Post on 21-Jan-2017
Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese bus rapid transit:Evidence from evaluation of global BRT based on BRT
design indicatorsTransportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting
Pablo Guarda1,2 Juan Miguel Velasquez1 Thet Hein Tun1
Xumei Chen2 Guo Zhong2
1World Resources Institute (WRI)2Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC)
3China Urban Transport Research Centre (CUSTReC)
January 11, 2017
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 1 / 29
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Data Description
3 Methodology
4 Results
5 Conclusions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 2 / 29
Introduction Context
Growth of bus rapid transit in China
• BRT is a key element in Chinese national policy by the Ministry ofTransport
• National Goal: 5,000 kilometers of BRTs by 2020
Source: Graphic obtained using Tableau and data from BRTdata.org
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 3 / 29
Introduction Previous Work
Previous Work
Fjellstrom, K., 2010. Bus rapid transit in China. Built Environment, 36(3),363–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.3.363
Zhang, X., Liu, Z., and Wang, H., 2013. Lessons of bus rapid transit from ninecities in China. Transportation Research Record, 2394(1), 45–54.http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2394-06
Deng, T., Ma, M., and Wang, J., 2013. Evaluation of bus rapid transitimplementation in China: current performance and progress. Journal of UrbanPlanning and Development, 139(3), 226–234.http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000150
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 4 / 29
Introduction Study Overview
Study Overview
What are the main challenges for Chinese BRTs today?
• To improve service quality and performance
• E.g. Chinese BRTs operate at a comparable speed but havealmost 2.5 times less peak-hour ridership than their LatinAmerican counterparts. (Deng et al., 2013)
Research objectives
• Compare design indicators between Chinese and non-ChineseBRTs.
• Identify specific design elements to improve the performance ofChinese BRTs.
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 5 / 29
Data Description BRT Standard according to ITDP
BRT Standard according to ITDP
• 7 categories:
– BRT Basics (minimal requirements to bequalified as a BRT system)
– Service Planning– Infrastructure– Stations– Communications– Access and Integration– Point Deductions
• 38 subcategories
• Ranking: BRT Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold
• BRTs evaluated in 2013 and 2014 Source: The BRT Standard – 2014 Edition. Fromhttps://www.itdp.org/brt-standard-scores/
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 6 / 29
Data Description How do Chinese BRTs rank?
How do Chinese BRTs rank?
Scores Across Countries
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 7 / 29
Data Description How do Chinese BRTs rank?
How do Chinese BRTs rank?
Scores Across Chinese Cities
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 8 / 29
Methodology Mean Groups Comparison
Between-groups comparison for (sub)category i
Target Group (TG) Benchmark Group (BG)
si ,TG =∑t∈T
∑j∈TG
(Si ,j ,tmi ,t
)/NTG si ,BG =
∑t∈T
∑j∈BG
(Si ,j ,tmi ,t
)/NBG
si,TG : Average percentage score in (sub)category i within the Target Groupsi,BG : Average percentage score in (sub)category i within the Benchmark GroupSi,j,t : Score in (sub)category i obtained from BRT j evaluated in year tNBG : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Benchmark GroupNTG : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Target Groupmi,t : Maximum score in (sub)category i defined for the year t
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 9 / 29
Methodology Testing Difference Between Means
Testing Difference Between Means
• Method: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), α = 0.05
• Statistical software: R studio
• Output: For a given (sub)category i, the difference (∆si ) betweenthe average scores of the Target (si ,TG ) and Benchmark (si ,BG )groups can be:
1 Positive and significantly different than zero (”Strength”)2 Negative and significantly different than zero (”Opportunity”)3 Non-significantly different than zero (”Undetermined”)
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 10 / 29
Results Application
Application
• Unit of analysis: BRT corridor/system
• Sample size– Total: 99 observations– Include 21 countries in 59 cities
• Target group: Chinese BRTs (N = 23)
• Benchmark group: Non-Chinese BRTs (N = 66)
• Between-group comparisons:– 7 Categories– 38 Subcategories
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 11 / 29
Results Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs at the category level
Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs (category level)
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 12 / 29
Results BRT Basics
BRT Basics
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 13 / 29
Results BRT Basics
Opportunities in BRT Basics
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 14 / 29
Results BRT Basics
Making Sense of the Results: BRT Basics
• Intersection Treatments:
– Most Chinese BRTs scored a zero points– Positive Examples: ‘Gold’ standard Guangzhou BRT ; Xiamen BRT– Ways to improve: (i) Traffic signal priority systems, (ii) yielding signal
priority to the BRT buses and (iii) prohibiting turns across BRT busway
Source: Karl Fjellstrom, Far East BRT (in Jinan, China). Retrieved fromhttps://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=7749&c=56
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 15 / 29
Results Service Planning
Service Planning
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 16 / 29
Results Service Planning
Opportunities in Service Planning
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 17 / 29
Results Service Planning
Making Sense of the Results: Service Planning
• Express, Limited, and Local services: The majority of ChineseBRTs do not offer such services
– Examples: Line 1 corridor in Zaozhuang, the Zhongshan Avenuecorridor in Guangzhou and the Xiamen BRT
• Demand Profile: Evaluates whether high-quality BRT infrastructureis constructed in the highest demand road segments
– Only 35% of Chinese BRTs received full scores (e.g.Guangzhou BRT )– Conflict over public space: shifting limited road space away from cars
will require government institutions with strong political will
Source: ITDP, 2015., The BRT Standard 2014 Edition.
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 18 / 29
Results Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 19 / 29
Results Infrastructure
Oppportunities in Infrastructure
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 20 / 29
Results Infrastructure
Making Sense of the Results: Infrastructure
• Stations Setback from Intersections– Only 6 out of 23 Chinese BRTs received full scores (e.g. Zhangqian Lu
- Songjiang Lu - Huabei Lu - Xi’an Lu corridor from Dalian BRT )– Almost half of the BRTs received a ‘zero’ score
Source: Karl Fjellstrom, Far East BRT (In Guangzhou, China)
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 21 / 29
Results Access and Integration
Access and Integration
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 22 / 29
Results Access and Integration
Opportunities in Access and Integration
Source: Graphics obtained using Tableau and data from the BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 Editions
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 23 / 29
Results Access and Integration
Making Sense of the Results: Access and Integration
• Pedestrian Access: Critical for both pedestrian accessibility as wellas safety
– Two Chinese BRTs, the BRT-7 corridor in Jinan and Zhongshan BRT,received full scores
– 30% of BRTs evaluated obtained a zero point score
Source: ITDP-China, Yichang. Retrieved from http://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=13838&c=114
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 24 / 29
Results Access and Integration
Making Sense of the Results: Access and Integration
• Universal Access: Evaluates both BRT stations and vehicles’accessibility for all special-needs passengers
– Majority of the Chinese BRTs obtained a zero point score– Some possible solutions: (i) Providing level-boarding platforms or (ii)
adopt low-floor buses
Source: ITDP-China, Xianyuan Zhu (left) and Yichang (right)
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 25 / 29
Conclusions Main Findings
Main Findings
On average, BRTs in Chinese cities scored significantly lower than those in othercountries (7 out of 100 points less).
Opportunities to improve in Chinese BRTs
• Categories: Infrastructure (−21.0) and Access & Integration (−17.3)
• Subcategories: Intersection Treatments, Demand profile, Stationssetbacks from intersections, Distances between stations and Universalaccess
Strengths of Chinese BRTs
• Categories: Communications & Marketing (+12.7)
• Subcategories: Off-board Fare Collection, Control Center, PavementQuality, Sliding Doors at BRT Stations, Passenger Information, BicycleLanes
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 26 / 29
Conclusions Limitations and Further Research
Limitations and Further Research
Limitations
• Data aggregation level: BRT corridors/systems
• BRT standard: What does it mean to be a Quality BRT?
• Experts’ evaluations: Observation errors
Further Research
• Relationship between design indicators (from current findings)and BRT performance (e.g. productivity, speed, frequency,throughput)
• Current framework can be replicated to compare other groupsof BRTs in the world
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 27 / 29
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This research was benefited from the support of:
• Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence, funded by the Volvo Researchand Educational Foundations (VREF)
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 28 / 29
Comparing Chinese and non-Chinese bus rapid transit:Evidence from evaluation of global BRT based on BRT
design indicatorsTransportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting
Pablo Guarda1,2 Juan Miguel Velasquez1 Thet Hein Tun1
Xumei Chen2 Guo Zhong2
1World Resources Institute (WRI)2Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC)
3China Urban Transport Research Centre (CUSTReC)
January 11, 2017
Pablo Guarda (WRI) TRB 2017 January 11, 2017 29 / 29