Intermodal Connectivity to BRT: A Comparative Analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba

Bogotá and Curitiba have become important references for public transportation in Latin America and have gained worldwide recognition for their technically and managerially innovative bus-based public transportation systems (Bus Rapid Transit, BRT). However, despite the huge success of these projects, most people living in these cities still use other modes for their daily trips. The main aim of this paper is to investigate whether, and how, these cities adopt a multimodal approach when planning and implementing their innovative BRT projects. We compare how pedestrians, cyclists, and taxi and car users are linked to the BRT system in each of these cities and conclude that minor changes in both systems could improve their multimodality. Introduction Bogotá and Curitiba have become important references for public transportation in Latin America and have gained worldwide recognition, both in the technical and scientific literature, for their technically and managerially innovative bus-based public transportation systems. Technical manuals, such as those published by Embarq (2010) or ITDP (2007), depict Bogotá and Curitiba as reference models for public transportation because of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) networks successfully implemented in these cities. The World Bank even considers that BRT “can enable Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012 2 new categories of passengers, including more women and children, to benefit from an improved level of safe, accessible, and reliable public transport” (Rickert 2010, p. 1). BRT is also considered an important element of a greenhouse gas reduction policy (Wright and Fulton 2005). BRT has undoubtedly improved the quality of public transportation in several Latin American cities, from Santiago de Chile to Caracas. Also in Latin America, Curitiba and Bogotá are examples of best practices. However, the success of a public transportation project should not be based on a single major mode. In some cities in developed countries, BRT has been chosen over LRT (light rail transit), mainly for economic reasons, such as in Ottawa in the late 1970s (Rathwell and Schijns 2002), or to complement more robust rail systems, such as the Metro in Shanghai and Beijing (Xu 2004). In developing countries, BRT has been implemented as the main, if not only, mass transportation system, examples being South Africa (Cape Town) and Asia (Jakarta). Most of the developing countries have experienced an increase in the number of private vehicles per capita, reaching an annual increase of 10 percent (UN-Habitat, 2010), or vehicle sales increasing over 50 percent per year in China (Sperling and Claussen 2004, p. 11); but non-motorized modes are still relevant, even for important metropolises in developing world, reaching 33 percent in Delhi and Bangalore, 53 percent in Beijing (LTA Academy 2011), 33 percent in São Paulo (Metrô 2007), and 37 percent in Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro 2004). Common forms of public transportation include vans, minibuses, and taxis. The same scientific journals that highlight the merits of BRT frequently publish papers that point out the importance of a multimodal approach in meeting contemporary mobility challenges, such as the need to achieve socioeconomic equilibrium or reduce environmental impacts associated with urban transportation. Vincent and Jerram (2006, p. 222) even calculate “that it is likely that a BRT system can achieve significantly greater CO2 reductions than LRT” in American cities, both because the electricity used to power LRT comes from fossil fuels and because the cost of building an LRT is significantly higher than the corresponding cost for a BRT. The implication of the latter is that because more BRT than LRT can be built for the same dollar amount, which will translate into greater CO2 emissions. The main aim of this paper is to investigate whether, and how, Bogotá and Curitiba adopt a multimodal approach when planning and implementing their innovative BRT projects. A comparison is made of how pedestrians, cyclists, and taxi and car users are linked to the BRT system in each of these cities. Then, based on this, some brief recommendations are presented for improving urban mobility in these cities,