Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Theme 6 BRT vs. LRT moving beyond emotional bias

708 views

Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Theme 6 BRT vs. LRT moving beyond emotional bias

  1. 1. Critical Elements of a Successful Bus Corridor Possible Clues to Gaining Buy In for BRT 20 September 2013 Version: 1 September 2013 St Anne’s College, University of Oxford David A. Hensher Corinne Mulley John Rose Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies The Business School The University of Sydney
  2. 2. THE FOCUS OF THIS SESSION › How to win the hearts of the users and the non-users - surroundings, cleanliness, beautifulness, lanes, stations, etc. › Suggested design, planning, and service criteria that should be considered in the planning and design of new bus systems › What makes people prefer LRT over BRT and BRT over LRT? - Perceptions and reality › Selling BRT in the mix of Options › What is in a Name? 2
  3. 3. PREAMBLE › Public Transport (PT) modes serve many roles in cities › Different mixes of PT elements and difficult to isolate key elements - bus in mixed traffic - bus in dedicated road environments - light rail - and heavy rail. › No rational debate on PT mode alternatives - Value for money - Deliver on key criteria such as connectivity, frequency and visibility within a network › Focus on particular technologies not how user’s needs are met - “Let technology assist and not lead” 3
  4. 4. PREAMBLE › Often great resistance to mode alternatives on ideological and emotional grounds ‘choice vs blind commitment’. › Aim of session is to understand the barriers to the support for BRT in the presence of LR options in particular 4
  5. 5. Initial Assessment of Patronage Drivers for BRT
  6. 6. EXISTING EVIDENCE › Fares (maximum fare, average fare per trip, average fare per trip) › Mode share (car mode share) › Service frequency (service frequency, peak headway, headway) › Vehicle capacity (trunk vehicle capacity) › Number of stations (number of BRT stations interacted with extension of segregated lanes, number of stations, average distance between stations divided by population density) › Pre board fare collection (Pre board fare collection, Pre- board fare collection and verification) › Doorways on both sides (doorways on left and right sides of vehicles, doorways on median and curbside) › Number of existing trunk corridors, existence of integrated network, modal integration at stations, total length of BRT corridor, opening year (relative to 2011), quality control oversight from independent body, Latin America 6 Hensher, Mulley and Li (2012) Drivers of Bus Rapid Transit – Influences on Ridership and Service Frequency Hensher and Golob (2008) Bus Rapid Transit Systems – A comparative assessment. Transportation 35(4) 501-18 Hensher and Li (2012) Ridership Drivers of Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation 39(6), 1209-1221
  7. 7. Barriers Affecting Support for BRT
  8. 8. UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS INFLUENCING PERCEPTIONS › Two staged approach 1. Best-worst preference experiment to measure perceptions - Sets of four statements with respondents choosing ‘best’ and ‘worst’ of each set. - Statement sets varied across preference sets to find role of each statement (up to a probability) as barrier to public transport in general or in the context of a specific mode (Bus/BRT vs. LRT). - Narrows down the substantive factors influencing individuals perception of public transport - Assist in the development of a strategy to promote BRT and to break through the barriers that have created the modal mis-perceptions 2. Embed in a choice experiment, together with modal labelling, (not presented in this workshop) - Establish influence of modal imaging in conditioning public transport preferences, and hence choices › A survey of residents of six capital cities in Australia provides the empirical context (and ongoing to rest of world) 8
  9. 9. POTENTIAL SERVICE BARRIERS 9 statement (bus) Service Barriers Travelling by bus is safer than travelling by light rail (tram) Bus travel times in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are faster than light rail (tram) Crowded buses are less horrible to travel in than crowded light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more reliable than light rail (trams) Buses look cleaner than light rail (trams) Buses are cleaner than light rail (trams) A bus journey in a bus lane or dedicated corridor is more comfortable for passengers than a light rail (tram) journey Buses are more modern looking than light rail (trams) and hence have more appeal in urban settings Bus journeys require less transfers than light rail (tram) journeys Buses have cleaner seats than light rail (trams) Buses are cleaner on the outside than light rail (trams) Bus stops are cleaner than light rail (tram) stops Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more frequent than light rail (tram) services Bus stops are safer than light rail (tram) stops Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor do not get delayed like light rail (tram) services Buses provide a better comfort level than light rail (tram) services Buses provide easier boarding than light rail (trams) Car drivers are more likely to transfer to bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor than to light rail (tram) services Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide a better quality of service than light rail (trams) Buses provide better personal security for travellers than light rail (trams) Buses are sexy and light rail (trams) are boring A public transport network with bus rapid transit (BRT) will provide a greater network coverage than one with light rail (trams) Note – The statements are present as both Bus/BRT favouring and LRT favouring statements for Service and Design
  10. 10. POTENTIAL DESIGN BARRIERS 10 statement (bus) Design Barriers There are less light rail (tram) stops than bus stations so people have to walk further to catch a bus Bus systems provide better network coverage than light rail (tram) systems A new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor can bring more life to the city than a new light rail (tram) line A bus service in a bus lane or dedicated corridor looks faster than a light rail (tram) service Bus routes are fixed, so bus stops provide more opportunity for new housing than a light rail (tram) line which can be changed very easily New bus stops or a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor will improve surrounding properties more than new light rail (tram) stops Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more environmentally friendly than light rail (trams) More jobs will be created surrounding a bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor than a light rail (tram) route A bus service in a bus lane or dedicated corridor is more likely than a light rail (tram) to still be in use in 30 years time Bus services stop nearer to more people than light rail (trams) services Bus services are less polluting than light rail (trams) Bus services are more likely to have level boarding (no steps up or down to get on the vehicle) than light rail (trams) Buses are quieter than light rail (trams) Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor services have been more successful for cities than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more permanent than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide more opportunities for land redevelopment than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide more focussed development opportunities than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more likely to be funded with private investment than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor support higher populaton and employment growth than light rail (trams) Building bus lane or a dedicated roads and buying buses makes a bus system cheaper than putting down rails and buying light rail (trams) Bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower operating costs than light rail (tram) systems Bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower operating costs per person carried than light rail (tram) systems Building a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor will cause less disruption to roads in the area than a new light rail (tram) line Overall, buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower maintenance costs than light rail (trams) and light rail (tram) track Bus stops have greater visibility for passengers than light rail (tram) stops Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower accident rates than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide a more liveable environment than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have greater long term sustainabiliy than light rail (trams) Buses provide more comfort for travellers than light rail (trams) Bus systems are quicker to build and put in operation than light rail (tram) services in a light rail (tram) lane or dedicated corridor The long term benefits of a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are higher than a new light rail (tram) line House prices will rise faster around new bus associated with a bus lane or dedicated corridor stops than light rail (tram) stops Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide better value for money to taxpayers than light rail (trams)
  11. 11. POTENTIAL VOTING BARRIERS 11 statement (voting) Systems with comfortable vehicles Smart vehicles Quick journey times Some corridors with good service levels, even if other corridors had less good service levels New rail links, even if these are shorter than a package of investments with good bus-based services Value for money for the taxpayer The greatest length of high quality corridors, irrespective of whether train, tram or bus A network that is cost effective to operate Low fares Higher fares to pay for higher quality services Frequent services Fast overall journey time to destination, including getting to and from the station or stop A network with few interchanges Interchanges between services and modes (bus, train, ferry) if this makes overall journey times quicker The package that is quickest to implement Slow implementation is not a problem if the package delivers the right public transport system High quality bus routes on dedicated roads (so that they do not suffer from delays from cars) Systems that give wide network coverage Packages which offer good safety for the passenger Packages which give an outcome that will last for many years Bus based systems of public transport Easy to use fare system The package of investments most likely to benefit your city The package of investments most likely to benefit you The package of investments most likely to get car drivers out of their car and onto public transport The package of investments least likely to increase taxes The package of investments giving the highest capacity for travellers The package of investments which allows the city to grow sustainably The package of investments which allows housing to be built around stations.
  12. 12. The Choice Setting › There are a number of different methods available to elicit preferences. › Widely used direct-questioning methods, such as Likert scales, suffer from well-established drawbacks due to subjectivity › Discrete choice methods such as those that involve choosing a single preferred option from a range of presented options - provide more reliable and valid measurement of preference. › But in recent years there has been growing interest within the discrete choice framework on seeking responses to scenarios where stakeholders select both the best option and worst option (or attribute) from a set of alternatives, and this literature recognises the additional behavioural information in the best and worst response mechanism Best-Worst Choice or Preference Experiments 12
  13. 13. Best Worst Choice › Designs had 22, 34 and 15 choice tasks for the design barriers, service barriers and voting influences experiments respectively. › An online survey was developed that included the best-worst preference screens, - four for each of the service and design statements associated with LRT and BRT, and four associated with the more general PT statements linked to the voting preference response. › Interviews commenced on 16 May and concluded on 5 June 2013 › Models estimated using Scaled Multinomial Logit (SMNL) to get marginal utility of attribute preference weights Bayesian D-efficient designs 13
  14. 14. ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS SERVICE ATTRIBUTES 14
  15. 15. ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS DESIGN ATTRIBUTES 15
  16. 16. ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS VOTING 16
  17. 17. DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW TOTAL SAMPLE AND SIX CAPITAL CITIES 17 All Cities Sydney Melbourne Canberra Adelaide Brisbane Perth Sample Size 2052 476 450 99 342 343 341 Used PT in last month (% yes) 55.6 65.5 61.1 37.8 49.1 52.9 49.6 Male (%) 39.9 40.9 45.1 50.0 39.5 38.1 31.7 Annual personal income ($) 58,221 63,267 58,400 76,582 51,112 53,678 57,346 Age (years) 43.1 42.8 42.7 44.5 44.5 43.1 42.5 Full time employed (%) 47.1 51.9 50.7 58.2 40.1 42.7 43.9 Part time employed (%) 21.2 22.1 21.1 18.4 21.1 20.6 21.7 Retired (%) 13.3 11.7 10.7 13.3 16.4 15.1 14.1 Student (%) 4.7 4.8 3.6 1.02 4.4 6.4 5.9 Most preferred Image BRT standard vehicle (%) 9.6 12.6 10.2 8.2 9.1 10.2 4.7 BRT modern vehicle (%) 15.3 17.4 13.6 10.2 15.8 15.1 15.8 LRT standard vehicle (%) 15.4 14.9 14.9 18.4 15.8 15.2 15.2 LRT modern vehicle (%) 53.1 48.1 52.4 55.1 55.6 50.9 60.7
  18. 18. The Evidence
  19. 19. VOTING: PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND NON- PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS 19 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 -3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 Lowfares Higherfarestopayforhigherqualityservices Easytousefaresystem Quickjourneytimes Frequentservices Fastoveralljourneytimetodestination, includinggettingtoandfromthestationorstop Systemswithcomfortablevehicles Smartvehicles Somecorridorswithgoodservicelevels,evenif othercorridorshadlessgoodservicelevels Newraillinks,eveniftheseareshorterthana packageofinvestmentswithgoodbus-based… Thegreatestlengthofhighqualitycorridors, irrespectiveofwhethertrain,tramorbus Highqualitybusroutesondedicatedroads(so thattheydonotsufferfromdelaysfromcars) Busbasedsystemsofpublictransport Anetworkthatiscosteffectivetooperate Anetworkwithfewinterchanges Interchangesbetweenservicesandmodes(bus, train,ferry)ifthismakesoveralljourneytimes… Systemsthatgivewidenetworkcoverage Thepackagethatisquickesttoimplement Slowimplementationisnotaproblemifthe packagedeliverstherightpublictransport… Investmentpackagegivinganoutcomethatwill lastformanyyears Investmentpackagemostlikelytobenefityour city Investmentpackagemostlikelytobenefityou Investmentpackageleastlikelytoincreasetaxes Valueformoneyforthetaxpayer Investmentpackageofferinggoodsafetyforthe passenger Investmentpackagemostlikelytogetcar driversoutoftheircarandontopublic… Investmentpackagegivingthehighestcapacity fortravellers Investmentpackagewhichallowsthecityto growsustainably Investmentpackagewhichallowshousingtobe builtaroundstations. %changeinMU MarginalUntilities Voting Model (SMNL): Marginal Utilities for PT and non-PT users and the %change difference MU for PT user MU of non-PT user % change in MU between PT user and non-PT user
  20. 20. VOTING PREFERENCES MODEL › 9 top statements are same for users and non users (but not exact same order 1. fast overall journey time to destination including getting to and from the station or stop, 2. frequent services, 3. low fares, 4. quick journey times, 5. value for money for the taxpayer, 6. packages which give an outcome that will last for many years, 7. a network that is cost effective to operate, 8. systems that give wide network coverage, and 9. interchanges between services and modes (bus, train, ferry) if this makes overall journey times quicker. › Of these, large difference between the marginal utility (MU) of PT users and non-PT users. - frequent services - interchanges 20
  21. 21. MAIN MESSAGES VOTING PREFERENCES MODEL › Implementers must pay attention to these 9 features - Telling politicians that these features are important in voting - Planners must plan these key elements well and highlight them › Targeting can be same for users and non users of public transport EXCEPT for - Frequency - Interchanges › These attributes matter much more to public transport users - Suggests ‘marketing’ of new BRT systems must distinguish between these in targeting support for these two elements 21
  22. 22. MAPPING OF VOTING PREFERENCES TO DESIGN AND SERVICE PREFERENCES 22
  23. 23. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 1 23 A A A C C C C C C C EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EC EN EN EN S S S S S S SU SU SU SU SU SU -1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 -4.0000 -3.0000 -2.0000 -1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 Stopsnearertomorepeople Lessstopssoneedtowalkfurthertostop/station Betternetworkcoverage Morelikelytobefundedwithprivateinvestment Systemischeaper Loweroperatinagcosts Loweroperatingcostsperpersoncarried Lowermaintenancecosts Quickertobuildandputinoperation Bettervalueformoneytotaxpayers Providemoreopportunitiesforlandredevelopment Providemorefocusseddevelopmentopportunities Supporthigherpopulationandemploymentgrowth Higherlongtermbenefits Housepriceswillrisefasteraroundstops/stations Moreopportunityfornewhousing Improvessurroundingpropertiesmore Createsmorejobs Lesspolluting Buildingwillcauselessdisruptiontoroadsinthearea Moreenvironmentallyfriendly Morelikelytohavelevelboarding Quieter Stopshavegreatervisibility Loweraccidentrates Providemorecomfortfortravellers/personalsecurityfordrivers Servicelooksfaster Moresuccessfulforcities Morepermanent Moreliveableenvironment Greaterlongtermsustainability Bringsmorelifetothecity Morelikelytobestillinusein30yearstime Design: MU of PT users and nonPT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus ) and LRT better than bus statments (LRT) PT User Bus PT User LR PT Non User Bus PT Non User LR
  24. 24. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2 › Design attributes relating to voting attribute ‘systems that give wide system coverage’ - Best match: ‘better network coverage’. › Design attributes relating to voting attribute ‘A network that is cost effective to operate’. - Best matches: 4 of the cost attributes. › Design attributes relating to voting attribute ‘investment package giving a result that will last for many years’. - Best match: ‘more likely to be still in use in 30 years time’. 24
  25. 25. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 3 › Main Messages - These 3 design features are important to voters (and the politicians) - Other design features are important to users and non users - For bus better than LR – these need highlighting and emphasising - Stops closer to people - Better network coverage - Correction of mis-perceptions (coming from LR better than bus) - Buses not so environmentally friendly - Buses are noisy and uncomfortable - Buses are less permanent 25
  26. 26. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 4 26 -1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 -4.0000 -3.0000 -2.0000 -1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 Stopsnearertomorepeople Lessstopssoneedtowalkfurthertostop/station Betternetworkcoverage Morelikelytobefundedwithprivateinvestment Systemischeaper Loweroperatinagcosts Loweroperatingcostsperpersoncarried Lowermaintenancecosts Quickertobuildandputinoperation Bettervalueformoneytotaxpayers Providemoreopportunitiesforlandredevelopment Providemorefocusseddevelopmentopportunities Supporthigherpopulationandemploymentgrowth Higherlongtermbenefits Housepriceswillrisefasteraroundstops/stations Moreopportunityfornewhousing Improvessurroundingpropertiesmore Createsmorejobs Lesspolluting Buildingwillcauselessdisruptiontoroadsinthearea Moreenvironmentallyfriendly Morelikelytohavelevelboarding Quieter Stopshavegreatervisibility Loweraccidentrates Providemorecomfortfortravellers/personalsecurityfordrivers Servicelooksfaster Moresuccessfulforcities Morepermanent Moreliveableenvironment Greaterlongtermsustainability Bringsmorelifetothecity Morelikelytobestillinusein30yearstime MarginalUtlity Design: MU of PT users and nonPT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus ) and LRT better than bus statments (LRT) PT User Bus PT Non User Bus PT User LR PT Non User LR
  27. 27. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 5 › Main Messages - Factors to be emphasised in promotion - Non users do not perceive bus as giving ‘better coverage’ as much as users - Users and non-users have quite different perceptions of cost (operating and maintenance) for light rail favouring statements - Bus systems and liveability (related to permanence?) - Factors that appear known - Bus systems being faster to build 27
  28. 28. VOTING AND SERVICE PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 1 28 -5.5000 -4.5000 -3.5000 -2.5000 -1.5000 -0.5000 0.5000 1.5000 -1.5000 -0.5000 0.5000 1.5000 2.5000 3.5000 Cleanerlooking Cleaner Cleanerseats Cleanerontheoutside Cleanerstop/stations Crowdingmakestravelhorrible Morecomfortable Bettercomfortlevel Requirelesstransfers Moremodernlookingandmoreappeal Cardriversmorelikelytotransfer Moresexyandnotboring Easierboarding Betterqualityofservice Safertravelling Saferstops Betterpersonalsecurity Fastertraveltimes Greaterreliabiltiy Morefrequent Lessservicedelay Greaternetworkcoverage MarginalUtility MarginalUtility Service: MU of PT users and non PT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus) and LRT better than bus statements (LRT) PT Non User Bus PT Non User LR PT User Bus PT User LR
  29. 29. VOTING AND SERVICE PREFERENCES USERS/NON USERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2 › Main Messages - Factors to be emphasised in promotion (positive perceptions for bus systems) - Frequency - Better network coverage - Misperceptions that need correcting - LR give faster travel times - The role of transfers 29
  30. 30. The Evidence: Aggregating to better Inform
  31. 31. AGGREGATED CONTRIBUTION TO VOTING PREFERENCES 31 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Fares Frequency Mode Network Multi-dimensional package Singleobjective package AverageMarginalUtility VotingModel (SMNL) Average Marginal Utilities for PT and non-PT users PT user Non-PT user 1. Little difference between the average marginal utility of users and non PT users for factors important in voting. 2. average marginal utility for non users is always lower than users. Users may receive more additional utility from public transport through their use.
  32. 32. AGGREGATED CONTRIBUTION TO DESIGN PREFERENCES 32 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Accessibility Cost Economy Environment ServiceQuality Sustainability AverageMarginalUtility Design(SMNL): Average MU of PT usersand non PT usersforBus better thanLRT statements(Bus)and LRT better than bus statements(LRT) PTUser Bus PTUser LR PTNon User Bus PTNon User LR For users 1. Average marginal utility of bus (BRT) favouring statements is positive but negative for LR • For accessibility • For cost 2. Average marginal utility of bus (BRT) favouring statements is negative but positive for LR • For economy • For environment • For service quality • For sustainability
  33. 33. AGGREGATED CONTRIBUTION TO DESIGN PREFERENCES 33 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Accessibility Cost Economy Environment ServiceQuality Sustainability AverageMarginalUtility Design(SMNL): Average MU of PT usersand non PT usersforBus better thanLRT statements(Bus)and LRT better than bus statements(LRT) PTUser Bus PTUser LR PTNon User Bus PTNon User LR For non- users 1. Less extreme differences for all categories EXCEPT Environment 2. Marked difference for service quality where non users • much greater average disutility from bus (BRT) favouring statements • much greater utility from LRT favouring statements. 3. Non-users and users have average marginal utilities of opposite signs for bus and LR favouring statements
  34. 34. AGGREGATED CONTRIBUTION TO SERVICE PREFERENCES 34 -1.5000 -1.0000 -0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 2.5000 3.0000 Cleanliness Comfort Interchange More coverage Perceptions Quality Safety Speed AverageMarginalUtility Service(SMNL):Average MUofPTusersandnon-PTusersforBusbetterthan LRTstatements(Bus)andLRTbetterthan busstatements(LRT) PTUserBus PTUserLR PTNonUserBus PTNonUserLR 1. All have significant and similar positive average marginal utility for bus (BRT) providing additional coverage. Very strong message for BRT over LR. 2. Non users ‘perceptions’ of LR systems The grouping under ‘perceptions’ (e.g., more modern looking and more appeal, car drivers more likely to transfer, more sexy and not boring) 3. Non users of PT are less supportive of LR than bus (BRT) under ‘perceptions’ on • ‘better quality of service’, • ‘personal security’, • ‘ease of boarding’, and ‘car drivers more likely to transfer’ 4. Personal security is the dominant dimension of safety, and bus (BRT) wins out over LRT, possibly because of the closeness of the driver to the passengers.
  35. 35. What has our Study Suggested are themes that are especially relevant in promoting BRT relative to LRT?
  36. 36. VOTING PREFERENCES MODEL › People (and therefore politicians should) look for systems which give 1. fast overall journey time to destination frequent services, 2. low fares 3. value for money for the taxpayer, 4. packages which give an outcome that will last for many years, 5. a network that is cost effective to operate, 6. systems that give wide network coverage, and 7. interchanges between services and modes › Targeting can be same for users and non users EXCEPT for - Frequency - Interchanges Which matter much more to public transport users 36
  37. 37. VOTING AND DESIGN PREFERENCES › Design features are important to voters (and the politicians), perhaps more so than Service attributes › Perceptions that need reinforcing in promoting BRT - Stops closer to people - Better network coverage (target particularly non-users) - Cost (noting different perceptions of users/non-users) - Bus systems being faster to build (although this seems well understood) › Perceptions that need correcting - Buses are not so environmentally friendly - Buses are noisy and uncomfortable - Buses are less permanent (relates to liveability in particular) 37
  38. 38. VOTING AND SERVICE PREFERENCES › Many of the attributes non-significant - users/non users less sensitive to these? › Factors to be emphasised in promotion (positive perceptions for bus systems) - Frequency - Better network coverage › Misperceptions that need correcting - LR give faster travel times - The role of transfers 38
  39. 39. What is in a Name? Time to Rethink? Image of Bus?
  40. 40. IMAGE OF BUS › “Anyone who lives in Sydney’s fast growing north west knows what a short-sighted idea it is to suggest buses should replace the rail link,” O’Farrell (Premier of New South Wales) says (June 2012). › “The idea of putting more buses onto an already crowded road system just beggars belief.” 40 Most preferred Image BRT standard vehicle (%) 9.6 BRT modern vehicle (%) 15.3 LRT standard vehicle (%) 15.4 LRT modern vehicle (%) 53.1
  41. 41. THE DILEMMA WITH THE B WORD (BUS) › The image of ‘bus’ seems to be a big part of the problem › It is time for a radical move – a name change for BRT. ›Dedicated Corridor Transit (DCT) (Or Dedicated Corridor Rapid Transit –DCRT). › This emphasises that rapid transit is the sell, not the mode 41
  42. 42. DCT or DCRT › Dedicated Corridor Transit (DCT) (Or Dedicated Corridor Rapid Transit –DCRT). › This places the matter fairly and squarely where it belongs: - the corridor delivering transit services - with transit defined as all candidate public transport modes, OR - defined online as “public transportation system for moving passengers”. › It is the qualities that a bus based system can give for DCT that we must show how to sell › Not be driven to argue the benefits of steel track over bitumen. 42
  43. 43. Q and A
  44. 44. 44 BRT Systems: Paris, Guangzhou, Bogota, Beijing
  45. 45. Material past here in reserve
  46. 46. 46 The government of your city is proposing to improve public transport options of your city and has chosen a long corridor for urban revitalisation with a public transport treatment The corridor is located on the map (click) Click where you live and three common places you travel to, which will then display the distance from your home to the corridor We now want you to look at Four scenarios that describe different ways in which the government might spend taxpayers money to improving public transport In all cases, fare collection The options are for different urban corridor renewal proposala incolving a public transport upgrade Note: Options are heavy rail, buses, light rail/tram, buses in dedicated corridor/bus rapid transit Scenario 1 Option A Option B Corridor image insert image insert image Description of public transport (PT) investment Heavy Rail Buses in dedicated corridor/bus rapid transit Additional description of PT mode 6 train set double articulated Percent of corridor alignment dedicated to PT 100 0, 10, 25 percent of route in bus lanes Peak service frequency (every X mins) 5 or 10 or 15 5 or 10 or 15 Off peak service frequency (every x mins) Distance between Station/stops (kms) Corridor PT service capacity (passengers per hour) 20000 Vehicle capacity (passengers per vehicle) Number of seats per vehicle or train set Life of new PT investment (years) Total construction costs ($millions) or H,M,L Annual operating cost ($m per annum) or H,M,L Response questions: Which investment would benefit your metro area best? Least - rank 1,2 Which investment would you prefer personally? How likely are car drivers to use the option you have ranked number 1? (scale 0=totally unlikely, 100- completely likely If these options were put to a referendum, which one would you vote for? None Which do you think is best value for tax payers money? Is this option acceptable to you?
  47. 47. Normalised Service Barriers 47 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Buses aresexy and light rail (trams) are boring Crowded busesareless horribleto travel in than crowded lightrail (trams) Buses arecleaner than light rail (trams) Buses look cleaner than light rail (trams) Buses aremore modern looking than light rail(trams) and hence havemoreappeal in urban settings Travelling by busis safer than travelling by light rail (tram) Busstops arecleaner than light rail (tram) stops Buses arecleaner on the outside than light rail (trams) Buses havecleaner seats than light rail (trams) Busstops aresafer than light rail (tram) stops Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor aremorereliable than light rail (trams) Buses providea better comfortlevel than light rail (tram) services Busservices in a bus lane or dedicated corridor do notget delayed like light rail (tram) services Buses provideeasier boarding than light rail (trams) Bustravel times in a bus lane or dedicated corridor arefaster than light rail (tram) A bus journey in a bus lane or dedicated corridor is morecomfortablefor passengersthan a light rail (tram) journey Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor providea better quality of service than light rail (trams) Car driversaremorelikely to transfer to bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor than to light rail (tram) services Buses providebetter personal security for travellers than light rail (trams) Busservices in a bus lane or dedicated corridor aremorefrequentthan light rail (tram) services Busjourneysrequireless transfersthan light rail (tram) journeys Lightrail providea better quality of servicethan bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Lightrail aremore modern looking than buses and hence havemore appealin urban settings Lightrail has cleaner seats than buses Car driversaremorelikely to transfer to Light rail services than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Lightrail journeysrequireless transfersthan bus journeys Lightrail stops are cleaner than bus stops Lightrail is more reliable than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor A public transportnetwork with busrapid transit (BRT) will providea greater network coveragethan onewith light rail (trams) Lightrail providebetter personalsecurity for travellers than buses A public transportnetwork with Lightrail will alwaysbe better than one with bus rapid transit (BRT) Travelling by busis safer than travelling by light rail Lightrail providea better ridequality than busservices Crowded lightrailis less horribleto travel in than crowded bus A Light rail journey ismore comfortablefor passengersthan a bus journey in a buslane or dedicated corridor Lightrail is cleaner on the outside than buses Lightrail stops are safer than bus stops Lightrail services do not get delayed like bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Lightrail provideeasier boarding than buses Lightrail services aremore frequentthan busservices in a buslane or dedicated corridor Lightrail traveltimes are faster than bus in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Lightrail look cleaner than buses Lightrail is cleaner than bus Lightrail is sexy and buses are boring Normalised Utility Scale ServiceDesignAttributes Service Barriers: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
  48. 48. Normalised Design Barriers 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Busservices are less polluting than light rail (trams) Buses arequieter than light rail (trams) Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor aremoreenvironmentally friendly than light rail (trams) LightRail (Trams) systems arequicker to build and put in operation than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor aremorepermanentthan light rail (trams) Housepriceswill rise faster around new busassociated with a bus lane or dedicated corridor stopsthan light rail (tram) stops Busstops havegreater visibility for passengers than light rail (tram) stops Busroutes are fixed, so bus stops providemoreopportunity for new housing than a light rail (tram) line which can be changed very easily Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor havelower accidentrates than light rail (trams) Busservices are morelikely to have level boarding (no steps up or down to get on the vehicle) than light rail (trams) Thereareless busstops than tram stations so people haveto walk further to catch a bus LightRail (Trams) seats are bigger and give more space than bus seats A bus servicein a buslane or dedicated corridor looksfaster than a light rail (tram) service LightRail (Trams) services stop nearer to more people than bus services Putting down railsand buying LightRail (Trams) makesa tram system cheaper than bus services running in a bus lane or a dedicated… A new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor can bring morelife to the city than a new light rail (tram) line Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor supporthigher populaton and employmentgrowth than light rail (trams) Building a new Light Rail (Trams) line will cause less disruption to roads in the area than a new bus routein a bus lane or dedicated… Morejobswill be created surrounding a busroute in a bus lane or dedicated corridor than a light rail (tram) route New busstops or a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor willimprovesurrounding propertiesmorethan new light rail… Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor providea moreliveable environmentthan light rail (trams) A bus servicein a buslane or dedicated corridor ismore likely than a light rail (tram) to still be in use in 30 yearstime Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor aremorelikely to be funded with privateinvestment than light rail (trams) LightRail (Trams) providemoreopportunitiesfor land redevelopmentthan buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Busservices in a bus lane or dedicated corridor serviceshavebeen moresuccessful for cities than light rail (trams) Thelong term benefits of a new bus routein a bus lane or dedicated corridor arehigher than a new light rail (tram) line Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor havegreater long term sustainabiliy than light rail (trams) Thereareless light rail (tram) stops than busstations so people have to walk further to catch a bus Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor providemorefocussed developmentopportunitiesthan light rail (trams) LightRail (Trams) are morelikely to be funded with privateinvestment than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Overall, LightRail (Trams) and tramtrack have lower maintenancecosts than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Buses providemorecomfortfor travellersthan light rail (trams) Housepriceswill rise faster around new LightRail (Trams) stops than busstops associated with a bus lane or dedicated corridor Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor providebetter valuefor money to taxpayersthan light rail (trams) LightRail (Trams) providebetter valuefor money to taxpayersthan buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Overall, busesin a bus lane or dedicated corridor havelower maintenancecosts than light rail (trams) and light rail (tram) track Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor providemoreopportunitiesfor land redevelopmentthan light rail (trams) Busservices provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor havelower operating costs than light rail (tram) systems New LightRail (Trams) stops will improvesurrounding propertiesmorethan new bus stops or a new bus routein a bus lane ordedicated… Morejobswill be created surrounding a LightRail (Trams) routethan a busroute in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Busservices provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor havelower operating costs per person carried than light rail (tram) systems LightRail (Trams) lines are fixed, so Light Rail (Trams) stops providemoreopportunity for new housing than a bus route which can be… LightRail (Trams) systems havelower operating costs per person carried than bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Building bus lane or a dedicated roadsand buying buses makesa bussystem cheaper than putting down rails and buying light rail (trams) LightRail (Trams) systems havelower operating costs than bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) providemorefocussed developmentopportunitiesthan buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) stops have greater visibility for passengers than bus stops LightRail (Trams) havelower accidentrates than buses in a buslane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) providea moreliveable environmentthan buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor A Light Rail (Trams) is morelikely than a bus servicein a bus lane or dedicated corridor to still be in use in 30 yearstime LightRail (Trams) services havebeen more successful for cities than bus servciesin a bus lane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) supporthigher populaton and employmentgrowth than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) are quieter than buses Building a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor willcause less disruption to roads in the area than a new light rail (tram) line LightRail (Trams) havegreater long term sustainabiliy than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Thelong term benefits of a new tram line are higher than a new bus routein a bus lane or dedicated corridor A new Light Rail (Trams) line can bring morelife to the city than a new bus routein a bus lane or dedicated corridor A Light Rail (Trams) service looksfaster than a bus servicein a buslane or dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) providebetter personalsecurity for driversthan buses LightRail (Trams) services are morelikely to have level boarding (no steps up or down to get on the vehicle) than buses Busservices stop nearer to more people than light rail (trams) services LightRail (Trams) are morepermanentthan buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Bussystems providebetter network coveragethan light rail (tram) systems Bussystems arequicker to build and putin operation than light rail (tram) servicesin a light rail (tram) laneor dedicated corridor LightRail (Trams) services are less polluting than buses LightRail (Trams) are moreenvironmentally friendly than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor Normalised Utility Scale DesignBarrierAtributes Design Barriers: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
  49. 49. Normalised Voting Preferences 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Higher fares to pay for higher quality services Somecorridors with good service levels, even if other corridorshad less good service levels The package of investments which allows housing to be built around stations. Bus based systems of public transport Smartvehicles The package that is quickest to implement Slow implementation is not a problem if the package delivers the right public transport system A network with few interchanges Systems with comfortable vehicles New rail links, even if these are shorter than a package of investments with good bus-based services The package of investments giving the highest capacity for travellers The package of investments least likely to increase taxes The package of investments most likely to benefit you The greatest length of high quality corridors, irrespective of whether train, tram or bus Easy to use fare system High quality bus routes on dedicated roads (so that they do not suffer from delays from cars) The package of investments most likely to benefit your city The package of investments which allows the city to grow sustainably The package of investments most likely to get car drivers out of their car and onto public transport Packageswhich offer good safety for the passenger Interchanges between services and modes (bus, train, ferry) if this makes overall journey times… Systems that give wide network coverage Packageswhich give an outcome that will last for many years A network that is cost effective to operate Value for money for the taxpayer Low fares Quick journey times Frequentservices Fast overall journey time to destination, including getting to and fromthe station or stop Notmalised Utility Scale VotingAttributes Voting Preferences: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
  50. 50. What is a Bus Rapid Transit System? Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP “Is a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways and ITS elements into an integrated system with strong identity” TCRP Report 90 – Bus Rapid Transit – Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines 2003 “It is a high quality public transport system, oriented to the user that offers fast, comfortable and low cost urban mobility” BRT Planning Guide – ITDP, 2007

×