PDF 10.7MB - IATSS 公益財団法人国際交通安全学会

研究組織
プロジェクトリーダー：中村 文彦（横浜国立大学大学院工学研究院 教授）
メンバー：福田
敦（日本大学理工学部 教授）
藤井
聡（東京工業大学大学院理工学研究科 教授）
江守
央（日本大学理工学部 助手）
研究協力者：福田トウェンチャイ（日本大学理工学研究所 上席研究員）
大島 良輔（日本大学大学院理工学研究科 博士前期課程 3 年）
Thaiampne Sathiennam（日本大学大学院理工学研究科 博士後期課程 2 年）
Thillaiampalam Sivakumar（横浜国立大学大学院工学府 博士課程 3 年）
Atit Tippichai（日本大学大学院理工学研究科研究 研究生）
Hong Tan Van（東京工業大学大学院理工学研究科 博士課程 1 年）
事務局：奈良坂 伸（(財)国際交通安全学会）
柿沼
徹（(財)国際交通安全学会）
今泉 浩子（(財)国際交通安全学会）
*研究協力者はアルファベット順
目 次
第1章
はじめに ［中村］ ·····························································································
1
第2章
調査技術の改良 ［中村］ ·················································································
3
2.1
はじめに··········································································································
3
2.2
調査概要··········································································································
3
2.3
考察結果··········································································································
5
2.4
まとめ··············································································································
8
ワークショップを通した普及戦略の検討························································
9
3.1
ワークショップの概要 ［中村］ ································································
9
3.2
ワークショップで用いた CG 資料について ［江守］ ·····························
11
3.3
ワークショップ参加者データに基づく態度変容の分析［藤井］ ···········
18
具体的導入方策シナリオの検討 ［福田］······················································
24
4.1
BRT 導入の成功の要因··················································································
24
4.2
BRT に対する受入れ環境··············································································
25
4.3
ASEAN 型 BRT 導入シナリオの検討···························································
26
4.4
パラトランジットの端末交通としての計画的利用の可能性に関する概要 ··
27
4.5
BRT 普及シナリオの分析··············································································
28
まとめ：アジアでの普及戦略の提言に向けて ［中村］ ······························
31
第3章
第4章
第5章
※［ ］内は執筆担当者
付録
1. BRT 導入意向調査質問票（世帯票、2005 年 10 月実施、コロンボ）［中村］·······
33
2. BRT 導入意向調査質問票（個人票、2005 年 10 月実施、コロンボ）［中村］·······
39
3. BRT 導入意向調査質問票（世帯票、2006 年 9 月実施、コロンボ）［中村］·········
43
4. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料（コロンボ第 1・2 回）［中村］ ·······
47
5. ワークショップ・アンケート調査票（コロンボ第 1 回）［中村］ ·························
57
6. ワークショップ・アンケート調査票（コロンボ第 2 回）［中村］ ·························
67
7. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料（バンコク第 1 回）［中村］ ·············
77
8. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料（バンコク第 2 回）［中村］ ·············
97
9. ワークショップ・補足資料（バンコク第 2 回）［中村］········································· 105
10. ワークショップ・BRT についての講義用資料（バンコク）［中村］··················· 117
11. ワークショップ・BRT についての講義用資料（バンコク）［中村］··················· 123
12. Sivakumar, T., Okamura, T. and Nakamura, F.: Public Transportation Survey on Users
Preference in Developing Countries.［中村］ ······························································ 127
13. Sivakumar, T., Okamura, T. and Nakamura, F.: A Systematic Approach for Questionnaire
Design on New Transit System Implementation in Developing Countries, Proceedings of
the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007. ［中村］ ················ 137
14. Van, H.T., Fujii, S., Nakamura, F., Nakamura, F., Fukuda, A. and Emori H.: Educational
Methods to Change Attitude of Transport Planners toward an Environmentally Sustainable
Transportation Mode in developing Countries. ［藤井］············································· 155
15. タイ・バンコクにおけるパラトランジットの利用・運営実態 ［福田］ ··········· 169
16. タイ・バンコクにおける BRT 導入評価の概要 ［福田］ ····································· 187
※［ ］内は制作責任者
第1章
はじめに
京都議定書を引き合いに出すまでもなく、交通部門での環境負荷の低減の要請が全世界
的に求められている。モータリゼーションの進んだ先進国のみでなく、開発途上国までも
が含まれる。開発途上国では、さらなる経済成長が期待され、その結果としてのモータリ
ゼーションの進行は、確実におきるといえる。すなわち、開発途上国において、特段の政
策展開をしない場合には、交通部門での環境負荷は増大するといえる。しかしながら、同
時に、開発途上国には、交通部門での環境負荷を低減させるポテンシャルがあるという期
待もある。具体的には、自転車、オートバイ、バス、そしてバスほど大きくない車両を、
いわば生活の智恵を組み込むことで、バスのように活用する各種乗り物、専門的には、自
家用車とバスの間の中間的な交通手段という意味でのパラトランジットと称される乗り物、
これらが実際には、相当度に工夫されて活用されている。ただし、全般的には、そのよう
なパラトランジットやバスというものに対する、開発途上国の国民のイメージは悪く、自
家用車への憧れが強いことも否めない。
このように、決して単純ではない状況の下で、我々は、開発途上国の持つポテンシャル
を最大限活用して、低環境負荷の交通システム（本研究では、これをエコロジカルな交通
システムと呼ぶ）を開発途上国に普及させることは、必要であるとともに可能であり、先
進国の新技術をただただ技術移転するのではないかたちでの普及戦略を立案しようと考え
た。
問題意識としては、モータリゼーションの渦中での、自家用車利用ではない代替的交通
手段普及の意義付けがあるということ、普及方策として、心理的方略を含む戦略の意義と
実現可能性を前提としていること、バスなど既存の交通機関のイメージが悪すぎる、嫌わ
れている、一方で、イメージを払拭して活用する可能性があると想定できること、ただし、
どのくらいイメージを超えられるのか、どのように偏見を打破できるのか未知数であるこ
と、といった具合に整理できる。
昨年度の研究（「エコロジカルな交通システムの開発途上国での普及方策」）では、既存
のバスやパラトランジットを組み合わせたシステムが低環境負荷で、かつ活用可能性があ
る一方で、市民の意識は、これまでのバスのネガティブなイメージとモータリゼーション
の憧れの中にあり、意識啓発は容易ではなく、さらに、そのバイアスが需要予測にも影響
することを明らかにした（IATSS RESEARCH,VOl.30,No.2,2006 参照）。
本研究は、それらの成果をもとに、具体的なシステム案を立案して、それらについて、
市民や行政等意思決定主体に普及させていくための戦略について、コンピュータグラフィ
ック技術の活用、心理学、社会学的アプローチの援用を取り込んだ代替案を設定し、現地
での調査を重ねることによって、意識や態度の変化を計測し、提案した戦略代替案の有効
性を検証し、開発途上国のうちで、特にわれわれ日本に対して身近な存在であるアジア地
域を念頭に、アジア型エコロジカル交通システム普及モデルを構築、提案することを目的
として行われた。
エコロジカルな交通システムの定義は、先に述べたとおりであるが、本プロジェクトで
-1-
は、さまざまな選択肢がある中で、現在のところイメージの悪いバスという技術を最大限
活用して、従来のバスとは異なるくらいの存在感を出すことができ、すでに、アジアでは、
インドネシアのジャカルタ、世界的には、ブラジルのクリチバやコロンビアのボゴタで知
られている BRT（Bus Rapid Transit：基幹バス輸送システム）に着目した。
BRT は、地下鉄やモノレールなどの軌道系に匹敵する輸送力や速度性能を有しており、
その裏返しとして、きめ細かく地域を巡るようなバスサービスとは異なるものになる。よ
って、BRT を検討する際には、既存のバスシステムとの整合とともに、バス停からの端末
輸送を考えなくてはならない。とりわけ熱帯性の気候のため徒歩距離の短いアジア地域の
開発途上国大都市では、BRT のようなシステムをただ取り入れるだけでは、地域全体の交
通改善にはならず、バス停まわりのごく限られた居住者や都市活動を支えるだけに過ぎな
くなる。端末輸送としては、先に述べたパラトランジットシステムの活用が期待される。
すでに技術と経験があり、かつ小型車両なので小回りが効く。イメージの悪さを払拭でき
れば、パラトランジットにも活用の道はあると考える。
以上をまとめると、
「幹線輸送としての BRT＋端末輸送としてのパラトランジット」を
ベースとしたシステムということになる。本年度の研究では、これを中心的なものとして
とらえ、これを普及させていくための課題について、個別に検討を進めた。ケーススタデ
ィは、すべて、スリランカのコロンボとタイのバンコクで行った。両都市とも国を代表す
る大都市であるが、コロンボは、BRT の具体的な計画を有していない事例として、バンコ
クは、BRT の具体的な計画を有している事例として位置づけている。
まず、まだ基幹バス輸送システム（BRT）の具体的計画が進んでいないコロンボにおい
て、市民への選好意識調査を行い、新しいシステムの導入検討時の意向調査の方法につい
て、調査技術改良の検討を行った（2 章）。
同時に、コロンボとバンコク（郊外部で BRT の計画が進んでいる）においてワークショ
ップを行い、BRT を中心とした新しい公共交通システムの計画案についての行政担当者の
意識や態度が、BRT に対する住民の態度の把握・導入への実務情報の理解・地図上での行
動プラン作成等の条件によって、どのように変化するかを検討した（3 章）。
また、具体的普及方策のシナリオの検討のために、バンコクにおいて、BRT と土地利用
とのバランスの検討、BRT 導入時の交通施策の効果の測定、パラトランジットの実態調査
も実施した（4 章）。これらの結果として、調査の必要性および調査設計の重要性と、既存
資源を活用する代替案への理解を深めることの重要性が明らかとなった。
以上をもとに、エコロジカルな交通システムを開発途上国に普及させるための方策を提
案した（5 章）。
-2-
第2章
2.1
調査技術の改良
はじめに
BRT に限らず、当該地域で未知の交通手段を導入する際には、さまざまな課題が発生す
る。例えば、ジャカルタ市での BRT 導入では、先進例としてコロンビアのボゴタ市から多
くを学び取り、同市から技術者を招聘して、導入に漕ぎ着けている。
施設導入に際しての技術的な課題とともに、その需要予測でも問題は大きい。新しく導
入されるシステムによる移動での、所要時間や運賃が明らかになれば、ある仮定で需要を
予測することはできるが、いざ開業すると過大あるいは過小評価となっている場合もあり、
それは、何も開発途上国だけではなく、わが国でも数多く経験している。典型的な例とし
ては、地下鉄導入の場合での、上下移動の負荷を嫌って、バスから転換せず、あるいは自
家用車へと転換する層の存在や、乗継の抵抗が需要に影響する場合などをあげることがで
きよう。
利用意向を尋ねるアンケート調査をもとに、将来の利用者数を予測することも頻繁に行
われている。交通計画の分野では、Stated Preference（選好意識）調査（以下 SP 調査）と
呼ばれる調査手法が、その回答結果からの予測技術とともに開発、発展してきており、あ
る程度確立した考え方として定着している。我が国では、都市部での新しい公共交通シス
テムの導入に際しての交通行動の変更の意向を尋ねる場面などで活用され、回答値に含ま
れるさまざまなバイアスや誤差を処理して、需要予測に用いる技術も適用されている。
しかしながら、その前提は、回答者が、新しい、未知の交通システムをきちんと認識し
ていることであり、その意味で、アンケート調査をする際には、調査票においてどのよう
な説明がされているかは重要な条件となる。曖昧な説明の結果、新しい交通システムを過
大に評価する場合もあれば、過小に評価する場合もある。さらに、その説明がどのように
認識されるかは、説明を受ける側の教育水準や知識水準にも左右される。多くの先進国の
ように、教育水準や知識水準に大きな開きのない場合はまだしも、一般的な開発途上国の
ように、識字率が決して高くなく、教育水準や知識水準にも大きな開きのある場合には、
調査票の設計にはより慎重にならざるを得ない。
以上のような背景をもとに、ここでは、調査票の改良の効果を検証した。前章でも触れ
たように、対象は、BRT である。ここでの検証では、開発途上国の代表としてスリランカ
を取り上げ、同国の人口最大都市コロンボ都市圏での BRT 導入の意向調査を実施した。
2.2
調査概要
調査では、BRT の説明における配慮、特に言葉だけの簡便な説明の問題を把握すること
と、BRT の選択条件の設問の工夫、具体的には、さまざまなサービス条件を羅列すること
の問題の２つを中心的に取り上げ、市民向けにアンケート調査を実施し、集計結果を比較
考察する方法で分析を行った。調査自体および前者については、前年度成果として報告済
-3-
みである。
対象としたコロンボ都市圏は、全土の約 3 割となる人口 540 万人の大都市である。同都
市圏の中で、都心からの放射状のコリドーとして、西海岸のコロンボ都心∼パナドゥア地
区間を選定し、その中間地点に立地する、住宅地と商業地の混在するデワレ地区と、ラビ
ニア山地区の居住者に対して調査を行った。訪問留置き型調査で、285 票の配布に対して
116 票を回収した（回収率 41％）。今回の調査では、本来であれば、世帯内のすべての都心
通勤者や都心通学者を対象に個人票を配布回収するところであるが、多くの世帯で、世帯
主の回答しか得られなかった。この背景には、世帯を構成するいわゆる家族内での人間関
係、特に家長の伝統的な役割が影響していると考えられる。わが国では、特段の配慮なく、
世帯票と個人票を使い分けているが、そもそも世帯そして家族という概念が異なる環境下
では、同様の調査をする際にそれなりの配慮が必要となってくる。以下に対象地区の位置
図（図 2-1）と様子（図 2-2∼2-3）を示した。
(CBD)
Dehiwle &
Mt.Lavinia
Km
図 2-1 調査対象地区の位置図
図 2-2 対象コリドーを走行するバス
図 2-3 対象コリドーの様子
-4-
2.3
考察結果
（1）BRT の説明について
調査では、BRT についての 2 通りの説明を用意した。回答者を 2 つのグループに分け、
片方のグループには、図 2-4 から絵柄や写真を除いたものを、他方のグループには、図 2-4
の情報をそのまま質問票に載せた。
図 2-4
BRT の説明に用いた文章と絵柄（英語とシンハリ語）
-5-
2 つの回答者グループの回答の違いのうちの典型例を図 2-5 に示す。
100
TEXT
IMAGE
% of BRT Prefered
80
60
40
20
0
< 30
図 2-5
30 -40
40 - 50
Age(/Yrs)
50 -60
> 60
BRT の説明の違いによる BRT 選好率の差異
図中のそれぞれ左側の棒（TEXT）が文章だけでの説明の場合の BRT の選好で、右側の
棒（IMAGE）が絵柄を加えた説明の場合の BRT の選好を表し、年代別の差異も示してい
る。回答者グループ間の個人属性の違い等はある程度調整した上での比較であるが、総じ
て、ビジュアルメディアの効果が大きいといえ、特に高齢者において顕著となることが確
認できた。
この違いは、上記のような単純集計の場合だけでなく、需要予測モデルに対しても有意
に効いてくる。表 2-1 は、いわゆる手段選択意向モデルのパラメータ推計結果をまとめた
ものである。
表の左列（Without-Image）が文章だけで BRT を説明した場合、
右列（With-Image）
が絵柄も交えて説明した場合のパラメータである。モデルは通常のロジット型非集計モデ
ルで、選択肢は、既存のバスのままか BRT への転換かの 2 項選択である。BRT 選択肢固
有変数（表中の BRT-Const）の値の大きさが異なることに象徴されるように、絵柄の効果
が大きいことがわかる。
表 2-1 手段選択意向モデルでのパラメータ推計結果
ai (t-test)
Statistics
Without-Image
-0.043 (-3.606)
-0.066 (-2.174)
-0.052 (-3.517)
0.501 (-2.049)
0.910 (-4.791)
L(0) -259.28
L(β) -256.85
Adj. ρ2 0.130
N 426
Attribute
TT/(min)
TTV/(min)
F /(Rs)
CO (1 ~ 0)
BRT-Const
-6-
With-Image
-0.009 (-1.059)
-0.082 (-3.630)
-0.081 (-6.323)
0.700 (-3.321)
1.547 (-9.216)
-554.52
-420.00
0.242
800
（2）選択肢の提示方法
ここでは、選択肢の提示方法について検討した。具体的には、4 つの選択肢を同時に提
示して選んでもらう場合と、2 つの選択肢ずつ選んでもらう質問を複数回繰り返す場合と
の比較を行った。用いた調査票を図 2-6 に示す。
図 2-6 2 種類の質問提示例
この 2 つの質問提示方法については、表に示したものの他 3 通りを用意した。ここでは
それぞれをシナリオと呼ぶ。各シナリオについて、2 種類の質問提示による、BRT 利用意
向の違いを図 2-7 にまとめた。ここでは、各シナリオの詳細は述べないが、いずれの場合
においても、
2 つの選択肢からの選択を繰り返すほうが BRT の選好率が高いことがわかる。
BRT の選好率が高いことがモデルの信頼性の高さを示していると断言はできないが、説明
の効果が現れているという意味で、2 つの選択肢からの選択を繰り返す手法のほうが望ま
しいと推察できる。
-7-
C1
C2
C3
C4
E.Bus
BRT
No Ans
Sequent
Simult
Sequent
Simult
Sequent
Simult
Sequent
Simult
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
図 2-7 4 選択肢同時提示と繰り返し提示による BRT 選好率の差異
2.4 まとめ
以上の検討結果より下記の結論を得た。
① 画像添付調査のほうが回答率が高い。
② 画像添付調査に基づくモデルのほうが精度が向上する可能性があり、かつ BRT の選好
率も高まる。
③ 多肢同時選択より 2 肢逐次選択のほうが BRT についての説明効果を向上させ、BRT の
選択率を高める可能性がある。
また、それ以外に、調査作業から得られた 2 つの点も指摘しておく。
④ 個人属性を加味したモデルでは特に選択肢の逐次提示の影響が大きくでる。
⑤ 訪問留置きで記入を待つよりは、調査員がその場で回答者に直接インタビューのほう
が世帯で歓迎され、回答内容の信頼性も高まる。
これらの観点をまとめると、BRT の利用意向について開発途上国で新規に選好意識調査
を実施する場合には、既存バスへのイメージが悪く、教育水準も決して高くはなく、世帯
構成が複雑な状況下（＝開発途上国都市部）を仮定すると、画像プラス 2 肢選択で、直接
訪問で得たデータで計画をすることが望ましい。
-8-
第3章
ワークショップを通した普及戦略の検討
3.1 ワークショップの概要
本年度の調査では、行政および市民に対して、BRT 計画についての意識および態度の計
測を行い、普及戦略検討の基礎資料とするためにワークショップを開催した。単なる意識、
態度の計測であれば、通常行う訪問留置き型のアンケート調査でも対応可能であるが、今
回は、与えられる情報の量と質が変わっていくことで、意識や態度がどのように変化する
かを測定するため、被験者を一室に集めて、その場でアンケートへの回答、プレゼンテー
ションを繰り返すようなワークショップ形式とした。
対象とする被験者は、一般市民と行政技術者の 2 種類とした。対象都市としては、アジ
アの大都市で、BRT の計画がある程度浸透しつつあるバンコクと、BRT の計画がまだ正式
には存在しないコロンボを選定した。行政技術者については、バンコクでは、BRT 計画に
実際関与しているバンコク都庁の技術職員、コロンボでは、BRT 計画が検討されるとした
場合にもっとも関与すると期待されるスリランカ政府道路局の技術職員を対象とした。一
般市民をワークショップに集めることはきわめて難しいため、本研究では、便宜的に、大
学生を一般市民の代理として位置づけた。諸般の事情から、バンコクでは、キングモンク
ット工科大学トンブリ校土木工学科 4 年生、コロンボでは、モラトワ大学工学部土木工学
科 1 年生のそれぞれ有志を対象とした。
バンコクでのワークショップ運営については、福田トウェンチャイ氏、大島良輔氏、ア
ティト・ティピチャイ氏の絶大なる協力のもとに行われた。コロンボでのワークショップ
運営については、ラディア・カハタピティヤ氏、ティララパラム・シバクマール氏の絶大
なる協力のもとに行われた。バンコクでは、2007 年 9 月 8 日及び 11 月 10 日、コロンボで
は、2007 年 9 月 17 日及び 12 月 14 日に実施した。
2 回のワークショップの構成は次の通りである。
第 1 回では、まずワークショップの趣旨説明を行い、その後最初のアンケート調査を行
った。引き続いて BRT についての言葉での説明を行い、その後 2 度目のアンケート調査を
行った。さらに BRT についてのコンピュータグラフィクス（静止画）を用いた説明を行い、
再度アンケート調査を行った。3 度のアンケート調査では質問項目が重複しており、その
回答の変化を伺うことができる。
第 2 回については、まず第 1 回のワークショップの概要をおさらいし、引き続いて、第
1 回の市民（実際は土木工学を専攻している大学生）へのアンケート結果からわかる市民
意識の分析結果を紹介して、アンケート調査を行った。その後、BRT について導入にかか
る具体的な課題を説明してアンケート調査を行った。引き続いて、市内の道路地図を回答
者に与えて、そこに BRT を導入することが望ましい区間を記入してもらう作業をしていた
だき、その後にアンケート調査を行った。こちらでもアンケート調査では質問項目が重複
しており、BRT の具体的な課題の説明、よく知っている地域での実際の導入検討区間の抽
出という作業を経た後の意識および態度の変化を伺うことができる。
-9-
第 2 回のワークショップで BRT の具体的な課題として取り上げたのは、以下の諸点であ
る。いずれの項目も、ブラジル連邦のクリチバの開発軸のバス専用道路、インドネシアの
ジャカルタのトランスジャカルタなど、先進的な事例の写真および概念的な図面を加えて
ビジュアルに配慮して説明を行った。
① 道路のレイアウト：多車線道路でのバス専用車線の設定の考え方
② 交差点設計と信号処理：交差点の立体処理や優先信号制御の考え方。U ターン施設と
バス専用車線の関係
③ バス停の設計：多車線道路の中央走行時のバス停位置や形状、運賃収受の考え方
④ システム設計：路線網の考え方、幹線支線システムの導入方法、運賃体系、バスと軌
道系交通機関の比較、乗り継ぎ運賃の設定方法、運行スケジュール、運行時間帯（深
夜の運行）、車両
⑤ 需要の管理他：新規の BRT のターゲットユーザーの設定、既存の自家用車利用者や近
未来に自家用車を利用すると想定される層への対応方法、モビリティマネジメントの
考え方。キャンペーンの具体的な方法
⑥ 既存バス路線の扱い：再編の理念と手順、運営や運賃制度の整合方法
⑦ 端末輸送の考え方：パラトランジット活用の場合の乗継システムの検討、パーク＆ラ
イドやキス＆ライドを含めた自家用車との連携の検討
⑧ 土地利用計画との関連：公共交通指向型開発の考え方の紹介、沿線の複合利用高密度
誘導、乗継バスターミナルでの公共施設整備
これらは、第 1 回のワークショップの後、参加した専門的技術者との意見交換やアンケ
ートでの自由回答および本プロジェクトメンバーによる検討をもとに整理したもので、具
体的な普及戦略において、現地技術者が BRT を理解する上での重要なポイントともなるの
で、報告書本編に掲載しておいた。
- 10 -
3.2
ワークショップで用いた CG 資料について
（1）ワークショップにあたって
ワークショップではエコロジカルな
都市幹線交通システムの開発途上国での
普及戦略の具体的なシステム案を市民、
あるいは行政等意思決定主体に普及させ
るための戦略として、心理学、社会学的
アプローチの援用を取り込んだ代替案を
設定し、意識や態度の変化を計測した上
で、提案した戦略代替案の有効性を検証
することを目的とする。したがって、資
料となるコンピュータグラフィックスは、
以下の準備が必要となる。
①
既存の写真等を利用した都市
基幹交通システム計画案（対
象地：タイ・バンコク、スリ
ランカ・コロンボ）
②
コンピュータグラフィックス
を最大限活用した乗り換えイ
メージ、および空間のイメー
ジをわかりやすく表現する
そこで、以上に基づき、モデル化した
BRT、結節点のイメージを現地写真に合
成したアウトプットの作成を行った（図
3-1）。
図 3-1 都市基幹交通システム空間のイメージ
- 11 -
（2）基幹バス輸送システム（BRT）と結節点のイメージ構築
3D モデリング作成はすべて、3D フォームシンセサイザーソフトウェアの FormZ を使
用した。また、人や沿道空間や既存写真との合成は、DTP ソフトの Photoshop 等を使用し
作成を行った。
まず、基幹バス輸送システム（BRT）の車両
のイメージ構築には、日本の神奈川県藤沢市で
運行されている連節バスのドイツ・ネオプラン
製「ツインライナー」をモデルに行った（図 3-2）。
作成には車両を前方、後方、左右からの四方か
らデジタル撮影したものを 3D のモデル化に使
用し、四方を元画像によるテクスチャ処理によ
って、3D 化して表現する。日本語標記および日
本独自のピクトグラム等を除去して作成を行っ
た（図 3-3）
。
同様にしてパラトランジットの 3D モデル化
も行った（図 3-4）。
図 3-2 モデリングに使用した写真
図 3-3 車両モデリングの例（BRT）
図 3-4 車両モデリングの例（パラトランジット）
交通結節点のイメージの構築ではバ
ンコクについては既存の高架鉄道 BTS
の駅舎との結節をイメージした（図 3-5）。
そのため、既存の駅舎のデザインを結節
点にも踏襲し、さらに端末交通としての
パラトランジットの停車および乗降スペ
ース、さらに商業空間を構築した。また
BRT には専用レーンを歩道側に設ける
イメージを表現した（図 3-6）。一方、コ
ロンボにおける結節点のイメージは同様
図 3-5 バンコクの結節点のイメージ
であるが、BRT の専用レーンを高架とし
- 12 -
図 3-6 バンコクの結節点のイメージ
図 3-7 コロンボの BRT 専用レーンの
イメージ
てイメージ構築を行い、高架上に停留所を配置した（図 3-7）。駅舎および、システムのイ
メージについては名古屋ガイドウェイバス「ゆとりーとライン」を参考とした。
以上の計画を仮想空間としてモデリングを行い、レンダリング後、デジタル画像として
出力して、各対象地の写真との合成を行う。
（3）現地写真との合成作成について
各対象地の現地写真はおのおの視点と焦点
が異なることから、前述の 3D 仮想空間におい
て、それぞれ場面に対応した個別データを出力
する必要がある（図 3-8）。
したがって、空間ならびに車両の FoemZ デ
ータにおいて、視点と焦点を合わせておのおの
出力する（図 3-9、図 3-10）。
図 3-8 現地写真の例
図 3-9 車両の出力データの例
図 3-10 空間の出力データの例
- 13 -
また、この際に現地写真の建物画像を活用するべく、出力するデータの周辺環境（建
物やストリートファニチュア）は別途出力する。また、画像処理上、単色背景で出力す
る。
出力したデータ Photoshop 上のレイヤ処理と合成境界部分の微調整を行い、元画像と
の合成を行う（図 3-11）
。
同様に車両等の他の出力データを画像上に合成する（図 3-12）。この際に立体感を表
現することや、元画像との整合性を向上させるため、元画像の影の方向に合わせて投影
を表現する。
図 3-11 合成処理の例
図 3-12 完成データの例
- 14 -
（4）各対象地域の導入イメージ CG 資料作成
それぞれの対象地域での現地写真を用いた合成写真をワークショップで使用した。各
写真の視点と焦点に合わせて、モデルを出力して合成を行った。合成前後は以下の通り
となる（図 3-13∼図 3-15）。
合成前の現地写真
ワークショップで使用した空間イメージ
図 3-13 バンコクのパラトランジットのイメージ作成
- 15 -
合成前の現地写真
ワークショップで使用した空間イメージ
図 3-14 バンコクの BRT のイメージ作成
- 16 -
合成前の現地写真
ワークショップで使用した空間イメージ
図 3-15 バンコクのパラトランジットと BRT のイメージ作成
- 17 -
3.3
ワークショップ参加者データに基づく態度変容の分析
（1）実験の概要
今回のワークショップ実験は、途上国における交通専門家の、BRT に対する態度変容の
可能性を検討するものであり、具体的には、以下の 3 つを評価することを目的としたもの
であった。
① 専門家が、BRT に対する住民意識を把握する事の効果は？
② 専門家が、BRT 導入についての実務情報を理解することの効果は？
③ 専門家が、BRT 導入を具体的に地図上で考えてみることの効果は？
なお、態度行動変容研究の述語を用いるなら、①および②は、事実情報提供法と呼ばれる
心理的方略に対応し、③は行動プラン法と呼ばれる心理的方略に対応するものである。
ここでは、この目的の下、先述のワークショップにて得られた心理データを用いた分析
結果を報告する。
なお、以下に示すデータは、バンコクでのワークショップの第一回と第二回の双方に参
加した参加者 20 名と、コロンボでの第二回目のワークショップに参加した 25 名から得ら
れたデータである。また、本ワークショップは複数の段階から構成されるが、それぞれの
段階の名称を表 3-1 の様に呼称し、それぞれでの測定指標を表 3-2、表 3-3 に示す。
表 3-1 実験構成と各段階の名称
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
(1st Exp.)
BRTについての各種心理指標の測定（第一回調査）
←BRT に対する「住民意識情報」の提供
(2nd Exp., phase. 1)
BRT についての各種心理指標の測定（第二回調査）
←BRT についての「実務的情報」の提供
(2nd Exp., phase. 2)
BRT についての各種心理指標の測定（第二回調査）
←BRT 導入を「具体的に地図上で考えさせる」
(2nd Exp., phase. 3)
BRT についての各種心理指標の測定（第二回調査）
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
（2）「住民意識」についての事実情報提供法の効果分析
住民意識についての事実情報提供法効果は、(1st Exp.)と(2nd Exp., phase. 1)との間の比較
によって検証できる。それ故、ここでは、パネルデータが得られているバンコクのデータの
みに着目すると、
「BRTを住民が使うであろう」
「BRTを是非導入したい」という二つの尺度
が有意に向上する一方、
「BRTの導入は難しい」という尺度が有意に低下している様子が確
認できた。このことは、交通専門家は、住民のBRTに対する実際の態度を「過小」に見積も
っている一方で、実際の態度調査結果を把握することによって、その過小認知が是正され、
住民がBRTの利用を望んでいることを理解する事を通じて、BRTの導入について肯定的な認
知が形成された、という結果を反映したものであると考えられる。
- 18 -
表3-2 バンコク・交通専門家対象ワークショップにおける各実験段階の各心理指標の記述
統計と各段階間のt検定結果 (N=20)
nd
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
Wish to implement BRT in the city
Effort to implement BRT in the city
Easily imagine how to implement BRT
st
1 Expt.
4.10
(0.71)
3.70
(0.66)
3.65
(0.59)
3.60
(0.94)
3.55
(0.89)
3.60
(1.05)
3.70
(0.86)
4.20
(0.77)
4.05
(0.89)
4.05
(1.05)
4.05
(0.83)
4.05
(0.94)
-
Expect BRT can be implemented
-
Devote work time to develop BRT
-
2 Expt.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
4.11
4.20
4.60
(0.81) (0.77) (0.68)
3.58
3.60
4.10
(0.84) (0.88) (0.79)
3.53
3.65
4.00
(1.02) (0.88) (1.08)
3.53
3.50
4.45
(1.26) (1.24) (0.83)
3.26
3.55
4.35
(1.15) (1.23) (0.81)
3.68
3.85
4.35
(1.29) (1.18) (0.81)
4.21
4.20
4.65
(0.79) (0.70) (0.49)
4.11
4.35
4.70
(0.99) (0.81) (0.47)
4.11
4.45
4.65
(1.10) (0.68) (0.49)
3.42
3.35
2.40
(1.30) (1.18) (1.14)
4.37
4.35
4.65
(0.90) (0.81) (0.49)
4.21
4.20
4.45
(0.85) (0.77) (0.76)
2.95
3.35
3.85
(1.08) (1.27) (1.27)
3.37
4.10
4.20
(1.21) (0.79) (1.11)
3.79
3.85
4.40
(1.08) (0.93) (0.82)
T-test
1 vs. 2-1 2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
0.00
-0.70
-2.03
#
-2.67*
0.81
0.00
-3.25*
-3.29*
0.72
-0.68
-1.44
-1.82
0.42
0.20
-3.57*
-3.51*
1.46
-1.32
-3.11*
-4.19*
-0.42
-0.59
-1.60
-1.88
-2.54*
0.00
-2.93*
-3.62*
0.81
-1.46
-2.33*
-3.02*
-0.70
-1.84
-1.71
-2.73*
2.39*
0.00
3.57*
3.08*
-2.36*
0.00
-2.85*
-1.76
-1.14
0.00
-2.03
#
-1.29
-1.19
-1.37
-3.28*
-3.24*
-0.38
-2.13*
-0.33
-2.77*
-3.28*
#
#
#
#
Note: Scores range from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Yes, strongly).
* p < .05, # p < .1
1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 denote “1st experiment”, “2nd experiment-phase 1”, “2nd experiment-phase 2”, “2nd
experiment-phase 3”, respectively.
（3）「実務」についての事実情報提供法の効果分析
実務についての事実情報提供法効果は、(2nd Exp., phase. 1)と(2nd Exp., phase. 2)との間
の比較によって検証できる。コロンボ、バンコクの双方の結果に着目すると、バンコクに
ついては、
「BRT を導入すべき」
「BRT は、実際に導入されると思う」という二尺度が有意
に向上した一方、コロンボについては、「BRT の導入に努力を重ねようと思う」という尺
度が有意に向上していることが確認できた。このことは、実務的な情報の提供は、BRT の
導入に向けた、専門家としての使命感を活性化する可能性を示唆するものと考えられる。
- 19 -
表3-3 コロンボ・交通専門家対象ワークショップにおける各実験段階の各心理指標の記述
統計と各段階間の t 検定結果 (N=20)
nd
st
1 Expt.
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
(N=50)
4.33
(0.95)
4.54
(0.77)
3.92
(1.03)
3.92
(1.16)
3.90
(1.21)
3.79
(1.03)
3.85
(1.05)
4.48
(0.82)
4.58
(0.79)
-
Wish to implement BRT in the city
-
Effort to implement BRT in the city
-
Easily imagine how to implement BRT
-
Expect BRT can be implemented
-
Devote work time to develop BRT
-
2 Expt.
T-test
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
(N=25)
2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
4.38
4.04
4.09
1.24
-0.53
1.10
(0.77)
(0.93)
(0.85)
4.17
4.24
3.91
-0.89
2.11*
0.85
(0.87)
(0.88)
(1.12)
4.04
3.88
3.74
0.49
0.84
1.43
(1.12)
(1.17)
(1.10)
3.79
3.75
4.00
0.19
-1.00
-1.42
(0.98)
(1.05)
(0.85)
3.92
4.04
4.00
-0.77
0.33
-0.20
(1.12)
(0.89)
(0.85)
3.92
3.76
3.91
0.46
-0.20
0.72
(0.97)
(1.05)
(0.97)
3.83
3.72
4.05
0.36
-1.32
-1.19
(1.17)
(1.06)
(1.05)
4.33
4.12
4.31
1.05
-1.16
0.42
(0.92)
(1.09)
(0.89)
4.21
4.16
4.28
0.33
-0.81
-0.27
(0.98)
(1.03)
(1.12)
3.38
2.92
3.23
1.39
-1.29
0.22
(1.41)
(1.38)
(1.34)
4.00
3.96
4.05
0.18
0.00
0.00
(1.14)
(1.10)
(1.09)
4.04
3.64
4.05
1.51
-1.36
-0.46
(1.08)
(1.25)
(1.09)
3.17
3.44
3.77
-1.24
-1.30
-2.23*
(1.01)
(0.92)
(1.15)
3.54
3.76
4.00
-0.87
-1.14
-2.26*
(1.10)
(1.09)
(0.93)
#
-2.02
-1.30
-2.83*
3.38
3.64
3.86
(1.14)
(1.22)
(1.21)
Note: Scores range from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Yes, strongly).
* p < .05, # p < .1
1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 denote “1st experiment”, “2nd experiment-phase 1”, “2nd experiment-phase 2”, “2nd
experiment-phase 3”, respectively.
（4）「BRT の導入場所検討」についての行動プラン法の効果分析
BRT の導入場所検討についての行動プラン法の効果は、(2nd Exp., phase.2)と(2nd Exp.,
phase. 3)との間の比較によって検証できる。コロンボ、バンコクの双方の結果に着目する
と、バンコクについては、大半の心理尺度について肯定的な効果があったことが統計的に
確認された。すなわち、BRT を住民の位置を検討し、地図上に描くという行動プランの検
討を通じて、BRT は快適で楽しく、必要であり、使いたい／使おうと思うと本人も感じ、
住民も使う BRT を毎日使うだろうと思うようになった、そして、BRT の導入は難しいと
いう意識も低減する一方で、BRT の導入に努力をしようと思う・導入を願うという意識が
- 20 -
強くなることも確認された。この様に、バンコクでは非常に大きな効果がみられた一方で、
コロンボにおいては、こうした効果は確認されなかった。コロンボで十分な効果がみられ
なかった理由は、本研究のデータからだけでは明らかではないが、コロンボにおけるワー
クショップにおいて、行動プランを検討する時間が十分にとれなかったことが原因の一つ
であるとも考えられる。また、バンコクにおいては、BRT についての議論が既に盛んにな
されていたことも、バンコクで効果が大きかった原因の一つであるとも考えられる。
ただし、(2nd Exp., phase.1)と(2nd Exp., phase. 3)との間の比較によって検証できる、
「実
務的な情報」を与え、しかも、
「具体的に地図上で考えさせる」ということの総合効果につ
いては、バンコクのみならず、コロンボにおいても確認されたことから、コロンボにおい
ても、行動プラン法が一定の効果を持っているという結果となった。
（5）一般の人々を対象とした場合の実験効果
なお、本研究では、同様のアプローチで、交通専門家ではない、学生等の一般の人々を
対象としたワークショップ実験を行っている。その結果を、表 3-4、表 3-5 に示す。なお、
一般の人々を対象としたワークショップにおいても、交通専門家の時と同様、コロンボで
は 1st Exp.と 2nd Exp.のサンプルが異なるため、住民意識についての事実情報提供法の効果
は、コロンボのデータでは検証できない。
表3-4 バンコク・一般の人々対象ワークショップにおける各実験段階の各心理指標の記述
統計と各段階間のt検定結果 (N=24)
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
Wish to implement BRT in the city
1st Expt.
4.62
(0.49)
3.75
(0.99)
4.21
(0.98)
4.17
(0.70)
4.29
(0.69)
3.79
(1.18)
4.45
(0.78)
4.71
(0.46)
4.75
(0.44)
-
2nd Expt.
Phase 1
4.45
(0.59)
4.00
(0.66)
3.95
(1.04)
3.83
(0.87)
3.79
(0.66)
4.04
(1.08)
4.29
(0.75)
4.54
(0.59)
4.50
(0.59)
3.75
(1.07)
4.71
(0.46)
Phase 2 Phase 3
4.58
4.54
(0.50) (0.59)
4.17
4.08
(0.70) (0.78)
4.29
4.33
(0.81) (0.92)
4.04
4.33
(0.81) (0.92)
4.04
4.38
(0.86) (0.65)
4.17
4.25
(0.96) (1.0.79)
4.50
4.54
(0.72) (0.66)
4.75
4.50
(0.44) (0.59)
4.75
4.50
(0.44) (0.66)
3.38
3.29
(1.24) (01.30)
4.71
4.54
(0.46) (0.72)
- 21 -
T-test
1 vs. 2-1 2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
1.00
-1.14
0.44
-0.63
-1.24
-1.45
0.57
-0.53
1.03
-2.15*
-0.27
-1.62
1.70
-2.01#
-1.37
-2.40*
2.94*
-1.54
-2.00#
-3.44*
-1.03
-0.90
-1.00
-1.42
1.00
-1.74#
-0.21
-1.54
1.16
-1.74#
1.81#
0.33
1.54
-2.02#
2.02#
0.00
2.10*
0.27
1.52
0.00
1.28
0.85
表3-5 コロンボ・一般の人々対象ワークショップにおける各実験段階の各心理指標の記述
統計と各段階間の t 検定結果
1st Expt.
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
Wish to implement BRT in the city
(N=33)
4.27
(0.88)
4.45
(0.62)
4.03
(1.04)
3.30
(1.10)
3.58
(1.09)
3.70
(1.16)
4.18
(0.95)
4.36
(1.03)
4.52
(0.87)
-
2nd Expt.
T-test
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
(N=46)
2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
-2.56**
2.21**
-0.15
4.07
4.35
4.09
(0.84)
(0.64)
(0.66)
-3.26**
1.86*
-1.03
4.07
4.43
4.20
(0.78)
(0.62)
(0.72)
-0.29
-1.40
-1.45
3.82
3.87
4.09
(0.86)
(0.91)
(0.84)
0.00
0.18
0.13
3.80
3.80
3.78
(1.10)
(1.15)
(1.11)
-0.30
-0.93
-1.10
3.76
3.80
3.91
(1.07)
(1.15)
(0.98)
-0.49
-0.87
-1.19
3.58
3.65
3.76
(1.08)
(0.99)
(0.95)
-1.22
-1.06
-2.54**
3.76
3.96
4.09
(0.98)
(1.13)
(0.84)
-0.18
1.52
0.96
4.36
4.37
4.24
(0.71)
(0.68)
(0.67)
0.00
1.35
1.10
4.38
4.37
4.24
(0.75)
(0.74)
(0.71)
-2.80**
3.34**
0.85
3.09
3.52
2.91
(1.08)
(0.96)
(0.89)
0.57
-0.53
0.18
4.02
3.96
4.00
(0.78)
(0.87)
(0.67)
さて、それぞれの心理的方略の効果についてみていくと、まず、住民意識についての事
実情報提供法の効果をバンコクのデータに基づいて確認すると、明確な効果がみられてい
ないことが示された。これは、交通専門家の場合とは異なり、自分たちの意識については、
データをみるまでもなく把握しており、そのデータをみたとしても、意識は変化しないと
いうことを意味しているものと考えられる。
一方、
「実務」についての事実情報提供法の効果分析については、BRT が大きな態度変
容効果がみられた。すなわち、バンコクにおいては、BRT を「利用しやすい」
「使いたい」
「人々は使うだろう」「この街に必要だ」という意識が活性化し、コロンボにおいては、
BRT は「快適である」「利用するのが楽しい」という意識が活性化している様子が確認さ
れた。ただし、バンコクにおいてもコロンボにおいても、
「BRT を導入することは難しい」
という意識も同時に向上していることも示された。すなわち、実務的な事実情報をきちん
と把握することで、一般の人々（今回の場合は、多くは学生）は BRT の導入の実務的な難
しさを理解する一方で、その有用性を理解し、是非とも導入したいという意欲が向上した
という様子が示された。
最後に、交通専門家の時には非常に大きな効果がみられた BRT 路線に関する行動プラン
法の結果に着目すると、一般の人々については、一部、肯定的な態度変容効果がみられた
ものの（バンコクでは「BRT を使おうと思う」という意識が向上し、コロンボでは「BRT
の導入は難しい」という意識が低下した）、むしろ、逆効果がみられるという結果となった。
バンコクでは、BRT は「必要だ」「この街に導入すべきだ」という気持ちが低減し、コロ
- 22 -
ンボでは、BRT は「快適である」
「楽しい」という気持ちが低減している様子が示された。
（6）おわりに
ここでは、BRT の導入に対する意識や意欲の向上を意図したいくつかの心理的方略を組
み合わせたワークショップの効果を報告したが、一般の人々と、交通専門家の間に、それ
ぞれの心理的方略の効果に相違が存在する結果となった。すなわち、交通専門家にとって
は、BRT の路線の具体的場所の検討を求める行動プラン法が最も大きな効果を持っていた
一方で、一般の人々には、そうした行動プラン法はかえって逆効果をもたらすという結果
となった。一般の人々には、実務的な側面についての具体的情報を提供するプレゼンテー
ション（実務についての事実情報提供法）が最も大きな効果が得られるという結果が得ら
れた。
これらの結果は、発展途上国の都市にエコロジカルな交通システムの導入を検討するに
あたって、一定の示唆を与えるものではないかと期待されるところである。
- 23 -
第4章
具体的導入方策シナリオの検討
本章では、昨年度の研究プロジェクト H745 で実施した BRT に対する利用意向調査など
の結果を踏まえて検討した具体的導入方策シナリオについて報告する。
ここでの問題意識は、アジアの都市に特有な交通状況や社会環境の中で、BRT をどのよ
うに導入していくのかを、具体的なシナリオとして提案することにある。
したがって、検討の前半では、世界の中で BRT の導入に成功している都市を対象にレビ
ューを行い、成功の要因が何かを整理した上で、アジアの国々でそれらの条件を満足でき
るのかを検討した。また、条件を満足出来ない場合に、有効と考えられる方策を提案した。
後半では、提案した方策を具体化する上で必要となる基礎的な情報を得るために調査を実
施し、それらの分析結果を組み入れた方策の組み合わせからなるシナリオを設定した。さ
らに、交通需要推計モデルとミクロ交通シミュレーションを用いて、それらのシナリオの
評価を行った。
4.1
BRT 導入の成功の要因
ここでは、クリチバやボゴタなど BRT の導入に成功してきた都市における政策を分析し、
その成功の要因を整理した。
その結果、何れの都市においても、BRT の導入に成功した最も大きな要因は、交通体系
の整備を土地利用計画と統合化すると同時に、他の交通機関も含めた包括的な交通ネット
ワークを戦略的に形成する明確なビジョンやマスタープランを策定したことを指摘した。
そして、交通ネットワークや路線の設定が戦略的になされた後では、以下の要因が BRT
導入に成功する上で必要であることを指摘した。
（1）戦略的な土地利用、都市計画の存在
乗用車から BRT への転換を促し、交通渋滞を緩和すると共に BRT への十分な需要を確
保するためには、BRT を交通の軸とする回廊を設定し、公共交通指向型開発の考え方を
取り入れた都市開発施策を実施し、高密度な沿線を形成する必要がある。
上記のような都市開発を可能ならしめるために、強力な土地利用コントロールを実施す
る必要がある。
（2）十分な道路空間の確保
BRT を平面で導入する場合は、片側一車線を専用軌道として利用するため、一般交通
のための交通容量を減少させる可能性が高い。したがって、導入区間は広幅員の街路を対
象とするか、あるいは、既存車線において有効な車線利用を行うことで、一般交通への影
響を最小限にとどめる必要がある。
- 24 -
（3）利便性、快速性のための工夫
BRT の魅力を挙げるためには、料金収受を駅で行い、乗り降り時間を削減することで運
行速度を上げることや、端末交通や他の公共交通との乗り継ぎ利便性を改善する必要があ
る。これを具体的に行うためには、ターミナルやバス停の適切な整備が必要である。
また、運行速度の向上と共に運行時刻の信頼性を上げる必要がある。そのためには、他
の一般交通との交差が避けられない交差点部などにおいて、優先信号などを導入して運行
を高度化させる必要がある。
（4）計画者、住民の理解
BRT は、バスではあるが軌道系に匹敵するエコロジカルな交通機関であるとの認識を広
め、導入に対する住民の受容性を高める必要がある。
4.2
BRT に対する受入れ環境
アジアの都市の状況を、公共指向型開発の考え方を取り入れて戦略的に BRT を導入する
ことに成功した都市と比較すると、既にスプロール化した市街地が広がっているなど土地
利用状況が大きく異なっている。また、交差点での特殊な交通運用やパラトランジットの
走行など、地域特有の道路交通状況もある。これらの状況を前述の成功の要因と比較して、
アジアの都市で BRT を導入する上での課題を整理した。
（1）戦略的な土地利用、都市計画の存在
アジアの多くの都市では、既にスプロール化が進行しており、計画的に回廊を設定して、
高密度な沿線開発を行うことが非常に難しい状況である。
伝統的土地保有の制度が残っており、土地利用規制が弱く、土地利用をコントロールす
ることが難しい。また、都市計画もその役割が不十分で、戦略的な開発を行うことは難し
い。
（2）十分な道路空間の確保
既存の道路網においては、片側 2∼3 車線程度の幹線道路も多く、BRT の導入が計画さ
れているような道路区間でも、道路空間は狭隘である場合が多く、導入の障害となる可能
性が高い。また、車線利用も不適切な区間が多く、整備が必要である。
（3）利便性、快速性のための工夫
これまで都市近郊鉄道の整備が進んでこなかったため、駅を中心とするターミナル開発
が殆ど行われていない。また、現在も路線バスなどの端末で、多くのパラトランジットに
- 25 -
よる乗り合い交通サービスが提供されているが、図
4-1 にある通り、歩道を占有するような形で設置さ
れており、適切な乗り継ぎ空間が整備されていない。
信号制御も一部を除いては未だに警察官が運用を
手動で行うなど、高度化していない。また、交差点
での右折の禁止や本線上での U ターンなど、特殊な
交通運用が行われており、車線は適切に利用されて
いない。
図 4-1 客待ちの様子
（4）計画者、住民の理解
これまでバス交通は、安い運賃で庶民の足として運行され、低コストゆえにサービス水
準は低く、また一般交通の渋滞に巻き込まれるため運行速度も遅いとして、否定的に認知
されていると考えられる。そのためバスを使う BRT に対しても、その機能を十分理解する
ことなく否定的に捉えられる可能性が高い。
4.3
ASEAN 型 BRT 導入シナリオの検討
（1）戦略的な土地利用、都市計画の存在
アジアの多くの都市では、前述の通り、都市圏が拡大し、既にスプロール化した市街地
に路線を計画する必要があるため、高密度な沿線を形成することは非常に困難である。し
たがって、密度の高くない市街地から効率的にアクセスできるよう、端末交通を計画的に
整備することを提案する。特に、アジアで広く利用されているパラトランジットによる乗
り合い交通機関を、端末交通として計画的に整備することを提案する。
（2）十分な道路空間の確保
道路空間が狭隘な区間や複雑な運用が必要な交差点部では、部分的に専用軌道を立体化
して対応することを提案する。また、車線運用に関しては信号制御の高度化などと連携し
て見直しを行い、安全かつ効率的に運用されるようにすることを提案する。
（3）利便性、快速性のための工夫
BRT の利便性の確保のため、
（1）で述べたパラトランジットによる計画的端末交通の整
備に合わせて、簡便な交通広場を有するバス停や交通ターミナルの整備を提案する。同時
に、駅での料金収受システムの導入も提案する。また、（2）における車線の運用の見直し
や立体交差化と合わせて、バス優先信号の導入を提案する。
（4）計画者、住民の理解
- 26 -
BRT の導入に対する計画者や住民の理解を得る取り組みに関しては、既に 3 章で詳細に
述べてきた通りである。
4.4
パラトランジットの端末交通としての計画的利用の可能性に関する概要
（1）パラトランジットの実態調査
4.3 の（1）で提案した、パラトランジットによる乗り合い端末交通を計画的に整備する
施策を検討する基礎的な情報を得るために、パラトランジットの実態調査を実施した。本
調査では、バンコク首都圏局によって計画されている路線の中で北線と呼ばれる、チャト
チャックパークからカセサート交差点を経由してナワミン道路まで至る BRT 路線を想定
しているが、カセサート交差点からナワミン道路まで至る区間は、近年道路建設が行われ、
沿線の開発が進んでおらず、パラトランジット
の運行が殆ど見られないため、この道路に並行
Soi Choc chai 4
5,500m
12,880人
するラットプラオ通り沿線を対象に調査を実施
した。
事前に対象地域内のソイ毎のパラトランジッ
ト運行の有無を確認し、また全長・面積・人口
を推定し、これらに基づいて特徴が異なるソイ
を選定した。対象としたソイとその沿道の推定
居住人口は、図 4-2 の通りである。
また、調査の対象としたパラトランジットは、
図4-3のモーターサイクルタクシー、シーローレ
ック、ソンテウの三種類である。
Ra
tP
hr a
Soi 62
800m
1,932人
Soi 81
1,125m
2,976人
oR
d,
Soi 63
800m
1625人
Soi 64
3,000m
7,440人
BRT計画路線（北線）
Soi 101
4,800m
13,220人
Soi 91
1,100m
2,003人
Soi 109
800m
1,002人
Soi 80
3,600m
10,301人
Soi 94
1,100m
2,600人
Soi 122
2,000m
5,237人
0 500 1000 m
図 4-2 調査対象路線
図 4-3 対象としたパラトランジット
（2）サービス回数と平均運賃に関する調査結果
調査結果の中から特にモーターサイクルタクシーのサービス回数と平均運賃の関係を図
4-4 に示す。これらより、それぞれのパラトランジットは異なるサービス条件でサービス
を行っており、その状況は様々である。一方で、サービス回数と平均運賃を掛け合わせた
総売り上げには一定の関係があると考えられる。
- 27 -
25
„ タクシーサービスに近い運行
平均運賃（バーツ）
20
15
„ バスサービスに近い運行
10
凡
例
モーターサイクルタクシー
5
シーローレック
ソンテウ
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
１日平均サービス回数
図 4-4 サービス回数と平均運賃の関係
4.5
BRT 普及シナリオの分析
ここでは、これまで明らかにした分析結果を組み入れた、具体的な方策の組み合わせか
らなる BRT 普及シナリオを設定した。そして、交通需要推計モデルとミクロ交通シミュレ
ーションを用いてシナリオの評価を行った。
（1）BRT 普及シナリオの設定
表 4-1、表 4-2 に、選定した BRT 普及シナリオを示す。広域の施策として、パラトラン
ジットによる端末サービスの整備、沿道土地利用の高度化、平行バス路線の再編の政策を
組み合わせた 4 つのシナリオを設定した。
路線沿道では、バス停での乗車前課金システムと優先信号戦略の 2 つの政策を組み合わ
せた 4 つのシナリオを設定した。
表 4-1 広域施策のシナリオ
シナリオ設定（広域の施策）
ベースライン シナリオ１ シナリオ２ シナリオ３ シナリオ４
BRTの導入
‐
○
○
○
○
平行バス路線の再編
‐
‐
○
○
○
沿道土地利用の高度化
‐
‐
○
‐
○
パラトランジットによる端末サービスの整備
‐
‐
‐
○
○
表 4-2 路線沿線施策のシナリオ
シナリオ設定（路線沿道） シナリオ１ シナリオ２ シナリオ３ シナリオ４
乗車前課金システム
‐
‐
○
○
優先信号戦略
‐
○
‐
○
- 28 -
（2）評価モデルの開発
交通需要推計モデルとミクロ交通シミュ
レーションモデルを組み合わせた評価モデ
４シナリオ
端末整備、
沿道高度化、
バス路線再編
ルを開発した（図 4-5）。具体的には、推計
においては、交通需要推計モデルで推計す
汚染・拡散モデル
需要推計モデル
る導入区間 OD 交通量を入力値としてミク
４シナリオ
ロ交通シミュレーションを行い、その結果
バス停高度化、
優先信号
から得られる BRT の運行速度を、再度交通
導入区間
OD交通量
BRTの
運行速度
ミクロ交通シミュレーション
需要推計モデルにおける BRT のサービス
Micro Level
水準として入力し、推計を繰り返す方法を
提案した。また、評価の一つとして大気汚
図 4-5 評価モデルの構成
染への影響を推計することとし、汚染・拡
散の影響を推計する JEA モデルを適用した。
（3）シナリオ毎の需要推計・汚染物質量の比較
シナリオ毎の需要推計結果と、汚染物質量の比較を表 4-3 に示す。その結果、BRT を導
入したシナリオ 1 では、BRT への利用転換に伴い交通状況の改善と汚染物質量が減少する
結果となった。さらに、提案する BRT 普及政策を組み合わせることで、より大きな改善効
果が得られることを示している。全ての政策を取り入れたシナリオ 4 の場合、都市圏全体
で総走行台キロが 170 万台キロ／日削減し、大気汚染の削減にも大きく寄与している。
表 4-3 推計結果
Network Performance of Effectiveness
Scenario
BRT Ridership
(pas/peak period)
Total Travel Distance
(vehicle-km)
Total Travel Time
(vehicle-hr)
Average Speed
(km/h)
Baseline Condition
0
248,174,126
16,285,533
15.2
1
139,600
248,138,431
16,281,079
15.2
2
161,400
247,161,681
16,205,979
15.3
3
175,300
247,169,337
16,208,142
15.3
4
183,900
246,422,508
16,053,110
15.4
Cases
Emission Volumes of Air Pollutants (kg/day)
NOx
CO
PM
Baseline Condition
293,821
1,013,416
12,419
Scenario 1
293,770
1,012,925
12,416
Scenario 2
293,427
1,011,752
12,395
Scenario 3
293,454
1,011,818
12,398
Scenario 4
293,249
1,011,361
12,390
Baseline Condition - Scenario 1
51
491
3
Baseline Condition - Scenario 2
394
1,664
24
Baseline Condition - Scenario 3
367
1,598
21
Baseline Condition - Scenario 4
572
2,055
29
① BRT シミュレーション
BRT ならびに並行する道路区間における一般者の旅行時間に関する、シナリオ毎のシミ
ュレーション結果を表 4-4 に示す。一般車、BRT の旅行時間を上り、下り方向（都心方向
- 29 -
が上り）毎に推定を行った。
乗車前課金システムと優先信号戦略を比較す
ると、乗車前課金システムを導入した場合に、
より改善が表れる結果となった。全ての政策を
取り入れた場合、BRT の旅行時間が 15%程度改
表 4-4 推計結果
シナリオ 方向
1
2
善し、一般車に与える影響も最小限に留まる結
3
果となることを示した。
4
②
下り
上り
下り
上り
下り
上り
下り
上り
BRT
旅行時間
（分）
53.29
55.95
51.60
55.29
49.62
50.30
48.00
48.31
Car
旅行時間
（分）
57.23
58.80
56.71
58.24
56.63
58.23
54.90
56.05
各排出物質の比較
シナリオ間での各排出物質の濃度レベルの比較を図 4-6 に示す。それぞれの濃度分布比
較図をみると、BRT を導入するだけでは濃度分布に大きな変化が現れていない。BRT の導
入と各施策を組み合わせることで、特に BRT 計画路線沿線において濃度に顕著な差が表れ
るようになり、汚染・拡散が大きく減少する結果となった。
Dispersion Reduction of CO
(Baseline Condition - Scenario 1) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 2) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 3) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 4)
Dispersion Reduction of NOx
(Baseline Condition - Scenario 1) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 2) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 3) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 4)
Dispersion Reduction of PM
(Baseline Condition - Scenario 1) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 2) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 3) (Baseline Condition - Scenario 4)
図 4-6 大気汚染物質への影響の推計結果
③
繰り返し計算の実施
BRT シミュレーションで最もよい結果が得られたシナリオ 4 の BRT 運行速度結果を、
需要推計モデルにおける BRT のサービス水準を表す入力値として、同じく最も改善効果が
表れたシナリオ 4 にフィードバックを行った。この入力値を用いた場合をシナリオ 5 とし
て再度推計を行った。その結果、シナリオ 4 と比較すると総走行台キロや各汚染物質量が
減少すると共に、BRT の乗客数も増加する結果となった。すなわち、BRT の旅行時間減少
に伴い BRT の需要推計が変化する結果となった。
- 30 -
第5章
まとめ：アジアでの普及戦略の提言に向けて
本年度の研究では、開発途上国の例題としてアジア地域を念頭に研究計画を立案し、実
際に、スリランカのコロンボ市とタイのバンコク都をケーススタディとして研究を実施し
た。よって、最終的な普及戦略の提言については、開発途上国全体というよりは、アジア
地域の開発途上国を念頭にまとめることとなった。
本年度の成果をまず再掲しておく。
まず、行政の意思決定、そして需要予測のベースとなる市民意向調査に関して、その調
査票および調査実施の設計の改良の必要性を確認し、可能性を検討した。特に新しい交通
手段の説明や、選択肢の逐次設定の有用性を確認した。
次に、市民を対象とするワークショップについては、ビジュアルな素材を用いることで
関心を高める効果があり、一般的にイメージの悪いバスやパラトランジットの既存手段の
印象を改善する効果も確認できた。しかしながら、詳細な説明を加えた場合には、かえっ
て混乱を招く危険性があることも示唆された。
関連行政担当者へのワークショップを通して、適切な説明を行うことで、知識を高める
効果および、市民の場合と同様に、バス等の既存手段の印象を改善する効果を確認できた。
また、市民ワークショップの結果を行政担当者に示すことで、市民の関心を的確に把握す
る効果があり、引き続いての行動プラン法によって、行政担当者の意欲を引き出す効果も
確認できた。
またバンコクでのケーススタディでは、BRT を導入した場合の専用空間確保の効果と一
般車両への影響の把握、あわせて端末輸送としてのパラトランジットの実態、課題の把握
を行うことができた。
以上の調査成果をもとに、アジア型の BRT を核とした低環境負荷の交通システム（本プ
ロジェクトタイトルにあるエコロジカルな交通システムの典型例）を普及させていく戦略
をとりまとめる。
まず、これまでのアプローチは次のようなイメージでまとめられる。多くの場合、行政
サイドは、具体的イメージがわかないまま、欧米あるいは日本のコンサルタント等の言い
なりになる場合が多い。コンサルタント等が、地域の文脈を十分に理解し、本当に地域の
ためになる提案を示すことができるだけの質の高い業務能力を有している場合は、特段の
問題がないともいえるが、そうではない場合もあり得る。すべての事例ではないが、オー
バースケールな設計が提案されると、その金額が高価ということで計画自体を断念するこ
とになっている。また、既存資源の活用に目が向かないため、結果的に無駄な投資になっ
ている場合もあり得る。さらに意欲のわかないままプロジェクトが進行すると、本来の要
件を満たさないだけでなく、住民の関心、態度への理解の不十分さといった問題につなが
っていく。また、何らかの意向調査を市民に向けて行う場合、日本で実施するのと同じ調
査票、調査設計を流用すると、さまざまなバイアスが発生するため問題が生じ得る。具体
的には、教育水準の問題、自動車への高い関心、理解力や偏見などであろう。
これらを打破していくために、我々は、昨年度、本年度の研究成果をベースに、ここに
- 31 -
パッケージとなった普及戦略アプローチの必要性を提案する。具体的には、既存手段の利
点と活用可能性を示し、これまで抱いていた悪印象を打破する技術の導入、調査データで
バイアスがかからない工夫、市民の高まった関心を行政が把握する仕掛け、行政の知識を
高める教材と講義、行政の意欲をより引き出す行動プラン法の活用、そして、これらのア
プローチを支えるための研究の必要性をあげることができる。
本研究で取り上げた、パラトランジットを組み合わせた BRT システムについては、既存
のバスという技術を使いつつ、ジャカルタ他で成功しているように、全く新しい乗り物の
イメージを与えることができることを行政担当者、意思決定者に理解していただいた上で、
既存バス路線網の再編を含めた都市交通戦略立案と、パラトランジットとつなぐ交通結節
点の具体的整備・運用を含めていくことが重要である。そしてこれを実現する上で、先進
国の文献の単なる翻訳ではなく、現地で応用可能な記述のあるガイドライン等の適切な教
材の作成と頒布が必要であるといえる。
- 32 -
付
録
1. BRT 導入意向調査質問票
（世帯票、2005 年 10 月実施、コロンボ）
Page 1
Yokohama National University, Japan
Graduate School of Engineering,
Yokohama National University,
79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku,
Yokohama, 240-8501
Japan.
TP / Fax: +81-45-339-4039
Web: http://www.cvg.ynu.ac.jp/G4/index_e.htm
Professor:
October 2005
Dear Galle Road users,
Fumihiko Nakamura
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation
Development necessity
Associate Professor:
Toshiyuki Okamura
The Transportation laboratory of Yokohama National University, Japan is carrying out a
surveying about the travelers along Gale road (connecting Panadura ~ Colombo Core:
Pettah).
We are trying to understand how people feel about the existing public transportation and
their attitude on implementing new better transit system called Better Rapid Transit
(BRT: you will see what is BRT in later part of this document). By taking few minutes to
complete this questionnaire, you will be helping us to ensure that this corridor will be
more comfortable and time saving on your next, near future, trips.
The questionnaire requires you to record data about your preference among different
options given to you, and some of your personal, household, and vehicle ownership
information. We assure you that any information declared here will kept confidential and
be used only for research purpose. Your completed questionnaire will be collected by the
survey team personal.
Research Associate:
Tsutomu Yabe
Researcher:
Thillaiampalam Sivakumar
Research Help:
(in Srilanka)
Taffic and Transportation
devision,
Dept of Civil Engineering,
Moratuwa Unversity.
We really do appreciate your help
PART A
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation Development necessity
fmdÿ m%jdyKh šhqKq lsßfï wjYH;dj yÿkd .ekSu / Ng&e;Jg; Nghf;Ftuj;J mgptpUj;jpapd; Kf;fpaj;Jtf; fzpg;gPL
Answering guide:
E …………
: To be answered by your own/ Tn úiska msrúh hq;=h /fPwpl;l ,lj;ij epug;Gf.
E 1. 2. 3. etc : To be circled according to your best suited among given item/wod, wxlh rjqï
lrkak/nghUj;jkhd ,yf;fj;ij
tl;kpLf
E
( )
: To be entered by a selected number from directed Table or source /wod, wxlh j.=fjka ,ndf.k ,l=Kq
lrkak / Fwpg;gpl;l ml;ltidapypUe;J nghUj;khd ,yf;fj;ij njhpT nra;f.
Q1) Household information including vehicle ownership (No need to specify your names)
.Dyia: f;dr;=re iy jdykfha Ndrldr;ajh / kid kw;Wk; thfdk; njhlh;ghd tpguq;fs;
1
Present Address
j¾;udk ,smskh
trpg;gpl Kfthp
....................................................................................................................................
2
Household Type
.Dyfha j¾.h
trpg;gpl Kfthp
1. Owned House /whs;s f.j,a/nrhe;j tPL> kid
2. Rented House /l=,S f.j,a/ thlif tPL>kid
3. Apartment / *a,eÜ / njhlhkhb kid
4. Annexed / wfklaish / ,ize;j tPL
5. Other / fjk;a / NtW (…….........……............................…)
Table A
3
1.
No
ke;
,y;iy
2.
One
tl
xd;W
3.
Two
fol
,uz;L
4.
Three or More
;=k fyda jeä
%d;Wk; NkYk;
Vehicle ownership /jykfha whs;s ldr;ajh / thfd chpik
i. Motor Bike / fudg¾ ihsl,h / Nkhl;lhh; irf;fpy;
ii. Car / ld¾ / Nkhl;hhh; fhh;
A. Self Owned/ ;ukagu whs;s / nrhe;jkhdJ
B. Office / ld¾Hd,h jdykh / epWtdj;jpDilaJ
iii. Van / jEka / Nkhl;lhh; thd;
iv. Other/ fjk;a / NtW
PART B
....................................................................................
Select From Table A
Table A isg
Table A y; ,Ue;J
No of Vehicle
No of Vehicle / vz;zpf;if
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation Development necessity
fmdÿ m%jdyKh šhqKq lsßfï wjYH;dj yÿkd .ekSfï / Ng&e;Jg; Nghf;Ftuj;J mgptpUj;jpapd; Kf;fpaj;Jtf; fzpg;gPL
Note:
Ref: .................
This study is interested in implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT : One of the comfortable transit system exist in many developed
cities)
As we don't experience such advance system it's difficult to imagine what is BRT, therefore brief description of BRT is given to you
prior to the question. Try to feel what is BRT
Using the information and some character of system given to you, you got to trade-off the choices and select the best of yours.
You are given few set of cases, each case have some choices of different public transit system. Carefully compare the choices and
select your most preferred system from each case.
wmf.a k.r oshqKq nia moaO;shl w;aoelSula ,nd ke;s ksid Ung wkd.;fhaoS l+uk wkaofï moaO;shla ,efío
hkak is;d.; fkdyel"
fuu wOHhkfhaoS Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) hk ixl%uK moaO;shl .ek wjOdkh fhduq fõ"
Tng ,ndoS we;s iuyr ,laIK Tn mj;sk nia moaO;sh iu. iei£fïoS , BRT hkq l+ulao hkakg ms<s;+r ,efí
BRT hkq l+ulao hkq isf;a ujd.;a miq " my; m%Yak flfrys wjOdkh fhduq lrkak"
. Tng ,ndoS we;s iuyr ,laIK Tn mj;sk nia moaO;sh iy BRT iu. ii|kak"
udOH fol fyd¢ka ixikaokh lr Un jvd;a leu;s udOHh f;darkak
Fwpg;G:
,f; fzpg;gPL mgptpUj;jpaile;j ehLfspy; fhzg;gLk; BRT vDk; Nghf;Ftuj;J Kiwia ,q;F mwpKfg;gLj;Jtjw;fhdJ (BRT - Fiwe;j
fl;lzj;jpy; trjpahdJk; tpiuthdJkhd nrhFrhd NgUe;J Kiw)
mt;tif Nrit vkJ gpuNjrj;jpy; ,y;yhikapdhy; BRT ahnjd;gJ Fog;gkhjyhy; BRT gw;wpapd; gw;wpa mwpKfk; tpdhtpw;F Kd; jug;gLfpwJ
jug;gl;l mwpKfk; %yk; BRT ,id tpsq;fp mjidAk; mjDld; fPo;tUk; tpdhtpy; jug;gLk; Nkyjpf jfty;fisAk; nfhz;L cq;fSf;F
cfe;j Nghf;F tuj;J Kiwikaj; njhpT nra;f.
-33-
Page 2
BRT Introduction/ BRT y÷kajd§u / BRT mwpKfk;
Attributes
.+Kdx.
jd;ikfd;
Existing Bus
mj;sk nia fiajh
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Bus Rapid Transit
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Access Time (AT)
nihlg f.dvùu
g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
No proper Bus-Stands/ iq¥iq nia kej;+ï
ke; / Kiwahd g];jhpg;gplkpy;iy
Stops every where/ iEu ;eklu kj;ajhs /
vt;tplj;jpYk; epWj;jg;gLjy;
Thus, AT is shorter/ ´kEu ;eklska f.dvúh
yel /Mjyhy; g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
Well Defined, sheltered bus-Stands/ nia
kej;+ï we;/ed;F jPh;khd;f;fg;gl;l jhpg;Gfs;
Stops at Stands only Thus, AT may be little longer/
wksjdrAhfhkau kej;=ug hdug is¥fõ /jhpg;Gfspy;
kl;LNk epWj;jg;gLtjhy; mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
mjpfkhfyhk;
Waiting Time (WT)
nihla tk;=re /£ isák
fõ,dj
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
Not following any time schedule/lsisu
ld,igykla ms<sfkdmoS / Neu ml;ltid
fpilahJ
Thus, WT is uncertain/ /£ isgSfï ld,h ksh; ke;
/vdNt fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk; njsptw;wJ
Operates according to time schedule which
displayed on each Stands. Thus, WT is well
defined/ kshus; ld,igykla ms<smoS' th
nia kej;+ïmf,ys m%orAYkh flfr,A fï ksid
/£ isgSfï ld,h ksh;h/jhpg;gplj;jpy; cs;s Neu
ml;ltidg;gbahd Nritapdhy; fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
Travel Time (TT)
.uka ld,h
gaz Neuk;
Due to Traffic-mix same congestion for buses too
Thus, TT also uncertain/niao jdyk ;onohg
yiq fõ ' fï ksid m%jdykhg hk ld,h
wjsksYaÑ;hs'/thfdf;fyg;G> nehprypdhy; gaz
Neuk; vjph;T $wKbahj xd;W
Not mixed with general traffic Run along
segregated lanes/ idudkH jdyk ;onohg yiq
fkdfõ' fjkajq udrA. j, Odjkh flfrA /vida
thfdf;fy;gpd;wp> xJf;fg;gl;l ghijA+lhd Nrit
Thus, TT is much shorter/.ukA ld,h flgshs/
gaz Neuk; kpf kpff; FiwthdJ
Comfortable
myiq;djh
nrsfhPfk;
No Comfortable Seats /myiq wdik ke; /
trjpahd Mrdk; ,d;ik
Comfortable Seats /myiq wdik we;/ trjpahd
Mrdk;
Not neat/ ms<sfj,la ke;/Rj;jkpd;ik
Very neat/ b;d ms<sfj,hs/Rj;jkhdJ
Doors opened & No air condition/ fodrj,a
jsjD;hs" jdhq iólrKh ke; /jpwe;j fjTld;
Fsp&l;lYk; ,y;iy
Closed doors & air condition/ fodrj,a jid we; jdhq
iólrkh we; /%ba fjTld; Fsp&l;lg;gl;l Nrit
Often crowded/ ieujsgu fikÛ msrS ;onoh
we;/vg;NghJk; nehpryhdJ
Least crowded/ ;onoh wvqh/nghJthf
nehpryw;wJ
With Aesthetically designed Shelters/l%uj;au
boslrk ,o kej;=ñ iys;h /trjpAldhd
fth;rpfu jhpg;gplq;fs;
Boarding and alighting is difficult(due to
steps)/Wia mä ksid f.dvùu iy neiSu
wmyiqh /g];]pd; jsk; caukhjyy;
gbapd;py; VWjYk; ,wq;FjYk; fbdk;
Its easy due to low flour (same as platform)
d ùu b;d myiqh /jho; js g];]pd;
/nihg f.v
%yk; rkjs Vwy;> ,wq;;fy; rhj;jpak;
Ref: .................
Not proper Shelters at Bus-stands/ kshñ; m os
boslrk ,o kej;=ï m, ke; /Kiwahd
jhpg;gplq;fs; ,d;ik
-34-
Page 2
BRT Introduction/ BRT y÷kajd§u / BRT mwpKfk;
Existing Bus
mj;sk nia fiajh/ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
nia r: iS> ixl ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Access Time (AT)
nihlg f.dvùu
g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
No proper Bus-Stands/ iq¥iq nia kej;+ï
ke; / Kiwahd g];jhpg;gplkpy;iy
Stops every where/ iEu ;eklu kj;ajhs /
vt;tplj;jpYk; epWj;jg;gLjy;
Thus, AT is shorter/ ´kEu ;eklska f.dvúh
yel /Mjyhy; g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
Well Defined, sheltered bus-Stands/ nia
kej;+ï we;/ed;F jPh;khd;f;fg;gl;l jhpg;Gfs;
Stops at Stands only Thus, AT may be little longer/
wksjdrAhfhkau kej;=ug hdug is¥fõ /jhpg;Gfspy;
kl;LNk epWj;jg;gLtjhy; mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
mjpfkhfyhk;
Waiting Time (WT)
nihla tk;=re /£ isák
fõ,dj
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
Not following any time schedule/lsisu
ld,igykla ms<sfkdmoS / Neu ml;ltid
fpilahJ
Thus, WT is uncertain/ /£ isgSfï ld,h ksh; ke;
/vdNt fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk; njsptw;wJ
Operates according to time schedule which
displayed on each Stands. Thus, WT is well
defined/ kshus; ld,igykla ms<smoS' th
nia kej;+ïmf,ys m%orAYkh fl,fr A fï ksid
/£ isgSfï ld,h ksh;h/jhpg;gplj;jpy; cs;s Neu
ml;ltidg;gbahd Nritapdhy; fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
Travel Time (TT)
.uka ld,h
gaz Neuk;
Due to Traffic-mix same congestion for buses too
Thus, TT also uncertain/niao jdyk ;onohg
yiq fõ ' fï ksid m%jdykhg hk ld,h
wjsksYaÑ;hs'/thfdf;fyg;G> nehprypdhy; gaz
Neuk; vjph;T $wKbahj xd;W
Not mixed with general traffic Run along
segregated lanes/ idudkH jdyk ;onohg yiq
fkdfõ' fjkajq udrA. j, Odjkh flfrA /vida
thfdf;fy;gpd;wp> xJf;fg;gl;l ghijA+lhd Nrit
Thus, TT is much shorter/.ukA ld,h flgshs/
gaz Neuk; kpf kpff; FiwthdJ
Comfortable
myiq;djh
nrsfhPfk;
No Comfortable Seats
/myiq wdik ke; /
trjpahd Mrdk; ,d;ik
Not neat/ ms<sfj,la
ke;/Rj;jkpd;ik
Doors opened & No air
condition/ fodrj,a
jsjD;hs" jdhq
iólrKh ke; /jpwe;j
Comfortable Seats
/myiq wdik we;/
trjpahd Mrdk;
Very neat/ b;d
ms<sfj,hs/Rj;jkhdJ
Closed doors & air
condition/ fodrj,a jid we;
jdhq iólrkh we;
/%ba fjTld;
Fsp&l;lg;gl;l Nrit
Least crowded/ ;onoh
wvqh/nghJthf
nehpryw;wJ
Attributes
.+Kdx.
jd;ikfd;
Often crowded/ ieujsgu fikÛ msrS ;onoh
we;/vg;NghJk; nehpryhdJ
Not proper Shelters at
Bus-stands/ kshñ;
With Aesthetically
designed
Shelters/l%uj;au
boslrk ,o kej;=ñ
iys;h /trjpAldhd
fth;rpfu jhpg;gplq;fs;
m os boslrk ,o
kej;=ï m, ke;
/Kiwahd jhpg;gplq;fs;
,d;ik
Boarding and alighting is
difficult(due to steps)/Wia
Ref: .................
mä ksid f.dvùu iy neiSu
wmyiqh /g];]pd; jsk;
caukhjyy;
gbapd;py; VWjYk; ,wq;FjYk;
-35-
Its easy due to low flour
(same as platform)
/nihg f.dvùu b;d
myiqh /jho; js
g];]pd; %yk; rkjs Vwy;>
,wq;;fy; rhj;jpak;
Page 3
Q4) Now you got the image of BRT, So this is the time to consider the following options and select you answer from that trade-off /
oeka Tng nia iS>%.dó fiajh .ek m%;srEmhla we;s ksid my; i|yka jsl,am i,ld n,d Tnf.a ms<s;+r f;`rkak
/NkNy Fwpg;gpl;l BRT mwpKf mbg;gilapy; ckJ njhpit jPh;khdpf;Ff
Circle your selected choice from each Case
Tnf.a ms<s;=r rjqï lrkak
jug;gl;Ls;s xT;Nthh; re;jh;g;gj;jpYk; Xd;iw njhpT nra;J tl;lkpLf
Choices
2 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
3 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
4 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
Case 4
Case 5
5 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
6 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
1.
2.
3.
Travel Time
Travel time variation
Comfortable type
Fare
.uka lrk ld,h
m%jdyk ld,h fjkia
myiq;djh
.dia;+j
15
20
30
4.
30
1.
15
2.
3.
20
30
4.
15
1.
20
2.
3.
15
30
4.
15
1.
30
2.
3.
20
30
4.
30
1.
15
2.
3.
15
20
4.
30
1.
15
2.
3.
4.
15
20
30
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
05
05
00
00
00
05
10
05
05
05
00
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
20
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
min
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
30
min
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
20
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
20
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing System
Rs
re/&gh
10
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
05 jskdä /epkplk;
10
10
05
10
05
10
00
00
10
05
00
05
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
Ref: .................
Case 6
1 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk;
;f a u
njhpTfs;
-36-
Page H.H-4
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation Development necessity
PART C
fmdÿ m%jdyKh šhqKq lsßfï wjYH;dj yÿkd .ekSu / Ng&e;Jg; Nghf;Ftuj;J mgptpUj;jpapd; Kf;fpaj;Jtf; fzpg;gPL
Q1) Household Member's Details/f.jeähkaf.a f;dr;=re /FLk;g mq;fj;jth;fs; njhlh;ghd jfty;fs;
1. Office workers (all who get fixed salary; Govt and/or Pvt.Co)
2. Self-employed (all whose monthly salary or Income is not fixed. Ex: Shop owner) 3. Student
4. Part time job (Including who don't have a permanent job) 5. No job (Including House wife)
1. iaÒr jegqma ,nk rcfha fyda fm!oa.,sl wxYfha fiajlhka
2. iajfhka relshd lrkakka
3. YsIHh
4. iaÒr relshd ke;
5. relshd ke;
1. epue;ju tUkhdKila Copah;fs;
2. Ranjhopy; GhpNthh;
3. khzth;fs;
4. gFjpNeu Copah;
5. Ntiyaw;Nwhh;
Table B
You can see in your driving license, there will be
the classes of vehicle(s) which you are allowed to
drive.
Household members' Number (HN) which will be used for
individual information in Part B.
fuu wjYH B fldgfia§ Ndú;hg ,nd .kq ,efí
HN ,yf;fk; part B y; gad;gLfpwJ.
Tfí ßheÿre n,m;%fhka n, ms<s;=re yel
cq;fs; rhujp mDkjpg;gj;jpuj;jpypUe;J
HN
Age
Sex
ia;%S/mqreI
(on 2005/09/01)
jhi 2005-09-10
fjksodg
Job
relsh
Driving Licence
ßheÿre n,m;%h
Monthly Income
udih jegqma
If Yes Class
l=uk j¾.h
aaaaa36aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
a
aiaa.........
aaaajareiaaa(2a)aaa1. aTõaa2.we;
aaa(aC,aC1,
Ex. a
1. mq a2.
aaaDa)aaaaa15aaaaaa
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
ghy;
njhopy; rhujp mDkjpg;gj;jpuk; Mk; vdpd; tFg;G
khj tUkhdk;
taJ
M
F
M;
ng
Yrs
Y
N
Mz;Lfs;
M
,
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
2
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
3
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
4
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
5
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
6
1. M 2. F
........... Yrs
(
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
)
1. Y
2. N
1. Y
2. N
1. Y
2. N
1. Y
2. N
1. Y
2. N
1. Y
2. N
Ref: .................
1
-37-
Rs ......,000/month
t
(
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
)
Rs ......,000/month
Rs ......,000/month
Rs ......,000/month
Rs ......,000/month
Rs ......,000/month
Rs ......,000/month
2. BRT 導入意向調査質問票
（個人票、2005 年 10 月実施、コロンボ）
Page I1
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation Development necessity
PART B
fmdÿ m%jdyKh šhqKq lsßfï wjYH;dj yÿkd .ekSu / Ng&e;Jg; Nghf;Ftuj;J mgptpUj;jpapd; Kf;fpaj;Jtf; fzpg;gPL
Answering guide:
E …………
: To be answered by your own/ Tn úiska msrúh hq;=h /fPwpl;l ,lj;ij epug;Gf.
E 1. 2. 3. etc : To be circled according to your best suited among given item/wod, wxlh rjqï lrkak/nghUj;jkhd ,yf;fj;ij
tl;kpLf
E
E
( )
aaaa
a a
: To be entered by a selected number from directed Table or source /wod, wxlh j.=fjka ,ndf.k igyka
lrkak / Fwpg;gpl;l ml;ltidapypUe;J nghUj;khd ,yf;fj;ij njhpT nra;f
: Time to time, these boxes are giving example to show how to fill out./ iuyr wjia:d j,°
WodyrK iys; fldgq imhd we; / cjhuz khjphp juTfs;
Q1) Here, each household individual will be asked to give their trip pattern and mode. Before start,
Specify YOUR household member number (HN) as given in PART A, Q2.
by; A fldgfia okajk ,o HN wxYh muKla i|yka lrkak
FLk;g mq;fj;jth;fspd; Nghf;Ftuj;J Kiwfs; njhlh;ghd jfty;fs; Nfl;fg;gLfpwPh;fs;> Part A tpdh 2 (Q2) y; Fwpg;gpl;l
gbahd (HN) ,yf;fj;jpid jUf.
HN
.................
Q2) Do you travel to any certain destinations in regular interval out of your city, like shown in TableB
(Circle either one)?
Tn ksrka;rfhka tlu ia:dkhka lrd .uka lrkjdo ^wod, wxYh rjqï lrkak&
ePh; ahNjDk; Xh; mYtypd; (Table C) epkpj;jk; md;whlk; gazk; nra;gtuh?
1. Yes /
Tõ / Mk;
2. No /
ke;
/ ,y;iy
Q2) If your answer is yes, then fill out the following question and continue
Tfí ms<s;=re Tõ kï my; i|yka m%YaK j,g ms<s;=re imhkak
Mk; vdpd;> fPo; fhZk; ml;ltidiag; G+h;j;jpnra;j gpd; njhlh;f.
Ref: .................
(,smkh / njU)
(,smkh / njU)
(ia:dkh / miktplk;)
Street Name :.............................................. Street Name :..............................................
(ia:dkh / miktplk;)
(wdh;kh / epWtdk;)
Place :......................................................... Place :.........................................................
(wdh;kh / epWtdk;)
Other Purpose (if any)
fjk;a wruqKq
NtW fhuzq;fs; (,Ug;gpd;)
(2)
Table C
( )
Main Purpose
m%Odk wruqK
gpujhd fhudk;
( )
Table C
(1)
Organization :.............................................. Organization :..............................................
i. From Table C ii. Destination
iii. From Table D
iv. From Table E & F
Main Mode
Reason for Mode Selection
m%Odk jYfhka Ndjs;d
lrk m%jdyk udOH
gpujhd Nghf;Ftuj;J Table D
rhjdk;
( )
Cost of Travel
m%jdyk jshou
Nghf;Ftuj;J nryT
Second Preferred Mode
( )
fojkqjg leu;s udOH
,iz Nghf;Ftuj;J rhjdk; Table D
( )
( )
Table D: Mode
.uka lrk ld,h ................ Min
1. Walk /mhska wejsoSu /
gpuahd Neuk;
eil
2. Bicycle /nhsisl,h / ce;JUsp
Reason for Mode Selection
m%jdyk udOH f;arSug fya;+j
thfd njhpTf;fhd fhuzk; Table E 3. Motorbike /fu`grA ihsl,h / <h;
cUsp
Frequency of Use
4. Threewheeler /;s%jS,rh /
Ml;Nlh
Ndjs;d lrk jdr .Kk
gazpf;Fk; ehl;fs; Table F 5. Car /ldrh / fhh;
( )
( )
Cost of Travel
m%jdyk jshou
Nghf;Ftuj;J nryT
................... Rs /Month
Main Mode
m%Odk jYfhka Ndjs;d
lrk m%jdyk udOH
gpujhd Nghf;Ftuj;J Table D
rhjdk;
( )
Cost of Travel
m%jdyk jshou
Nghf;Ftuj;J nryT
Travel Time
6. Drop by driver /rsh¥rl+ ,jd
.uka lrk ld,h ................ Min nijd.ekSu / thfd rhujp %yk;
gpuahd Neuk;
7. School bus/ company service
/mdie,a nih$ldrahd, fiajh /
ghlrhiy> fk;gdp g];
Reason for Mode Selection
m%jdyk udOH f;arSug fya;+j
8. Van /yhsfhia jEka r:h / thd;
thfd njhpTf;fhd fhuzk;
( )
Table E
9. Public Bus /fmd¥ uyPk nia
Frequency of Use
fiajh / Ng&e;J
Ndjs;d lrk jdr .Kk
gazpf;Fk; ehl;fs; Table F 10. .............................................
( )
Travel Time
................... Rs /Month
Second Preferred Mode
1. Work - jevg$Ntiy
m%jdyk udOH f;arSug fya;+j
thfd njhpTf;fhd fhuzk; Table E 2. School - mdie,g$ghlrhiy
3. Drop & pick - wer,jSug yd
Frequency of Use
/f.k MAug$$l;b nry;yy;> tUjy;
Ndjs;d lrk jdr .Kk
gazpf;Fk; ehl;fs; Table F 4. .................................
Travel Time
................... Rs /Month
Table C : Purpose
( )
fojkqjg leu;s udOH
,iz Nghf;Ftuj;J rhjdk; Table D
Table E: Reason
.uka lrk ld,h .............. Min
gpuahd Neuk;
1. Cheap /,dNhs / Fiwe;j fl;lzk;
2. Easy access /Ndjs;h myiqhs /
Reason for Mode Selection
,yFtpy; milaf;$baJ
m%jdyk udOH f;arSug fya;+j
3.
Faster /blauka / tpiuthdJ
thfd njhpTf;fhd fhuzk; Table E
4. Convenient /myiqfjka hd yel
/ nrsfhpakhdJ
Frequency of Use
Ndjs;d lrk jdr .Kk
5. That only available /oekg
gazpf;Fk; ehl;fs; Table F
we;af;a Mu m%jdyk udOHh
muKls / NtW topapy;iy
( )
( )
Cost of Travel
m%jdyk jshou
Nghf;Ftuj;J nryT
Travel Time
................... Rs /Month
-39-
.uka lrk ld,h .............. Min 6. ................................................
gpuahd Neuk;
Table F: Frequency
1. Week days /iEu i;sfha)osklu /
jpq;fs; - nts;sp
2. Once a Week /i;shlg jrla /
fpoikapy; xU ehs;
3. Twice a week /i;shlg fojrla /
fpoikapy; ,U ehl;fs;
4. Thrice a Week /i;shlg ;+ka jrla
/ fpoikapy; %d;W ehl;fs;
5. Week Ends /i;s wka;fha muKla /
rdp - QhapW fpoik
6. Daily / oskm;d / jpdKk;
7. ...............................................
Page I4
Q4) Please indicate your origin and destination, trip pattern on the following diagram as on 29th Sep 2005?
Tn iema;eïn¾ ui 29 jk Èk .uka l< wdldrh ms<sn| úia;r imhkak / Gul;lhjp 29 y; Md gaz tbtj;jpidj; jUf
(See the example below and fill in this format to the following question/ lreKdlr Tnf.a mgka .ekSu".ukdka;h".ufka
wdldrh'my; igyfka bosrsm;a lrkak^my; i|yka Wodyrkh n,kak"th mQrjd iïmQrAK lrkak/fPo; jug;gl;bUf;Fk; cjhuzj;jpd;
cjtpAld; gpd; tUk; tpdhitg; g+h;j;jp nra;f.)
Example : Trip pattern for the 1st trip to Majestic Cinema theater
MC w;fhd KjyhtJ gazk;
10 :10
am
DT :- ......
.......
5
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
Dehiwalla Junction
CP: .....................................
6
WT :- ...........min
15
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
Bambalapittia Junction
CP: .....................................
0
WT :- ...........min
Majestic Cinema Theater
AP: .....................................
DT - Departure Time/msg;ajk fj,dj/
Gwg;gL Neuk;
DT: 10:10 am
Mode / m%jdyk udOHh/
Nghf;Ftuj;Jrhjdk;
TT-Travel Time/.uka l< ld,h /
gpuahz Neuk;
Mode: Auto
TT: 5 min
fjk;a m%jdyk udO?Hhlg udrejk ia:dkh
CP -Mode changing place/ udOHh fjkia
lrk ia:dkh / Nghf;Ftuj;J Clfk;
khWkplk;, lk;
WT -Waiting Time //£ igsk fj,dj /
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
CP : Dehiwala Junction
WT: 6 min
Mode / m%jdyk udOHh/
Nghf;Ftuj;Jrhjdk;
TT-Travel Time/m%jdkkh l< ld,h /
gpuahz Neuk;
Mode: Auto
TT: 15 min
CP -Mode changing place/ udOHh fjkia
lrk ia:dkh / Nghf;Ftuj;J Clfk;
khWkplk;, lk;
WT -Waiting Time //£ igsk fj,dj /
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
CP : Bambalapittia Junction
WT: 0 min
Mode / udOHh/
Nghf;Ftuj;Jrhjdk;
4
T T :- ...........min
Mode
DP -Departure place/ ms g ;a j k ia : dkh /
Gwg; g L ,lk;
DP : Home
TT-Travel Time/m%jdkkh l< ld,h /
gpuahz Neuk;
Mode: Walk
10 :40
am
AT :- ......
.......
TT: 4 min
AP - Arrival place / meusfKk ia:dkh /
nrd;wilAkplk;
AP - Arrival place / meusfKk ia:dkh/
nrd;wilAkplk;
AP : Majestic Cinema Theater
AT: 10:40 am
2. Bicycle /nhsisl,h / ce;JUsp
7. School bus/ company service /mdie,a nih$ldrahd, fiajh / Ml;Nlh
3. Motorbike /fu`grA ihsl,h / <h; cUsp
8. Van /yhsfhia jEka r:h / thd;
4. Threewheeler /;s%jS,rh / Ml;Nlh
9. Public Bus /fmd¥ uyPk nia fiajh / Ng&e;J
5. Car /ldrh / fhh;
10. .......................................................
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
AP: .....................................
AT :- ...... : .......
DP: ......................................
DT :- ...... : .......
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
AP: .....................................
AT :- ...... : .......
DP: ......................................
DT :- ...... : .......
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
AP: .....................................
WT :- ...........min
-40-
T T :- ...........min
AT :- ...... : .......
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
DT :- ...... : .......
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
DP: ......................................
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
6. Drop by driver /rsh¥rl+ ,jd nijd.ekSu / thfd rhujp %yk;
4th Trip/ 4 jk .uk/ 4tJ gazk;
1. Walk /mhska wejsoSu / eil
5th Trip/ 5 jk .uk/ 5tJ gazk;
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;?
3rd Trip/ 3 jk .uk/ 3tJ gazk;
Ref: .................
2nd Trip/ 2 jk .uk/ 2tJ gazk;
1st Trip/ 1 jk .uk/ 1tJ gazk;
Table D
DP: ......................................
6th Trip/ 6 jk .uk/ 6tJ gazk;
1st Trip/ 1 jk .uk/ 1tJ gazk;
5
How many members accompanied with you? ........
TnniuÛ lSfofkla isgshdo@ vj;jid egUld;
aaaaHome
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa( 4a) aaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa( 9a) aaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa( 1a) aaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a a a a a a a a a
1st Trip/ 1 jk .uk/ 1tJ gazk;
uqΩ mjq,u MC iskudy, fj; hk ,oS
DP: ......................................
DT :- ...... : .......
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
AP: .....................................
AT :- ...... : .......
DP: ......................................
DT :- ...... : .......
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
AP: .....................................
AT :- ...... : .......
DP: ......................................
DT :- ...... : .......
( )
T T :- ...........min
Mode
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
If Mode Change
CP: .....................................
Mode
( )
AP: .....................................
WT :- ...........min
T T :- ...........min
AT :- ...... : .......
Page I2
Q3.
In this section the study is interested to know about your day to day activities. For some given purpose, please
write about your mode, frequency, travel time, fare according to your destination distance.
fuu wOHhkfha fuu fldgiaoS Tnf.a ffoksl ls%hd m<sn|j oek.ekSug n,dfmdfrd;A;+ fõ" Tnf.a .uka¥r wkqj m%jdyk
udOH " jdr .Kk"ld,h".dia+;+j ms<sn|j ,shkak
,g;gFjpapy; fPo; Nfl;fg;gl;bUf;Fk; md;whl mYty;fspd; epkph;j;jk; cq;fs; gaz tpguq;fisj; jUf.
Destination
by zonal distance
.ukdka;h
l,dmsh ¥rg wkqj
Jhu mbg;gilapy;
nry;Ykplk;
idudkH nia
m%Odk m%jdyk
.uka lrk m%jdykhg
.;jk
.dia;+j$tla
udOHh
jdr .Kk
idudkH ld,h
.uklg
gpujhd Nghf;Ftuj;J
gaz
ruhrhp
rhjdk;
Mth;jj
; dk;
gazr;
gazNeuk;
nryT
(Table D)
1.
(Table E)
Going For Shopping / idmamq$lvhg hdu i|yd / nrhg;gpq; (Shopping) w;F nry;yy;
Place you often
go for shopping
ks;r hdu i|yd
nrhg;gpq; (Shopping)
w;F mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
Place you 2nd most
go for shopping
fojkqjg m%uqL;dj
mLj;jgbahf
(Shopping)
mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
2.
Average
Fare per trip
Travel
frequency Travel Time (on average)
Mode mainly
used
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
Down Town(Pettah)
k.r uOHfha
efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
(
(
)
)
(
(
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
3. Motorbike /fu`grA ihsl,h / <h;
cUsp
4. Threewheeler /;s%jS,rh /
Ml;Nlh
5. Car /ldrh / fhh;
)
....... jskdvs
)
....... jskdvs
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Down Town(Pettah)
k.r uOHfha
efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
....... jskdvs re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
....... jskdvs re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
Going for business purpose( banking, Postoffice, etc ) / jHdmdr lghq;+ i|yd hdu ^nexl+"
;eme,a ld¾hd,h" fjk;A&/ mYtyfq;fSf;F (tq;fp>mQ;ry; mYtyfs; Nghd;wit)
Place you often
go for Business
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
Down Town(Pettah)
ks;r hdu i|yd
k.r uOHfha
mYty;fs; (Business) efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
w;F mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
Place you 2nd most
go for Business
fojkqjg m%uqL;dj
mLj;jgbahf
(Business)
mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
3.
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Down Town(Pettah)
k.r uOHfha
efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
)
....... jskdvs
(
)
(
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
Going For Entertainment(House Visit,Cenima, etc / úfõl wjia:d j,° $ñ;==rka ne,Sug /Ñ;%mg
Yd,djg nghJ Nghf;fpw;F w;F nry;yy;
Place you often
go for shopping
ks;r hdu i|yd
nghOJ Nghf;fpw;F
mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
Place you 2nd most
go for shopping
fojkqjg m%uqL;dj
nghOJ Nghf;fpw;F
mLj;jgbahf
mjpfk; nry;Y}kplk;
Ref: .................
min
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Down Town(Pettah)
k.r uOHfha
efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
With in your area
Tfí m%foaYh ;+,
cq;fs; gpuNjrj;Js;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Down Town(Pettah)
k.r uOHfha
efu ikak;(Gwf;Nfhl;il)
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
Between above two
by; fol w;r
,ilg;gl gpuNjrk;
(
)
(
)
....... jskdvs
-41-
Table D: Mode
1. Walk /mhska wejsoSu /
eil
2. Bicycle /nhsisl,h / ce;JUsp
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
min
Rs:
re( .........
epkplk; &gh:
6. Drop by driver /rsh¥rl+ ,jd
nijd.ekSu / thfd rhujp %yk;
7. School bus/ company service
/mdie,a nih$ldrahd, fiajh /
ghlrhiy> fk;gdp g];
8. Van /yhsfhia jEka r:h / thd;
9. Public Bus /fmd¥ uyPk nia
fiajh / Ng&e;J
10. .............................................
Table F: Frequency
1. Week days /iEu i;sfha)osklu /
jpq;fs; - nts;sp
2. Once a Week /i;shlg jrla /
fpoikapy; xU ehs;
3. Twice a week /i;shlg fojrla /
fpoikapy; ,U ehl;fs;
4. Thrice a Week /i;shlg ;+ka jrla
/ fpoikapy; %d;W ehl;fs;
5. Week Ends /i;s wka;fha muKla /
rdp - QhapW fpoik
6. Daily / oskm;d / jpdKk;
7. ...............................................
Page I3
Q4) Rank your preference and opinion abut existing bus's attribute by consider you are going from your home to Pettah
along Galle road using public bus.
fuysoS mj;sk m%jdyk udOHfha .+Kdx. ms<sn| Tnf.a m%uqL;djh iy u;h wkqms<sj,ska olajkak
fhyp tPjpapDhlhf Ng&e;jpdpy; Gwf;Nfhl;il nry;Yk; gaz mbg;gilapy; mjd; Nrit gw;wp ckJ cld;ghLk; Kf;fpaj;JtKk;
1. Walking time to bus stand is short (not more than 10min)
nia kej;+ïm, g mhska hk ld,h flgshs" ^jskdvs 10 lg jvd jevs fkdfõ&
g]; jhpg;gpw;F elf;Fk; Neuk; FiwT ( 10 epkplq;fspYk; FiwT )
2. Waiting time is not high (not more than 10 min)
tys isgSug .; lrk ld,h jsYd, fkdfõ ^^jskdvs 10 lg jvd jevs fkdfõ&
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk; mjpfkpy;iy ( 5 epkplq;fspYk; FiwT )
3. Fare is not so high(˜ Rs 15 to Pettah)
nia .dia;+j idOdrK fõ ^msgfldgqjg re25la muK&
fl;zk; kpf mjpfkpy;iy (&gh15 - Gwf;Nfhl;ilf;F )
4. Buses are run according to fixed schedule
ksYaÑ; ie,iqula wkqj nia r: m%jdykh is¥ fõ
Neu ml;ltidapd; gbahd g]; Nrit
Important
jeo.;a fõ /Kf;fpak;
Little Important
iq¿ jYfhka jeo.;a fõ /XusT
Not Important
jeo.;a ke; /Kf;fpakpy;iy
Strongly Agree
fndfy` fihska tlÛ fõ /KOikahf
Agree
cjhuzk;: xUtH 1k; tpdhTf;F KiwNa 1>4 I tl;lk; ,Lthuhapd; fUj;J g];
jhpg;G mz;ikapy; ,y;iy MapDk; g]; jhpg;G mUfpfpy; ,Ug;gij mjpfk;
tpUk;Gfpd;whH
Not Agree
Wod)flfkl+ 1 yd 4 m,jk m%YaKhg ms<s;+re f,i f;`rhs kï nia kej;+ïm,
wE;ska msysgk w;r Tyqg Mh iómj msysgSu we;af;kau wjYH fjs
tlÕ fõ /cld;gLfpNwd;
Example: if one made cirlce to "1" and "4" to 1st question, then the
meaning is that the bus stand is far for him/her but he really wanted
bus stand to be closer
Little Agree
Kf;fpaj;Jtk;
iuyr úg tlÕ fõ /XusT
jeo.;alu
cld;ghL
tlÛ fkdfõ /cld;ghL ,y;iy
tlÛ;djh
Ng&e;J Nritfspd; jd;ikfs;
Very Important
Degree of Agree Degree of Importance
b;d jeo.;a /kpf Kf;fpak;
Few Attribute of Public Bus
fmd¥ nia fiajfha +.+Kdx. lsysmhla
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Never delay, as being trapped in congested traffic, by running separate lane.
fjkajq mgQuÛl Odjkh fya;+fjka we;s jk ;onohg yiq jSfuka lsis oskl m%udo jS
ke; Nghf;Ftuj;J nehprYf;F cl;glhJ g]; gpuj;jpNahf ghijapDlhd jhkjkw;w Nrit
6. Bus could be identified by its unique color even from long vision.
nia r: j, jrAKfhka nia r: ¥r isgu yªkd.; yel
epw mbg;gilapy; njhiytpypUe;J g];i] ,dk; fhzKbjy;
7. Buses are neat.
nia r: ms<sfj,lg we;
Jg;guthd g];
8. Buses are convenient for both low and high income people.
wvq wdodhï we;s wh yd by, wdodhï we;s wh fofldgigu nia r: myiqodhl fÉ
caH> jho; tUkhd tFg;gpdH ,UtUf;Fk; cfe;jjhf ,Uj;jy;
9. Buses are not much crowded and seat availability is high.
t;rñ fikÛla nia r: j, ke;" wdik j, bv ;fí
nehpry; mw;wJk;> ,Uf;if trjp rhj;jpak;
10.Each bus stop is featured with esthetically designed shelters.
iEu nia kej;+ïm,lau fi!kaorHd;aulj w,xldr f,i wdjrKh lr we;
nrsfhpfkhd> ftHr;rpfukhd g]; jhpg;Gfs;
11.Buses are with closed doors and with Air condition
jeish yels fodrj,a we;s w;r jdhqiuKh lr we;
Fsp&l;ly;> fjTfSldhd g];fs;
Q5) In this section, you will asked about some general items about the bus service available.
fuu wjidk fldgfia Tfnka nia fiajh ms<sn| idudkH lreKq lSmhla wikq ,efí'
,g; gFjpapy;> cq;fs; gpuNjr g]; Nrit gw;wpa jfty;fis Fwpg;gpLf
Few Attribute of Public Bus
Your perceptions
fmd¥ nia fiajfha +.+Kdx. lsysmhla
Tfí ixPdkkh$yeÛSu
Ng&e;J Nritfspd; jd;ikfs;
cq;fs; fzpg;G
1. How far the existing bus-stand from your house?
Tnf.a ksjfia isg niakej;+ïm,g fldmuK ¥ro@/ tPl;bypUe;J Ng&e;J jhpg;gplj;jpw;fhd Jhuk;?
2. How do you access the bus-stand?
niakej;+ïm,g hkafka flfiao@/ tPl;bypUe;J Ng&e;J jhpg;gplj;ij nrd;wilAk; Kiw?
............ m
1.walk mhska eil
2.ThreeWheeler ;s%jS,rfhka Ml;Nlh 3.Bike nhsisl,fhka kpjptz;b/ Nkhl;lhH tz;b 4.other fjk;a NtW(……….....................……)
3. How long does it takes?
thg fldmuK ld,hla .; fõo@ jhpg;gplj;ij mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;?
Ref: .................
4. If you are going out with your all family, then what mode you use? Unf.a mjqf,a idud‚lhka iuÛ
hdug Un f;dard .kafka l+uk m%jdyk udOHho@ FLk;gj;Jld; ntspr; nry;Yk; NghJ gad;gLj;Jk;
Nghf;Ftuj;J rhjdk;?
5. Will you always use public transportation, if the service is well improved (faster / comfortable /
frequent)?fmd¥ m%jdyk fiajh fyd|ska oshqKqj mj;S ^blauka$myiq$ks;r we;s& kï" Un th ks;r
Ndjs;d lrkjdo@ g]; Nrit etPd kag;gLj;jg;gl;lhy; mjid gpujhd rhjdkhf gad;gLj;JtPuh?
................ min
.............................
1. Yes/TÉ/Mk;
2. No/ke;/,y;iy
6. If you circle around No, why?Tn §ke;§ hkak ,lqKq l,d kï ta wehs@/ cq;fs; gjpy; ",y;iy" vdpy;
mjw;fhd fhuzk;
.............................
7. Do you have any idea about any transit system ex: Mass rapid transit(MRT), Light Rail transit(LRT),
1.No idea
woyila ke; njhpahJ
Tramps, Streetcar, Bus Rapid Transit(BRT), etc…) exist in developed cities?
Tng oshqKq k.r j, we;s ixl%uK moaO;s .ek hï woyila ;sfío@( Wod(MRT,LRT,BRT,
etc)/mgptpUj;jp mile;j ehLfspy; fhzg;gLk; etPd Nghf;Ftuj;J Kiw (MRT, LRT, BRT)gw;wpa cq;fs; 2.Yes heard
-42-
Tõ Nfs;tpg;gl;Ls;Nsd;
3. Have used once / jrla Njs;d lr we; / xU Kiw gad;gLj;jpAs;Nsd; 4. Know very well / fyd|ska okS / ed;F ghPr;irak;
8. if 2.,3., or 4. then what system and where? 2.,3., fy` 4 kï th l+uK moaO;sho@
.............................
fld;klo@/cq;fs; gjpy; 2>3>my;yJ 4 vdpd; vq;F> Kiwapd; ngaH?
.............................
3. BRT 導入意向調査質問票
（世帯票、2006 年 9 月実施、コロンボ）
Page H1
Yokohama National University, Japan
Graduate School of Engineering,
Yokohama National University,
79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku,
Yokohama, 240-8501
Japan.
Professor:
Fumihiko Nakamura
TP / Fax: +81-45-339-4039
Web: http://www.cvg.ynu.ac.jp/G4/index_e.htm
September 2006
Dear Galle Road users,
Questionnaire to evaluate Public Transportation
Development necessity
Associate Professor:
Toshiyuki Okamura
Research Associate:
Tsutomu Yabe
Researcher:
Thillaiampalam Sivakumar
Research Help:
(in Srilanka)
Taffic and Transportation
devision,
Dept of Civil Engineering,
Moratuwa Unversity.
The Transportation laboratory of Yokohama National University, Japan is carrying out a surveying about the
travelers along Gale road (connecting Panadura ~ Colombo Core: Pettah).
We are trying to understand how people feel about the existing public transportation and their attitude on
implementing new better transit system called Better Rapid Transit (BRT: you will see what is BRT in later
part of this document). By taking few minutes to complete this questionnaire, you will be helping us to ensure
that this corridor will be more comfortable and time saving on your next, near future, trips.
The questionnaire requires you to record data about your preference among different options given to you,
and some of your personal, household, and vehicle ownership information. We assure you that any
information declared here will kept confidential and be used only for research purpose. Your completed
questionnaire will be collected by the survey team personal.
Answering guide:
E
@
: Complete all the fields, If it is not appropriate, place a dash ( - ) / ish¨ m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak' wod, fkdjk
;ekaj, flá brla fhdokak/ midj;J Nfs;tpfSf;Fk; tpilaspf;Ff> nghUj;kw;w ,lj;jpy; NfhbLf ( - )
…………
E
: To be answered by your own/ ysia;eka mqrjkak /fPwpl;l ,lj;ij epug;Gf.
: Tick (ü) on appropriate Box /□ wod, fldgqj ;=, (ü ) fhdokak / nghUj;jkhdij
PART A
Household information including vehicle ownership (No need to specify your names)
.Dyia: f;dr;=re iy jdykfha Ndrldr;ajh / kid kw;Wk; thfdk; njhlh;ghd tpguq;fs;
1
Present Address
j¾;udk ,smskh
trpg;gpl Kfthp
2
Household Type
.Dyfha j¾.h
trpg;gpl Kfthp
3
Sex
ia;%S$mqreI Ndjh
ghy;
1. q Male / mqreI / Mz;
4
Age
jhi
taJ
1. q 18 - 24
5
Do you have a car driving license?
Tng ieye,a¨ jdyk ^fudag¾ ld¾& ßhÿre n,m;%hla ;sfío@
ePq;fs; thfd mDkjpg; gj;jpuk; (fhh;) cilatuh?
....................................................................................................................................
1. q Owned House /whs;s f.j,a/nrhe;j tPL> kid 2. q Rented House /l=,S f.j,a/ thlif tPL>kid
3. q Apartment / *a,eÜ / njhlhkhb kid
4. q Annexed / wfklaish / ,ize;j tPL
5. q Other / fjk;a / NtW :…….........……............................…
.1
6
7
8
9
njhpT nra;f (ü)
2. q Female / ia;%S / ngz;
2. q 25 - 39
3. q 30 - 59
1. □
4. q > 60
2. □ ke; No
Tõ Yes
In future, do you intend to obtain one?
bÈßfha§ .ekSug woyia lrkjdo@
vjph; fhyj;jpy; tpz;zg;gpf;f tpUk;Gtuh?
1. □
Tõ Yes
2. □ ke; No
What kind of transport modes do you image by the word of “Public Transport”? (you can tick more than one)
~ fmdÿ m%jdykh~~ hkafkka Tn woyia lrkafka l=uk wdldrfha m%jdyk udOHhkao@ ^ms<s;=re tllg jeä úh yelshs&
nghJ Nghf;Ftuj;J vDk; gjj;jpypUe;J eP fUJtJ ahJ? (xd;Wf;F Nkw;gl;l njhpTfis njhpT nra;ayhk;)
1. □ nia / Bus /g];
2. □ ÿïßh /Train /Gif tz;b
Your Income / Month
Tnf.a wdodhu / uilg
................Rs / re/&gh
3. □ gelais / Taxi / thliff; fhh;
ckJ tUkhzk; / khjk;
4. □ ;%Sfrdao r: / Three Wheeler / Kr;rf;fu tz;b
Total house Income / Month
Tnf.a mjqf,a uq¨ wdodhu
5. □ fjk;a Other / NtW : ………………….......................
................Rs / re/&gh
ckJ tUkhzk; / khjk;
Vehicle Ownership
jdyk ysñlu
thfd chpik
0.
No
ke;
,y;iy
1.
One
tl
xd;W
2.
Two
fol
,uz;L
3.
Three or More
;=k fyda jeä
%d;Wk; NkYk;
1 Motor Bike / h;=remeÈ / Nkhl;lhh; irf;fpy;
□
□
□
□
2. Car / ld¾ / fhh;
□
□
□
□
3. Van /jEka / thd;
□
□
□
□
-43-
PART B
BRT Introduction/ BRT y÷kajd§u / BRT mwpKfk;
Note:
This study is interested in implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT : One of the comfortable transit system exist in many developed
cities)
As we don't experience such advance system it's difficult to imagine what is BRT, therefore brief description of BRT is given to you
prior to the question. Try to feel what is BRT
Using the information and some character of system given to you, you got to trade-off the choices and select the best of yours.
You are given few set of cases, each case have some choices of different public transit system. Carefully compare the choices and
select your most preferred system from each case.
wmf.a k.r oshqKq nia moaO;shl w;aoelSula ,nd ke;s ksid Ung wkd.;fhaoS l+uk wkaofï moaO;shla ,efío hkak is;d.;
fkdyel"
fuu wOHhkfhaoS Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) hk ixl%uK moaO;shl .ek wjOdkh fhduq fõ"
Tng ,ndoS we;s iuyr ,laIK Tn mj;sk nia moaO;sh iu. iei£fïoS , BRT hkq l+ulao hkakg ms<s;+r ,efí
BRT hkq l+ulao hkq isf;a ujd.;a miq " my; m%Yak flfrys wjOdkh fhduq lrkak"
. Tng ,ndoS we;s iuyr ,laIK Tn mj;sk nia moaO;sh iy BRT iu. ii|kak"
udOH fol fyd¢ka ixikaokh lr Un jvd;a leu;s udOHh f;darkak
,f; fzpg;gPL mgptpUj;jpaile;j ehLfspy; fhzg;gLk; BRT vDk; Nghf;Ftuj;J Kiwia ,q;F mwpKfg;gLj;Jtjw;fhdJ (BRT - Fiwe;j
fl;lzj;jpy; trjpahdJk; tpiuthdJkhd nrhFrhd NgUe;J Kiw)
mt;tif Nrit vkJ gpuNjrj;jpy; ,y;yhikapdhy; BRT ahnjd;gJ Fog;gkhjyhy; BRT gw;wpapd; gw;wpa mwpKfk; tpdhtpw;F Kd; jug;gLfpwJ
jug;gl;l mwpKfk; %yk; BRT ,id tpsq;fp mjidAk; mjDld; fPo;tUk; tpdhtpy; jug;gLk; Nkyjpf jfty;fisAk; nfhz;L cq;fSf;F
cfe;j Nghf;F tuj;J Kiwikaj; njhpT nra;f.
Existing Bus
mj;sk nia fiajh/ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Access Time (AT)
nihlg f.dvùu
g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
No proper Bus-Stands/ iq¥iq nia kej;+ï ke; /
Kiwahd g];jhpg;gplkpy;iy
Stops every where/ iEu ;eklu kj;ajhs /
vt;tplj;jpYk; epWj;jg;gLjy;
Thus, AT is shorter/ ´kEu ;eklska f.dvúh yel
/Mjyhy; g];ir mila vLf;Fk; Neuk; FiwthdJ
Well Defined, sheltered bus-Stands/ nia kej;+ï
we;/ed;F jPh;khd;f;fg;gl;l jhpg;Gfs;
Stops at Stands only Thus, AT may be little longer/
wksjdrAhfhkau kej;=ug hdug is¥fõ /jhpg;Gfspy;
kl;LNk epWj;jg;gLtjhy; mila vLf;Fk; Neuk;
mjpfkhfyhk;
Waiting Time (WT)
nihla tk;=re /£ isák
fõ,dj
fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
Not following any time schedule/lsisu
ld,igykla ms<sfkdmoS / Neu ml;ltid fpilahJ
Thus, WT is uncertain/ /£ isgSfï ld,h ksh;
ke; /vdNt fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk; njsptw;wJ
Operates according to time schedule which
displayed on each Stands. Thus, WT is well
defined/ kshus; ld,igykla ms<smoS' th nia
kej;+ïmf,ys m%orAYkh flfr,A fï ksid /£
isgSfï ld,h ksh;h/jhpg;gplj;jpy; cs;s Neu
ml;ltidg;gbahd Nritapdhy; fhj;jpUf;Fk; Neuk;
njspthdJ
Travel Time (TT)
.uka ld,h
gaz Neuk;
Due to Traffic-mix same congestion for buses too
Thus, TT also uncertain/niao jdyk ;onohg yiq
fõ ' fï ksid m%jdykhg hk ld,h
wjsksYaÑ;hs'/thfdf;fyg;G> nehprypdhy; gaz Neuk;
vjph;T $wKbahj xd;W
Not mixed with general traffic Run along
segregated lanes/ idudkH jdyk ;onohg yiq
fkdfõ' fjkajq udrA. j, Odjkh flfrA /vida
thfdf;fy;gpd;wp> xJf;fg;gl;l ghijA+lhd Nrit
Thus, TT is much shorter/.ukA ld,h flgshs/
gaz Neuk; kpf kpff; FiwthdJ
Attributes
.+Kdx.
jd;ikfd;
-44-
No Comfortable Seats
/myiq wdik ke; /
trjpahd Mrdk; ,d;ik
Not neat/ ms<sfj,la
ke;/Rj;jkpd;ik
Doors opened & No air
condition/ fodrj,a
jsjD;hs" jdhq iólrKh ke; /jpwe;j fjTld;
Fsp&l;lYk; ,y;iy
Often crowded/ ieujsgu fikÛ msrS ;onoh
we;/vg;NghJk; nehpryhdJ
Comfortable
myiq;djh
nrsfhPfk;
Not proper Shelters at
Bus-stands/ kshñ;
m˙os boslrk ,o
kej;=ï m, ke;
/Kiwahd jhpg;gplq;fs;
,d;ik
Comfortable Seats /myiq
wdik we;/ trjpahd
Mrdk;
Very neat/ b;d
ms<sfj,hs/Rj;jkhdJ
Closed doors & air
condition/ fodrj,a jid
we; jdhq iólrkh we; /%ba fjTld;
Fsp&l;lg;gl;l NritLeast crowded/ ;onoh
wvqh/nghJthf nehpryw;wJ
With Aesthetically
designed
Shelters/l%uj;au
boslrk ,o kej;=ñ
iys;h /trjpAldhd
fth;rpfu jhpg;gplq;fs;
Boarding and alighting is
difficult(due to steps)/Wia mä
ksid f.dvùu iy neiSu
wmyiqh /g];]pd; jsk;
caukhjyy;
gbapd;py; VWjYk; ,wq;FjYk;
fbdk;
Its easy due to low flour
(same as platform)
/nihg f.dvùu b;d
myiqh /jho; js g];]pd;
%yk; rkjs Vwy;> ,wq;;fy;
rhj;jpak;
Now you got the image of BRT, So this is the time to consider the following options and select you answer by trading-off / oeka Tng nia iS>%.dó fiajh
.ek m%;srEmhla we;s ksid my; i|yka jsl,am i,ld n,d Tnf.a ms<s;+r f;`rkak /NkNy Fwpg;gpl;l BRT mwpKf mbg;gilapy; ckJ njhpit jPh;khdpf;Ff
Case 1
Case 2
Comfortable type
Fare
.uka lrk ld,h
gpuahd Neuk;
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
1.
q
2.
q
3.
q
20
30
25
4.
q
35
q
35
2.
q
30
3.
q
20
2 jk wjia:dj/njhpT 2
Case 3
Travel Time
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
1.
3 jk wjia:dj/njhpT 3
Case 4
Choices
1.
2.
q
25
3.
q
30
4.
q
20
4 jk wjia:dj/njhpT 4
1 jk wjia:dj/re;jh;g;gk; 1
Rank your preference and opinion abut existing bus's attribute by consider you are going from your home to PETTAH along Galle road using public bus./
fuysoS mj;sk m%jdyk udOHfha .+Kdx. ms<sn| Tnf.a m%uqL;djh iy u;h wkqms<sj,ska olajkak/fhyp tPjpapDhlhf Ng&e;jpdpy; Gwf;Nfhl;il nry;Yk; gaz
mbg;gilapy; mjd; Nrit gw;wp ckJ cld;ghLk; Kf;fpaj;JtKk;
1.
q
30
2.
q
20
3.
q
35
4.
q
25
q
40
4.
q
40
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
20
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
25
Rs
re/&gh
15
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
10
Rs
re/&gh
15
Rs
re/&gh
25
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
15
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
25
Rs
re/&gh
10
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
30
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
25
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh /tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
30
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj /ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Rs
re/&gh
15
Rs
re/&gh
10
-45-
-46-
25
35
q
q
2.
jskdä /epkplk;
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Existing
Bus
min
mj;sk fiajdj
jskdä /epkplk;
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
min
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
1.
Comfortable type
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
35
q
2.
jskdä /epkplk;
25
Rs
re/&gh
15
Rs
re/&gh
25
15
Rs
re/&gh
Rs
re/&gh
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
Fare
30
Rs
re/&gh
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
Fare
30
jskdä /epkplk;
q
q
q
q
2.
1.
q
q
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
Choices
2.
1.
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
Choices
2.
1.
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
Choices
25
35
25
30
35
30
Fare
20
Rs
re/&gh
Rs
re/&gh
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
Existing Bus
mj;sk fiajdj
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
Comfortable type
jskdä /epkplk;
min
25
20
Rs
re/&gh
Rs
re/&gh
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
25
15
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
Fare
Rs
re/&gh
Rs
re/&gh
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Existing Bus
jskdä /epkplk; mj;sk fiajdj
min
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
Comfortable type
15
20
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
Fare
Rs
re/&gh
jskdä /epkplk; nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
jskdä /epkplk;
min
Fare
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
Existing Bus
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
Comfortable type
30
Rs
re/&gh
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
jskdä /epkplk; mj;sk fiajdj
min
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Existing
Bus
min
mj;sk fiajdj
jskdä /epkplk;
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
min
Rs
re/&gh
.dia;+j
fl;lzk;
Fare
30
q
2.
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
Existing
Bus
min
mj;sk fiajdj
jskdä /epkplk;
ghtidapy; cs;s Ng&e;J Nrit
min
Choices
20
q
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
1.
Comfortable type
25
jskdä /epkplk;
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
BRT
(Bus Rapid Transit)
min
jskdä /epkplk; nia r: iS>% ixl%ukh
tpiuT> nrsfhPf Nrit
min
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
q
20
Choices
2.
q
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
1.
Comfortable type
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
20
q
myiq;djh
nrsfhPf tif
f;aˉu
njhpTfs;
1.
Comfortable type
Choices
Now you got the image of BRT, So this is the time to consider the following options and select you answer from that trade-off / oeka
Tng nia iS>%.dó fiajh .ek m%;srEmhla we;s ksid my; i|yka jsl,am i,ld n,d Tnf.a ms<s;+r f;`rkak /NkNy Fwpg;gpl;l BRT mwpKf
mbg;gilapy; ckJ njhpit jPh;khdpf;Ff
Choices
PART C
4. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料
（コロンボ第 1・2 回）
-47-
„
„
l%u iy m%;sm;a;s flfrys olajk wdl,am iy Wjukdjka oek.ekSfï
iólaIKh lsÍu
on preference and attitudes on systems
and policies
… Surveys
kd.ßl fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajd ms<sn|j bÈßm;alsÍu - m%Odk jYfhka
niar: fiajdj
It contains tys wka;¾.;h
… Presentations on urban public transport mainly on
bus systems
fï i|yd úkdä 70 la .; fõ'
It will take 70 minutes in total.
jevuq¿fõ wka;¾.;h
Contents of the Workshop
Sponsored by:
International Association of Traffic and Safety Science (IATSS)
kd.ßl fmdÿ m%jdykh ms<sn| jevuq¿j 2006
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
WORKSHOP 2006
„
„
i|yd ms<s;=re fokak
m%Yakdj,sh A
lreKdlr
Questionnaire A
Please answer the
fuu jevuq¿fõ wruqK úl,am m%jdyk l%uhla flfrys jD;a;slhkaf.a
iy ck;djf.a wdl,am yd Wjukdjka uek.ekSuhs'
The workshop aims to measure the preference and
attitudes of the professionals and citizens towards
alternative transport systems
fuu jevuq¿j H854 ys l%shdldrlïj, ~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd
mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ wdfoaYKh hkafkys fldgils'
This workshop is a part of the activities of H854
Project titled as “Applicability of Ecological Transport
Systems towards Developing Countries”
jevuq¿fõ wruqK
Objective of the Workshop
-48-
„
(excluding inter-city services)
nhsisl,a we;=¿j&
Mini-buses l=vd m%udKfha niar:
Taxies (including motorbike taxi) l=,Sr: ^l=,S fudag¾
modes wka;¾ m%jdyk úê
„
„
reasons. úhyels
fya;= ldrKd
Space and cost efficiency bvlv iy msßjeh ld¾hlaIu;dj
hkdÈh&
Environment mßirh
„ Welfare (social equity, etc.) iqNidOkh ^iudc idOdrK;ajh
… Possible
nhsisl,a u;u r|dmej;sh yelso@
fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajh jeo.;a jkfka wehs@
… Can we depend everything just on private cars
and motorbikes? wmg yeu úgu mqoa.,sl ld¾ iy fudag¾
„
performance
service level
reliability
úYajdikSh;ajh wvqùu
… Lower
W!K fiajd uÜgu
… Lower
W!K ld¾hlaIu;djh
… Lower
krl m%;srEmh ^wmsßisÿnj" ukao.dó" wkdrlaIs;&
mj;akd l%ufha .eg¿ ^úfYaIfhka niar:&
… Bad image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
Why is public transport important?
Urban Transport and Public Transport
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
„
„
… Para-transit
nia ^iS>%.dó fiajd yer&
… Buses
ÿïßh ^iS>%.dó fiajd yer&
kd.ßl fmdÿ m%jdykh hkq l=ulao@
… Rails (excluding inter-city services)
What is urban public transport ?
Urban Transport and Public Transport
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
m<uq bÈßm;alsÍu
Presentation 1
„
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
Urban Transport and Public Transport
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
-49-
„
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
„
„
„
„
YlH;dj
comfortable bus
bus in case of high demand
wjYH;djh u; kuHYS,S fldgia iïnkaO l< niar: Articulated bus
in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service ksrka;r fiajdj
… Articulated
fyd¢ka ie,iqï l< iqjmyiq niar:
… Well-designed
Bus and Operation niar: iy tys l%shdldÍ;ajh
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
Lower cost and higher feasibility wvq úhoï iy by< uÜgufï
wka;¾ nia yqjudre ^w;=re ud¾.& fiajd in|;dj
Higher capacity with articulated-buses
Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service mq¿,a jQ msúiqï iu.
lsÍfuka jeä úYajdiodhS nj
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way ol=fKka Odjkh
… Bus
Rapid Transit (fõ.j;a nia Odjkh)
… Several experiences in other countries
fjk;a rgj, w;aoelSï lsysmhla
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with r:jdyk ;Sre
nia fiajdj iu.;
What is BRT? BRT hkq l=ulao?
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
2. New Option <BRT> kj
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
„
„
m%Odk jYfhka
„
wka;¾ yqjudrej
„
^w;=re ud¾.&
nia r: fiajd =
l=vd m%udKfha l=,S-fudag¾ ihsl,a"
niar:"
l=,S-;%Sfrdao r:
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
lsÍu
line service and feeder service are
connected m%Odk ud¾. yd w;=re ud¾. niar: fiajd iïnkaO
… Main
^kej;=ïfmd,&
^w;=re ud¾.& nia fiajd in|;dj
… Bus-interchange (terminal) nia
Connection with feeder (local line) service
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
With bus priority signal niar: i|yd m%uqL;d ix{d
niar: muKla .ukalsÍfï ux ;Sre
Exclusive busways niar: muKla .ukalsÍfï ud¾.
„ Exclusive bus lanes
… Mainly
Right-of-way ol=fKka .uka lsÍu
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
2. New Option <BRT> kj
-50-
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
„
„
feeder bus service w;=re ud¾. nia r:hlska .uka
i|yd ms<s;=re fokak
m%Yakdj,sh B
lreKdlr
Questionnaire B
Please answer the
… Get off the bus and walk to the destination niar:fhka
neiSu iy kej;=u fj; mhska .ukalsÍu
In downtown k.r uOHfhaoS
r:hlska .ukalsÍu
off the bus nia r:fhka neiSu
… Catch the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform úreoaO me;af;ka Odjkh jk m%Odk ud¾. nia
… get
At bus terminal nia kej;=ïfmd,oS
… catch
lsÍu
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„ Near the house ksji wdikakfhaoS
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
Presentation 2
ld¾ mdúÉÑ lrk wh BRT ys we;s by,
iïu; uÜgu iy úYajdiS Ndjh u; is;a
weo.ekSug mq¿jk
can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability. oekg fudag¾
… BRT
f;dard.ekSï y|qkajdoSu
option that can be introduced with
lower cost wvq úhoï iys; flá ld,Sk
… Short-term
Expectation wfmalaIdj
2. New Option <BRT> kj
-51-
(excluding inter-city services)
„
„
modes wka;¾ m%jdyk úê
nhsisl,a we;=¿j&
Mini-buses l=vd m%udKfha niar:
Taxies (including motorbike taxi) l=,Sr: ^l=,S fudag¾
… Para-transit
nia ^iS>%.dó fiajd yer&
… Buses
ÿïßh ^iS>%.dó fiajd yer&
kd.ßl fmdÿ m%jdykh hkq l=ulao@
… Rails (excluding inter-city services)
„
performance
service level
reliability
úYajdikSh;ajh wvqùu
… Lower
W!K fiajd uÜgu
… Lower
W!K ld¾hlaIu;djh
… Lower
krl m%;srEmh ^wmsßisÿnj" ukao.dó" wkdrlaIs;&
mj;akd l%ufha .eg¿ ^úfYaIfhka niar:&
… Bad image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
Urban Transport and Public Transport
fya;= ldrKd
„
„
„
„
„
YlH;dj
Lower cost and higher feasibility wvq úhoï iy by< uÜgufï
wka;¾ nia yqjudre ^w;=re ud¾.& fiajd in|;dj
Higher capacity with articulated-buses
Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service mq¿,a jQ msúiqï iu.
lsÍfuka jeä úYajdiodhS nj
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way ol=fKka Odjkh
… Bus
Rapid Transit (fõ.j;a nia Odjkh)
… Several experiences in other countries
fjk;a rgj, w;aoelSï lsysmhla
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with r:jdyk ;Sre
nia fiajdj iu.;
What is BRT? BRT hkq l=ulao?
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
Space and cost efficiency bvlv iy msßjeh ld¾hlaIu;dj
hkdÈh&
Environment mßirh
Welfare (social equity, etc.) iqNidOkh ^iudc idOdrK;ajh
reasons. úhyels
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
„
„
… Possible
nhsisl,a u;u r|dmej;sh yelso@
fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajh jeo.;a jkfka wehs@
… Can we depend everything just on private cars
and motorbikes? wmg yeu úgu mqoa.,sl ld¾ iy fudag¾
Why is public transport important?
What is urban public transport ?
„
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
kd.ßl m%jdykh iy fmdÿ m%jdykh
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
„
Urban Transport and Public Transport
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
Urban Transport and Public Transport
1.Introduction ye¢kaùu
-52„
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
„
„
m%Odk jYfhka
comfortable bus
bus in case of high demand
Articulated bus
in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service ksrka;r fiajdj
wjYH;djh u; kuHYS,S fldgia iïnkaO l< niar:
… Articulated
fyd¢ka ie,iqï l< iqjmyiq niar:
… Well-designed
Bus and Operation niar: iy tys l%shdldÍ;ajh
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
With bus priority signal niar: i|yd m%uqL;d ix{d
niar: muKla .ukalsÍfï ux ;Sre
Exclusive busways niar: muKla .ukalsÍfï ud¾.
„ Exclusive bus lanes
… Mainly
Right-of-way ol=fKka .uka lsÍu
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
2. New Option <BRT> kj
-53-
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
„
^w;=re ud¾.&
nia r: fiajd =
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
l=vd m%udKfha l=,S-fudag¾ ihsl,a"
niar:"
l=,S-;%Sfrdao r:
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
lsÍu
„
feeder bus service w;=re ud¾. nia r:hlska .uka
off the bus nia r:fhka neiSu
the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform úreoaO me;af;ka Odjkh jk m%Odk ud¾. nia
… Get off the bus and walk to the destination niar:fhka
neiSu iy kej;=u fj; mhska .ukalsÍu
In downtown k.r uOHfhaoS
r:hlska .ukalsÍu
… Catch
… get
At bus terminal nia kej;=ïfmd,oS
… catch
lsÍu
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„ Near the house ksji wdikakfhaoS
„
wka;¾ yqjudrej
line service and feeder service are
connected m%Odk ud¾. yd w;=re ud¾. niar: fiajd iïnkaO
… Main
^kej;=ïfmd,&
^w;=re ud¾.& nia fiajd in|;dj
… Bus-interchange (terminal) nia
Connection with feeder (local line) service
2. New Option <BRT> kj
„
2. New Option <BRT> kj
-54-
-55-
-56-
„
option that can be introduced with
f;dard.ekSu <BRT>
ld¾ mdúÉÑ lrk wh BRT ys we;s by,
iïu; uÜgu iy úYajdiS Ndjh u; is;a
weo.ekSug mq¿jk
can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability. oekg fudag¾
… BRT
f;dard.ekSï y|qkajdoSu
lower cost wvq úhoï iys; flá ld,Sk
… Short-term
Expectation wfmalaIdj
2. New Option <BRT> kj
Questionnaire C
Please answer the
5. ワークショップ・アンケート調査票
（コロンボ第 1 回）
m%YaKdj,sh A
Questionnaire A
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries”
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
by
International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences (IATSS)
● This questionnaire is to inquire about the IMAGE of existing public transport in peoples’
minds and the attitudes toward transport policy. fuu m%YaKdj,sh oekg mj;sk fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajd
ms<sn|j iy m%jdyk m%;sm;a;shla flfrys ñksiqka ;=, we;s wdl,am yd úYajdi ms,sn|j úuid
ne,Suls'
igyk(
fuu iólaIKfha m%;sM, m¾fhaIK wruqKq iCyd muKla Ndú;d flf¾' m¾fhaIK lKavdhfï msßi yer
fjk;a wh m¾fhaIK f;dr;=re oek.ekSula isÿ fkdfõ'
● m%YaKdj,sfha m<uq fldgfiaoS Tng fkdfhla mriamr kduúfYaIK hq.,hka oel.; yelsh' ^Wod( fyd|krl" wjodkï-wdrlaIs; hkd§h& iuyr kdu úfYaIKhka fndfyda fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajhka flfrys we;s
wdl,am ms<sn| iuÑ; wdl,amh ms<sìUq lrk w;r iuyr tajd tfia fkdfõ' my; ±lafjk
WodyrKh ms<s;=re imhk wdldrh ms<sìUq flf¾' In the first part of the questionnaire, you will see
many pairs of opposite adjectives (e.g. good-bad, risky-safe, etc…). Some of the adjectives may
be fit to the overall image you have about existing public transport, and the others may not.
Following is an example of how to answer:
[WodyrKh] (fmdÿ
m%jdykh ms<sn|j ~~fyd|-krl~~ m%ldY lsÍfï§)
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj ~~álla krlhs~~ yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is “a little bad”, circle as follows:
krlhs
idudkHhs
fyd|hs
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj ~~fyd|hs~~ yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is “good”, circle as follows:
krlhs
Bad
idudkHhs
Neutral
fyd|hs
Good
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj fyd| fkdjk krl;a fkdjk nj yefÕakï fyda kdu
úfYaIhka folg wod, fkdjk nj yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is neither “good” or “bad”, or if you feel
both adjectives are irrelevant, circle as follows:
Bad
Neutral
Good
● Tng yefÕk laIKsl ms<s;=re iemhsu jvd;a iqÿiqh'
The best way is the INTUITIVE and QUICK
response for each pair.
Tng ix{d lrk ;=re fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka j,lskak
Please do NOT flip this page, until the cue by the instructor.
-57-
1
Questions on the image of Public
Transport
fmdÿ m%jdykh ms<sn| m%YaK
Remember to respond for all items, even if you are not completely sure.
yßhgu ms<s;=re okafka ke;;a ish¨u m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak'
idudkHhs
wmyiq
Inconvenient
iqjmyiq fkdjk
Uncomfortable
ixlS¾K
Complicated
ÿ¾j,
Poor
M,odhS fkdjk
Destructive
ukao.dó
Slow
wdfõ.YS,S fkdjk
Non-aggressive
idudkHhs
myiq
Convenient
wm%ikak
Unpleasant
iqjmyiq
Comfortable
is;aweo.kakd iq¿
Unattractive
ir,
Simple
tmdlrjk
Boring
i;=gqodhl
Rich
my;a uÜgfï
Inferior
mßirhg ydkslr
Environmentally damaging
M,odhS
Constructive
fõ.j;a
Fast
h,amek.sh
Outdated
wdfõ.YS,S
Aggressive
ksy;udkS
Modest
-58-
2
m%ikak
Pleasant
is;aweo.kakd iq¿ fkdjk
Attractive
mqÿulrjk
Exciting
by< uÜgfï
Superior
mßir ys;ldó
Environmentally friendly
kùk ;d,hg wkqj
Fashionable
WvÕ=
Arrogant
lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms,s;=re imhkak Please answer the questions below
□ mssßñ Male
□ .eyeKq Female
jhi iy ia;%S$mqreI nj
Age and sex?
（jhi Age
）
□ Tõ Yes
Tng fudag¾ ld¾ ßhÿre n,m;%hla ;sfío@
Do you have a car driving license?
bÈßfha§ .ekSug woyilaa ;sfío@
In future, do you intend to obtain one?
□ Tõ Yes
□ ke; No
□ Tõ Yes
Tng myiqfjka Ndú;d l<yels ldrhla ;sfío@
Do you own a car that you can freely use?
□ ke; No
bÈßfha§ .ekSug woyilaa ;sfío@
In future, do you intend to obtain one?
□ Tõ Yes
□ ke; No
fmdÿ m%jdykh hkqfjka Tn woyia lrkafka l=uk
m%jdyk udOHhlao@
What kind of transport modes do you image by
the word of “Public Transport”?
wod, wxl u; rjqï lrkak
□ ke; No
1. nia r: Bus 2. ÿïßhTrain
4. gelais Taxi
3. Subway
.
5. fjk;a Other
(Please circle all possibly suitable items)
bÈßfhka we;s m%jdyk udOHhka j¾;udkfha§ Tn
fldhs;rï ÿrg Ndú;d lrkjdo@
For each of the travel modes on the right side,
how often do you use them presently?
Tn lsisfia;a Ndú;dlrkafka ke;akï Èk ~~0~~ fhdokak
(If you do not use at all, please write down “0 day”)
ƒ fudag¾ jdyk Automobile:
□i;shlg □uilg □ jirlg
about
Èk ..........muK
days per □Week □Month □Year
ƒ fudag¾ nhsisl,a Motorbike:
□i;shlg □uilg □ jirlg Èk ..........muK
ƒ mdmeÈ Bicycle:
□i;shlg □uilg □ jirlg Èk ..........muK
ƒ fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajd Public transport:
□I;shlg □uilg □ jirlg Èk ..........muK
Tn Èklg fldmuK ÿrla weúÈkjdo@
How much do you walk per day in average?
meh …….. úkdä ……………. muK
about
hours
minutes
fld<U k.rfha fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajfha jeäÈhqKq lsÍu
b;du jeo.;a fohla f,i Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that improvement of public transport is
one of the most important issues in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
ñksiqka fudag¾r: mdúÉÑfhka je,lsh hq;=hs lshd
Tn is;kjdo@
lsisfia;a ke;
Not at all
Not at all
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Do you think that people should refrain from using car?
fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj b;d
fudag¾r: muKla mdúÉÑ
Ôj;aúug wlue;so@
ÿ¾j, kuq;a Tng
l<yels ia:dkhl
lsisfia;a ke;
Not at all
idudkHhs
Neutral
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Do you dislike to live in a place with inconvenient public transport
thus you can use only car?
fudag¾ld¾ Ndú;h md,kh lrk ñkqï ovq iu.
Tn tlÕ jkafkao@
Do you agree with the transport measures that call public for
restraining car use?
k.r iSudj ;=, fudag¾ r: Ndú;h ;ykï lsÍu
ms<sn|j Tn tlÕ jkafkao@
Do you agree with
a restriction of car use in urban area?
iïmQ¾Kfhka
wlue;shs
Strongly disagree
idudkHhs
Neutral
iïmQ¾Kfhka
leu;shs
Strongly agree
iïmQ¾Kfhka
wlue;shs
Strongly disagree
idudkHhs
Neutral
iïmQ¾Kfhka
leu;shs
Strongly agree
-59-
3
Questionnaire B m%YaKdj,sh B
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries”
by International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
lreKdlr
ix{d lrk ;=re
fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka
j,lskak
Please do NOT flip this
page,
until the cue
by the instructor.
-60-
4
Questions on the image of
BRT
the instructor has just explained.
BRT ys m%;srEmh ms<sn| m%YaK
±ka meyeÈ,s lrk ,o Wmfoia yd iïnkaOhs
yßhgu ms<s;=re okafka ke;;a ish¨u m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak'
Remember to respond for all items, even if you are not completely sure.
idudkHhs
idudkHhs
Neutral
wmyiq
Inconvenient
iqjmyiq fkdjk
Uncomfortable
ixlS¾K
Complicated
ÿ¾j,
Poor
M,odhS fkdjk
Destructive
ukao.dó
Slow
wdfõ.YS,S fkdjk
Non-aggressive
myiq
Convenient
wm%ikak
Unpleasant
iqjmyiq
Comfortable
is;aweo.kakd iq¿
Unattractive
ir,
Simple
tmdlrjk
Boring
i;=gqodhl
Rich
my;a uÜgfï
Inferior
mßirhg ydkslr
Environmentally damaging
M,odhS
Constructive
fõ.j;a
Fast
h,amek.sh
Outdated
wdfõ.YS,S
Aggressive
ksy;udkS
Modest
-61-
5
m%ikak
Pleasant
is;aweo.kakd iq¿ fkdjk
Attractive
mqÿulrjk
Exciting
by< uÜgfï
Superior
mßir ys;ldó
Environmentally friendly
kùk ;d,hg wkqj
Fashionable
WvÕ=
Arrogant
Please answer the questions below
lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu iqjmyiqhs lshd Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that
it is comfortable to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu m%sh ckl hehs Tn is;jdo@
Do you think that
it is pleasant to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu b;d myiq hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that
it is easy to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT fld<Ug y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tng th Èkm;d
Ndú;d lsÍug wjYHo@
Do you want to daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT fld<Ug y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tn th Èkm;d
Ndú;dlrkakg n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<U isákakka BRT Ndú;h myiqfjka
f;reï .kSú lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that people in Colombo can
easily understand how to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<U isák fndfyda wh BRT Ndú;d lrhs lshd
Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that
many people in Colombo will use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<Ug BRT wjYHhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that
BRT is necessary in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<Ug BRT y÷kajdÈh hq;=hs lshd Tn
is;kafkao@
Do you think that
BRT should be introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
-62-
6
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Questionnaire C m%YaKdj,sh C
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries”
by International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
lreKdlr
ix{d lrk ;=re
fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka
j,lskak
Please do NOT flip this
page,
until the cue
by the instructor.
-63-
7
Questions on the image of
BRT
the instructor has just explained.
BRT ys m%;srEmh ms<sn| m%YaK
±ka meyeÈ,s lrk ,o Wmfoia yd iïnkaOhs
yßhgu ms<s;=re okafka ke;;a ish¨u m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak'
Remember to respond for all items, even if you are not completely sure.
wmyiq
Inconvenient
iqjmyiq fkdjk
Uncomfortable
ixlS¾K
Complicated
ÿ¾j,
Poor
M,odhS fkdjk
Destructive
ukao.dó
Slow
wdfõ.YS,S fkdjk
Non-aggressive
idudkHhs
idudkHhs
Neutral
Neutral
myiq
Convenient
wm%ikak
Unpleasant
iqjmyiq
Comfortable
is;aweo.kakd iq¿
Unattractive
ir,
Simple
tmdlrjk
Boring
i;=gqodhl
Rich
my;a uÜgfï
Inferior
mßirhg ydkslr
Environmentally damaging
M,odhS
Constructive
fõ.j;a
Fast
h,amek.sh
Outdated
wdfõ.YS,S
Aggressive
ksy;udkS
Modest
-64-
8
m%ikak
Pleasant
is;aweo.kakd iq¿ fkdjk
Attractive
mqÿulrjk
Exciting
by< uÜgfï
Superior
mßir ys;ldó
Environmentally friendly
kùk ;d,hg wkqj
Fashionable
WvÕ=
Arrogant
Please answer the questions below
lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu iqjmyiqhs lshd Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that
it is comfortable to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu m%sh ckl hehs Tn is;jdo@
Do you think that
it is pleasant to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu b;d myiq hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that
it is easy to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT fld<Ug y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tng th Èkm;d
Ndú;d lsÍug wjYHo@
Do you want to daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
BRT fld<Ug y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tn th Èkm;d
Ndú;dlrkakg n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<U isákakka BRT Ndú;h myiqfjka
f;reï .kSú lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that people in Colombo can
easily understand how to use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<U isák fndfyda wh BRT Ndú;d lrhs lshd
Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that
many people in Colombo will use BRT?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<Ug BRT wjYHhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that
BRT is necessary in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
fld<Ug BRT y÷kajdÈh hq;=hs lshd Tn
is;kafkao@
Do you think that
BRT should be introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;a ke;
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
-65-
9
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
we;af;kau Tõ
Yes, strongly
6. ワークショップ・アンケート調査票
（コロンボ第 2 回）
…………………………
……………………………
Questionnaire 2-A / m%YaKdj,sh 2-A
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries”
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
by International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
● This questionnaire is to inquire about the IMAGE of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in your
minds./ fuu m%YaKdj,sh oekg mj;sk fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajd ms<sn|j iy m%jdyk m%;sm;a;shla flfrys
ñksiqka ;=, we;s wdl,am yd úYajdi ms,sn|j úuid ne,Suls'
Note:
The resulting information will be used only for research purposes. No individuals other than the
members of research group will ever have access to the responses which you provide in this study.
igyk(
fuu iólaIKfha m%;sM, m¾fhaIK wruqKq iCyd muKla Ndú;d flf¾' m¾fhaIK lKavdhfï msßi yer
fjk;a wh m¾fhaIK f;dr;=re oek.ekSula isÿ fkdfõ'
● This questionnaire is to inquire about the IMAGE of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in your
minds In the questionnaire, you will see many pairs of opposite adjectives (e.g. good-bad,
inconvenient-convenient, etc…). Some of the adjectives may be fit to the image you have about
BRT, and the others may not. Following is an example of how to answer:/ m%YaKdj,sfha m<uq
fldgfiaoS Tng fkdfhla mriamr kdu úfYaIK hq.,hka oel.; yelsh' ^Wod( fyd|-krl" wjodkïwdrlaIs; hkd§h& iuyr kdu úfYaIKhka fndfyda fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajhka flfrys we;s wdl,am ms<sn|
iuÑ; wdl,amh ms<sìUq lrk w;r iuyr tajd tfia fkdfõ' my; ±lafjk WodyrKh ms<s;=re
imhk wdldrh ms<sìUq flf¾'
[Example] (In the case of “good-bad”)/ [WodyrKh] (fmdÿ m%jdykh ms<sn|j ~~fyd|krl~~ m%ldY lsÍfï§)
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj ~~álla krlhs~~ yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is “a little bad”, circle as follows:
Bad/krlhs
Neutral/idudkHhs
Good/fyd|hs
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj ~~fyd|hs~~ yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is “good”, circle as follows:
Bad/krlhs
Neutral/idudkHhs
Good/fyd|hs
Tng fmdÿ m%jdyk fiajdj fyd| fkdjk krl;a fkdjk nj yefÕakï fyda kdu
úfYaIhka folg wod, fkdjk nj yefÕakï my; mßÈ rjqï lrkak
If you feel that public transport is neither “good” or “bad”, or if you feel
both adjectives are irrelevant, circle as follows:
Bad/krlhs
● The best way is the
laIKsl
INTUITIVE
Neutral/idudkHhs
and
Good/fyd|hs
QUICK response
for each pair. / Tng yefÕk
ms<s;=re iemhsu jvd;a iqÿiqh'
Please do NOT flip this page, until the cue by the instructor. /
Tng ix{d lrk ;=re fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka j,lskak
-67-
1
…………………………
……………………………
Please answer the questions below / lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms,s;=re imhkak
Questions on the image of BRT the instructor has just explained. /
BRT ys m%;srEmh ms<sn| m%YaK
±ka meyeÈ,s lrk ,o Wmfoia yd iïnkaOhs
Remember to respond for all items, even if you are not completely sure. /
yßhgu ms<s;=re okafka ke;;a ish¨u m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak'
Neutral/idudkHhs
wmyiq
Inconvenient
iqjmyiq fkdjk
Uncomfortable
Neutral/idudkHhs
myiq
Convenient
iqjmyiq
Comfortable
ixlS¾K
Complicated
ÿ¾j,
Poor
M,odhS fkdjk
Destructive
m%ikak
Pleasant
is;aweo.kakd iq¿
Unattractive
ir,
Simple
is;aweo.kakd iq¿ fkdjk
Attractive
tmdlrjk
Boring
i;=gqodhl
Rich
mqÿulrjk
Exciting
my;a uÜgfï
Inferior
M,odhS
Constructive
ukao.dó
Slow
wdfõ.YS,S fkdjk
Non-aggressive
wm%ikak
Unpleasant
by< uÜgfï
Superior
mßirhg ydkslr
Environmentally damaging
fõ.j;a
Fast
h,amek.sh
Outdated
wdfõ.YS,S
Aggressive
mßir ys;ldó
Environmentally friendly
kùk ;d,hg wkqj
Fashionable
ksy;udkS
Modest
jhi iy ia;%S$mqreI nj
Age and sex?
WvÕ=
Arrogant
□ mssßñ/Male □ .eyeKq/Female
(jhi /Age :
□ Tõ Yes
Tng fudag¾ ld¾ ßhÿre n,m;%hla ;sfío@
Do you have a car driving license?
)
□ ke; No
bÈßfha§ .ekSug woyilaa ;sfío@
In future, do you intend to obtain one?
□ Tõ Yes
□ ke; No
□ Tõ Yes
Tng myiqfjka Ndú;d l<yels ldrhla ;sfío@
Do you own a car that you can freely use?
□ ke; No
bÈßfha§ .ekSug woyilaa ;sfío@
In future, do you intend to obtain one?
□ Tõ Yes
□ ke; No
BRT ms<sn|j oelafjk rEmrduq uyck;djg
m%o¾YKh lsÍu w;HdjYH hhs Tn is;kafkao@
Not at all
Do you think “graphical image of BRT” is
indispensable for the presentation to the public?
-68-
2
Neutral
Yes, strongly
Questionnaire 2-B / m%YaKdj,sh 2-B
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries” /
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
by International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
lreKdlr
ix{d lrk ;=re
fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka
j,lskak
Please do NOT flip this
page,
until the cue
by the instructor.
-69-
3
…………………………
……………………………
Please answer the questions below / lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu iqjmyiqhs lshd Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is comfortable to use BRT?
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu m%sh ckl hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is pleasant to use BRT?
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu myiq hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is easy to use BRT?
Not at all
BRT fld<U k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tng th
Èkm;d Ndú;d lsÍug wjYHo@
Do you want to daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT fld<U k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tn th
Èkm;d Ndú;d lrkakg n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rfha isákakka BRT Ndú;h myiqfjka
f;areï .kSú lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that people in Colombo can
easily understand how to use BRT?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rfha isák whf.ka nyq;rhla BRT
Ndú;d lrhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that many people in Colombo will
use BRT?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT wjYHhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that BRT is necessary in
Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajdÈh hq;=hs lshd Tn
is;kafkao@ Do you think that
BRT should be introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT N÷kajd§u wmyiq fõ hehs
Tn is;kjdo@ Do you think that
it is difficult to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§ug
n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you wish to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§ug úYd, mßY%uhla
oeÍug iQodkïo@Will you make great efforts
to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
m%jdyk ie,iqïlrefjl= f,i" fld<U k.rhg
BRT y÷kajdfokafka ljr wdldrfhkaoehs Tng
myiqfjka Wml,amkh l, yelso@
Can you, as a transport planner, easily image
how to introduce BRT in Colombo?
fld<U k.rhg ienE f,iu BRT N÷kajdÈh
yelshehs Tn wfmalaId lrkafkao@
Do you expect BRT can actually be introduced
in Colombo?
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§u fjkqfjka Tnf.a
wkd.; Ôú;h lem lsÍug leu;so@
Do you want to devote your future life to
introduce BRT in Colombo?
BRT ms<sn|j oelafjk rEmrduq uyck;djg
m%o¾YKh lsÍu w;HdjYH hhs Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think “graphical image of BRT” is
indispensable for the presentation to the public?
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
-70-
4
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Questionnaire 2-C / m%YaKdj,sh 2-C
Project on “Applicability of Ecological Transportation System toward Developing Countries” /
~~ixj¾Okh jk rgj,a i|yd mßir ys;ldó m%jdyk l%u~~ ms<sn| jHdmD;sh
by International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
lreKdlr
ix{d lrk ;=re
fuu msgqj fmr,Sfuka
j,lskak
Please do NOT flip this
page,
until the cue
by the instructor.
-71-
5
…………………………
……………………………
Please answer the questions below / lreKdlr my; m%YaKj,g ms<s;=re imhkak
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu iqjmyiqhs lshd Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is comfortable to use BRT?
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu m%sh ckl hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is pleasant to use BRT?
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT Ndú;d lsÍu myiq hehs Tn is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is easy to use BRT?
Not at all
BRT fld<U k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tng th
Èkm;d Ndú;d lsÍug wjYHo@
Do you want to daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
BRT fld<U k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tn th
Èkm;d Ndú;d lrkakg n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rfha isákakka BRT Ndú;h myiqfjka
f;areï .kSú lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that people in Colombo can
easily understand how to use BRT?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rfha isák whf.ka nyq;rhla BRT
Ndú;d lrhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that many people in Colombo will
use BRT?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT wjYHhs lshd Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think that BRT is necessary in
Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajdÈh hq;=hs lshd Tn
is;kafkao@ Do you think that
BRT should be introduced in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT N÷kajd§u wmyiq fõ hehs
Tn is;kjdo@ Do you think that
it is difficult to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§ug
n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you wish to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§ug úYd, mßY%uhla
oeÍug iQodkïo@Will you make great efforts
to introduce BRT in Colombo?
lsisfia;au ke;
m%jdyk ie,iqïlrefjl= f,i" fld<U k.rhg
BRT y÷kajdfokafka ljr wdldrfhkaoehs Tng
myiqfjka Wml,amkh l, yelso@
Can you, as a transport planner, easily image
how to introduce BRT in Colombo?
fld<U k.rhg ienE f,iu BRT N÷kajdÈh
yelshehs Tn wfmalaId lrkafkao@
Do you expect BRT can actually be introduced
in Colombo?
fld<U k.rhg BRT y÷kajd§u fjkqfjka Tnf.a
wkd.; Ôú;h lem lsÍug leu;so@
Do you want to devote your future life to
introduce BRT in Colombo?
BRT ms<sn|j oelafjk rEmrduq uyck;djg
m%o¾YKh lsÍu w;HdjYH hhs Tn is;kafkao@
Do you think “graphical image of BRT” is
indispensable for the presentation to the public?
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
-72-
6
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Where do you think BRT should be introduced in the Colombo?
(Deliberate it while considering travel demand, necessity and the
existing transportation system and urban planning.
Then, draw the BRT line on the map below, please.)
…………………………
……………………………
-73-
7
…………………………
……………………………
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT Ndú;d lsÍu
iqjmyiq hehs lshd is;kafkao@
Do you think that it is comfortable to use the
BRT that you drew in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT Ndú;d lsÍu
m%sh ckl hehs is;kafkao@
Do you think that it is pleasant to use BRT that
you drew in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT Ndú;d lsÍu
myiq hehs is;kafkao@
Do you think that it is easy to use BRT that you
drew in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT fld<U
k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a Tng th Èkm;d Ndú;d
lsÍug wjYHo@
Do you want to daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo that you drew
in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT fld<U
k.rhg y÷kajd ÿkfyd;a" Tn th Èkm;d Ndú;d
lrkakg n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT,
when it is introduced in Colombo that you drew
in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rfha
isákakka BRT Ndú;h myiqfjka f;areï .kSú lshd
is;kafkao@
Do you think that people in Colombo can
easily understand how to use BRT that you
drew in the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rfha
isák whf.ka nyq;rhla BRT Ndú;d lrhs lshd
is;kafkao@
Do you think that many people in Colombo will
use BRT that you drew in the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
BRT wjYHhs lshd is;kafkao@
Do you think that BRT is necessary in Colombo
that you drew in the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
BRT y÷kajdÈh hq;=hs lshd is;kafkao@
Do you think that BRT should be introduced in
Colombo that you drew in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
-74-
8
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
…………………………
……………………………
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
BRT N÷kajd§u wmyiq fõ hehs is;kjdo@
Do you think that it is difficult to introduce BRT
in Colombo that you drew in the previous
page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
BRT y÷kajd§ug n,dfmdfrd;a;= fjkjdo@
Do you wish to introduce BRT in Colombo that
you drew in the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
BRT y÷kajd§ug f,dl= W;aidyhla .kakjdo@
Will you make great efforts
to introduce BRT in Colombo that you drew in
the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka m%jdyk
ie,iqïlrefjl= f,i" fld<U k.rhg BRT
y÷kajdfokafka ljr wdldrfhkaoehs Tng myiqfjka
Wml,amkh l, yelso@
Can you, as a transport planner, easily image
how to introduce BRT in Colombo that you
drew in the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg
ienE f,iu BRT N÷kajdÈh yelshehs Tn wfmalaId
lrkafkao@
Do you expect BRT can actually be introduced
in Colombo that you drew in the previous
page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka fld<U k.rhg BRT
y÷kajd§u fjkqfjka Tnf.a wkd.; Ôú;h lem
lsÍug leu;so@
Do you want to devote your future life to
introduce BRT in Colombo that you drew in
the previous page?
Tn óg m%:ufhka we¢ whqßka BRT ms<sn|j
oelafjk rEmrduq uyck;djg m%o¾YKh lsÍu
w;HdjYH hhs is;kafkao@
Do you think “graphical image of BRT” is
indispensable for the presentation to the public
that you drew in the previous page?
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
lsisfia;au ke;
Not at all
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
idudkHhs
Neutral
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
;Èkau Tõ
Yes, strongly
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
-75-
9
7. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料
（バンコク第 1 回）
URBAN PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
WORKSHOP 2006
Sponsored by International Association of
Traffic and Safety Science (IATSS)
Objective of the Workshop
„
This workshop is a part of the activities of H854
Project titled as “Applicability of Ecological
Transport Systems towards Developing
Countries”
„
The workshop aims to measure the preference
and attitudes of the professionals and citizens
towards alternative transport systems
Contents of the Workshop
„
It will take 70 minutes in total.
„
It contains
Presentations on urban public transport
mainly on bus systems &
… Surveys on preference and attitudes on
systems and policies
…
Please answer the
Questionnaire A
Presentation 1
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
What is urban public transport ?
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
… Buses (excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
Mini-buses
„ Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Why is public transport important?
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
Environment
„ Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
… Lower performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
2. New Option <BRT>
„
What is BRT?
… Bus
Rapid Transit
… Several experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
„ Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
„ Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Bus and Operation
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
… Articulated bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
… Main line service and feeder service are
connected
„
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
Near the house
… catch
„
feeder bus service
At bus terminal
… get
off the bus
… Catch the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
„
In downtown
… Get
off the bus and walk to the destination
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Expectation
… Short-term
option that can be introduced with
lower cost
… BRT can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
Please answer the
Questionnaire B
Presentation 2
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
What is urban public transport ?
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
… Buses (excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
Mini-buses
„ Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Why is public transport important?
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
Environment
„ Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
… Lower performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
2. New Option <BRT>
„
What is BRT?
… Bus
Rapid Transit
… Several experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
„ Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
„ Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Bus and Operation
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
… Articulated bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
… Main line service and feeder service are
connected
„
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
Near the house
… catch
„
feeder bus service
At bus terminal
… get
off the bus
… Catch the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
„
In downtown
… Get
off the bus and walk to the destination
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Expectation
… Short-term
option that can be introduced with
lower cost
… BRT can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
Please answer the
Questionnaire C
URBAN PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
WORKSHOP 2006
Sponsored by International Association of
Traffic and Safety Science (IATSS)
Objective of the Workshop
„
This workshop is a part of the activities of H854
Project titled as “Applicability of Ecological
Transport Systems towards Developing
Countries”
„
The workshop aims to measure the preference
and attitudes of the professionals and citizens
towards alternative transport systems
-77-
Contents of the Workshop
„
It will take 70 minutes in total.
„
It contains
Presentations on urban public transport
mainly on bus systems &
… Surveys on preference and attitudes on
systems and policies
…
Please answer the
Questionnaire A
-78-
Presentation 1
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
What is urban public transport ?
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
… Buses (excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
Mini-buses
„ Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
„
-79-
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Why is public transport important?
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
Environment
„ Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
… Lower performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
-80-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
What is BRT?
… Bus
Rapid Transit
… Several experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
„ Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
„ Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
-81-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Bus and Operation
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
… Articulated bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
… Main line service and feeder service are
connected
„
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
-82-
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
Near the house
… catch
„
feeder bus service
At bus terminal
… get
off the bus
… Catch the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
„
In downtown
… Get
off the bus and walk to the destination
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Expectation
… Short-term
option that can be introduced with
lower cost
… BRT can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
-83-
Please answer the
Questionnaire B
Presentation 2
-84-
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
What is urban public transport ?
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
… Buses (excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
Mini-buses
„ Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
„
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Why is public transport important?
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
Environment
„ Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
-85-
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
… Lower performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
2. New Option <BRT>
„
What is BRT?
… Bus
Rapid Transit
… Several experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
„ Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
-86-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
„ Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
-87-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Bus and Operation
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
… Articulated bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
-88-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
… Main line service and feeder service are
connected
„
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
-89-
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
Near the house
… catch
„
feeder bus service
At bus terminal
… get
off the bus
… Catch the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
„
In downtown
… Get
off the bus and walk to the destination
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Expectation
… Short-term
option that can be introduced with
lower cost
… BRT can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
Please answer the
Questionnaire C
-96-
8. ワークショップ・プレゼンテーション資料
（バンコク第 2 回）
Contents:
URBAN PUBLIC
TRANSPORT WORKSHOP
2006
Part 2 (Follow-Up)
Review of the first workshop in September
„ Questionnaire 1
„ Presentation 1
„ Questionnaire 2
„ Presentation 2
„ Questionnaire3
„
Sponsored by International Association of
Traffic and Safety Science (IATSS)
SEPTEMBER 8
Objective of the Workshop
URBAN PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
WORKSHOP 2006
Sponsored by International Association of
Traffic and Safety Science (IATSS)
„
This workshop is a part of the activities of H854
Project titled as “Applicability of Ecological
Transport Systems towards Developing
Countries”
„
The workshop aims to measure the preference
and attitudes of the professionals and citizens
towards alternative transport systems
Contents of the Workshop
„
It will take 70 minutes in total.
„
It contains
Please answer the
Questionnaire A
Presentations on urban public transport
mainly on bus systems &
… Surveys on preference and attitudes on
systems and policies
…
-97-
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
Presentation 1
What is urban public transport ?
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
(excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
… Buses
„
„
Mini-buses
Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
1.Introduction
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
„
Why is public transport important?
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
… Lower
Environment
Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
2. New Option <BRT>
What is BRT?
„
… Bus
Rapid Transit
… Several experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
„
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
„
-98-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
2. New Option <BRT>
Bus and Operation
„
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
… Articulated bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
line service and feeder service are
connected
… Main
„
2. New Option <BRT>
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
„
„
… Short-term
option that can be introduced with
lower cost
… BRT can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
Near the house
… catch
Expectation
feeder bus service
At bus terminal
… get
off the bus
the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
… Catch
„
In downtown
… Get
off the bus and walk to the destination
Please answer the
Presentation 2
Questionnaire B
-99-
1.Introduction
1.Introduction
Urban Transport and Public Transport
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
What is urban public transport ?
„
… Rails
(excluding inter-city services)
(excluding inter-city services)
… Para-transit modes
Why is public transport important?
… Can
we depend everything just on private
cars and motorbikes?
… Possible reasons.
… Buses
Environment
Welfare (social equity, etc.)
„ Space and cost efficiency
„
Mini-buses
„ Taxies (including motorbike taxi)
„
„
1.Introduction
2. New Option <BRT>
Urban Transport and Public Transport
„
„
Problems of existing systems (esp. bus)
What is BRT?
… Bus
Rapid Transit
experiences in other countries
… Linehaul (main line) bus service with
… Bad
image (dirty, slow, unsecured)
… Lower performance
… Lower service level
… Lower reliability
… Several
Higher reliability with exclusive right of way
Higher capacity with articulated-buses
„ Wider accessibility with bus-interchange and good
connection with feeder (local line) service
„ Lower cost and higher feasibility
„
„
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Right-of-way
… Mainly
Exclusive busways
Exclusive bus lanes
„ With bus priority signal
„
„
-100-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Bus and Operation
… Well-designed
comfortable bus
bus in case of high demand
… Highly frequent service
… Articulated
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Connection with feeder (local line) service
… Bus-interchange
(terminal)
line service and feeder service are
connected
… Main
„
Feeder = minibus, motorbike-taxi, three-wheel taxi
2. New Option <BRT>
<Typical Trip pattern with BRT>
„
Near the house
„
At bus terminal
… catch
feeder bus service
… get
off the bus
the main-line bus at the opposite side of the
platform
… Catch
„
In downtown
… Get
-101-
off the bus and walk to the destination
-102-
2. New Option <BRT>
„
Expectation
… Short-term
Please answer the
option that can be introduced with
Questionnaire C
lower cost
can attract existing car users because of
its high regularity and reliability.
… BRT
-103-
9. ワークショップ・補足資料
（バンコク第 2 回）
Contents
„
Road Layout
Intersection Design and Signal Control
Stop Design
System Design
Demand Management
Relation with existing Buses
Coordination with Para-Transit
Coordination with Private Cars
„
Land use consideration
„
Issues on BRT
implementation
(IATSS-H854)
„
„
„
„
„
Prof. Fumihiko Nakamura
H854 Project Leader
Yokohama National University
„
… Park-and-Ride
& Kiss-and-Ride
General
„
This presentation will show several issues
in the implementation stage of BRT
„
Some of those seem difficult to solve.
„
Earlier experiences in other cities might
give some suggestion for that.
Road Layout
Basic Concepts
„
Principle
… With
road widening or without it
… With-case
„ Two-lane busway can be added
… Without-case
„ Capacity for regular traffic to be reduced (Alt.1)
…
„
„
Demand Management should be considered together.
By narrowing the width of each lane, capacity to be
maintained (Alt.2)
Example (6 lanes for all traffic originally)
… Alt.
1. : 2 lanes for bus and 4 for others
… Alt. 2. : 1 lane for peak-direction bus and 4 for others
„ “Others” here include buses for opposite direction
„ Busway can be used for dual direction in each peak period
Before : 6 lane street
-105-
BUS
BUS
Alt.1
After : 4 lane with 2-lane-busway
Curitiba, Brazil
Nagoya, Japan
Curitiba, Brazil
-106-
BUS
5-12
Alt.2
BUS
14-23
Guided Bus in Leeds, UK
After (Alt.2) : 6 lane with one-way Busway
Basic Concept
„
Intersection Design
&
Signal Control
Intersection must be signalized
… Conflict
between buses and right-turn vehicles must
be controlled by signal operation
… Roundabout operation possible
… Over-pass busway might be one alternative
„
Signal Priority scheme can be introduced
… Influence
… There
„
„
-107-
on other traffic must be considered
are several alternative strategies
Only delaying buses get priority.
U-turn facilities can be attached, if needed, with
signal control
Conflict to be solved
by signal operation
Overpass as a
U-turn operation
Possible solution
Lausanne (Switzerland)
Bus Priority Signal Control
„
Signal priority for buses on Guideway by separate signal
operation
(Leeds, UK)
-108-
Bus operator collects location, examines
delay level and send info to Police.
Stop Layout
bus stop layout
Bus stop in Seoul
Taipei
Seoul
Seoul
-109-
Stops on the over-passing
bridge
Tube-stop, Curitiba, Brazil
5　4　3　2 1
-110-
Basic Issues
„
Route network
… Main-route
System Design
„
and Feeder-route
Fare system
… Flat
fare or Staged fare
with Buses, MRT, BTS,,
… Transfer payment (discount or free)
… Comparison
„
Time table
… Frequency
… Operation
Lines and Buses,
Curiiba, Brazil
(high frequency expected)
period (early morning to midnight)
Scheme of the Integrated Network (RIT)
Curitiba, Brazil
Metropolitan Area - Own features
Issues
„
Target users
… Existing
Demand
Management
car users
car users
… Potential
„
„
Future car users who use bus now
We should expect the reduction of car
demand
… Then,
„
…
…
-111-
we could reduce the capacity for them
How to realize this
Careful System Design and Mobility Management
Park-and-Ride is one of the solution to reduce car demand.
Promotion Posters and
Campaign Desk
Brisbane, Australia
With
Existing Buses
Slow Revolution of Bus network
in Curitiba, Brazil
Issues
„
Immediate Restructuring (Seoul, Jakarta)
1974
1979
2000
2001
… All
the routes were rearranged by the
government.
„
Slow modification (Curitiba)
… Routes
have been restructured spending 20
years.
Existing routes are not shown in
this map
1991
1999
– Implementation of micro buses in conventional lines, improvement
the less interval and the lines attractiveness.
– Implementation of articulates buses in lines that have a large
demand whose don’t use segregated routes.
-112-
Issues
With
Para-Transit modes
-113-
„
Para-transit modes can be used as feeder
modes as in the existing bus system in
Bangkok
„
Transfer interchange can be designed
Issues
„
Park and Ride
… From
home to Bus Suburban terminal by car
your car at BRT Suburban Bus terminal
… Go to downtown by BRT Bus
With Cars
Park-and-Ride
Kiss-and-Ride
… Parking
„
„
BRT Bus should be faster and possibly cheaper
Kiss and Ride
… From
home to Bus Suburban terminal by car with
your spouse
… Getting off car which will be driven by your spouse
… Go to downtown by BRT Bus
Adelaide, Australia
P&R
P&R
Land Use
Consideration
-114-
Issues
„
Ottawa, Canada
High Density Development
… Along
„
… Near
„
the busway
Development Axis in Curitiba
Bus Terminal
Transit Oriented Development in several cities
Curitiba, Brazil
-115-
10. ワークショップ・BRT についての講義用資料
（バンコク）
BRT strategies
Right-of-Ways : Busways
Bus tunnel
Two patterns
– in Seattle
– New Introduction
Transitway network
Alternative to Expensive rail-based systems
Advantage and disadvantage to be identified
– in Ottawa
– Innovation (Up-Grade) of existing routes
Busways in New Towns
Speed-up with higher regularity + Capacity-up
– such as Runcorn and Almere
Elements
Busways towards higher capacity
– Right-of-way
– Stopping facilities with Fare system
– Operation and management systems
– in Curitiba
Guideway as an advanced busway
– in Nagoya, Adelaide and Leeds
Bus Tunnel (Seattle)
Bus tunnel in Seattle
6 km long bus tunnel in downtown
Hybrid articulated buses are served.
5 stations are fully equipped
with elevators and
escalators.
– Electricity (Trolley) in the tunnel
– Diesel engine outside the tunnel
Funded from rail-sector (federal)
Related policies
– Magic carpet (downtown free-ride zone)
– HOV promotion( matching service by
municipality, HOV ramp in downtown)
Transitway (Ottawa)
Planned capital with 450,000 population
Busway and LRT was compared in
advance and busway was selected for
radial network
– Space acquisition
– Bus service network consideration
– Stage construction
High modal share especially in commuting
-117-
•1
Busways in Planned New Towns
New town projects with busways
– Runcorn, Redditch and Irvine in UK
Bus link for shorter connection
– Almere in the Netherlands
– Columbus in USA
Pedestrian access and district-scale land
use are well designed.
Higher usage of buses than others.
Runcorn
Newtown
in UK
Busway in Runcorn (UK)
8-shaped busway
penetrating each
district
Bi-articulated Bus
(270 passengers)
High capacity busway (Curitiba)
World Bank supported in 1970’s
Unique masterplan coordinating roads and
buses with land use (Development Axis)
Hierarchical bus network is designed
Busways at the backbone of the axes
Biarticulated buses and tube stops at busways
– 15000 passengers / hour / direction
– Bus convoy concept was NOT applied here
-118-
•2
Tube bus stop in Curitiba
towards shorter dwell time
Tube bus stops for bi-articulated buses
Speedy bus (R) has doors on the opposite
side for parallel transfer
5　4　3　2 1
-119-
•3
Curitiba
09. Scheme of the Integrated
Network (RIT)
Bus route
network　Lines and Buses
Integrated Stations
Metropolitan Area - Own features
Concept of Guideway
(guided buses)
Guided Buses
As an advanced busway
(Essen, Adelaide, Leeds)
Difference b/w busway and guideway
Experimental introduction in Essen (1980)
12 km express service in Adelaide (1987)
Alternative for short bus lane at congested
intersections in Leeds (1995)
Alternative for AGT with elevated structure in
Nagoya (2001)
IMTS (Intelligent Multimodal Transit System)
is being tested (no driver, platoon operation,
based on magnetic marker tracing technique)
-120-
•4
Guided bus in Essen (1980)
Guided bus in Adelaide (1987)
Suburbs and Expressway
In the greenbelt (landscape zone)
Guided bus in Adelaide (1987)
Guided bus in Adelaide (1987)
Guideway section
Station and P & R (3 station in 12 km)
Guided bus in Leeds (1995)
Short (400m) introduction
Guided bus in Nagoya (2001)
Elevated system
-121-
•5
IMTS (Intelligent Multimodal Transport System)
developed by TOYOTA
Optical Guidance Guided-Bus
CIVIS（France）
zMagnetic-induction
zBus-to-bus
communication
driver platoon
zBeing tested
zNo
Rubber-Tire Trams in France
Experiment in Paris (at “ｔｖｍ” busways）
Another type of Rubber-Tire Trams in France
-122-
•6
11. ワークショップ・BRT についての講義用資料
（バンコク）
Bus-lanes
BRT　TransJakarta　Bus lanes : How to function bus lanes?
– Type of vehicle permitted (total number of
vehicle running on the lane)
– Operation period (shorter time or full time)
– Length (shorter, both end setback)
– Enforcement
Dedicated by curbs or/and regulations
– Jakarta, Bogota and Seoul
TransJakarta　Seoul : BRT Network
N
5km
-123-
1
Green Bus
Bus lane in Seoul
Blue Bus
Red Bus
Lausanne (Switzerland)
Bus Priority Signal Control
Internet bus location info
Experiment at Yokohama (1998)
Bus operator collects location, examines
delay level and send info to Police.
Web
image
AGS system Image
-124-
2
Development Axis Strategies
Curitiba
– Three parallel streets
– Busway as backbone of the axis
– High capacity (not with bus convoy system)
– Clear land use strategies
High Rise buildings only along the busway
Buildings with non-residential functions at lower
floors
Strong regulation control outside the axis
Arterial streets are also involved into the axis
Land Use
Strategy
– Short-term
– Development
Axes
-125-
3
12. Sivakumar, T., Okamura, T. and Nakamura, F.:
Public Transportation Survey on Users Preference in Developing Countries.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SURVEY ON USERS PREFERENCE IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Thillaiampalam SIVAKUMAR
Doctoral Student, Graduate School of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Japan
Toshiyuki OKAMURA
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Japan
Fumihiko NAKAMURA
Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Japan
Transport survey is inevitable in transportation field either at one or several stage(s) of
any of its related projects in describing existing conditions of transport phenomena or in
predicting models which forecasts future transport conditions due from any improvement
measures. Between surveying on the existing and expected conditions of transport, later one is
the most crucial and unavoidable in measuring future effects.
However, in developing countries, surveying undergoes more serious problem than
developed countries in terms of literacy, composition of people speaking a variety of languages
hence necessity of multilingual interviewers and conceptual translation than literal translation,
existence of wide variation in socioeconomic characteristics (i.e. literacy, income, etc.) therefore
inadequacy in sample to represent whole population, and lack of precise administrative
boundaries hence problematic in random sampling.
Considering these issues, an attempt was made to study the effect of questionnaire
structure and socioeconomic character variation based on public transportation users’ preference
by a paper based questionnaire surveying conducted at the study area, the city of Colombo, Sri
lanka. The survey was conducted using face-to-face interview by means of conceptually
translated questionnaire with clearly stated purpose of surveying on questionnaire by selected
interviewers, from trusted organization, who tagged their identity clearly visible to respondents
during survey conduction. The study observed that sampling all socioeconomic groups needs
more tactics and reluctant to express real information due to suspicious on survey purpose and
data usage. Therefore, adding road side intercept survey parallely and indirect information
gathering would be useful in covering all segment groups and in filling the gap between real and
responded information respectively.
Keywords: public transportation, questionnaire surveying, developing countries
1. Introduction
Transport survey is inevitable in transportation field either at one or several stage(s) of
any of its related projects in describing existing conditions of transport phenomena or in
predicting models which forecasts future transport conditions due from any improvement
measures. Surveying is an important element in transportation planning both in developed and
developing countries. Compare to developed countries, developing countries users’ behavior is
fluctuating and therefore it is hard to predict too. This is mainly due from unstable environment
in many aspects; rapid growing economy, people migration towards city centers, urban
population raises, and increase in traffic flow. Due to this instable life structure of the people in
urban cities of developing countries, questionnaire survey is most difficult and needs more
timely adjustments on its procedure too.
Different approaches made in developed countries are considered as proofing solutions
for the transportation related problems exist in developing countries. However applying their
- 127 -
concept directly to the developing countries generally may lead to failure as social, cultural,
economical, and life structure of individual citizens are completely different in developing
countries. It has been seen from many other cities’ experience that public transportation is the
key toll to shape the city (adjustment of land use) in long term plan naturally. Therefore
grasping users’ preference is essential to avoid failure of any policy or system implementation.
In the case of user’s preference on existing transportation system, the revealed-preference
surveying, where users are asked on system which they use presently, is common in practice.
On the other hand, if any new system designed to be implemented and expected users
preference on this future system are generally gathered by using stated preference survey.
Where the system will be stated to the users and question will be made based on the stated
choices. A preference surveying could be objected to identifying either existing or expected
preference of an existing or newly planned transportation system. Between these existing and
expected cases, the later one is the most crucial and unavoidable in measuring future effects. As
almost all of the modern system exist in developed counties are completely new to the users,
usage of stated-preference surveying is inescapable though it is obviously difficult to carry out
in developing countries. Attention is required during the process of migrating such systems
and/or concept to developing countries.
Not only preference surveying but also any kind of transport surveying in developing
countries undergoes more serious problem than in developed countries in terms of literacy,
composition of people speaking a variety of languages, Hence necessity of multilingual
interviewers and conceptual translation than literal translation, existence of wide variation in
socioeconomic characteristics (i.e. literacy, income, etc.) therefore inadequacy in sample to
represent whole population, and lack of precise administrative boundaries hence problematic in
random sampling.
Beside these all general issues and unstable environment, there is another consideration
specific to developing countries. That is wider variance in user’s characteristics. For an example,
income and literature level are distributed very widely. This phenomena demands more
segmental consideration and relevant respondents to represent complete set. When users’
preference made on a system based on “bus” then there is an unavoidable challenge to be faced
by planers in eliminating bad image of public bus on many users. Considering these all issues,
surveying questionnaires are to be designed strategically concerning its structure and how to
include all segmental variations of socioeconomic characters of the users into the surveying.
This paper made an attempt to study the effect of questionnaire structure and socioeconomic
character variation based on public transportation users’ preference by a paper based
questionnaire surveying conducted at case study area of Colombo, Sri lanka.
2. Public transportation and developing countries
In developing countries the income distribution is wider. Majority of the people falls into
low or medium income group. Job seeking population migrate towards city as the city centers
posses many different opportunities than other areas. Therefore population of cities grows
rapidly. Poor management of land use existence allows the migrants to settle informally which
left them behind proper transport access and leads them towards informal transport modes. On
the other hand, increase in income level increases motorization and car usage rate steeply.
Politicians declare promises on building new infrastructure just for their voting benefit without
make any in-depth analysis. Their decision always favor for high income group which creates
more and more car usage.
Public transportation is getting worse and worse with time and such cyclic worsening has
been named as vicious circle of degradation by Pulichino (2003) and depicted in Figure 1.
Planners and engineers are working for breaking this chain by proposing an appropriate policy
but many of the proposals set in the past were not placed in practice as they were not considered
urban form as an integrated structure and not given importance to separate public transportation
from general traffic mix. Nowadays, it has been learnt from various successful master planes
- 128 -
placed so far around the world that Land use and public transportation integration with their
own version tuned to their spatial characters will be the best solution.
Emigrants
come to the
i
Poor Land Use
Management
Emigrants settle in the city
outskirts, legally or illegally
Income
Increases
No provision of
public transportation
Informal sector
develops
Walk,
bicycle
Favorable Policies to
private modes
More and longer
trips
More cars, more
road traffic
Congestion
Public transportation
increasingly slow
Urban
sprawl
Political
pressure
More road
capacity
Users switch to
other modes
Low Income High Income
Figure 1: Vicious circle of urban degradation (Source: Pulichino M, 2003)
2-1 Suitable transit system
Integrating Land use and public transportation are some of the major concerns in this era
to induce development to grow naturally and to shape the city more livable. Transportation and
Land Use Coalition (TLUC, 2006) has made many case studies on this issue based on developed
cities. Master plan with Line-haul transportations like Light Rail Transit (LRT), Automated
Guided Transit (AGT), etc has been believed to be functional in shaping the cities but capital
cost of these systems are bit unbearable for developing countries. That was the reason such
master plan has not been considered in developing countries.
Since from the success story of world famous model of master plan developed by
Curitiba, Brazil using bus transit system improvement (Bus Rapid Transit), many cities in
developed countries and specially in developing countries are now considering Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) as the most feasible system for solving their ever growing transportation related
problem because of its numerous advantages like less capital cost, usability of existing fleets,
staged development feasibility, etc. These are the reason BRT system from Curitiba become
popular in developing countries nowadays. In Curitiba, Brazil, A bus system was developed as
an integral part of an overall master plan whose basic objectives was to include radial expansion
of the city along different structural axes radial outwards from the CBD, integrating land use
and transport, and protecting traditional city center (Yabe, 2004).
Recently there are numerous case studies on BRT elements, characteristics, and
comparison on existing systems. TRB Vol.1(2003) and Vol.2 (2003) compared most Latin and
north American cities as well some other world wide examples and showed up plenty of
advantages gained from BRT; travel time saving, comfortable ride and transfer, single payment,
frequent service and less waiting time, unique identity and less complexity.
The most attractive options possessed by BRT for developing cites are, as mentioned
above, less capital and operating cost, allowing staged development of the system, fast
implementation, flexible route selection, less additional land acquisition, improving
transportation related environmental impact, backbone land use development, flexible in
selecting and combining elements of BRT to form the best suiting system according to the
characters of the city selected, ultimately sustainable effective and efficient transportation to the
- 129 -
cities. Developing countries with high transit dependent populations and limited financial
resources have increasingly attempted the use of BRT systems (Leal et al, 2003). Among
recently implemented BRT system in Asian cities, TransJakarta, Indonesia has got focused
because many of other cities had prior experience about some metro type mass rapid transit. It is
the first BRT of this region and has been implemented in very short period of eight months, thus
lacks from feeder system and carries only about 8000 pphpd while total bus demand in that
corridor was about 12,000 pphpd (Hook, 2005). The authors tabulated some example cities for
BRT/Guided Bus system and their system name around the world in Table 1.
Table 1: Typical example cities for of BRT/Guided Bus system
Country
City
Brazil
Curitiba/[Integrated network] etc.
Colombia
Bogota/[TransMilenio (2000)]
Ecuador
Quito/ [Trolebus]
Canada
Ottawa/ [Transitway], Greater Vancouver/ [B-Line]
Japan
Nagoya
USA
Boston, Massachusetts/ [Silver Line (2002)]
Australian
Adelaide/ [O-Bahn Busway], Brisbane and Sydney
China
Kunming/[5km(1999)], Shijiazhuang, Beijing, Hangzhou
Indonesia
Jakarta/ [TransJakarta]
Korea
Seoul
2-2 Issues in System implement
Even though BRT has seen as a suitable solution for developing countries as the system
name itself contains the term ‘bus’ and it makes citizen to image badly as experienced as
existing bus system. Therefore planners need to take strategic steps to wipe out the bad-image
they might have on BRT before bringing the system to users to get their opinion and preference.
Beside this bad-image, there is another issues awaiting for the planners in developing countries
that many of these cities have not yet been experienced any system like line- haul and it makes
planners difficult to make users understand and grasping their preference. In some developed
cities also such system may not exist but the awareness and knowledge on such system may be
expectable. Therefore it is necessary to define the system well and explain the system at first to
the users.
The system BRT has a wide meaning according to its elements considered and different
organizations defines in different way. For example, Diaz and Schneck (2000) defined BRT as
“distinct from conventional bus transit in a way, it combines technology, the operational plan
and the customer interface to create higher quality of service”. To make the system definition
simple, the authors categorize BRT into three types concerning developing countries’ capable
of stage implementation and users understanding (Table 2) and Type 1 has been used in this
research.
Table 2: BRT categorization according to its elements
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
¾ Sophisticated ITS
¾ Additional Priority
¾ Some means of separation from mixed
• Signal Priority
measures
traffic
• Vehicle tracking
• At at-grade intersection
• All along or partially
• Real time
• Passenger information at
• Bus lane, by road marking/ bit raised
passenger
station and onboard
median
information
• Modal coordination
¾ Some means of quick boarding &
• Enables pre(Operation & payment)
alighting
planed trips
¾ Feeder system , Park &
• Pre Collection of fare
(web based)
Ride
• Quality, Low floor bus
¾ Unique appearance of bus, Stops, lanes
- 130 -
3. Changes need in surveying in developing countries
Surveying is inevitable in transportation field in grasping preference of users as
development has to come out with user’s opinion for avoiding any failure in system
implementation. When such system integrated with land use master plan, then it is very
important to include local public participation by engaging bottom-up-approach or some similar
tool in the decision making process. Therefore surveying to grasp users actual preference is
essential though it is expensive and time consuming.
Research on surveying methods has long history. It has been tried in developed countries
with several media of conduction starts from face to face interview to internet based and several
way of conduction starts from paper based to adaptive type (with laptop computers). Up to date,
the challenges in this research area are not relaxed as users preference survey deals with ever
changing human behavior with ever changing world and it is more challenging in developing
countries with rapid growing economy.
However in developing countries many of those surveying techniques are not feasible due
to its lack of development in several aspects. For an example, lack or non existence of sampling
frame (No well defined regional boundary) makes random sampling infeasible during surveying.
In many cases, mailing address and/or postcode is not at all systematic therefore mail back
surveying becomes impracticable. Therefore it is still necessary to go for very fundamental way
of approach of face-to-face interview type using paper based questionnaire. The authors have
listed up some of the common issues faced in developing countries in Figure 2 in questionnaire
surveying.
Sampling
Literacy
¾ No sampling frame
¾ Random sampling
impossible
¾ Interviewers need to visit &
make personal record
¾ Less literacy by education
¾ Lack of knowledge on
terms & concepts
¾ Difficult to understand
nature of questions
Political issues
¾ Political intrusion
¾ Contradiction between
planners & government
¾ Focusing only on vote
benefits
Character distribution
¾ Literacy & Income is so
wider
¾ Low income population is
high
¾ Thus, need more sample
Multi Language
¾ Need translation
¾ Need multilingual
interviewer
¾ Conceptual translation than
literal
Institutional issues
Surveying
Technology
¾ Less telephone usage,
internet
¾ Advance methods
impossible
¾ Paper based interview only
left
¾ Poor politicians, planners,
engineers cooperation
¾ No local or regional
personal works on it to
make users trust
Cultural Norms
¾ Shy to express their
opinion
¾ Less female participation
¾ Cultural, religious
constrains on questions
Figure 2: Common issues in questionnaire survey in developing countries
The confrontation exist in questionnaire surveying, due from above mentioned issues (1)
bad image of bus, (2) advance systems are very new to users, and (3) common issues mentioned
in figure 2, demands for more care when the surveying made on advance system. Advance
systems could also be called as new transit system (NTS) as those are very new to the users.
Such NTS call for hypothetical questionnaire settings as the system has not yet been
experienced by users.
- 131 -
3-1 Hypothetical questionnaire
The fundamental theories have been first developed in the field of economics/psychology.
Then the benefit of being able to elicit preference for a new alternative (a good that not exist in
market yet) has been studied and the concept has been transformed to transportation field.
Previously the data collection has been made based only on revealed preference (RP: preference
based on their experience) and nowadays hypothetical question setting especially stated
preference (SP: based on hypothetical scenarios developed on non existing system) has been
used alone or combined with RP type. Stated Preference (SP) technique has become an
increasingly common practice and among many recent SP studies made upon developing
countries, e.g. the one conducted in Yangon, Myanmar by Fujiwara (2003), Zhang (2003) with
few added techniques and assured the capability of SP.
Though hypothetical type questions are comparably flexible, it has more risks in
developing countries as the users are less experienced to general surveying and very less
exposed to SP type questions. There are numerous researches has been conducted on behavior
analysis and data collection technique but the majority of those researches are mostly
concentrates on fine tuning of modeling part. This has been pointed out by Richardson (2001)
that “to date, data collection process not commensurate well to fit to those well sophisticated
models developed so far”.
4. Surveying
4-1 Questionnaire design and data collection
Considering the above mentioned problems this study has been designed to identify the
importance of questionnaire structure and to study the effects of (1) wide variation in user’s
characteristics and (2) Image of bus exist among users through conducting a preference
surveying on new transit system of BRT compared with existing bus. Colombo, the largest city
of Sri lanka, was selected as the case study area. The metropolitan region consists of 5.4Million
population (30% of country population) and 3,593sq.km land area. The main surveying had two
different themes. First one is a preference surveying carried out at a residential area based on
SP by comparing existing bus and BRT beside some RP questions including opinion question
on existing bus. The second one is opinion type questionnaire carried out at selected offices by
group surveying. Both surveying was carried out parallel at the same time of September 2006. A
systematically arranged form of explanation of system BRT has been presented in the
questionnaire sheet and in the PowerPoint presentation for residential and official surveying
respectively.
A pilot surveying was held in September 2005 and it has been found that adopted
instrument of drop-and-pickup method was found to be poor in response rate and respondents
were found to be suspicious about the organizations. Therefore during the final surveying at
residential area, face to face interview using paper based questionnaire was instrumented by
organizing with well recognized university at the study area and with interviewer from the same
university who tagged their identity clearly visible to respondents during survey conduction.
4-2 Analysis output
(a) Socioeconomic characters
From household personal interview surveying sample size of 188 completed
questionnaire sheets were collected. Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents from
household surveying has been depicted in Figure 3 according to the grouping and
notations used given in Table 3.
- 132 -
Table 3: Level value of socioeconomic characters of the respondents
Variables
Value
Gender
0=Male (M) ; 1= Female (F)
Age
Young= ~ 24; Middle= 25~59; Elders = 60 ~
Income/(1000Rs) Low= < 10; Middle= 10 ~ 25; High= > 25
F
31%
Mid
42%
M
69%
(a) Gender
No
Ans
31%
Low
15%
(c) Personal income
Mid
29%
Elders
9%
No
Ans
20%
(b) Age
Two
5% 3+
1%
No
59%
(e) Vehicle ownership
One
19%
High
13%
Young
7%
Mid
84%
One
35%
High
12%
Not
Ans
2%
No
Car
79%
Low
38%
(d) Household income
(f) Car ownership
Figure 3: Socioeconomic characters of the respondents
It could be seen from Figure 3(a) that male participation is high, roughly double,
compare to female as mentioned under cultural norm issues. It is due to local culture
that female does not expose unless responsible man is available. Participant’s
distribution by age is very less from younger and elderly group. Therefore it is
important to note that reaching all segment groups is difficult in developing countries.
Also, it is common in developed countries that income fields generally left blank
or incorrectly responded. Similarly, in this surveying, 31% of non response for personal
income field was observed. As it is an expected behavior, household’s total income also
decided to ask and it’s found that total income comparably less in non-response rate. By
observing the vehicle ownership including motor-bike, it can be said that most of the
household does not own any vehicle and the percentage of vehicle ownership may
reduce further if motor-bike is excluded. Among car owned household, most of them
possess only one car and that car is shared.
(b) Image of Bus and BRT
In office based group interview surveying, officers opinion on existing bus and
BRT system, which was explained using PowerPoint presentation, was collected based
on some selected indices using ‘Likert Scale’ with five-points. Sample size of 88
completed questionnaire sheets was collected. Those indices and corresponding rates
from respondents for both existing bus and BRT is shown in Figure 4. It is become
clearer how badly users feel about existing bus system.
- 133 -
-2
-1
0
1
2
Convenient
Comfortable
Simple
Rich
Constructive
Fast
Aggressive
Pleasant
Attractive
Exciting
Superior
Envi. Friendly
Fashionable
Arrogant
BUS
BRT
(c) Affecting factors
In household personal interview
surveying, there were some other indices
given with four-point likert-scale to
respondent for rating based on bus. Those
responded rates, RP and SP data has been
combined and tried to identify the
relationship among indices and variables
using structural equation model (SEM).
Some selected indices, as given in Table 4,
are undergone factor analysis and three
groups were found and named according to
the
indices
combination
namely
“Attractive & Reliability”, “Time &
Convenience”, and “Good Quality”.
Figure 4: Image of Bus vs BRT
Table 4: Measurement equations derived from SEM
Variables
Factor 3
Factor 2
Factor 1
Yi
Parameters (t-test)
Attractive &
Time &
Good
Reliability Convenience Quality
(η1)
(η2)
(η3)
Waiting time
0.48
WaitT
Easily Identifiable
0.45(9.66)
ID
Neatness
Neat 0.67(11.86)
Delay
1.04(4.91) -0.90(-4.29)
Delay
Convenience
Conv
0.67
Runs to schedule
Crowed
Esthetic bus stops
Air Conditioned
Sche
Crow
Stops
AC
0.61(5.34)
0.26
0.58(7.85)
Errorvar
(R2)
0.75(0.23)
0.60(0.25)
0.31(0.59)
0.13(0.73)
0.49(0.48)
-0.35(-2.99) 0.37(0.26)
0.49(0.12)
0.49(7.70) 0.42(0.36)
0.45(0.43)
(ξ1)
Socioec
onomic
Characte
rs (ξ2)
Mode
Attributes
Xi
TT (ExistingBus) TTEB
TT (BRT)
TTB
TT Variance (EB) TTVEB
TT Variance (B) TTVB
Gender
Gender
3.03(9.76)
-1.94(-7.86)
1.30(8.75)
3.12(14.34)
-0.012(-1.79)
38.65(0.19)
30.4(0.11)
10.05(0.14)
1.43(0.87)
0.026(0.01)
Age
Age
-1.42(-4.43)
57.45(0.03)
Income
Inc
-0.72(-2.22)
59.59(0.01)
Table 5: Structural equations derived from SEM
Variables
Attractive & Reliability (η1)
Time & Convenience (η2)
Good Quality (η3)
Parameters (t-test)
Mode Attributes
Socioeconomic Characters
(ξ1)
(ξ2)
0.14(0.86)
0.16(1.00)
0.13(0.73)
0.93(11.67)
0.90(15.83)
0.96(8.19)
- 134 -
Errorvar
(R2)
0.15(0.85)
0.20(0.80)
0.10(0.90)
Figure 5: Estimated structural equation model
SEM has been build using LISREL 8.71 with a marginally small amount of data from
household surveying. The model become permissible with the following goodness of fit
statistics; RMSEA=0.098, GFI= 0.88, and AGFI=0.83. Almost all parameters are significant
except “Gender” in measurement equation. R2 values from socioeconomic character are found
to be very bad. It could be raised from concentration of its segment (i.e. 84% from middle age)
and others left behind its representation. Mode attributes were comparably acceptable among
observed independent variables (Xi). Among dependent observed indices (Yi), R2 values for all,
other than “Crowd”, are higher than 0.2 and all well fit to the line. Structural equations are also
well fit with fairly higher R2 value. The t-test of parameters calculated for “mode attributes” are
low.
According to the sign of socioeconomic attributes parameters, elderly people and high
income people possess comparably worse image on existing bus. Gender is invariant on image
of bus as the parameter of gender is almost zero. The sign of mode attribute variables expected
to be minus but only travel time of BRT (TTB) has got minus sign. Therefore, it could be say
that users could not distinguish travel time between bus and BRT. More awareness is necessary
among citizen before carrying out the surveying to pursue this issue.
5.
Conclusions
This study was designed to identify the effect of questionnaire structure and the effects of
wider variation in socioeconomic characters in developing countries by selecting Colombo,
Srilanka as a case study area. A preference surveying has been hold in September 2006 based on
introductory system BRT compared with existing bus. In general the SP surveying is placed
with selected alternatives and scenarios. In this surveying the system BRT has been explained to
the users for giving an overall idea about the system before the respondent has requested to
select their preference.
Covering all segments of socioeconomic groups into the surveying found to be very poor
and, household surveying has certain limitation in accessing all individual members but only
household responsible person. Therefore it is better to add destination based and/or roadside
intercept type parallel to household surveying. In road side intercept survey, interviewer has
more control on respondent selection and as the value of time is not much higher compare to
developed countries people may responds cooperatively.
Bad image of bus has been observed as a serious problem in developing countries. It may
be because of high usage of poorly serviced public transportation by higher portion population
regularly as they are highly depends only on those service. This bad image has been more
- 135 -
considerable among elderly people and high income grouped people because elderly people face
more trouble in access and high income people have alternative options respectively. In actual
practice, as academic reach has limitation by time, it is important to make users awareness about
the system well advance to the stage of surveying in order to grasp better response. It could be
only possible by making the decision as a whole by involving city planners, transportation
engineers, and politicians under a unique umbrella of decision making.
This study could be extended with surveying using different instruments implemented
parallely to increase the coverage from all segments of socioeconomic groups. If possible,
laptop computers can be employed to express more real image of new system BRT.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to International Association of
Traffic Safety and Science (IATSS) for funding this study, Prof Amal Gumarage,
Transportation laboratory, Moratuwa University, Srilanka who helped in arranging
students for surveying, Urban development authority (UDA) and Road development
authority (RDA) officials in Srilanka to accept to participate in the surveying, and at last
not least to Prof Satoshi Fujii, Department of civil engineering, Tokyo institute of
technology for sharing some data.
References
Diaz, R., B., Schneck, D., C. (2000) An overview of bus rapid transit technologies in the Americas,
Transportation Research Board.
Fujiwara, A., Zhang, J., Okamura, T. and Thein, S. (2003) Analysis of mode choice under changes in
travel and socio-economic environments in Yangon city based on stated preference survey,
Proceedings of Infrastructure Planning, JSCE, Vol.28 (CD-ROM).
Hook, W., Ernst, J. (2005) Bus rapid transit in Jakarta, Indonesia-success and lesson, Institute for
transportation and Development Policy, 2005
Leal, M., Bertini, R., L. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit: An Alternative for Developing Countries,
Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003 Annual Meeting, Seattle,
Washington.
Pulichino. M., and Mollet. P., (2003), International Union of Public Transport, Better urban mobility in
developing
countries
‘ProblemsSolutions
Good
Practices’,
Dec
2003,
http://www.uitp.com/publications/brochures/index.cfm, (Accessed on: March 10 2007)
Richardson, A., J., (2001) Never mind the data-feel the model, a key note paper for International
conference on transport survey quality, August, 2001.
TLUC., (2006), Transportation and Land Use Coalition, http://www.transcoalition.org/home.html,
(Accessed on: Feb 16 2007)
TRB., (2003) Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation guidelines, TCRP 90, Washington, D.C
2003.
Yabe, T., Nakamura, F., (2004) Case analysis of the staged approach for infrastructure planning and
operation focusing on the bus transit system in urban areas, proceeding of International Symposium on
City Planning, pp. 11-20, 2004.
Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., Thein. S. (2003) Using stated preference approach to estimate mode choice
behavior under changes in travel and socio-economic environments in Myanmar, Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hiroshima, Japan, October
2003.
- 136 -
13. Sivakumar, T., Okamura, T. and Nakamura, F.: A
Systematic Approach for Questionnaire Design
on New Transit System Implementation in Developing Countries, Proceedings of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6,
2007.
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ON NEW TRANSIT
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Thillaiampalam SIVAKUMAR
Doctoral Student
Graduate School of Engineering,
Yokohama National University
79-1 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku,Yokohama
240-8501 JAPAN
Fax: +81-45-339-4031
E-mail: [email protected]
Toshiyuki OKAMURA
Associate Professor
Graduate School of Engineering,
Yokohama National University
79-1 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku,Yokohama
240-8501 JAPAN
Fax: +81-45-339-4032
E-mail: [email protected]
Fumihiko NAKAMURA
Professor
Graduate School of Engineering,
Yokohama National University
79-1 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku,Yokohama
240-8501 JAPAN
Fax: +81-45-339-4033
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Developing countries are nowadays considering exclusive or semi-exclusive transit
system implementation. Such systems need to be planned well; attractive to car-owners and
affordable to the transit captive users. Therefore, survey becomes essential to grasp preference
from all segments of potential users. However, in developing countries, their response for
questionnaire survey using hypothetical questions is less reliable because of users’ lack of
knowledge about such transit systems and trading-off in hypothetical questions. This study
aims to propose a systematic approach for questionnaire design in the contest of developing
countries. Two different surveys with hypothesis system (BRT for Sri Lanka) were conducted
for comparing: (1) System explanation ways of with and without pictures in questionnaire;
and, (2) Level of complexity of the hypothetical questions. This study concludes that, in
developing countries, questionnaires need to be attentive in questionnaires design. Even if
questionnaires are conceptually same, few structural changes affect users’ response
considerably.
Key Words: Public transportation, Questionnaire design, Developing countries, BRT
1. INTRODUCTION
Cities in developing countries are facing severe transportation related problems due to rapid
growth in economy, urbanization as well as migration of people to cities. These countries are
nowadays started considering exclusive or semi-exclusive transit system like MRT, LRT, or
BRT as a solution to these problems. Such new transit systems (NTS) essentially need to be
well planned so that the car-owners (high income group) find it attractive and, at the same
time, it is also be affordable to transit captive users (low income people) because, possibly,
such NTS will utilize available road space or replace few existing services. Therefore, survey
is strongly needed and it must grasp preference from all segments of potential users.
However, their response from questionnaire survey using hypothetical questions, which is the
only one possible way to grasp preference on hypothesis system (not yet in operation), is less
reliable in developing countries because (1) Such systems are very new to users in developing
countries and they do not have knowledge about NTS; and, (2) Users are never/rarely
-137-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
experienced with answering hypothetical questions (scenarios) and sometimes, even to
general questionnaire survey. There are many challenges which have to be considered in
questionnaire design with hypothetical situations as far as developing countries are
concerned. Three crucial items are focused by the authors in this study: (a) Variance of
respondents is large and therefore, covering all segment of group into the survey is
tactfulness; (b) Literacy meant by inexperience and/or lack of knowledge of completely new
transit system; and, (c) Literacy meant by inexperience and/or lack of understanding trade-off
situations exist in the hypothetical questionnaires.
Respondent variance is high thus behavioral difference is also high across segments.
Therefore covering all segments of potential users into the survey and grasping their response
is difficult, however, necessary. For an example, by income segment, majority of people
belongs to medium or low income group. Shifting these low income people from conventional
bus and switching the high income group from car usage to NTS is a significant and
necessary strategy. Questionnaire survey in developing countries faces many problems and
some of them are; illiteracy, unfamiliar terms associated with language, lack of sample frame
therefore respondent selection, social-religious-cultural norms, suspicious about the purpose
of survey, response reliability, and achieving users understanding without interviewer bias
(Jones, 2003).
Nowadays, considering the capability of handling hypothetical situation, stated preference
(SP) technique has become popular and is commonly used in the field of transportation on
implementation of NTS (Kuklys, 2002; D’Arcier, 2000 etc.). Sanko (2001, 2002) depicts
basics of SP in simple way and describes ‘choice-based SP’. Recently, there are some studies
made on developing countries based SP survey. Alvinisyah et al. (2005) also conducted SP
survey on Jakarta busways. Zhang (2003) and Fujiwara et al. (2003, 2004) carried out
hypothetical studies in Myanmar. These all studies are contributed more on model
developments than data itself. Overall, there are many studies done on hypothetical questions
and most of the works are credited to its model sophistication. Therefore, suitable approach to
grasp more reliable data is still lacking in academic research contest as far as developing
country are concerned. Richardson (2001) also describes that “to date, data collection process
not commensurate well to fit to those well sophisticated models developed so far”.
Therefore, this study attempts to develop a systematic approach for questionnaire design on
implementation of new transit system in developing countries to grasp users’ actual/reliable
preference. In developing countries, higher transit dependent population and limited finance
increasingly attract the system BRT beside its stage developments feasibility towards rail
based systems (Leal et al. 2003). This study considered BRT as a case system for the city of
Colombo, the largest city of Sri Lanka, as she is also considering BRT for near future. Though
there are many forms of SP survey design exist, in the field of transportation, the common
way of presenting SP scenario is giving a defined number of alternatives with some selected
attributes and their value.
In this study, modes of existing bus and hypothesis mode of BRT were considered and
compared, and the following attributes were selected with attributes levels of at most three;
travel time, fare, travel time variance, and comfort. Former two are very common and basic
attributes while the later two were considered due to the selected system of BRT which
clearly differs from conventional bus service in terms of punctual and comfort. Using these
attributes and their levels, alternatives were generated using design of experiment (DOE)
method. Then the scenarios were prepared by placing a set of four of those alternatives
-138-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
generated by DOE. In order to explain the NTS (here BRT) to the respondents before they
attempt to face scenarios (hypothetical questions), the system explanation was given in the
paper based questionnaires prior to scenario page by comparing some system elements of
BRT with that of existing bus (E.Bus). By considering the aforementioned two main problems
(in the first paragraph), responsible for less reliable response, this study imposed two different
surveys for comparing; (1) System explanation way (Media) in hypothetical situation using
with/without pictures and (2) Two different level of complexity (LOC) in terms of number of
alternatives per each choice.
These surveys have been carried out along a potential corridor of Gale-Road in Colombo, the
largest city of Sri Lanka. In order to overcome the language barrier, the questionnaire has
been translated to all three official language of Sri Lanka (Singala, Tamil, and English). These
two studies were conducted in September 2005 and in September 2006 respectively at the
same selected study area.
2. WORLD IMPROVED NEW TRANSIT SYSYTEM AND BRT DEFINITION
There are many examples in developed countries for this kind of NTS. The authors tabulate
some example cities and its improved transit systems. Table 1 and Table 2 show some
examples for rail based system of LRT/MRT/Monorail in Asian developing countries and
BRT/Guided bus system around the world respectively.
Table 1 Example for LRT/MRT/monorail system in Asian developing countries
System Country
City
Kuala Lumpur/ [Kelana Jaya Line-29km (2004)], [Sri
Malaysia
Petaling Line-15km ], [Ampang Line-15km]
Manila/ [Yellow Line-15km], [Purple Line-13.8km], Manila/
Philippines
LRT/
[Metrostar-17km]
MRT/
Calcuta/ [Calcutta Metro-16.5km], Delhi/ [Delhi MetroSubway India
65km (2002)]
Thailand
Bangkok/ [Skytrain (1999)]
China
Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dalian
Kuala Lumpur/[KL-8.6km (2003)], [Putrajaya],
Malaysia
[SunwayCity]
Monorail
China
Chongqing [17.4km (2005)]
System
BRT/
Guided
Bus
Table 2 Typical example cities for of BRT/Guided Bus system
Country
City
Brazil
Curitiba/[Integrated network] etc.
Colombia
Bogota/[TransMilenio (2000)]
Ecuador
Quito/ [Trolebus]
Canada
Ottawa/ [Transitway], Greater Vancouver/ [B-Line]
Japan
Nagoya
USA
Boston, Massachusetts/ [Silver Line (2002)]
Australian Adelaide/ [O-Bahn Busway], Brisbane and Sydney
China
Kunming/[5km(1999)], Shijiazhuang, Beijing, Hangzhou
Indonesia
Jakarta/ [TransJakarta]
Korea
Seoul
-139-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
Rail based systems are considered as superior transportation solution in many big cities.
However, in developing countries in general, many of these plans have not been executed yet
due to its unbearable capital cost. Recently, the BRT has become popular urban transit mode
in developing world as high-capacity and reliable transit system as rail based system with
much less capital cost. There is not huge difference between LRT and bus service with few
improvements on number of passengers carried on a single corridor (Yabe, 2004; Yabe, 2005).
There are numerous studies and review works starting from South American cities (Curitiba
and Bogota) to the recent BRT system in developing region (TransJakarta, Indonesia). They
all show their success stories and strategies (ITDP, 2003; Hook and Ernst, 2005). Though
there are many benefits proved on BRT over other mass systems, there are some key
considerations on its implementation in developing countries. Preparing proper master plan,
managing road space limitation, existing uncontrolled land use, and political issues are few of
them (Kenneth, 2000). Revealing these success stories, beside Table 2, the following cities are
currently in BRT planning process: Shanghai, Chengdu, Chongqing, HuaiAn, Xi'an, Xiamen
in China; Delhi, Bangalore, and Pune in India; Bangkok in Thailand (16.5Km); Colombo in
Srilanka; and Hanoi and Ho-Chi-Minh City in Viet Nam (Limanond and Pardo, 2006).
There are several definitions of BRT. For example, Diaz and Schneck (2000) defined BRT as
“distinct from conventional bus transit in a way it combines technology, the operational plan
and the customer interface to create higher quality of service”. Whereas TRB (2003) defined
it as “rubber-tired light rail transit (LRT) but with greater operating flexibility and potentially
lower capital and operating costs”. Definitions by many researchers and practitioners vary
broadly and according to its purpose. Walter and Matthew (2003) grouped BRT into four
stages of deployment based on examples from developed countries and their infrastructures,
but didn’t intend to define the BRT. Therefore, the authors categorize BRT into three types
based on developing countries’ capability of stage implementation and users understanding,
as given in Table 3.
Table 3 BRT categorization according to its elements
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
¾ Some means of separation from mixed ¾ Additional priority
¾ Sophisticated ITS
traffic
measures
• Signal priority
• All along or partially
• At at-grade intersection
• Vehicle tracking
• Bus lane, by road marking/ bit
• Passenger information
• Real time
raised median
at station and onboard
passenger
¾ Some means of quick boarding &
• Modal coordination
information
alighting
(Operation & payment)
• Enables pre• Pre collection of fare
¾ Feeder system, Park &
planed trips
• New low-floor bus
Ride
(web based)
¾ Unique appearance of bus, stops, lanes
3. SURVEY
3.1 Selected City: Colombo-A Comparison to Other Developing Countries
The city of Colombo, the largest city in Sri Lanka, has been chosen as a potential and feasible
city to study on newly implementing NTS. An overall country profile is given in Table 4 and
its shows the share of selected items of Colombo Metropolitan Region (CMR) over the island
of Sri Lanka.
-140-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
Table 4 Basic characters of Sri Lanka and Colombo
Item
Sri Lanka
CMR
Percentage (%)
Land Area (Sq. Km)
65,610
3,593
5.73
Population / (Million)
19.7
5.4
28.83
Number of vehicle (2003)
2,097,166
936,804
44.67
Number of Buses (2003)
68,817
26,866
39.04
GDP /(Billion USD)
23.5
GDP growth rate / (%)
6.0
GDP Per Capita /(USD)
1,200
Gasoline (1L)/(SL Rs)
; Petrol= 92 and Diesel= 60
Gas (12.5 Kg LPG) /(SL Rs) ; 960
(1 USD=100 SL Rs)
Source: Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S Department of State
(Unless otherwise stated, information is as of 2005).
Generally in developing countries, deviation in socio economic variables like literacy and
income are very wide but in the case of selected city of Colombo, the income distribution is
comparably narrow and gets concentrated peak in the middle. Its mean higher percentage of
people fall under middle class by income and less people fall either under high or low class of
income. Whereas the literacy (by schooling) of the people is considerably high (91.6% by
year 2002) compare to other South Asian countries. The literacy does not dictate
transportation related terminology and/or NTS knowledge. However, it is expected by authors
that, because of their higher literacy ratio, in Colombo, hypothetical questions would be
feasible using appropriate questionnaire design incorporating proper system explanation.
The bus service is provided by both government and private sectors and the number of busses
is not controlled. Therefore, enough buses are in operation and in fact cent-war (competing
and trying to earn every single passenger) exists like many other developing countries and it
leads to less waiting time for buses (at most 5min) but not in-vehicle time. Its very common
phenomena that public transportation mode share is high in developing countries as many of
the users are captive. In the case of Colombo, it is even more higher because even car owners
uses public transportation for their daily working trip due to high gasoline price and less fare
of at most 30Rs (0.3US$) from any city skirt.
Para transits exist in many developing countries as formal and non-formal mode of
transpiration and some of them are comparably attractive even among poor people for shorter
as well as emergency trips. Similarly, three-wheeler (called “Auto” in Sri Lanka and India) is
very common and easily available para-transit in Colombo and people use it quite often.
Some people use motorbikes too. Therefore, these para-modes could be turned out as feeder
services to main line (when planning for line-haul) to support feeder buses. In this way, the
mode can be shared and also, para-modes’ entrance into main line could be prohibited.
3.2 Study Area
The both household questionnaire surveys (Media and LOC) were conducted at Colombo,
along a potential corridor of Gale-Road, which connects Colombo core area (CBD) and south
suburban area called Panadura as shown in Figure 1. The selected corridor is the only one
major line from south suburban area to Colombo core. The section between Moratuwa (a city
along this corridor, as shown in Figure 1) and Colombo core suffers worst traffic jam during
peak hours, both in morning and in evening. That is the main reason this location has got
authors’ interest. The land use along this corridor is mixed with commercial activity and
-141-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
residential areas. Regions of Dehiwale & Mt. Lavenia, as shown in Figure 1, were selected as
survey areas.
Dehiwale &
Mt.Lavenia
Figure 1 Study area (Colombo) and selected corridor
3.3 Methodology
Questionnaire design conceptually consists of many factors such as: questionnaire contents;
physical design; and types, format, wording, ordering, and instruction of question (Richardson
et al., 1995). Though survey design generally covers all these factors, in this study physical
design is given more weight. Based on this research hypothesis, two different alterations have
been planned. One is in system explanation way (Media) presented just prior to SP scenarios
in questionnaires. The other one is physical rearrangement of alternatives in SP questions in
such a way the apparent level of complex (LOC) of SP question has been rearranged. These
two studies were conducted in a time series of September, 2005 and September 2006.
Residents were asked to choose their preference based upon their trip to Colombo core
(Pettah) along the corridor from their household.
In the Media-study survey, a system explanation is given prior to scenarios, as previously
mentioned, with two different medias: (a) Written expressions alone (without-image); and, (b)
Same written expressions with relevant pictures also (with-image: Figure 2) to study the
media effect by comparing the existing bus (E.Bus) and the BRT elements. Therefore, in both
cases, the questionnaire is exactly same other than one is with image and another is without
image. The hypothetical questions were given with six scenarios. Each scenario carried four
alternatives (Scenario x Alternatives x Attributes = 6 x 4 x 4) as well as some other revealed
preference type of questions and personal attributes. In order to observe the system
explanation effect purely due from explanation media, this study used same questions for all
respondents (where SP design of this study modified purposely from typical SP in which
question are given randomly) and drop-and-pick-up technique to eliminate interviewer’s
verbal demonstration as it may intrude user’s preferences. A respondent receives either “withimage” or “without-image” type of questionnaire. From now onwards, this “with and without
image” comparison study will be referred as “Media-Study”.
-142-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
In the LOC-study, in order to compare the effect of question complexity levels, in terms of
number of alternatives per each choice set. The hypothetical questions (SP) in the
questionnaire of this survey contain two portions. The first portion of the hypothetical
questions is similar to the previous survey where alternatives were selected in the same way
as before, but this time, travel time variation attribute excluded, as this attributed found to be
less familiar. Therefore, in this LOC survey, only three attributes (Travel time, Comfort, and
Fare) were included as shown in Figure 8. The hypothetical question was given with four
scenarios (reduced to four scenarios to manage the questionnaire length) with each scenario
carrying four alternatives (Scenario x Alternatives x Attributes = 4 x 4 x 3) as well as some
personal attributes. The second portion of the hypothetical questions has been designed by
picking one scenario out of four scenarios from the first portion (Figure 9). The four
alternatives of the selected scenario were rearranged to form a sequence of pairs (similar to
binary choice game cards). Therefore, one scenario (one choice out of 4 alternatives) will
make series of pairs (4 pairs; 4 choices). Because of questionnaire length, in this survey only
one scenario has been rearranged and compared. In the first portion, four alternatives were
given simultaneously per scenario whereas, in the later portion, sequences of pairs were
given. The levels of complexity assumed to be depends on number of alternatives per scenario
(trade-off complexity). Thus, first portion is assumed to be complex while second portion
apparently less complex respectively for respondents to choose. These two LOC are named as
“simultaneous-set” and “sequential-pairs” in this paper. A respondent receives both
simultaneous-set and sequential-pairs. From now onwards, this simultaneous-set and
sequential-pairs level of complexity comparison study will be referred as “LOC-study”. In
this survey, the selected media of “with-image” was adopted to explain the BRT system prior
to both of these SP structures.
4. MEDIA-STUDY SURVEY
4.1 Questionnaire Design
The system explanation was made by comparing the existing bus with BRT based on ‘type 1’
BRT from Table 3. Figure 2 shows the system explanation page of questionnaire presented to
the respondents before the hypothetical questions (scenarios). As mentioned above, the
system (BRT) explanation is made in two different media of with-image and with-out image
and the Figure 2 shows the sample version for the media of ‘with-image’. The “withoutimage” version will be exactly same but without pictures. As Media-study’s main target is to
compare the system explanation effect, both the “with-image” and “without image” versions
were distributed randomly such that a respondent receives either with-image or without-image
version of questionnaire.
In this Media-study, the full-set SP technique (where respondents receive questions randomly)
was not adopted instead SP with same questions for all respondents were purposely used to
compare the pure effect of Media. A SP questionnaire was given with six scenarios and each
scenario was having four alternatives. Each alternative with four attributes and maximum
attribute levels were set to three. Selected attributes and its level values are as follows: travel
time (TT)={15, 20, 30}min, travel time variance (TTV)={0, 5, 10}min, fare (F)={10, 20,
30}Rs (100Rs=1US$), comfort={EBus, BRT}. Each respondent received 6 scenario x 4
alternative question sets and one sample scenario of the SP questionnaire is given below in
Figure 3. In order to eliminate intrusion of interviewer’s verbal demonstration (as it may
effect respondents’ preference), the drop-and-pick-up survey conduction method was used by
giving two weeks time for respondents to complete the questionnaire. Drop-and-pick-up was
-143-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
conducted by: visiting household in-person; explained the purpose; if respondent accepted
explained filling method; dropping questionnaire; finally, collected back in-person.
Figure 2 System explanation comparing Existing Bus and BRT for with image version
Figure 3 One sample scenario of SP from Media-Study questionnaire
-144-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
4.2 Media-Study Output and Discussion
Overall return rate of 40.7% (285 handed over 116 collected) was observed. This less rate is
mainly due to conduction method of drop-and-pick-up method (purposely added to eliminate
interviewer interfere on BRT demonstration) and also because users were not so familiar with
this survey method. In general, interview method is the most common and a little familiar
method to collect data in developing countries.
7% 5%
The mode share of regular commuters’ (mainly
2%
14%
21%
Car
workers) response and the subset of car- 10%
M.Bike
Car
owned-commuters were aggregated in the left
P.Bus
Service Bus
and right side of the Figure 4. It can be seen
P.Bus
Others
that public bus share is high (76%) as this is a
Train
76%
common phenomena in most of the developing
65%
countries. Public bus usage among car owners
Car
Owned
Workers
Workers
is still high (65%) and is an attractive
Figure 4 Mode share of commuters
standpoint for the needs of improved transit
system.
% of BRT Prefered
The segmental variation has also been considered in the study. However, the conduction
method of drop-and-pick-up does not control the user-selection inside the household and
therefore respondents’ segment distribution was not spread well across the segments but got
concentrated. It has been observed that the income variable was poorly responded (as it exists
100
even in developed countries). Also, the car
Without.Imag
With.Image
TEXT
IMAGE
ownership is found to be a good interpreter of
80
income. The variation in age segment is
60
illustrated in Figure 5 and it shows the effect
40
of image among all groups, although the
20
effect differs across age segments. Therefore
segment variation is important in developing
0
< 30
30 -40
40 - 50
50 -60
> 60
countries. Elderly people’s visual problem got
Age(/Yrs)
minimized in image case as seen in the Figure
Figure 5 BRT preference by Age
5.
9%
9%
more E.Bus
more BRT
Equaly Ans
Scenario
100%
E.Bus
The answers were aggregated to check the
14%
80%
BRT
answering behavior (chosen in unique or
60%
40%
Not same
rhythmic manner) and trade-off behavior
20%
No ans
(chosen alternative with same mode -mode
0%
With
TWithout
ext Olny
Image
too
preferable answers). The aggregation based on 68%
Image
Image
all selection goes to same mode, not same Figure 6 Answering pattern and Media effect
mode, or not at all answered is given in the right side of Figure 6. The higher percentage
(68%) of “not same” case says that respondents are not biased to either mode and they have
tried to trade-off their options. The right side
Non Response rate
distribution, in Figure 6, says that the media of
E.Bus
BRT
with and with-image are giving effect on
With
response and with-image media is superior in
Without
explain the system to unfamiliar users.
With
Without
Non-response rate has also been tested out
with considering each category and only two
Figure 7 BRT preference and non response rate
scenarios shown in Figure 7. Unexpectedly,
for Household
the image case shows reduced non-response
-145-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
rate is another interesting output for further studies. By considering Figure 6 (right side) and
Figure 7, it could be concluded that for the same information but system explanation media
gives considerable influence on preference. Thus it is very important to consider every single
change in questionnaire design in the contest of developing countries.
5. Level of Complexity (LOC)-Study Survey
5.1 Questionnaire Design
This Level of Complexity study also conducted at the same area in which the media-study
was conducted. This also used BRT ‘type 1’ (from Table 3) as case system. Considering the
output of Media-study, this LOC-study was planned to be conducted using the selected media
of with-image for all respondents. Also, it was planned to adopt paper-based household
personal interview surveys rather than drop-and-pick-up conduction. Level of complexity of
the hypothetical questions has been planned to test by adopting two different levels of
complexity in terms of number of alternatives per choice set: simultaneous-set and sequentialpairs. In case of simultaneous-set, SP questionnaire was having four scenarios and each
scenario was having four alternatives. Each alternative was presented with three attributes and
at most three attribute levels. Selected attributes and their level values are as given in Table 5.
Table 5 Selected attributes for SP and its level values
Attributes
Mode
Attribute levels
E.Bus {30, 35, or 40}
Travel Time (TT)/(min)
BRT
{20, 25, or 30}
E.Bus {10, 15, or 20}
Fare (F) / (Rs = 0.01US$)
BRT
{20, 25, or 30}
Comfort
{E.Bus, BRT}
Each respondent received 4 scenario x 4 alternative question set for simultaneous-set. A
sample scenario from the simultaneous-set is given below in Figure 8. Unlike Media-study,
here the simultaneous-set were given randomly to eash respondents, as typical SP survey
conduction method. In oder to compare the effect of level of complexity, a scenario, given in
the simultaneous-set, was broken down into different pairs and rearranged to the form of
sequential-pair of hypothetical question sets, as menthioned above. By considering
respondent burden, in terms of questionnaire length, in this LOC-study, only a single scenario
has been selected from simultaneous-set and given in sequential-pair form. Therefore, one
particular respondent will receive four simultaneous-sets and one sequential-pair, which has
rearranged from one of the simultaneous-set scenario. For example, Figure 9 depicts the
corresponding sequential-pairs for the simultaneous-set sample given in Figure 8.
Figure 8 One sample scenario of “simultaneous-set” from LOC-study questionnaire
-146-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
The LOC-study was conducted in September 2006 using paper-based household personal
interview survey. Interview was conducted by: visited household in-person; explained the
purpose; if respondent accepted explained filling method; and collected back in-person same
time by waiting.
Figure 9 One sample scenario of “Sequential-set” from LOC-study questionnaire
5.2 Level of Complexity (LOC)-Study output and discussion
From this household personal interview survey, 188 completed questionnaires were received.
Based on the collected sample, the analysis has been made in the following order. Some
variable and their values or dummy values used in the analysis in Table 6.
Table 6 Selected attributes for SP and its level values
Variables
Value
Sex
0=Male (M) ; 1= Female (F)
Age
Young= 18 ~ 24; Middle=25~59; Elders=60 ~
Income/(1000Rs)
Low= <10; Middle= 10 ~ 25; High= >25
Car ownership (CO) 0= Not owned; 1=Car owned
Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents were given in Figure 10. From 10(a), it can
be seen that male participation is double compare to female counterpart. It is due to the local
culture that generally female response only if man of the household is absent. The same
behavior can also seen in age groups. Therefore, reaching all segment groups is difficult in
developing countries. 31% of non-response for income field has been observed. As income is
minded as sensitive information, people generally use to be reluctant to declare their own
income. However, household income data is little better and it can be seen from part (d) of the
Figure 10. By observing the vehicle ownership (motor-bike also included) and car ownership
-147-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
information, it can be said that most of the household does not own any vehicle and the
percentage of ownership may reduce further if motor-bike is excluded. Among car owned
household, most of them possess only one car and it may be used by more than one person.
This might be also the reason, beside the economic reason mentioned earlier, behind the fact
that car owned commuters also uses public buses.
Mid
42%
F
31%
M
69%
(a) Sex
9%
7%
High
12%
No
Ans
31%
Low
15%
(c) Personal income
Mid
29%
Mid
3+
1%
No
59%
(e) Vehicle ownership
No
Ans
20%
Elders
84%
One
35%
One
19%
High
13%
Young
Two
5%
Not
Ans
2%
No
Car
79%
Low
38%
(b) Age
(d) Household income
(f) Car ownership
Figure 10 Socio-economic characters of the respondents (one person per household)
The data has been analyzed using binomial logit model for deriving users’ utility functions
and therefore for finding significance of the selected attributes. The following utility function
was considered in this study and it is given in Equation (1).
U ( EBus) = a1(TT ) + a 2( F )
U ( BRT ) = a1(TT ) + a 2( F ) + C
(1)
Where ai = parameters of the relevant attributes ( i = 1 and 2)
C = mode specific constant
TT = Travel time (min)
F = Fare (SL Rs)
When adding additional attributes of socio economic items such as income, car ownership etc
then the above mentioned equation is slightly modified as given in Equation (2).
U ( EBus) = a1(T T ) + a 2( F )
U ( BRT) = a1(T T ) + a 2 ( F ) + ai (Vi ) + C
(2)
Where i = 3, 4, 5, ...
Vi = selected additional attributes
Using the formula given above, the binomial logit analysis has been carried out using GAUSS
software. The derived modal for the formation, shown in Equation (1), using basic attributes
alone, is given in Table 7. The additional cases were also prepared with different combination
of additional attributes of sex, age, income etc. using the formulation stated in Equation (2).
But, the attributes of personal information were observed as not much reliable in producing
-148-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
meaning full model. Therefore few more cases have been made with cross checking attribute
like car ownership, household type etc. The car-ownership attribute has shown comparably a
good model and is given in Table 8.
Table 7 Parameters estimated for basic attributes
simultaneous-set (Sim) sequential-pairs (Seq)
TT/(min)
-0.080 (-4.891)
-0.240 (-3.957)
Parameters
F/(Rs)
-0.078 (-3.247)
-0.301 (-3.867)
(t-test)
Constant
1.540 ( 4.267)
1.292 (4.452)
-605.81
-101.19
L(0)
Statistical
-455.64
-81.08
L(β)
2
Parameters
0.248
0.199
Adj.ρ
N
293
146
Ratio of (F/TT)
0.975
1.254
Table 8 Parameters estimated for basic attributes plus car ownership
simultaneous-set (Sim) sequential-pairs (Seq)
TT/(min)
-0.084 (-5.026)
-0.247 (-4.014)
-0.075 (-2.952)
-0.310 (-3.907)
Parameters F/(Rs)
(t-test)
CO (1 ~ 0)
1.234 ( 5.218)
0.560 ( 1.244)
Constant
1.197 ( 3.152)
1.16 ( 3.777)
-605.81
-101.19
L(0)
-438.97
-80.27
Statistical
L(β)
2
Parameters
0.275
0.206
Adj.ρ
N
293
146
Ratio of (F/TT)
0.893
1.255
In both models, the sign of the parameters of all attributes are obtained as expected. The
model accuracy measured by Rho-square values (maximum likelihood ratio) are also in the
accepted range (0.2 ~ 0.4). The values of “t-test” are also says that the parameters are
statistically significant. In order to compare model difference, statistically, BRT preferences
were calculated based on utility functions and derived models using actual values of attributes
given to each individual, and tabulated in Table 9. The “μ” values represents average BRT
preference ratio upon exiting bus.
Table 9 BRT preference comparison of modals with some selected example values
Eq.1 (Table7)
Eq.2 (Table8)
Without SEC
With Car (car = 1)
With Car (car = 0)
Sim
Seq
Sim
Seq
Sim
Seq
μ
0.772
0.686
0.773
0.744
0.725
0.664
σ
N
0.076
0.167
0.079
0.143
0.088
0.180
874
146
234
39
640
107
Δμ=μ1−μ2
Δσ =
Δμ/Δσ
σ 12 N 1 + σ
2
2
N2
0.086
0.029
0.062
0.014
0.024
0.018
6.134 > 1.96
1.246 < 1.96
3.476 > 1.96
-149-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
This comparison clearly shows that the model from simultaneous-set and sequential-pair are
statistically differ for the case of general commuters and for non-car-owned commuters but
statistically indifference for car-owned commuters. Therefore, it can be said that car-owned
commuter’s choice were similar for both complexity (Sem and Seq). Thus, car ownership said
to be correlate with literacy in developing countries, and identified as important index. The
clear difference in BRT preference across different segments could be seen only from
sequential-pair (Seq). It dictates that sequential-pair might be easier in trade-off selection, as
it only deals with binary choice per selection though the questionnaire might be lengthy.
Overall, the observed preference is not same from these two levels of complexity even though
questions were conceptually same.
6. CONCLUSION
The segment variations of personal attributes are wider in developing countries and they are
essential in grasping total preference. Therefore, this study has designed a survey approach
using hypothetical question settings in contest of new transit system implementation in
developing countries. The study is mainly focusing on how the questionnaire design will
affect user’s preference and how the design could be modified to grasp more reliable data
from users. Physical design of questionnaire is considered under two different theme; system
explanation ways (Media) and level of question complexity (LOC). The study has observed
the basic problem in covering all segment groups into the survey. Due to concentrated
response on specific segments and very less response from other segments, introducing
segmental variations into the model becomes impossible.
Conduction of completely same questionnaire with new transit system explanation in two
different Medias of with-image and without-image under hypothetical question setting
(Media-Study) shows difference in respondents’ preference. It could be said that the
difference due from respondents’ literacy by either inexperience and/or lack of knowledge of
completely new transit system (BRT). Pictorial superiority in transferring the information is
found in the with-image case and with-image media has been concluded as a better media for
demonstrating the new system in questionnaire surveys.
Conduction of questionnaire survey to compare two different level of complexity (LOC) in
terms of number of alternatives per each choice set (simultaneous-set and sequential-pairs),
by giving same number of alternative in different structural form in hypothetical questions,
also shows difference in respondents’ preference. It could be said that the difference due to
respondents’ literacy by understanding in trade-off questions, where, in the case of
simultaneous-set, respondents need to choose from more alternatives (four) and more
attributes (three) at the same time. This study identified sequential-pair, where respondents
receive pairs of alternatives, can gives more reliable information and suitable for developing
countries. Car-ownership has been found as a good index of literacy.
Overall the study concludes that conceptually designed same questionnaire reflects
considerable difference in users’ response and this difference is not negligible when it comes
to the practical scale. Therefore questionnaire design needs more attentiveness on new transit
implementation in developing countries.
A difference in response has obviously observed but the cause of such difference is still not
answered qualitatively. It needs further research considering selected media of with-image
and level of complexity (LOC) of ‘sequential-pair’ question sets. A special consideration has
-150-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
to be made on personal attribute variance for more systematic approach design on new transit
system implementation in developing countries contest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to International Association of Traffic Safety
and Science (IATSS) for funding this study, Prof Amal Gumarage, Transportation laboratory of
Moratuwa University, who helped in arranging students for household surveys
REFERENCES
Alvinsyah, Soehodho, S., and Nainggolan, P., J. (2005) Public Transport User Attitute Based
on Choice Model Parameter Characteristics (Case Study: Jakarta Busway System), The
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, pp.480-491
D’Arcier, B., F. (2000) The attempt to find new behavioral hypotheses, workshop on
hypothetical situations, TRB Transportation Research Circular E-C008, Proceedings of an
International Conference on Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, August 2000
Diaz, R., B., Schneck, D., C. (2000) An overview of bus rapid transit technologies in the
Americas, Transportation Research Board.
Fujiwara, A., Zhang, J. and Thein., S. (2004) Capturing people's mode choice preferences
under changes in travel and social-economic environments in Yangon city based on stated
preference survey, Paper presented at the 10th World Conference on Transport Research,
Istanbul, Turkey, July 4-8.
Fujiwara, A., Zhang, J., Okamura, T. and Thein, S. (2003) Analysis of mode choice under
changes in travel and socio-economic environments in Yangon city based on stated
preference survey, Proceedings of Infrastructure Planning, JSCE, Vol.28 (CD-ROM).
Gwilliam, K., M. (2000) Public transport in the developing world-Quo Vadis (Where are you
going)?, TWU series, The world bank, TWU-39.
Hook, W., Ernst, J. (2005) Bus rapid transit in Jakarta, Indonesia-success and lesson, Institute
for transportation and Development Policy, 2005
ITDP. (2003) Sustainable Transport, Fall 2003.Number 15, Institute for transportation and
Development Policy, 2003.
Jones, P., and Stopher, P. (2003) Transport survey quality and innovation, pergamon, first
edition, May 2003.
Kuklys, w. (2002) Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Louviere, J., J., Hensher,
D., A. and Swait, J., D., Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0-521-788, Journal of Applied
Econometrics, vol. 17, pages 701-704.
Leal, M., Bertini, R., L. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit: An Alternative for Developing Countries,
Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003 Annual
Meeting, Seattle, Washington.
Limanond, T., Pardo, C., F. (2006) Mass Rapid Transit Options, SUTP Articles, Sustainable
Urban Transport Project, Monday, 28 August 2006.
Louviere, J., J., Hensher, D., A. and Swait, J., D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and
Application. Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0-521-78830-7
Richardson, A., J., (2001) Never mind the data-feel the model, a key note paper for
International conference on transport survey quality, August, 2001.
Richardson, A., J., Ampt, E., S. and Meyburg, A., H. (1995) Survey Methods for transport
Planning, First ed., pp: 147-211.
-151-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
Sanko, N. (2001): Guidelines for stated preference experiment design (Executive summary of
professional projects), ecole nationale des ponts et chausses (ENPC, MBA Paris).
Sanko, N., Daly, A., and Kroes, E. (2002) Guidelines for SP Experiment Design, Proceedings
of Infrastructure Planning No.26 (CD-ROM) (in Japanese).
TRB. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation guidelines, TCRP 90,
Washington, D.C., 2003.
Walter, K., P., E., Matthew, H. (2003) ITS Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit Systems, TRB, 2003.
Yabe, T., Nakamura, F., (2004) Case analysis of the staged approach for infrastructure
planning and operation focusing on the bus transit system in urban areas, proceeding of
International Symposium on City Planning, pp. 11-20, 2004.
Yabe, T., Nakamura, F., (2005) Study on the relationship between capacity, cost and operation
alternatives of Bus Rapid Transit, The Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, Vol.6, pp.408-422.
Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., Thein. S. (2003) Using stated preference approach to estimate mode
choice behavior under changes in travel and socio-economic environments in Myanmar,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Hiroshima, Japan, October 23-24.
-152-
Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, 2007
Answer Sheet
Paper ID
Paper title
: 100152
: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ON
NEW TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
Contact author: Thillaiampalam SIVAKUMAR
1. Preference to present at the “poster session” (All authors required to check)
a) If a poster session is held, I strongly prefer the poster presentation to the oral presentation _
b) If the ‘Poster Session’ is held, I do not mind to present at the poster session.
_
c) I strongly prefer the oral presentation to the poster presentation.
x
2. “International Research Groups (IRGs) relating session”
N/A
Revision report
Requ
ested
No. revisi
on
level
Location
Page
no.
No. of line/
figure/table
Reviewer’s
comment/request/question
Your resulting revision
1
Requi
red
(a)
P3
Line 7-41
The detail description of these two The detail descriptions have been
surveys should be presented in moved accordingly to section 3.3.
section 3.
2
Requi
red
(a)
P8
Line 5-7
The reasons of choosing different More
detail
explanation
for
four attributes can be explained in attributes selection has been added
more detail.
in the introduction (P-2, last para).
3
Requi
red
(a)
P8
Figure 3
The design of alternatives should
be rechecked rationally. For
example, in Fig3, since alternative
1 is faster and cheaper than
alternative 2, who will chose
alternative 2?
4.
Requi
red
(a)
P9P10
Line31 –
Line 27
In
the
LOC
survey,
the More explanations has been added
explanations of sequential-pairs on LOC (sequential-pairs) in 1st
design can be increased.
para; P-7
5
Requi
red
(b)
6
Requi
red
(b)
P13
Yes! It is not good in representing. In
fact, the Figure 3 was the first
scenario out of six and it intentionally
designed, and didn’t included in the
analysis. Therefore, Fig3 is replaced
with 2nd scenario.
Overall
The title of the paper seems to
focus on questionnaire design but
the contents are actually more on
the analysis of the survey. If
possible, please explain more on
methodology
Table 9
Please compare the % of BRT The
comparison
previously
preference for workers and car- presented was based only on
owned workers.
arbitrary attribute value. Therefore,
Table 9 has been replaced with
more statistically sound tabulation.
-153-
Section 3.3 newly added and
additional explanation is added to
overall paper especially at this
section 3.3 1st para.
14. Van, H.T., Fujii, S., Nakamura, F., Nakamura, F.,
Fukuda, A. and Emori H.: Educational Methods
to Change Attitude of Transport Planners toward
an Environmentally Sustainable Transportation
Mode in developing Countries.
Educational Methods to Change Attitude of Transport Planners
toward an Environmentally Sustainable Transportation mode in
Developing Countries
Hong Tan Van (corresponding author)
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Satoshi Fujii
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Fumihiko Nakamura
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Yokohama National University
Hisashi Emori
Research Associate, Department of Transportation Engineering and Socio-Technology,
Nihon University
Abstract: This paper reports a pilot effort to disseminate the image of BRT to transport
planners in Bangkok and Colombo. The objective of the study is to examine the
efficiencies of three educational methods on increasing the understanding about BRT of
local transport officials as well as changing their attitudes toward implementation of
BRT in their cities. Specifically, the method of providing the results of the public’s
attitudes and perceptions on BRT and the behavioral plan method asking the transport
planners to detail their intention by specify possible BRT routes on the city’s map were
found to increase the planners’ intention to implement BRT. The method that provided
detailed information on using and operating practices of model BRT systems was found
to possibly increase the feeling of “obligation” of those planners to develop BRT system
for their own countries. The combination of these methods would be effective for
strategies to change transport planners’ attitude toward BRT.
Key Words: Educational methods, Attitudes of transport planner, Public attitudes, Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT), Developing countries
- 155 -
1. Introduction
Rapid motorization in cities in developing countries has put a pressure on the limited
budget of many municipal governments in the provision of mobility for the community.
In developing countries, transport planners typically choose to work out the problem by
improving their bus system rather than railway system. It is because this is relatively
cheap way and also because bus is allegedly a “social accommodation” for the majority
of low income travelers. However, as the population reaches a certain level, bus services
could not serve the actual mobility need of the residents, and mass rapid transport is
clearly imperative for a sustainable economic growth.
When planning for mass transit systems, various respects need to be scrutinized
including building and operation cost, service capacity, efficiency etc. as well as impacts
on environment. And as a matter of course, the building of such a transport system
involves a lot of funds, therefore it requires not only the consensus of government
officials but more important the advocacy of the public as well. In view of that, a
bus-based mass transit system named Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is considered an option
appropriate with the local conditions of developing cities7,11. Initiated in Curitiba
(Brazil) in 1974, BRT has become popular in cities throughout the world12 due to
numerous strong points such as flexibility, cost-saving, and ability to build quickly14 as
comparing to rail which requires much more initial investment as well as time to
construct.
Although many successful implementations of BRT have been demonstrated
worldwide1, the application of BRT still meets certain obstructions14. Accordingly, one
of those barriers comes from government officials who may lack knowledge of options
like BRT or at a lesser degree, have low awareness about the benefit of BRT. In addition,
the public‘s acceptance to use for such a system is also a deep concern for those who are
planning BRT system. Wright14 further conceded that many developing cities still do not
have basic understanding about the potential of BRT. For that reason, as an initial step
raising the awareness of local planners about the need of such a system plays an
important role in development of BRT for any developing city.
This paper reports a pilot effort to disseminate the concept of BRT and its goodness in
transportation planning to transport professionals in the two developing cities of
Bangkok (Thailand) and Colombo (Sri Lanka) where BRT may have high possibility of
success if applicable. As a brief description, Bangkok is a mega-city having the
estimated population of 9.3mil while Colombo is much smaller with around 1.5mil
inhabitants in its urban area. However, the two cities share an inherent characteristic
with other developing cities, that is, frequent congestions have increasingly damaged on
economic and community life. Regarding public transport, in Colombo, trips by buses
make up around 85% of trips by transits modes13. The picture is not better in Bangkok
where road-based public transport account for 80% of transit trip9. Consequently, it is
known that the operation of traditional forms of public transit has shown many
- 156 -
deficiencies and unreliability8,10. To meet the demand, the system needs to be
ameliorated by implementing mass transit forms; and BRT is a feasible solution that
deems to be interested by the authority of these two cities.
On the above background, the main objective of this study is to examine the efficiencies
of different educational methods to increase the understanding as well as to change
attitude of local transport officials about the implementation of BRT system in their
cities. Specifically, the role of public attitudes toward BRT on affecting the perception
and attitude of transport planners and the effectiveness of providing information on
operating practices of BRT to enhance comprehension for transport professionals were
examined. Furthermore, the paper also demonstrates an example of increasing the
willingness to implement BRT through applying behavioral plan method2,4 on the basic
of psychological theories of implementation intention3,5. Accordingly, a method to ask
the subjects to concretize their thinking and intentions on paper was applied. This was to
furnish the subjects with implementation intentions6 and thus may help increase the
probability of putting their effort toward the expected behavior.
2. Method
In each target city, two subject groups, i.e., transport professionals and university
students representing as general public, participated in two experiments held as
workshops on BRT in September and November, 2006. In Bangkok, the participants
were 20 officials working in transport authorities and 24 randomly selected students in
King Mongkut's Institute of Technology University. In Colombo, however, participants
could attend either one of the two workshops. Thirty three and 46 students in University
of Moratuwa participated in the first and the second workshop while for the participants
as transport planners, the numbers are 50 and 25, respectively. Descriptive statistic of
these samples can be referred in Table 1. Additionally, some illustrations of the
graphical images used for the presentations and of the pictures describing the
implementation of the workshops can be seen in Appendix.
Table 1: Descriptive statistic of the samples in the experiments
st
Trans. professional
Bangkok
The public
Trans. professional
Colombo
The public
N
22
25
50
33
1 Experiment
% Male Mean age
86.4
45.0
68.0
21.6
46.0
39.2
76.0
38.9
nd
N
20
24
25
46
2 Experiment
% Male Mean age
85.0
45.2
66.7
21.5
60.0
42.1
71.1
20.9
In the first experiment, two groups received a text explanation of the BRT concept, then
they were given a graphical presentation introducing about BRT system. After each of
these two steps, they answered a same questionnaire about BRT. The questions in this
questionnaire, for example, “Do you think that it is comfortable to use BRT?” was used
- 157 -
to obtain the participants’ perceptions on the use of BRT, or “Do you expect BRT can
actually be implemented in Bangkok/Colombo?” to know their expectation on the
building of BRT system, and “Will you make great efforts to implement BRT in
Bangkok/ Colombo?” to acquire transport professionals’ intentions to develop the
system. These beliefs were measured on five-point scales that ranged from 1 (not at all)
to 5 (yes strongly). The detail of the questions used in the questionnaires of all attempts,
i.e., in this experiment and in the second experiment, for each group can be referred in
Table 2.
Table 2: Beliefs and the questions used in the questionnaires for two experiments and two subject groups
Beliefs
Questions
Subjects
Used in
It is comfortable to use BRT
Do you think that it is comfortable to use BRT?
Plc & Pnr All attempts
It is pleasant to use BRT
Do you think that it is pleasant to use BRT?
Plc & Pnr All attempts
It is easy to use BRT
Do you think that it is easy to use BRT?
Plc & Pnr All attempts
Want to use BRT daily
Do you want to daily use BRT, when it is implementd in
Plc & Pnr All attempts
Bangkok/ Colombo?
Expect to use BRT daily
Do you expect that you will daily use BRT, when it is
Plc & Pnr All attempts
implementd in Bangkok/Colombo?
Easy to understand how to use BRT
Do you think that people in Bangkok/Colombo can easily
Plc & Pnr All attempts
understand how to use BRT?
Do you think that many people in Bangkok/Colombo will
Plc & Pnr All attempts
use BRT if it is implemented?
Do you think that BRT is necessary in
BRT is necessary for the city
Plc & Pnr All attempts
Bangkok/Colombo?
Do you think that BRT should be implementd in
BRT should be implemented in the city
Plc & Pnr All attempts
Bangkok/ Colombo?
Do you think that it is difficult to implement BRT in
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
Pnr
All attempts
Bangkok/ Colombo?
People will use BRT if implemented
Wish to implement BRT in the city
Do you wish to implement BRT in Bangkok/ Colombo?
Pnr
All attempts
Effort to implement BRT in the city
Will you make great efforts to implement BRT in
Bangkok/ Colombo?
Pnr
All attempts
Easily imagine how to implement BRT
Can you, as a transport planner, easily imagine how to
implement BRT in Bangkok/ Colombo?
Pnr
Expect BRT can be implemented
Do you expect BRT can actually be implemented in
Bangkok/ Colombo?
Pnr
Devote work time to develop BRT
Do you want to devote your work time to develop BRT
for Bangkok/ Colombo?
Pnr
All Attempts
expt Expt. 1
All Attempts
expt Expt. 1
All Attempts
expt Expt. 1
Note: Plc, Pnr, and Expt. 1 denote “Public”, “Planner”, and “Experiment 1”, respectively
At the beginning of the second experimental workshop, a graphical presentation same as
in the prior workshop was given to all participants to (re)elicit participants’ perceptions
on BRT. In the first phase of the second experimental workshop, via a presentation
transport professionals were showed the result of the student’s attitudes and perceptions
on BRT which was said to be obtained from the first workshop. As can be seen in
Figure 1 and Figure 2, what were showed to transport professionals in Bangkok and
Colombo represented the favor of the public toward BRT and their expectation to have
BRT implemented in the city due to the fact that almost the whole sample (strongly)
thought that “it is easy to use BRT”, “BRT is necessary”, “BRT should be
- 158 -
implemented” and (strongly) “wanted to use BRT daily”.
Bangkok
(N = 25)
100%
Bangkok
(N = 25)
100%
80%
80%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
40%
20%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
4
4
3 Neutral
40%
3 Neutral
2
20%
2
1 Not at all
0%
With textual
presentation
1 Not at all
0%
With graphical
presentation
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you think that BRT is necessary in Bangkok?
Q: Do you think that it is easy to use BRT?
Bangkok
(N = 25)
100%
With textual
presentation
Bangkok
(N = 25)
100%
80%
80%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
40%
3 Neutral
20%
2
5 Yes, strongly
60%
4
4
40%
3 Neutral
2
20%
1 Not at all
1 Not at all
0%
With textual
presentation
0%
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you think that BRT should be implemented in Bangkok?
With textual
presentation
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you want to daily use BRT, when it is implemented in Bangkok?
Fig.1: The results from the first workshop showed to transport professionals in Bangkok
Colombo
(N = 33)
100%
100%
80%
Colombo
(N = 33)
80%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
40%
4
40%
3 Neutral
2
20%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
4
3 Neutral
2
20%
1 Not at all
0%
With textual
presentation
1 Not at all
0%
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you think that it is easy to use BRT?
Q: Do you think that BRT is necessary in Colombo?
Colombo
(N = 33)
100%
With graphical
presentation
Colombo
(N = 33)
100%
80%
80%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
40%
4
40%
3 Neutral
2
20%
5 Yes, strongly
60%
4
3 Neutral
2
20%
1 Not at all
0%
With textual
presentation
1 Not at all
0%
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you think that BRT should be implemeted in Colombo?
With textual
presentation
With graphical
presentation
Q: Do you want to daily use BRT, when it is implemented in Colombo?
Fig.2: The results from the first workshop showed to transport professionals in Colombo
After the presentation, another questionnaire was distributed to the participants. This
questionnaire whose questions are described in Table 2 was similar to the one used in
the first experiment, except that an extra three questions was added to acquire in more
detail the possibility of transport planners to implement BRT.
Following the questionnaire survey, as the second phase of the second workshop all
participants listened to a presentation about using and operating practices of model BRT
- 159 -
systems in some cities. After that, they were requested to answer an exact duplicate of
the questionnaire in the previous step.
In the third phase of the second workshop, the transport professionals were asked to
deliberate where BRT route(s) should and could be actually introduced and to draw the
route(s) on the city’s map. This approach of asking to make an actual plan and to draw it
was called as “behavioral plan method”4 for attitude and behavior modification. It is
presumed that behavior plan method could help a formation of implementation intention,
which is the intention to implement a planned behavior. After they had drawn the
route(s) on the map, those professionals were asked to give their answers to a
questionnaire containing exactly same questioned beliefs with those in the second phase
(see Table 2).
3. Result
This paper focally studies the changes of the planner’s attitudes under different
experimental conditions, so only the results regarding transport planner are reported
hereafter. For each phase of the experiment, the mean scores of the beliefs of transport
professionals on BRT are shown in Table 3 and Table 4, noted that here the result of the
first experiment was of the survey implemented after the graphical presentation. With
almost all scores in the two samples much higher than the neutral level of 3, the result
indicates that the planners in Bangkok and Colombo have positive attitude toward use
of BRT as well as high perception on the implementation of BRT for their cities Note
that scores in Bangkok sample were found to be higher for nearly all beliefs after three
phases of the second experiment than in Colombo sample, and the transport planners in
Colombo seems to perceive that it was difficult to implement BRT, while those transport
professionals in Bangkok showed neutral attitude about this.
Following the study’s objectives stated before, the efficiency of three methods to change
transport professionals’ attitudes and perceptions on BRT, i.e., 1) providing the results
of the public’s attitudes and perceptions on BRT; 2) providing the detailed information
on using and operating practices of model BRT systems in other cities; and 3) having
the transport planners think and specify the routes on the city’s map, were to be
examined. Accordingly, paired-samples t-tests were performed across the first
experiment and three phases of the second experiment. For Colombo, the panel dataset
could not be obtained therefore only the means scores of three phases of the second
experiment were compared to test if there was any significant difference between phases
of the experiment. The results are shown in Table 3 for Bangkok and in Table 4 for
Colombo.
Effects of the provision of public attitudes and perceptions on BRT
With respect to the effect of the provision of the result how the public think about BRT,
a compare between the first experiment and phase 1 of the second experiment yielded
- 160 -
significant differences at .05 probability level in the scores of several beliefs. This result
indicates that this method to some extent had significant effects on changing the
planner’s perception. Particularly, the beliefs that “People will use BRT, if it is
implemented” and “Wish to implement BRT in the city” were clearly strengthened while
the feeling that “It is difficult to implement BRT in the city” significantly decreased after
the transport planners in Bangkok were let know that the public had good favor toward
BRT. These results also imply that transportation planners underestimated public
attitude toward BRT and merely provision of information about public attitudes could
therefore change transportation planners’ intention to implement plans for BRT system.
Table 3: Mean scores, (standard deviation) and T-test of the beliefs of transport professionals on the
implementation and use of BRT between phases of experiments in Bangkok (N=20)
nd
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
Wish to implement BRT in the city
Effort to implement BRT in the city
Easily imagine how to implement BRT
st
1 Expt.
4.10
(0.71)
3.70
(0.66)
3.65
(0.59)
3.60
(0.94)
3.55
(0.89)
3.60
(1.05)
3.70
(0.86)
4.20
(0.77)
4.05
(0.89)
4.05
(1.05)
4.05
(0.83)
4.05
(0.94)
-
Expect BRT can be implemented
-
Devote work time to develop BRT
-
2 Expt.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
4.11
4.20
4.60
(0.81) (0.77) (0.68)
3.58
3.60
4.10
(0.84) (0.88) (0.79)
3.53
3.65
4.00
(1.02) (0.88) (1.08)
3.53
3.50
4.45
(1.26) (1.24) (0.83)
3.26
3.55
4.35
(1.15) (1.23) (0.81)
3.68
3.85
4.35
(1.29) (1.18) (0.81)
4.21
4.20
4.65
(0.79) (0.70) (0.49)
4.11
4.35
4.70
(0.99) (0.81) (0.47)
4.11
4.45
4.65
(1.10) (0.68) (0.49)
3.42
3.35
2.40
(1.30) (1.18) (1.14)
4.37
4.35
4.65
(0.90) (0.81) (0.49)
4.21
4.20
4.45
(0.85) (0.77) (0.76)
2.95
3.35
3.85
(1.08) (1.27) (1.27)
3.37
4.10
4.20
(1.21) (0.79) (1.11)
3.79
3.85
4.40
(1.08) (0.93) (0.82)
T-test
1 vs. 2-1 2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
0.00
-0.70
-2.03
#
-2.67*
0.81
0.00
-3.25*
-3.29*
0.72
-0.68
-1.44
-1.82
0.42
0.20
-3.57*
-3.51*
1.46
-1.32
-3.11*
-4.19*
-0.42
-0.59
-1.60
-1.88
-2.54*
0.00
-2.93*
-3.62*
0.81
-1.46
-2.33*
-3.02*
-0.70
-1.84
-1.71
-2.73*
2.39*
0.00
3.57*
3.08*
-2.36*
0.00
-2.85*
-1.76
-1.14
0.00
-2.03
#
-1.29
-1.19
-1.37
-3.28*
-3.24*
-0.38
-2.13*
-0.33
-2.77*
-3.28*
#
#
#
#
Note: Scores range from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Yes, strongly).
* p < .05, # p < .1
1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 denote “1st experiment”, “2nd experiment-phase 1”, “2nd experiment-phase 2”, “2nd
experiment-phase 3”, respectively.
- 161 -
Effects of the provision of detailed information on using and operating practices of
model BRT systems
For the second method that provided information on using and operating practices of
model BRT systems, the effect on the transport professionals can be seen via comparing
phase 1 (before) and phase 2 (after listening to those information). Table 3 shows a
significant difference on the score of the belief: “Expect BRT can be implemented” in
Bangkok sample. Additionally, from t-values, the marginal significant differences (p
< .1) can be found in other two beliefs “BRT should be implemented in the city” for
Bangkok and “Devote work time to develop BRT” for Colombo. This can mean that the
gain of these scores was as a result of the method applied.
Table 4: Mean scores, (standard deviation) and T-test of the beliefs of transport professionals on the
implementation and use of BRT between three phases of the 2nd experiment in Colombo
nd
st
1 Expt.
Beliefs
It is comfortable to use BRT
It is pleasant to use BRT
It is easy to use BRT
Want to use BRT daily
Expect to use BRT daily
Easy to understand how to use BRT
People will use BRT if implemented
BRT is necessary for the city
BRT should be implemented in the city
Difficult to implement BRT in the city
(N=50)
4.33
(0.95)
4.54
(0.77)
3.92
(1.03)
3.92
(1.16)
3.90
(1.21)
3.79
(1.03)
3.85
(1.05)
4.48
(0.82)
4.58
(0.79)
-
Wish to implement BRT in the city
-
Effort to implement BRT in the city
-
Easily imagine how to implement BRT
-
Expect BRT can be implemented
-
Devote work time to develop BRT
-
2 Expt.
T-test
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2-1 vs. 2-2 2-2 vs. 2-3 2-1 vs. 2-3
(N=25)
4.38
4.04
4.09
1.24
-0.53
1.10
(0.77)
(0.93)
(0.85)
4.17
4.24
3.91
-0.89
2.11*
0.85
(0.87)
(0.88)
(1.12)
4.04
3.88
3.74
0.49
0.84
1.43
(1.12)
(1.17)
(1.10)
3.79
3.75
4.00
0.19
-1.00
-1.42
(0.98)
(1.05)
(0.85)
3.92
4.04
4.00
-0.77
0.33
-0.20
(1.12)
(0.89)
(0.85)
3.92
3.76
3.91
0.46
-0.20
0.72
(0.97)
(1.05)
(0.97)
3.83
3.72
4.05
0.36
-1.32
-1.19
(1.17)
(1.06)
(1.05)
4.33
4.12
4.31
1.05
-1.16
0.42
(0.92)
(1.09)
(0.89)
4.21
4.16
4.28
0.33
-0.81
-0.27
(0.98)
(1.03)
(1.12)
3.38
2.92
3.23
1.39
-1.29
0.22
(1.41)
(1.38)
(1.34)
4.00
3.96
4.05
0.18
0.00
0.00
(1.14)
(1.10)
(1.09)
4.04
3.64
4.05
1.51
-1.36
-0.46
(1.08)
(1.25)
(1.09)
3.17
3.44
3.77
-1.24
-1.30
-2.23*
(1.01)
(0.92)
(1.15)
3.54
3.76
4.00
-0.87
-1.14
-2.26*
(1.10)
(1.09)
(0.93)
#
-2.02
3.38
3.64
3.86
-1.30
-2.83*
(1.14)
(1.22)
(1.21)
Note: Scores range from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Yes, strongly).
* p < .05, # p < .1
1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 denote “1st experiment”, “2nd experiment-phase 1”, “2nd experiment-phase 2”, “2nd
experiment-phase 3”, respectively.
- 162 -
Effects of having the transport planners think and specify the routes on the city’s map
In the application of behavioral methods by asking transport planners to draw on the
city’s map the route(s) they thought need to implement BRT, Table 3 shows more
significant differences in belief’s scores between phase 2 and phase 3 of the second
experiment for planner group in Bangkok. Specifically, as can be seen from Table 3, the
strength of the beliefs regarding the BRT line(s) that each transport planner thought and
drew on city’s map, for example, “It is pleasant to use that BRT line(s)”, “Want to use
that BRT line(s) daily”, “People will use that BRT line(s) if it is implemented”, “That
BRT line(s) is necessary for the city”, “Wish to implement that BRT line(s)” and
“Devote work time to develop that BRT line(s)” were significantly increased and
fortified. Besides, from Table 3 it also shows that the feeling: “It is difficult to
implement that BRT line(s)” was significant decreased. This implies that the method
had significant effect on changing the attitudes of those transport planners in Bangkok.
For Colombo, Table 4 shows there was nearly no significant difference between the
scores before and after applying this method. Further, there was an unexpected finding
in Colombo when scores on the beliefs “It is pleasant to use the BRT line(s) you just
drew on the map” was reversely decreased. These results suggest that the method did
not show up effects on the target planners in Colombo.
Table 4 however indicates that the combination of providing the information on using
and operating practices of model BRT systems and asking the planners to specifically
plan the routes of BRT on the city’s map had significant effect on the transport
professionals in Colombo. The comparison between phase 1 and phase 3 of the second
experiment show that the strengths of three beliefs, namely “Easily imagine how to
implement that BRT line(s)”, “Expect that BRT line(s) can be implemented”, and
“Devote work time to develop that BRT line(s)” was significantly increased, given that
the planners were engaged in thinking and drawing possible BRT lines after listening to
detailed information on practical operation of BRT in other cities. This combined effect
can be seen more clearly in Bangkok sample in which most of the belief scores were
significant different between the two phases.
4. Discussion
The study examined the effect of three educational methods, i.e., providing the results of
the public’s attitudes and perceptions on environmental sustainable transportation
system, such as BRT; providing the information on using and operating practices of
model BRT systems in other cities; and asking the transport professionals to detail their
intention by specify possible BRT routes on the city’s map, in order to change the
attitudes and perception of transport professionals on BRT in Bangkok and Colombo.
T-tests comparing between phases of the experiments applying these methods were
implemented and the result showed different effects of each method on each country.
Firstly, for the method that provides for transport planners the result of attitude and
- 163 -
perceptions of the public in the previous survey, it was found that transport planners
could change their attitudes following the wish of the public. After listening and
comprehending the public’s attitudes which was favor toward BRT, transport planners
believed more in the public‘s acceptance to use BRT thus increased their intention to
implement a BRT system. It can be accredited the effectiveness of using the public’s
attitudes and perception in persuading transport professionals to engage in developing
BRT system, at least for the case of Bangkok as found in this study. This result implies
that transport professionals may usually underestimate public attitude toward a new
transport system such as BRT. However, at the same time it is worth mentioning that
with this stand-alone intervention there were still many beliefs having no significant
change.
Secondly, regarding the effect of providing transport professionals the information on
using and operating practices of model BRT systems in other cities, the study found that
practical information on BRT systems of other cities could trigger the feelings of
“responsibility” of transport planners in the role of planning transport system for their
city. The thinking that “BRT should be implemented in the city” as well as the
expectation that BRT can be implemented was seen increase in the surveyed planners in
Bangkok while in Colombo the subjected transport professionals as their own
responsibilities though that we will devote their future work time to develop BRT for
their city. Such perceptions may be formed while the transport planners compare their
city with the introduced cities that succeeded in implementing BRT. However, for this
method, it should be remarked that the increases were mostly marginally significant and
still limited in a few main beliefs.
Finally, having the transport planners detail their implementation intention on the map
had extreme effect on Bangkok’s transport planners. This method succeeded to increase
the implementation intention for the planners in Bangkok toward a possible BRT
scheme. Regarding implementation intention, it is conjectured that providing detailed
information on BRT as in the second phase may indirectly contribute to the formation of
implementation intention in the planners’ minds. However, from the result of the third
phase it can be concluded that asking them to concretize their comprehension and
intention on a paper is clearly a better tool to urge the subjects to form implementation
intentions. This experimental result therefore partially presents a practical support for
the behavioral plan method in changing perception as well as intensifying intention.
However, this method had shown no significant effect for the sample in Colombo. The
difference of the results between Bangkok and Colombo was not clear. It may be due to
the difference between attributes of the planners in two cities. The differences can be
deduced from the fact that transport officials in Bangkok may have much more
information about BRT than those counterparts in Colombo. This is because the ideas to
built BRT have been discussed since last two decades in Bangkok and so far many
reports and visual presentations have been done. Still, the author noticed that there was
one difference in the experimental condition between the two cities. We had enough
- 164 -
time for the second workshop in Bangkok, but for some reasons, less time was given to
the one in Colombo. Therefore, there was not enough time for making plans in the last
phase. This may be a reason of the difference between the results in Colombo and
Bangkok.
Still, even in Colombo, the combination of the method of providing detailed information
on BRT operation practices and the method of requesting for detailed plan in map was
found to be necessary to modify the attitude of planners in this city. The effectiveness of
the combination of these two educational methods was also found in Bangkok. These
results may also imply that enhancing both comprehension of practical information and
formation of implementation intention would be useful in persuading and raising the
awareness about the benefit of BRT for planners. Therefore, a package of several
educational methods would be more effective. Definitely, such a package would have
increasing effect in other developing countries where planners have higher capability of
comprehending practical information.
5. Conclusion and recommendation
Three educational methods have been found to have significant effects on changing
attitude toward BRT as well as enhancing perception on the implementation of BRT.
The efficiency of each method was also found to be dependent on the conditions of the
specific country. From the result of this study, in order to initiate a strategy to change
attitude and enhance the awareness about the benefit of BRT for transport policy makers
in developing cities, we recommend the sequential implementation of the following
approaches:
• Investigating the public’s attitudes and perceptions on BRT after disseminating the
image of BRT to the public, then providing the result of public’s attitude for
transport policy makers. By applying this method, the intention of transport policy
makers in implementing BRT would increase following the wish of the public.
• Presenting to transport policy makers the detailed information on implementing and
using practices of BRT in other succeeding cities. This method would increase the
feeling of “obligation” of those planners to develop a BRT system for their own
cities.
• Asking transport policy makers to engage in planning process of BRT system by
specifically thinking which route(s) is apt to build such a BRT line(s). This much
behavioral method would increase implementation intention toward implementing
BRT system.
And last but not least, the combination of three approaches, if permitted, would
intensify the intention to implement BRT system that will in turn increase the
opportunities to actualize BRT and to provide more “green” mobility to many people in
developing countries.
- 165 -
References
1. Fjellstrom, K, Diaz, O. E., and Gauthier, A. BRT’s Great Leap. “Sustainable
Transport” 16: pp. 24-28. (2004).
2. Fujii, S. and Taniguchi, A. Determinants of the effectiveness of travel feedback
programs - A review of communicative mobility management measures for
changing travel behavior in Japan. “Transport Policy” 13 (5): pp. 339-348. (2006).
3. Gärling, T. and Fujii, S. Structural equation modeling of determinants of
implementation intentions. “Goteborg Psychological Reports” 4 (29). Göteborg
University, Goteborg. (1999).
4. Gärling, T. and Fujii, S. Travel Behavior Modification: Theories, Methods, and
Programs. Resource paper for the 10th International Association for Travel Behavior
Research conference (CD-ROM), Kyoto, Japan, August. (2006).
5. Gollwitzer, P. M. The volitional benefits of planning. in: P.M. Gollwitzer and J.A.
Bargh, (Eds.). The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to
Behavior. Guilford Press, New York. (1996).
6. Gollwitzer, P. M. and Brandstätter, V. Implementation intentions and effective goal
pursuit. “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” 73: pp. 186-199. (1997).
7. Hidalgo, D. Bus Rapid Transit in Bogotá and its potential in Bangkok. A report
presented at “Building a New City: Sustainable Transport in Bangkok" in SUTP
project of GTZ, and UN-ESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand, Jan 30. (2004).
8. Mitric, S. Urban Transport Strategy for Colombo, Sri Lanka. “Transport Research
Record” 1799: pp. 66-71. (2002).
9. Office of the Commission for the Management of Land Traffic - Ministry of
Transport - Thailand. Transport data and model center project - Phase II (TDMC II).
(2004).
10. Rujopakarn, W. Bangkok transport system development: What went wrong?
“Journal of the Eastern Asian Society for Transport Studies” 5: pp. 3302-3315.
(2003).
11. Sivakulmar, T. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Implementation Strategy for Cities in
Developing Countries. A paper presented at “The 31st Conference of Infrastructure
Planning” by Japan Society of Civil Engineers. (2005).
12. Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case
Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. (2003).
13. Urban Development Authority – Sri Lanka. [http://uda.lk]. (2006).
14. Wright, L. Bus Rapid Transit. in Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
- 166 -
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (Eds.) Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for
Policy-makers in Developing Countries (Module 3b). (2006).
Appendix – Some illustrations on the experimental workshops
Fig.3 BRT expert presenting the 3D computer
Fig.
4
Local
transport
planners
answering
graphic of BRT system to students
questionnaire on BRT
Fig.5 An image of the practical operation of BRT in
Fig.6 An illustration of 3D computer graphic of BRT
other cities on the slide shown to participants
system on the slide shown to participants
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express thanks to Professor Atsushi Fukuda (Nihon
Unversity), Mr. Oravit Hemachudha (Director of Transport Division, BMA), Mr.
Surawongse Swangbamrung (BMA), Dr. Tuenjai Fukuda, Mr. Ryosuke Oshima, Mr.
Atit Tippichai to for their organization of the workshops in Bangkok. We also
acknowledge the support by the International Association for Traffic Safety Sciences
(IATSS) for Project H854 from which this paper stems.
- 167 -
15. タイ・バンコクにおけるパラトランジットの
利用・運営実態
タイ・バンコクにおけるパラトランジットの利用・運営実態
1. はじめに
現在、多くの東南アジアの都市において、私的交通（個別輸送）と公共交通（乗合輸送）
の中間的交通手段に位置づけられ、独自に発達してきた様々なタイプのパラトランジット
が、都市交通の中で重要な役割を担っている。タイ王国の首都バンコクでは、幹線道路と
住宅地を結ぶ様々なサービス形態を持ったパラトランジットが端末交通として運行されて
おり、市民の重要な足となっている。
この多様なサービス形態は、利用者の利用目的や要望に合わせて形成されてきたと考え
られるが、これまでこのような観点からパラトランジットの利用と運営の実態は分析され
ていない。
そこでバンコクで運営されている複数のパラトランジットの運営者と利用者を対象にア
ンケート調査を行ない、その利用実態と運営特性のそれぞれについて明らかにする。
2. アンケート調査の概要
対象地域：バンコク中心部から北東に約 15km 離れた場所に位置する Rat Phrao Rd.沿いの
ソイ（図 1）
実施機関：2006 年 8 月 22 日∼9 月 2 日
現地調査実施者：大島良輔、荻田基司
アンケート調査票は、パラトランジット利用者と運営者に分けて作成した。利用者を対
象とするアンケートは、利用者の個人情報項目（年齢、性別、収入、職業、運転免許・自
家用車の有無）、利用状況項目（利用状況（週単位）、利用目的等）、料金項目（支払い金額、
料金値上げ際の対応への質問）、その他（パラトランジットを利用しない理由、運営者に対
しての自由意見）で構成した（資料 1）。運営者を対象とするアンケートは、基礎項目（サ
ービス時刻、サービス範囲、サービス料金）、運行項目（サービススケジュール、サービス
回数）、料金項目（運賃収入、固定費用、可変費用）
、サービス項目（運賃価格満足の有無、
ガソリン代が上昇した場合の対応）
、その他（政府に対する自由意見）で構成した（資料 2）。
アンケート調査票は、英語で作成した後、タイ語に翻訳した（資料 3∼4）。
調査は、調査対象地域近辺にある Kasetsart 大学の学生 10 名を雇用して、事前に対象地
域内のソイについて文献、地図等から推定人口、面積、全長を調べ、特徴が異なるソイを
選定した。アンケート回収数は、利用者アンケート 534 サンプル、運営者アンケート 80
サンプルである。
- 169 -
Soi Choc chai 4
5,500m
12,880人
Ra
tP
hra
Soi 62
800m
1,932人
Soi 101
4,800m
13,220人
Soi 81
1,125m
2,976人
oR
d,
Soi 91
1,100m
2,003人
Soi 63
800m
1625人
Soi 64
3,000m
7,440人
Soi 109
800m
1,002人
Soi 80
3,600m
10,301人
Soi 94
1,100m
2,600人
Soi 122
2,000m
5,237人
0 500 1000 m
図 1 アンケート調査対象のソイ
3. アンケート結果
（1）利用者、年齢構成比（図 2）
・ いずれのパラトランジット利用者も過半数が 10 代、20 代である。
・ モーターサイクルと比べて四輪車両を用いるシーローレックとソンテウは 40 代、50
代、60 代の利用割合が高い。
・ 利用者の年齢構成はパラトランジットの運行特性と関係があると考えられる。
24%
ソンテウ
18%
シーローレック
モーターサイクル
タクシー
40%
30∼39歳
14%
16%
38%
20%
20∼29歳
17%
40%
28%
0%
19歳以下
31%
17%
16%
60%
40∼49歳
7%
9%
80%
50∼59歳
8%
N=59
6% 4%
N=89
5% 4%
N=386
100%
60歳以上
図 2 利用者、年齢構成比図
（2）利用者、収入構成比（図 3）
・ いずれのパラトランジット利用者も約半数が、収入 6,000 バーツ以下である。
・ バンコクの月平均収入の約 7,800 バーツ以下の所得層が多く利用していることを示し
- 170 -
ている。
・ その一方で、いずれのパラトランジットも収入が 10,000 バーツ以上の利用者が約 30％
程度含まれており、所得に関わらず幅広く利用されている。
2%
34%
ソンテウ
20%
10%
12%
12%
5%
N=59
5%
2% 1%
29%
シーローレック
17%
21%
16%
4%
N=89
10%
2%
モーターサイクル
タクシー
34%
12%
22%
17%
7%
4%
N=386
2%
0%
20%
無収入
10,000∼14,000バーツ
22,000∼26,000バーツ
40%
60%
6,000バーツ以下
14,000∼18,000バーツ
26,000バーツ以上
80%
100%
6,000∼10,000バーツ
18,000∼22,000バーツ
図 3 利用者、収入構成比図
（3）利用者、職業構成比（図 4）
・ ソンテウとシーローレックは、ソイに学校や市場または寺院が立地している場合に相
乗り型のサービスを提供し、運賃も安価なことから学生の利用が多い。
・ シーローレックの特徴的な利用方法として、市場へ買い物に来た露天商が大量に食材
等を買い込み、貸し切り運行することが可能である。シーローレックのその他の回答
の内、約 80％が露天商による利用であった。
・ モーターサイクルタクシーは、主に通りから自宅へのアクセスに用いられるため、通
勤・通学の利用者が特に多い。
3%
7%
ソンテウ
22%
3% 10%
17%
12%
2%
7%
シーローレック
15%
7% 5%
12%
N=59
2%
8% 4%
30%
3% 3%
24%
N=89
3%
モーターサイクル
タクシー
4%
0%
公務員
大学生
26%
20%
会社員
高校生
9%
7%
40%
会社経営者
中学生
19%
8%
60%
8% 3% 9%
80%
主婦
無職
N=386
100%
専門職
その他
図 4 利用者、職業構成比図
（4）利用者、利用頻度構成比（図 5）
・ いずれのパラトランジット利用者も約 40％が毎日パラトランジットを利用している。
- 171 -
・ 乗り合い輸送の公共交通に近い運行をしているソンテウは、毎日利用から週 5 回以上
利用の割合が約 70％に達している。
・ それに対し、モーターサイクルタクシーとシーローレックでは時々しか利用しない利
用者がソンテウに比べて多い。
44%
ソンテウ
5%
34%
シーローレック
24%
4% 11% 4% 11%
7% 5%
7% 5%
15%
N=59
N=89
25%
1%
モーターサイクル
タクシー
41%
0%
8% 3%
20%
毎日
1週間に2回
40%
1週間に6回
1週間に1回
14%
6% 5%
60%
1週間に5回
時々
N=386
22%
80%
100%
1週間に4回
1週間に3回
図 5 利用者、利用頻度構成比図
（5）利用者、利用目的構成比（図 6）
・ いずれのパラトランジットも約 60％が家または通りまでのアクセスとして利用してい
る。
・ モーターサイクルタクシーは、会社や学校へのアクセスなど個人利用（タクシー型の
サービス）の割合が高い。
1%
ソンテウ
2% 8%
7%
10%
24%
37%
N=59
7%
1%
6% 5%
シーローレック
8%
4%
34%
19%
4%
N=89
15%
3%
モーターサイクル
タクシー
10%
0%
11%
24%
20%
会社へのアクセス
他のソイへのアクセス
荷物運搬のため
3%
33%
8%
40%
学校へのアクセス
バス停へのアクセス
市場へ買い物のため
60%
N=386
3%
80%
100%
通りへのアクセス
家へのアクセス
その他
図 6 利用者、利用目的構成図
（6）利用者、利用理由構成比（図 7）
・ いずれのパラトランジット利用者も、便利だからという理由でパラトランジットを利
用している。
・ 運賃がモーターサイクルタクシーに比べて半額程度のシーローレックやソンテウは、
利用者の約 25％が運賃が安いことを選択している。
- 172 -
・ 一方、モーターサイクルタクシーの運賃は高額だが、特に 42％が利便性、37％が迅速
性を理由に選択している。
1%
1%
27%
ソンテウ
6%
33%
24%
N=59
5%
1%
1%
2%
シーローレック
5%
12%
9%
10%
30%
25%
N=89
7%
1% 2%
モーターサイクル
タクシー
11%
37%
42%
N=386
2% 2%
1%
0%
20%
40%
早いから
重い荷物を持っているから
安全だから
家族の送迎より便利だから
その他
図7
60%
80%
100%
時間節約のため
便利だから
安いから
歩きたくないから
利用者、利用理由構成図
（7）運営者ソイ別の運営状況（表 1）
・ 調査した全てのソイでモーターサイクルタクシーは運行されているが、運賃体系や売
り上げはソイ毎に大きく異なっており、それぞれのソイに対応してサービスが設定さ
れていると考えられる。
・ 一方、シーローレックとソンテウは人口が多いソイで運行されており、営業時間はモ
ーターサイクルタクシーに比べて短く、サービス回数も少ないが、1 回の運行で大量に
輸送しているため売上は多い。モーターサイクルタクシーが主に個人利用に対応し、
柔軟にサービスレベルを変化させているのに対して、ソンテウ、シーローレックはよ
り公共交通機関に近いサービスを提供している。
表1
運転者・ソイ別運営状況
N = 80
平均運賃 平均営業時間 平均サービ 1日の平均
登録
(バーツ)
(時間)
ス回数(回) 利益(バーツ) 台数(台)
soi62 MT
14.4
6：00∼20：00
42
275
68
soi63 MT
11.0
6：00∼20：00
45
295
33
soi64 MT
17.8
5：00∼23：00
35
410
152
soi80 MT
13.7
5：00∼23：00
30
345
190
soi81 MT
18.2
5：00∼23：00
38
370
43
soi87 SL
7.0
6：00∼22：00
35
700
110
soi87 MT
22.5
7：00∼23：00
40
450
122
soi91 MT
13.8
5：00∼22：00
30
275
32
soi94 MT
23.2
5：00∼23：00
45
440
107
soi101 MT
19.8
6：00∼22：00
44
375
364
soi101 ST
5.9
5：30∼20：00
16
1,030
21
soi109 MT
11.0
8：00∼21：00
40
440
21
soi122 MT
15.0
7：00∼24：00
45
680
95
soi122 SL
7.0
6：00∼22：00
8
650
250
Chock Chai４ MT 13.3
6：00∼22：00
50
450
138
Chock Chai４ SL
7.1
6：00∼23：00
24
450
―
Chock Chai４ ST
6.9
5：30∼20：00
17
1,130
20
※ SL=シーローレック、ST=ソンテウ、MT=モーターサイクルタクシー
- 173 -
（8）パラトランジット運賃決定者（図 8）
・ ソンテウでは、80％の割合で政府が運賃を決定し、シーローレックでは、67％の割合
でリーダーが決定している。
・ 最も回答が多かったモーターサイクルタクシーでは、グループ内で相談して運賃を決
定するが 56％となった。この傾向は各パラトランジットのサービス方法と関係がある
と考えられる。
・ ソンテウは利用者にとって最も公共交通に近いサービスを提供しており、利用者の利
便性を確保する意味からも政府の関与が強いと考えられる。一方で、個人利用が多い、
いわばタクシーに近いサービスを行うシーローレックとバイクタクシーは運営者側の
影響が強いと考えられる。
29%
全体
21%
1%
5%
44%
80%
ソンテウ
67%
シーローレック
13%
N=80
20%
N=10
20%
N=15
2%
24%
バイクタクシー
16%
0%
56%
20%
リーダー（責任者）
40%
政府
図8
2% N=55
60%
グループ内で相談
80%
乗客
100%
ドライバー
その他
パラトランジット運賃決定者
（9）営業エリア決定者（図 9）
・ ソンテウでは 100％の割合で政府が運行エリア、ルートを設定している。
・ モーターサイクルタクシーではソイ番号が書かれたオレンジ色のチョッキにより厳格
に営業エリアを区分されている。
26%
全体
43%
16%
3%4% 9%
N=10
100%
ソンテウ
67%
シーローレック
20%
バイクタクシー
0%
7% 7%
44%
20%
リーダー（責任者）
40%
政府
図9
22%
60%
グループ内で相談
20%
乗客
N=15
2% 5% 7%
80%
営業エリア決定者
- 174 -
N=80
ドライバー
100%
その他
N=55
・ 現在は、政府が営業エリアを決定しているが、グループ内のリーダーやグループ同士
で決定しているという回答も得られた。
（10）ガソリン代上昇の際の対応（図 10）
・ 全てのパラトランジットで、ガソリン代が上昇した際には運賃の値上げをするという
回答が得られた。
・ ソンテウは、運行スケジュールが既に決定しているため、サービス回数や営業時間の
増加は実質行えず、運賃の上昇で対応せざるをえない。
・ シーローレックの 33％を占めるその他の項目のほとんどが、モーターサイクルタクシ
ーへの転業、転職を希望する回答であった。
・ モーターサイクルタクシーは運賃上昇の他に、営業時間を長くするという回答が 17％
を占めた。
69%
全体
4%
14%
1%
12%
100%
ソンテウ
40%
シーローレック
13%
N=10
7% 7%
67%
バイクタクシー
0%
20%
運賃の値上げ
営業時間を減らす
値段を下げる
40%
N=80
33%
2%
60%
廃業する
サービス回数を増やす
その他
17%
80%
N=15
7%
N=55
100%
サービス回数を減らす
営業時間を増やす
図 10 ガソリン代上昇の際の対応
4. パラトランジットの経営分析
パラトランジットの運営の実態を明らかにする上で、その経営状況は重要な指標の一つ
である。そこで、最も多くのデータを取得できたモーターサイクルタクシーサービスに着
目して、経営収支式を推定した。収支式は、田中1)がバス輸送のための経営収支の算定の
ために提案した式に着目した。バスの経営のために必要な項目を収入側と支出側に分類し、
経営上黒字経営となる状態を示した。そこで、同様にパラトランジットの経営に関係する
項目を収入と経費に分類し、経営収支式として推定を行った。なお、収支状態の検討は年
単位である。
ここで、新車を購入してサービスを開始する場合を考えると、経費として車両の原価償
却費を考慮すべきであるが、アンケートの結果では、多くのドライバーが既に車両費用の
支払いを済ませ、その使用年数も異なっていることから、今回は経費として含めていない。
総経費と総収入を表 2 に示す。
- 175 -
表 2 総経費と総収入項目
・ライセンス料金（50バーツ）
固定費 ・年間税金（100バーツ）
・保険代金
総
経
費
可変費
収入
総
収
入
運賃
収入
・年間ガソリン費用（モーターサイクルの
燃費、平均サービス距離、１日の平均サー
ビス回数、年間のサービス日数及びガソリ
ン価格に関係して変動する）
・前提条件として、燃費は50km/l、ガソリ
ン価格は27バーツ（2006年12月時）、サー
ビスを行った後、必ず待機場所まで戻って
くるとした。
運賃収入から固定費と可変費を差し引いた
純収入
運賃収入（サービスあたりの平均運賃、１
日の平均サービス回数、年間のサービス日
数に関係して変動する）
以上の項目の条件を整えると式（1）となる。
⎛２SL ⋅ AT ⋅ SD ⎞
DI + FC + ⎜
⎟ ⋅ GP
50
⎠
⎝
≤１
AS ⋅ AT ⋅ SD
（1）
ここで、
DI：ドライバー純収入、
FC：固定費用、
SL：平均サービス距離、
AT：1 日の平均サービス回数、
SD：年間のサービス日数、
GP：ガソリン価格、
AS：平均運賃
（1）モーターサイクルタクシーの経営収支状況
アンケート調査から得られた全ドライバーの値を式（1）に代入した結果、最大値 0.97、
最小値 0.58、平均値 0.85 となり、全てのドライバーが推定式の条件を満たす結果となった
（値が小さいほど、支出に対する収入の割合が大きい）。現在サービスを行っているモータ
ーサイクルドライバーの収支バランスは保たれているが、ドライバーによってその状況は
様々である。
（2）モーターサイクルタクシーのサービス回数と平均運賃の関係
アンケート調査結果の中から特にモーターサイクルタクシーのサービス回数と平均運賃
の関係を図 11 に示す。これより、モーターサイクルタクシーが異なるサービス条件でサー
ビスを行っている一方で、サービス回数と平均運賃を掛け合わせた総売り上げには一定の
上限があると考えられる。
この状態を推定式により図 11 に表した。図中の一番上の線は全ドライバーの収入と費用
を示す項目のうち、最も高い値を式（1）に代入した場合の推定線である。同様に、真ん中
の線は全ドライバーの平均値、一番下の線は最も小さい値を代入した場合である。つまり、
- 176 -
サービス回数と平均運賃を掛け合わせた総売り上げが、一番下の線より上の範囲にある必
要がある。また、一番上の線が上限ラインであることを示している。推定式を用いること
で、モーターサイクルタクシーが収支上運営可能な、サービス回数と平均運賃の範囲を示
すことが可能となった。
60
50
平均サー ビ ス運賃（バーツ ）
凡
例
アンケート調査結果値
最も高い値を代入した場合の推定線
全ドライバーの平均値を代入した場合の推定線
最も小さい値を代入した場合の推定線
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
１日の平均サービス回数（回）
図 11 サービス回数と平均運賃の関係
（3）サービスレベルの変化と経営状況
推定式を用いることで、運営状態が変化した場合の収支状況を指標として表すことが可
能である。そこで、年間のサービス日数、平均運賃及び１日のサービス回数が変動した場
合の収支状況の分析を行った。なお、分析には全ドライバーの平均値を用いた。
その結果、年間サービス日数が現在の 313 日から 247 日以下、平均運賃が 9 バーツから
8 バーツ以下、１日の平均サービス回数が 49 回から 45 回以下の状況になった場合、その
経営収支値は、1.0 以上となり、支出が収入を超える状態となった。それぞれの変動の中で
も、特に平均運賃が収支状態に与える影響が大きいと考えられる。
（4）モーターサイクルタクシーサービスの将来性
総経費の項目の中で、燃料費の占める割合は特に高く、ガソリン価格はモーターサイク
ルタクシーサービスの経営状況を決定する重要な要因である。近年その価格は右肩上がり
に上昇しており、サービスの将来性が危ぶまれる状況である。そこで、推定式を用いて、
ガソリン価格が変動した場合の平均運賃と経営状態に関する分析を行なった。その結果を
図 12、図 13 に示す。
図 12 の場合、現在のガソリン価格である 27 バーツには、7.6 バーツの運賃価格が該当す
る。これは、この価格以上でないと、経営収支値が 1.0 以下の状態を満たさないことを示
している。ガソリン価格に対する運賃の上昇は、およそ 10 バーツのガソリン価格上昇に対
して 1 バーツの運賃価格上昇に留まり、それほど大幅な運賃上昇をさせる必要はないとい
う結果となった。図 13 の場合、ガソリン価格が 43 バーツを超えた場合、経営収支値が 1.0
を超える結果となり、今後ガソリン価格が上昇しても、現在のサービスレベルのまま 43
バーツまでは支出が収入を超えない結果となった。
- 177 -
運賃価格（バーツ）
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ガソリン価格（バーツ）
図 12 ガソリン価格と運賃価格の関係
モーターサイクルタクシーサービス
経営収支値
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ガソリン価格 （バーツ／リッター）
図 13 ガソリン価格が変動した場合の経営収支値
参考文献
1) 田中耕造: バス輸送計画策定上考慮すべき問題点−都市バスの経営収支に関する一般
理論を中心として−, 運輸と経済, Vol.42, No.4, pp.47-58, 1982.
- 178 -
資料 1
Questionnaire for user
Please read the questions carefully and then answer the whole following questions by filling in the blanks and/or
select the correct choices.
Q1. Please fill your age and identify your income level. (If you don’t have income, please select “No income”)
Age
Sex
1. Male
2. Female
Income (Baht/month)
3. 6,000 ∼ 9,999
5. 14,000∼17,999
4.10,000∼14,000
6. 18,000∼21,999
1. No income
2. Less than
6,000
7. 22,000∼25,999
8. over26,000
Q2. Please identify your occupation.
1. Government officer
4. Housewife
7. High school student
10. Elementary school student
2. Company officer
5. Professional
8. Junior high school student
11. Unemployed
3. Business owner
6. Univ. student
9. Vocational school student
12. Etc. (specify) (____________________)
Q3. Please answer the following question. Do you have a Car or Motorcycle license and private Car or Motorcycle?
Have
1. Car License
Not have
2. Private Car
Have ( how many?)
3. Motorcycle License
Have
Not have
4. Private Motorcycle
Not have
Have ( how many?)
Not have
Q4. Please answer the following question: Do you usually use the paratransit?
Yes
No
→
→
Q4-1
Q13
Q4-1. How often are you use paratransit?
1. everyday
2. 1 day per week
3. 2 days per week
4. 3 days per week
5. 4 days per week
6. 5 days per week
7. 6 days per week
8. seldom
9. every working or studying day (
times per week)
Q5.What is your purpose that use the paratransit (Check all that apply)
1. Access to Office
4. Access to another soi
7. Access to home
10. Go to shopping (Market)
2. Access to school
5. Access to Bus stop
8. Deriver goods
11. Go to shopping (Mini shop or convenience store)
3. Access to Street
6. Access to Subway station
9. Call for Taxi
12. 11. Etc. (specify) (____________________)
Q6.How much is you pay and why are you use paratransit?
How much are you pay for
the service? (average)
Baht
The reason why use soi bike
（Check all that apply）
1. Fast
4. convenience
7. convenient more family Pick-up
and Drop-off
2. save the time
5. Safe
8. Don’t want to walk long distance
3. Have heavy baggage
6. cheap
9. Etc. (specify)
(____________________)
Q7. Please answer the following question. Do you satisfy the existing service fee of paratransit?
Yes → Q8
No → Please write the fee that satisfy oneself (
- 179 -
Baht)
Q8. Please answer the following question. If the service fee increase, what your choice
Increase 1-3 Baht
1.Still take
2.Stop to take
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
1.Still take
2.Stop to take
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
1.Still ride
2.Stop the ride
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
4 Etc.
Increase 4-5 Baht
4 Etc.
Increase 6-7 Baht
4 Etc.
Increase 8-9 Baht
1.Still ride
2.Stop the ride
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
4 Etc.
Increase 10-15 Baht
1.Still ride
2.Stop the ride
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
1.Still ride
2.Stop the ride
3. Decrease the ride (how many times?)
4 Etc.
Increase 16~ Baht
4 Etc.
Q9. Please answer the following question. What is your main transportation? (After get out the paratransit)
1. Regular bus
2. Mini bus
3. Air condition bus
4. Taxi
5. Motorcycle
6. BTS or MRT
7. Walk
8. Tuck Tuck
9. Etc. (specify) (____________________)
Q10. How much are you paying and why are you using this main transportation?
How much are you
pay for the service?
Baht
The reason why use this main transportaiton
（Check all that apply）
1. Fast
4. convenience
7. convenient more family Pick-up and Drop-off
2. save the time
5. Safe
8. Don’t want to walk long distance
3. Have heavy baggage
6. cheap
9. Etc. (specify)
(____________________)
Q11. Please answer the following question. How much can you pay for the Transportation service per month?
Soi bike
Baht
Main Transportation
Baht
Q12. Please answer the following question.
□Do you use the paratransit at the raining day?
1. Yes
/
2. No
□When you would like to visit a new. If paratransit waiting at soi entrance, Do you use it unconditionally?
1. Yes
/
2. No
□If Taxi meter introduce for paratransit, What do you think about?
1.Agree (
)/2.Disagree(
)
Q13. Please answer the following question. Why are you not using the paratransit?
1. House near to Steer
4. Hot
7. can walk for distance
2. Not convenience
5. Expensive
8. Family Pick-up and Drop-off convenient
more than soi bike
3. unkindness service
6. not safe
9. Etc. (specify) (____________________)
Q14.Free comment for driver
- 180 -
資料 2
Questionnaire for driver
Please read the questions carefully and then answer the whole following questions by filling in the blanks and/or select the
correct choices.
Q1. Please answer the following question: What kind of schedule do you work? (Weekday and Weekend)
Start time
Schedule №
Week day 1
Week day 2
Week day 3
Week end 1
Week end 2
Finish time
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
How many times do you work
this time schedule?
Times
Times
Times
Times
Times
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
AM / PM
Q2. Please answer the following question: How many times do you average service a day? (Each
schedule)
Day data
Week day 1
Week day 2
Week day 3
Week end 1
Week end 2
Total service Times
Soi entrance →Inner soi
Inner soi → Soi Entrance
Out of soi
Q3. Please answer the following question: How much are you get the average service fee a day？(Each
schedule)
1.
~99Bath
2.100~149Bath
3.150~199Bath
4.200~249Bath
1.
~99Bath
2.100~149Bath
3.150~199Bath
4.200~249Bath
1.
~99Bath
2.100~149Bath
3.150~199Bath
4.200~249Bath
1.
~99Bath
2.100~149Bath
3.150~199Bath
4.200~249Bath
1.
~99Bath
2.100~149Bath
3.150~199Bath
4.200~249Bath
Week day 1
5.250~299Bath
6.300~349Bath
Week day 2
5.250~299Bath
6.300~349Bath
Week day 3
5.250~299Bath
6.300~349Bath
Week end 1
5.250~299Bath
6.300~349Bath
Week end 2
5.250~299Bath
6.300~349Bath
7.350~399Bath
8.400~449Bath
9.450~500Bath
10.500Bath~ (
)
7.350~399Bath
8.400~449Bath
9.450~500Bath
10.500Bath~ (
)
7.350~399Bath
8.400~449Bath
9.450~500Bath
10.500Bath~ (
)
7.350~399Bath
8.400~449Bath
9.450~500Bath
10.500Bath~ (
)
7.350~399Bath
8.400~449Bath
9.450~500Bath
10.500Bath~ (
)
Q4. Please answer the following question: Who decide the service area？
1. Head
2. Government
3. Discuss with group
4. Passenger
5. Driver
6. Etc. (specify)
Q4-1. Please answer the following question: Are you satisfied the existing service area?
Yes
／
No(The reason why?:
- 181 -
Q5. Please answer the following question: Who decide the service fee?
1. Head
2. Government
3. Discuss with group
4. Passenger
5. Driver
6. Etc. (specify)
Q5-1. Please answer the following question: Are you satisfied the existing service fee?
Yes
No
→Q6
How much do you want to get the additional service fee every one service?
1.1~2Bath
3.4~6Bath
5.8~10Bath
7.12~14Bath
9.16~20Bath
2.2~4Bath
4.6~8Bath
6.10~12Bath
8.14~16Bath
Etc. (specify)
Q6. Please answer the following question: How much are you need to the cost that keep going the
service?
Q6.1 Cost: Do you have the own vehicle?
□Yes (How to pay for the cost?) Lump-sum
Bath / Loan
(Bath / week / month / year / other (
)
(How to hire the motorcycle?)
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
Q6.2 Insurance cost
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
Q6.3 Registration cost
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
Q6.4 Maintenance cost
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
Q6.5 Other cost (please write yourself)
( Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
Q6.6 Other cost (please write yourself)
( Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
))
□No
Q6.7 Average gasoline cost
week day
Q6.8 Average gasoline cost
week end
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
(Bath / day / week / month / year / other (
Q.7 Actually how much do you want to earn a day?
))
))
Bath
Q8. If the gasoline price rises, how do you do it?
1.Raise of the fare
3. Reduce the number of service
5. Increases the number of service
2. Stop bike service
4. Reduce the working hour
6. Increase the working hour
7.Reduce the price
Increases passenger
8. Etc. (specify)
and
Q9. If a new route is reclaimed, does it service newly?
Yes
No(The
／
why?:
)
Q10. Dose the soi group has the limitation the number of service or service time a day??
Yes
Number of service time No, no limitation of service
Hours
Q11. Free comment for government, police and passenger.
- 182 -
reason
資料 3
แบบสอบถามสําหรับผูใชรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
โปรดอานคําถามแตละขออยางละเอียด กอนที่จะตอบคําถาม โดยการเติมคําตอบ และ/หรือ เลือกคําตอบที่เหมาะสมที่สุด
1. โปรดระบุ อายุ เพศ และรายไดของคุณ
อายุ
............ป
เพศ
1. ชาย
2. หญิง
รายได (บาท/เเดือน)
3. 6,000 - 9,999
5. 14,000 - 17,999
4. 10,000 - 13,999
6. 18,000 - 21,999
1. ไมมีรายได
2. นอยกวา 6,000
7. 22,000 - 25,999
8. มากกวา 26,000
2. โปรดระบุอาชีพของคุณ
1. ขาราชการ
4. แมบาน
5. งานชํานาญเฉพาะดาน(อาจารย
แพทย วิศวกร ทนายความ)
2. พนักงานบริษัท
3. เจาของกิจการสวนตัว
6. นักศึกษามหาวิทยาลัย
7. นักเรียนมัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย
10. นักเรียนประถมศึกษา
8. นักเรียนมัธยมศึกษาตอนตน
11. วางงาน
9. นักศึกษาเทคนิค/อาชีวะ
12. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ
(........................................)
3. คุณมีใบขับขี่และยานพาหนะสวนบุคคลหรือไม
1. ใบขับขี่รถยนตสวนบุคคล
มี
ไมมี
2. ใบชับขี่รถจักรยานยนตสวนบุคคล
มี
ไมมี
2. รถยนตสวนบุคคล
มี (โปรดระบุจํานวน............)
ไมมี
4. รถจักรยานยนตสวนบุคคล
มี (โปรดระบุจํานวน............)
ไมมี
4. ปกติคุณใชบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจางหรือไม
ใช
→ ไปทําตอขอ 4-1.
ไมใช
→ ขามไปทําตอขอ 13.
4-1. คุณใชรถจักรยานยนตรับจางบอยแคไหน
1. ทุกวัน
2. 1 วันตอสัปดาห
3. 2 วันตอสัปดาห
4. 3 วันตอสัปดาห
5. 4 วันตอสัปดาห
6. 5 วันตอสัปดาห
7. 6 วันตอสัปดาห
8. นานๆครั้ง
9. ทุกวันไปทํางาน หรือ วันไปเรียน (โปรดระบุ....................ครั้งตอสัปดาห)
5. คุณใชจักรยานยนตรับจางเพื่อวัตถุประสงคอะไร (ถาคุณมีหลายจุดประสงค โปรดระบุทั้งหมด)
1. ไปถึงบริษัท
4. ไปถึงซอยอื่น
7. กลับถึงบาน
10. ไปซื้อสินคา (ตลาด)
2. ไปถึงโรงเรียน
5. ไปถึงปายรถประจําทาง
8. สงสินคา
11. ไปซื้อสินคา (มินิสโตร/หางสรรพสินคา)
3. ไปถึงถนนใหญ
6. ไปถึงสถานีบีทีเอส/รถไฟใตดิน
9. เรียกแทกซี่
12. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ (........................................)
6. คุณจายคาบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจางเทาไหรและ ทําไมคุณถึงเลือกใชบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
คุณจายคาโดยสารรถจักรยานยนตรับจางเทาไหร
(เฉลี่ย)
.......... บาท
เหตุผลที่คุณเลือกใชรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง (ถามีมากกวา 1 เหตุผล โปรดระบุทั้งหมด)
1.
ไมมียานพาหนะอื่นเปนทางเลือก
4. สะดวก
2. ลดเวลาเดินทาง
5. ปลอดภัย
3. มีสัมภาระหนัก
6. ประหยัด
7. คุณพอใจกับอัตราคาโดยสารปจจุบันของรถจักรยานยนตรับจางหรือไม
พอใจ → ไปทําตอขอ 8.
ไมพอใจ → กรุณาระบุอัตราคาโดยสารที่คุณพอใจ (............................................บาท)
- 183 -
7. สะดวกกวาใหคนทางบานมารับ
- สง
8.
ไมตองการเดินเปนระยะทางไกลๆ
9. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ
(.......................................)
8. ถาอัตราคาโดยสารเพิ่มขึ้นจากอัตราปจจุบัน คุณจะเลือกใชรถจักรยานยนตรับจางตอไปหรือไม
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 1-3 บาท
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
3. ลดจํานวนการใชลง
(โปรดระบุจํานวนครั้งที่ลดลง...............................)
4. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ..................................)
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 4-5 บาท
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 6-7 บาท
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 8-9 บาท
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 10-15 บาท
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
ถาเพิ่มขึ้น 16 บาท หรือ มากกวา
1. ยังใช
2. เลิกใช
9. ยานพาหนะชนิดไหนคือยานพาหนะหลักในการเดินทางของคุณ (หลังจากลงจากจักรยานยนตรับจาง)
1. รถประจําทาง
2. มินิบัส
3. รถประจําทางปรับอากาศ
4. แท็กซี่
5. จักรยานยนต
6. บีทเี อส หรือ รถไฟฟาใตดิน
7. เดิน
8. ตุก ตุก
9. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ (............................................)
10. คุณจายคาโดยสารของยานพาหนะหลักเทาไหรและ ทําไมคุณถึงเลือกใชยานพาหนะหลักประเภทนี้
คุณจายคาโดยสารรถจักรยานยนตรับจางเท
าไหร (เฉลี่ย)
.......... บาท
เหตุผลที่คุณเลือกใชรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง (ถามีมากกวา 1 เหตุผล โปรดระบุทั้งหมด)
1. ไมมียานพาหนะอื่นเปนทางเลือก
4. สะดวก
7. สะดวกกวาใหคนทางบานมารับ - สง
2. ลดเวลาเดินทาง
5. ปลอดภัย
8. ไมตองการเดินเปนระยะทางไกลๆ
3. มีสัมภาระหนัก
6. ประหยัด
9. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ
(..................................)
11. คุณเสียคาใชจายเพื่อใชบริการ การขนสง UเดือนUละเทาไหร
รถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
...............................บาท
ยานพาหนะหลัก
...............................บาท
12. โปรดตอบคําถามดานลางนี้
□ คุณใชับริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจางในวันฝนตกหรือไม
1. ใช
/
2. ไมใช
□ ในกรณีที่คุณตองไปหา ใครซักคนที่บานอยูในซอยอื่น คุณจะเลือกใชวิธีไหนในการตามหาบานของคนคนนั้น
1. ใชับริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
/
2. เดินตามหา
□ ถารถแทกซี่ถูกใชแทนรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง คุณมีความเห็นอยางไรบาง
1. เห็นดวย เพราะ (...........................................................................................................)
2. ไมเห็นดวย เพราะ (........................................................................................................)
13. ทําไมปกติคุณถึงไมใชบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง (ถามีมากกวา 1 เหตุผล โปรดระบุทั้งหมด)
1. ปกติใชยานพาหนะประเภทอื่น
4. รอน
7. บานอยูใกลถนนใหญ
2. ไมสะดวก
5. แพง
8. ใหคนที่บานมารับ –
สงสะดวกกวาใชบริการจักรยานยนตรับจาง
3. บริการไมสุภาพ
6. ไมปลอดภัย
9. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ (........................................)
14. โปรดเสนอความคิดเห็นและขอเสนอแนะเพิ่มเติมตอการใหบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
- 184 -
資料 4
แบบสอบถามสําหรับคนขับรถจักรยานยนตรับจาง
โปรดอานคําถามแตละขออยางละเอียดกอนที่จะตอบคําถาม โดยการเติมคําตอบ และ/หรือ เลือกคําตอบที่เหมาะสมที่สุด
1. คุณมีตารางการทํางานแบบไหน (วันทํางานปกติ จันทร-ศุกรและ วันหยุดสุดสัปดาห เสาร-อาทิตย)
ตารางลําดับที่
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 1
เวลาเริ่มทํางาน
เชา / เย็น
เวลาเลิกงาน
เชา / เย็น
จํานวนครั้งที่คุณออกใหบริการระหวางตารางการทํางานนี้
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 2
เชา / เย็น
เชา / เย็น
ครั้ง
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 3
เชา / เย็น
เชา / เย็น
ครั้ง
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 1
เชา / เย็น
เชา / เย็น
ครั้ง
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 2
เชา / เย็น
เชา / เย็น
ครั้ง
ครั้ง
2. จํานวนครั้งเฉลี่ยที่คุณออกใหบริการตอวัน (ในแตละตารางเวลา)
ตารางลําดับที่
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 1
จํานวนครั้งการออกใหบริการทั้งหมด
ปากซอย → ในซอย
ในซอย → ปากซอย
ออกนอกซอย
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 2
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 3
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 1
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 2
3. คุณไดรับคาโดยสารเฉลี่ยกี่บาทตอวัน (ในแตละตารางทํางาน)
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
~ 99 บาท
100 ~ 149 บาท
~ 99 บาท
100 ~ 149 บาท
~ 99 บาท
100 ~ 149 บาท
~ 99 บาท
100 ~ 149 บาท
~ 99 บาท
100 ~ 149 บาท
3. 150 ~ 199 บาท
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 1
5. 250 ~ 299 บาท
7. 350 ~ 399 บาท
9. 450 ~ 499 บาท
4. 200 ~ 249 บาท
6. 300 ~ 349 บาท
10. 500 บาท ~ โปรดระบุ (......)
3. 150 ~ 199 บาท
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 2
5. 250 ~ 299 บาท
7. 350 ~ 399 บาท
9. 450 ~ 499 บาท
4. 200 ~ 249 บาท
6. 300 ~ 349 บาท
10. 500 บาท ~ โปรดระบุ (......)
3. 150 ~ 199 บาท
วันทํางานปกติรูปแบบที่ 3
5. 250 ~ 299 บาท
7. 350 ~ 399 บาท
9. 450 ~ 499 บาท
4. 200 ~ 249 บาท
6. 300 ~ 349 บาท
10. 500 บาท ~ โปรดระบุ (......)
3. 150 ~ 199 บาท
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 1
5. 250 ~ 299 บาท
7. 350 ~ 399 บาท
9. 450 ~ 499 บาท
4. 200 ~ 249 บาท
6. 300 ~ 349 บาท
10. 500 บาท ~ โปรดระบุ (......)
3. 150 ~ 199 บาท
วันหยุดสุดสัปดาหรูปแบบที่ 2
5. 250 ~ 299 บาท
7. 350 ~ 399 บาท
9. 450 ~ 499 บาท
4. 200 ~ 249 บาท
6. 300 ~ 349 บาท
10. 500 บาท ~ โปรดระบุ (......)
8. 400 ~ 449 บาท
8. 400 ~ 449 บาท
8. 400 ~ 449 บาท
8. 400 ~ 449 บาท
8. 400 ~ 449 บาท
4. ใครเปนคนกําหนดพื้นที่ใหบริการ
1. หัวหนา
3. การตกลงกันภายในกลุม
2. หนวยงานของรัฐ
4. ผูโดยสาร
5. ผูขับขี่
6. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ
(...................................................................)
4-1. คุณพอใจกับพื้นที่ใหบริการในปจจุบันหรือไม
พอใจ
/
ไมพอใจ เพราะ (โปรดระบุเหตุผล..............................................................................)
- 185 -
5. ใครเปนคนกําหนดอัตราคาโดยสาร
1. หัวหนา
3. การตกลงกันภายในกลุม
2. หนวยงานของรัฐ
4. ผูโดยสาร
5. ผูขับขี่
6. อื่นๆ โปรดระบุ
(...................................................................)
5-1. คุณพอใจกับอัตราคาโดยสารปจจุบันหรือไม
(ตามกฎหมายกําหนด ภายในระยะ 2 กิโลเมตรแรก อัตราคาโดยสารถูกกําหนดใหไวไมเกิน 25 บาท และหลังจากนั้นใหเพิ่มขึ้นกิโลเมตรละ 2 บาท)
พอใจ
→
ทําตอขอ 6
ไมพอใจ
1. 1 - 2 บาท
2. 2 - 4 บาท
คุณตองการใหอัตราคาโดยสารเพิ่มขึ้นอีกกี่บาทตอการใหบริการ 1 ครั้งถึงจะเปนที่พอใจ
3. 4 - 6 บาท
5. 8 - 10 บาท
7. 12 - 14 บาท
9. 16 - 20 บาท
4. 6 - 8 บาท
6. 10 - 12 บาท
8. 14 - 16 บาท
10. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ............)
6. คุณเสียคาใชจายทั้งหมดเทาไหรในการดําเนินการใหบริการจักรยานยนตรับจาง
6.1 ราคารถจักรยานยนต
คุณมีรถจักรยานยนตเปนของตัวเองหรือไม
□ มี (ซื้อมาราคาเทาไหร) จายสด...........บาท/ ผอน...........(บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (................))
□ไมมี (เชามาราคาเทาไหร) ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.2 คาประกัน ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.3 คาลงทะเบียน ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.4 คาบํารุงรักษา ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.5 คาอื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ.................................) ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.6 คาอื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ.................................) ...................... (บาท / สัปดาห / เดือน / ป / อื่นๆ (...............))
6.7 คาน้ํามันเฉลีย
่ ตอวัน (วันทํางานปกติ) ...................... บาท
6.8 คาน้ํามันเฉลีย
่ ตอวัน (วันหยุดสุดสัปดาห) ...................... บาท
7. ถาเปนไปไดคุณตองการมีรายไดจากการใหบริการเทาไหรตอวัน ......................บาท
8. ถาคาน้ํามันเพิม
่ คุณจะทําอยางไร
1. เพิ่มอัตราคาโดยสาร
2. หยุดใหบริการ
3. ลดจํานวนการใหบริการ
4. ลดเวลาการทํางาน
5. เพิ่มจํานวนการใหบริการ
6. เพิม
่ เวลาการทํางาน
7. ลดราคาอัตราคาโดยสาร
8. อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ.....................................)
9. ถามีเสนทางเปดใหบริการรถจักรยานยนตรับจางใหม คุณจะยายไปใหบริการที่ใหมหรือวายังตองการอยูที่เดิม
- ตองการ (โปรดระบุเหตุผล.................................................................................)
- ไมตองการ (โปรดระบุเหตุผล.................................................................................)
10. ในวินของคุณไดกําหนดปริมาณรถใหบริการและกําหนดเวลาที่ใหบริการใน 1 วันหรือไม
กําหนด
ไมกําหนด (ไมจํากัดจํานวนและระยะเวลา)
จํานวนรถที่ใหบริการ..........................คัน
ชวงระยะเวลาใหบริการ..........................ชั่วโมง
11. คําแนะนําหรือขอเสนอแนะ ถึง หนวยงานของรัฐ ตํารวจหรือ ผูใชบริการ
- 186 -
16. タイ・バンコクにおける BRT 導入評価の概要
タイ・バンコクにおける BRT 導入評価の概要
1. はじめに
アジアの国々では都市交通体系の整備は道路ネットワークに力が注がれ、軌道系交通機
関の整備は遅れてきた。そのため、自動車交通が増加し、都市域全域で深刻な交通渋滞が
発生している。これにより、アジアの国々において移動に主に使用されるバス交通の定時
性が確保できない等の交通サービスの低下が問題となっている。そこで、幹線輸送を担う
代替交通機関として軌道系交通機関や本研究で対象とするバスを用いた高度な運行を行な
う Bus Rapid Transit（以下、BRT）の導入が検討されている。
しかしながら、BRT の輸送能力は信号制御方式や料金収受の方法等の様々な運行に関わ
る政策の有無によって異なるので、その導入効果についてはそれらの政策の組み合わせを
ミクロな観点から評価する必要がある。そこで、BRT 導入が検討されているタイ・バンコ
クを事例として、ミクロ交通シミュレーションソフト Paramics を用いて、BRT 導入におけ
る複数の政策を実施した場合の効果や影響を推計し、総合的に評価を行なう。
2. 現地調査の概要
対象地域：バンコク中心部から北東に約 15km 離れた場所に位置する BTS、Mo chit 駅を起
点とする BRT North Line 計画路線（図 1）
実施機関：2006 年 8 月 28 日∼9 月 6 日
現地調査実施者：大島良輔、金子翔一
シミュレーションモデル構築データの収集を行なうために 11 信号交差点と 4 立体交差の
入口部の計 15 地点を対象に現地調査を行なった。また、シミュレーションモデルの現況再
現性の検証データ収集を行なうため、既存立体交差部交通量、対象路線走行時の旅行時間
調査を行なった。なお、シミュレーションモデル構築対象時間帯は都心部から郊外への混
雑が現れると考えられる 16：00∼18：00 とした。
優先制御導入交差点３
ラムイントラ通り
パホンヨーティン
通り約5.8km
ナワミン通り
約3.3km
優先制御導入交差点２
MRT、パホンヨーティン駅
カセナワミン通り
優先制御導入交差点１
約10.3km
BTS、モチット駅
MRT、チャトゥチャックパーク駅
優先制御導入交差点４
：信号交差点
：優先制御導入信号交差点
至バンコク中心部
：立体交差導入箇所
図 1 調査対象路線
- 187 -
0m
500m 1000m
１km
現地調査の方法ならびに得られたデータの使用方法は次に示す通りである。
1）シミュレーションモデル構築データ
（1）信号制御状況の把握
11 信号交差点において、それぞれ 10 サイクルの青現示時間とクリアランスタイムを測
定し、その平均値を用いてシミュレーション構築時の信号現示時間として設定する。
（2）交差点形状の把握
North Line 計画案では各交差点の従道路側の車線数、道路幅員、直進・右左折別の車線
の利用状況が不明であったため、全ての信号交差点において踏査により交差点形状の把握
を行ない、その結果をシミュレーションモデルのネットワーク構築時に適用する。
（3）可変車線の運用状況の把握
Phahon Yothin 通りは可変車線が導入されているが、その車線運用が不詳であったため、
朝ラッシュ時間帯、昼間帯、夕ラッシュ時間帯のそれぞれの時間帯の Phahon Yothin 通りの
可変車線の車線運用を把握し、可変車線の路上マーキングの確認を行なった。今回、再現
対象時間を 16：00∼18：00 としたため、夕ラッシュ時間帯での運用状態をシミュレーショ
ンモデルでは使用する。
（4）直進・右左折別車種別交差点交通量調査（図 3）
各信号交差点にビデオカメラを設置し、交差点の通過交通量を撮影した。撮影した画像
から直進・右左折別、小型車、大型車、路線バス、バイクの 4 車種別の交差点交通量を計
測した。この調査結果を元に各交差点の右左折率を算出した。
図 2 シミュレーション実行画面
- 188 -
2）シミュレーションモデルの現況再現性の検証データ
（1）既存立体交差部交通量の把握（図 4）
立体交差 1 から 4 の既存の立体交差部の交通量の調査をビデオ撮影により行なった。撮
影した画像から立体交差側・側道側別、小型車、大型車、路線バス、バイクの 4 車種別の
交通量を計測した。このデータをもとに、計測交通量とシミュレーションから得られる交
通量の比較を行い、シミュレーションモデルの現況再現性の確認を行った。
（2）旅行時間
シミュレーションモデル構築後の現況再現性の確認を行なうため、本研究で対象とする
時間帯である夕方 16：00∼18：00 の旅行時間を調査した。調査方法は対象路線をタクシー
で走行し、その際に各交差点やランドマークとなる地点を通過した時刻の記録を行なう。
上下方向を同一時間帯に走行し、また同時にビデオ撮影により、混雑状況の把握を行なっ
た。
図3
交差点交通量調査
図4
立体交差部交通量調査
3. ミクロ交通シミュレーションを用いた評価シナリオの設定
現地調査により得たデータを用いてシミュレーションモデルの構築を行なった。そして、
バス停での乗車前課金システムと優先信号戦略の 2 つの政策を組み合わせた 4 つの評価シ
ナリオの設定を行なった。表 1 に評価シナリオを示す。なお、BRT のみが走行できるバス
専用レーンは対象路線全線に設置し、全てのシナリオで導入した。
表1
評価シナリオ
シナリオ
１
２
３
４
バス専用レーン
○
○
○
○
優先信号制御 乗車前課金システム
×
×
○
×
×
○
○
○
（1）乗車前課金システムの概要
BRT の乗車前にバス停で運賃の精算を行うことで、乗降時間が短縮できる Off-board 方
- 189 -
式と、乗降時間は長くなるが設備費用が小さい On-board 方式の両者を政策として導入し
た。
（2）優先信号戦略の概要
優先信号戦略は、BRT が信号交差点を優先して走行できるように、赤信号は短縮、青信
号は延長するように設定を行なった。BRT 路線内で特に混雑が激しい 4 信号交差点で政策
を導入した（導入地点は、図 1 参照）。
4. シミュレーション結果
構築したシミュレーションモデルを用いて、分析を行なうにあたり、シミュレーション
モデルの現況再現性の検証を行なった。検証は対象路線全線の旅行時間の比較にて行なっ
た。その結果、現地調査で得られた旅行時間が 57 分 24 秒、シミュレーションモデルでの
旅行時間の推計値が 57 分 34 秒となった。このことから構築したシミュレーションモデル
は現況に近いものであると考えられる。
構築したシミュレーションモデルを用いて、BRT と一般車の上り、下り（都心方向が上
り）方向の旅行時間の推計を行なった。図 5、図 6 に推計結果を示す。その結果、乗車前
課金システムよりも優先信号戦略を導入したシナリオ 3 で BRT の旅行時間がより短縮され
る結果となった。さらに、2 つの政策を同時に行なうことで最も効果が表れ、一般車に与
える影響も抑えられることが示された。
上りに比べ、下りの旅行時間が短いという結果が得られた理由として、一部交差点にお
いて青現示待ち時間が異なること、Phahon Yothin 通りの可変車線が下り方向に対して優遇
60
60
55
55
50
50
45
45
40
凡例
35
下り方向
上り方向
30
25
20
15
平均旅行時間（分）
平均旅行時間（分）
している時間帯を調査対象時間としたことが考えられる。
40
35
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
凡例
下り方向
上り方向
30
0
シナリオ１
シナリオ２
シナリオ３
シナリオ４
下り方向平均旅行時間（分）
上り方向平均旅行時間（分）
図5
シナリオ１
53.3
56.0
シナリオ２
51.6
55.3
シナリオ１
シナリオ２
シナリオ３
シナリオ４
シミュレーションシナリオ別
シミュレーションシナリオ別
シナリオ３
49.6
50.3
シナリオ４
48.0
48.3
下り方向平均旅行時間（分）
上り方向平均旅行時間（分）
BRT の平均旅行速度
シナリオ１
57.2
58.8
シナリオ２
56.7
58.2
シナリオ３
56.6
58.2
図 6 一般車の平均旅行速度
- 190 -
シナリオ４
54.9
56.1
非売品
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
エコロジカルな都市幹線交通システムの
開発途上国での普及戦略の実証的研究
報 告 書
発行日
平成 19 年 3 月
発行所
財団法人 国際交通安全学会
東京都中央区八重洲 2-6-20 〒104-0028
電話/03(3273)7884
FAX/03(3272)7054
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
許可なく転載を禁じます。