Presentation TRB BRT China 20170111

Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese bus rapid transit:Evidence from evaluation of global BRT based on BRT

design indicatorsTransportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting

Pablo Guarda1,2 Juan Miguel Velasquez1 Thet Hein Tun1

Xumei Chen2 Guo Zhong2

1World Resources Institute (WRI)2Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC)

3China Urban Transport Research Centre (CUSTReC)

January 11, 2017

Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 1 / 29

Outline

1 Introduction

2 Data Description

3 Methodology

4 Results

5 Conclusions


Introduction Context

Growth of bus rapid transit in China

• BRT is a key element in Chinese national policy by the Ministry ofTransport

• National Goal: 5,000 kilometers of BRTs by 2020

Source: Graphic obtained using Tableau and data from BRTdata.org


Introduction Previous Work

Previous Work

Fjellstrom, K., 2010. Bus rapid transit in China. Built Environment, 36(3),363–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.3.363

Zhang, X., Liu, Z., and Wang, H., 2013. Lessons of bus rapid transit from ninecities in China. Transportation Research Record, 2394(1), 45–54.http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2394-06

Deng, T., Ma, M., and Wang, J., 2013. Evaluation of bus rapid transitimplementation in China: current performance and progress. Journal of UrbanPlanning and Development, 139(3), 226–234.http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000150


http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.3.363

http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2394-06

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000150

Introduction Study Overview

Study Overview

What are the main challenges for Chinese BRTs today?

• To improve service quality and performance

• E.g. Chinese BRTs operate at a comparable speed but havealmost 2.5 times less peak-hour ridership than their LatinAmerican counterparts. (Deng et al., 2013)

Research objectives

• Compare design indicators between Chinese and non-ChineseBRTs.

• Identify specific design elements to improve the performance ofChinese BRTs.


Data Description BRT Standard according to ITDP

BRT Standard according to ITDP

• 7 categories:

– BRT Basics (minimal requirements to bequalified as a BRT system)

– Service Planning– Infrastructure– Stations– Communications– Access and Integration– Point Deductions

• 38 subcategories

• Ranking: BRT Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold

• BRTs evaluated in 2013 and 2014 Source: The BRT Standard – 2014 Edition. Fromhttps://www.itdp.org/brt-standard-scores/


Data Description How do Chinese BRTs rank?

How do Chinese BRTs rank?

Scores Across Countries

Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions


Data Description How do Chinese BRTs rank?

How do Chinese BRTs rank?

Scores Across Chinese Cities



Methodology Mean Groups Comparison

Between-groups comparison for (sub)category i

Target Group (TG) Benchmark Group (BG)

si ,TG =∑t∈T

∑j∈TG

(Si ,j ,tmi ,t

)/NTG si ,BG =

∑t∈T

∑j∈BG

(Si ,j ,tmi ,t

)/NBG

si,TG : Average percentage score in (sub)category i within the Target Groupsi,BG : Average percentage score in (sub)category i within the Benchmark GroupSi,j,t : Score in (sub)category i obtained from BRT j evaluated in year tNBG : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Benchmark GroupNTG : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Target Groupmi,t : Maximum score in (sub)category i defined for the year t


Methodology Testing Difference Between Means

Testing Difference Between Means

• Method: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), α = 0.05

• Statistical software: R studio

• Output: For a given (sub)category i, the difference (∆si ) betweenthe average scores of the Target (si ,TG ) and Benchmark (si ,BG )groups can be:

1 Positive and significantly different than zero (”Strength”)2 Negative and significantly different than zero (”Opportunity”)3 Non-significantly different than zero (”Undetermined”)


Results Application

Application

• Unit of analysis: BRT corridor/system

• Sample size– Total: 99 observations– Include 21 countries in 59 cities

• Target group: Chinese BRTs (N = 23)

• Benchmark group: Non-Chinese BRTs (N = 66)

• Between-group comparisons:– 7 Categories– 38 Subcategories


Results Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs at the category level

Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs (category level)



Results BRT Basics

BRT Basics



Results BRT Basics

Opportunities in BRT Basics



Results BRT Basics

Making Sense of the Results: BRT Basics

• Intersection Treatments:

– Most Chinese BRTs scored a zero points– Positive Examples: ‘Gold’ standard Guangzhou BRT ; Xiamen BRT– Ways to improve: (i) Traffic signal priority systems, (ii) yielding signal

priority to the BRT buses and (iii) prohibiting turns across BRT busway

Source: Karl Fjellstrom, Far East BRT (in Jinan, China). Retrieved fromhttps://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=7749&c=56


Results Service Planning

Service Planning




Opportunities in Service Planning




Making Sense of the Results: Service Planning

• Express, Limited, and Local services: The majority of ChineseBRTs do not offer such services

– Examples: Line 1 corridor in Zaozhuang, the Zhongshan Avenuecorridor in Guangzhou and the Xiamen BRT

• Demand Profile: Evaluates whether high-quality BRT infrastructureis constructed in the highest demand road segments

– Only 35% of Chinese BRTs received full scores (e.g.Guangzhou BRT )– Conflict over public space: shifting limited road space away from cars

will require government institutions with strong political will

Source: ITDP, 2015., The BRT Standard 2014 Edition.


Results Infrastructure

Infrastructure




Oppportunities in Infrastructure




Making Sense of the Results: Infrastructure

• Stations Setback from Intersections– Only 6 out of 23 Chinese BRTs received full scores (e.g. Zhangqian Lu

- Songjiang Lu - Huabei Lu - Xi’an Lu corridor from Dalian BRT )– Almost half of the BRTs received a ‘zero’ score

Source: Karl Fjellstrom, Far East BRT (In Guangzhou, China)


Results Access and Integration

Access and Integration




Opportunities in Access and Integration




Making Sense of the Results: Access and Integration

• Pedestrian Access: Critical for both pedestrian accessibility as wellas safety

– Two Chinese BRTs, the BRT-7 corridor in Jinan and Zhongshan BRT,received full scores

– 30% of BRTs evaluated obtained a zero point score

Source: ITDP-China, Yichang. Retrieved from http://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=13838&c=114



Making Sense of the Results: Access and Integration

• Universal Access: Evaluates both BRT stations and vehicles’accessibility for all special-needs passengers

– Majority of the Chinese BRTs obtained a zero point score– Some possible solutions: (i) Providing level-boarding platforms or (ii)

adopt low-floor buses

Source: ITDP-China, Xianyuan Zhu (left) and Yichang (right)


Conclusions Main Findings

Main Findings

On average, BRTs in Chinese cities scored significantly lower than those in othercountries (7 out of 100 points less).

Opportunities to improve in Chinese BRTs

• Categories: Infrastructure (−21.0) and Access & Integration (−17.3)

• Subcategories: Intersection Treatments, Demand profile, Stationssetbacks from intersections, Distances between stations and Universalaccess

Strengths of Chinese BRTs

• Categories: Communications & Marketing (+12.7)

• Subcategories: Off-board Fare Collection, Control Center, PavementQuality, Sliding Doors at BRT Stations, Passenger Information, BicycleLanes


Conclusions Limitations and Further Research

Limitations and Further Research

Limitations

• Data aggregation level: BRT corridors/systems

• BRT standard: What does it mean to be a Quality BRT?

• Experts’ evaluations: Observation errors

Further Research

• Relationship between design indicators (from current findings)and BRT performance (e.g. productivity, speed, frequency,throughput)

• Current framework can be replicated to compare other groupsof BRTs in the world


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This research was benefited from the support of:

• Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence, funded by the Volvo Researchand Educational Foundations (VREF)


Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese bus rapid transit:Evidence from evaluation of global BRT based on BRT

design indicatorsTransportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting

Pablo Guarda1,2 Juan Miguel Velasquez1 Thet Hein Tun1

Xumei Chen2 Guo Zhong2

1World Resources Institute (WRI)2Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC)

3China Urban Transport Research Centre (CUSTReC)

January 11, 2017


Date post:	21-Jan-2017
Category:	Presentations & Public Speaking
Upload:	pablo-andres-guarda-rosas
View:	25 times
Download:	1 times

Presentation TRB BRT China 20170111

Presentations & Public Speaking