IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v50y2023i3d10.1007_s11116-021-10260-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User expectations and perceptions towards new public transport infrastructure: evaluating a cable car in Bogotá

Author

Listed:
  • Luis A. Guzman

    (Universidad de los Andes)

  • Victor A. Cantillo-Garcia

    (Universidad de los Andes)

  • Julian Arellana

    (Universidad del Norte)

  • Olga L. Sarmiento

    (Universidad de los Andes)

Abstract

Cable cars are a viable alternative to improve citizens’ accessibility in zones with limitations on urban public transport supply due to the topography. In Latin America, such systems have recently been implemented in zones with high levels of poverty and vulnerability. Although the social implications of their implementation are relevant, individual expectations of these systems and how current changes in travel conditions and quality of life are perceived have not been widely reported in the literature. This paper aims to evaluate users’ expectations and perceptions of a new cable car in the southern periphery of Bogotá (Colombia). We conducted a panel survey before (n = 341) and after (n = 301) the cable car started operations to evaluate the ranking of preferences toward a set of possible benefits of the project. We estimated discrete choice models to analyze the statistical differences between the expectations and perceptions before and after changes. Results suggest that travel time reductions, comfort improvements, and in-vehicle security are the benefits most valued by the users. Even though the project meets expectations of these aspects, it seems to fall short in expectations of reductions of pollution. Individuals’ experience with the cable car shapes their perceptions of the system. We found that perceptions differ between those who have used the service at least once and those who never did. Policy implications derived from this study might be of interest to decision-makers seeking to guarantee the public acceptability of urban projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis A. Guzman & Victor A. Cantillo-Garcia & Julian Arellana & Olga L. Sarmiento, 2023. "User expectations and perceptions towards new public transport infrastructure: evaluating a cable car in Bogotá," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 751-771, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:50:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11116-021-10260-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-021-10260-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-021-10260-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-021-10260-x?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. Joewono, Tri B. & Tarigan, Ari K.M. & Susilo, Yusak O., 2016. "Road-based public transportation in urban areas of Indonesia: What policies do users expect to improve the service quality?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 114-124.
    2. Oviedo Hernandez, Daniel & Titheridge, Helena, 2016. "Mobilities of the periphery: Informality, access and social exclusion in the urban fringe in Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 152-164.
    3. Guzman, Luis A. & Oviedo, Daniel & Rivera, Carlos, 2017. "Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 236-246.
    4. Hidalgo, Dario & Huizenga, Cornie, 2013. "Implementation of sustainable urban transport in Latin America," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 66-77.
    5. Redman, Lauren & Friman, Margareta & Gärling, Tommy & Hartig, Terry, 2013. "Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 119-127.
    6. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2013. "Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 4-23, February.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    8. Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julian & Delgado-Lindeman, Maira, 2020. "Stakeholders perceptions to sustainable urban freight policies in emerging markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-348.
    9. Louw, Erik & Leijten, Martijn & Meijers, Evert, 2013. "Changes subsequent to infrastructure investments: Forecasts, expectations and ex-post situation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 107-117.
    10. Echaniz, Eneko & Ho, Chinh Q. & Rodriguez, Andres & dell'Olio, Luigi, 2019. "Comparing best-worst and ordered logit approaches for user satisfaction in transit services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 752-769.
    11. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M., 2016. "The best of times and the worst of times: A new best–worst measure of attitudes toward public transport experiences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 108-123.
    12. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecín, Patricia, 2010. "Modelling user perception of bus transit quality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 388-397, November.
    13. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    14. Lucas, Karen, 2012. "Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 105-113.
    15. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecin, Patricia, 2011. "The quality of service desired by public transport users," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 217-227, January.
    16. Garsous, Grégoire & Suárez-Alemán, Ancor & Serebrisky, Tomás, 2019. "Cable cars in urban transport: Travel time savings from La Paz-El Alto (Bolivia)," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 171-182.
    17. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    18. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2016. "Measuring the influence of bus service quality on the perception of users," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 284-299, April.
    19. Ana Margarita Larranaga & Julián Arellana & Luis Ignacio Rizzi & Orlando Strambi & Helena Beatriz Bettella Cybis, 2019. "Using best–worst scaling to identify barriers to walkability: a study of Porto Alegre, Brazil," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2347-2379, December.
    20. Hull, Angela, 2008. "Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 94-103, March.
    21. Booth, Chris & Richardson, Tim, 2001. "Placing the public in integrated transport planning," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 141-149, April.
    22. Mackett, Roger L. & Edwards, Marion, 1998. "The impact of new urban public transport systems: will the expectations be met?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 231-245, May.
    23. Echaniz, Eneko & dell’Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Ángel, 2018. "Modelling perceived quality for urban public transport systems using weighted variables and random parameters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 31-39.
    24. Badri Ahmadi, Hadi & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Rezaei, Jafar, 2017. "Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 99-106.
    25. Wan, Dan & Kamga, Camille & Liu, Jun & Sugiura, Aaron & Beaton, Eric B., 2016. "Rider perception of a “light” Bus Rapid Transit system - The New York City Select Bus Service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 41-55.
    26. Philip Yu, 2000. "Bayesian analysis of order-statistics models for ranking data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 281-299, September.
    27. Rezaei, Jafar & van Roekel, Wilco S. & Tavasszy, Lori, 2018. "Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 158-169.
    28. Peter Brand & Julio D. Dávila, 2011. "Mobility innovation at the urban margins," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 647-661, December.
    29. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guzman, Luis A. & Cantillo-Garcia, Victor A. & Oviedo, Daniel & Arellana, Julian, 2023. "How much is accessibility worth? Utility-based accessibility to evaluate transport policies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    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. Iván Manuel Mendoza-Arango & Eneko Echaniz & Luigi dell’Olio & Eduardo Gutiérrez-González, 2020. "Weighted Variables Using Best-Worst Scaling in Ordered Logit Models for Public Transit Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Echaniz, Eneko & Ho, Chinh Q. & Rodriguez, Andres & dell'Olio, Luigi, 2019. "Comparing best-worst and ordered logit approaches for user satisfaction in transit services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 752-769.
    3. Chowdhury, Subeh & Ceder, Avishai (Avi) & Schwalger, Bradley, 2015. "The effects of travel time and cost savings on commuters’ decision to travel on public transport routes involving transfers," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 151-159.
    4. Juan Oña & Rocío Oña & Griselda López, 2016. "Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: a step forward to personalized marketing in public transportation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 725-747, September.
    5. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2015. "Modal image: candidate drivers of preference differences for BRT and LRT," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 7-23, January.
    6. Daniel Štraub, 2020. "The Effects of Fare-Free Public Transport: A Lesson from Frýdek-Místek (Czechia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Radomíra Jordová & Hana Brůhová-Foltýnová, 2021. "Rise of a New Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Paradigm in Local Governance: Does the SUMP Make a Difference?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2022. "Consumers oriented investments in transit service quality improvements: The best bang for your buck," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    9. Weiya Chen & Zixuan Kang & Xiaoping Fang & Jiajia Li, 2020. "Design a Semantic Scale for Passenger Perceived Quality Surveys of Urban Rail Transit: Within Attribute’s Service Condition and Rider’s Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Boisjoly, Geneviève & Serra, Bernardo & Oliveira, Gabriel T. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2020. "Accessibility measurements in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Recife, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    11. José Renato Barandier & Milena Bodmer & Izabella Lentino, 2017. "Evidence of the impacts of the national housing programme on the accessibility of the low‐income population in Rio de Janeiro," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(2), pages 105-118, May.
    12. Epstein, Bryan & Givoni, Moshe, 2016. "Analyzing the gap between the QOS demanded by PT users and QOS supplied by service operators," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 622-637.
    13. Gamal Eldeeb & Moataz Mohamed, 2020. "Understanding the Transit Market: A Persona-Based Approach for Preferences Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    14. Ojeda Diaz, Alfredo J. & Cantillo, Víctor & Arellana, Julián, 2023. "Understanding how individuals perceive changes in the built environment and the transport system after implementing a BRT system. The case of Barranquilla, Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    15. Veeneman, Wijnand & Mulley, Corinne, 2018. "Multi-level governance in public transport: Governmental layering and its influence on public transport service solutions," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 430-437.
    16. Weng, JianCheng & Yu, JiangBo & Di, XiaoJian & Lin, PengFei & Wang, Jing-Jing & Mao, Li-Zeng, 2023. "How does the state of bus operations influence passengers’ service satisfaction? A method considering the differences in passenger preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    17. Wan, Dan & Kamga, Camille & Liu, Jun & Sugiura, Aaron & Beaton, Eric B., 2016. "Rider perception of a “light” Bus Rapid Transit system - The New York City Select Bus Service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 41-55.
    18. Hernandez, Sara & Monzon, Andres & de Oña, Rocío, 2016. "Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-43.
    19. Ganji, S.S. & Ahangar, A.N. & Awasthi, Anjali & Jamshidi Bandari, Smaneh, 2021. "Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 345-363.
    20. Aydin, Nezir & Celik, Erkan & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2015. "A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 61-81.

    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:kap:transp:v:50:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11116-021-10260-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.