See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312654035

BRT AND BUS USERS QUALITY EXPECTATIONS REGARDING METRO DESIGN

Article  in  Revista Técnica de la Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad del Zulia · June 2016

DOI: 10.21311/001.39.4.51

CITATIONS READS

0 175

5 authors, including:

Nicolas Rincon-Garcia Jorge Andrés Alvarado

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
10 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Santiago Aguirre Fernando Salazar Arrieta

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
20 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DISEÑO Y CARACTERIZACIÓN DE UN PLAN ESTRATÉGICO-LOGÍSTICO CON INDICADORES BASADOS EN LA METODOLOGÍA DEL MODELO TAIDA®, PARA FORTALECER LA
CADENA PRODUCTIVA DEL SECTOR AGROINDUSTRIAL: CASO PRODUCCIÓN BIODIESEL DE HIGUERILLA View project

III Congreso Internacional en Supply Chain Management en una Economía Global: Interdisciplinariedad en las Ciencias Económicas, Contables y de Ingeniería, un
Diálogo entre Sostenibilidad y Sustentabilidad. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Salazar Arrieta on 24 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

doi:10.21311/001.39.4.51
BRT AND BUS USERS QUALITY EXPECTATIONS
REGARDING METRO DESIGN
Nicolas Rincon-Garcia1,*, David L. Navarro-Gomez1, Jorge A. Alvarado Valencia1, Hugo S. Aguirre-
Mayorga1, Fernando Salazar-Arrieta2
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
2
Department of Accounting, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
*Corresponding author(E-mail: nicolas.rincon@javeriana.edu.co)

Abstract
In this paper the expectations of public transport users of the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) and the Public
Collective Transport (Bus) regarding a possible Metro system (Metro) implementation in Bogota (Colombia) are
identified by means of a survey in order to provide a better understanding of the service quality longed for
future users of the proposed system. Additionally, a review is introduced regarding the performance that can be
achieved in real operations due to the physical and the perceived characteristics of each mode. Users of public
transport systems in Bogota want the Metro to be built. Expectations are based on obtaining a faster, more
comfortable system, with reduced crime rates, better order, a reduction in fares, greater environmental benefits
and an improvement of urban aesthetics. Significant statistical difference between Bus and BRT users is only
found in perceived attributes (users of Bus name more frequently: order, crime reduction and urban aesthetics).
The case of the BRT of Bogota shows that commercial speed is relatively close to some Metro operations in
inner urban networks with an average distance between stations in the range of 700 m. BRT might be considered
as an option when the expected demand in the corridor is below 35,000 passengers per hour per direction.

Key words:Transport Planning, BRT, Bus, Metro, Quality attributes in public transport.

1. INTRODUCTION
The use of private cars in urban environments is considered to disallow sustainable levels of economic
performance, social welfare and environmental resilience (Batterbury, 2003; Redman et al., 2013). In order to
have sustainable transport systems, it is important to provide users with alternative modes that represent viable
options over the use of private cars (World Bank, 2002). This can be achieved when the perceived quality of the
public transport service is near to the desired quality (dell’Olio et al., 2011).
Transport policy has evolved from a situation of traditional control over pricing and charging, road space
rationing and physical infrastructure construction towards involving the community in transport changes rather
than simply acting in response to external policies or pressures (Taylor and Ampt, 2003). In order to do so it is
necessary to identify the quality attributes of public transport that are expected by the community and to design
policies and transport systems based on these attributes (Redman et al., 2013). Redman et al. (2013) categorise
quality attributes as physical (measured directly from the performance of the system) and perceived (user
responses must be gathered), where the importance of quality attributes is likely to be context specific and to
allow for limited generalisation (Redman et al., 2013; Eboli and Mazzulla, 2010).
Policy makers might address the characteristic of the different available transport modes and the
community expectations regarding quality attributes in order to design policies and to make infrastructure
decisions in order to provide innovative solutions. However, benchmarking initiatives to understand the
possibilities of different modes and to identify quality expectations have been proposed only recently (Randall et
al., 2006; Redman et al., 2013).
Although benchmarking of performance was considered inadequate for transport systems due to the many
factors that affect the service, recent initiatives have emergedto promote this common managerial practice in
order to provide valuable information on the decision making process in transport policy, such as in the case of
the Community of Metros Benchmarking Group (CoMET) and the International Bus System Benchmarking
Group (Randall et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2013).
Within infrastructure decisions, providing efficient and effective public transport in a cost effective way
has become a priority, where BRT has been steadily emerging as an attractive alternative (Hensher and Golob,
2008). BRT characteristics, such as segregated ways, prepaid tickets, level boarding and centralised control
systems (Hidalgo et al., 2013a) allow this type of system to carry as many passengers as some Metro
implementations at a fraction of infrastructure costs (Hensher and Golob, 2008). The BRT of Bogota
(Colombia), called TransMilenio, is considered a best-in-class implementation due to the fact that in its current
configuration is able to transport up to 43,000 passengers per hour per direction (SDG, 2007; Hidalgo et al.,
412
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

2013b), the highest capacity achieved in more than 40 BRT implementations worldwide(Arias et al., 2007). An
important characteristic proven by the case of TransMilenio is the short time to design and build the system, in 3
years the first stage (44 km) was designed from scratch and implemented and by 2006 it was extended to 84 km
providing 1,100,000 journeys per day.
A Metro implementation has been proposed in Bogota, a city with 8 million inhabitants. In this paper, an
identification and prioritisation of expected quality attributes regarding the possible Metro implementation is
carried out on users of Bus and BRT. The analysis of expected quality attributes consists of data mining and
statistical analysis of users’ responses along with a review of the literature and government sites to provide
benchmark values for the different physical quality attributes and the identification of the key elements needed
to produce the quality attributes expected by users. Furthermore, a Metro has been implemented in the second
largest city of Colombia (Medellin, with 2.2 million inhabitants), offering the opportunity to compare BRT and
Metro under similar economic conditions of a developing country.

2. METHODOLOGY
Among the factors in mode choice are the characteristics of transport systems, where components are:
travel time, cost, reliability, comfort, etc. (Ortúzar and Willumsen, 2011). These components can be related to
the quality of the system when quality is understood as the degree to which a set of expectations, declared by
users, is fulfilled. In quality concepts, the expectations can be translated into performance indicators that can be
measured and compared with performance.
However, no standard procedure exists for the identification and prioritisation of expectations and
performance indicators in mass transport systems (Pullen, 1993; Anderson et al., 2013, Redman et al., 2013;
Eboli and Mazzulla, 2010). Many performance indicators of service in transport systems are found in the
literature, where local agencies across countries decide the items to be evaluated (Ceder, 2007). Pullen (1993)
presents different approaches carried out in different cities and countries, concluding that a limited set of
indicators should be defined based on local operation and interest groups.
Two examples with different methodologies and results are shown:

(a) Filipović et al. (2009) present a recommended set of indicators with seven major features in Belgrade:
station comfort, vehicle comfort, tickets and pricing, information, service availability, service stability, and
organisational support, each one with different sub-features. Using a structured questionnaire in order to
ask users about ranking of features and evaluate service components, authors found that users of mass
public transport chose vehicle comfort and transport reliability as the main features.

(b) dell’Olio et al. (2011) conducted a study in Santander (Spain) aiming to identify the expected features
in users and potential users of a Bus system for a quality service definition. The study was divided into two
stages, an eight people focus group to design and test the questionnaire that presented a state preference
survey, the second stage was the application of the definitive survey on the Bus system, parking slots and
streets. In 305 completed surveys, waiting time, cleanliness, and comfort were the main features.

The proposed methodology in this research aims to identify the key elements in the expected features in a
Metro system using a similar methodology than Filipović et al. (2009) but rather than using a structured
questionnaire, a semi-structured questionnaire was designed. Although quality features for mass transport
systems are found in literature, no studies were found by the authors in the literature review for expected
features in the possible construction of Metro in a developing country. In order to obtain statistical significance,
a large sample was gathered. However, because expected features may vary from one location to another due to
social and cultural characteristics, a semi-structured questionnaire was designed. It was kept as simple as
possible in order to maintain attention and optimise the sample procedure:the questions related to demographic
information and four reasons that explained whether they wanted Metro or not were sought.The questionnaire
was initially tested with 100 people.

413
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

Zone 1
21.51%

Zone 2
20%

Zone 3
16.83%
Zone 4
10.54%
Zone 5
16.76%

Zone 6
14.36%

Source: Secretaria de Movilidad (2005)

Figure1.Zones in Bogota and percentage of user’s interviews according to OD matrix

A sample size was defined with a confidence interval of 95% and error of 4%, 719 users of public transport
completed the interview at bus stops and BRT stations in six zones defined with Bogota’s OD matrix, see Figure
1. Feature classification into categories was created with text mining by pre-processing the open answers
through the text mining software Treetagger in order to group similar wording of responses, and then manually
classifying results into categories.Prioritisation was performed under frequency of category criteria. Difference
within groups was evaluated with significance of the difference between two independent proportions and
contingency tables. Data for characteristics of Metro operation in Medellin, New York, London, Paris, and
Santiago de Chile is gathered from specialised literature and government sites in order to get a better
understanding of what can be realistically achieved in Metro operations where the case of TransMilenio is used
for BRT.

3. RESULTS
Results show that the majority of public users favour the construction of a Metro in Bogota, in the sample
70% of respondents agree with its implementation. With a confidence level of 95%; between 65% and 74% of
users want its construction, see Table 1. However, a higher percentage of BRT users want the construction of a
Metro than do Bus users. The significance of the difference between two independent proportions analysis (p
value < 0.01) shows a significant statistical difference between Bus users and BRT users, 66% and 75%
respectively, see Figure 2.
Table 1.Confidence Interval for users that desire construction of Metro in Bogota
Mode Confidence Interval of users that favour
Metro (Confidence level 95%)
Bus (61.9%–70.9%)
BRT (69.8%–80.9%)
Other (60.15%–84.3%)
Total (66.4%–73.2%)

414
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

178 39
283

66% 146 75% 72%

58 15

34% 25% 28%

Buses BRT Others

Percentage of users that desire metro construction
Percentage of users that do not desire metro construction
Figure2.Percentage of users of different transport modes in Bogota that favour Metro construction

Users in Bogota expect a faster system (88%), more comfort (51%), crime reduction (37%), order (27%),
fare reduction (25%), environmental benefits (25%), and improvement of urban aesthetics (23%), see Figure 3.
A faster system, fare reduction and environmental friendliness are physical quality attributes, whereas comfort,
crime reduction, order, and urban aesthetics are perceived quality attributes. Significant difference between
independent proportion analysis shows that Bus users have named crime reduction, order and urban aesthetics
more frequently than BRT users, see Table 2.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

Figure3.Users expected features of Metro construction compared to actual mode

415
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

Table2.Proportion differences between users that want construction of Metro in Bogota

Feature Type of user Significance difference between Quality Attribute
prioritisation independent proportions* Classification
Bus BRT p Value Statistical
Difference
Faster system 86% 90% 0.94 Physical
Comfort 50% 53% 0.77 Perceived
Crime reduction 42% 30% 0.0008 Significant Perceived
Order 33% 19% 0.00002 Significant Perceived
Fare reduction 27% 22% 0.073 Physical
Environmentally
25% 24% 0.386 Physical
friendly
Urban aesthetics 27% 17% 0.001 Significant Perceived

Analysis of the frequency of user journey frequency versus prioritisation of quality attributes with
contingency table analysis, show that users with low frequency (less than 2 times per week) mention more
frequently crime reduction than other users (p = 0.049, residual value = 2.153). Additionally, this type of user
does not tend to consider the environmental impact as a main attribute (residual value = -2.128) see table 3.
Table3.Statistical analysis users’ frequency ridership versus quality attribute
Prioritisation Residual analysis*
Ridership frequency Less than 2-4 5 or more Less than 2 2-4 5 or more
(times per week) 2
Feature
Faster system 92.3% 79.8% 80.2% 0.424 -0.381 0.047
Comfort 46.2% 47.7% 49.0% -0.549 -0.257 0.373
Crime reduction 57.7% 35.8% 33.6% 2.153 -0.274 -0.720
Order 28.8% 26.6% 22.7% 0.430 0.396 -0.405
Fare reduction 17.3% 27.5% 25.4% -1.307 0.411 0.296
Environmentally friendly 9.6% 23.9% 24.2% -2.128 0.167 0.772
Urban aesthetics 17.3% 16.5% 13.0% 0.400 0.551 -0.482
Number of users 52 109 339
* Contingency table, α=0.05, p value = 0.049

Users who do not favour Metro in Bogota are concerned by delays and congestion due to construction
(62%), fare increases (49%), corruption (45%), higher taxes (26%), less comfort (23%), crime increment (19%),
and impact on urban aesthetics (16%), see Figure. 4.

Figure4.Concerns for Metro construction in Bogota

416
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

3.1.Discussion
A large number of transport characteristics affect travel behaviour in real operations such as travel time,
price (Ortúzar and Willumsen, 2011), comfort, reliability (Filipović et al., 2009), accident rates, level of crime
(Kim et al., 2007), etc., where it is necessary to identify the main attributes that have an impact on users
(Hensher, 1994). The proposed semi-structured questionnaire in a large sample offers the benefits of obtaining
identification of features avoiding the bias generated by using established categories from literature or a reduced
focus group. Features vary according to cultural characteristics (in this case a developing country) and mode
(BRT vs Metro).As an example, the proposed sample procedure found features that were not identified by
Filipović et al. (2009) or dell’Olio et al. (2011) such as crime reduction and environmental impact.
Methodologies to identify and prioritise quality attributes such as state preference surveys propose feasible
scenarios in order to reduce the impact of users’ desire for unachievable values in real operations (Ortúzar and
Willumsen, 2011). In the methodology proposed in this research, it is intended to identify user expectations and
provide benchmark values for the physical quality attributes in the analysis. Further research might make use of
this information to provide deeper knowledge of user intentions regarding the feasible impact of different
policies.
In the following subsections the transport conditions of Bogota are briefly described (section 3.1.1), an
analysis of the expected physical attributes in the light of operational benchmark values is introduced (section
3.1.2.) along with a discussion regarding perceived attributes (section 3.1.3.), and finally the view of users that
do not desire the construction of Metro is discussed (section 3.1.4.).

3.1.1.The case of Bogota

Bogota is facing new challenges regarding transportation.Increased travel demand, and private car
ownership leading to road congestion have put current systemsunder stress.In 2003, 590,000 vehicles were
registered and by 2010 this figure rose to 1,270,000 (Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012a). Consequently, average
travel time on public roads rose by 49%, from 47.9 minutes in 2003 to 71.6 in 2010 (Secretaria de Movilidad,
2012a). Additionally, users of public transport are complaining about some issues in the quality of the service,
e.g., overcrowded vehicles, low frequency and reliability, lack of vehicles, etc., see Figure 5 (CCB, 2013,
Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012a). TransMilenio has reached its maximum capacity with its current configuration
and Bus has been noted for its lack of regulation compliance and neglect of policy making (Cain, 2006). High
levels of urban congestion that impede the use of private vehicles along with a poor quality public transport
system leave very few mobility options open to the citizens and adequate transport policy design and
implementation is urgently required.

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

Source: CCB (2013)

Figure5.Negative issues in public transport according to users in Bogota

The main transportation mode in Bogota is Bus in mixed traffic (38%), followed by private vehicles (19%)
and BRT (16%) (Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012b). The BRT in Bogota is a case study of a successful
implementation of this type of system, the first two stages consisted of 84 km and 114 stations (Hidalgo et al.,
2013a) with an average speed of 26 km per hour in partially segregated lanes (Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012a).
The first two stages were implemented between 1998 and 2006 to replace Bus where the initial concept
consisted of 388 km to be completed by 2016 (DPN, 2010), but politicians decided to put a hold on the
417
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

expansion of the BRT and proposed the construction of a Metro line to solve the mobility problems for the
coming decades. Although the survey presented in this research shows that the majority of users favour the
construction of a Metro, it is in the interest of the public and the government to understand what can actually be
achieved with each mode according to the expectation of users.

3.1.2.Physical quality attributes

Three physical quality attributes are identified among the main expectations (faster system, fare reduction,
and environmentally friendly), table 4 presents benchmark values for different modes in real operations.

Table4.Characteristics of selected transport systems

Route Distance Speed Fare
Transport Journeys Subsidised
length between (km/h) USD
system per day operation
(km) stations (m)
Average: 26 Single: 0.94
Regular: 23
BRT Bogota 2,200,000 87 No 720
Express: 341
282
Bus Bogota 3,800,000 - No 19 –114
3
Single: 0.8
Metro Medellin 500,000 32 No 1180 34 Single: 0.82
Regular: 26 Single: 2.5
Metro NY 5,285,000 337 Yes 720
Express: 39 7 Day: 29
Metro Paris 4,500,000 214 Yes 548 20
Single:4-18
Metro London 3,075,000 402 Yes 1400 33 7 Day: 585
1526
Metro Santiago 2,200,000 103 No 1030 32 Single: 1.71
1
In segregated lanes 2 In Semi-segregated lanes 3 Average 4 Peak hour 5 Zone 1 6 Zone 1 to 6

Faster system
The main expected feature in the proposed Metro is to have a faster system (88%). Although the reported
top speed for rail systems (160+ km/h) is considerably higher than systems on roads, urban operations are
affected by technical features such as lane layout, distance between stations and lane segregation (Grava, 2002).
Metro average operating speeds vary from 30 km/h on inner urban networks, to 60 km/h on extended regional
metros (Vuchic, 2007). Lane layout design allows express services (vehicles can skip stops at certain stations)
when infrastructure that allows overtaking is implemented (systems with one track at all locations are restricted
to regular services and vehicles stop at all stations). Distance between stops affects commercial speed due to the
fact that shorter distances impede obtaining higher speeds. Segregation (exclusive lanes for mass transport
systems) decreases the impact of congestion generated by private vehicles (Grava, 2002).
The comparison between the Metro in New York and BRT in Bogota is an example of how distance
between stations and layout design affects commercial speed. In the case of the Metro in New York, the average
speed of regular services is 26 km/h and 39 km/h for express services (Grava, 2002). In Bogota, the BRT
average speed of regular services is 21 km/h and up to 32 km/h in express services due to the fact that BRT uses
segregated and semi-segregated lanes (Menckhoff, 2005). Metro systems with an average distance between
stations in the 700 metre range report similar speeds, the Paris Metro 25 km/h and the Metro in Barcelona 27.6
km/h (Gattuso and Miriello, 2005).
Metro operations with longer average distance between stations can achieve higher average speed.
However, users are required to walk longer distances and it might have a negative impact on its attractiveness to
users. The operational speed of a Metro with a distance between stations in the range of 1,200 metres is 34–35
km (e.g., London, Madrid, Munich, and Medellin) (Gattuso and Miriello, 2005).
Bus in Bogota has the lowest speed with an average of 19.3 km/h.Due to the lack of segregation, speed at
peak hours can decrease to below 11 km/h (Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012a; Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá, 2012).
Bus speed performance is significantly lower due to congestion. Additionally, it presents lower speed than
private vehicles due to more frequent stops (Secretaria de Movilidad, 2012a). The average Bus speed is
approximately 27% lower than the Metro in New York and up to 70% lower on congested roads at peak hours.
Analysis of real operation systems show that a Metro can obtain higher speeds than BRT when
implementing express services with long distances between stations. Nevertheless, the characteristics of BRT
allow a higher speed than Bus and it might be even relatively close to some Metro systems.

418
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

Fare reduction
A metro fare is usually more expensive than a Bus fare (e.g., New York, London, Paris), where
operational cost and subsidies are key elements in establishing price and investment in infrastructure usually
comes directly from the government (Grava, 2002). A large debate about operational costs between Bus, BRT,
and rail systems is found in the literature, where no clear winner emerges (Zhang, 2009; Dickens et al., 2012).
However, in Colombia, the fare for the Metro in Medellin (0.81 USD) is cheaper than the BRT fare in Bogota
(0.94 USD) and similar to the Bus fare (0.8 USD), where no operational subsidies are granted to any mode.
Although the BRT fare structure is based on operational costs and private companies operate vehicles, it is
claimed that initial contracts to BRT bus operators presented high financial benefits in order to motivate private
investment in the new system and to compensate risk, where little public discussion is available regarding real
operation costs and new contracts might come to a lower price (Gilbert and Garcés, 2008). In the case of Metro,
local government owns and operates it, the average cost per journey is the same as the fare paid by users at 0.82
USD per journey, where no profit is produced (the reported operational cost in the 2011 tax year was 139
million USD with 169 million journeys in 2011) (Metro de Medellin, 2012).
Regarding infrastructure costs, a great difference exists between modes. BRT estimations per km are
between 10 to 20 million USD; whereas Metro estimations per km are between 50 to 200 million USD
depending on design (surface tracks are cheaper than elevated structures and tunnels) and the number of tracks
needed to provide express services (Grava, 2002).

Environmentally friendly
Although TransMilenio improved air quality by 40% when it replaced Bus operators on its corridors
(Echeverry et al., 2005), Metro is considered to be more environmentally friendly than combustion engine
systems due to the fact that it is powered by electricity (Grava, 2002). BRT in Bogota runs largely on diesel
(TransMilenio, 2011). The largest source of electric energy in Colombia is based on hydroelectric dams
(Ministerio de Minas, 2011); therefore, this technical feature of Metro can reduce the environmental impact of
transport.

3.1.3.Perceived quality attributes

Three out of four perceived quality attributes present statistical difference between Bus and BRT users
(crime reduction, order and urban aesthetics are mentioned more frequently by Bus users). Comfort is
considered by users regardless of their most frequent mode and it is the most important perceived attribute (51%
expect a more comfortable system). There are a number of indicators for comfort in the literature (e.g. vehicles
which are not overcrowded, ventilation and heating, seating possibility, vehicle aesthetics, adapted grips,
journey without sudden braking, music in vehicles, safety in vehicles, number of seats per vehicle, etc.)
(Filipović et al., 2009). In the case of transport systems in Bogota, the most reported complaint by users is
overcrowded vehicles (27.2% BRT, 23.1% Bus, see Figure 5.) (CCB, 2013; Hidalgo et al., 2013a).
Crowding (the common term in the literature for the analysis of having a significant number of people
sharing a limited space in public transport) is one of the factors that might influence user decision about modal
choice. Researchers and policy makers are recently considering its impact on public transport systems around
the world, where its importance is likely to increase due to the increasing income of the population and the
expectation of a better service (Tirachini et al., 2013). High levels of density in vehicles are associated in the
literature with psychological issues such as perceptions of risk to personal safety and security, increased anxiety,
stress and feeling of exhaustion, a feeling of invasion of privacy, possible ill-health, and propensity to arrive late
atthe destination (Tirachini et al., 2013).
A common indicator for crowding levels is the number of passengers per square meter (pax/m 2), and the
definition of overcrowding varies in different regions, e.g. in Europe it is 4 pax/m2, it is 5 pax/m2 in US, and it
reaches up to 8 pax/m2 in China (Li and Hensher, 2013).
In order to offer users a low level of occupancy it is necessary to understand passenger capacity of the
Metro and BRT. Metro offers the highest passenger capacity of any mode due to the fact that vehicles consist of
large body cars (14–26 m long, 2.20–3.25 wide) and up to 10 cars can be operated at a maximum physically
possible speed, offering implementations over 80,000 000 passengers per hour per direction; e.g. New York and
Tokyo (Vuchic, 2007). Overcrowding in the Metro is not uncommon; e.g. the London Metro (Underground)
presents a crowding level of 5 or more pax/m2 in some inner urban links of the network (Li and Hensher,
2013, Jacobs Consultancy, 2010).
Hidalgo et al. (2013b) presented a research paper regarding maximum passenger capacity of BRT by
analysing TransMilenio. Although textbooks and manuals limit its capacity to 20,000 passengers per hour per
direction (refer to Vuchic (2007) and TCRP (2003)), TransMilenio is currently transporting 43,000 passengers
per hour per direction (vehicle dimensions: 18.5m long, 2.6m wide; theoretical capacity of 160 passengers with
419
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

48 seats) and has a practical capacity of 48,000 passengers per hour per direction with 150 passengers per bus
(approximately 7 pax/m2). However, this level of occupation leads to users complaints due to overcrowded
vehicles and consequently long waiting times to find available space in the vehicles (up to 15 minutes), which
has generated strikes from users (Gilbert and Garcés, 2008). Hidalgo et al. (2013b) suggested that a lower
vehicle occupancy of 110 passengers per vehicle (approximately 5 pax/m2) allows a capacity of 35,000
passengers per hour per direction where different initiatives can improve the system such as increasing the
number of sub-stops, platforms and queuing capacity at stations; improving the operations reliability, using
enhanced control, strategies and information technologies, better traffic signal timing, and using larger buses
(biarticulated buses).
Regarding crime levels, users expect an improvement with the Metro, Bus users (42%) and BRT users
(30%). The difference in prioritisation might be explained due to the fact that Bus users have been subject to
more violent crimes (cases of armed robbery have been reported in Bus) (CCB, 2011). Control in BRT is easier
due to the fact that 2,2 million passengers can be monitored at the 147 stations with police and cameras where
control over Bus is more complex. Nevertheless, concern about crime on mass transport systems is a major
issue, and Metro is no exception. Pick-pocketing and vandalism are expected in mass transport systems where
operational management plays an important role in deterring crime, refer to Smith and Clark (2000) and Cozens
et al. (2003) for a full review of initiatives in management, design, and maintenance to deter crime in mass
transport systems.
Order is a feature more frequently named by Bus users (33%) than BRT users (19%) regarding the
expected features on Metro; service evaluation in Bogota of BRT has achieved higher scores than Bus regarding
order sub-features (respect towards passengers, vehicle cleanliness and compliance of transit rules) (CCB,
2011). BRT was designed to operate under conditions similar to a Metro system in order to provide an
organised system (station design, segregated lines, prepaid cards, advanced collection systems, and a distinctive
image are present in both systems) (Cain et al., 2006). However, passenger behaviour within the system has
been an issue due to overcrowded vehicles and stations. Mass transport systems require user cooperation to fill
empty spaces in vehicles and to respect other passengers when boarding crowded vehicles (TransMilenio,
2011).
The impact of Metro on urbanaesthetics gets mixed opinions from users, some users consider that it might
improve the city (see Figure 3) and others view it as a concern (see Figure 4).Infrastructure is a technical feature
that impacts urban aesthetics, tunnels for Metro are not visible and do not require available space from the
surface,whereelevated structures impose more visual intrusion and noise(Grava, 2002).In the case of BRT,it is
reported theuse of identity programs to improve user perception by taking advantage of its characteristics and
creating a branding strategy (e.g., visually improving buses and stations, logo design, etc.)(Hess and Bitterman,
2008).

3.1.4.Concerns for Metro construction in Bogota

Users that do not want the construction of Metro are concerned about delays in their common journeys due
to construction, fare increment, corruption and higher taxes. The Local government has suffered from corruption
scandals that led to the impeachment of Bogota’s Mayor in 2011, transport investment in infrastructure suffered
delays and overpricing (Revista Semana, 2012). The metro in Medellin was also affected by construction delays
and corruption, overpricing was 100% over the initial contract (Revista Semana, 1994). Public concern seems
to be justified and any large investment in infrastructure should receive special attention to avoid delays in
construction and overpricing.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Increasing of population in cities along with higher income of citizens are bringing new challenges to the
design of public transport. Demand is likely to continue growing and users expect a high level of service. Cities
around the globe are facing the decision of how to expand current transport systems and this paper introduces
not only identification and prioritisation of quality attributes but it also provide benchmark values for BRT and
Metro. Multimodal solutions are available and it is in the interest of policy makers, transport engineers,
academics, and community to understand what can be achieved with best practices using different modes in the
light of user expectations. BRT is emerging as an alternative, but it seems that there is a lack of understanding of
its operational characteristics in the literature. Its implementation in Bogota shows the many benefits of this kind
of system that overcome some figures found in the literature such as passenger capacity.
Users in Bogota perceive that the Metro is a better option than BRT and favour the construction of a Metro
(70%). Expectations are based on obtaining a faster system (88%), more comfort (51%), crime reduction (37%),
order (27%), fare reduction (25%), environmental benefits (25%), and improvement of urban aesthetics (23%).
It is important to highlight that users of Bus name more frequently order, crime reduction, and urban aesthetics
regarding the improvement that they expect from a possible Metro implementation than users of BRT.
420
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

BRT characteristics such as segregated lanes, station design, prepaid ticket and centralised control provide
a transport solution of medium passenger capacity that might operate at a relatively close speed to some Metro
implementations (inner urban networks with average distance between stations in the range of 700m) even at
peak hours, offering a much better solution than Bus. Additional characteristics are its fast implementation and
reduced infrastructure cost compare to the Metro, the first stage of TransMilenio (44 km) was developed in 3
years.
A major concern of users is overcrowding, the literature shows that it affects passengers psychologically
and physically by augmenting waiting time in order to find a vehicle with available space. Additionally, the
literature suggests that in order to provide a crowding level of 5 pax/m 2 (such as the US standard), the maximum
passenger capacity of TransMilenio, with its current configuration, should be set to 35,000 passengers per hour
per direction (instead of transporting 43,000 passengers per hour per direction which leads to massive complains
from users). Therefore, the Metro is the mode that should be considered for corridors with a demand over
35,000 passengers per hour per direction and BRT might be considered below this figure.
Regarding future research, the benchmark values presented in this paper could be used to try to predict user
behaviour towards the design of the Metro in Bogota and to provide knowledge about the expansion of the
transport system; e.g. state preference surveys try to understand user intentions when hypothetical scenarios are
introduced in order to predict user behaviour towards mode choice and evaluate possible impacts of transport
decisions (Ortúzar and Willumsen, 2011). Additionally, little research is available regarding the operational cost
of BRT and overcrowdingis a major concern for users. Analysis of the impact of operating BRT with low
crowding levels should be considered, where simulation techniques are available to provide knowledge of the
impact of such a policy.

REFERENCES
Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá (2012)“Evaluación de alternativas de modificación a la medida de restricción del
tránsito de vehículos particulares pico y placa”,Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá.
Anderson, R., Condry, B., Findlay, N., Brage-Ardao, R., Li, H. (2013) “Measuring and valuing convenience and
service quality: A review of global practices and challenges from mass transit operators and railway
industries”,International Transport Forum Discussion Paper.
Arias, C.et al. (2007)“Bus Rapid Transit: Planning guide”. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Global
Environment Facility/United Nations Environment Programme, Deutsche
GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Batterbury, S. (2003)“Environmental activism and social networks: campaigning for bicycles and alternative
transport in West London”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,590(1),
pp.150-169.
Cain, A., Darido, G., Baltes, M., Rodriguez, P., Barrios, J. (2006)“Applicability of Bogota’s TransMilenio BRT
System to the United States, Final Report”, FTA.
CCB (Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá) (2013)“Resultados encuesta de percepción sobre las condiciones,
calidad y servicio a los usuarios de TransMilenio, TOC y SITP”,Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá.
CCB (Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá) (2011)“Boletín No 6 de 2011 - Encuesta de percepción sobre las
condiciones y calidad del servicio de Transporte Público Colectivo y TransMilenio”,Cámara de Comercio
de Bogotá.
Ceder, A. (2007)“Public transit planning and operation: Theory, modelling and practice”, Elsevier.
Cozens, P-, Neale, R., Whitaker, J., Hillier, D. (2003)“Managing crime and fear of crime at railways stations - a
case study in South Wales”,International Journal of Transport Management. 1,pp.121-132.
dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A.,Cecin, P. (2011)“The quality of service desired by public transport users”,Transport
policy,18,pp.217-227.
Dickens, M., Neff, J., Grisby, D. (2012)“Public transportation fact book 2012”, APTA.
DPN (Departamento de Planeación Nacional) (2010)“CONPES 3677: Movilidad Integral para la región Capital
Bogotá – Cundinamarca”, Departamento de Planeación Nacional.
Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2010)“How to capture the passengers’ point of view on a transit service through rating
and choice options”,Transport reviews,30(4),pp.435-450.
Echeverry, J. C., Ibañez, A. M., Moya, A., Hillon, L. C. (2005)“The economics of TransMilenio, a Mass Transit
System for Bogota”, Economia, 5(2),pp.151-196.
Filipović, S., Tica, S., Zivanovic, P.,Milovanovic, B. (2009)“Comparative analysis of the basic features of the
expected and perceived quality of mass passenger public transport service in Belgrade”,Transport.24(4),
pp.265-273.
Gattuso, D.,Miriello, E. (2005)“Compared analysis of metro networks supported by graph theory”,Networks and
Spatial Economics,5,pp.395-414.

421
 Rev. Téc. Ing. Univ. Zulia. Vol. 39, Nº 4, 412 - 422, 2016

Gilbert, A., Garcés, M. T. (2008)“BOGOTÁ: progreso, gobernabilidad y pobreza”,Universidad del Rosario.

Bogota, Colombia.
Grava, S. (2002)“Urban Transportation Systems”,McGraw Hill.
Hensher, D. A. (1994) “Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice”,Transportation,21(2),
pp.107-133.
Hensher, D. A., Golob, T. F. (2008) “Bus rapid transit systems: a comparative assessment”,Transportation,
35(4),pp.501-518.
Hess, D. B., Bitterman, A. (2008)“Bus Rapid Transit Identity: An Overview of Current “Branding” Practice”,
Journal of Public Transportation,11(2),pp. 2-26.
Hidalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñan, N., Jimenez, P.L.(2013a)“TransMilenio BRT system in Bogota, high
performance and positive impact-Main results of an ex-post evaluation”. Research in Transportation
Economics,39,pp.133-138.
Hidalgo, D., Lleras, G., Hernández, E. (2013b)“Methodology for calculating passenger capacity in bus rapit
transit systems: Application to the TransMilenio system in Bogotá, Colombia”, Research in Transportation
Economic,39,pp.139-142.
Jacobs Consultancy (2010)“South Fulham Riverside Planning Framework. Transport Study Report”, Jacobs
Consultancy.
Kim, S., Ulfarsson, G.F., Hennessy, J.T.(2007)“Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: impacts of
individual, built environment, and crime characteristics on transit access”,Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 41(6),pp.511-522.
Li, Z., Hensher, D. A. (2013)“Crowding in public transport: a review of objective and subjective measures”,
Journal of Public Transportation, 16(2),pp.6-34.
Menckhoff, G. (2005)“Latin American Experience with Bus Rapid Transit”. Annual meeting of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Melbourne. 2005.
Metro de Medellín (2012)“Estados financieros año 2011”,Metro de Medellín.
Ministerio de minas (2011)“Sector Energía EléctricaMinisterio de minas”, Ministerio de minas de Colombia.
Ortúzar, J. D.,Willumsen, L. G. (2011)“Modelling Transport”, Wiley.
Pullen, W. T. (1993)“Definition and measurement of quality of service for local public transport
management”,Transport Reviews,13(3),pp.247-264.
Randall, E. R., Condry, B. J., Trompet, M., Campus, S. K. (2007)“International bus system benchmarking:
Performance measurement development, challenges, and lessons learned”,Transport Research Board 86th
Annual Meeting.
Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Hartig, T. (2013) “Quality attributes of public transport that attract car
users: A research review”. Transport Policy,25,pp.119-127.
Revista Semana (2012)“Carrusel de la contratación en Bogotá”, Revista Semana.
Revista Semana (1994)“Retrovisor al metro”,Revista Semana.
SDG (Steer Davies Gleave) (2007)“Estudio de determinación de la capacidad del sistema de TransMilenio”,
Steer Davies Gleave.
Secretaria de movilidad (2012a)“Movilidad en cifras 2011”, Secretaria de movilidad.
Secretaria de movilidad (2012b)“Informe de indicadores Encuesta de Movilidad de Bogotá 2011”,Secretaria de
movilidad.
Secretaria de movilidad (2005)“Matriz de origen y destino en Bogotá
2005”,Informationprovidedunderwrittenrequest (18-11-2011).
Smith, M. J., Clark, R.V. (2000)“Crime and Public Transport”,Crime and Justice,27,pp.169-223.
Taylor, M. A., Ampt, E. S. (2003)“Travelling smarter down under: policies for voluntary travel behaviour
change in Australia”,Transport Policy,10(3),pp.165-177.
TCRP (2003)“Report 100 transit capacity and level of service manual. Transit CooperativeResearch
Program”Transportation Research Board.
Tirachini, A., Hensher, D., Rose, J. M. (2013)“Crowding in public transport systems: Effects on users, operation
and implications for the estimation of demand”, Transportation ResearchPart A:Policy and Practice,
53,pp.35-52.
TransMilenio (2011)“Informe de gestión 2011”, TransMilenio.
Vuchic, V. R. (2007)“Urban transit systems and technology”, Wiley & Sons Inc.
World Bank (2002)“Cities on the move: a World Bank urban transport strategy review”, World Bank.
Zhang, M. (2009)“Bus versus Rail”,Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board. 2110,pp.87-95.

422

View publication stats