Statement of the issue in relation to inclusion and brief introduction
People on lower incomes are often the worst affected by poor public transport services and experience longer travel times, higher exposure to pollution and increased risk of traffic accidents. This is often because they are living on the edge of cities where there is no affordable and efficient network. That creates social exclusion and impedes access to employment opportunities, services and market.
In Lima, about 40% of the extreme poor (stratum E) and 20% of the poor (stratum D) live on the outskirts of the city. The extreme poor often live in informal settlements that lack good public services and infrastructure, e.g. narrow, unpaved roads. This spatial segregation of people from job locations decreases affordability to search and access jobs, thereby increasing unemployment. Travel patterns of people on lower incomes differ in terms of mode and expenditure. They have longer travel times, and greater usage of public transport and non-motorised transpor modes due to affordability barriers. About 28% of daily rips by the poor and 35% by the extreme poor in Lima are undertaken on foot, followed by traditional buses,such as Combis[15].
The Metropolitano was conceived to improve services and to connect low-income neighbourhoods on the edge of the city with employment areas in the city centre. Prior to the BRT, people could cross the city using one form of transport (Combi) but travel times were excessive.
Three years ago, the Metropolitan Institute of Transport for Lima (Instituto Metropolitano Protransporte de Lima, or Protransporte, the agency that implemented the project) estimated that about 80% of Metropolitano users come rom low-income groups settled on the outskirts of the city[16]. A more recent survey by the Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) of the IADB stated that whilst the system has attained its goal of having 60% of its riders from socioeconomic strata C (lower middle income), D and E, the share of ridership by the poor and extreme poor (strata D and E) is about 43% (which is lower than the lower middle income strata at 57%). The reason for this is that the BRT does not reach the areas where the extreme poor live and work.
How inclusivity has been addressed
The identified practice is establishing inclusive planning and design to improve accessibility and mobility for low-income groups.
The project aligns with Lima’s strategic objectives of becoming a safer, modern and competitive city. It was also consistent with the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy for the financial years 2002-2006 and Country Partnership Strategy for the financial years 2007-2011. They aimed to encourage sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty by enhancing public transport, creating a direct impact on the productive lives of the poor, reducing air pollution and cutting the transport infrastructure deficit[17].
The Metropolitano was conceived to improve public transport, to reduce congestion, pollution and traffic accidents, and to connect low-income neighbourhoods on the edge of the city with employment areas in the city centre.
This was achieved by reconfiguring the traditional and unreliable service to make it a more efficient trunk and feeder network that could be reached by a wider population. The main trunk system connects the low-income neighbourhoods in the north and south of Lima.
The feeder routes were specifically included in the design to reach the low-income neighbourhoods. They were determined by areas of high population and low income. The feeder routes run through neighbourhoods on the outskirts of the city and connect with the north and south terminals located at both ends of the main trunk. New buses replaced the older vehicles in the feeder routes. They help the entire system to be more efficient, more reliable and safe. There are 17 feeder routes which served 55,947,865 users per year in the north area in 2016 and four feeder routes which served 12,208,452 users per year in the south[18].
Figure 2. Coverage of BRT in relation to socioeconomic strata in Lima Metropolitan Area, Strata A being the highest and Strata E the extreme poor.
Source: OVE (2015)
Implementation
The planning and design of the BRT considered several criteria such as capacity, passenger demand, speed and cost of execution, and reaching low-income neighbourhoods. The location of the main trunk road used existing infrastructure such as the express highway (Vía Expresa). The highway connects areas with high demand for public transit.
Feeder routes in low-income areas
The feeders were identified as essential to reach the low-income areas. Although a demand study was not undertaken, the location for feeder routes was identified in relation to known areas of low-income and high population to the north and south of the city. Figure 2 shows the Metropolitano routes in relation to socioeconomic strata, and highlights that the integrated trunk-feeder network extends to some of the city’s lower income neighbourhoods.
In recognition of the need to continually improve access for people on lower incomes, Protransporte has identified complementary corridors to the east and west of the city, which will improve access for a wider community. This is part of an Integrated Transport System network comprised of the trunk route, feeder routes and metro lines, with works proposed for 2018.
Stairs of Solidarity
An additional project was also introduced to improve access to the system from low-income neighbourhoods. The Stairs of Solidarity (Escaleras de la Solidaridad in Spanish) were developed by the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima to improve access to the BRT feeder system for people living in the informal settlements located in the steep hills on the edge of the city. Before this project, residents in these informal settlements had to walk through mud roads on steep hills to reach feeder routes. The roads were unsafe and difficult for women, the elderly and children, and were particularly inaccessible for people with disabilities.
The municipality built stairs for communities and provided them with better access to the feeder routes. With the provision of infrastructure, the quality of life in these vulnerable communities improved. Residents were able to reach the feeder routes of the Metropolitano system and to access services, schools and jobs in a much safer way.
The Stairs of Solidarity have been implemented in different locations and have become one of the flagship programs of the current administration. It demonstrates the local government’s commitment to setting up programs that help overcome barriers and positively impact a wider community.
Figure 3. Pedestrian stairs (Solidarity Stairs).
Source: Lima City of Kings
Universal Design
To provide access for all, the original design of the BRT included Universal Design principles, supported by the World Bank. The BRT’s Universal Design enables access for people with disabilities. The stations include exclusive-use lifts, ramps, dedicated spaces within the bus for people with wheelchairs, and red seats for the exclusive use of pregnant women, the elderly and children.
Supervision and monitoring
No specific monitoring of inclusivity targets is currently undertaken by Protransporte.
Performance evaluation and surveys
‘Lima, how are we doing?’ (¿ Lima Como Vamos ?) is a monitoring and evaluation tool used to analyse changes in people’s quality of life. Performance evaluation reports and satisfactory survey reports are released annually. They summarise progress and reference public policies related to environment, mobility, culture, education, public spaces and health for the Lima metropolitan region. The reports include mobility indicators, such as the total number of users of the Metropolitano, transport mode share, origin and destination, number of cards issued and accidents. There are no specific indicators on inclusivity.
The tool aims to investigate urban issues affecting people’s quality of life and collect data to inform decision-making, to guide prioritisation and to provide information of interest to all citizens. This is also a tool that measures the views and perceptions of public projects and activities to encourage more people to get involved in the city’s development projects.
Multilateral Development Bank assessments
The BRT system was subject to a project performance assessment by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank in 2015, and an evaluation by the IADB’s Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE), as part of an evaluation of three BRT systems across Latin America (also including Cali in Colombia and Montevideo in Uruguay) in 2013 and 2016.
The OVE identified the following:
- The Metropolitano has succeeded in achieving its goal of having 60% of its riders from middle- and lowerincome communities (socioeconomic strata C, D and E);
- People from lower income areas have highly positive perceptions of the system speed;
- The system is generally perceived as affordable; however, the extreme poor still find the fare unaffordable; and
- Affordability is a barrier for the poor in using the BRT system for a large share of their trips. Given the integrated and flat fare pricing structure, the poor tend to use the BRT for longer trips because the price then becomes competitive with the traditional transit services.
Some of these findings are relevant in terms of maximising the benefits of inclusivity for BRT systems:
- BRT systems should consider implementing inclusive fare policies. To improve affordability for the poor, targeted vouchers could be used, or preferential tariffs could be added.
- A diagnosis of the mobility needs of the poor should be conducted to achieve inclusivity objectives, including analyses of issues around access, spatial mismatches between skill-appropriate jobs and housing, travel patterns and affordability. In general, income can be an unreliable measure of poverty, so it is better to use social strata data such as quality of housing, ownership of vehicles, etc.
- Inclusion of the extreme poor may need to consider feeders to those areas of low-density population.
- Given the complex urban settings in which BRTs are typically located, an integrated multimodal transport and land use planning approach involving interagency coordination is required. This should prioritise investments in physical infrastructure and system design adopting a comprehensive view, based on multiple stakeholder inputs and sound technological, policy and financial analysis. Reforms in support of the system, such as government-supported land use policies, are also required.
Back to
Case Studies
