The Abortion pills for sale in Qatar@Doha [+27737758557] []Deira Dubai Kuwait
Theme 6 BRT vs. LRT moving beyond emotional bias
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. 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. 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. 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
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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. What has our Study Suggested are
themes that are especially relevant in
promoting BRT relative to LRT?
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. 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. 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. What is in a Name? Time to
Rethink? Image of Bus?
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
