Whose express access? Assessing the equity implications of bus express routes in Montreal, Canada

Abstract

Express buses—characterized by limited stops and sometimes higher frequencies or priority traffic measures—offer a cost-effective and efficient way to boost service convenience and reliability for riders. This paper assesses how the accessibility benefits of express bus route policy are distributed in Montreal, Canada, while providing a pathway for public transportation agencies to assess their policies and plans. To isolate the impact of bus express routes, we use General Transit Speed Specification (GTFS) data, the Open Trip Planner multimodal routing engine, and the 2013 edition of Montreal’s origin-destination survey to contrast travel time and accessibility at the trip and census-tract levels under two scenarios: one with the existing, complete network and the second a counterfactual scenario with no express bus routes. Our results indicate that bus express routes enable an overall increase in accessibility for the overall population. However, the accessibility benefits do not accrue evenly, as expected, but also tend to benefit a more significant number of higher incomes. This occurs despite the location of low-income populations in some outlying areas of the city, which express bus routes are supposed to serve. This paper closes with policy recommendations that help planners balance economic, environmental, and equity goals, perhaps one of the most complex challenges they face nowadays.

Will you ride the train? A combined home-work spatial segmentation approach

“…This includes characteristics such as population and employment density (Frank & Pivo, 1994), airline distance from public transit for home based trip to work (Lee et al, 2014) and distance from CBD for home and work location (Ding et al, 2018). Whereas most studies focus solely on the home location, and to a lower extent, work location, this study highlights the relevance of jointly considering the variety of factors that determine future usage as highlighted in previous study (DeWeese et al, 2022;Frank & Pivo, 1994;Larsen et al, 2009). Indeed, as observed through the results of the logistic regression models, characteristics of the home and work location interact with one another: living in a suburban area while working in the CBD (the typical commuters) does not have the same implications as living and working in a suburban area (the suburbanites).…”

An optimal model for selection of stops for bus routes in busy times: Based on General Transit Feed Specification

“…Elliott and Lumley [9] proposed a travel time model based on GTFS and GPS vehicle locations, which is a wonderful way to make time prediction of bus in actual practice if GPS location is available. Moreover, the paper on the model for planning limited-stop transit operations proposed by Nesheli, Srikukenthiran, Shalaby [5] and bus express mode evaluation declared by DeWeese et al [4] are also based on GTFS. These increasingly GTFS-based study has revealed the reliability and value of GTFS.…”

“…Different from the limitation on metro lines, for instance, the need for extra tracks and the restriction on overtaking [3], city bus has more degrees of freedom. According to DeWeese et al [4], express routes mode could significantly contribute to society, including reducing commuting time and improving the employment environment. Furthermore, a preferable way to reduce public resource waste and increase utilization is to skip some unimportant stops for each bus line [5].…”

Who Does Light Rail Serve? Examining Gendered Mobilities and Light-Rail Transit in Montreal, Canada

“…Beyond these environmental and economic goals, LRT projects should also strive to foster equitable transport systems, which means ensuring that the social and economic benefits of major infrastructure investments are fairly distributed across society ( 4 – 7 ). There are major gaps, however, in knowledge about how these public-transit investments serve the wants and needs of different segments of society, particularly with regards to LRT and gender ( 8 ).…”