4.3.2.4 Enhanced heavy capacity public transport networks

To cover longer distances, cities need alternative approaches to active mobility options. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems have features similar to light rail or metro systems and are thus faster, more reliable and convenient than regular bus services. The main attractiveness of BRTs lies in the low cost compared to rail-based transit systems while providing relatively high mobility services (e.g. right-of-way, reduced congestion and accessibility of more distant stops). Yet, taking the decision to invest in such a public transit system remains risky for policymakers as the benefits are dispersed across many people over time and upfront investment remains high. Operational BRT systems, ideally from nearby or socio-economic and geographically similar cities, must be available as examples to learn from. Once a pool of such BRT systems exists, the likelihood of other cities adopting the approach increases. Such a demonstration effect in the diffusion of innovations shows how important successful fore-runner projects are for fundamental transformations – especially for large-scale infrastructure projects which systematically change a city’s mobility system in the long term. 

This contagion effect has been shown for BRT systems (Kitzmann et al., 2022): Following Curitiba’s successful example (Box 4.3.4), several cities developed early BRT-like systems. Initially cities in neighbouring countries in Latin America followed a typical spatial diffusion pattern. This changed with the introduction and subsequent popularity of Bogota TransMilenio, which inspired cities across the globe to adopt BRT systems. Further momentum was created by systems springing up in Guangzhou in China, Ahmedabad in India, and Istanbul in Turkey. The popularity of BRTs is not limited to low and middle-income countries; cities in the European Union (e.g. Bus-VAO in Madrid, Spain) and the US and Canada (e.g. Metro Rapid in Los Angeles or B-Lines in Vancouver) have also adopted BRT systems modelled on the early pioneers in Latin American cities. Given the differences in quality attributes among the systems as well as the overall traffic and socio-cultural situation in cities where BRT has been implemented, not all of them are successful, with the system in Delhi, India being a prominent example of a poorly implemented system that has been rolled back due to opposition from certain sections of the population (Kathuria et al., 2015). 

Globally there is evidence that implementing BRT systems leads to a significant increase in public transport usage and modal shift of up to 30 per cent at city level, with users preferring it over standard buses, creating a more satisfied customer base that is less likely to abandon it once private vehicles are an option. BRT stations often facilitate transit-oriented development with increased residential and business densities, a diversity of land uses and, thus, shorter distances to trip destinations. These systems are also associated with greater mobility for disadvantaged groups, especially women, for example in Lahore, Pakistan.. There is enormous potential for large public transit infrastructure to bring about a shift in female mobility in cities of the Global South. 

Beyond BRT, examples of rail-based systems’ disruptive effects on urban mobility can also be found in the Global North (e.g. Porto, Portugal) and Global South (e.g. Johannesburg, South Africa) (Curtis and Scheurer, 2019). Both cases showed a huge emission reduction potential by producing a strong shift towards cleaner public transport, reducing private car use, and improve by increasing transport efficiency by increased load factors, and cleaner energy use.

As with active mobility, the introduction of such public transport systems can make people rethink their (future) choice of using private vehicles for their mobility needs, impacting also inter-city and long-distance travel. Transport-related choices are influenced by social norms (4.4.1): with an increasing number of people relying on public transport (or active mobility) for their mobility needs, their peers are motivated to adopt similar behaviour. With this combination of changes in individual-level habitual choices and social norms, infrastructure developments can change societal attitudes towards sustainable mobility (4.4.1). Like in the positive feedback loop for individual motorised transport (Figure 4.3.3), once sustainable mobility infrastructure is introduced, more people rely on this infrastructure, thus creating demand for increased spending on this infrastructure and greater accountability to ensure policymakers meet these demands.Globally, there is large potential for shifting urban mobility to options of public transport systems and active mobility. This has not yet been harnessed, with tipping lacking at large scale, but several successful examples exist which could be replicated if the enabling conditions were in place.