Published
2022-01-24
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2022 James DeWeese, Manuel Santana Palacios, Anastasia Belikow, Ahmed El-Geneidy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Whose express access? Assessing the equity implications of bus express routes in Montreal, Canada
James DeWeese
Manuel Santana Palacios
Anastasia Belikow
Ahmed El-Geneidy
McGill University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2022.1879
Keywords: Accessibility, Equity, Express Bus
Abstract
Express buses—characterized by limited stops and sometimes higher frequencies or priority traffic measures—offer a cost-effective and efficient way to boost service convenience and reliability for riders. This paper assesses how the accessibility benefits of express bus route policy are distributed in Montreal, Canada, while providing a pathway for public transportation agencies to assess their policies and plans. To isolate the impact of bus express routes, we use General Transit Speed Specification (GTFS) data, the Open Trip Planner multimodal routing engine, and the 2013 edition of Montreal’s origin-destination survey to contrast travel time and accessibility at the trip and census-tract levels under two scenarios: one with the existing, complete network and the second a counterfactual scenario with no express bus routes. Our results indicate that bus express routes enable an overall increase in accessibility for the overall population. However, the accessibility benefits do not accrue evenly, as expected, but also tend to benefit a more significant number of higher incomes. This occurs despite the location of low-income populations in some outlying areas of the city, which express bus routes are supposed to serve. This paper closes with policy recommendations that help planners balance economic, environmental, and equity goals, perhaps one of the most complex challenges they face nowadays.
References
Ammons, D. N. (2001). Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
AMT. (2013). Montreal metropolitan area origin destination survey 2013. Montreal: Montreal Transit Company.
Anas, A. (2020). The cost of congestion and the benefits of congestion pricing: A general equilibrium analysis. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 136, 110–137.
Banister, D. (2018). Inequality in transport. Oxford, UK: Alexandrine Press.
Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Daily fluctuations in transit and job availability: A comparative assessment of time-sensitive accessibility measures. Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.03.004
Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. (2017). The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.006
Brown, A. E. (2018). Fair fares? How flat and variable fares affect transit equity in Los Angeles. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 765–773. https://doi.10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.011
Conlon, M., Foote, P., O'Malley, K., & Stuart, D. (2001). Successful arterial street limited-stop express bus service in Chicago. Transportation Research Record, 1760, 74–80.
Cui, B., Grisé, E., Stewart, A., & El-Geneidy, A. (2019). Measuring the added effectiveness of using detailed spatial and temporal data in generating accessibility measures. Transport Findings. https://doi.org/10.32866/9736
Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., . . . Stanley, J. (2009). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne—Preliminary results. Transport Policy, 16, 97–105. https://doi.10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.002
Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2015). Performance measures for public transport accessibility: Learning from international practice. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1) 93–118. https://doi.10.5198/jtlu.2015.683
Diab, E., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). Transitory optimism: Changes in passenger perception following bus service improvement over time. Transportation Research Record, 2415, 97–106.
El-Geneidy, A., & Levinson, D. (2006). Access to destinations: Development of accessibility measures. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
El-Geneidy, A., Levinson, D., Diab, E., Boisjoly, G., Verbich, D., & Loong, C. ( 2016). The cost of equity: Assessing accessibility by transit and social disparity using total travel cost. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 91, 302–316.
El-Geneidy, A., & Surprenant-Legault, J. (2010). Limited-stop bus service: An evaluation of an implementation strategy. Public Transport: Planning and Operation, 2(4), 291–306.
Ercolano, J. M. (1984). Limited-stop bus operations: An evaluation. Transportation Research Record, 994, 24–29.
Fan, Y., Guthrie, A. E., & Levinson, D. M. (2012). Impact of light rail implementation on labor market accessibility: A transportation equity perspective. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(3), 28–349. https://doi.10.5198/jtlu.v5i3.240
Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). Towards equitable transit: Examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 1–10.
Furth, P., & Day, B. (1985). Transit routing and scheduling strategies for heavy demand corridors. Transportation Research Record, 1011, 23–26.
Garrett, M., & Taylor, B. (1999). Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, 12(1), 6–27.
Geurs, K., & van Eck, R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact. Utrecht, the Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Enviornment.
Geurs, K., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Grengs, J. (2010). Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 42–54.
Handy, S., & Niemeier, D. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1175–1194.
Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76.
Hillsman, E., & Barbeau, S. (2011). Enabling cost-effective multimodal trip planners through open transit data. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Jones, P., & Lucas, K. (2012). The social consequences of transport decision-making: Clarifying concepts, synthesizing knowledge and assessing implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 4–16.
Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990). Making equity in planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lucas, K., & Jones, P. (2012). Social impacts and equity issues in transport: An introduction. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.032
Manaugh, K., & El- Geneidy, A. (2012). Who benefits from new transportation infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in public transport provision. In K. T. Guers, K. J. Krizek, & A. Reggiani (Eds.), Accessibility analysis and transport planning (pp. 211–227). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Martens, K. (2016). Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems. New York: Routledge.
Oviedo, D., Scholl, L., Innao, M., & Pedraza, L. (2019). Do bus rapid transit systems improve accessibility to job opportunities for the poor? The case of Lima, Peru. Sustainability, 11(10), 2795. https://doi.10.3390/su11102795
Pereira, R. H. M., Banister, D., Schwanen, T., & Wessel, N. (2019). Distributional effects of transport policies on inequalities in access to opportunities in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 741–764. https://doi.10.5198/jtlu.2019.1523
Pereira, R. H. M., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2016). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews, 37(2), 170–191. https://doi.10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660
Santana Palacios, M., & Rayle, L. (2021). Shorter commutes, but for whom? Comparing the distributional effects of bus rapid transit on commute times in Cape Town, South Africa, and Barranquilla, Colombia. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1907
Silverman, N., Orosz, T., & Zicklin, A. (1998). Practitioner's forum: Limited-stop bus service at New York City Transit. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 124(6), 503–509.
St-Louis, E., Manaugh, K., van Lierop, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 26, 160–170. https://doi.10.1016/j.trf.2014.07.004
Statistics Canada. (2016a). 2016 Census of Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2016b). Employed labor force 15 years and over having a usual place of work by income groups in 2015 (27) and mode of transportation (20), for commuting flow for Canada, Alberta, its census metropolitan areas, its tracted census agglomerations, its census tracts, elsewhere in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada, 2016 census - 25% sample data. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2016c). Main mode of commuting (20), commuting duration (7), time leaving for work (7), sex (3) and age (11B) for the employed labor force aged 15 years and over having a usual place of work or no fixed workplace address, in private households of Canada, provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Tétreault, P., & El-Geneidy, A. (2010). Estimating bus run times for new limited-stop service using archived AVL and APC data. Transportation Research: Part A, 44(6), 390–402.
van Wee, B., & Geurs, K. (2011). Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(4), 350–367.
Vuchic, V. (2005). Urban transit: Operations, planning and economics. Indianapolis: John Wiley and Sons.
Wachs, M., & Kumagai, T. G. (1973). Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5), 437–456. https://doi.10.1016/0038-0121(73)90041-4
Wei, R., Liu, X., Mu, Y., Wang, L., Golub, A., & Farber, S. (2017). Evaluating public transit services for operational efficiency and access equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 70–79. https://doi.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.010
Wessel, N., & Farber, S. (2019). On the accuracy of schedule-based GTFS for measuring accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 475–500. https://doi.10.5198/jtlu.2019.1502
Wu, X., Cao, J., & Huting, J. (2018). Using three-factor theory to identify improvement priorities for express and local bus services: An application of regression with dummy variables in the Twin Cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.003
