Value of the Facilities and Attributes of New Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Projects in a Developing City: The Case of Lima,Peru

Abstract

Preferences of heavy rail (HR) system users are studied in relation to the system’s alignment and bus connections in the context of a developing city. Stated preferences techniques are applied to estimate the monetary value of a long set of attributes of a new mass transit service: HR connected to bus rapid transit (BRT). Attributes include time, fare, bicycle storage at stations, stairways, feeder bus integration, integration with BRT, type of bus service, bus itinerary, and quality of buses. The long set of attributes deserved three stated preference experiments grouped by time and fare, characteristics of HR, and characteristics of BRT. They were linked by the common attribute of the fare. Results of the values of the attributes are presented. The value of the preference for HR is reduced to 8% when a feeder bus is not offered and the HR route does not reach downtown. The value of a feeder bus using small vehicles is higher than the value of BRT even if BRT operates with new buses and express service to downtown. Bicycle storage or escalators have no value for the prospective passenger. After the response of users to the new services is analyzed, conclusions for the operational design of the system are presented.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boletin Especial No 16. Perú: Proyecciones de Población por años Calendario según Departamentos, Provincias y Distritos (Periodo 1990-2002). Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informática, Lima, Peru, 2001.

Roth

, and Wynne

G. G.

Learning from Abroad. Free Enterprise Urban Transaction. Transportation Books, New Brunswick, N.J., and London, 1982.

World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review—Urban Mass Transit in Developing Countries. Final Report. Halcrow Fox in association with Traffic and Transport Consultants for the World Bank Department for International Development, London, July 2000.

Peru-Lima Urban Transport Project. Report No. PIC2744. The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C., 1997.

Memoria 2000. Autoridad Autónoma del Tren Eléctrico, Lima, 2001.

Gardner

, Cornwell

P. R.

, and Cracknell

J. A.

The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities. Research Report 329. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, U.K., 1991.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. Private Urban Transit Systems and Low-Cost Mobility Solutions in Major Latin American Cities. International Transit Studies Program. Report on the Spring 1998 Mission. Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration. Research Results Digest. TRB, Washington, D.C., April 1999.

Levinson

H. S.

, Hoey

W. F.

, Sanders

D. B.

, and Wynn

F. H.

NCHRP Report 143: Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art. HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1973.

Fouracre

P. R.

, Allport

R. J.

, and Thomson

J. M.

The Performance and Impact of Rail Mass Transit in Developing Countries. Research Report 278. Transportation and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, U.K., 1990.

10.

Domencich

T. A.

, and McFadden

D. L.

Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. Charles River Associates Research Study. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Oxford; American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1975.

11.

Ben-Akiva

, and Lerman

S. R.

Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, third printing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1989.

12.

Hensher

D. A.

Stated Preferences Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of the Practice. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 107–133.

13.

Pearmain

, Swanson

, Kroes

, and Bradley

Stated Preferences Techniques: A Guide to Practice, 2nd ed. Steer Davies Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991.

14.

Ortúzar

J. de D.

Stated Preferences Modelling Techniques. PTRC, London, 1999.

15.

Badoe

D. A.

, and Miller

E. J.

Comparison of Alternative Methods for Updating Disaggregate Logit Mode Choice Models. Transportation Research Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 90–100.

16.

Atherton

T. J.

, and Ben-Akiva

M. E.

Transferability and Updating of Disaggregate Travel Demand Models. Transportation Research Record 610, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 12–18.

17.

Kozel

Travel Demand Models for Developing Countries: The Case of Bogota, Colombia. City Study Project Paper No. 25. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1981.

18.

TMIP. The Travel Model Improvement Program. Central Transportation Planning Staff. Transfer Penalties in Urban Mode Choice Modeling. Prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, Jan. 1997. tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/transfer/.

19.

Ben-Akiva

, and Morikawa

Comparing Ridership Attraction of Rail and Bus. Transport Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002, pp. 107–116.

20.

Vuchic

V. R.

, and Stanger

R. M.

Lindenwold Rail Line and Shirley Busway: A Comparison. Highway Research Record 459, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1973, pp. 13–28.