See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329999490

Integration of Paratransit into Feeder Bus Services for the Rawalpindi-

Islamabad Metro Bus Rapid Transit System in Pakistan

Article · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

6 1,218

2 authors, including:

Abu Baker Khan

Ritsumeikan University
7 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abu Baker Khan on 30 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 地域情報研究：立命館大学地域情報研究所紀要
7:97-107 (2018)
■研究ノート

Integration of Paratransit into Feeder Bus Services for the Rawalpindi-Islamabad

Metro Bus Rapid Transit System in Pakistan

Abu Baker Rafat Khan1 , Kimiko Shiki 2 *

Abstract: This paper proposes an empirical research plan to examine the conditions of feeder services that access
the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Metropolitan Area (RIMA). The Rawalpindi-
Islamabad BRT is a publicly operated express bus system established in 2015 and currently operating only one
route between the cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. This brand-new BRT system is equipped with high
technology features. However, just outside the stations, there are no formal bus services and only unreliable
informal paratransit services available to reach the BRT system. Such a lack of reliable formal feeder services
may cause potential BRT passengers to prefer privately operated vehicles like cars or motorbikes. The existent
literature shows the general reliance of RIMA residents on paratransit services for daily city travel and their
dissatisfaction with and distrust of these services. Our empirical research in RIMA, scheduled in February to
March 2018, will specifically focus on paratransit and feeder bus services to access the BRT stations. We will
conduct pre-interview surveys on the reliance of BRT passengers on paratransit as feeder services and will
interview public officials about current policy status of regulating paratransit or launching formal bus services.
More narrow and comprehensive research is scheduled in September 2018.

Keywords: Bus Rapid Transit, Paratransit, Feeder Bus Services

I. Introduction

Many transport authorities in developing cities have installed a bus rapid transit (BRT) system
as a cost-effective alternative to rail transport (ITDP, 2014). According to the 2018 Global BRT
data, more than 160 cities have installed BRT due to its affordability and potential for stimulating
urban growth. In Pakistan as well, transport authorities are introducing BRT systems in major cities.
The local development authorities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad have collaborated to establish the
Rawalpindi and Islamabad (RI) BRT in 2015 following the nation’s first BRT installation in Lahore
in 2013. However, lack of reliable feeder bus services makes it difficult for passengers to access
BRT stations. Currently, informal paratransit is providing feeder services for passengers to access
the RI BRT stations. Such paratransit services as Qingqi, Suzuki pickups and Hiace are low-quality
and low-capacity and do not seem to be winning the trust of the passengers.
The availability of reliable feeder bus services is an integral part of the BRT system (Wright
and Hook, 2007). The existing literature has examined the relationships of informal paratransit
services with mass transit systems including bus and railway services. Studies of Dhaka (Shafiq-

* 1 Master’s Student, Graduate School of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University

2 Associate Professor, Graduate School of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University
Ur-Rehman, Timms, & Montgomery, 2012) and Bangkok (Tangphaisankun, Nakamura, & Okamura,
2010) showed difficulty in integrating paratransit with mass transit services because of complex
station designs needed for integrated operation and commuters’ distrust of paratransit in general.
In contrast, Bogota has successfully provided formal public feeder bus services by banning and
replacing paratransit operators after initially failing to formalize paratransit as a feeder service into
the BRT system (Salazar & Behrents, 2013).
How can reliable feeder bus services be provided to enhance transportation access to BRT
stations in RIMA, the nation’s capital region? Currently, there are no publicly operated bus services
in RIMA. Can paratransit services be improved, formalized or integrated as reliable BRT feeder
services? Or are the local governments of Rawalpindi and Islamabad aware of this problem and are
they planning to provide formal feeder bus services in the future? To answer these questions, we
will conduct exploratory research to understand the transportation access conditions of passengers
to the BRT stations and current policy status of regulating paratransit or launching formal bus
services.
In the following sections of this paper, we will first provide a brief overview of the RIMA
BRT system and its feeder service problem. Then, we will review the problems of paratransit
services and residents’ use and perception of these services by relying on studies conducted by
Adeel et.al (2014 & 2016). More detailed description of our empirical research on paratransit and
BRT feeder services are provided at the end.

II. Rawalpindi-Islamabad BRT and Feeder Bus Service Problem

Rawalpindi and Islamabad are known as twin cities, which together make up the third largest
metropolitan area in the country, the Rawalpindi and Islamabad Metropolitan Area or RIMA.
According to the census of 2017, the population of RIMA is a little more than three million.
Rawalpindi is considered highly dense and has mixed land use, with most of the areas being
commercially and residentially bound together. By contrast, Islamabad is a master-planned city that
hosts several federal offices and that has well-developed roads and structures. Approximately
500,000 trips are made daily between these cities for employment, school, and entertainment
purposes (CDA, 2012).
As Table 1 shows, the BRT system in Pakistan was first completed in Lahore in 2013, with
systems in other cities completed, under construction, and planned. All the BRT systems in Pakistan
are planned and operated by provincial transport authorities. The RI BRT system, also known as the
RI Metro Bus System, was opened in 2015, and operated as a branch of the Metro Bus Authority
located in Rawalpindi. This formal transportation system is a collaborative project between the
Rawalpindi Development Authority (RDA), which manages development projects in the Rawalpindi
area, and the Capital Development Authority (CDA), which manages development in the Islamabad
area. The 22.5 km BRT corridor runs between Rawalpindi and Islamabad (from Saddar to Pakistan
Secretariat) and consists of 24 stations, as shown in Figure 1.
 Table 1. BRT Construction Status in Pakistan
Year of
Construction No. of Length
City Operators Expected
Status Stations (km)
Operation
Lahore Lahore Metro Bus 2013 Complete 27 27
Rawalpindi- Rawalpindi-Islamabad
2015 Complete 24 22.5
Islamabad Metro Bus
Multan Multan Metro Bus 2017 Complete 21 18.2
Under
Karachi Karachi Metro Bus 2017 90 109
Construction
Faisalabad Faisalabad Metro Bus 2017 Planned 18 30
Under
Peshawar Peshawar Metro Bus 2018 30 30
Construction
S ource: Kashif (2015) for Lahore BRT, NESPAK (2015) for Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Multan BRTs, ADP
(2017) for Karachi and Peshawar BRTs, and Daily Times 2018 for Faisalabad BRT.

Islamabadz Pak. Secretariat Station

Length: 23 km;
24 Stations

Rawalpindi Saddar Station

Figure 1. Route of RI BRT corridor and 24 stations

Base Map Source: Google

Table 2 summarizes the evaluation results of BRT features for the Lahore BRT studied by Kashif
(2015) and the RI BRT by one of the authors (Khan, 2017). The table draws upon the BRT Standards
for 2014 (ITDP, 2014), which is the most widely used assessment model for BRT systems around the
world. In the table, the 2014 BRT standard shows the full points that can be given to each feature
evaluated, and the points given to Lahore and RI according to the BRT Standard guideline. The
percentage values are obtained by dividing each point value by the corresponding standard full point
value. There are six major evaluation categories: Basic BRT, Station Design, Communication System,
Structure and Organization, Service Planning, and Accessibility (and its subcategories). The
percentage values for Lahore and RI BRTs are illustrated in Figure 2. As Figure 2 shows, compared
to the Lahore BRT system, the RI BRT system is slightly better in terms of Basic BRT, Station Design,
 Table 2. Points Given to Service Attributes of BRT in Lahore and RI
According to BRT Standards 2014
BRT
Standard Lahore
Lahore RI BRT RI BRT
Element Evaluated BRT (A) (B) (Full BRT (B/C)
Points) (A/C)
(C)
1. Basic BRT 33 38 38 86.8% 100.0%
2. Design of Station 4 8 10 40.0% 80.0%
3. Communication
4 4 5 80.0% 80.0%
System
4. Structure and
3 7 14 21.4% 50.0%
Organization
5. Planning of Services 9 9 19 47.4% 47.4%
6. Accessibility 3 6 14 21.4% 42.9%
Access for Everyone
3 6 6 50.0% 100.0%
including Pedestrians
Bicycle Parking,
Bicycle lanes and 0 0 5 0.0% 0.0%
sharing integration
Other Public Transport
0 0 3 0.0% 0.0%
Integration
Source: ITDP (2014) for BRT Standards 2014, Kashif (2015) for Lahore BRT, and Khan (2017) for RI BRT.

Accessibility 42.9% Rawalpindi-

21.4% Islamabad BRT
47.4% Lahore BRT
Planning of Services
47.4%

Structure and Organization 50.0%

21.4%
80.0%
Communication System 80.0%

Design of Station 80.0%

40.0%

Basic BRT 100.0%

86.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Figure 2. Analysis of BRT Service Attributes in Lahore and RI

According to the BRT Standards 2014
Source: Data taken from Kashif (2015) for Lahore BRT, Khan (2017) for RI BRT, and ITDP (2014) for BRT
Standards 2014.

Structure and Organization, and Accessibility. In addition, both systems were given the same points
in Service Planning and Communication System. However, Accessibility is by far the lowest
performing category in either city.
Table 2 also illustrates the points for the detailed components of Accessibility. It shows that
Accessibility was given the lowest points due to lack of bicycle lanes and parking areas near the BRT
stations. More importantly, no other public transportation is integrated with the BRT system,
indicating no formal feeder bus services. Thus, such limited transportation accessibility makes it
difficult for those living in the remote areas to commute to workplaces or educational institutions by
using the BRT in both cities.
This vacuum created by lack of formal feeder bus services is filled by informal paratransit
services that connect passengers from their origins to the main BRT stations. However, these
paratransit services are of poor quality and low-capacity, pricey, unregulated and unmonitored (Adeel
et al., 2014). They do not seem like attractive and reliable feeders to BRT stations for those who can
afford to own cars and motorbikes, particularly in an increasingly car-oriented metropolitan area like
RIMA.

III. Problems with Transit/Paratransit Services and Daily Travel in RIMA

Lack of reliable feeder services seems to vitiate the attractiveness of the RI BRT system, and
this lack is connected with the general absence of reliable transit services in RIMA. In RIMA, there
are no subways and commuter trains, and no publically operated bus services other than the RI BRT.
Transit for daily needs is provided solely by private paratransit operators. In this section, we will
review existing literature on problems with transit services and residents’ daily travel activities in
RIMA by employing the studies by Adeel et al. (2014; 2016).

III.1 Problems with Transit/Paratransit Services

Adeel et al. (2014) researched transit services in RIMA by communicating with transport
officials, gathering reports from Islamabad Transport Authority (ITA) and Rawalpindi Transport
Authority (RTA), and consulting online street maps. Table 3 summarizes their research findings that
illustrate the characteristics and problems for different types of paratransit and BRT services in
RIMA.

Table 3. Comparison of Problems and Components Between RI BRT and Paratransit

Problems Components Qingqi/Rickshaw Suzuki/Wagon RI BRT
Status Unauthorized Legal Legal
Government Role Prohibitional Regular Promotional
Regulatory Cities Rawalpindi Both Both
Priority Least Normal High
Fare Subsidy No No Yes
Population Restricted Highest Medium
Service Location Inner city Main roads Main corridor
Spatial
Movability in
Higher Lower Highest
Congestion
Travel Speed Low High High
Social,
Work and
Usage Purpose educational, Work
education
connecting trips
Demand
Service Frequency Medium High High
Off Peak Availability Poor Poor Good
Route Completion Yes No Yes
Accidents Higher Higher Lowest
Source: Adeel et al. (2014).
 According to their study, Qingqi and rickshaws face high regulatory hurdles as they are not
authorized to run on streets. They run in the inner areas of Rawalpindi, but are completely banned
and in Islamabad. Passengers give paratransit the least priority because of its poor quality, small size,
no separate compartments for female passengers, poorly maintained and old vehicles, and many
safety and security concerns. This is because no subsidies are coming from the local government,
which has declared paratransit as prohibited transport. In addition, fares are not regulated, leading
to much contention among local transport authorities, public transport operators and the passengers.
Hiace and Suzuki have been taking advantage of such unregulated fare structures and charging the
passengers whatever they please. They also compete to get passengers, resulting in reckless driving,
long waiting times, congestion and accidents.
RI’s BRT, on the other hand, is a highly developed formal transport. Adeel et al. (2014) state
that the RI BRT has been promoted by the local governments of RIMA for its better performance in
terms of high capacity (160 passengers), frequent availability, speed, less waiting-time and modern
vehicles. Females often choose BRT to travel because it has separate compartments, comfortable
seats, and spacious standing room owning to the large vehicle size. Regular subsidies from the
government have resulted in extensive bus infrastructure that ensures the safety and security of the
passengers. Despite a few financial and operational issues, the demand for BRT remains high.
The authors’ research shows that three-quarters of the population live beyond walking distance
of transit service, resulting in very low access for the population. Forty-one, 61 and 81% of the
population are not able to reach any transit services within five, ten, and twenty minutes of walking
distance, respectively. Hiace covers 80% of the population within a fifteen minute of walk distance.
However, a large proportion of the population is still underserved by the transit services leaving
paratransit to transport 13% of the population in RIMA. Similarly, the formal BRT in RIMA covers
only 8% of the population who live within a ten-minute walk, and around 85% live more than twenty
minutes from the nearest station. On the bright side, almost all the residents in the Rawalpindi area
are able to reach some mode of transit within twenty minutes of walking as compared to the 70% of
the population in the Islamabad area.

III.2 Problems with Daily Travel

Adeel et al. (2016) conducted an empirical survey on the transportation disadvantaged

population and examined activity exclusion of those who live in various parts of RIMA. Their
findings show that only 26% of men travel daily for work and education purposes, while only 11%
of women travel for work and 2% for education. Around 78% men are reported travelling for religious
duties as compared to only 2% of the women. Similarly, fewer women than men can operate a car or
motorbike, leaving them dependent on male family members to help them commute. Also, heir study
finds that 82% of women use private vehicles for work and 77% for education, while only 34% of
men do so for either activity. Furthermore, 96% of men in the underdeveloped part of the study area
prefer to walk for religious duties and 58% are reported walking to work as compared to 8% of the
women. This disparity seems to arise from women’s lack of trust in paratransit. There are no separate
compartments for women and harassment is a real fear.
In addition, the authors find that the cost of transit services is a major concern for 57% of the
respondents, with distance to the bus, availability, and wait times a problem for 35-42%. The low-
income population reported spending around Rs 3000 ($27) a month on transit services, while people
who live in suburban areas, farther away from work or school, reported spending around Rs 5000
($45) a month. Though men expressed more concerns due to their frequent use of transit services,
female respondents had concerns about harassment (even a slight touch from a strange man) and the
discomfort of using transit for long distance travel. Similarly, people who live in the developed areas
of RIMA and who have high incomes of around Rs 100,000 ($980), reported to spending around Rs
20,000 ($190) per month on transit. This shows that the low-income population spends a higher
proportion of its earnings on transit as compared to the higher-income population. Therefore, many
people cut back on activities that depend on using transit. As the dissatisfaction on transit services
keeps increasing, people either buy automobiles or find jobs that are within walking distance from
their homes.

IV. Empirical Research Plan on BRT Feeder Conditions and Planning Status

A lack of formal transit services has resulted in the growth of both paratransit and private
vehicles. Unregulated paratransit services are often highly unreliable, uncomfortable, and
unpredictable, which markedly increases the dissatisfaction of the passengers (Adeel et al., 2016).
Adeel et al. (2014) stress the need to enhance transportation accessibility by establishing integrated
formal feeder bus services to the RI BRT system. However, both Adeel’s studies in 2014 and 2016
focused on studying general transportation problems with paratransit services and residents’ travel
activities in RIMA. In our research, therefore, we would like to place a specific focus on empirically
studying the conditions of feeder bus services, which at present are only available via paratransit, to
the RI BRT stations.
Considering the current transit service conditions in RIMA, where there is no publicly operated
bus service, it may sound too unrealistic to propose placing formal bus services in the metropolitan
streets at this moment. However, there might be increasing demand from residents and policy
makers/planners, who are certainly concerned by worsening traffic congestion, to at least enhance
feeder services and support this brand new public transportation project of the RI BRT.
Can paratransit services be improved, formalized, or integrated as reliable BRT feeder services
(as has been tried in Dhaka and Bangkok and, unfortunately, appears to be failing (Shafiq-Ur-
Rehman, Timms, & Montgomery, 2012; Tangphaisankun, Nakamura, & Okamura, 2010))? Or are
the local governments of Rawalpindi and Islamabad aware of this feeder problem and are they
planning to provide formal bus services in the future, as in the successful case in Bogota (Salazar
& Behrents, 2013)? To investigate these questions, we will conduct exploratory research to
understand the transportation access of passengers to the BRT stations and current policy status of
regulating paratransit or launching formal bus services. More specifically, our empirical
qualitative-based research, scheduled for February to March 2018 in RIMA, will address the
following four questions.

Q1: What is the policy/planning status of improving transit services, and in particular BRT feeder
services?
Q2: What are the business conditions of paratransit operators and their opinions on improving transit
services, possibly regulating or formalizing their services?
Q3: How do BRT passengers access the BRT stations?
Q4: How are residents commuting between Rawalpindi and Islamabad? For what reasons do people
choose private automobiles over BRT?

Building from the findings of this exploratory research, we plan to conduct more narrow and
comprehensive research scheduled in September 2018. In the following subsections, a detailed
methodological description is provided for each of the four questions.

IV.1 Interviews with Transportation Planning Organizations

Q1: What is the policy/planning status of improving transit services, and in particular BRT feeder
services?

Table 4 summarizes the transportation planning organizations we plan to interview and the
purposes of these interviews in our research. Interviews will be conducted at local government offices
such as Rawalpindi Development Authority (RDA) and Capital Development Authority (CDA), the
Metro Bus Authority branch office located near the Saddar BRT station, and National Engineering
Services Pakistan (NESPAK), which is the consultant company of the RI BRT project. Questions will
address the formalization of paratransit service, the introduction of formal feeder bus services, and
the improvement of paratransit services such as Qingqi and rickshaws. Similarly, interviews will be
conducted at the metro bus authority branch office with BRT experts to gather information on
ridership data, GIS and shape files, and plans to expand the main corridors of RI BRT. Next,

Table 4. Interview Targets and Purposes for Transportation Planning Organizations in RIMA
Organization Description Purpose Data Collection
For information regarding
Rawalpindi Development RDA manages development
current and future policies Population distribution
Authority (RDA) in Rawalpindi and CDA
for improving the quality in RIMA, maps of road
Capital Development manages development in
of paratransit and road networks in RIMA
Authority (CDA), Islamabad
networks.
The organization that For information on plans
Ridership data, GIS
operates the RI BRT, located for installing feeder bus
Metro Bus Authority maps, shape files of RI
in Rawalpindi near Saddar services and expanding the
BRT
BRT station BRT network in RIMA
National Engineering For information regarding Documents that show
Consultant company of the
Services Pakistan future BRT projects in current policy status,
RI BRT project
(NESPAK) RIMA drafts, maps
interviews with key informants at NESPAK will gather regional spatial data, population distribution,
and any other relevant available data. All the interviews will be audio-recorded for further analysis.

IV.2 Interviews with Paratransit Operators

Q2: What are the business systems and conditions of paratransit operators and their opinions on
improving transit services, possibly regulating or formalizing their services?

Interviews will be conducted of rickshaw and Qingqi-pullers, as well as Hiace and Suzuki
drivers to understand how they provide their services, their business systems and conditions, and the
problems they face daily. Their opinions about how to best encourage government investment in and
regulation of paratransit services will also be assessed.

IV.3 Pre-interview Survey of BRT Passengers

Q3: How do BRT passengers access the BRT stations?

Approximately 30 survey interviews will be conducted of BRT passengers, subdivided by age,

gender, and occupation to mainly collect the following three types of information:
(1) Respondents’ socio-economic characteristics such as age, gender, residential locations, purposes
of using BRT, their experiences of using BRT, and problems they face in accessing BRT;
(2) Respondents’ trip patterns such as entrance and exit patterns, modes, travel time, costs, and
waiting times;
(3) Respondents’ perceptions about using paratransit to access BRT and their views on an integrated
formal feeder bus system to enhance the quality of service, in terms of safety, security, and
comfort.

Two stations will be selected, one from each city, to conduct this research. So far, Saddar station
has been selected for the Rawalpindi area. The two-kilometer radius around the Saddar consists of
commercial areas including shopping malls, individual shops, branches of various government and
private services, restaurants, hotels, and so on. Hiace and Suzuki routes are also established in the
narrow roads of the Saddar area, causing pollution and traffic jams. For the Islamabad side of the
BRT corridor, Pakistan Secretariat station has been selected. This study area consists of nearly
organized federal and government districts and private offices. However, it is more than fifteen
minutes’ walk to the nearest commercial area.
RIMA maps will also be used to mark the locations of the origins/destinations of the passengers.
These maps come from the official websites and previous studies in RIMA conducted by NESPAK
(2015) and Adeel et al. (2014). Electronic devices will be used to record any conversations related
to the research and writing pads will be used to take frequent notes of any useful observations or
points made by the respondents that were not mentioned in the questionnaires.
 IV.4 Pre-interview Survey of Commuters between Rawalpindi and Islamabad

Q4: How are residents commuting between Rawalpindi and Islamabad? For what reason, do people
choose private automobiles over BRT?

The main purpose of interviewing the Rawalpindi-Islamabad commuters is to understand their

reasons for not riding the RI BRT and using private vehicles to travel to work or study. Their
suggestions on what improvements need to be made to RI BRT in order for them to use public
transportation will also be assessed. The potential sample can be collected at those commercial areas
that are within twenty minutes of walking distance from the nearest BRT station.

Acknowledgements

Our research project is partially funded by the Research and Development Institute of
Regional Information at Ritsumeikan University.

[References]
Adeel, M., Yeh, A. G. and Zhang, F., “Towards an inclusive pubic transport system in Pakistan,”
International conference on town planning and urban management, 2014.
Adeel, M., Yeh, A. G. and Zhang, F., “Transportation disadvantage and activity participation in the
cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan,” Transport Policy, 2016, 47, pp. 1-12.
Asian Development Bank (ABD). "47279-001: Karachi Bus Rapid Transit Project," 13 Nov. 2017,
www.adb.org/projects/47279-001/main#project-tenders.
Asian Development Bank. "48289-002: Peshawar Sustainable Bus Rapid Transit Corridor
Project," 25 Jan. 2018, www.adb.org/projects/48289-002/main#project-pds.
Bocarejo, J. P., Portilla, I. J. and Perez, M. A., “Impact of Transmilenio on population density and
land use in Bogota,” 12 th WCTR, 2010.
Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad Bus Rapid Transit” Summary Project Briefing,
2012a.
Capital Development Authority (CDA), Pre-Feasibility Study on Bus Rapid Transit Project
Islamabad, Pakistan, Final Report: Global Works International Corporation and IPDF, 2012b.
Complementarity: Imperatives, alternatives and dilemmas,” 13 th World Conference on Transport
Research, 2013.
Daily Times. "CM to Take Metro Bus to Faisalabad," 15 Apr. 2017, dailytimes.com.pk/17091/cm-
to-take-metro-bus-to-Faisalabad/.
Ferro, S. P. and Behren, R., “Paratransit and formal public transport operational
Imran, M., “Public Transport in Pakistan: A critical overview,” Journal of Public Transportation,
Vol. 12, 2009.
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy(ITDP). "The BRT Standard," 21 June 2016,
www.itdp.org/the-brt-standard/.
 Kashif R. and Kashif A., “Evaluation of Lahore Bus Rapid Transit System,” International Journal
of Management Sciences and Business Research, Vol-4, 2015, Issue 10, pp. 138-148
Khan, A. R., Rawalpindi-Islamabad Metro Bus System and Deprived Governance: Is Public
Transport in Pakistan making progress? Undergraduate Thesis in Community and Regional Policy
Study Major of College of Policy Science at Ritsumeikan University, 2017.
National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK), Transporting Modeling for Mass Transit System
in Rawalpindi & Islamabad, Study Report, 2015.
Rodríguez, D. A. and Targa, F., “Value of accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit system,”
Transport Reviews, 24(5), 2004, pp. 587–610.
Shafiq-Ur-Rehman, M., Timms, P. and Montgomery, F., “Integrating BRT Systems with Rickshaws
in Developing Cities to Promote Energy Efficient Travel,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 54, 2012, pp. 261-274.
Tangphaisankun, A., Nakamura, F. and Okamura, T., “Influences of Paratransit as a feeder of mass
transit system in developing countries based on commuter satisfaction,” Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010.
Wright, L & Hook, W., Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (3 rd Ed.), New York: ITDP, 2007.

パキスタン、ラワルピンディ・イスラマバード BRT システムにおけるフィーダ

ー・バスサービスへのパラトランジットの統合化

カン アブバカル ラファット, 式 王美子

【要旨】本稿 では、パキ ス タン、ラワ ル ピンディ・イスラマバード都市圏(RIMA: Rawalpindi-Islamabad

Metropolitan Area)のラピッドバス交通システム（BRT: Bus Rapid Transit）にアクセスするためのフィ
ーダーサービスの状況を調査するための研究計画を提示する。ラワルピンディ・イスラマバード BRT シス
テムは、2015 年に開設された自治体運営の専用レーンを走るエクスプレス・バスシステムであり、現在ラ
ワルピンディ市とイスラマバード市間の 1 ルートのみが運行している。高度な交通デザイン技術を備えた
最新の BRT システムであるが、停留所の「駅」にアクセスするためのフォーマルな公共交通はなく、イン
フォーマルなパラトランジットしか存在していない。信頼できるフィーダーサービスの欠如により、潜在
的な BRT の乗客が自家用車やバイクを交通手段として選択している可能性がある。既存文献では、RIMA 市
民が日常的な移動手段としてパラトランジットを利用している状況や、市民のパラトランジットへの不満
や不信が研究されている。2018 年の 2 月から 3 月に予定している今回の我々の探索的な予備調査では、
BRT の駅にアクセスするためのパラトランジットとフィーダーサービスの現状に焦点を絞る。BRT の乗客
に よ る パ ラ ト ラ ン ジ ッ ト の フ ィ ー ダ ー サ ービスとしての利用状況をプレインタビュー調査により 把 握 し 、
またパラトランジットやバスサービスに関する政策状況について交通局にヒアリング調査を実施する。こ
れらの調査結果を基に、2018 年の 9 月に本格的な調査を実施する予定である。

キーワード：BRT，パラトランジット，フィーダー・バスサービス

View publication stats