All railway services that participated in a 2017 study from Sweden reported that they utilised dedicated rail replacement bus services as an alternate mode of transportation during disruptions, in addition to referring customers to existing public transportation options [2]. Twelve of the railways that responded to the questionnaire stated that they used historical passenger count data to estimate the number of passengers and thus the number of buses required, with one member using historical data and subtracting 20% to account for passengers who arrange their own transport or do not continue to the planned destination [2].
The component interventionHeader has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.
The component headerBackButton has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.
General Overview
Type of stakeholder
EICS Framework
Region of Reference
- Africa
- Asia
- Australia
- Europe
- North-America
- South-America
- World
Description
This intervention entails the provision of alternate modes of public transport in the event of unscheduled service disruptions. Disruptions in public transport can have a significant impact on both passengers and service providers. Disruptions can result in an increase in nominal travel time for passengers, due to additional waiting time, vehicle delays, or transfers [4]. Any increase in travel time, especially waiting time, will increase opportunities for criminals to conduct illegal acts, including sexual harassment and assault. The provision of a network-wide alternative route strategy for unanticipated delays, including agreements with other modes of transport and operators, is a best practice in planning for disruptions [2]. Pender et al. (2017) found through the survey that bus bridging is the most common response to metro disruption, especially line blockages [3,5].
Decisions regarding alternative mode provision must be made timeously and communicated properly, to minimise the impact on the consumer. Examples of this would be to communicate decisions of closure based on weather forecasts several hours in advance, informing customers that no service would be available after a specific period. This enables the customer to continue using the service whilst it is still running or to make alternate arrangements during the shutdown [2].
Facts/Illustrations/Case studies
Types of Impact
Area Impacted
- To/from the stop/station/rank✕
- Waiting for train/bus/paratransit✓
- In the vehicle✓
- At interchanges✓
Time of Day of Impact
- Day-time travel✓
- Night-time travel✓
- Peak-time travel✓
- Off peak-time travel✓
Mode Impacted
- Bus✓
- Train✓
- Rideshare✕
- 4 wheelers informal✓
- 3 wheelers informal✓
- 2 wheelers informal✓
- Cycling✓
- Walking✓
Demographic impacted
- Girls✓
- Boys✓
- Adult Women✓
- Men✓
- Elderly Women✓
- LGBTQI+✓
Resources
SWOT Analysis
Convenient and fast for the user to have an alternative transport mode at the ready
Improvement in user experience
Effective method to reduce time spent in the transport system
Budget restrictions may limit expenditure
As soon as implementation stops, the benefits stop
Reduction in delays caused by disrupted system
Integration of ticketing systems to ensure seamless transfer to alternative mode during disruption
Potentially longer travel time
Unreliable alternative service
Potential need to transfer when using alternative service
Overcrowding in alternative mode due to disruption in original system
Effectiveness
This intervention has the potential to be very effective because it allows consumers to use alternate modes of transportation while reducing delays. While the government recognises the benefits of providing alternative modes of transportation, budget constraints make implementation difficult. Even as the provision of alternative transportation options will benefit women and maybe the government, the quality of implementation will determine its effectiveness.
- Perception by (female) passengers
- Perception by governing bodies
- Level of confidence in these ratings
Implementation
Implementing this intervention takes time at first, particularly the preparatory work, such as determining the additional rolling stock required to implement alternative modes of operation during disruptions and developing feasible contingency plans for the transport network. Benefits arise while the intervention is carried out and continue to accumulate as passengers are exposed to it.
Implementation timeframe
- 0-1 year✓
- 1-3 years✕
- >3 years✕
Timeframe to realise benefits
- 0-1 year✓
- 1-3 years✕
- >3 years✕
Scale of Implementation
This intervention can be implemented at a station/suburb or city level.
Suburb
Ease of Implementation
This intervention takes a fair amount of effort to implement, as it requires some skilled personnel to properly develop contingency plans for different eventualities. The availability of alternative options and the funding thereof also complicate implementation.
List of References
Africa
1. Simmer CM, Roebuck PCS. Action in Public Transport Cost Implications of the. 2000;(July):17-20.
Europe
2. Piner D, Condry B. International best practices in managing unplanned disruption to suburban rail services. Transp Res Procedia. 2017;25:4403-4410. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.331
3. Wang J, Yuan Z, Yin Y. Optimization of Bus Bridging Service under Unexpected Metro Disruptions with Dynamic Passenger Flows. J Adv Transp. 2019;2019. doi:10.1155/2019/6965728
World
4. Yap M, Cats O. Predicting disruptions and their passenger delay impacts for public transport stops. Transportation (Amst). 2021;48(4):1703-1731. doi:10.1007/s11116-020-10109-9
5. Pender B, Currie G, Delbosc A, Shiwakoti N. Social media utilisation during unplanned passenger rail disruption - What’s not to “Like”? Australas Transp Res Forum, ATRF 2013 - Proc. 2013;(October):1-14.