The Need for Transport System Integration for Efficient Public Transport

Public transport services have different schedules, different routes, different capacities and different payment methods. Transport system integration means the

10

involvement of all entities of transport (rail, road, water etc.) within a single operation for the efficiency of the entire network and for the benefit of the users.

Full integration of transit systems emerged under the title of Transit Federation during the mid-1960s in Hamburg firstly. As it is explained by Vuchic (2007, 439), the motivation of the experts was to create a transit system which provides a direct travel opportunity with a single payment for a rich coordination among different lines and with these improvements to annihilate the disadvantages of the transit against the private car usage. In order to solve the problems that cause a disadvantageous position for transit modes over car usage, a single information system, a single payment system and reasonable or free transfer fees were planned for an integrated, multimodal travel. Furthermore, Givoni and Banister (2010, 5) mentions that integration within the transport network often relates to the terms

“multimodal” and “intermodal”, which are used interchangeably, but in general reflect the use of more than one mode of transport within one journey (of passengers or good) and/or the consideration of more than one mode of transport (e.g. in transport policy). In the literature, there are many researches, which are showing that a single mode is unable to create an optimal system (Cervero, 1998; Grava, 2003;

Vuchic, 2007; Givoni and Banister, 2010). Since, every transportation option meets different types of travel demand, it is necessary to have them all in transportation network to create an efficient system (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of Passengers-Cost Relation in Transportation Systems (Elker, 2012, 247)

11

The needs for the mobility vary so much that an optimal transportation system can be created only by responding to all these different requirements.

…The wider the range of transport modes offered and the greater the spectrum of income brackets accommodated, the more effective the transport system; and that diversity reflects the response to changing transport demands of different urban areas and groups. Many Third World city officials, however, do not consider diversity an asset (Dimitriou, 2011, 142). In practice, integrated transport systems are difficult to establish and manage.

Nevertheless, local decision makers have to be aware that supporting integration projects finally results with better accessibility, cheaper fares and consequently with increased public utility in terms of public transport. Some of the roles of the local government during this process could be giving subsidies to the local transport operators for integration or introducing smart card integration for ticketing. In the 21^st Century, transport system integration is already on the agenda of both developed and developing countries. Surely, the process of system integration is quite difficult for the decision makers especially in the developing world examples. In the developing world cities, there is mostly a lack of responsibility sharing between the local service providers and the local governments. As stated by Cervero, (1998), normlessness of the transportation network -especially in the metropolitan cities namely New Delhi, Cairo or Istanbul- mostly results in the deficiency in equilibrium of transportation network depending on the local needs. For example, in Bangkok, Thailand, there are large numbers of groups who are operating the transport services.

Until the recession hit in early 1997, three different rail transit projects, each sponsored by a different federal ministry, were proceeding along toward implementation in hopes of relieving Bangkok of its worsening traffic nightmares (Cervero, 1998, 38-39). However, it is possible to see many implementation projects in terms of system integration. As again stated by Cervero (1998, 277/292), in the beginning of the 1970s the officials of Curitiba realized that fragmented public transport services in Curitiba was one of the pioneer reasons of vehicle ownership increases. By the lead of mayor Jaime Lenner, city officials introduced an integrated public transport project in 1974. Between the years 1974-1994 this project has been so successful that a survey in 1991 showed that Integrated Transport Network

12

reduced automobile usage by some 27 million trip per year. In Istanbul too, there is a fragmented structure in terms of public transport provision, and the physical integration of different public transport systems is often referred to as a major problem (Gerçek & Demir, 2008; Hennig, 2011; Babalık-Sutcliffe, 2016). There is a comprehensive smart card system however, bringing together various different operators, including privately operated individual bus operators. Nevertheless, operation of dolmuş, the paratransit mode in Turkey, is not included in this smartcard system, significantly hindering the effectiveness of the fare integration implementation. This issue in Turkey is to be explored in more detail in the upcoming parts of this study.

Especially, in countries, which have a transportation network dominated by private and small scale operators, it is much more difficult to manage the expectations of different stakeholders. This fragmented structure mostly results with an inefficient and expensive transportation network. In the beginning of the 21^st Century, most of the developed world cities have created their own transit federations to optimize their own systems. London, Paris, Hamburg were some of these cities (Vuchic, 2007, 439). Some developing country cities have also created transit authorities to oversee the operation of public transport; however, institutional fragmentation still exists in many cities, hindering the coordination of services (Cervero, 2013; Dimitriou, 2011, 8-39) and this applies to the transport services too. Public transport services in developing country cities are often characterized by private and small-scale operators, which present severe challenges for transit authorities in their projects for integrated transport. In particular “jitneys and minibuses are the mainstays of the transit network” in many developing countries (Cervero, 1998, 15) and these services that are privately operated by individuals on a profit-making motive can create fragmentation in overall transport policy and operations. To provide a better understanding of the nature of this challenge in developing country cities, the following section provides a review of paratransit services both from a universal perspective and in the case of developing world cities.