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

lscholl@iadb.org

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%