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.