DOCSLIB.ORG

Barriers to Successful Bus Rapid Transit Expansion: Developed Cities Versus Developing Megacities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barriers to Successful Bus Rapid Transit Expansion: Developed Cities Versus Developing Megacities Accepted Manuscript Title: Barriers to successful bus rapid transit expansion: Developed cities versus developing megacities Authors: Yngrid Yamili Chayacani Mallqui, Dorina Pojani PII: S2213-624X(17)30018-4 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2017.01.004 Reference: CSTP 142 To appear in: Received date: 12-5-2016 Revised date: 22-12-2016 Accepted date: 26-1-2017 Please cite this article as: Mallqui, Yngrid Yamili Chayacani, Pojani, Dorina, Barriers to successful bus rapid transit expansion: Developed cities versus developing megacities.Case Studies on Transport Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.01.004 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Highlights A comparative study of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) issues in Brisbane, Australia, and Lima, Peru A study of two systems which have been successfully implemented in a limited size but have failed to be expanded A framework for the evaluation of BRT systems is included. 1 BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL BUS RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION: DEVELOPED CITIES VERSUS DEVELOPING MEGACITIES Authors 1) Yngrid Yamili Chayacani Mallqui ([email protected]) 2) Dorina Pojani ([email protected]) Address (both authors) The University of Queensland School of Earth and Environmental Sciences St Lucia campus, Chamberlain (35) Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia Abstract While the profile of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has been raised owing to many success cases, substantial barriers to its planning and implementation persist. This article compared two contrasting efforts to implement BRT systems in cities with greatly different circumstances: Brisbane, Australia, and Lima, Peru. It found that barriers to the creation of citywide BRT systems in Lima and Brisbane are not the same, given the contextual differences, the different sizes, and the different level of development of the two cities. However, there is potential for these two cities, as well as others that are considering BRT, to learn from each other’s pitfalls. The circumstances in these two case studies are certainly not unique. The findings apply to a number of cities in similar geo-political and economic contexts. 2 Barriers to Successful Bus Rapid Transit Expansion: Developed Cities versus Developing Megacities Introduction Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a low-cost bus-based alternative to metro and tram systems. It emulates the performance and amenities of modern rail-based transit systems, including segregated rights of way, closed stations, and pre-board ticketing. However, it has major advantages over rail-based transit, including much lower construction costs, short implementation periods (one to three years after conception), accommodation of many route permutations as well as express and multi-corridor services, flexibility to adapt to a range of urban conditions. In the last few decades, BRT has become widely used for urban mass transit, in both developing and developed cities. More than forty cities on six continents have implemented BRT systems, and at least as many systems are either in the planning or construction stages (Wright and Hook, 2007; Finn and Muñoz, 2014; Pojani 2014; Global BRTData 2016; Muñoz and Paget-Seekins 2016; Pojani and Stead 2015). While the profile of BRT has been raised owing to many success cases, substantial barriers to its planning and implementation persist. This article compares two contrasting efforts to implement BRT systems in cities with greatly different circumstances: Brisbane, Australia, and Lima, Peru. Brisbane is a typical Western city, sprawling and car-oriented, in which it is not feasible to build new extensive rail-based systems due to their prohibitive costs. Lima is a typical developing megacity, with scarce financial resources and with large portions of the population relying on public transport. These two cases were selected because, in addition to representing “typical” developed and developing city situations, they share a crucial characteristic: both have implemented limited BRT systems in last decade (28 km and 26 km respectively), which have been very successful. But both cities desperately need to extend those systems. Yet there are no concrete plans in place to do so. The main research question is: What barriers have prevented these two cities from implementing large-scale BRT system, given that, the BRT lines already in place have been very well received by the local populations? Both places are understudied, and, therefore, the answers 3 to this question are unknown. In selecting these two cases, the authors’ position was that there is as much to learn from failure as from success. While transportation policy reviews most often showcase “best practice,” an analysis of problematic cases can also help decision-makers to avoid newcomer costs and learn from the mistakes of others (Marsden and Stead, 2011; Mejía- Dugand et al., 2013). The authors place BRT issues in the broader context of urban transport problems in Lima and Brisbane, which helps explain why these projects have been limited. While this article compares two case studies, their circumstances are certainly not unique. The findings apply to a number of cities in similar geo-political and economic contexts. The article opens with a review of known factors that lead to the success or failure of BRT systems worldwide. This is followed by a brief overview of the two case study contexts. The reminder of the article analyses the processes of, and experiences with, BRT development in Lima and Brisbane in order to identify the local barriers and pitfalls. Theoretical Framework The present theoretical framework (Table 1) outlines the key factors that lead to the success or failure of BRT systems – an approach that is missing from other reviews of BRT development. It is aligned with a theoretical framework set forth in Wu and Pojani (2016), which in turn is adapted from Lindau et al. (2014). Seven types of factors have been identified in the literature: (1) institutional and legislative framework, (2) political leadership and commitment, (3) management of competing modes, (4) public participation, (5) adequate funding and coordination, (6) quality physical design, and (7) image promotion. The existing studies on BRT outcomes have tended to focus on developing cites. Case Studies Brisbane Brisbane is the capital of Queensland, a state in eastern Australia. At 1.2 million inhabitants (2 million in the metropolitan area), Brisbane is the third largest city in the country and one of the fastest growing. The local government area (Southeast Queensland) is also one of the largest in 4 Australia, covering 22.500 sq. km. The city is wealthy; even in low-income neighborhoods, average household incomes are $45,000/year. Currently Brisbane is experiencing high rates of in-migration due to its mild subtropical climate and a much more affordable housing market compared to Sydney and Melbourne. A large navigable river snakes through the city and eventually pours to the Pacific Ocean, which is a half hour away. Housing in the metropolitan area is predominately single-family (79%). While residential neighborhoods sprawl in all directions, jobs and office buildings are concentrated in the CBD. The average density is low, at about 350 people/sq.km. By international standards, Brisbane is safe, clean, well-maintained, and lush with parks and vegetation. The city center is well-served by public transport, including trains (an extensive regional network of 670 km), conventional buses, river ferries, and bikesharing (150 pods in the inner city). The public transport network extends to most suburbs but the services are much less frequent outside the inner city. Cycling is limited due to a lack of adequate road infrastructure and a hilly topography. Car ownership is high: more than 80% of households in Brisbane own a car. While driving remains by far the preferred travel mode, public transport use for the commute has grown to 15% likely due to infrastructure and service improvements, ticketing integration, and parking cost increases in CBD area (BCC 2008 and 2011; ABS 2011; Mees and Dodson 2011; Queensland Government 2011). The first BRT line opened in 2000, and a total of 25 km (in three lines: Southeast Busway, Northern Busway and Eastern Busway) have been built up to 2011. The structure of the busway routes is radial and connects the suburbs to the CBD (Fig. 1). The introduction of BRT has significantly reduced travel times for passengers who have access to it (Currie 2006; Tanko and Burke 2013). However, the system remains rather limited in size. Lima Lima, the capital of Peru, stretches in linear fashion along the Pacific coast. It comprises 1.7 million inhabitants in the inner city (Lima centro) and 9.7 million in the metropolitan area - which constitutes nearly one third of the national population. The internal migration from other parts of the country remains high. Most of the population is employed, largely in the informal sector (the official unemployment figure is only 7.1% at the moment), meaning that a large mass of people commute daily in the city. Residential densities are higher than in Brisbane, but sprawl is also substantial: 76% of dwellings are single-family homes. Home-ownership is also high, at 5 nearly 70%. Peri-urban slums (pueblos jovenes), which are located either in the northern or southern “cones,” are large, some of them containing more than one million people. Transport consumes 7-8% of the personal budgets in all districts. Poverty is generally high, with 13% of the population living under the poverty line, while consumption power is low: monthly expenditures per person range from $320 in the inner city to $185 in poorer metropolitan districts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eastern Transitway Stage 1—Consultation Summary
    BUS L A N E END LANE BUS BUS LANE END LANE BUS Eastern Transitway Stage 1 Stage Transitway Eastern BUS LANE Consultation Summary Consultation BUS LANE August 2020 August BUS LANE Introduction The Queensland Government is investing in the delivery of the Eastern Transitway. This cost-effective solution will improve priority for public transport along Old Cleveland Road, from Coorparoo to Carindale, and aims to extend the benefits of the existing Eastern Busway. Targeted bus priority measures will improve bus service reliability and bus travel times in peak periods, which will assist in managing congestion along the corridor. These measures will not reduce the number of general traffic lanes. The Eastern Transitway project will be delivered using a staged approach to minimise the impact to the community. Stage 1 will focus on the Creek Road intersection and extend along Old Cleveland Road to Narracott Street. Community participation Community feedback was received through our online survey, via email, phone and at meetings. This included feedback from: 18 emails 176 online surveys completed 5 phone enquiries 6 group meetings 18 individual meetings Consultation feedback summary The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) would like to thank the community for their feedback and input into the Eastern Transitway Stage 1 design. Community consultation was completed between 29 June 2020 and 12 July 2020. Feedback was received through our online 'Get Involved' survey, via email, phone and at meetings. Overall, the feedback received from consultation demonstrated the majority (60 per cent) of the community who responded to the survey supported the proposed Eastern Transitway Stage 1 design.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Bus Rapid Transit?
    WHAT IS BUS RAPID TRANSIT? June 18, 2018 Annie Weinstock BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Curitiba, Brazil built Photo: Tony IP Green Architects the first BRT in 1974 BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? TransMilenio (Bogota) broke all speed and capacity records of all previous BRTs, making BRT a true alternative to rail. BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? MyCiTi BRT, Cape Town, South Africa BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Photo: Annie Weinstock, ITDP EmX BRT, Eugene, BRT Planning International, 2018OR WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Photo: Far East Mobility Lanzhou BRT: BRT Planning International,China 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Source: Minasit.com.br Belo Horizonte, BRT Planning International,Brazil 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Guangzhou BRT: BRT Planning International,China 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Photo: ITDP Yichang BRT: BRT Planning International,China 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? HealthLine BRT: Cleveland,BRT PlanningOH International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Mexico City’s Line 4 BRT through the historic city center BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Photo: Annie Weinstock, ITDP Los Angeles Orange Line BRT BRT Planning International, 2018 WHAT DOES BRT LOOK LIKE? Hartford-New Britain BRT BRT Planning International, 2018 AND WHAT ABOUT THESE? Photo: Mass Transit Magazine Seattle BRT RapidRidePlanning International, 2018 AND WHAT ABOUT THESE? Photo: BKLYNER Bx12 New York City SBSBRT Planning International, 2018 AND WHAT ABOUT THESE? Photo: myciti.org.za The Cape Town CBD system differs from the Table View corridor BRT Planning International, 2018 THE BRT STANDARD The BRT Standard was created by a committee of experts who designed many of the highest performing BRT systems in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Analysis of Transoeste Bus Rapid Transit System in Rio De Janeiro
    Impact Analysis of Transoeste Bus Rapid Transit System in Rio de Janeiro ITDP Brazil April 2013 Authors: Colin Hughes and Eleanor Leshner Acknowledgments The authors would like to give special thanks to Clarisse Linke for her guidance and critical review of this report and to Jacob Mason and Ramiro Alberto Ríos for their excellent data analysis. In addition, they would like to thank the ITDP Brazil team, especially Pedro Torres, Marina Corrêa and Connor Cox for their participation in the Transoeste user survey. This report also could not have been produced without the support of Walter Hook, Aimee Gauthier, Ulises Navarro, Helena Orenstein de Almeida, Marcos Tognozzi and Eric Agar. 2 Table of Contents Sumário Executivo .................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 6 I. Introduction and background ................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Transport Trends in Rio ................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Transoeste Project Development and Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • SEB Case Study Report for QU
    This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Widana Pathiranage, Rakkitha, Bunker, Jonathan M.,& Bhaskar, Ashish (2014) Case study : South East Busway (SEB), Brisbane, Australia. (Unpublished) This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/70498/ c Copyright 2014 The Author(s) This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. Case Study: South East Busway (SEB), Brisbane, Australia CASE STUDY: SOUTH EAST BUSWAY (SEB), BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA By Rakkitha Widanapathiranage Jonathan M Bunker Ashish Bhaskar Civil Engineering and Built Environment School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Busway Buranda to Main Avenue
    Eastern Busway Buranda to Main Avenue Information update August 2011 Explore Queensland’s newest busway Community Open Day, Saturday 27 August 2011, 10 am–2 pm Join us at Beata Street Plaza (off Logan Road), Stones Corner and help celebrate the opening of the new $465.8 million Eastern Busway between Buranda and Main Avenue, Coorparoo. Be among the first to walk through the new busway before it becomes operational on Monday 29 August 2011. • See the new Stones Corner and Langlands Park busway stations featuring high quality urban design, all-weather protection, modern landscaping and world-class security. • Walk through the two new busway tunnels under O’Keefe Street and Logan Road, Buranda and under Laura and Lilly streets, Greenslopes. • Talk to TransLink personnel and find out about the new services, stops and routes for this new section of busway from Monday 29 August 2011. • Bring the family, explore the busway and the local Stones Corner shops and businesses. Getting there • Catch the bus or train to Buranda busway and train station, or to one of many local bus stops along Old Cleveland Road, Logan Road or Main Avenue and walk to one of the two entry points. • For services and journey planning information, visit translink.com.au or call 13 12 30 anytime. N BURANDA TRAIN Getting to the event STATION Buranda train or busway station: Enter via Beata Plaza From Carindale, you can catch route 200 or 209 buses to Main Avenue and walk 20 metres to the Langlands Park busway station LOGAN Enter event here DOWAR BURANDA BUSWAY PANITYA ROAD
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport in SEQ Options to Deliver Value and Innovation in Future South East
    Council ol Mayors South E<1Rt Queensland Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure January 2012 5 w -(/) u c ::J u0 GHD was commissioned by the Council This report not only develops a list of of Mayors (SEQ) to provide advice on priority projects, but proposes a new innovative and value for money options for vision for SEQ Public Transport that puts investment in the public transport network the commuter at the heart of the system. in South East Queensland (SEQ). It is being released to encourage public discussion about options for investing in A key challenge for the investment public transport infrastructure across SEQ. program for public transport infrastructure in SEQ is how to meet the needs of The report does not represent an endorsed a growing region within the financially policy position of the Council of Mayors constrained fiscal environment now faced (SEQ). which will not consider the report by all levels of government. and public reactions to it until after the 2012 local government elections. The A key concern is whether the funds exist Council of Mayors (SEQ) will consider to proceed with the State Government's all options in developing its future input iconic $7700M Cross River Rail project. into the next iteration of the Queensland Some SEQ Councils are concerned Infrastructure Plan. that funding the project may delay other important projects in the region, while The Council of Mayors (SEQ) looks forward failure to deliver the project may stymie to further developing a constructive growth of the regional rail network.
    [Show full text]
  • Translink Transit Authority Annual Report 2009–10
    TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2009–10 2010 TransLink Transit Authority Level 13, 420 George Street, Brisbane Q 4000 GPO Box 50, Brisbane Q 4001 Fax: (07) 3167 4001 Website: www.translink.com.au 13 September 2010 The Honourable Rachel Nolan MP Minister for Transport GPO Box 2644 Brisbane Qld 4001 Dear Minister Nolan TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2009-10 – Letter of compliance I am pleased to present the TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2009-10 for the TransLink Transit Authority and the TransLink Transit Authority Employing Office. I certify this annual report complies with: • the prescribed requirements of the Financial Accountability Act 2009 and the Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009, and • the detailed requirements set out in the Annual Report Requirements for Queensland Government Agencies. A checklist outlining the annual reporting requirements can be found at pages 140 - 141 of this annual report or accessed at http://www.translink.com.au/reports.php. Yours sincerely Peter Strachan Chief Executive Officer TransLink Transit Authority Contents Message from the Chair 2 Our people 68 Chief Executive Officer’s report 3 Our systems and processes 79 At a glance 6 Financial Statements Overview 85 2009–10 performance snapshot 7 TransLink Transit Authority Financial Statements 87 About TransLink 11 TransLink Transit Authority Employing Office Our delivery partners 16 Financial Statements 121 Our customers 26 Compliance Checklist 140 Our network 38 Glossary 142 Our fares and ticketing 48 About our report 145 Our infrastructure and facilities 55 Feedback form 147 Our community 61 Disclaimer TransLink is committed to minimising its impact on the The materials presented in this PDF are provided by the Queensland Government environment by limiting the number of printed copies for information purposes only.
    [Show full text]
  • Translink Tracker 2011–2012 Q1 About Translink
    TransLink Tracker 2011–2012 Q1 About TransLink In July 2008, TransLink Transit Authority was established as the statutory authority responsible for purchasing, delivering and managing public transport services within South East Queensland – an area that stretches from Gympie and the Sunshine Coast to Coolangatta on the Gold Coast, and west to Helidon. We are committed to developing and delivering a world-class public transport network for the people of South East Queensland. We contract 18 service delivery partners – including Queensland Rail, Brisbane City Council and 15 private operators – to deliver public transport. In conjunction with these partners and other stakeholders we drive the improvement and expansion of public transport services across the network. TransLink’s key functions include: • overseeing the delivery of public transport services across South East Queensland to meet a demand which has increased by 50 per cent since 2004 • managing and ensuring the standards of contracted service delivery partners • delivering and managing infrastructure, including a 25 km network consisting of the Eastern, South Eastern, Inner Northern and Northern busways, and train station upgrades • managing ticketing products, including the development of the go card which was rolled out in 2008 • providing customers with a single point of contact for feedback and information • planning, coordinating and integrating services for bus, train and ferry across a 10,000 sq km area. As a statutory authority, the board of TransLink is accountable to the Queensland Government’s Minister for Transport. The materials presented in this liability for negligence) for any loss, For more information publication are an information source only. damage, expense and costs arising Web translink.com.au The TransLink Transit Authority makes from any information being inaccurate or Phone 07 3338 4000 no statements, representation or incomplete in any way for any reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit in China: a Comparison of Design Features with International Systems
    WORKING PAPER BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN CHINA: A COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES WITH INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS JUAN MIGUEL VELÁSQUEZ, THET HEIN TUN, DARIO HIDALGO, CAMILA RAMOS, PABLO GUARDA, ZHONG GUO, AND XUMEI CHEN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Globally, bus rapid transit (BRT) has proved itself to CONTENTS be a high-capacity public transport mode that can be Executive Summary .......................................1 implemented in short time frames and at relatively low 1. Introduction ............................................. 2 capital cost. Its benefits—reducing greenhouse gas and local air pollutant emissions, improving traffic safety, and 2. Overview of BRT Systems in China ................... 5 reducing passenger travel times—are well documented. 3. Review of the Literature .............................. 10 4. Methodology ............................................11 BRT can play an important role in China, contributing to 5. Findings and the Way Forward ...................... 15 sustainability in the urban transport sector and beyond. Recognizing its importance, China has set a national 6. Conclusion .............................................26 goal of implementing 5,000 kilometers of BRT by 2020 Appendix .................................................. 27 (MOT 2013a). As of 2015, China had implemented 2,991 References ...............................................28 kilometers of BRT, according to the China Academy of Endnotes.................................................. 31 Transportation Sciences. To reach its goal, it will therefore
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting SEQ 2031 an Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland
    Connecting SEQ 2031 An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland Tomorrow’s Queensland: strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Queensland AUSTRALIA south-east Queensland 1 Foreword Vision for a sustainable transport system As south-east Queensland's population continues to grow, we need a transport system that will foster our economic prosperity, sustainability and quality of life into the future. It is clear that road traffic cannot continue to grow at current rates without significant environmental and economic impacts on our communities. Connecting SEQ 2031 – An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland is the Queensland Government's vision for meeting the transport challenge over the next 20 years. Its purpose is to provide a coherent guide to all levels of government in making transport policy and investment decisions. Land use planning and transport planning go hand in hand, so Connecting SEQ 2031 is designed to work in partnership with the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031 and the Queensland Government's new Queensland Infrastructure Plan. By planning for and managing growth within the existing urban footprint, we can create higher density communities and move people around more easily – whether by car, bus, train, ferry or by walking and cycling. To achieve this, our travel patterns need to fundamentally change by: • doubling the share of active transport (such as walking and cycling) from 10% to 20% of all trips • doubling the share of public transport from 7% to 14% of all trips • reducing the share of trips taken in private motor vehicles from 83% to 66%.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES Everett-Boston
    Everett-Boston BRT APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE STATE OF TRANSIT IN EVERETT: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE NEEDS 2 HISTORY OF TRANSIT IN EVERETT Boston’s transit system was originally designed with a series of surface– rapid transit transfer stations. Horsecars and then streetcars wound through narrow downtown streets, but the roads were quickly overcome by congestion, so the city built the first subway in the nation in 1897. However, this subway—now the Green Line—was relatively low-capacity, with a parade of short trolley cars running through narrow passages. As higher- capacity rapid transit lines were built, passengers would board surface vehicles (mostly trolleys) that fed into higher-capacity rapid transit lines at major transfer stations to continue trips downtown. Even as the network has changed, this general function has remained to this day. In the case of Everett, bus routes only serve the bordering towns of Medford, Malden, Revere, and Chelsea; nearly all other destinations require a transfer. For most trips, the transfer point is at Sullivan station, but buses also provide connections to the Orange Line at Wellington and Malden, as well as the Blue Line at Wood Island and Wonderland. This has not always been the case: Before the Orange Line was extended to Oak Grove in the 1970s, the line terminated in Everett, south of Revere Beach Parkway and the main population of the city. When the extension was opened, the routes serving Everett had their termini moved, with some extended from the old Everett station to Sullivan and others rerouted to Malden and Wellington stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper Itls-Wp-19-02
    WORKING PAPER ITLS-WP-19-02 Performance Contributors of Bus Rapid Transit Systems within the ITDP BRT Standard: An Ordered Choice Approach By Zheng Lia and David A. Hensherb a School of Finance, Xi’an Eurasia University, Xi’an 710065, Shaanxi, China b Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS), The University of Sydney Business School, Australia January 2019 ISSN 1832-570X INSTITUTE of TRANSPORT and LOGISTICS STUDIES The Australian Key Centre in Transport and Logistics Management The University of Sydney Established under the Australian Research Council’s Key Centre Program. NUMBER: Working Paper ITLS-WP-19-02 TITLE: Performance Contributors of Bus Rapid Transit Systems within the ITDP BRT Standard: An Ordered Choice Approach Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a mode of public transportation with ABSTRACT: relatively fast, flexible, comfortable, affordable and environment-friendly services. In this paper, the potential contributors to BRT performance are investigated within an ordered choice modelling framework, in which the dependent variable is the BRT standard (Gold, Silver, Bronze or Basic), developed by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). The evaluation of an ordered logit model and an ordered probit model shows that the performance of the former is slightly better, which is chosen for the empirical application. The identified significant predictors are peak-hour speed, peak frequency, the average distance between stations, the length of dedicated busway, passing lanes at BRT station, covered station access, enhanced station environment, pre-board and automated fare collection and fare verification, and network integration. Based on a business-as-usual prediction and what-if analysis, this paper offers information for decision makers to plan a high- standard BRT system in line with the ITDP BRT standard.
    [Show full text]