Chapter: 4 Scheduling and Fare Structure

4.1 Introduction

Public transport (also known as public transportation, public transit, mass transit, or
simply transit) is a system of transport, in contrast to private transport, for passengers by group
travel systems available for use by the general public, typically managed on a schedule, operated
on established routes, and that charge a posted fee for each trip. Examples of public transport
include city buses, trolleybuses, trams (or light rail) and passenger trains, rapid transit (metro /
subway/underground, etc.) and ferries. Public transport between cities is dominated
by airlines, coaches, and intercity rail. High-speed rail networks are being developed in many
Routing and Scheduling of service
parts of the world. => is a system of transport for passengers - by the GT systems available for use by the general public
=> it is managed in schedule and operated on established routes, and it charges a posted fee for each trip vehicles HEART of the quality of the
=> eg. city buses, trolleybuses, trams (or light rail) and passenger trains, rapid transit (metro /subway/underground service provided.

Most public transport systems run along fixed routes with set embarkation/disembarkation points
to a prearranged timetable, with the most frequent services running to a headway (e.g.: "every 15
minutes" as opposed to being scheduled for any specific time of the day). However, most public
transport trips include other modes of travel, such as passengers walking or catching bus services
to access train stations. Share taxis offer on-demand services in many parts of the world, which
may compete with fixed public transport lines, or complement them, by bringing passengers to
interchanges. Para transit is sometimes used in areas of low demand and for people who need a
door-to-door service.

The scheduling of customer service and the routing of service vehicles are at the heart of many
service operations. For some services, such as school buses, public health nursing, and many
installation or repair businesses, service delivery is critical to the performance of the service. For
other services, such as mass transit, taxis, trucking firms, and the Postal Service, timely delivery
is the service. In either case, the routing and scheduling of service vehicles has a major impact
on the quality of the service provided. This chapter has to discuss about scheduling and fare
structure.

4.2 Route planning

A public transport system must accommodate a very large number of individual trips. It is not
possible to provide direct public transport routes to meet all requirements but it is possible to go
a long way towards achieving this by providing a network of routes, so that passengers can make
=> B/c it isn't possible to meet all the requirements of passengers by providing a DPTR
complex journeys by using a combination of routes. => Rather, it is possible to do so by providing a Network of Routes
=> Therefore, passengers can make complex journeys by using a combination/Network of Routes)
=> Furthermore, RP is necessary b/c Poor RP results in poor route coverage, an excessive interchange between routes, and irregular frequencies
Many transport systems consist of routes planned in isolation rather than as parts of coordinated
networks. This is usually unsatisfactory for meeting the requirements of a significant proportion
of travelers. Poor route planning may result in poor route coverage, an excessive requirement for
interchange between routes, and irregular frequencies.

Isolated

Routs
Coordinated 1networks
 Demand
or
Rout networks are designed based on Predetermined Standard

Others route networks have been designed, to provide convenient links between all points where
there is demand. Some have designed to meet predetermined standards or criteria such as a
maximum number of interchanges between routes on any journey.

4.2.1 Route planning always lags changes in demand Rout planning always lags "change in demand"
In theory, market forces will eventually lead to an optimal transport system but in practice this
evolution, which effectively is by trial and error, would take considerable time and since cities
are constantly growing and changing, the ideal route pattern will never evolve.

Indeed, even with a sophisticated planning capability, development of transport services will
always tend to lag behind changes in demand. Transport planning in cities in developing
countries is especially difficult, because of the rapid pace of change. Plans must be kept under
regular review, and revised as necessary.

Public transport planning may be based on transport demand and supply data, derived
from operators’ own internal systems, and from surveys. Other planning data available to
transport authorities may include overall transport plans and projections, land use plans,
plans for private and public sector developments, traffic demand forecasts, and economic
forecasts. => Transport demand and Supply data Transport planning is based on
=> Transport Authority data

4.2.2 Regular route revisions are necessary

In some cities route revisions are carried out regularly as a matter of routine but in other cities
there have been virtually no changes for many years despite the city growing and changing
considerably.
Since Route planning always lags changes in demand, it is necessary to seek an Alternative Approaches to Design a Route Network/ ways of configuring Route Network
4.3 Alternative Approaches to Network Design
There are many ways of configuring a route network to meet passengers’ requirements, each has
advantages and disadvantages — what is appropriate in one city may be unsuitable in another.

A route network may be designed to be operated on a fully commercial basis, with every route
producing a profit, or there may be social objectives, requiring the provision of some
unprofitable routes. The structure of the system, the degree of regulation and competition, and
the extent to which regulations are complied with, will influence the type of route network that is
most appropriate.

1. Walking distances and route frequency

In most cities, the main public transport corridors radiate outwards from the central area,
with routes branching from these corridors to serve points on either side. The number of
these branches will be partly influenced by the nature of the road system, and by policy
and market forces. If people are not prepared to walk long distances, bus routes will need
to penetrate further into residential areas than otherwise.

Similarly, if there are parallel roads along a corridor, a decision must be made whether or not to
concentrate all routes along one road, or to split them between the two roads. The first alternative
2
will give a higher frequency of service, and therefore less passenger waiting time but it could
mean greater average walking distance, and perhaps increased traffic congestion. The second
will give lower frequency, and longer average waiting times, but shorter average walking
distances.

2. Converging routes on a single focal point

In a city with a population of approximately 1 million or more the central area will
normally cover a large area so that passengers’ destinations are widely dispersed. Where
the distances between these exceed acceptable walking distances, it is inappropriate for
all routes to converge at a single focal point. There may therefore be several points, each
constituting the focus of a number of radial routes, and possibly requiring another sub-
network of routes connecting them.

This will also apply in a conurbation comprising two or more contiguous cities, each with its
own distinct centre.

3. Terminating in the city centre

An important choice is whether routes should terminate in the city centre, or continue
across the central area to points on the opposite side of the city. Where most passengers
travel to and from the city centre, and rarely travel between one outer suburb and another,
the decision as to whether routes should terminate in the city centre or not is a purely
operational one.

Disadvantages of routes terminating in city centers include:

 Buses can cause congestion while standing between journeys and when turning.
 Valuable land is often occupied with bus terminal facilities.
 Time is wasted by buses turning round (reducing bus utilization and increasing costs).
 Passengers wishing to travel across the city centre will have to change buses or walk for
part of their journeys.

Advantages of routes terminating in city centers include:

 Schedules are less likely to be disrupted by congestion (since there can be provision for
recovery time in the city center).
 Convenient interchange between routes may be provided at a common terminal.
 Fare structures are less complex.

On balance, the advantages of operating routes across the city centre usually outweigh the
disadvantages, though each case must be assessed on its own merits.

4. Non-radial routes
Non-radial passenger trips can be handled in various ways. In a large city, it is often
appropriate to operate a number of routes linking various suburbs, and not reaching the

3
 city centre, perhaps including circular routes linking outer points. Often these are
operated by smaller vehicles than those used on routes serving the city centre. Sometimes
inter-suburban movement can be catered for by extensions or diversions from the main
radial routes.

A transport network may include a number of feeder bus routes, which feed passengers into
trunk bus routes and to rail lines. These offer an alternative to operating a large number of
different routes along a common corridor, each branching off to serve points off the main route.

Through bus services should normally be operated where demand from the outlying points is
sufficient to justify them, but where demand is low, it is often more economic to operate feeder
services, using smaller vehicles. Also, where road conditions prevent the use of larger vehicles
over part of a route, it is usually preferable to operate small vehicles on this section, feeding into
a service using larger buses for the main section. This eliminates the need for small buses
operating alongside larger buses on main urban routes.

5. Hub-and-spoke route systems

In certain circumstances, particularly in smaller towns, a hub-and-spoke route
system may be appropriate. This means all routes meet at a central focal point, and
passengers are able to travel between any two points in the city by transferring from one
route to another. Where journey times are relatively short, and service frequencies are
high so that transfer times are minimized, such a system may be acceptable. But in
general, particularly for regular commuter traffic and where traffic congestion is a
problem, a high proportion of indirect journeys is unacceptable.

4.4 Types of routes

The bus routes themselves may take various forms. The basic and most common type of route is
the end-to-end route, which operates between two points, following the same roads in both
directions, except where one-way street systems necessitate minor deviations. Alternatively, a
route may be circular, returning to the point of origin without traversing the same roads twice.
Circular routes are often found in suburban areas, sometimes circling an entire city. Inner-circle
routes around city center areas are also common.

Another option is a route combining straight and circular sections. At the end of the route the bus,
instead of turning and returning by the inward route, operates in a loop. It rejoins the inward
route after completing the loop, stopping in the central area for no longer than is required to set
down and pick up passengers.

Such an arrangement can be particularly effective for a central business district as an alternative
to operating across the city center. It can provide better service coverage than a terminal
operation since passengers are able both to join and leave the bus throughout the circuit. This
enables buses to serve a wider area than would otherwise be the case, and eliminates the need for

4
city-centre terminal or turning facilities. Loops are also common at the suburban ends of routes,
where buses operate in a circuit around a residential area to provide better coverage.

Another variation of the straight route is one that forks near one or both ends to serve different
terminal points. These are sometimes regarded as separate routes, even though they operate in
common for most of their length. Some routes may be dumbbell shaped, with a loop at each end.
These are normally found where buses operate across the city center from one suburb to another,
and operate in a loop around the residential areas at the outer ends.

A route network may comprise routes of several or all of these types.

1. Routes and artificial boundaries

Some networks suffer from artificial boundaries which bus routes do not cross. For
example in Beijing, there are several points on the outskirts of the central area where
inner and outer bus routes meet. Through passengers must transfer between vehicles. In
Indonesia the manner in which public transport services are regulated results in a similar
situation at city boundaries. Although convenient interchanges are often provided, the
need to change vehicles increases journey times for passengers, and the additional turn-
round times reduce vehicle utilization.

Transit Street Design Guide

Structural routes= Routes that form bones of the Transit Network

4.4.1 Transit Route Types
Non-structural routes = Routes that fill Gapes in the Transit Network

Different streets, neighborhoods, and cities have different transportation needs, and a wide range
of service types are available to meet them. Likewise, service can be complemented by a range
of design elements depending on service needs and street context.

When prioritizing street investments, differentiate between “structural” and “non-structural”

transit routes. Structural routes form the bones of the transit network, and yield the greatest
results from upgrades. Non-structural routes serve to fill gaps in the transit network.

Robust evidence-based service planning using realistic data can identify new service and growth
opportunities, especially opportunities to add rapid routes. These can be supported by street
design to create broader transit benefits.

5
 1. Downtown Local => Are routes that serve an area with a very high demand for short trips/distances
=> Are operated by a city transportation department or civic group
=> Are parallel to local or rapid routes.

Downtown local routes, often frequent, serve an area with a very high demand for short trips and
are sometimes operated by a city transportation department or civic group. Unlike conventional
loop circulators, downtown locals provide a core transit function for short distances, sometimes
parallel to longer local or rapid routes. If planned to complement rather than compete with other
structural routes, they can become a permanent feature of the city.

Application

 Downtown locals can be used to connect a high-capacity node (such as a commuter rail
terminal) with a broader destination area.
 Downtown locals provide extra capacity where dense residential areas are close to major
employment or education centers.

Complementary designs:

 In-lane stops
 Transit lanes

Service Details

 Stop Frequency: 4 or more per mile.

 Service Area: Compact, dense.

2. Local Are 3Bs of Urban transit

Local routes, whether served by bus or rail, are the basic building blocks of urban transit. Local
service must balance access—usually considered in terms of stop frequency—with speed. For
passengers and operators alike, reliability is often more important than running time. To be

6
effective, local service must be as direct as possible. Deviating from a direct route to serve areas
of relatively low ridership will degrade the quality of service.

Application

Appropriate for all urban contexts, local service serves trips within and between neighborhoods,
downtowns, and other hubs.

Provide stop and intersection investments, potentially tied to modest increases in stop distance,
to reduce delay on local routes.

Complementary designs:

 Enhanced shared lanes

 Dedicated transit lanes
 Conversion from stops to stations
 Multi-door boarding
 Transit signal progressions and short cycle lengths

Service Details

 Stop Frequency: 3–5 per mile.

 Service Frequency: Moderate to high, depending on context.
 Service Area: While route length is variable, riders typically use for short- to medium-
length trips (less than 3 miles).

3. Rapid

With less frequent stops and higher capacity vehicles, rapid (or “limited”) service can provide a
trunkline transit service for longer trips and busy lines, or can run along the same route as a local
service. Most bus rapid transit, light rail transit, rapid streetcars, and limited-stop bus lines run on
this service pattern.

Application

 On long, direct, or high-demand transit routes, especially on priority corridors such as

those connecting downtowns to dense neighborhoods.
 Rapid service can make transfers worthwhile to more passengers on routes that intersect
many other transit routes.

7
Complementary designs:

 Separated transitways
 Dedicated transit lanes
 Stations or high-amenity stops
 Transit signal priority
 All-door boarding

Service Details

 Stop Frequency: 1 to 3 per mile.

 Service Frequency: Moderate to high.

4. Coverage

In low-density areas, or where street networks are poorly connected, basic transit
accommodation often results in indirect or infrequent service. In these areas, routes have to be
circuitous to serve small pockets of ridership. This is best done by using a coverage route rather
that adding a deviation to a local route. Keeping coverage routes as direct as is reasonable can be
a prelude to a more productive service as density and demand increases.

Application

 In less densely populated urban edges, coverage service provides a functional connector
to regional hubs and destinations, and to the full transit network.
 If coverage service is provided to a planned development corridor, include transit-
supportive design in initial capital projects.

Complementary designs:

 Enhanced stops
 Complementary mobility services, such as taxi, for-hire vehicles, and car sharing can
reduce the need for coverage service in some areas.

Service Details

 Stop Frequency: 2 to 8 per mile.

 Service Frequency: Low.

8
  Service Area: Low density, feeder to intermodal hubs.

5. Express

Provide direct point-to-point service with few stops using limited-access highways, sometimes in
dedicated or HOV lanes, to reach destinations quickly. Express bus operation is usually more
expensive per passenger than limited service, since it often uses one central boarding/alighting
point. Many express services run coach buses.

Application
number of persons who ride a system of public transportation/ number of passengers on a transportation system

 Connecting neighborhoods with peak-period ridership directly to downtown or other

destinations such as airports.
 Where freeways or other limited access routes are available.
 Primarily serving long-distance commuter routes.

Complementary designs:

 Access to on-street terminals and other high-capacity stops

 Passenger queue management
 Dedicated transit lanes, especially in access routes to freeways or in downtowns

Fig. Sun Francisco Transit Map

9
 Two key factors in selecting "Street Design" and "Elements of Street" are:
1. Volume of the transit vehicles, moving through and stopping on the street
2. Volume of the passengers, moving through and stopping on the street
Headway

4.5 Transit Frequency & Volume No. of Vehicles/Hr. + No. of Passengers/Hr

The volume of transit vehicles and passengers moving through and stopping on a street are key
factors in both the selection of street elements and their detailed design. Street design has an
interactive effect on transit frequency, both supporting transit at different volumes, and attracting
passengers to different degrees. For decisions about street space and time allocation, the
combined frequency of all routes is more significant than the frequency of any given route.

Frequency is discussed here in the context of standard buses during peak periods. For larger
vehicles, consider both ridership and vehicle frequency in determining spatial needs.

1. Low Volume
 Over 15 minute headways
 4 or fewer buses per hour
 Typically fewer than 100 passengers per hour

Street design must accommodate transit vehicle geometry, but passenger and pedestrian safety
and access are often larger issues on lower-use routes. Many express and coverage routes have
low frequencies, with schedule adherence and general reliability the primary concern for
passengers and operators alike.

Active transit signal priority (TSP) has relatively strong benefits for transit and minimal impacts
on other modes.

Enhancing stops improves comfort and customer confidence.

Passenger information both at stops and online is critical to basic usability of the service.

Elements & Strategies:

 Enhanced stops
 Intermodal stations
 Active transit signal priority
 Passenger information
 Access to dedicated lanes
 Combined queue jump/turn lanes

Moderate Volume

 10–15 minute or shorter headways, generally 5–10 at peak

 4–10 buses per hour
 100–750 passengers per hour

Providing a qualitatively different service than low frequency routes, transit lines that are part of
a frequent network should be kept prompt and reliable for easy transfers, overall usability, and a
10
good passenger experience. These transit streets have room for growth, and services must be as
competitive as possible.

Traffic delay, rather than dwell time, is usually the main source of delay. Intersection priority
focused on reliability, and dedicated lanes at slow points, can put these services on the path to
growing ridership.

Street design should prioritize transit stop convenience and provide transit vehicles with a
preferred position in traffic, including in-lane stops and other priority treatments.

Moderately frequent service can be integrated into spaces shared with active modes, including
shared streets.

Elements & Strategies:

 Active transit signal priority (all service)

 Transit approach lanes and queue jumps
 In-lane stops
 Boarding islands/bulbs; near-level boarding
 Multi-door boarding
 Dedicated transit lanes
 Dedicated peak-only lanes
 Shared bus-bike lanes

2. High Volume
 2–6 minute combined headways
 10–30 buses per hour
 500–2,000 passengers per hour

With transit arriving every few minutes, schedule adherence is less important to passengers than
wait time, and maintaining headways matters for reliability as well as speed.

At these high service frequencies, buses and rail vehicles have a major influence on general
traffic operations, and might account for a majority of travel on the street. Providing dedicated
lanes or improving existing dedicated lanes can expand total street capacity, attracting more
passengers. Transit can easily become the fastest mode on a street if given space.

If multiple routes operate or long dwell times occur, refer to very high volume guidance.

Elements & Strategies:

 Dedicated transit lanes or peak transit lanes

 In-lane stops
 Boarding islands/bulbs

11
  Low-speed signal progression
 Active transit signal priority (late vehicles only)
 Robust stops or stations
 All-door boarding
3. Very High Volume
 Combined headways under 2–3 minutes
 More than 20–30 buses per hour
 Over 1,000 passengers per hour on multiple routes, or over 2,500 per hour on one route
with multi-unit vehicles

The performance of transit on streets where multiple routes converge at key points in the
network often determines the fate of the entire transit network. On these highly productive transit
streets, transit will dominate the streetscape whether or not the design prioritizes it effectively.
Exclusive transit lanes are crucial for maintaining speed and reliability.

At headways of 3 minutes and shorter, buses and rail vehicles carry thousands of passengers per
hour, and must be insulated from general traffic delay. Dedicated lanes or transitways are
indispensable for the efficient movement of people. Stop capacity is a critical operational factor.

Signal and intersection operations should favor transit, with transit-friendly signal progressions
or dedicated transit phases providing stronger benefits than active transit signal priority.

Elements & Strategies:

 Transit ways or dedicated transit lanes with turn management

 Dual transit lanes or dedicated lanes with pull-out stops
 On-street terminals
 Boarding islands/bulbs

4.6 Fundamentals of Transportation/Timetabling and Scheduling

The tactical decisions associated with creating a service schedule (timetabling), creating a
schedule for vehicles to operate the service (vehicle scheduling), and creating work shifts for
operators (crew scheduling) are presented bellow.

The motivation for good solutions to these tactical decisions is to minimize the net operating
costs to the agency. Once the timetable is determined, the number of vehicles required to be in
revenue service can also be identified. When the vehicle schedule is determined, the total
mileage and hours for the vehicle fleet are defined. Finally, when the crew schedule is
determined, the total cost of labor (operators) is defined. Since these factors are the primary
determinants of operating costs, finding efficient solutions has a direct effect on the bottom line.

12
In many cases, these tactical activities are assisted by software tools that can generate high
quality solutions in a short period of time, often with direct interaction with the planner. As a
result, the interested student may wish to consult other sources to identify and to investigate the
specific software tools that might be available, such as those described in a recent publication. [2]
=> Is an act of creating a schedule for service
4.6.1 Timetabling => Its inputs are 1.Service frequency/headway h, for a specific time period of the day; 2. travel times between
stops (Tij); and 3. initial dispatch time, t0
The general idea behind timetabling is to create a schedule for service. As inputs, one would
consider the frequency of service for the given route and the expected travel times between stops
on the route. The latter could be determined either by historical experience or through estimates
based on traffic conditions, vehicle acceleration and deceleration characteristics, expected dwell
times, etc.

 Let h be the selected headway for a route, perhaps for a specific time period of the day.
 Let tij be the time between stop i and stop j along the route, where i and j are adjacent
stops. The travel times between stops, tij, can vary by time of day, particularly as they
may be affected by traffic conditions. They may also reflect any slack time built into the
schedule between stops, to allow for possible variability in travel times.
 Finally, let t0 be the dispatch time (departure time) of the first vehicle from a terminal.
 Then, the timetable can be created simply using the following structure, with n stops on
the route and k+1 vehicles to dispatch:

The primary decision variable here is the initial dispatch time, t0. Different operating conditions
might lead to a number of possible choices for t0:

13
“Clockface”
ace” values.
values. = Are the times on a clock that are designed to be easily recognized Passengers, to enable them remember
the service schedule more clearly.

Passengers may remember the schedule more clearly if the dispatch times fall at easily
recognized times on the clock. For example, with 15-minute
15 minute headways, there may be value to
passengers in dispatching a vehicle on the :00, :15, :30, and :45
:45 of each hour.

Coordination for improved vehicle scheduling.

scheduling

When a vehicle finishes its trip at a terminal, it will often be turned around to continue onto the
next trip in the opposite direction on the route. In this case, there is a need for sufficient
sufficien t layover
time at the terminal. If the vehicle finishes a trip at time t,
t, then completes the layover after an
additional time tL, then the vehicle may start its return trip after t + tL. Choosing the dispatch time
to occur at or slightly after t + tL allowss for higher vehicle utilization.

One way of visualizing such a system uses a so-called

so called “string diagram,” shown in this figure.
The blue lines indicate the trajectory of a vehicle from the terminal at stop 1 to the terminal at
stop n,, with short dwell times
times at each stop. Vehicles arriving at stop n then can return along the
route in the opposite direction (the red lines), after a layover (indicated by the black arrows).
These diagrams can be useful in visualizing vehicle movements and crosses along the route. rout

=> Vehicle travels from one "stop" to

the next stop after "Dwell time"
=> Vehicle travels from one "trip" to
the next trip after "Layover time"

Coordination of passenger transfers.

transfers

In some cases, it may be desirable to choose the dispatch time so that passengers may connect to
other routes in the network without unduly long waiting times for the transfer route. To do this
consistently across the timetable, the two (or more) routes that connect for the transfer must have
the same headway h. If this is the case, then the initial dispatch time t 0 can be chosen so that the
vehicle’s arrival time at the transfer point matches that of the vehicle on
o n the connecting route.

Reduction of vehicle requirements.

requirements Carried out by adjusting the dispatch time

The timetable will dictate how many vehicles are in operation at any time of the day. In some
cases, minor adjustments in the dispatch times, coupled with changes in layovers and/or dead-
dead
heads of vehicles between terminals can lead to a reduction in the number of vehicles needed for
service.

14
=> It is an act of assigning a vehicles to a trips associated with the timetable.
=> It including: (1) Pull-out from the depot, (2) Sequence of trips from the timetable, (3) Dead-head trips, & (4) Pull-in back to the depot
=> Its aim is to minimize the “unproductive ” time or mileage that are Outside of the revenue service, RS. (RS=Service at trips in Timetabele) Pull-in, Pull-out, Dead-head, Lay-over

4.6.2 Vehicle scheduling

Vehicle scheduling, also called “blocking”, involves assigning vehicles to cover the trips
associated with the timetable. A vehicle “block” is the schedule of travel of a vehicle for a given
day, including: (1) a pull-out from the depot, (2) a sequence of trips from the timetable, (3) any
dead-head trips, and (4) a pull-in back to the depot (recall the vehicle cycle from the unit on
vehicle operations).

Generally, once the timetable is created, the time and mileage that vehicles spend in revenue
service (i.e., completing the trips in the timetable) is fixed. So, the usual goal in vehicle
scheduling is to minimize the time and/or distance that vehicles spend outside of revenue service:
e.g., pull-ins, pull-outs, dead-heads, and layovers. These all represent time or mileage that are
“unproductive”, and hence should be minimized. => Goal of transport scheduling = minimizing net operating cost of the organization
=> Goal of Vehicle scheduling = minimizing time and mileage that vehicles spend outside
of of revenue service
Constraints on this process include the following: => Goal of Crew scheduling = minimizing the total cost of labor

 Each trip in the timetable must be made by a vehicle.

 A vehicle cannot be assigned more than one trip at any point in time.
 If a vehicle must be re-positioned for a trip, the associated travel time and distance from
its current position to the new position must be observed.

To solve for the vehicle schedule, one might consider a simple “first-in-first-out” rule. In this
case, a vehicle stays on the same route throughout the whole period, and is always assigned to

1
the next trip after a layover. The string diagram above gives just such an arrangement.

As a simple example, suppose we have a route that runs from terminal A to terminal B and then
back to terminal A. Travel time from A to B and from B to A, including running and dwell time,
is 30 minutes, and a minimum 5 minute layover is needed at each terminal. Headways are 15
minutes.

Below is a timetable for this situation, for trips between 6:00 am and after 9:00 am. The left-hand
side of the timetable shows vehicle trips from A to B, while the right-hand side shows vehicle
trips from B to A.
Headway = is a time period between the time at which
one vehicle (eg. first vehicle) and its consecutive (eg.
second vehicle) leaves the depart.

15
 The colors correspond to different vehicles used on the route. The gray color corresponds to the
first vehicle of the day, leaving A at 6:00 am and continuing with the trip from B at 6:40, the trip
from A at 7:15, etc. A total of five
five vehicles are required to cover all the trips in this timetable.

In addition to the trips from the timetable, the vehicle block also includes a pull-
pull -out
out and pull-in,
pull
so that the final block for the first vehicle (gray) could look like the following.

Forr networks with longer policy headways (e.g., 30-

30 or 60-minute
60 minute headways), longer layovers at
terminals may be necessary if vehicles serve the same route throughout the block. As a result,
other options can be considered, particularly in terms of shifting vehicles
v ehicles from one route to

2
another. The timetable may allow vehicles to shift from one route to another, in order to reduce
layover time and/or to avoid pull-outs
pull outs or pull-ins.
pull ins. Specific activities in the block can include:

Interlining:: the process of switching

Interlining switching a vehicle from one route to another at a terminal, when the
routes share that common terminal.

3
Deadheading:: the process of switching a vehicle from one route to another, also requiring a re-
Deadheading re
location of the vehicle (traveling empty) to another terminal.

These methods can be quite effective under different timetabling conditions.

4.6.3 Crew scheduling => is the task of determining work-shifts for operators (WS=Duty=Run)

Crew scheduling (also called “run-cutting”

“run cutting” in the transit industry) is the task of determining work
shifts (so-called
(so called “duties” or “runs”) for operators. Generally,
Generally, the primary interest in crew
scheduling is to minimize the total cost of labor that meets the service requirements.

A significant fraction, typically 60-70%,

60 70%, of the total operating costs at a transit agency involves
the cost of operators, including wages, benefits, and other premiums. With this in mind, small
reductions in the number of operators, or in the total work hours, can result in more substantive
reductions in the total operating cost. For this reason, the task of scheduling crew to vehicles is
one area where many large transit agencies can achieve some efficiencies and potential cost
savings.

16
 Crew scheduling is complicated because operators often cannot simply be assigned to a vehicle
for the entire vehicle block. First, the shift would often be much longer than a typical 8-hour
work period; and, second, the operator may not get sufficient break time during vehicle layovers
(e.g., for lunch). Instead, the duties have to consider more practical concerns of the operators.

In this regard, transit agencies have rules that dictate the kind of work shifts the operators may
perform. In most cases in the US, the types of work shifts are governed by collective bargaining
agreements (union work rules) that specify work conditions for transit operators. Possible
examples of work rules could include restrictions like the following:
Work-Rules by Transit Aencies for Transit Operators to perform Work Shifts
 A duty should start and end at the same terminal
 Crew needs at least 2 breaks during the day: a normal (15-min) break and a (30-min)
lunch break
 A break is required after no more than 3 hours of work
 Each crew must have at least 8 hours off before resuming duties on the next day
 Only 20% of duties can be longer than 9 hours
 Only 25% of duties can be split into intervals with an unpaid break (e.g. a duty that only
covers the AM and PM peak periods)
 Only 30% of duties can be covered by part-time operators

The general approach to creating a crew schedule begins by cutting each vehicle block into
“pieces of work.” Each piece of work is a subset of trips in the block, forming the elemental unit
of work (driving) for the operator. Then, according to the constraints from the work rules, these
pieces of work are assembled into feasible duties. The hope is to assemble a full set of duties
such that all pieces of work are covered and that the total cost is minimal. The cost of a duty can
depend on both the traditional hourly rate of pay for the operator for hours worked. If the
operator has a straight shift (no unpaid break), they are paid a certain amount, usually at a given
hourly rate. Other costs can include:
Pay-Rules by Transit Aencies for Transit Operators to perform Work Shifts
 A minimum guarantee of hours of pay, if the guarantee exceeds the number of hours
worked (e.g., 8 hours of pay, even if the operator works only 7 hours);
 Premiums for overtime (e.g., time in the duty over 8 hours);
 Premiums for spread time. Spread is the total time between the start and end of a duty. If
this exceeds a certain maximum (e.g., 9 hours), the operator is entitled to extra pay;
 Premiums for swing. Swing occurs when the duty starts and ends at different locations
(terminals, depots);
 Premiums for split duties, where the duty has an unpaid break. This can occur when an
operator works only the AM and PM peak periods, without working in the mid-day;
''
These ''rules on pay suggest that the crew schedule should contain as many straight duties as
possible. Small pieces of work that remain after generating these straight duties can be allocated

17
to part-time operators (if they are available), to avoid other premiums, or covered using split
duties with associated split and/or spread penalties.

A second problem in crew scheduling is rostering, in which duties are assembled into a group of
duties (the “roster”) for each operator, by week. For example, one roster could include the same
8-hour duty for 5 weekdays. However, many possible combinations of duties could be
considered, especially if weekend or evening service is provided. Once the rosters are created,
operators choose from among these duty rosters.

4.6.4 COMPUTERISED SCHEDULING

Scheduling of buses and crews is a complicated task, and the manual production of efficient
schedules requires skill and experience; producing a full set of schedules and rosters for a large
depot takes a considerable amount of time. Computer software is available commercially to
assist in the compilation of bus and crew schedules, and to produce timetables for internal and
public use, and various control documents such as depot run-out sheets and terminal departure
sheets. Some of these packages are highly sophisticated and as well as producing schedules
which optimise utilisation of vehicles and crews, can also suggest timetable changes which could
result in savings in resources. More recent vehicle scheduling systems can also be linked with
timetabling, payroll and other software to provide a fully integrated systems. Most large bus
operators in developed countries now rely on computers for their scheduling, with significant
savings both in terms of improved productivity of scheduling staff, and through the compilation
of more efficient schedules than could be achieved manually, resulting in a more efficient
operation.

Computerised scheduling is less common in developing countries. The relatively high cost of the
software deters many operators, and the direct saving in scheduling cost is minimal where wages
are low. Since crew costs are also generally much lower than in developed countries, the
potential savings through more efficient utilisation of crews are also low. Moreover, the software
requires accurate input of base data including point-to-point running times, vehicle and crew
scheduling constraints such as maximum permitted working hours, or restrictions of vehicle
types on certain routes, and such accuracy is often difficult to achieve. Where bus services are
operated to very high frequencies, and scheduling systems generally are basic, there is also
limited benefit from more sophisticated vehicle scheduling techniques. However, in a more
complex operation, or where labour costs are high, the potential saving in vehicles, crews and
dead mileage are substantial, and can more than justify the cost.

18
 1. Introduction (Fare system Components = PACC)
2. Fare collecting Methods
3. Fare payment verification Methods
4. Fare collection Approaches in BRT Services
5. Fare collecting Media
6. Advanced Technologies
4.7 Fare Systems 7. Institutional Structure (PM-Eff)

Buy the ticket, take the ride. Hunter S. Thompson, journalist and author, 1937–2005

Fare collection systems play a vital role in success or failure of any public transport system.
Unaffordable fares and inappropriate collection methods may result in dissatisfaction and
disappointment of passengers, while affordable fares, simplicity, and ease of use can attract more
ridership. Inappropriate fare collection methods result in dissatisfaction and disappointment of passengers
Eg. manual issue of paper tickets involves human effort, resulting in delays for customers and revenue leakage.
Recent technological advances have introduced smart means of fare collection by using electronic devices
Relying on the manual issue of paper tickets for fare collection involves considerable human
effort, resulting in delays for customers and revenue leakage. Recent technological advances
have introduced smart means of fare collection by using electronic devices, making the fare
collection process faster and more secure. However, technology has its own limits that should be
understood before adoption.

There are two types of fare collection processes: onboard systems, inside public transport
vehicles, and off-board systems, outside the vehicles. Historically, onboard systems have
functioned by means of a conductor inside the vehicle who issues paper tickets and collects cash
payments. Some onboard systems make use of handheld ticketing machines that issue printed
paper tickets (but still require a conductor inside the bus to issue tickets and collect the fares).
Other onboard systems do not involve a conductor but require the passenger to pay a cash fare to
the driver. Onboard systems may also incorporate prepayment mechanisms by means of smart
card or token readers.

Off-board systems emerged as a means of handling large passenger volumes efficiently and
without the inconvenience of onboard collection. Most rapid transit systems, including BRT and
metros, collect fares at the station, before passengers enter the vehicle. Most successful BRT
systems, such as Bogotá’s TransMilenio, rely on smart-card based, prepaid fare collection.
Prepayment avoids the delays that occur when passengers need to file past the driver to pay their
fares, or the inconvenience of having a conductor move through the bus and collect fares.

In general, a fare collection system must include:

 The payment media and devices for validation of payment media; (SC1)
 Access control mechanisms; (SC2)
 A central system for information processing and report generation with communication
central system for information processing & report generation in communication
links between system components; with the links between the system components;
 Customer interface (signs, web pages, user complaints, etc.). (SC3)

4.7.1 Fare System Functionality

“Customers require the effective integration of technologies to simplify their workflow and boost
efficiency”. Anne M. Mulcahy, businesswoman, 1952–

19
 Rapid transit systems are designed to cater to large passenger volumes. Managing peak-hour
volumes has been a challenge for public transport agencies around the world. While paper tickets
=> Is a type of control
were historically the primary mode of fare collection, public transport agencies have increasingly
mechanism by w/c the
user has to pass through
turned to electronic fare collection to cater to increasing demand, and to solve the problem of
some physical barrier to
to enter into the bus long passenger lines at ticket counters.
=> Turnstile on a vehicle
or at station, w/c allows
passage of only one Any fare collection system must incorporate a mechanism to ensure payment by users. There are
person at a time; and
Sliding doors are two primary means of ensuring compliance:
examples of this method
=>The user, in order to
open and pass the barrier,
Barrier control: Users need to pass through some kind of physical barrier to access the system.
is expected to present a
payment medium so that
his payment is Typically, this implies turnstiles on vehicles or at stations, sliding doors, or other such
deducted from the medium.
=> Common in BRT s/m mechanisms. The users present a payment medium (e.g., a smart card or magnetic-strip card) for
(Trunc corridor services), A turnstile is a form of gate which allows one person to pass at a time.
the barrier to open, and a payment is deducted from the medium; It can be configured to enforce one-way human traffic.
as it minimizes stress of
human work

Proof-of-payment: There are no physical barriers to enter the system. Users either enter freely
=> Is a type of control
mechanism that has (an “open system”) or show proof of payment upon entry and/or exit. In such systems, public
no physical barrier
to access the system. transport staff conduct occasional checks to control fare evasion. For those caught without a
=>Users either enter
freely and show valid fare during the random inspection process, a penalty is applied. Proof-of-payment systems
proof of payment
upon exit, or enter
entail pre-board fare collection, usually through a vending machine or kiosk. From the fare
by showing the payment point onward, the customers proceed directly to the public transport vehicle without
proof of payment
and exit freely. inspection. Fare evasion or fare dodging, fare violation, rarely called ticket evasion, is the act of travelling on public transport without paying
=> Is applied in
pre-board fare collection
through a vending Barrier control is common on trunk corridors of many BRT systems, as it minimizes stress of
machine or kiosk
=>Not common in human work and labor to maintain records and data. Proof-of-payment systems are typical in
BRT systems, as a result of:
1. high demand many European public transport systems, but are not very common in BRT systems due to the
levels and
2. the costs of
difficulty of coping with high demand levels and the costs of enforcement personnel necessary to
Stiff penalty follows if
enforcement personnel reduce leakage to an acceptable level. Rigorous enforcement of fare evasion is something of an user fails to pay fare
neede to reduce fare evasion due to any of the
unpleasant business. Enforcement authorities have to be quasi police, either armed or physically ff reasons:
=> Cash point
large. Sometimes people are unable to figure out how to pay the fare, either because the cash * Closed
point was not working, or it was closed, or it failed to punch the fare card properly. People need =>*Fare
Not working
card
to retain the fare card, and sometimes it gets lost. When one of these things happens, it is highly * Not punched
properly
unsettling for passengers, for they face a stiff penalty, and a humiliating encounter with * Gets lost

enforcement agents.

Proof-of-payment systems are prevalent in subsidized public transport systems where there is
less direct institutional concern about collecting the fare revenue. This kind of system also
requires a legal framework that allows verification staff (that usually are not police staff) to have
de facto police powers in the collection of penalties from violators, and a procedure for
collecting when the passenger does not have the money to pay the fine. This legal framework is
absent in many developing countries. Fare verification by personnel walking through the buses is
also difficult on very crowded systems. Even with stringent verification requirements, cities can

20
face significant amounts of fare evasion. As such, the viability of operating an effective honor
system is questionable.

Some BRT systems with direct services that extend beyond trunk corridors sometimes make use
of both compliance mechanisms: fares are collected off-board at trunk stations, but the system
relies on proof-of-payment on service extensions. Other systems require paying the driver when
the vehicles operate outside of the trunk corridor. Thus, different components of a BRT system
may require varying fare collection solutions.

Fare collection systems are also a factor of the fare structure. Fare collection is fairly
straightforward in the case of flat fares, whereas distance-based or zonal fare systems typically
require a more intricate solution. The following sections describe common approaches for typical
BRT service types.

1. Fare Collection on Trunk Corridors

Off-board fare collection is generally the most suitable process for BRT trunk corridors.
Successful BRTs worldwide have adopted off-board fare collection systems to reduce boarding
times and facilitate the use of electronic fare media. Bus frequencies on BRT trunk corridors are
often so high that only electronic fare collection is a viable mechanism for handling fare
payments during peak hours. For systems in which drivers are responsible for fare collection,
passengers take as long as two to four seconds to pay the driver while entering the vehicle. Once
passenger flows reach a certain threshold, the delays and time loss associated with onboard fare
collection become a significant system liability.

By contrast, in a BRT system with pre-board fare collection, boarding and alighting is conducted
from all doors at once. When fares are collected off the vehicle, there is no delay in boarding and
alighting related to the fare collection and fare verification processes. A pre-board fare collection
and verification process will reduce boarding times from 3 seconds per passenger to 0.3 seconds
per passenger. In turn, the reduction in station dwell time greatly reduces vehicle congestion at
the stopping bay.

The introduction of contactless smart cards and other modern payment systems can reduce
onboard payment to fewer than two seconds per passenger. Systems such as the (Seoul, South
Korea), bus way make use of onboard fare collection using smart card technology. However, any
time the driver is responsible for verifying fares, the speed of the service is highly compromised,
particularly if there is a large volume of passengers.

In the bus way system, passengers must remember to swipe their smart cards both upon entering
the vehicle and when existing as well. Delays can occur simply if a person enters the vehicle and
must search through their belongings to find the fare card. Onboard payment and verification
psychologically also creates a lower-market image for the service. Off-board payment and
verification gives the sense of a more metro-like system.

21
Table Boarding and Alighting Times for Different Vehicle Configurations. Table courtesy of ITDP.

Configuration characteristcs Boarding and alighting times

Fare collection Doorway width Stairway Vehicle floor Observed; Observed
method (meters) boarding or level height boarding time; alighting time
boarding
Onboard, 0.6 Stairway High 3.01 NA
manually by
driver
Onboard, 0.6 Stairway High 2.02 NA
contactless smart
card (no
turnstile)
Off-board 0.6 Stairway High 23 1.53
Off-board 0.6 Stairway Low 1.5 1.2
Off-board 1.1 Stairway High 1.5 1
Off-board 1.1 Stairway Low 1.1 0.9
Off-board 1.1 Level High 0.751 0.51

Where: NA not available.

Off-board payment collection is not necessarily the only way to reduce boarding and alighting
times, but there are institutional reasons why this approach is generally more successful in the
developing-country context. Passengers can also enter through all doors at once if there are
sufficient conductors to check tickets once on board. Alternatively, many European light-rail
systems utilize an honor system, where it is the responsibility of passengers to punch their own
tickets that they purchase at shops and kiosks. Enforcement is then the responsibility of the
police or contracted security personnel. However, in developing countries such enforcement is
usually ineffective.

Off-board fare collection also reduces the potential for leakage because there are fewer points of
cash collection in the system. When passengers pay on board, and do not have to pass through a
turnstile, there is no clear count of how many passengers boarded the vehicle. Off-board fare
sales to a third party make it easier to separate the fare collection process from the bus operators.
By having an open and transparent fare collection system, there is less opportunity for
circumstances in which individuals withhold funds. Further, by removing the handling of cash by
drivers, incidents of onboard robbery are reduced.

Off-board payment also facilitates free transfers within the system. The enclosed, controlled
stations also give the system another level of security, as the stations can be better protected by
security personnel, thus discouraging theft and other undesirable activities. Payment off board
also is more comfortable than juggling change within a moving vehicle.

The main disadvantage to off-board fare collection is the need to construct and operate off-board
fare facilities. Fare vending machines, sales booths, verification devices, and turnstiles all require
both financial investment and physical space. Closed stations, though, also bring other benefits

22
besides increased system efficiency. Such stations provide more protection from inclement
weather, such as rain, wind, cold, and strong sun. Also, closed stations hold advantages in terms
of providing security from crime as well as discouraging loitering.

In a BRT system with limited physical space for stations in a center median, accommodating the
fare collection and verification infrastructure can be a challenge. Depending on how the fare
system is configured, there may be some time loss while paying off board, whereas paying on
board theoretically means that the payment time occurs while the bus is moving. Of course, this
type of activity can create safety issues if the driver is both handling fares and driving at the
same time. Customers can also be uncomfortably jostled about when trying to pay at the same
time the vehicle is accelerating.

Some systems employ a reservoir area within the vehicle to hold passengers while they go
through the fare payment and verification process. This system allows the passenger queue to
quickly file into the vehicle, which can then accelerate to the next station without waiting for
passengers to complete the fare-verification process. However, this technique often requires
onboard fare collection staff, which in turn raises operational labor costs.

There is no one precise point at which a system’s capacity will determine if onboard or off-board
fare collection is more cost effective. Much depends on demand figures from individual stations,
station physical configurations, and average labor costs. However, the advantage of off-board
payment clearly increases as the level of boardings and alightings at the station increases. The
development of a cost-benefit analysis may help determine this capacity point, provided the
costing data is available.

Fig. Off-board fare collection system in Beijing. Karl Fjellstrom.

23
BRT systems with off-board fare collection may use manned points of sale, automatic ticket
vending machines, or a combination of both. Paper tickets can be issued during initial stages
from ticket counters at stations, but the system should move toward paperless operations by
introducing and promoting the use of cashless travel by means of automatic access control
barriers.

2. Fare Collection on Feeders

Depending on the system typology, feeder services can have onboard fare collection with
conductors or proof-of-payment with electronic or paper tickets. Many BRT systems integrate
fares between trunk and feeder services; feeder travel is discounted or free for passengers
transferring to a trunk bus. The user gets a complimentary feeder bus ride once he or she pays the
fare to travel in the trunk bus. Transfer discounts are facilitated through the use of cashless fare
collection systems in both trunk and feeder systems. For example, there can be a common smart
card that can be used in the BRT as well as feeder services.

Fig. Onboard fare collection on a feeder bus in Yancheng, China, allows customers to
connect to the BRT using a smart card payment system. Liu Henian.

The operating costs of fare collection in feeder services are generally higher than on-station,
since additional personnel and communication costs are incurred. Revenue from trunk fares
helps cover not only the increased cost of collection but potentially the cost of the feeder services
themselves.

3. Fare Collection on Direct Services

Some BRT systems have special services and routes that connect trunk corridors with high-
demand areas located a short distance from the segregated corridors. While these systems may
employ off-board fare collection at trunk stations, an alternate solution is necessary on the
extensions. One possibility is to employ electronic fare cards. Passengers tap onboard smart card
readers when boarding from an extension, while fare collection is still accomplished off-board at
the trunk stations. Monitoring by the driver or some other proof-of-payment mechanism is
necessary to ensure fare payment on the service extensions.

24
4. Integration with Other Public Transport Services

Integration of BRT fares with that of other forms of public transport has many advantages for
passengers, reducing the need for cash payments and the inconvenience of learning multiple fare
structures for different modes. In Guangzhou, China, customers may use the same fare card on
the BRT, metro, and bicycle sharing systems.

4.7.2 Fare Collection Media

“The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do”. B. F. Skinner,
psychologist, 1904–1990

The following payment mediums are in common use in BRT systems around the world:
=> The 5 fare collecting medium that are in common use in BRT systems around the world:
 Coins; => The 5 Goals that guide the selection of an appropriate fare collecting medium
1. Minimize the time a passenger spends in purchasing tickets
 Tokens; 2. Minimize human interference in order to reduce the possibility of revenue leakage and fraud
3. Minimize the cost of fare collection
 Paper tickets; 4. Make the overall fare collection process simple and easily to understandable;
5. Generate financial and travel data for use in system monitoring;
 Magnetic-strip cards;
 Smart cards.

No one solution is inherently correct. The choice of fare collection system often involves a trade-
offs among costs, simplicity, cultural conditions, and service features. The selection of an
appropriate fare collection medium is generally guided by the following goals:

 Minimize the time a passenger spends in purchasing tickets and entering the public
transport system;
 Make the overall fare collection process simple and easy to understand;
 Minimize human interference in order to reduce the possibility of revenue leakage and
fraud;
 Minimize the cost of fare collection;
 Generate financial and travel data for use in system monitoring;
 Respond dynamically to changes in fare policies and service plans.

Two decades ago, printed paper tickets were the only economically and technologically viable
fare collection system in public transport systems around the world. But with the advent of
electronic fare collection systems, the scenario has changed. Across the globe, most BRT
systems have adopted contactless smart cards as the preferred payment medium. This technology
has become popular because it is relatively inexpensive both in terms of upfront investment and
in recurring maintenance costs, while providing numerous operational features.

Coin/Token Systems

Mechanical coin and token-based systems are among the simplest technologies available to
handle fare collection and fare verification. These systems can be quite robust and economical to

25
operate. New York City’s public transport system worked on a token-based system for more than
a hundred years.

The number of sales personnel can be reduced and ticketing machines are not necessary with
coin-based systems because the customer does not need to go through the cumbersome process
of programming the electronic card. Instead, the currency acts directly as the fare payment and
verification mechanism. There is no need to issue any paper tickets to customers. Also, there is
typically no queue at the exit side of the trip, either. Thus, while other systems may involve at
least three separate customer queues (purchase fare, verify fare at entrance, and verify fare at
exit), coin-based systems require the customer to only enter one queue (verify fare at entrance).
However, once a ticket is purchased, contactless cards tend to have higher throughput at the
turnstile; coin-based systems will likely move only eight to twelve passengers per minute, versus
fifteen to twenty passengers per minute with contactless cards.

Naturally, coin-based systems depend on the availability of coins in the local currency. Further,
the coins must be available in a combination that matches the desired fare level. If coins are not
part of the local currency, then tokens are an option. However, the inclusion of tokens in the fare
collection system defeats many of the benefits of coins. While still providing a relatively simple
fare system, tokens require all customers to purchase from a machine or sales point. This activity
increases the amount of customer queuing required to use the system. Another alternative is to
utilize fare collection turnstiles that handle paper currency. However, this technology is not
nearly as robust as coin readers. The extra moments required for authenticating the currency note
will slow down the entry process and thus reduce system capacity. This problem is exacerbated
by the poor quality of older currency notes.

But there are some limitations to this simple system. Coin-based systems are only usable with
flat-fare structures, and cannot offer multi-trip discounts, time of day discounts, or free transfers
to other modes without physical integration facilities. Also, by combining a coin-based system
with another technology (such as magnetic-strip cards or smart cards), then multiple-trip fares
are also possible.

Coin and token systems are subject to the illegal use of slugs and counterfeit coins. The handling
and administrative requirements related to coin collection and transaction accounting are also
more labor intensive.

Printed Paper Tickets

Printed paper tickets were previously a prime method of fare collection in public transport
systems. Under most paper-based systems, preprinted tickets are issued to passengers against a
cash payment of the fare. In many European public transport systems, paper tickets are sold off-
board at vending booths, machines, kiosks, and other shops. The tickets are validated at the time
of boarding by inserting the paper ticket into a stamping machine. This machine marks the time
and sometimes the location of the validation. The validation process employed is important when

26
paper systems have time limits on usage. Verification of paper tickets can take place manually
upon entrance into the system, or may only be verified occasionally through random inspections.

In many public transport systems in Asia and Africa, a conductor inside the vehicle issues
tickets. Often in such systems, the conductor manually issues and punches the tickets.
Alternately, the tickets may be printed using a handheld ticketing machine; the conductor enters
the codes of origin and destination on the numeric keypad of the machine and the ticket is
printed using thermal paper. The continuous presence of a conductor helps ensure that all
passengers are carrying valid tickets.

Paper tickets suffer from several drawbacks that limit their effectiveness in high demand rapid
transit systems:

For proof-of-payment systems without conductors, periodic checks are required on a frequent
basis to ensure that passengers buy tickets. Such checks are difficult during peak periods when
fare collection is highest;

In the case of tickets issued on board by a conductor, the process of issuing tickets is onerous and
inconvenient for passengers, especially on crowded buses;

The likelihood of revenue leakage is high if the public transport agency does not record
passenger and revenue data on a regular basis. There are numerous possibilities for fraud, such as
the printing of fake tickets or the failure to issue official tickets to all passengers;

The agency must digitize any manual records generated at points of sale and from conductors
into electronic records in order to carry out any kind of statistical analysis;

The system will have no record about who travelled with that ticket when the trip ends;

Battery-operated paper ticketing machines require charging every day.

As a result of these drawbacks, paper tickets are rarely used on modern BRT systems. Agencies
have turned to more robust fare collection media such as RFID smart cards (see below).

Magnetic-Strip Cards

Magnetic-strip cards were the first widely adopted form of automated fare collection to be used
on many public transport systems around the world. Magnetic fare cards use the same
technology found in consumer credit cards. Magnetic-strip cards can implement complex
algorithms—including multiple trips and varying fare rates for different types of trips—and store
data securely. They allow both read and write operations, and data from the verification turnstile
can provide system operators with information on customer movements. In this way, they
represent a major advance over paper-based systems.

27
 Fig. All-purpose bus fare collection machine in Nagoya, Japan. Karl Fjellstrom.

Magnetic-strip technology also has the advantage of the low cost of the fare cards themselves,
about US$0.02–0.05 per card. However, the magnetic-strip technology requires the card to come
into extremely close contact with the card reader. Most systems require the user to feed the card
into a slot. The card is then ejected for the user to retrieve. When the user removes the card, the
turnstile opens. The extra time taken to process the card increases the boarding delay. In
addition, magnetic-strip cards are generally made of coated paper, and can be damaged relatively
easily. Some system providers utilizing magnetic-strip cards also elect to permit discounted fares
for individuals purchasing multiple trips.

RFID-Based Smart Cards

Smart cards are based on a microprocessor that can read and process a variety of information
regarding cash inputs, travel, and system usage with the highest possible security level. Smart
cards are capable of supporting complex fare policies and can facilitate integration among
multiple public transport modes. Smart cards rely on radio frequency identification (RFID) that
activates a turnstile when held in proximity to the reader, an act that generally requires less
physical precision than swiping or inserting a magnetic-strip card. Smart cards permit a wide
range of information to be collected on customer movements, which ultimately can assist in
system development and revenue distribution.

Contactless smart cards have embedded dynamic logic that enables the implementation of
complex fare rules, including transfer discounts during specific time windows, discounted off-
peak fares, and distance-based fares. Other payment media lack the dynamic logic necessary to
carry out such operations. Smart cards also have a longer life cycle and are less likely to
experience a loss of data when compared to magnetic-strip cards. Smart-card-based systems can
also incorporate solutions for single-journey tickets such as RFID tokens. A passenger taps a
token when entering the system and deposits it in a turnstile when leaving the system.

28
The main drawbacks of smart card technology are the relative cost of the card and its
complexity. The system requires fare vending personnel and/or card vending machines. The
system also typically requires verification machines at system exits if distance-based fares are
utilized. In each instance, the risk of long customer queues, especially during peak periods, is
increased at the point of sale but reduced at the turnstile. In addition to the costs of the vending
and verification machines, each smart card is a relatively costly expense. Current prices are in
the range of one to three US dollars per card. The card cost depends on the card complexity.

Virtually all smart cards conform to the ISO 7816 size standard. The card material can vary with
options such as PVC, PET, and even paper. Different manufacturers have developed their
proprietary protocols and operating systems that define the security and compatibility between
cards and reading devices. The most common standard is defined in the ISO 14443 A/B
standard, which details the card characteristics.

The microchip on a smart card can either be “memory only” or “memory with microprocessing”
capabilities. Cards with a memory chip can only store data, and have pre-defined dedicated
processing capabilities. The addition of microprocessing allows the smart card to actually
execute applications as well. For example, a microprocessor chip can allow the stored value of
the smart card to be used for purchases outside the public transport system.

Once a card brand such as the Octopus is established, its ability to penetrate into a wide variety
of related markets is significant. Octopus started with a core network of transport services in
1997, and soon expanded into almost all forms of transport payment services.

Likewise, the Octopus card is finding utility in several applications outside the transport sector.
Some of these outside payment applications include supermarkets, convenience stores, fast food
franchises, vending machines, photocopiers, cinemas, and sports venues. The flexibility of such
cards means that the system’s marketplace and potential for profit can extend well beyond the
transport sector. Such market diversity can help strengthen overall company performance.

Typically smart cards for transport applications have from one to four kilobytes of memory. A
four-kilobyte card will be able to support multiple applications, including e-money transactions.

Unlike magnetic-strip cards, though, smart cards have a long life and can be reused for periods in
the range of five to ten years. As smart cards become more common, the cost of the cards will
undoubtedly continue to fall.

29
Fig. A fare collection machine in that accepts tokens and smart cards.

From a financial point of view, although smart cards have a relatively high initial cost (one to
three US dollars per card), the cost per transaction is significantly less than that of magnetic-strip
cards. Some system designers estimate that maintenance costs for contactless smart card
equipment are between 7 to 10 percent of the initial investment, compared with 15 to 20 percent
for magnetic-strip systems.

Besides the cost of the cards, the chief disadvantage of smart cards is the relative complexity of
the implementation. In the case of TransJakarta, the BRT system operated for more than one year
before the smart card system could actually function. Implementing a smart card system is an
order of magnitude more difficult than many other payment mediums. Smart-card systems are
not yet in the category of a “plug-and-play” technology, as much software programming and
specialized skills must accompany the implementation.

Advanced Technologies

Several emerging technologies offer the promise of simplifying fare collection in the future. One
such technology is near field communication (NFC), a short-range wireless technology used in
mobile phones. This technology, covered under the ISO 14433 standard, allows a smartphone to
function similarly to an RFID smart card in conjunction with contactless readers at station
turnstiles. It offers great flexibility, since the money pocket can be added to in several ways,
including SMS or internet. An example of an NFC solution is the Google Wallet, an application
that can store credit and debit account information securely on a phone, and then use the NFC
capability to pay at enabled payment readers. At present, the biggest obstacle to more widespread
use of NFC is the limited availability of NFC-ready phones, especially in developing countries.
However, with increasing market penetration of smartphones, this technology may become
viable for transport applications in the near future.

30
Gates and Turnstiles

Off-board fare collection systems generally employ physical barriers to prevent passengers from
entering the system without paying. Most early entry control systems made use of rotating
turnstiles. Later developments have resulted in improved and more efficient access control
mechanisms with retractable wing gates. Gate arms that pivot horizontally are inexpensive but
are generally avoided because they allow entry of more than one person before the arms close.

The turnstile, or tripod gate, is probably the most common access control mechanism used in
BRT systems across the world. Once the fare reader authorizes a passage, the tripod is released
from a fixed position to rotate a third of a revolution and ensure passage for one person. The
TransMilenio BRT system in Bogotá, the Trolebús and Ecovía lines in Quito, Ecuador, and
many other systems in South America make use of tripod gates. Tripod gates are not universally
accessible to persons with disabilities and users with strollers and suitcases. Alternative access
may be provided through manual gates operated by a station attendant. Despite these
accessibility challenges, tripod gates are common because of their low maintenance and
operating costs.

Retractable wing gates have become standard on many large rapid transit systems such as the
London Underground, Hong Kong Metro, and Washington, DC Metro. They also have started to
appear in BRT systems, including the Janmarg system in Ahmedabad, India, and the Beijing
BRT. The wings are manufactured from durable plastics, glass, or stainless steel. They
automatically fold back once the fare reader completes a successful fee transaction. Wing
barriers provide a professional appearance while simultaneously preventing fare evasion. They
also have advanced detection systems that prevent the flaps from closing while a person or other
object—such as a suitcase or stroller—is still passing through. The barriers can also stay open if
a second legal passage is detected. The clear opening between the wings can be designed to meet
customers’ requirements, including wider gates that permit the passage of wheelchairs.

One consideration in the design of retractable-flap systems is the height of the gate. Most
systems utilize waist-high gates, but higher gates are used where there is little oversight and/or a
high incidence of fare evasion. The higher the gate, the heavier it becomes, ultimately placing
more restrictions on the type of mechanism, flap material, and the speed of opening and closing.
Some systems use gates with both heights, with waist-high systems at entrances where there are
fare agents and full-height systems where there is less oversight. For example, Quito employs a
half-body height turnstile at the entrances that also include the presence of a fare agent.

31
 Fig. The BRT system in Chengdu, China, utilizes wing gates to control access to the
system. Karl Fjellstrom.

The typical dimensions and capacities of the different gates are summarized in Table 18.2
(turnstile dimensions are also often customized). The space limitations for BRT stations
constructed in road medians pose a challenge in terms of providing sufficient capacity for peak
demand at fare gates. Many systems stagger gates or employ bidirectional gates that can be used
in any direction, allowing the system to set the orientation of the gates to match the direction of
peak passenger flows.

Fig. Urumqi, China, streamlines customer flow by offsetting the gates and making them
unidirectional. Image Karl Fjellstrom.

32
Table Turnstile Widths

Category Type Height (mm) Opening Installation Capacity

Width (mm) Width (mm)
Waist Retractable 960–1095 500–990 820–1580 60 persons/min
Height Angle Wing 1060–1200 650–700 760–1250 60 persons/min
Rotating Arm 950–1090 430–520 750–820 25–40
(Tripod) persons/min
Swinging Arm 965–1100 600–1200 720–1400 30 persons/min
Full Height Angle Wing 1200–1829 500–950 760–1690 30–60
persons/min
Rotating Tripod 2200 600–700 1450 20 persons/min

A few BRT systems with onboard fare collection employ onboard physical barriers. Passengers
board the bus into a holding area and must tap in to pass by a turnstile. Some other systems, such
as the Rea Vaya BRT in Johannesburg, South Africa, also employ fare gates on feeder buses to
facilitate the use of an integrated, distance-based fare on the entire BRT network. Rea Vaya
feeder buses have tripod gates at the exit doors of buses. The passenger must tap to exit the bus,
allowing the system to calculate the distance traveled and the appropriate fare.

Table Different Fare Collections Systems in Place in BRT Systems around the World.

Country City BRT Name of System Type of Barrier Control

Standard Collection
Level
US Cleveland, Silver RTA Healthline Off board Machine for
Ohio validation before
boarding
Los Angeles Bronze LA Metro Orange Off board TAP card must
Line be tapped before
boarding at
validating
stations
Eugene, Bronze Emerald Express Off board Off-board fare
Oregon (EmX) machines
South Lima, Peru Gold El Metrobolitano Off board Electronic
America readers/turnstiles
Buenos Aires, Bronze Metrobus Onboard -
Argentina
Curitiba, Gold Green Line Off board Pre-pay station,
Brazil turnstiles
Rio de Gold Transoeste Off board Pre-pay station,
Janeiro, Brazil turnstiles
Barranquilla, Silver Transmetro Off board Electronic
Colombia readers/turnstiles
Cali, Silver MIO (Masivo Off board Contact-free
Colombia Integrado de magnetic
Occidente) ticketing

33
 Perreira, Silver Megabus Off board Contact-free
Colombia magnetic
ticketing,
turnstiles
Medellín, Gold Metroplus Off board Contact-free
Colombia magnetic
ticketing
Asia
Guangzhou, Gold Guangzhou BRT Off board Fare
China verification,
turnstiles
Jakarta, Bronze TransJakarta Off board Fare
Indonesia verification,
turnstiles
Ahmedabad, Silver Janmarg Off board Fare
India verification,
wing gates,
turnstiles
Africa Johannesburg, Silver Rea Vaya Off board Fare
South Africa verification,
wing gates, TAP
card entering
and exiting
stations
Cape Town, Bronze MyCity Off board Fare
South Africa verification,
wing gates, TAP
card entering
and exiting
stations

Back-End Components

“The way to build a complex system that works is to build it from very simple systems that work”.
Kevin Kelly, publisher, 1952–

Fare collection systems require a robust back-end to process fare payments, store fare data, and
generate reports for system managers. Most systems incorporate a computer at each fare
collection location (i.e., each station or bus). The computer compiles data from turnstiles or
onboard ticket machines and sends this information via a secure data channel to a control center
on a real-time basis. Control center staff can monitor system status, respond to defective or
malfunctioning machines, and generate reports. All systems should have backup power to ensure
that the system can continue to operate in the event of electricity outages. In addition, the stations
and control center should have backup capabilities.

During the implementation of the information system, the BRT agency should ensure that the
fare collection service provider provides complete details on the data protocols used to transfer

34
fare collection data. These details are required in the event that a future fare collection contract is
given to a different provider. The BRT agency should develop an in-house team of experts who
conduct regular monitoring of the fare collection system.

4.7.3 Institutional Structure

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you
are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.Martin Luther King Jr., civil
rights leader, 1929–1968

Institutional arrangements for the fare collection and verification system vary widely from
system to system, with different benefits and risks. Most successful BRT systems have adopted a
public-private partnership model to handle fare collection. These systems involve the following
parties:

 The manager of the money (usually a bank or money manager);

 The equipment provider;
 The fare provider;
 The fare system operator;
 The public transport authority or its parent agency.

How these functions are related institutionally depends on the technical competence of the public
transport authority or its parent agency, the level of concern about corruption, the type of system
desired, and the need for financing it with private money.

It is fairly standard for the manager of the money, the equipment provider, and the fare provider
to be closely associated, while the fare system operator is separate. This allows the equipment
provider/financial manager to monitor the fare system operator in order to avoid corruption.
Figure 18.7 outlines a typical system structure.

Fig. Institutional relationships in a typical fare system. Graphic Fabio Gordillo.

35