Reduced expenditures in transit have allowed families to spend in other needs. For instance, 43% of BUI users of municipal buses (Datasol Research) declared that they started
using the newly available income in food. Also, according to the Metro Survey in 2006, BUI users had an average expenditure of R$8.00 in public transportation prior to the introduction of the BUI and after its implementation are spending R$5.95—a 26% gain in disposable income.
Mobility of the low-income families increased for 52% of respondents to the Datasol Research survey in terms of:
Higher number of daily trips;
Trips by members of the family who previously did not travel;
Trips which could not be done before due to lack of resources.
And positive changes in travel conditions in terms of:
More travel options, with the possibility of choosing the fastest and shortest route;
Larger use of integrated service: In the case of the Metro, the GOP Research verified that there was an increase in the use of the BUI between bus and metro/train, going from 2% in 2005 to 38% in 2007. The use of Metro combined to other modes, such as train or inter-municipal buses also increased;
Lower trip time: this benefit was mentioned by 65% of the bus users interviewed in the Datasol Research and by 18% of the users of the Metro. Among the latter, the average gain in the total travel time was 19 minutes per day. Users now have more time to perform other activities.
All these gains in terms of increased mobility and reduced travel time significantly improve the quality-of-life of the low-income population, allowing it the possibility of enjoying better access to labor poles and to health, education and leisure facilities.
Thanks to the BUI the low-income population increased its use of the rail-based system. This segment today accounts for almost 45% of the rail-based network ridership:
As indicated above, the participation of the lowest-income users in the CPTM and Metro’s ridership was already growing due to the free transfer between the two systems and the series of operating measures that improved micro-accessibility and travel conditions. And with the extension of the BUI to the rail networks, a larger number of low-income people saw the possibility of accessing CPTM and METRO. Hence the share of low-income users in total ridership increased.
Table 5 shows the results of Metro’s survey to its riders. The data shows that there is a trend underlying the share of total ridership represented by low-income people in Metro’s daily ridership. For instance, the increase in the share of low-income users in the Metro was more than 7 percent points between 2005 and 2006— jumping from 28% to 35% of ridership. In comparison to 2001, the share grew by 75%. On the other hand, CPTM’s survey to its users is still not available and no observations can be made for this mode.
Table 5: Metro’s Demand by Income Ranges
PERCENTAGE OF USERS BY INCOME GROUP BY YEAR
Below 4 MS
4 to 8 MS
8 to 15 MS
15 to 30 MS
Above 30 MS
Source: Pesquisa GOP
Notwithstanding the lack of data for CPTM for 2006, we can use the 2005 figure to estimate the total share of riders that are low income in both Metro and CPTM. In 2005, 63.7% of the riders of CPTM’s rail network were low income. Conservatively, we can assume this same figure for 2006. Therefore, in this year an estimated 44.3% of all rail-based transit users were low-income, equivalent to 1.75 millions riders per day.
Table 6: Low-Income Users in the Network Demand in 2006 with the BUI1
1The BUI was implemented in the railway network in 2006.
2 Estimates for CPTM for 2006 based on the growth factor occurred in the Metro between 2005 and 2006 (2.5).
3 Estimate for the 2 to 4 MS range of CPTM demand based on the data from the Pesquisa AD 2005 for the 3 to 5 MS range for the same year.
Source: CPTM Pesquisa AD 2005, Metro Pesquisa GOP 2005 and 2006, and GPMestimates
E. IMPACT ON THE RAIL-BASED NETWORK With the Bilhete Único Integado, the demand of the rail-based network grew 10.5% in only one year:
In addition to increasing the number of low-income riders, the BUI also increased total demand in the rail-based network (Figures 2 and 3). The downside was a decrease in the quality of service, particularly during the peak-hour, because trains were too crowded. Station platforms are also congested with passengers waiting for the next train. Important crowd control measures have been introduced. Furthermore, ridership has increased also during off-peak hours. Therefore, it is urgent to restore the level-of-service by increasing the peak and off-peak carrying capacity of the metro and commuter rail systems.
Source: GPM PML PMR/CEU, based on CPTM and Metro demand data.
F. THE ACQUISITION OF TRAINS AND SIGNALING SYSTEMS AND THE EXPECTED IMPACT ON GENERAL MOBILITY EXPECTED BENEFITS DUE TO INCREASE IN CARRYING CAPACITY
Acquiring trains and improving track signaling will increase the carrying capacity of both Metro and CPTM. Both rail systems will offer more frequent, confortable and reliable service. Current users will benefit thanks to shorter wait times and faster travel. Further, the improvements will also attract new users, particularly in the case of CPTM where there is a significant latent demand. Table 7 shows the forecasts for CPTM for 2010 for the with project and without the project situations. For the entire commuter rail network, demand is expected to increase by 1,040,000 riders per day, when compared to the without project scenario for 2010. Therefore, with the proposed project, a 58.8% increase in the daily ridership is expected for 2010, serving more than 2.8 million passengers per day.
In the case of the Metro, current ridership is very high leading to crowded trains. Thanks to the increased capacity rendered by the project users will experience a better service in terms of lower waiting times and more reliable service. Users will continue to have a good impression and image of metro’s service. With the project, the expected ridership will reach 4.5 million per day—159,000 passengers more than in the scenario without the project.
Therefore, the overall additional ridership in rail modes thanks to the project is estimated to be 1,199,000 per day. Of these, 1,049,000 will ride CPTM’s commuter rail and 159,000 will ride the Metro.
Table 8: Expected Ridership in Metro by 2010 with and without Project
***Includes the extension of Line 2 to V.Prudente + Line 4 – phase 1
Source: Metro GPM / CPT
In addition to these benefits, there will be some important indirect effects to society as a whole, such as a reduction of traffic congestion and pollution, fuel savings, a reduction of traffic accidents, and a decrease in travel time of riders (see Annex 9)
G. EXPECTED BENEFITS FOR THE POOR POPULATION The rail lines that area part of the project are already used mainly by low-income population:
The low-income population will be the most benefited by the proposed investments, because it already constitutes the largest share of total ridership in the lines that are part of the project.
Table 9: Percentage of Riders that Are Low Income Benefited by the Project
% of population up to 4 mw of family income (2006)
* PML conservative estimate for the income range below 4 MS in CPTM demand, based on data from Pesquisa AD/2005.
Source: CPTM / Pesquisa AD and Metro/ Pesquisa GOP
By reaching peripheral regions in the Eastern and Northern areas of the SPMR–where the lower-income population is concentrated—the lines benefited by the investment will attract new users from these poor neighborhoods, facilitating the mobility of this segment of the population. The following map (Figure 4) shows the average income of the areas surrounding the lines impacted by the project. Notice the remarkable predominance of low-income population in the districts that surround lines A and F of CPTM and Line 3 of Metro.
Figure 4: Average Family Income in the Areas Surrounding the Benefited Rail Lines
S ource: GPM PML PMR/CEU, based on data from Pesquisa OD 97
Based on similar experiences (e.g. Expresso Leste), the improvements in micro-accessibility and travel conditions in these rail lines are expected to impact favorably the surrounding urban areas. More shopping and leisure facilities are expected, for example. These impacts will also improve the quality of life of these populations.
The improvements to the rail lines will reduce travel times and increase comfort to acceptable levels, benefiting mainly the SPMR periphery where the poor live:
The improvements in the service offered (see tables 7 and 8, above) will increase the level of service of rail service, along these lines:
Reduction of travel time: mainly in the lines that serve the Eastern Zone of the SPMR, that is CPTM’s Line F and Metro’s Line 3 (Red). These are precisely the lines with a higher proportion of low-income households;
Improvement of travel conditions in Metro’s Line 3 by decreasing the number of passengers per unit area from 8.3 passengers/m² to 6.5 passengers/m². In CPTM the improvement brought about by a higher frequency will be partially offset by the increase in demand.
The mobility of the low-income population will increase, because out of the expected increase of 1,199,000 passengers by 2010, 60,0 % will be users with income below the poverty line:
As seen, thanks to the project, ridership will increase in both CPTM and Metro. The low-income population will benefit because they can travel more, particularly in CPTM. Tables 10 and 11 show the increase in each service thanks to the improved service and disaggregates the impact on low-income users (family income below 4 MS). Impacts are shown for each line and then for the entire network (totals are larger because of network effects). Currently, 63.7% of CPTM riders and 35.0% of Metro riders are low income. Assuming these shares remain constant in the situation with project, an estimated 718,000 of the 1,199,000 additional riders will be low income.