webinar sesion: "built environment supports for brt ridership - evidence from latin...

Built environment supports

for BRT ridership:

Evidence from Latin

America Daniel A. Rodríguez, Ph.D. y Erik Vergel, Ph.D. candidate

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

December 18, 2015

Presentation outline Background

Motivation

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

2

Attributes of transit oriented development

(TOD): Compact and dense

High land use mixtures

High-quality pedestrian

environment

Strong articulation between

transit and environment around

it

Background: TOD

Source: IPPUC (2011)

Source: Reconnectingamerica.org`

Make transit use more viable (TCRP 2008)

Concentrate demand (economies of

density)

Balance flows (Stockholm goal)

Real estate/neighborhood development

strategy

Benefits of TOD

Generalized perception that the “T” in

TOD is rail, not BRT Lack of locational rigidity & permanence

Noise & pollution

Allure of rails’ newness

All this, despite Curitiba’s exemplary approach

Motivation

Built environment & BRT use Heavy Rail

• Taipei

• New York, SFO

• Hong Kong

• Seoul

• Montreal

• Nanjing

Light Rail Transit

• Metropolitan Areas

(USA and

Canada)

Bus Rapid Transit

• Bogota

• Los Angeles

?

Source: Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection

Given Latin-America’s lead in BRT (Aim 1) What is occurring around BRT stops?

Examine the built environment around BRT stops

Develop a typology of environments

Help understand where BRT is happening and how

Guide decision makers towards possible future

scenarios

(Aim 2) What is the association between the built

environment and station-level BRT demand?

Examine individual cities

Understand overall effects

Research questions


Motivation

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

8

Collect stop-level data

Inclusion criteria for BRTs > 5 yrs in operation

Medium to large city

Seven Latin American cities 16% of worlds’ BRT use

31% of Latin America BRT use

Methods

Identify stops with different conditions Confirmed/reconsidered with local planners

Methods

City # stops

studied % of all

# terminals

studied % of all

Bogotá 26 19.26% 5 55.56%

Sao Paulo ABD

Corridor 7 9.72%

5 62.50%

Curitiba 9 7.32% 7 46.67%

Goiânia 6 33.33% 5 71.43%

Ciudad de

Guatemala 8 57.14%

1 33.33%

Quito 24 23.76% 6 54.55%

Guayaquil 8 12.31% 3 75.00%

What to collect?

Data collection

1. Density

2. Diversity (use)

3. Design of streets

4. Destination

accessibility

5. Distance to transit

BRT demand (# pax per day) The five 5 “Ds”

6. Parking

7. NMT

infrastructure

8. Socioeconomic

characteristics

9. Facilities and

public spaces

Additional dimensions

TOD?

Environment around each stop 250 m for simple stops (0.2 km2)

500 m for terminal (0.79km2)

Atypical cases (n=8),

paired or twin stops

Data collection

Source: Adjusted by Vergel (2012) from original by Gonzalez & Hartleben (2012)

Data source: Google Earth, Gonzalez, Hartleben, Alcaldia de la Ciudad de Guatemala, Fieldwork Data, 2011-2012.

Modified pedestrian environment data

scan

Audit tool

Tipo de Desarrollo Urbano:

Portal _______ Intercambiador________ Parada _________ 0 - 250mts___________250 - 500mts___________ Previo____Durante Const BRT____Posterior BRT_____

0. Tipo de Segmento 0. Tipo de Segmento 0. Tipo de Segmento 0. Tipo de Segmento

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

A. Entorno Medio Ambiente Construido A. Entorno Medio Ambiente Construido A. Entorno Medio Ambiente Construido A. Entorno Medio Ambiente Construido

1. Usos del Suelo (seleccionar todos los presentes) 1. Usos del Suelo (seleccionar todos los presentes) 1. Usos del Suelo (seleccionar todos los presentes) 1. Usos del Suelo (seleccionar todos los presentes)

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

8 8 8 8

9 9 9 9

10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11

2. Altura Edificios (numero de pisos) 2. Altura Edificios (numero de pisos) 2. Altura Edificios (numero de pisos) 2. Altura Edificios (numero de pisos)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2_3 2 2_3 2 2_3 2 2_3 2

4_5 3 4_5 3 4_5 3 4_5 3

Mas de 5 Mas de 5 Mas de 5 Mas de 5

No hay ninguno No hay ninguno No hay ninguno No hay ninguno

3. Densidad Urbana 3. Densidad Urbana 3. Densidad Urbana 3. Densidad Urbana

Baja 1 Baja 1 Baja 1 Baja 1

Media 2 Media 2 Media 2 Media 2

Alta 3 Alta 3 Alta 3 Alta 3

4. Nivel Consolidacion 4. Nivel Consolidacion 4. Nivel Consolidacion 4. Nivel Consolidacion

Bajo 1 Bajo 1 Bajo 1 Bajo 1

Medio 2 Medio 2 Medio 2 Medio 2

Alto 3 3 3 3

5. Estado Construcciones 5. Estado Construcciones 5. Estado Construcciones 5. Estado Construcciones

Bajo 1 Bajo 1 Bajo 1 Bajo 1

Medio 2 Medio 2 Medio 2 Medio 2

Alto 3 3 3 3

B. Comentarios Adicionales B. Comentarios Adicionales B. Comentarios Adicionales B. Comentarios Adicionales

Frente a Corredor BRT 1 Frente a Corredor BRT 1 Frente a Corredor BRT 1 Frente a Corredor BRT 1

Vehiculos Estacionados en la Calle 2 Vehiculos Estacionados en la Calle 2 Vehiculos Estacionados en la Calle 2 Vehiculos Estacionados en la Calle 2

Desarrollos en Altura 3 Desarrollos en Altura 3 Desarrollos en Altura 3 Desarrollos en Altura 3

Fuera Area de Influencia 4 Fuera Area de Influencia 4 Fuera Area de Influencia 4 Fuera Area de Influencia 4

1 5 1 5

2 6 2 6

3 7 3 7

4 8 4 8

Especificar Otros: Otro 9 Otro 9

Nombre Estacion:__________________ID#:________'_

Fecha:_________________Hora:_______________ Troncal: ________________________________ # Cuadrante:1 ______2______3______4______ BLOCK_ID_N:__________________________

Segmento 1 Segmento 2 Segmento 3 Segmento 4

Via de bajo volumen (2- Carriles) Via de bajo volumen (2- Carriles)

Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial

Ciudad: __________________________ID#:________ Tipo de Estacion: Area de Influencia:

Via de bajo volumen (2- Carriles) Via de bajo volumen (2- Carriles)

Via de alto volumen (3+ Carriles) Via de alto volumen (3+ Carriles) Via de alto volumen (3+ Carriles) Via de alto volumen (3+ Carriles)

Segmento Peatonal Segmento Peatonal Segmento Peatonal Segmento Peatonal

Comercial/Residencial Comercial/Residencial Comercial/Residencial Comercial/Residencial

Comercial NETO Comercial NETO Comercial NETO Comercial NETO

Comercial MEDIO Comercial MEDIO Comercial MEDIO Comercial MEDIO

Residencial Sencillo Residencial Sencillo Residencial Sencillo Residencial Sencillo

Residencial Multifamiliar Residencial Multifamiliar Residencial Multifamiliar Residencial Multifamiliar

Industrial/Comercial Industrial/Comercial Industrial/Comercial Industrial/Comercial

Alto Alto Alto

Parqueaderos Parqueaderos Parqueaderos Parqueaderos

Vacante/No desarrollado Vacante/No desarrollado Vacante/No desarrollado Vacante/No desarrollado

Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional

Parque/Zona Verde Parque/Zona Verde Parque/Zona Verde Parque/Zona Verde

Alto Alto Alto

Centro de Salud/Hospital Deportivo/Recreacion Plazoletas Cicloruta

Espacio Publico Sistema BRT, Especificar Otros:

C. Equipamientos: D. Espacio Publico:

Gran Superficie (acceso automovil) Templo/Iglesia Zonas Verdes Alamedas

Gran Superficie (acceso peaton) Biblioteca Parques Calles Peatonales

Escuela/Centro Educativo Plaza de Mercado/Ferias Plazas Areas Puentes Peatonales

Secondary data at stop level Population, roads, distance to central business area

Other data sources

Areas audited Stops

City Segments Seg/stop Blocks Block/

stop

Bogotá 1922 73.9 553 21.3

Sao Paulo

ABD 340 48.6 105 15.0

Curitiba 449 49.9 145 16.1

Goiânia 384 64.0 123 20.5

Ciudad de

Guatemala 796 100 227 28.4

Quito 1805 75.2 499 20.8

Guayaquil 726 90.8 212 26.5

TOTAL 6,422 1,864

Areas audited Stops Terminals

City Segments Seg/stop Blocks Block/

stop Segments Seg/stop Blocks

Block/

stop

Bogotá 1922 73.9 553 21.3 1440 288.0 395 79.0

Sao Paulo

ABD 340 48.6 105 15.0 977 195.4 266 53.2

Curitiba 449 49.9 145 16.1 1189 169.9 312 44.6

Goiânia 384 64.0 123 20.5 924 184.8 267 53.4

Ciudad de

Guatemala 796 100 227 28.4 434 434 121 121.0

Quito 1805 75.2 499 20.8 1312 218.7 311 51.8

Guayaquil 726 90.8 212 26.5 857 285.7 274 91.3

TOTAL 6,422 1,864 7,133 1,946

All data aggregated at stop level, in

different ways Segment-level data % of segments in stop

Block-level data density or count of instances (0-n)

Stop-level data used as continuous variables

Data aggregation

Data aggregation

Factor & cluster analysis

Aim 1: Typology

X1……...X38

O1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

O82

Data matrix

X1……...X38

O1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

O82

Data matrix

F1...Fk

Cluster

1

Cluster

2

Aim 2: Association with

population density


Motivation

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

21

Aim 1 results: Selected

descriptives (N=120) City Mean SD Min Max

Facility index 2.75 1.49 0.00 6.00

Facility density 24.55 22.34 0.00 122.23

NMT friendliness 57.03 65.72 0.00 336.13

Residential multifamily 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.87

High density 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.60

High consolidation 0.67 0.26 0.00 1.00

Commercial and parking 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.73

On street parking 0.37 0.19 0.00 0.89

Vacant and BRT 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.16

Population density 74.74 70.31 0.48 390.17

Cluster 4: Physical barriers Low scores on commercial variables, density,

institutional uses, multi-family units. Barriers

Cluster 5: TOD orientation High population density with pedestrian infrastructure,

green areas, and BRT-oriented public facilities

Cluster 6: Historic Center

Cluster 7: TOD potential, but not there High density residential multifamily developments,

without strong BRT orientation

Typology

Cluster 11: Open space Undeveloped land, high quality green spaces, with

some institutional land uses

Typology

Historic center BRT System, Quito

Drawing: Vergel, Paredes & Smith, Carolina Transportation Program, DCRP, UNC-Chapel Hill, 2011

Data source: Google Earth, Alcaldia Metropolitana de Quito, Fieldwork Data, 2011-2012

# Built environment

factor and popdensity

Mean

value

1

High-rise multifamily BRT-

oriented mixed land use

-0.88

2

Vacant unconsolidated

urban environment

-0.53

3

NMT green areas

consolidated

1.75

4

Industrial commercial large

blocks off-street parking

-0.05

5

Non-core single residential

low building heights

-1.20

6

BRT-oriented facilities mixed

use nearby

-0.38

7 Parking -1.53

8

Institutional facilities facing

BRT corridor

5.17

9

Non-core affordable housing

and informal settlements

-0.28

Net population density -0.50

Historic center

Fuente: Vergel-Tovar (2011)

BRT station Plaza Grande, Quito, Ecuador

TOD potential (n=11) Jardim Botanico BRT System, Curitiba

Drawing: Vergel & Paredes, Carolina Transportation Program, DCRP, UNC-Chapel Hill, 2011

Source: Google Earth, IPPUC, URBS Fieldwork Data, 2011-2012.

# Built environment


Mean

value

1



1.97

2

Vacant unconsolidated urban

environment

-0.04

3

NMT green areas

consolidated

-0.51

4



0.09

5



-1.00

6


use nearby

-0.61

7 Parking 0.06

8


BRT corridor

-0.75

9



0.15

Net population density 0.22

TOD potential (n=11)

Source:Vergel-Tovar (2011)

BRT station Jardim Botanico, Curitiba, Brazil

Open space stop (n=6) Portal Usme, Bogota BRT System, Bogota

Drawing: Vergel & Paredes, Carolina Transportation Program, DCRP, UNC-Chapel Hill, 2011

Source: Google Earth, Secretary of Planning Department of Bogota, Fieldwork Data, 2011-2012

# Built environment


Mean

value

1



-0.07

2

Vacant unconsolidated urban

environment

2.59

3

NMT green areas

consolidated

0.13

4



0.69

5



0.27

6


use nearby

-0.29

7 Parking -0.45

8


BRT corridor

0.46

9



1.70

Net population density 0.20

Open space stop (n=6) BRT Terminal Usme, Bogota, Colombia


Does the typology capture city-specific

factors? 13 clusters

1 Quito Historic Center (Cluster 6, n=1)

1 Ciudad de Guatemala (Cluster 10, n=6)

1 BRT Terminals (Cluster 8, N=21)

Discussion

Surprises Amount of parking on and off-street

Relatively low density

Little vacant land –regeneration and redevelopment

options

Muted role of land uses

Uses are highly mixed, for good and bad

Entropy of 0.64

Compare with 0.25-0.26 for Atlanta; San Francisco Bay

Area; Winston-Salem; Chicago

Discussion

Key attributes Type of residential (multifamily with and without BRT

orientation; often without)

High density with pedestrian supports

Institutional uses with green spaces

Presence of low quality housing

Barriers

Industry

Roads

Discussion

Physical barriers

BRT Station Av Carr. 53A, Bogota,

Colombia

BRT Station Xaxim, Curitiba,

Brazil


Aim 2 results: Curitiba

500

700

900

1,100

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Pre

dic

ted

BR

T r

iders

hip

Population density (people/ha)

Sample BRT Terminals and stations N=87

Sample BRT single stations N=72

Aim 2 results: All cities Predicted BRT ridership and entropy

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pre

dic

ted

BR

T r

iders

hip

Percentile

Predicted BRT ridership and developments (% segments high-rise development - % segments with >5 stories)

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pre

dic

ted

BR

T r

iders

hip

Percentile

High-rise developments >5 stories

(evenness commercial, residential, institutional land uses)

Aim 2 results: All cities

Prediction BRT ridership and built environment factors

Positive associations (Factors 1 and 8) Negative associations (Factor 5)

Factor 5 negatively associated

with BRT ridership

Factors 1 and 8 (TOD features) are

positively associated with BRT

ridership

Integrating aims 1 and 2

Factor 1

High-rise multifamily

BRT-oriented mixed

land uses

Factor 8


BRT corridor

R 2 0.7184

R 2 0.7184

Factor 5

Non-core single residential low

building heights

Integrating aims 1 and 2

C4 – Typology (reference): industrial areas low density

BRT Terminals

High-rise

multifamily

mixed land

uses

Historic

Center

High

connectivity

and density,

high-rise

developments

and mixed

land uses

Affordable

housing, informal

settlements, high

density

Open

Space

Developed a typology of the built

environment around BRT stops in Latin

America Highly descriptive

Identifies types that highlight opportunities and

barriers

Pedestrian friendliness, parking, redevelopment, access to

stops/terminals

Conclusions

• Population density necessary but not

sufficient for BRT ridership

• TOD features positively associated with

BRT ridership

Conclusions

• Characteristics of urban development

typologies around BRT stations with

positive associations with BRT ridership: • High-rise multifamily and commercial developments

• Mixture of BRT oriented land uses (commercial,

residential and institutional)

• Building heights > 5 stories

• Presence of facilities facing BRT corridors

Conclusions

Importance of planning stage Adapt/modify regulations

Work with land owners/tenants (redevelopment)

Implementation Promotion of high density development

Promotion of NMT infrastructure

Redevelopment

Public spaces

Conclusions

Funding: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship, Institute for the Study of the Americas

Data collection: Bogota: Erik Vergel-Tovar, Nicolas Estupinan y Maria Mercedes Maldonado

Sao Paulo: Erik Vergel-Tovar, Marcos Bicahlo, Frederico Roman Ramos, Claudia Acosta, Paula Sakamoto,

Daniel Todtmann Montandon, Carlos Joffe, and Magali Jorge

Curitiba: Erik Vergel-Tovar, Debora Ciociola, Irina Cerrutti, Teresa Torres, Adriana Matias, Mauricio Meyer,

Oscar Schmeiske, Silvia Mara dos Santos, Anderson Gosmatti, Regina Sorgenfrei

Goainia: Erik Vergel-Tovar, José Carlos Xavier, Domingos Sávio Afonso, Flávia Araújo Xavier, Spyro Angelos

Katopodes, Cinthia Machado de Meneses, Julienne Santana de Morais

Guatemala City: Oliver Hartleben, Fabricio Gonzalez, Eddy Morataya.

Quito: Erik Vergel-Tovar, Fernando Puente, Fabricio Castillo, Henry Vilatuna. Sandra Hidalgo, Marcelo Yánez

Guayaquil: Erik Vergel-Tovar, Federico von Buchwald, Felipe Xavier Huerta, Gina Alvarez, Jenny Saade

Carriel

GIS and data entry: Julio Paredes, Taylor Smith, S. Kirk, M. Khurana, and Amanda Klepper

All transit agencies in each of the cities studied

Acknowledgements

webinar sesion: "built environment supports for brt ridership - evidence from latin...

Engineering