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
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
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
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
Initial Assessment of Patronage Drivers for BRT
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
Barriers Affecting Support for BRT
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS SERVICE ATTRIBUTES
14
ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS DESIGN ATTRIBUTES
15
ILLUSTRATIVE BEST-WORST SCREENS VOTING
16
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
The Evidence
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
Low
fare
s
Hig
her
fare
s to
pay
for
hig
her
qu
alit
y se
rvic
es
Easy
to u
se fa
re s
yste
m
Qu
ick
jou
rney
tim
es
Freq
uen
t se
rvic
es
Fast
ove
rall
jou
rney
tim
e to
des
tin
atio
n,
incl
ud
ing
gett
ing
to a
nd
fro
m t
he
stat
ion
or
sto
p
Syst
ems
wit
h c
om
fort
able
veh
icle
s
Smar
t ve
hic
les
Som
e co
rrid
ors
wit
h g
oo
d s
ervi
ce le
vels
, eve
n if
o
ther
co
rrid
ors
had
less
go
od
ser
vice
leve
ls
New
rail
links
, eve
n if
th
ese
are
sho
rter
th
an a
p
acka
ge o
f in
vest
men
ts w
ith
go
od
bu
s-b
ased
…
The
grea
test
len
gth
of
hig
h q
ual
ity
corr
ido
rs,
irre
spec
tive
of
wh
eth
er t
rain
, tra
m o
r b
us
Hig
h q
ual
ity
bu
s ro
ute
s o
n d
edic
ated
ro
ads
(so
th
at th
ey d
o n
ot
suff
er f
rom
del
ays
fro
m c
ars)
Bu
s b
ased
sys
tem
s o
f pu
blic
tra
nsp
ort
A n
etw
ork
th
at is
co
st e
ffec
tive
to
op
erat
e
A n
etw
ork
wit
h fe
w in
terc
han
ges
Inte
rch
ange
s b
etw
een
ser
vice
s an
d m
od
es (b
us,
tr
ain
, fer
ry)
if t
his
mak
es o
vera
ll jo
urn
ey t
imes
…
Syst
ems
that
giv
e w
ide
net
wo
rk c
ove
rage
The
pac
kage
th
at is
qu
icke
st t
o im
ple
men
t
Slo
w im
ple
men
tati
on
is n
ot
a p
rob
lem
if t
he
pac
kage
del
iver
s th
e ri
ght
pu
blic
tra
nsp
ort
…
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge g
ivin
g an
ou
tco
me
that
will
la
st fo
r m
any
year
s
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge m
ost
like
ly t
o b
enef
it y
ou
r ci
ty
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge m
ost
like
ly t
o b
enef
it y
ou
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge le
ast
likel
y to
incr
ease
tax
es
Val
ue
for
mo
ney
for
the
taxp
ayer
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge o
ffer
ing
goo
d s
afet
y fo
r th
e p
asse
nge
r
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge m
ost
like
ly t
o g
et c
ar
dri
vers
ou
t o
f th
eir
car
and
on
to p
ub
lic …
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge g
ivin
g th
e h
igh
est
cap
acit
y fo
r tr
avel
lers
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge w
hic
h a
llow
s th
e ci
ty t
o
gro
w s
ust
ain
ably
Inve
stm
ent p
acka
ge w
hic
h a
llow
s h
ou
sin
g to
be
bu
ilt a
rou
nd
sta
tio
ns.
% c
han
ge in
MU
Mar
gin
al U
nti
litie
s
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
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
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
MAPPING OF VOTING PREFERENCES TO DESIGN AND SERVICE PREFERENCES
22
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 ECEC EC
EC EC
EN
EN
ENS
SS S S
S SUSU 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
Stop
s ne
arer
to m
ore
peop
le
Less
sto
ps
so n
ee
d t
o w
alk
furt
he
r to
sto
p/s
tati
on
Be
tte
r n
etw
ork
co
vera
ge
Mor
e lik
ely
to b
e fu
nded
wit
h pr
ivat
e in
vest
men
t
Syst
em is
che
ape
r
Low
er o
pera
tina
g co
sts
Low
er o
pera
ting
cos
ts p
er p
erso
n ca
rrie
d
Low
er m
aint
enan
ce c
osts
Qui
cker
to b
uild
and
put
in
oper
atio
n
Bet
ter
valu
e fo
r m
oney
to
taxp
ayer
s
Pro
vid
e m
ore
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
lan
d r
ed
eve
lop
me
nt
Prov
ide
mor
e fo
cuss
ed d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
itie
s
Supp
ort
high
er p
opul
atio
n an
d em
ploy
men
t gr
owth
Hig
her
long
term
ben
efit
s
Ho
use
pri
ces
will
ris
e fa
ster
aro
un
d s
top
s/st
atio
ns
Mo
re o
pp
ort
un
ity
for
ne
w h
ou
sin
g
Impr
oves
sur
roun
ding
pro
pert
ies
mor
e
Cre
ates
mor
e jo
bs
Less
pol
luti
ng
Bu
ild
ing
wil
l ca
use
less
dis
rup
tio
n t
o r
oa
ds
in t
he
are
a
Mor
e en
viro
nmen
tally
frie
ndly
Mor
e lik
ely
to h
ave
leve
l boa
rdin
g
Qui
eter
Sto
ps
hav
e gr
eate
r vi
sib
ilit
y
Low
er a
ccid
ent r
ates
Prov
ide
mor
e co
mfo
rt fo
r tr
avel
lers
/per
sona
l sec
urit
y fo
r dr
iver
s
Serv
ice
look
s fa
ster
Mor
e su
cces
sful
for
citi
es
Mor
e pe
rman
ent
Mor
e liv
eabl
e en
viro
nmen
t
Gre
ate
r lo
ng te
rm s
usta
inab
ility
Bri
ngs
mo
re li
fe t
o t
he
city
Mor
e lik
ely
to b
e st
ill in
use
in 3
0 ye
ars
tim
e
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
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
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
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
Stop
s ne
arer
to m
ore
peop
le
Less
sto
ps s
o ne
ed
to w
alk
furt
her
to s
top/
stat
ion
Bet
ter
netw
ork
cove
rage
Mor
e lik
ely
to b
e fu
nded
wit
h pr
ivat
e in
vest
men
t
Syst
em
is c
he
ap
er
Low
er o
pera
tina
g co
sts
Low
er
op
era
tin
g c
ost
s p
er
pe
rso
n c
arr
ied
Low
er m
aint
enan
ce c
osts
Qui
cker
to b
uild
and
put
in
oper
atio
n
Bet
ter
valu
e fo
r m
oney
to
taxp
ayer
s
Prov
ide
mor
e op
port
unit
ies
for
land
red
evel
opm
ent
Pro
vid
e m
ore
focu
ssed
dev
elo
pm
ent
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
Supp
ort
high
er p
opul
atio
n an
d em
ploy
men
t gr
owth
Hig
her
long
term
ben
efit
s
Hou
se p
rice
s w
ill r
ise
fast
er a
roun
d st
ops/
stat
ions
Mor
e op
port
unit
y fo
r ne
w h
ousi
ng
Imp
rove
s su
rro
un
din
g p
rop
ert
ies
mo
re
Cre
ates
mo
re jo
bs
Less
po
lluti
ng
Bui
ldin
g w
ill c
ause
less
dis
rupt
ion
to r
oads
in th
e ar
ea
Mor
e en
viro
nmen
tally
frie
ndly
Mor
e lik
ely
to h
ave
leve
l boa
rdin
g
Qu
iete
r
Stop
s ha
ve g
reat
er v
isib
ility
Low
er a
ccid
ent r
ates
Prov
ide
mor
e co
mfo
rt fo
r tr
avel
lers
/per
sona
l sec
urit
y fo
r dr
iver
s
Serv
ice
look
s fa
ster
Mo
re s
ucc
ess
ful f
or
citi
es
Mo
re p
erm
an
en
t
Mo
re li
vea
ble
en
viro
nm
en
t
Gre
ate
r lo
ng te
rm s
usta
inab
ility
Bri
ngs
mor
e lif
e to
the
city
Mor
e lik
ely
to b
e st
ill in
use
in 3
0 ye
ars
tim
e
Mar
gin
al U
tlit
y
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
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
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
Clea
ner l
ooki
ng
Clea
ner
Clea
ner s
eats
Clea
ner o
n th
e out
side
Clea
ner s
top/
stat
ions
Crow
ding
mak
es tr
avel
hor
rible
Mor
e com
fort
able
Bett
er co
mfo
rt le
vel
Requ
ire le
ss tr
ansf
ers
Mor
e mod
ern
look
ing a
nd m
ore a
ppea
l
Car d
river
s mor
e lik
ely t
o tr
ansf
er
Mor
e sex
y and
not
bor
ing
Easie
r boa
rdin
g
Bett
er q
ualit
y of s
ervi
ce
Safe
r tra
velli
ng
Safe
r sto
ps
Bett
er p
erso
nal s
ecur
ity
Fast
er tr
avel
tim
es
Grea
ter r
elia
bilti
y
Mor
e fre
quen
t
Less
serv
ice d
elay
Grea
ter n
etw
ork c
over
age
Marginal Utility
Mar
gina
l Util
ity
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
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
The Evidence: Aggregating to better Inform
AGGREGATED CONTRIBUTION TO VOTING
PREFERENCES
31
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Fares Frequency Mode Network Multi-dimensional package
Single objective package
Av
era
ge
Ma
rgin
al
Uti
lity
Voting Model (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.
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 Service Quality Sustainability
Av
era
ge
Ma
rgin
al U
tili
ty
Design (SMNL): Average MU of PT users and non PT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus) and LRT better than bus statements (LRT)
PT User Bus PT User LR PT Non User Bus PT Non 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
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 Service Quality Sustainability
Av
era
ge
Ma
rgin
al U
tili
ty
Design (SMNL): Average MU of PT users and non PT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus) and LRT better than bus statements (LRT)
PT User Bus PT User LR PT Non User Bus PT Non 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
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
Av
era
ge
Ma
rgin
al U
til
ity
Service (SMNL): Average MU of PT users and non-PT users for Bus better than LRT statements (Bus) and LRT better than bus statements (LRT)
PT User Bus PT User LR PT Non User Bus PT Non User LR
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.
What has our Study Suggested are
themes that are especially relevant in
promoting BRT relative to LRT?
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
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
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
What is in a Name? Time to Rethink? Image of Bus?
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
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
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
Q and A
44
BRT Systems: Paris, Guangzhou, Bogota, Beijing
Material past here in reserve
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?
Normalised Service Barriers
47
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Buses are sexy and light rail (trams) are boringCrowded buses are less horrible to travel in than crowded light rail (trams)
Buses are cleaner than light rail (trams)Buses look cleaner than light rail (trams)
Buses are more modern looking than light rail (trams) and hence have more appeal in urban settingsTravelling by bus is safer than travelling by light rail (tram)
Bus stops are cleaner than light rail (tram) stopsBuses are cleaner on the outside than light rail (trams)
Buses have cleaner seats than light rail (trams)Bus stops are safer than light rail (tram) stops
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more reliable than light rail (trams)Buses provide a better comfort level than light rail (tram) services
Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor do not get delayed like light rail (tram) servicesBuses provide easier boarding than light rail (trams)
Bus travel times in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are faster than light rail (tram)A bus journey in a bus lane or dedicated corridor is more comfortable for passengers than a light rail (tram) journey
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide a better quality of service 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 provide better personal security for travellers than light rail (trams)Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more frequent than light rail (tram) services
Bus journeys require less transfers than light rail (tram) journeysLight rail provide a better quality of service than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light rail are more modern looking than buses and hence have more appeal in urban settingsLight rail has cleaner seats than buses
Car drivers are more likely to transfer to Light rail services than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridorLight rail journeys require less transfers than bus journeys
Light rail stops are cleaner than bus stopsLight rail is more reliable than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
A public transport network with bus rapid transit (BRT) will provide a greater network coverage than one with light rail (trams)Light rail provide better personal security for travellers than buses
A public transport network with Light rail will always be better than one with bus rapid transit (BRT)Travelling by bus is safer than travelling by light rail
Light rail provide a better ride quality than bus servicesCrowded light rail is less horrible to travel in than crowded bus
A Light rail journey is more comfortable for passengers than a bus journey in a bus lane or dedicated corridorLight rail is cleaner on the outside than buses
Light rail stops are safer than bus stopsLight rail services do not get delayed like bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light rail provide easier boarding than busesLight rail services are more frequent than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light rail travel times are faster than bus in a bus lane or dedicated corridorLight rail look cleaner than buses
Light rail is cleaner than busLight rail is sexy and buses are boring
Normalised Utility Scale
Serv
ice
De
sign
Att
rib
ute
s
Service Barriers: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
Normalised Design Barriers
48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Bus services are less polluting than light rail (trams)Buses are quieter than light rail (trams)
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more environmentally friendly than light rail (trams)Light Rail (Trams) systems are quicker to build and put in operation than bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more permanent than light rail (trams)House prices will rise faster around new bus associated with a bus lane or dedicated corridor stops than light rail (tram) stops
Bus stops have greater visibility for passengers than light rail (tram) stopsBus routes are fixed, so bus stops provide more opportunity for new housing than a light rail (tram) line which can be changed very easily
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower accident rates 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)
There are less bus stops than tram stations so people have to walk further to catch a busLight Rail (Trams) seats are bigger and give more space than bus seats
A bus service in a bus lane or dedicated corridor looks faster than a light rail (tram) serviceLight Rail (Trams) services stop nearer to more people than bus services
Putting down rails and buying Light Rail (Trams) makes a 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 more life to the city than a new light rail (tram) line
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor support higher populaton and employment growth than light rail (trams)Building a new Light Rail (Trams) line will cause less disruption to roads in the area than a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated …
More jobs will be created surrounding a bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor than a light rail (tram) routeNew bus stops or a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor will improve surrounding properties more than new light rail …
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide a more liveable environment than light rail (trams)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 timeBuses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor are more likely to be funded with private investment than light rail (trams)Light Rail (Trams) provide more opportunities for land redevelopment than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Bus services in a bus lane or dedicated corridor services have been more successful for cities than light rail (trams)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
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have greater long term sustainabiliy than light rail (trams)There are less light rail (tram) stops than bus stations so people have to walk further to catch a bus
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide more focussed development opportunities than light rail (trams)Light Rail (Trams) are more likely to be funded with private investment than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Overall, Light Rail (Trams) and tram track have lower maintenance costs than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridorBuses provide more comfort for travellers than light rail (trams)
House prices will rise faster around new Light Rail (Trams) stops than bus stops associated with a bus lane or dedicated corridorBuses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide better value for money to taxpayers than light rail (trams)
Light Rail (Trams) provide better value for money to taxpayers than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridorOverall, buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower maintenance costs than light rail (trams) and light rail (tram) track
Buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor provide more opportunities for land redevelopment than light rail (trams)Bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower operating costs than light rail (tram) systems
New Light Rail (Trams) stops will improve surrounding properties more than new bus stops or a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated …More jobs will be created surrounding a Light Rail (Trams) route than a bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridor have lower operating costs per person carried than light rail (tram) systemsLight Rail (Trams) lines are fixed, so Light Rail (Trams) stops provide more opportunity for new housing than a bus route which can be …
Light Rail (Trams) systems have lower operating costs per person carried than bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridorBuilding bus lane or a dedicated roads and buying buses makes a bus system cheaper than putting down rails and buying light rail (trams)
Light Rail (Trams) systems have lower operating costs than bus services provided in a bus lane or dedicated corridorLight Rail (Trams) provide more focussed development opportunities than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light Rail (Trams) stops have greater visibility for passengers than bus stopsLight Rail (Trams) have lower accident rates than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light Rail (Trams) provide a more liveable environment than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridorA Light Rail (Trams) is more likely than a bus service in a bus lane or dedicated corridor to still be in use in 30 years time
Light Rail (Trams) services have been more successful for cities than bus servcies in a bus lane or dedicated corridorLight Rail (Trams) support higher populaton and employment growth than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light Rail (Trams) are quieter than busesBuilding 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
Light Rail (Trams) have greater long term sustainabiliy than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridorThe long term benefits of a new tram line are higher than a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
A new Light Rail (Trams) line can bring more life to the city than a new bus route in a bus lane or dedicated corridorA Light Rail (Trams) service looks faster than a bus service in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Light Rail (Trams) provide better personal security for drivers than busesLight Rail (Trams) services are more likely to have level boarding (no steps up or down to get on the vehicle) than buses
Bus services stop nearer to more people than light rail (trams) servicesLight Rail (Trams) are more permanent than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Bus systems provide better network coverage than light rail (tram) systemsBus systems are quicker to build and put in operation than light rail (tram) services in a light rail (tram) lane or dedicated corridor
Light Rail (Trams) services are less polluting than busesLight Rail (Trams) are more environmentally friendly than buses in a bus lane or dedicated corridor
Normalised Utility Scale
De
sign
Bar
rie
r A
trib
ute
s
Design Barriers: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
Normalised Voting Preferences
49
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Higher fares to pay for higher quality services
Some corridors with good service levels, even if other corridors had less good service levels
The package of investments which allows housing to be built around stations.
Bus based systems of public transport
Smart vehicles
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
Packages which 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
Packages which 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
Frequent services
Fast overall journey time to destination, including getting to and from the station or stop
Notmalised Utility Scale
Vo
tin
g A
ttri
bu
tes
Voting Preferences: Bus Rapid Transport and Buses versus Light Rail: Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra May 2013
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
