The authority pays a subsidy to the operator if the bus services in an area are unprofitable. If the services are profitable, the authority pays the operator a royalty. Under a net-cost contract the operator has to forecast both his costs and his revenues. A route contract will be appropriate if the authority wishes to:
System design for a net-cost route-contract must take into account: Page 9 Unregulated Entry with Quality Control If these standards are reasonably high and ensure that the vehicles are of good quality, at least by local standards, with high maintenance standards ensured by government inspections, this system is described as unregulated entry with quality control. If a vehicle meets the quality criteria set down it may enter service on any route at any fare, and pick up and set down passengers at any location unless forbidden by general traffic regulations. Thus entry to the public bus system should in theory be no different from other businesses, such as the restaurant business, which has no restrictions on entry other than hygiene and environmental standards and is subject to health inspections at any time. Major disadvantages of an unregulated system
Unregulated entry with quality control should only be considered under limited circumstances
System design for unregulated entry with quality control must take into account: Page 10
Unregulated Entry without Quality Control Major disadvantages of an unregulated system without quality control
Unregulated entry without quality control is only appropriate under limited circumstances
Page 11This section provides in-depth detail about eight different reform options. These options range from a public monopoly, through various forms of tendered services, such as gross-cost route contracts, to a completely unregulated system. For each approach, information is organized into various topics, including legal and institutional issues, contract design, financial considerations, and monitoring and enforcement.
Possible options for reform Choosing the right option This Urban Bus Toolkit does not set out to identify a system that will necessarily apply to the entire bus service in a city. It will identify the most appropriate system for the major portion of your service, but in practice there will probably be a mixture of systems. For example, most bus routes may be operated under contract, but some peripheral services may be operated by unregulated operators. However, in some cities it may be possible to identify a single system that may be applied to all services. Before you choose an option A note about contracts Page 12introduction to Choosing the Right Reform Option
The Urban Bus Toolkit offers eight options to reform your bus system. They range from a public monopoly, through various forms of tendered services, such as gross-cost route contracts, to a completely unregulated system.
Reform option definitions: Not all of these options will apply to your situation. The interactive tool identifies the appropriate bus system options for you by taking into account the particular situation in your city and the objectives of the principal decision-makers. Before using the interactive tool, review the summaries for each of the system reform options. Page 13
© 2006 The World Bank Group and PPIAF. All Rights Reserved. Legal. Page 14
This section offers advice about making the transition to a reformed system. It will help you think about where you are today and plan how to get where you want to be. Making the transition to an area- or route-contract system Introducing efficiency in a monopolistic set-up Key issues to consider Page 15
Creating a Level Playing Field In many nominally competitive situations, there are operators who have an unfair advantage over others. Public versus private sector operator advantages On the other hand, public sector operators may be at a disadvantage in other respects, such as having to pay their employees at government rates of pay which may be higher than those in the private sector. If there is a public sector operator operating in the same city, it must be subject to the same rules and regulations as the private sector operators. Any special concessions which a public sector operator enjoys, such as tax relief, must either be waived in respect of the operator concerned, or extended to private sector operators in the city. Similarly, if the public sector operator is committed to government regulations which put it at a disadvantage, these must be waived. In practice, the complexities of ensuring equality between public and private sector operators may be such that it is preferable for the public sector not to be involved in the operation of bus services in a competitive situation. Open access to terminals, bus stops, depots and workshops This applies not only in the case of on-road competition, but also in competition for the market. A bidder with access to terminal facilities may be able to offer a more attractive bid than those which do not, even though in other respects these operators may be able to provide a better service. It is normally more satisfactory, particularly in the case of urban bus operators, for bus terminals not to be owned by the operators, but by the local authority, which can make them available to all operators on an equal basis. The same may be said of depot and workshop facilities. If some operators have facilities but others do not, this may drastically reduce the number of potential bidders. In a mature market, where there are many established operators with their own facilities, this may not be a significant issue. But in the majority of developing cities it will be. A satisfactory means of overcoming this problem in a city where there is a large public sector bus operator which is to be privatized, is to retain the infrastructure in public ownership. Then the infrastructure can be leased to successful bidders. Where bus services are subsidized, the basis for calculating the subsidy must be consistent. Other key issues to consider Page 16
Changes in Industry Structure Route contracts may require a greater number of operators, unless each operator has several route contracts. The maximum number of operators in a city with a route contract system will be equal to the number of different bus routes. A single operator and a potential monopoly situation Alternatively, it may replace a situation where there are many small operators; in this case there must be a reduction in the number of bus operators. This will raise social and political issues. Rationalizing operations to give exclusive rights to specific areas Other key issues to consider Page 17
Forming Operators’ Associations When the industry is based on small operators with only one or two vehicles each, none of these will be eligible to bid for a contract. Unless entirely new operators are established, it will be impossible to introduce a route or area contract arrangement. Even if such operators are formed, there will be a large number of small operators who will be excluded from the market, and this may have undesirable consequences. Creating larger operating units Most transport cooperatives or associations are formed by a number of vehicle owners. They pool their resources by putting their vehicles into a common fleet, under the control of officers appointed by the cooperative members. The members usually retain ownership of their vehicles, and may continue to employ the crews. A more formal structure and constitution may be required if the associations are to be eligible to bid for contracts. In addition, the officers of the associations are likely to require training in basic management techniques, as well as in the fundamentals of bus operating practices and procedures. Other key issues to consider Page 18
Privatization Arrangements
Management or employee buy-outs An alternative to a management/employee buy-out, which may be appropriate in a situation where services are operated on an informal basis, is to sell the vehicles to their drivers. This is usually done under some form of hire purchase arrangement. Other assets, such as properties, are sold on the open market. Sale of shares Sale of shares in a transport company to outside investors depends on the availability of funds at the disposal of individual investors or venture capital institutions. In many developing countries availability of funds for such investment is low. The absence of a stock exchange may also preclude this as an option. Joint ventures between government and the private sector Where the government retains only a minority interest this will not be a problem. But the government will then have little control of the organization. Nevertheless, there may still be advantages, since the government may be represented on the board of the undertaking, providing a useful means of communication. Privatization Often the share value of a privatized company has increased in value many times over within a relatively short period following its sale, when the new owners are able to demonstrate the potential of the business. There have been cases of asset-stripping where the sale price has been below the asset value. It’s desirable to provide for such contingencies, so that the government is at least able to realize the market value of the physical assets of the undertaking. The sale agreement may include the provision that excessive proceeds from property sales within a specified period after sale may be shared with the vendor on a predetermined basis. Where a nationalized transport undertaking has degenerated irretrievably to a point where it is making substantial losses, the only realistic option may be to dispose of it for its asset value and to allow it to cease trading as a transport operator. In some circumstances it may be appropriate for a nationalized transport company to be restructured before privatization if this will improve its viability and increase its sale value. Other key issues to consider Page 19
Negotiating a Purchase Price There may also be a goodwill element, to reflect the value of the monopoly to its existing owners (in the case of a private monopoly) or the government (in the case of a public monopoly). Where the total current market value of the shares in the business exceeds the total value of its assets, the difference between the two is normally treated as goodwill Page 20This section shows you how to evaluate your bus system so you can engage in meaningful system reform. It has four major parts. Page 21
reform Objectives
Key reform objectives In all the above cases the objectives of reform are usually spelled out only in the broadest terms with perhaps just two or three key objectives being clearly specified. In recent years the key objectives in most cities have been:
While these key objectives give a clear direction for reform, they leave considerable flexibility when it comes to bus system details. There are a wide range of operating structures to choose from. Defining reform objectives Whether the need to reform is driven by internal political agendas or by external influences, the objectives may be grouped as:
In many cases not all of the desired objectives will be achievable. Often some objectives will be incompatible with others or will be mutually exclusive. For example, the objective of reducing subsidies may be incompatible with the objective of keeping fares low. In fact, the types of fares charged and the average fare paid per passenger are fundamental considerations under any system reform. (Learn more about fares.) It will be necessary to prioritize your objectives. Prioritizing objectives is very useful in helping to determine the most appropriate bus system structure for your city. The interactive tool can help you prioritize your objectives. Page 22This section will help identify your city’s problems and determine their causes. Bus systems in developing countries face many problems. Some are serious, some less so. Some problems appear to be more serious than they are. Conversely, an existing problem may not even be recognized. Page 23
Unreliable Service Reliability is difficult to measure, and standards and expectations vary considerably from one place to another. Where services are operated to schedule, reliability may be measured in terms of the percentage of journeys operating on time or less than a specified number of minutes late, or by the percentage of scheduled kilometers actually operated. Poor reliability may be due to inadequate enforcement of rules and regulations, so that operators may disregard them with impunity. Inefficient operating practices such as the system of “full-load dispatching,” where buses wait at terminals until they are fully loaded before they depart instead of operating to schedule, may also result in an erratic and unpredictable service. Poor vehicle maintenance is the main reason for unreliable vehicles. This is particularly common where there is a predominance of small operators, but there are also some large operators with poor standards of maintenance. The number of kilometers per breakdown is a useful measure of reliability. Some causes of unreliability are largely outside the operators’ control. Traffic congestion is a particular problem in many cities, often making adherence to schedules extremely difficult. Page 24
Benchmarks and Indicators It’s not possible to draw firm conclusions from comparisons of these measures either over time within a city or at a point in time between different cities. However, these measures will help you identify and understand how your bus system may be out of line with other cities and how it compares to best practices elsewhere. Comparing your system’s data with these benchmarks and indicators will also help you assess the extent of the problems with your bus system. Tools linked to each benchmark will help you collect data for your system. Role and importance of buses Total population in service areaTotal daily trips (excluding walk trips) Total daily trips by public transport Percent mode share to public transport Average daily ridership Average bus boardings per bus trip Average daily trips by bus Percent mode share to bus Network description Percent of urban area within 500 m of bus stopFleet description Fleet size: busesNo. of buses per 1000 people Average bus capacity Total fleet capacity Percent seated capacity Percent air conditioned (if appropriate) Average vehicle age Output performance measures Average availability percentageAverage vehicle utilization rate (percentage of available buses actually used) Percentage peak only buses Average daily km per bus Average total daily place-km (place = seated + standing capacity) Percent lost km Km per breakdown in service Km per accident Passenger loading and adequacy of capacity Passengers per vehicle per dayAverage peak hour occupancy ratio at maximum load point Average distance travelled per boarding (km) Daily passenger km Average load factor (passenger-km/place-km) Staff Staff productivity indicatorsAffordability Measuring affordabilityFinancial performance Cost recovery ratioPage 25
Average Daily Ridership The figure normally quoted is the number of passenger boardings per day (which is normally termed passengers per day). Most bus users will make at least two trips daily (to and from work), and many will have to use more than one bus to make one trip. Thus a passenger making two boardings per trip would make four boardings daily. The number of daily passengers, therefore, is normally much higher than the number of people who travel every day. For a formal bus operation, passenger statistics are usually derived from the ticketing system, which normally records the number of tickets issued. The regulatory authority should require that daily ridership figures are reported on a route by route basis at weekly or monthly intervals. Usually, figures quoted as the number of passenger boardings are in fact the number of tickets issued. There may be discrepancies if not all passengers are correctly issued with tickets, or, as is sometimes the case, where two or more low-value tickets must be issued for a high-value fare, for which the correct value of ticket is not available. In these cases surveys should be carried out to establish factors for each route to convert numbers of tickets sold into passengers and these factors should be updated from time to time. In many cities in developing countries, where some or all bus services are operated less formally, and no tickets are issued, ridership figures are not readily available, and must be determined by surveys.
Use this survey to calculate system ridership. Page 26
Factors Influencing Bus System Efficiency Regulatory framework |