Search results

This paper addresses the problem of bunching of buses and how it may be counter-acted. An algorithm is presented for providing selective priority to buses at traffic signals according to their headways, the highest levels of priority being given to those buses with the highest headways, i.e. those buses which are running late or falling behind the bus in front.

Alternative selective priority strategies are evaluated in terms of their effects on bus journey time regularity, bus delay and general traffic delay. A simulation model SPLIT (Selective Priority for Late buses Implemented at Traffic signals) has been developed to investigate the performance of different priority strategies. The paper describes the details of the model, including bus stop dwell times and overlapping bus services, and compares results obtained from the model for a number of different priority strategies.

This work was driven by the keen interest in bus priority applications in London within the EC DGVII project INCOME.

Bus use in later life tends to increase, especially in countries where there is cheaper or free travel on buses for older people. That said, there are still many barriers to bus use. The most major barrier for older people is feeling unsafe on the bus, especially at night. Accessibility issues are also important, with concerns for step-free access and getting a seat. A bus driver driving off before the older person has sat down is another major concern for older people. The presence of a friendly helpful, understanding bus driver is seen as a huge benefit for older people. Training to support bus drivers in providing an age friendly service are therefore highly recommended. In many countries, public transport is supplemented by community transport offering a door-to-door on demand facility to help older people stay mobile where there is a lack of accessible public buses. There are real advantages for older people using such buses, especially creating a safe environment taking older people to important places, such as hospitals or shops. Such services can be supplemented by journeys for days out and these are very popular with users. Older people aren’t large users of railway services. Barriers include concerns over getting a seat, worry about what happens if connections are missed and services are disrupted. Older people are more likely to want staff to help them complete their journey and emphasise the need for seats, cleanliness and facilities over journey length and cost.

June 6,1973 Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment — Bus conductor driving bus — Bus blocking path of conductor's and plaintiff driver's bus — Conductor told by plaintiff to get engineer to move bus — Conductor attempting to move bus himself — Not knowing how to drive bus — Driver injured by conductor's negligent manoeuvre — Express prohibition in bus company's rules against conductors driving buses — Clear separation of duties of drivers and conductors — General duty of conductors to co‐operate with drivers in getting buses into service — Whether bus company vicariously liable for conductor's action — Whether within scope of employment.

Under deteriorating conditions of travelling in urban areas, especially city centers, prioritization of public transport is one of the main ways of its enhancing. In developed countries sophisticated control traffic systems are being implemented while in developing countries such solutions due to implementation cost are very rare. The purpose of this paper is to assess public transport operational effectiveness under diverse operational schemes present in two similar in size and traffic characteristics cities. The assessment is based on average journey times and speeds during peak and off peak hours.

The methodology includes measurements and estimates of bus rides through in-field measurements in Edinburgh, UK and in Bialystok, Poland. In-field evaluations have been conducted using average speed and travel times. The data were collected by utilizing a portable GPS data logger that allowed monitoring and recording bus position along tested streets in one second intervals. Traffic optimization in Edinburgh is provided by separated bus lanes and control urban traffic system while in Bialystok the only prioritization is supported by bus lanes. The research areas in Edinburgh and in Bialystok covered streets in city centers and adjacent districts.

The findings show large operational potential in developing separated bus lanes in city centers of developing countries when due to cost they cannot afford implementing advanced ITS solutions. The introduction of bus lanes should be proceeded even at the expense of individual users. It has been found that well developed road network in city center with separated bus lanes can provide operating speed at comparable levels to speed of buses operating along lower volume corridors.

The comparison of bus lanes working under different traffic management conditions was carried out. Conducted analyses showed great potential of proper planning strategy of road network development toward the improvement of public transport performance.

The need to provide efficient public transport services in urban areas has led to the implementation of bus priority measures in many congested cities. Much interest has recently centred on priority at signal controlled junctions, including the concept of pre-signals, where traffic signals are installed at or near the end of a with-flow bus lane to provide buses with priority access to the downstream junction. Although a number of pre-signals have now been installed in the UK, particularly in London, there has been very little published research into the analysis of benefits and disbenefits to both buses and non-priority vehicles at pre-signalised intersections. This paper addresses these points through the development of analytical procedures which allow pre-implementation evaluation of specific categories of pre-signals.