IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v164y2022icp38-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative economic assessment of urban transport infrastructure options in low- and middle-income countries

Author

Listed:
  • Vu, Tam
  • Preston, John

Abstract

Several innovative public transport (PT) projects have been developed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where cars, motorcycles and buses share the facilities. However, there seems to be very little evidence on assessment methods to analyse the feasibility of different PT modes and identify the most cost-effective mixed transport system. To address this issue, this study develops a comparative economic assessment (CEcoA) based on the PT technologies’ characteristics and the conditions of local transport networks. The assessment integrates four models. First, a social cost model (SCM), that calculates the social costs of each mode and mixed transport systems, is the key model in the assessment. Second, an incremental elasticity analysis (IEA) evaluates changes in total demand by using the demand elasticity with respect to a composite cost. The IEA solves the first drawback of the SCM that demand is assumed to be fixed. Third, an incremental logit model (ILM) estimates changes in modal shares with respect to generalised costs. The ILM overcomes the second disadvantage of the SCM, where preferences of users for all alternative transport modes are not considered. Fourth, a microscopic simulation model (MSM) simulates all existing transport modes’ flows on the local network. The MSM solves the third drawback of the SCM, which only considers an isolated corridor without any interaction between the different modes and any junctions. The assessment was applied to compare an existing mixed transport situation and twelve options with an introduction of new PT technologies (Bus Rapid Transit - BRT, elevated Metro and Monorail) replacing the existing bus services; either wholly or partially, and with or without a congestion charge scheme for private transport (PRV) on a corridor in Hanoi, Vietnam in terms of average social cost (ASC), total demand and PT share. The results show that eight options with BRT or Monorail or Metro are feasible, whilst the BRT option that replaces all existing buses and includes congestion charging is the best alternative in terms of ASC. Transport planners and decision makers can draw on the findings of this research. A congestion charge scheme might be considered for the local conditions to meet specific objectives such as a reduction in ASCs and an increase in modal share of PT. The CEcoA can be a strategic tool for not only planning new PT technologies on corridors in the whole network but also retrospectively evaluating investments of PT modes. Moreover, the methodology of the CEcoA might be applied and modified to various transport networks with an abundance of motorcycles to assess the costs and benefits of new PT modes and mixed transport systems with or without the congestion charge.

Suggested Citation

  • Vu, Tam & Preston, John, 2022. "A comparative economic assessment of urban transport infrastructure options in low- and middle-income countries," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 38-59.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:164:y:2022:i:c:p:38-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.07.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856422001963
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2022.07.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tam Vu & John Preston, 2020. "Assessing the social costs of urban transport infrastructure options in low and middle income countries," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 365-384, May.
    2. Mark Wardman & Jeremy Toner, 2020. "Is generalised cost justified in travel demand analysis?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 75-108, February.
    3. Wang, Rui, 2011. "Autos, transit and bicycles: Comparing the costs in large Chinese cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 139-146, January.
    4. Xucheng Li & John Preston, 2015. "Assessing the financial and social costs of public transport in differing operating environments and with endogenous demand," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 28-43, February.
    5. Tirachini, Alejandro & Hensher, David A. & Jara-Díaz, Sergio R., 2010. "Comparing operator and users costs of light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid transit over a radial public transport network," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 231-242.
    6. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2002. "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 107-116, April.
    7. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying resident preferences for bus-based and rail-based investments as a complementary buy in perspective to inform project planning prioritisation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    3. García-Herrera, Alisson & Basso, Leonardo J. & Tirachini, Alejandro, 2024. "Microeconomic analysis of ridesourcing market regulation policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Wang, Rui & Yuan, Quan, 2013. "Parking practices and policies under rapid motorization: The case of China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 109-116.
    5. Clifton, Geoffrey T. & Mulley, Corinne, 2016. "A historical overview of enhanced bus services in Australian cities: What has been tried, what has worked?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 11-25.
    6. Moccia, Luigi & Laporte, Gilbert, 2016. "Improved models for technology choice in a transit corridor with fixed demand," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 245-270.
    7. Ahern, Aoife A. & Tapley, Nigel, 2008. "The use of stated preference techniques to model modal choices on interurban trips in Ireland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 15-27, January.
    8. Moshe Givoni, 2020. "The high‐speed bus (HSB) as an alternative to the high‐speed rail (HSR): A conceptual approach examined through a case study," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 507-518, June.
    9. Ji, Yanjie & Gao, Liangpeng & Chen, Dandan & Ma, Xinwei & Zhang, Ruochen, 2018. "How does a static measure influence passengers’ boarding behaviors and bus dwell time? Simulated evidence from Nanjing bus stations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 13-25.
    10. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Daniels, Chux & AbdulRafiu, Abbas, 2022. "Transitioning to electrified, automated and shared mobility in an African context: A comparative review of Johannesburg, Kigali, Lagos and Nairobi," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    11. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "Air travel choice, online meeting and passenger heterogeneity – An international study on travellers’ preference during a pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 439-453.
    12. Hörcher, Daniel & Graham, Daniel J., 2018. "Demand imbalances and multi-period public transport supply," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 106-126.
    13. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Maria Börjesson, 2020. "A critical appraisal of the use of simple time-money trade-offs for appraisal value of travel time measures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1541-1570, June.
    14. André de Palma & Lucas Javaudin & Patrick Stokkink & Léandre Tarpin-Pitre, 2021. "Modelling Ridesharing in a Large Network with Dynamic Congestion," THEMA Working Papers 2021-16, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    15. Jean-Philippe Meloche & Vincent Trotignon & François Vaillancourt, 2021. "Densification ou prolongement des réseaux de transport structurants ? Une recension des écrits sur les coûts et les bénéfices attendus," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-28, CIRANO.
    16. Militão, Aitan M. & Tirachini, Alejandro, 2021. "Optimal fleet size for a shared demand-responsive transport system with human-driven vs automated vehicles: A total cost minimization approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 52-80.
    17. Rui Wang, 2011. "Environmental and resource sustainability of Chinese cities: A review of issues, policies, practices and effects," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(2), pages 112-121, May.
    18. Habibian, Meeghat & Kermanshah, Mohammad, 2013. "Coping with congestion: Understanding the role of simultaneous transportation demand management policies on commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 229-237.
    19. Cascetta, Ennio & Cartenì, Armando, 2014. "The hedonic value of railways terminals. A quantitative analysis of the impact of stations quality on travellers behaviour," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.
    20. Currie, Graham & Wallis, Ian, 2008. "Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 419-429.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:164:y:2022:i:c:p:38-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.