Scheduling . with
timetable attached Many public bus services are run to a specific
timetable giving specific times of departure and arrival at waypoints along the route. These are often difficult to maintain in the event of
traffic congestion, breakdowns, on/off bus incidents, road blockages or bad weather. Predictable effects such as morning and evening
rush hour traffic are often accounted for in timetables using the past experience of the effects, although this then prevents the opportunity for drafting a 'clock face' timetable where the time of a bus is predictable at any time through the day. Predictable short term increases in passenger numbers may be dealt with by providing "duplicate" buses, where two or more buses operate the same slot in the timetable. Unpredictable problems resulting in delays and gaps in the timetabled service may be dealt with by 'turning' a bus early before it reaches it
terminus, so that it can fill a gap in the opposite direction, meaning any passengers on the turned bus need to disembark and continue on a following bus. Also, depending on the location of the
bus depot, replacement buses may be dispatched from the depot to fill in other gaps, starting the timetable part way along the route. There is a common
cliché that people "wait all day, and then three come along at once", in relation to a phenomenon where evenly timetabled bus services can develop a gap in service followed by buses turning up almost simultaneously. This occurs when the rush hour begins and numbers of passengers at a stop increases, increasing the loading time, and thus delay scheduled service. The following bus then catches up because it begins to be delayed less at stops due to fewer passengers waiting. This is called
bus bunching. This is prevented in some cities such as
Berlin by assigning every stop arrival times where scheduled buses should arrive no earlier than specified. Some services may have no specific departure times, the timetable giving the
frequency of service on a route at particular phases of the day. This may be specified with departure times, but the over-riding factor is ensuring the regularity of buses arriving at stops. These are often the more frequent services, up to the busiest
bus rapid transit schemes. For headway-based schemes, problems can be managed by changing speed, delaying at stops and
leap-frogging a bus boarding at a stop. Services may be strictly regulated in terms of
level of adherence to timetables, and how often timetables may be changed. Operators and authorities may employ on-street bus inspectors to monitor adherence in real time. Service operators often have a control room, or in the case of large operations, route controllers, who can monitor the level of service on routes and can take remedial action if problems occur. This was made easier with the technological advances of
two way radio contact with drivers, and
vehicle tracking systems. Urban land-use planning policies are essential for the success of bus transit systems, particularly as mass transit is not feasible in low-density communities. Transportation planners estimate that to support local bus service every thirty minutes, there must be a residential housing density of seven dwelling units per acre.
Fixed infrastructure . Bus services have led to the implementation of various types of infrastructure now common in many urban and suburban settings. The most prevalent example is the ubiquitous
bus stop. Large interchanges have required the building of
bus stations. In roads and streets, infrastructure for buses has resulted in modifications to the kerb line such as
protrusions and
indentations, and even
special kerb stones. Entire lanes or roads have been reserved for buses in
bus lanes or
busways. Bus fleets require large
storage premises often located in urban areas, and may also make use of central
works facilities.
Management The level and reliability of bus services are often dependent on the quality of the local road network and levels of
traffic congestion, and the population density. Services may be organised on tightly regulated networks with restrictions on when and where services operate, while other services are operated on an
ad hoc basis in the model of
share taxis. Increasingly, technology is being used to improve the information provided to bus users, with
vehicle tracking technologies to assist with scheduling, and to achieve real-time integration with
passenger information systems that display service information at stops, inside buses, and to waiting passengers through personal
mobile devices or
text messaging.
Fare models operates as a zero-fare basis for passengers in the
Perth central business district Bus drivers may be required to conduct
fare collection, inspect a travel pass or
free travel pass, or oversee
stored-value card debiting. This may require the fitting of equipment to the bus. Alternatively, this duty and equipment may be delegated to a
conductor who rides on the bus. In other areas, public transport buses may operate on a
zero-fare basis, or ticket validation may be through the use of on-board/off-board
proof-of-payment systems, checked by roving
ticket controllers who board and alight buses at random. In some competitive systems, an
incumbent operator may introduce a "low-cost unit" paying lower wages, in order to be able to offer lower fares, using older buses cascaded from a main fleet to also reduce costs. In some sectors, operators such as Megabus (both
in the UK and
in North America) have attempted to emulate the low-cost airlines model in order to attract passengers through low fares, by offering
no-frills bus services.
Ownership Public transport bus operation is differentiated from other bus operation by the fact the owner or driver of a bus is employed by or contracted to an organisation whose main public duty or commercial interest is to provide a public transport service for passengers to turn up and use, rather than fulfilling private contracts between the bus operator and user. Public transport buses are operated as a
common carrier under a
contract of carriage between the passenger and the operator. The owners of public transport buses may be the
municipal authority or
transit authority that operates them, or they may be owned by individuals or private companies who operate them on behalf of the authorities on a
franchise or
contract basis. Other buses may be run entirely as private concerns, either on an
owner-operator basis, or as multi-national transport groups. Some countries have specifically
deregulated their bus services, allowing private operators to provide public bus services. In this case, an authority may make up the shortfall in levels of private service provision by funding or operating 'socially necessary' services, such as early or late services, on the weekends, or less busy routes. Ownership/operation of public transport buses can also take the form of a charitable operation or
not for profit social enterprises. Larger operations may have fleets of thousands of vehicles. At its peak in the 1950s, the
London Transport Executive owned a bus fleet of 8,000 buses, the largest in the world. Many small operators have only a few vehicles or a single bus owned by an owner-driver.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation holds the
Guinness world record of having the largest fleet of buses with 22,555 buses.
Regulation bus with
bike rack fitted to front of bus In all cases in the
developed world, public transport bus services are usually subject to some form of legal control in terms of vehicle safety standards and method of operation, and possibly the level of
fares charged and routes operated. Bus services are being made
accessible, often in response to rules and regulations in
disability discrimination laws. This has resulted in the introduction of
paratransit services and
low-floor buses to support passengers who are elderly, have a
disability, or a medical condition. Some transit agencies have also started to install bike racks in the front of buses that usually holds two bicycles. Passengers would be able to place their bicycle on the racks when riding to avoid taking up space during rush hour.
Safety The research conducted in
Montreal (
Canada) showed that travelling by bus is safer than travelling by
car, for vehicle occupants but also for
pedestrians and
cyclists. There were 16 times more injured car occupants than bus occupants. Most pedestrians (95%) and cyclists (96%) were injured by a car. Looking at major injuries only (excluding minor injuries), there were 28 times more injured car occupants than bus occupants. Cars were associated with three cyclist deaths and 42 pedestrian deaths while buses were associated with no cyclist deaths and four pedestrian deaths. == See also ==