Impact of an Integrated Modal Tariff on the Mobility of São Paulo S Metropolitan Region
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IMPACT OF AN INTEGRATED MODAL TARIFF ON THE MOBILITY OF LOW- INCOME POPULATION IN THE SÃO PAULO METROPOLITAN REGION
By
Jorge Rebelo, Márcia Barone and Marise Vianna1
This paper evaluates the impact of an integrated modal tariff (“Bilhete-único Integrado-BUI”) on the low-income population of São Paulo’s Metropolitan Region (SPMR) rail-based network. Over the last seven years the SPMR has adopted a series of transit policies that have significantly benefited the low-income population. Before these policies were implemented, the poor were highly constrained in their travel because of high fares and the need to transfer frequently paying each time. Public transit was inconvenient and unaffordable for a majority of citizens in São Paulo. Reform started when State and City governments integrated the Metro(subway) and suburban rail services (CPTM) by making transfers between the two cheaper and easier in physical terms. Ridership increased, particularly by low-income users. Yet the main reform was to adopt a fully-integrated transit system through the BUI. BUI allows users to ride buses, metro and commuter rail during a two-hour period for a fare lower than the sum of individual modal fares. The BUI made transit more affordable. Low-income families can travel more or access other areas of the metropolitan area in search for jobs. Family expenditures in transit decreased freeing up income to spend for example in basic items such as food. Coupled to other investments and improvements, rail transit increased its coverage, and the quality and reliability of its service. Overall ridership increased significantly as did the ridership by poor people. While before the reforms less than 5 percent of rail users were low- income, thanks to the reforms 35 percent of Metro users and 63.7% of suburban rail users are low income. However, quality of service is declining due to an increasing demand, crowded trains and higher-than-needed wait times. Therefore, reform should continue by increasing fleet size and improving signaling systems to increase the capacity of the rail modes. These investments also benefit the poor because of their high and increasing use of the transit system. The paper also reviews the potential impact on SPMR’s low-income ridership of a recent State project to acquire 17 trains for its subway (Metro), 40 trains for its suburban railway (CPTM) and to upgrade their signaling and telecom system, through a World Bank loan.
A. POVERTY AND MOBILITY IN SPMR
At the turn of the century SPMR’s low-income population made few trips and two thirds were on foot
1. By the year 2000 about 7 million people or 41% of SPMR’s population was living below the poverty line.2 The 2002 Origin-Destination (OD) survey showed the low-income population
1 Jorge Rebelo is a Lead Transport Specialist in the Latin America and Caribbean Region of the World Bank; Márcia Barone is São Paulo’s Metro Coordinator for Urban and Social Impact Studies; Marise Vianna is a Senior Transport Planning Analyst, São Paulo Metro. The authors are grateful to Arturo Ardila, Sr. Transport Specialist , World Bank for his comments and editing. 2 The poverty line adopted here is based on the methodology defined by Rocha, S., from FGV/RIO. This methodology combines the per capita family income with other indicators related to the consumption of families, which varies throughout metropolitan regions in Brazil. The data is gathered by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE) in its Survey on Family Income (Pesquisa de Orçamento Familiar - POF). Therefore, the poverty line—that is, the income below which an individual or a family are considered poor—varies from one metropolitan region to another. In the SPMR case, where the cost of made only 1.73 trips per day. This value was about half the number of trips made by high- income groups (3.33 trips per day). Furthermore, the majority of the low-income population would commute by foot (walking) and 56% of the low-income population did not travel at all.
Table 1: Modal split for the low-income population in the SPMR (below 4 Monthly Minimum Salaries (MS) of family income) - 2002
Family Income below Mode Family Income above 4 MS 4 MS Percentage traveling on each mode
Bus 25.43 22.11 Automobile 10.60 40.65 Metro 2.80 5.49 Train 2.54 1.73 Bicycle 1.57 0.56 Walk 56.51 28.00 Others 0.56 1.46 Total 100.00 100.00 Source: 2002 OD Survey
By 2002 only for 5% of the daily trips of the low-income population were by metro or commuter rail: 2. In 2002, when the poor used public transportation, they preferred traveling by bus, given the higher capillarity of the bus network, which reached SPMR’s peripheral areas where the majority of the low-income population lives. The low-income population made few trips on suburban rail and by metro, slightly above 5% of the daily trips of this group. This low value occurred despite the large length of the suburban rail network (253 Km), which covers significant portions of the SPMR low-income areas.
The State Government decided to investigate why low-income people made few trips in general and fewer on rail modes, concluding that it was the inadequacy of the public transportation service to meet its mobility needs coupled to the service being too expensive:
3. Urban mobility surveys helped identify the main causes of the low usage of public transportation by low-income groups—who used to make lengthy trips by foot:
Unaffordable fares: most of the people surveyed indicated their inability to pay the fares given their low-income and the rather extensive need to use more than one mode—and hence pay more than once—to reach their destination. This reason also highlighted the lack of an integrated fare across transit modes in the SPMR. Poor Micro-accessibility: transit supply in areas where the low-income population lived was inadequate. Namely, bus stops or stations were far and there was a lack of integration between bus and high-capacity modes (train or metro). Further, riders had to cross unsafe areas to walk to the bus stop or rail station. Low frequencies, delays and unreliable service: service was not frequent enough and was unreliable causing long waiting periods and delays. living is higher, the poverty line is one of the highest of the country. In 2001, the poverty line for the SPMR based on the studies by Rocha was 1.04 MS (Monthly Minimum Salary) for an individual or 2.6 US$/day, and for a family it was 3.96 MS , value rounded to 4 MS here. Long travel times: caused by road congestion in the case of buses and frequent breakdowns in the case of trains. Indeed, the 2002 OD survey showed that the average duration of a trip by public transport for this income group was 1.5 hours, and in some more peripheral areas it exceeded two hours. Uncomfortable and unsafe travel conditions: overcrowded vehicles (buses and trains) were common. Additionally, users faced unsafe conditions to get to the bus stop or train station, and there were instances of assaults and violence within the vehicles, mainly in buses.
Inadequate transportation service to the low-income population has negative effects on its living conditions and jeopardizes its insertion in the labor market:
4. Analysis of trip purpose for this group shows the negative impacts of not providing adequate and affordable public transit. For example, only 38% of the trips to work were by public transportation and riders faced long waiting and travel times (on average more than 90 minutes/trip) and unfavorable travel conditions. As a result, 45% of low-income riders walk to work (up to 18 minutes). But having to walk means that this population cannot look for jobs in more dynamic poles (generally far way from the areas where they live). This population therefore ends up working in the peripheral areas, close to where they live, and where informal jobs and sub-employment prevail. This situation shows that lack of accessibility and affordability of public transport is an important obstacle to the insertion in the formal and better-paying labor market. The State Government realized that a different strategy was needed to improve public transport for the low-income population.
B. STRATEGIES ADOPTED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005
Strategies implemented regarding operations and fare structure in the rail-based network increased the trips undertaken by the low-income population and increased overall ridership:
5. To address the problems regarding the mobility of the low-income population, CPTM and Metro adopted two interrelated sets of strategies: a) strategies to make rail transit more affordable; b) strategies to improve operations to make rail transit more accessible and comfortable. Many of these actions were part of the “CPTM’s Modernization Program”, which started in 1999 and is still underway.
a) Strategies to make rail transit more affordable: This strategy sought to reduce the total amount spent by riders on fares. The strategy had a positive impact on riders, mainly those using the CPTM network. As a result many more low-income people use the rail-based network. The strategy included these measures:
Free Transfer between METRO and CPTM: started in 2000 at main stations (Brás, Luz, Santo Amaro, Barra Funda and Vila Madalena). Between these last two stations a free express shuttle was implemented in 2001 (PONTE ORCA) to connect CPTM to Metro lines. “Bilhete Unitário Lilás:” it is a single ticket specific for Metro’s Line 5, implemented in May of 2003 as a lower fare for this line. It created incentives for its use and enhanced demand. Integration between the inter-municipal bus lines and Line 5 of the Metro: took place in 2004. 6. Thanks to these actions, riders using both commuter rail and metro increased from 3.5 million passengers/month in September, 2001, to 5.8 million/month in September, 2005, a 65.7%, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Passengers Transferring for Free between CPTM and Metro
Transferência Livre CPTM - Metrô
) 6,500 h t
n 6,000 o m
5,500)
l i r m e ( 5,000 s p
o r i s 4,500e n g a o s i l s l
4,000a i P m
( 3,500
s r 3,000 e g
n 2,500 e Jan Fev Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Set Out Nov Dez s s
a 2001 2005 P Year
Source: GPM PML PMR/CEU based on the demand data of the CPTM and Metro. b) Strategies to improve operations to make rail transit more accessible and comfortable: Both CPTM and Metro undertook measures.
7. The main actions taken by CPTM were:
“ Expresso Leste”: involved creating an express rail service to the periphery of SPMR’s Eastern Zone using Line E of CPTM commuter rail. Service runs between the Brás and Guaianazes stations. The measure also involved retrofitting the segment of the line between Artur Alvim and Guaianazes and building three new and modern stations to replace the old ones, which were in poor condition. These works allowed the integration of CPTM’s Line E to Metro’s Line 3, which offers a service that stops at every station (omnibus service). This project included the acquisition of trains and the modernization of the signaling and telecommunication systems, which allowed trains to go faster and handle shorter headways between trains, thus improving the level of comfort for passengers. “Integração Centro”: it is a physical integration between six CPTM lines and the Metro at Luz stations, in the city center. This IBRD-financed project included rehabilitating and improving CPTM’s Luz station and linking it through an underground walkway (150 m. long) to Metro’s Luz station. The new linkage facilitated the transfer of passengers between the two rail systems. This project also linked Roosevelt and Bras Stations and completely modernized the latter making it a major rail hub. Improvement of CPTM’s Line C: This IDB-financed project included line rehabilitation, in the Osasco-Jurubatuba section, with the construction of seven new intermediate stations and retrofitting six old stations. It also included fleet renewal and modernizing the signaling and electrification systems.
8. The main action taken by Metro was to extend Line 2 by more than 2.6 Km and add two new stations: Chácara Klabin and Imigrantes. This action increased Metro’s coverage and improved rail service.
9. Due to the implementation of these two strategies—making transit more affordable, and more accessible and comfortable—CPTM’s demand grew 47% in 5 years and the percentage of low-income population in the rail-based network went from 25% in 2001 to 40% in 2005:
10.The two strategies had a positive impact mainly on CPTM’s ridership, which grew from 869,000 riders in a typical work day in 2000 to 1,278,000 riders in 2005. This is almost a 50% growth in ridership. In parallel, Metro’s ridership in the same period grew from 2,366,000 passengers per day in 2000 to 2,417,000 in 2005.
11. The strategies also impacted favorably the low-income population, which increased its use of the rail services. In 2001 low-income users were 25% of total demand and by 2005 they accounted for around 40%. This share is equivalent to 1.5 million users per day (800,000 in CPTM and 700,000 in Metro). In CPTM, the proportion of users with family income below 4 MS grew from 37.7% to 63.7% from 2001 to 2005 and in the Metro, from 20.3% to 28.0%3. In the two systems, the higher growth occurred among the users with lowest family income— below 2 MS.
Table 2: Low-income¹ Riders as a Percentage of Total Ridership by Rail Mode CPTM Metro 2001 2005 2001 2005 Monthly Family Income (%) (%) (%) (%) Very Low-Income (below 2 MS) 10.5 26.3 1.9 7.7 Low-Income (from 2 to 4 MS)* 27.2 37.4 15.1 20.3 Total Low-Income Users 37.7 63.7 20 28
* Estimate for the income layer between 2 and 4 MS from the CPTM/2005, based on the data of “Pesquisa AD CPTM” for the layer between 3 to 5 MS for the same year. Source : Pesquisa AD CPTM and Pesquisa da GOP / Metro. ¹ In 2001, the poverty line to the SPMR was close to 4 MS of family income, according to projections based on data of S. Rocha. In 2004 (last year of the author’s series) the per capita line established by the author allowed to calculate a family line that remained in 3.65 mw, reason why we continue to round the poverty family line to 4 MS. We keep this cut value for 2005 also, due to the lack of more recent data.
C. THE BILHETE ÚNICO INTEGRADO-BUI (INTEGRATED SINGLE FARE TICKET)
12.While the previous measures had a positive impact on low-income users, it was the BILHETE ÚNICO INTEGRADO-BUI (Integrated Single Fare Ticket), introduced between 2004 and 2006, that had the largest positive impact. The BUI is an electronic fare card that within a two- hour period allows free transfer between any municipal bus and between bus and metro and/or
3 According to estimates of PML/GPM based on the GOP/DM Survey for those years. commuter rail. At the time of its implementation, the price of the BUI was set at R$2.00 while the unit price of the municipal bus was R$ 1.70. The system was first implemented by the São Paulo Municipality in 2004, in the municipal bus system. The integration with the rail-based system occurred in stages, throughout 2006, involving CPTM and Metro. The fare of the integrated ticket was set to R$3.00, that is, 37% lower that the sum, at that time, of the fares of the Metro or Commuter rail plus bus modes.
D. IMPACT ON LOW-INCOME USERS
13. A survey performed in September 2005 by DataSol—São Paulo’s reputable NGO specialized in social inclusion studies4—on the use of the BUI showed that before the integration to the rail network, the BUI was used basically by low-income and low to medium-income users. 82% of the users of the Bilhete Único had family income below 5 MS (4 MS being the poverty line).
Table 3: Income profile of the BUI user - 2005 Monthly Family Income Percentage of all users Less than 1 MS 6.3 From 1 to 2 MS 30.7 From 3 to 5 MS 44.8 More than 5 MS 18.2 Total 100 Source : Research Datasol / Marcio Pochman
14. Also, the analysis of the residential location of the BUI users, performed by the municipal bus company (SPTRANS) in 20055, indicated that the districts with higher percentage of users of the BUI are from the more peripheral regions of the SPMR, where the low-income population lives.
Thanks to the Bilhete Único the cost of daily transportation dropped by half for the low- income population:
15. The high acceptance of the BUI by SPMR’s lowest-income population was mainly because it made transit more affordable (Table 4).
16. Using the Bilhete Único Integrado made families spend less of their income in transportation, particularly benefiting the lower-income households. In the case of users with family income below 2 MS, when using two municipal buses per direction, the share of family income devoted to transit dropped from 30% in 2004 to 13.1% in 2006. Similarly, for the users with family income from 2 to 4 MS, this share went down from 15% in 2004 to 8.8% in 2006. For the user of the combination Bus + Metro and/or Train, the share of the family income spent in transit fell from 27.3% to 19.7 % for families with income below 2 MS and from 18.6 % to 13.1% for families with income between 2 to 4 MS.
4 “Impactos do Bilhete Único na vida do trabalhador “ - Pochmann, M. e Oliveira , MP., Ed Digital, fev 2005. 5“ Tarifa Temporal – Impactos na Cidade “ - Paiva Souza,Ana Odila, 12ª semana de Tecnologia Metroviária. Table 4: Percentage of Family Income Spent in Transit (¹) in October 2004 and 2006 Without BUI 2004 With BUI(2) 2006 Without BUI 2006 Mode Below 2 2 to 4 Below 2 2 to 4 Below 2 2 to 4 MS MS MS MS MS MS % % % % % % Municipal Bus 15.0 7.5 13.1 8.8 Municipal Bus + Municipal Bus 30.0 15.0 13,1 8,8 (using Bilhete Único) Metro/Railway/Trolleybus 16.8 11.2 13.8 9.2 Bus+Metro (integrated)/Railway 27.9 18.6 19.7 13.1 Bus + Metro + Bus (integrated) 46.9 31.3 19.7 13.1 Inter-municipal Bus(3) 18.8 12.6 14.9 9.9 Inter-municipal Bus(3) + 35.7 23.8 28.7 19.1 Metro/Railway (1) Theoretical values, not considering the possible employer subsidy due to the “Vale Transporte.“ The Vale Transporte is a policy that makes employers partially compensate employees for the use of public transit on their trip to work. (2) In 2006 the Bilhete Único Integrado allows a metro and/or train trip plus up to 3 transfers in the municipal bus system. (3) Average fare. Source: Table prepared by GPM/PML, considering the actual fare values of the various public transportation modes, the value of the minimum salary for the years considered, and the average number of trips/month., * Fares considered: bus municipal R$2.00; Metro/Railway and Trolleybus R$2.10; inter-municipal bus R$2.27 (average). Bilhete Único R$2.00; Bilhete Único integrado R$3.00. ** Increase of the minimum salary from 2004 (R$260,00) to 2006 (R$350,00) – 35% (nominal)
The use of the BUI had immediate positive impacts in the quality-of-life and travel conditions of the low-income population:
17. Datasol Research and the Metro’s GOP Research show that the use of the BUI had immediate positive impacts on the life and travel conditions of SPMR’s low-income population:
Reduced expenditures in transit have allowed families to spend in other needs. For instance, 43% of BUI users of municipal buses (Datasol Research) declared that they started using the newly available income in food. Also, according to the Metro Survey in 2006, BUI users had an average expenditure of R$8.00 in public transportation prior to the introduction of the BUI and after its implementation are spending R$5.95—a 26% gain in disposable income.
Mobility of the low-income families increased for 52% of respondents to the Datasol Research survey in terms of: Higher number of daily trips; Trips by members of the family who previously did not travel; Trips which could not be done before due to lack of resources.
And positive changes in travel conditions in terms of: More travel options, with the possibility of choosing the fastest and shortest route; Larger use of integrated service: In the case of the Metro, the GOP Research verified that there was an increase in the use of the BUI between bus and metro/train, going from 2% in 2005 to 38% in 2007. The use of Metro combined to other modes, such as train or inter-municipal buses also increased; Lower trip time: this benefit was mentioned by 65% of the bus users interviewed in the Datasol Research and by 18% of the users of the Metro. Among the latter, the average gain in the total travel time was 19 minutes per day. Users now have more time to perform other activities.
18. All these gains in terms of increased mobility and reduced travel time significantly improve the quality-of-life of the low-income population, allowing it the possibility of enjoying better access to labor poles and to health, education and leisure facilities.
Thanks to the BUI the low-income population increased its use of the rail-based system. This segment today accounts for almost 45% of the rail-based network ridership:
19. As indicated above, the participation of the lowest-income users in the CPTM and Metro’s ridership was already growing due to the free transfer between the two systems and the series of operating measures that improved micro-accessibility and travel conditions. And with the extension of the BUI to the rail networks, a larger number of low-income people saw the possibility of accessing CPTM and METRO. Hence the share of low-income users in total ridership increased.
20. Table 5 shows the results of Metro’s survey to its riders. The data shows that there is a trend underlying the share of total ridership represented by low-income people in Metro’s daily ridership. For instance, the increase in the share of low-income users in the Metro was more than 7 percent points between 2005 and 2006— jumping from 28% to 35% of ridership. In comparison to 2001, the share grew by 75%. On the other hand, CPTM’s survey to its users is still not available and no observations can be made for this mode.
Table 5: Metro’s Demand by Income Ranges PERCENTAGE OF USERS BY INCOME GROUP BY YEAR Household’s Income 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 Below 4 MS 10 7 12 20 25 28 35 4 to 8 MS 19 17 24 27 31 31 31 8 to 15 MS 30 31 29 17 25 24 22 15 to 30 MS 29 31 24 171 5 13 10 Above 30 MS 12 14 11 19 4 4 2 Source: Pesquisa GOP
21. Notwithstanding the lack of data for CPTM for 2006, we can use the 2005 figure to estimate the total share of riders that are low income in both Metro and CPTM. In 2005, 63.7% of the riders of CPTM’s rail network were low income. Conservatively, we can assume this same figure for 2006. Therefore, in this year an estimated 44.3% of all rail-based transit users were low-income, equivalent to 1.75 millions riders per day. Table 6: Low-Income Users in the Network Demand in 2006 with the BUI1 CPTM Metro Network 2005 20062 2005 2006 2006 Monthly Household Income (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Very Low-income (below 2 MS) 26.3 26.3 7.7 10.9 - Low-income (from 2 to 4 MS)3 37.4 37.4 20.3 24.1 - Total Low-Income 63.7 63.7 28 35 44.3 1The BUI was implemented in the railway network in 2006. 2 Estimates for CPTM for 2006 based on the growth factor occurred in the Metro between 2005 and 2006 (2.5). 3 Estimate for the 2 to 4 MS range of CPTM demand based on the data from the Pesquisa AD 2005 for the 3 to 5 MS range for the same year. Source: CPTM Pesquisa AD 2005, Metro Pesquisa GOP 2005 and 2006, and GPMestimates
E. IMPACT ON THE RAIL-BASED NETWORK
With the Bilhete Único Integado, the demand of the rail-based network grew 10.5% in only one year:
22. In addition to increasing the number of low-income riders, the BUI also increased total demand in the rail-based network (Figures 2 and 3). The downside was a decrease in the quality of service, particularly during the peak-hour, because trains were too crowded. Station platforms are also congested with passengers waiting for the next train. Important crowd control measures have been introduced. Furthermore, ridership has increased also during off- peak hours. Therefore, it is urgent to restore the level-of-service by increasing the peak and off-peak carrying capacity of the metro and commuter rail systems.
Figures 2 and 3 - Evolution of daily ridership with the BUI for Metro and CPTM
¾¾METRÔ - Passageiros Transportados - Média Dia CPTM - Passageiros Transportados - Média Di
¾ ) y a ( ¾
s d r o r m e ¾ i
( e p
g s
a ¾ o s r s i l s n l e i a g o ¾ i P a m s ( s ¾ a s P ¾ r
¾ e g
¾ ¾ n e
s ¾ s a ¾ P ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Year Year
Source: GPM PML PMR/CEU, based on CPTM and Metro demand data. F. THE ACQUISITION OF TRAINS AND SIGNALING SYSTEMS AND THE EXPECTED IMPACT ON GENERAL MOBILITY
EXPECTED BENEFITS DUE TO INCREASE IN CARRYING CAPACITY 23. Acquiring trains and improving track signaling will increase the carrying capacity of both Metro and CPTM. Both rail systems will offer more frequent, confortable and reliable service. Current users will benefit thanks to shorter wait times and faster travel. Further, the improvements will also attract new users, particularly in the case of CPTM where there is a significant latent demand. Table 7 shows the forecasts for CPTM for 2010 for the with project and without the project situations. For the entire commuter rail network, demand is expected to increase by 1,040,000 riders per day, when compared to the without project scenario for 2010. Therefore, with the proposed project, a 58.8% increase in the daily ridership is expected for 2010, serving more than 2.8 million passengers per day.
Table 7: Expected Ridership in CPTM by 2010 with and without Project CPTM Headway (minutes) Current 2010 2010 Gains * W/O W/ W/ Investments Investments Investments IBRD Line A 8 8 4 4 Line F 9 7 4 3
Demand Current 2010 2010 Increase * (ThousandTransp.Passenger/worki W/O W/ W/ ng day) Investments Investments Investments IBRD Line A 337 269 436 167 Line F 135 188 215 27 Lines A+F 472 457 651 194 Total of CPTM 1534 1,779 2,819 1,040 *Apr/2007 Source: CPTM / DP / GPI and GPT
24. In the case of the Metro, current ridership is very high leading to crowded trains. Thanks to the increased capacity rendered by the project users will experience a better service in terms of lower waiting times and more reliable service. Users will continue to have a good impression and image of metro’s service. With the project, the expected ridership will reach 4.5 million per day—159,000 passengers more than in the scenario without the project.
25. Therefore, the overall additional ridership in rail modes thanks to the project is estimated to be 1,199,000 per day. Of these, 1,049,000 will ride CPTM’s commuter rail and 159,000 will ride the Metro. Table 8: Expected Ridership in Metro by 2010 with and without Project Metro Headway (seconds) Current* 2010*** 2010*** Gains W/O Investments IBRD W/ Investments W/ Investments Line 1 109 109 90 19 Line 2 153 150 150 3 Line 3 101 101 85 16
Comfort Level Current* 2010*** 2010*** Change W/O Investments IBRD W/ Investments W/ Investments Line 1 6.8 ** 4,6 -2,2 Line 2 4,5 6,2 6,2 +1,7 Line 3 8.3 ** 6.5 -1,8 ** data not available
Demand Current* 2010*** 2010*** Increase (thousands Transp. Passenger/working W/O Investments IBRD W/ Investments W/ Investments day) Line 1 1,258 1,242 1,283 41 Line 2 348 830 835 5 Line 3 1,260 1,304 1,364 60 Line 1 + Line 2 + Line 3 2,866 3,376 3,482 106 Total of Metro 2,952 4,338 4,497 159 *Apr/2007 ***Includes the extension of Line 2 to V.Prudente + Line 4 – phase 1 Source: Metro GPM / CPT
26. In addition to these benefits, there will be some important indirect effects to society as a whole, such as a reduction of traffic congestion and pollution, fuel savings, a reduction of traffic accidents, and a decrease in travel time of riders (see Annex 9)
G. EXPECTED BENEFITS FOR THE POOR POPULATION
The rail lines that area part of the project are already used mainly by low-income population: 27. The low-income population will be the most benefited by the proposed investments, because it already constitutes the largest share of total ridership in the lines that are part of the project.
Table 9: Percentage of Riders that Are Low Income Benefited by the Project % of population up to 4 mw of family income Systems (2006) CPTM* 63,7 Line A 63,9 Line F 73,1 METRO Line 1 31 Line 2 29 Line 3 39 * PML conservative estimate for the income range below 4 MS in CPTM demand, based on data from Pesquisa AD/2005. Source: CPTM / Pesquisa AD and Metro/ Pesquisa GOP 28.By reaching peripheral regions in the Eastern and Northern areas of the SPMR–where the lower-income population is concentrated—the lines benefited by the investment will attract new users from these poor neighborhoods, facilitating the mobility of this segment of the population. The following map (Figure 4) shows the average income of the areas surrounding the lines impacted by the project. Notice the remarkable predominance of low-income population in the districts that surround lines A and F of CPTM and Line 3 of Metro.
Figure 4: Average Family Income in the Areas Surrounding the Benefited Rail Lines
Source: GPM PML PMR/CEU, based on data from Pesquisa OD 97
29. Based on similar experiences (e.g. Expresso Leste), the improvements in micro-accessibility and travel conditions in these rail lines are expected to impact favorably the surrounding urban areas. More shopping and leisure facilities are expected, for example. These impacts will also improve the quality of life of these populations. The improvements to the rail lines will reduce travel times and increase comfort to acceptable levels, benefiting mainly the SPMR periphery where the poor live:
30. The improvements in the service offered (see tables 7 and 8, above) will increase the level of service of rail service, along these lines:
Reduction of travel time: mainly in the lines that serve the Eastern Zone of the SPMR, that is CPTM’s Line F and Metro’s Line 3 (Red). These are precisely the lines with a higher proportion of low-income households; Improvement of travel conditions in Metro’s Line 3 by decreasing the number of passengers per unit area from 8.3 passengers/m² to 6.5 passengers/m². In CPTM the improvement brought about by a higher frequency will be partially offset by the increase in demand. The mobility of the low-income population will increase, because out of the expected increase of 1,199,000 passengers by 2010, 60,0 % will be users with income below the poverty line:
31. As seen, thanks to the project, ridership will increase in both CPTM and Metro. The low- income population will benefit because they can travel more, particularly in CPTM. Tables 10 and 11 show the increase in each service thanks to the improved service and disaggregates the impact on low-income users (family income below 4 MS). Impacts are shown for each line and then for the entire network (totals are larger because of network effects). Currently, 63.7% of CPTM riders and 35.0% of Metro riders are low income. Assuming these shares remain constant in the situation with project, an estimated 718,000 of the 1,199,000 additional riders will be low income.
Table 10: Total Ridership, Total Ridership Increase, and Low-Income Ridership Increase for CPTM in 2010 2010 Demand with investment Total Demand Increase with the investment Portion up to 4 mw (Thousands Pass. Transport/working day) Total Increase Passeng of households with less than 4 mw 1 Line A 436 167 120 Line F 215 27 20 Lines A+F 651 194 127 Total CPTM 2,819 1,040 662 *Apr/2007 1Estimate CPTM Source: CPTM / DP / GPI and GPT and GPM estimate.
Table 11: Total ridership, total ridership increase, and low-income ridership increase for Metro in 2010 2010 Demand with investment Total Demand Increase with the investment Passeng of household with less than (Thousands Pass. Transport/working day) Total Increase 4 mwPortion up to 4 mw1 Line 1 1,283 41 13 Line 2 835 5 2 Line 3 1,364 60 23 Line 1+ Line 2 + Line 3 3,482 106 38 Total Metro 4,497 159 56 *Apr/2007 ***Includes the extension of Line 2 up to V.Prudente + Line 4 – phase 1 1Estimate GPM Source: Metro GPM / CPT and GPM estimate.
32. The project’s impacts therefore cater significantly to the low-income population increasing its social inclusion. These positive impacts will materialize if the following action plan is maintained until 2010 and beyond: Further enhancement of the physical integration between the rail-based network and the bus system; Maintenance and improvement of the fare integration between rail and road-based systems through the Bilhete Único Integrado. For example, a reasonable amount of time should be given for passengers to transfer between modes and the cost of the BUI to the rider has to remain lower than the sum of individual modal fares; Enhancement of the Bilhete Único Integrado by including inter-municipal buses. This measure will allow more low-income users residing in the peripheral municipalities of the metropolitan region a faster access to the rail-based network. H. CONCLUSIONS 33.Over the last seven years the SPMR has adopted a series of transit policies that have significantly benefited the low-income population. Before these policies were implemented, the poor were highly constrained in their travel because of high fares and the need to transfer frequently paying each time. Public transit was inconvenient and unaffordable for a majority of citizens in Sao Paulo. Reform started when State and City governments integrated the Metro and commuter rail services (CPTM) by making transfers between the two cheaper and easier in physical terms. Ridership increased, particularly by low-income users. Yet the main reform was to adopt a fully-integrated transit system through the Bilhete Único Integrado, BUI. BUI allows users to ride buses, metro and commuter rail during a two-hour period for a fare lower than the sum of individual modal fares. The BUI made transit more affordable. Low-income families can travel more or access other areas of the metropolitan area in search for jobs. Family expenditures in transit decreased freeing up income to spend for example in basic items such as food. Coupled to other investments and improvements, rail transit increased its coverage, and the quality and reliability of its service. Overall ridership increased significantly as did the ridership by poor people. While before the reforms less than 5 percent of rail users were low income, thanks to the reforms 35.0 percent of Metro users and 63.7% of commuter-rail users are low income. However, quality of service is declining due to an increasing demand, crowded trains and higher-than-needed wait times. Therefore, reform should continue in the form of increasing fleet size and improving signaling systems to increase the capacity of the rail modes. These investments also benefit the poor because of their high and increasing use of the transit system.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES USED IN THIS ANNEX
CMSP - Pesquisa de Origem e Destino (Origin and Destination Research) 1997 e 2002 Companhia do Metropolitano de São Paulo– Metrô , SP.
Impacto do Bilhete Único nos Usuários do Metrô – GOP / CMSP. 2006.
Caracterização Sócio-Econômica do Usuário – GOP / CMSP. 2006.
CPTM - Pesquisa Acesso e Difusão 2001 e 2005 - CPTM.
POCHMANN, Marcio and OLIVEIRA,Marcos Paulo de - Impactos do Bilhete Único na vida do trabalhador: a visão do usuário - Datasol – Instituto de Estudos e Pesquisas para o Desenvolvimento com Inclusão Social . Fev/2005.
ROCHA, Sonia - “Pobreza no Brasil : afinal do que se trata” - Edit FGV, RJ 2003.
ROCHA, Sonia - Alguns aspectos relativos à evolução 2003 - 2004 da Pobreza e da Indigência no Brasil - l “ mimeo / FGV/Rio de Janeiro; Jan 2006.
SOUZA, Ana Odila Paiva - “ Tarifa Temporal – Impactos na Cidade ” “ work presented in the 12th Semana de Tecnologia - AEAMESP / 2006.