Transport & Urban Poverty
-
Upload
wri-ross-center-for-sustainable-cities -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
51 -
download
0
Transcript of Transport & Urban Poverty
www.TransformingTransportation.org
Transport & Urban Poverty
Lynn Scholl, Economics Specialist, IDB
Presented at Transforming Transportation 2017
TRANSPORT & URBAN POVERTYThe effects of BRT systems on accessibility
and mobility for low income populations
in Cali and Lima
Lynn Scholl
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
Co-authors Cesar Bouillon (IDB)
Daniel Oviedo (UCL)
Lisa Corsetto (UCB)
Transforming Transportation, January 12, 2017
The poor in Latin American cities tend to bear the highest transportation-related burdens
Tend to live in outskirts of cities
Higher exposure to pollution and risk of traffic accidents
Higher travel costs (time & money) >30% of income & up to 2hrs+
Lack of access to affordable and efficient transport (informal)
Reduced access to jobs, education, services, & economic
opportunities
LimaPeru
CaliColombia
BRT coverage and
accessibility
System use and
perceptions among poor
Determinants of BRT use
versus other PT
Affordability, tariff policies,
and subsidies
BRT system integration
Methodology & Data
1. Interviews and focus groups
2. Geospatial analysis
3. Affordability analyses
1) Observed ($transport/monthly income)
2) Fixed basket ($transport 60 trips/monthly income)
4. Statistical analysis
- BRT usage & probit model (BRT/other PT)
TRAVEL
City travel surveys
Transport models
POVERTY
Censuses
IDB intercept survey
Low-income publictransport users in
area of influency of the system
GEO-SPATIAL
Routes & frequencies
Traffic zones
Poverty maps
Summary• Weak diagnosis of needs of poor in planning stage• Disparities in coverage & service frequencies,
– particularly for extreme poor– 1) Financial sustainabilty, 2)insititutions, 3) lack of infra
• Service quallity issues, particularly feeders• Poor populations use the systems but at a lower rate• Service quality, origin-destination-mismatch• Not affordable for poor @fixed basket rate• Poor strategically use for longer trips requiring transfers &
income generating (work & school)-• Evidence of limiting trip distances
System coverage Lima benefits middle class most –extreme poor have significantly lower access
E
3% of extreme poor zones enjoy feeder service
31% of the zones served by the Metropolitano are middle-low-middle income.
Middle- and lower-income zones have an average of 9 to 10 times the routes compared to extreme poor zones
Coverage in Cali: Poor neighborhoods in the eastern
portions of the city have BRT feeder coverage; however, some areas to the western side of the city do not have adequate service
System usage: poor populations use the systems but at a lower rate vs. other PT modes
9
BRT usage (MIO) among
strata 1 & 2 in Cali
1
6
18
31
29
24
52
39
BRT
Users
Non-
users
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
BRT usage in Lima by Strata(%)
37% other PT versus 18% BRT
NSE E-
Very
Poor
NSE D-
Poor 42%
58%
Mio No Mio
BRT usersOther
public
transit
OVE/IDB survey results, 2014
N~800 each city
Service quality (Cali feeder & trunk & Lima feeders) and destination mismatch (Lima) top reasons for not using the BRT systems among poor or low-income
10
2%
2%
2%
4%
10%
13%
18%
18%
32%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
It is not safe
It is too expensive
Other reason
Available information is
confusing
Long walking times to
the station
It does not reach the
destinations required
Long queues
Long waits for the bus
Other alternatives are
faster
Percentage
Cali MIO (N =334) 58%
3%
5%
7%
7%
11%
13%
13%
21%
68%
0% 50% 100%
The buses are too
full/uncomfortable
I don’t' travel much
Recharging the card is very
complicated
Long walk to the station
Is very costly
The buses are delayed
The lines are very long
Other public transit modes are
faster
It doesn't go to the places I
need to go
Lima’s Metropolitano
(n=374) 45%
Determinants of BRT usage among low-income & poor:+ School & work trips y longer trips (transfers)- Poverty/vehicle ownership
-0.200 -0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
Work/Education Trip
Purpose
Transfers
Total Travel Time
Total Waiting Time
Total In-Vehicle Travel
Time
Poverty
Medium-Education
Model (6)
Lima
Statistically significant variables -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Work/Education Trip
Purpose
Transfers
Total Trip Cost
Poverty
Age
Car Ownership
Model (6)
Mean: 0.37
Cali
Mean: 0.34
Affordability: Lima’s system not affordable for poor when taking into account forgone trips
Total =C, D & E 12
Observed
Fixed basket
Affordability
threshold=
10-20% of income
Tariff = 2 soles (60 cents USD)
(1 sol for a feeder)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
BRT users
Non-BRT users
Strata D & E
Stratum C
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
BRT users
Non-BRT users
Strata D & E
Stratum C
Total =C, D & E 13
Observed
Fixed basket
Affordability threshold=
10-20% of income
MIO tariff: 1,800
Colombian pesos
(COP)
Cali’s system is more affordable than Lima but
above Affordability threshhold
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
users
MIO
use
rsN
on
-MIO
Extreme poor
Poor
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
MIO users
Non-MIO users
Extreme poor
Poor
Solutions1. Conduct better diagnosis in the planning stage of travel
patterns of low income individuals
2. Targeted subsidies (at low-income user) but also at the operator level (cross subsidies to fund lower demand lines in far reaching areas) and integrated fares.
3. Increase spatial coverage and improve the integration and quality of the BRT system trunk, feeders, and complementary routes.
4. Housing policies –programs to increase and maintain affordable housing close to transit stations
TRANSPORT & URBAN POVERTYThe effects of BRT systems on accessibilty
and mobility for low income populations
in Cali and Lima
Lynn Scholl
The IDB
Co-authors Cesar Bouillon (IDB)
Daniel Oviedo (UCL)
Lisa Corsetto (UCB)
https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/7695TRB 2017
Thank you!
Wider coverage in Cali compared to Lima
• Lack of coverage in areas of extreme poverty.
• Poor tend to use the system for longer trips and for work/school.
• Travel time savings accumlate most to those in perphery.
• Issues with quality of service (Cali) y feeders (Lima).
Lima• Informal modes (combis, cústers y autobuses) fill an important role as feeders
(30% BRT access)
• BRT is more affordable for center to periphery trips.
• Not affordable for the poor at the technical tariff required to cover operatingcosts if BRT used for all trips (fixed basket).
Cali
• Advantage of the system: integrated tariff and wide coverage.
• The system is more affordable, however, not for those in extreme poverty.
Summary
LIMA
Total population= 9.9 M (2014)44% en poverty in 2003
33% in poverty in 2005
LIMA CALI
Spatial distribution of poverty
Lima “El Metropolitano”
Expected demand
600 pas/day
5% of all PT
One 28.6 km trunkline
Feeders in low income areas
Cali MIO
Projected demand:
800K pas./day
(98% de total PT)
3 exclusive corredors (49km)
200 km feeders &
complementary routes
85% riders low
income(Strata 1-3)
60% riders
low-income (Strata C, D, y E)
Lima: Walk time to the BRT System35% of population of Stratum C (middle class) can reach the Metropolitano in 15 minutes walking or less , 25% of Stratum D, and 12% of Stratum E
E
D
C
Cali: 92% of the very poor are a maximum of 15 minutes on foot (and 90% less than 10 minutes on foot) from an MIO route
Rapidez del sistema
Precio
Alimentadores lentos y llenos
Hacinamiento
No van a su lugar de trabajo
Focus groups and perception surveys: Lima
Speed of the trunk systemFeeders slow & often full (78%)
Overcrowding
Don’t go to their place of work
Price (46% good/very good) 36% extreme poor -fare was
unaffordable
The BRT is more affordable for periphery to downtown trips, but the traditional system is more affordable for local trips
22Common origin-destination pairs by district among poor in Lima’s north cone
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Po
or
No
n-p
oo
r
All
Po
or
No
n-p
oo
r
All
Po
or
No
n-p
oo
r
All
Po
or
No
n-p
oo
r
All
Po
or
No
n-p
oo
r
All
Downtown (work trips
only*) (16 km)
Downtown (16 km) Independencia (8-9 km) Within Comas (2- 3.5 km) Independencia
residents to and
from Los Olivos (6.5
km)
BRT
Other Public Transit (e.g.
combi, custer)
Fixed basket indices by Origin-Destination Pairs
Use of the Lima Metropolitano the previous day by Strata
Percentage of Population inside versus outside of MIO BRT system
In Lima, 46% of the population inside the area of influence of the Metropolitano belong to Stratum C, while only 4% is of Stratum E -
Low income areas generate 39% of
demand, while they attract 14%
LIMA CALI
PT morning peak demand
Low income zones generate 42% of
demand, while they attract 25%