CAPÍTULO II: MARCO TEORICO – CONCEPTUAL
2.1 ANTECEDENTES INVESTIGATIVOS
2.2.6 El riesgo en el sector financiero
2.2.6.5 Riesgo de crédito en las instituciones financieras del Ecuador
The results of this study have several political implications. First of all, the results are useful to
communicate the impacts of the lines to the public and bus operators, since this can help
convince them of the positive impacts and usefulness of implementing additional corridors.
Secondly, the Metrobús is a more efficient system, while the Metro is more effective, since
absolute impacts are considerably larger. Third of all, politically the Metrobús is more feasible,
particularly because of the lower construction costs. The selection of which system should be
implemented in which location largely depends on the political objectives. In terms of large
environmental impacts the Metro is preferable, as well as for safety, equity and travel time
impacts. On the other hand, the Metrobús is preferable to implement a low-cost mass transit
system that results in a significant modal shift from private modes. Furthermore, if a demand
study is conducted, it is important to include both Metro and Metrobús in this study, because the
size of the impacts largely depends on the demand. Hence, politicians should choose a Metro or
Metrobús system based on their objectives and the expected demand for each line and not
decide which system they prefer before such studies.
Improvements in the evaluation framework can be made in several ways. First of all, if data is
available, the safety indicator should be optimized using the change in the actual number of
accidents instead of safety perception. Secondly, air pollution and climate change impacts are
more accurately measured using the change in vehicle kilometers resulting from the modal shift.
However, this requires extending the data collection. Thirdly, it is recommended to apply a
longer project horizon for the evaluation of a MRT line than a BRT line. Alternatively, the
residual value of the infrastructure, stations and vehicles can be used to compensate for the
difference in lifespan. Fourth of all, if time allows, the incorporation of a counterfactual situation
is suggested. Finally, in order to prevent causality issues, it is recommended to conduct the
evaluation within one to two years after operation begins.
For future research it is recommended to expand the evaluation framework. The framework will
give more useful results if more indicators are included, which allows for a more complete
comparison between BRT and MRT. Such additional indicators can be travel time reliability,
livability and land use impacts. Furthermore, an evaluation of the service quality of both MRT
and BRT systems is suggested, because this is an important determinant of the modal shift from
private vehicles. However, this evaluation is best conducted separately from an impact
evaluation such as this one. Additionally, it is recommended to conduct a similar evaluation
using transport models instead of surveys. This way, second order effects are included and
exogenous impacts are reduced. However, this is very dependent on the availability of a
transport model.
The evaluation of two transit lines is not sufficient to settle the debate on BRT or MRT. However,
it does provide a first step towards additional evaluations of BRT and MRT systems. In order to
improve the comparability of the results it is recommended to conduct an ex-post evaluation of
the fifth Metrobús line, which was implemented last year. This is a full BRT line and will improve
the comparability with the Metro line. Furthermore, if time and financial means permit, it is
recommended to increase the sample sizes, especially for non-users, in future studies. It is
recommended to conduct these future studies for recently implemented transit lines in Mexico,
as this ex-post evaluation framework was developed specifically for this context. Since many
Mexican cities are currently implementing or have recently implemented BRT systems, there is a
large number of BRT lines that can be evaluated. The outcomes of these studies are useful to
improve the CTVs of the flag model. Additionally, this provides insights in the performance of
BRT and MRT projects throughout Mexico. Although this framework is most applicable for the
Mexican context, some adjustments allow for application in other contexts as well, particularly
in Latin America. If such future research aim at comparing BRT and MRT it is recommended that
ALC-BRT and EMBARQ. (2013). Global BRT Data Retrieved 26/07/2013, from
http://brtdata.org/
Alpkokin, P. and Ergun, M. (2012). Istanbul Metrobüs: first intercontinental bus rapid
transit. Journal of Transport Geography, 24(0), 58-66.
Annema, J.A., Beek, N. van der , Bulthuis, O. and Jansen, J. (2012). Ex-postevaluaties van
zes provinciale wegenprojecten. Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap, 48(3), 3-15.
Ardila, A. (2012). Public Transport in Latin America: a view from the World Bank.
Bakker, P. and Zwaneveld, P. (2009). Het belang van openbaar vervoer. De
maatschappelijke effecten op een rij. Den Haag: Kennisinstituut voor
Mobiliteitsbeleid/Centraal Planbureau.
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy(15), 73-80.
Banister, D. (2011). Cities, mobility and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography,
19(6), 1538-1546.
Berveling, J., Groot, W., Lijesen, M., Savelberg, F. and Werff, E. van der. (2009). Na het
knippen van het lint - Het ex post evalueren van infrastructuur. Den Haag:
Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid.
Beukers, E., Bertolini, L. and Brömmelstoet, M. te. (2011). Knelpunten in het MKBA-
proces. Den Haag: Nicis Institute.
Blonn, J., Carlson, D., Mueller, P. and Scott, I. (2006). Transport 2020 Bus Rapid Transit:
A Cost Benefit Analysis.
Breakthrough Technologies Institute. (2012). Energy and Environmental Impacts of BRT
in APEC Economies.
Cervero, R. and Golub, A. (2007). Informal transport: A global perspective. Transport
Policy, 14(6), 445-457.
CETRAN. (2009). Estudio diagnóstico de oferta y demanda de transporte público de
pasajeros en el corredor Buenavista – San Lázaro.
Chapulut, J.N., Traoux, J.P. and Menge, E. (2005). The new ex post evaluation methods for
large projects in France. Paper presented at the European Transport Conference,
Strasbourg.
Cinco M Dos. (2013). Metrobús Retrieved 19/11/2013, from
http://www.cincomdos.com/metrobus.php
Ciudad de México. (2007). Encuesta Origen-Destino. Mexico, D.F.
Ciudad de México. (2011). Aspectos técnicos, normativos y operativos de la línea 4 de
Metrobús.
Ciudad de México. (2013a). Metro de la Ciudad de México Retrieved 26/07/2013, from
http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/
Ciudad de México. (2013b). Programa General de Desarrollo del Distrito Federal 2013-
2018.
Ciuded de México. (2013). Proyecto Metro del Distrito Federal Retrieved 26/07/2013,
from http://www.proyectometro.df.gob.mx
Comisión Ambiental Metropolitana. (2011). Programa para mejorar la calidad del aire de
la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México 2011-2020.
CONEVAL. (2010). Medición Municipal de la Pobreza.
CONEVAL. (2012a). Informe de pobreza y evaluación en el Distrito Federal.
CONEVAL. (2012b). Medición de la Pobreza, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2010-2012.
Consulta Mitofsky. (2013). Estudio de opinión: Sistema de Transporte Colectivo Metro.
Coorporación Andina de Fomento. (2009). Observatorio de Movilidad Urbana para
América Latina.
Covarrubias y Asociados. (2013). Encuesta Sobre Incremento a la Tarifa de STC Metro.
Cravioto, J., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H. and Ishihara, K. N. (2013). Road transport
externalities in Mexico: Estimates and international comparisons. Transport
Policy, 30(0), 63-76.
Crôtte, A., Noland, R.B. and Graham, D.J. (2009). Is the Mexico City metro an inferior
good? Transport Policy, 16(1), 40-45.
CTS Embarq. (2012). Afluencia por estaciones Metrobús Línea 4.
Deng, T. and Nelson, J.D. (2013). Bus Rapid Transit implementation in Beijing: An
evaluation of performance and impacts. Research in Transportation Economics,
39(1), 108-113.
Department for Transport. (2014a). TUBA: General Guidance and Advice. London.
Department for Transport. (2014b). User and Provider Impacts. London.
Devillers, E., Dijk, W. van, Modijefsky, M. and Spit, W. (2011). MKBA Uithoflijn.
Rotterdam: ECORYS.
Doll, C.N.H. and Balaban, O. (2013). A methodology for evaluating environmental co-
benefits in the transport sector: application to the Delhi metro. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 58(0), 61-73.
Duduta, N., Adriazola, C., Wass, C., Hidalgo, D. and Lindau, L.A. (2012). Traffic Safety on
Bus Corridors: EMBARQ.
Eijgenraam, C.J.J., Koopmans, C.C., Tang, P.J.G. and Verster, A.C.P. (2000). Evaluatie van
Infrastructuurprojecten; Leidraad voor Kosten-batenanalyse.
Emporia. (2013). Encuesta usuarios del Metrobús.
EVA-TREN. (2008). Guidelines for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation.
Felipe Ochoa y Asociados. (2012). Análisis Costo Beneficio de la Línea 3 del Sistema de
Transporte Colectivo Monterrey. Monterrey.
Flores, O. (2013). Expanding transportation planning capacity in cities of the global south:
Public-private collaboration and conflict in Chile and Mexico. Doctor of Philosophy
in Urban and Regional Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.
Flores, O. and Zegras, C. (2012). The costs of inclusion: Incorporating existing bus
operators into Mexico City's emerging bus rapid transit system. Paper presented at
the 12th Conference on Advanced Systems for Public Transport.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Wee, B. van. (2008). Comparison of Capital Cost per
Route-Kilometre in Urban Rail. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure
Research, 8(1), 17-30.
Foro de Transporte Sostenible de América Latina. (2011). Bogota Declaration -
Sustainable Transport Objectives. Bogotá.
GDF. (2008). Informe de Cuenta Pública 2008 - Secretaría de Obras y Servicios.
GDF. (2009). Informe de Cuenta Pública 2009 - Proyecto Metro.
GDF. (2010). Cuenta Pública 2010 - Estados Financieros y Presupuestarios.
GDF. (2011). Cuenta Pública 2011 - Estados Financieros y Presupuestarios.
GDF. (2012). Cuenta Pública 2012 - Gastos Presupuestarios.
GDF. (2013). Proyecto de Presupuesto de Egresos del Distrito Federal para el Ejercicio
Fiscal 2013.
GDF. (2014a). Proyecto de Presupuesto de Egresos del Distrito Federal para el Ejercicio
Fiscal 2014.
Gospodini, Aspa. (2005). Urban development, redevelopment and regeneration
encouraged by transport infrastructure projects: The case study of 12 European
cities. European Planning Studies, 13(7), 1083-1111.
Hass, J.L., Brunvoll, F. and Hoie, H. (2002). Overview of Sustainable Development
Indicators used by National and International Agencies OECD Statistics Working
Papers: OECD Publishing.
Hidalgo, D. and Carrigan, A. (2010). Modernizing Public Transportation: Lessons learned
from major bus improvements in Latin America and Asia: EMBARQ.
Hidalgo, D. and Gutiérrez, L. (2013). BRT and BHLS around the world: Explosive growth,
large positive impacts and many issues outstanding. Research in Transportation
Economics, 39(1), 8-13.
Hidalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñán, N. and Jiménez, P.L. (2013). TransMilenio BRT system
in Bogota, high performance and positive impact – Main results of an ex-post
evaluation. Research in Transportation Economics, 39(1), 133-138.
HM Treasury. (2003). The Green Book: Apraisal and Evaluation in Central Government.
Hook, W. (2005). Institutional and Regulatory Options for Bus Rapid Transit in
Developing Countries. Transportation Research Record(1939), 184-191.
ICF. (2009). Benefit/Cost Analysis Of Converting A Lane For Bus Rapid Transit. Research
Results Digest 336.
IEA. (2012). CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion. Paris, France: International Energy
Agency.
INEGI. (2010). Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010.
INEGI. (2012). Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2012.
INEGI. (2013a). Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo.
INEGI. (2013b). Estadísticas de vehículos de motor registrados en circulación.
Instituto Nacional de Ecología. (2006). The Benefits and Costs of a Bus Rapid Transit
System in Mexico City.
Islas Rivera, V., Hernández, S., Arroyo Osomo, J.A., Zaragoza, M.L. and Ruvalcaba, J.I.
(2011).
Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in Mexico. Paper
presented at the ITF, Leipzig, Germany.
ITDP. (2013). The BRT Standard 2013.
ITF. (2010). Reducing Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Trends & Data.
ITF. (2011). Improving the Practice of Cost Benefit Analysis in Transport. Paper presented
at the International Transport Forum, Queretaro, Mexico.
Joumard, R. and Nicolas, J. (2010). Transport project assessment methodology within the
framework of sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 136-142.
Keeling, D.J. (2013). Transport research challenges in Latin America. Journal of Transport
Geography, 29(0), 103-104.
Kjerkreit, A., Odeck, J. and Sandvik, K.O. (2008). Post opening evaluation of road
investment projects in Norway: how correct are the estimated future benefits?
Paper presented at the European Transport Conference, Noordwijkerhout.
Knudsen, M. Aa and Rich, J. (2013). Ex post socio-economic assessment of the Oresund
Bridge. Transport Policy, 27(0), 53-65.
Leather, J. (2009). Rethinking Transport and Climate Change (Vol. 10): Asian
Development Bank.
Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Ruthersford, S., Smith, R.L., Cracknell, J. and
Soberman, R. (2003). Bus Rapid Transit - Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid
Transit (Vol. TCRP Report 90). Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
Li, Z. and Hensher, D.A. (2011). Crowding and public transport: A review of willingness
to pay evidence and its relevance in project appraisal. Transport Policy, 18(6),
880-887.
Lin, Z. and Wu, J. (2007). Summary of the Application Effect of Bus Rapid Transit at
Beijing South-Centre Corridor of China. Journal of Transportation Systems
Engineering and Information Technology, 7(4), 137-142.
Litman, T. (2007). Evaluating rail transit benefits: A comment. Transport Policy, 14(1),
94-97.
Litman, T. (2011). Transportation Costs and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and
Implications (Vol. 2). Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Litman, T. (2012). Rail Transit In America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits.
Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Litman, T. (2013). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices
Guidebook. Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
López Dodero, A. (2013). Planning Public Transport Improvements in Mexico: Analysis of
the Influence of Private Bus Operators in the Planning Process. Doctor of
Philosophy, University of Waterloo.
López Dodero, A., Santos da Rocha, P.M., Hernández, J.J. and Cerezo, A. (2013). Evaluating
BRT improvement in Mexico City: How feasible is to improve a consolidated
system?
Mackie, P. (2010). Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: A UK Perspective. Paper presented
at the International Transport Forum.
Madison Area Transportation Planning Board. (2013). Madison Transit Corridor Report
- Investigating Bus Rapid Transit in the Madison Area.
Martens, K. (2011). Substance precedes methodology: on cost–benefit analysis and
equity. Transportation, 38, 959-974.
Medda, F. and Nijkamp, P. (2003). A combinatorial Assessment Methodology for
Complex Transport Policy Analysis. Integrated Assessment, 4(3), 214-222.
Metrobús. (2013a). Informe Anual 2012.
Metrobús. (2013b). Metrobús Retrieved 25/11/2013, from
http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/
Monzón, A., Ortega, E. and López, E. (2013). Efficiency and spatial equity impacts of high-
speed rail extensions in urban areas. Cities, 30(0), 18-30.
Mouter, N. (2012). Voordelen en nadelen van de Maatschappelijke Kosten- en Baten
analyse nader uitgewerkt. Paper presented at the Colloquium
Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk, Amsterdam.
Mouter, N., Annema, J.A. and Wee, B. van. (2012). Maatschappelijke kosten en
batenanalyse inhoudelijk geëvalueerd: Nicis Institute.
Mouter, N., Annema, J.A. and Wee, B. van. (2013). Ranking the substantive problems in
the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 49(0), 241-255.
Munoz-Raskin, R. (2010). Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: Does it affect
property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transport Policy, 17(2), 72-84.
Nava, E. (2013). Evaluación técnica ex post del sistema Metrobús, 2005-2012.
Neff, J. and Pham, L. (2007). A Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics
and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys. Washington, D.C.
Nijkamp, P. and Ouwersloot, H. (1997). A decision support system for regional
sustainable development: The flag model.
Odgaard, T., Kelly, C. and Laird, J. (2005). Current practice in project appraisal in Europe:
HEATCO.
OECD. (2011a). An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main
Findings Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising.
OECD. (2011b). Special Focus: Inequality in Emerging Economies (EEs) Divided We
Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising.
Ortúzar, J. de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1990). Modelling Transport. Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.
Oxera. (2005). How should the ex post evaluation of trunk road schemes be enhanced?
Oxford, UK: Oxera Consulting Ltd.
Paracchini, M.L., Pacini, C., Jones, M.L.M. and Pérez-Soba, M. (2011). An aggregation
framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the
stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 71-80.
Parametría. (2013). Estudio Sobre el Incremento a la Tarifa del STCM.
Parra Alva, J.E. (2007). Estudio de pre-factibilidad técnica y socioeconómica de un sistema
de transporte tronco-alimentador (BRT) en el corredor Toluca-Capultitlán. Master,
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, México.
Parry, I.W.H. and Timilsina, G.R. (2010). How should passenger travel in Mexico City be
priced? Journal of Urban Economics, 68(2), 167-182.
Preston, J. and Wall, G.T. (2008). The Ex-ante and Ex-post Economic and Social Impacts
of the Introduction of High-speed Trains in South East England. Planning Practice
and Research, 23(2), 403-422.
PROPOLIS. (2004). Planning and Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport for
Increasing Urban Sustainability. Helsinki: LT Consultants.
Ramirez Soberanis, V. (2010). The Practice of Cost Benefit Analysis in the Transport
Sector: A Mexican Perspective. Paper presented at the International Transport
Foum, Paris.
Richardson, A.J., Ampt, E.S. and Meyburg, A.H. (1995). Survey Methods for Transport
Planning: Eucalyptus Press.
Rogers, J.A. (2005). Clean Development Mechanism Project Design Document Form
(CDM-PDD). Mexico City.
Sammar, G., Klementschitz, R. and Roider, O. (2003). TRANSECON Urban Transport and
local Socio-Economic development. Vienna: ITS-BOKU.
Schaller, B. (2005). TCRP Synthesis 63: On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey
Techniques. Washington D.C.
SEDEMA. (2007). Plan Verde de la Ciudad de México.
SENER. (2012). Prospectiva del Sector Eléctrico 2012-2026.
Serebrisky, T., Gómez-Lobo, A., Estupiñán, N. and Muñoz-Raskin, R. (2009). Affordability
and Subsidies in Public Urban Transport: What Do We Mean, What Can Be Done?
Transport Reviews, 29(6), 715-739.
Shi, J. and Zhou, N. (2012). A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation
approach with both equity and efficiency aspects. Research in Transportation
Economics, 36(1), 93-100.
SMA-GDF. (2010a). Inventario de Emisiones de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de
México 2010: Contaminantes Criterio.
SMA-GDF. (2010b). Registro de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero.
SOBSE. (2011). Análisis costo-beneficio para el proyecto de prestación de servicios a
largo plazo denominado "Corredor de Transporte Línea 5 del Metrobús de la
Ciudad de México: Buenavista - Centro Histórico - San Lazaro - Aeropuerto
Internacional Benito Juarez".
Solis Hernández, S. (2012). Seminario Internacional Ciudades Amables y Transporte
Urbano Sostenible, Caso: México, DF.
Spectron Desarrollo. (2009). Evaluación socio-económica de la línea 12 del metro de la
Ciudad de México.
Sperling, D. and Claussen, E. (2002). The Developing World’s Motorization Challenge.
Issues in Science and Technology.
STC. (2013a). Información relevante.
STC. (2013b). Metro de la Ciudad de México Retrieved 15/11/2013, from
http://www.stc.df.gob.mx/
STC. (2013c). Propuesta para la Actualización de la Tarifa en el S.T.C.
Tarriba, G. and Alarcón, G. (2012). Movilidad Competitiva en la Zona Metropolitana de la
Ciudad de México: Diagnóstico y Soluciones Factibles.
Thomopoulos, N. and Grant-Muller, S. (2013). Incorporating equity as part of the wider
impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI
approach. Transportation, 40, 315-345.
Timilsina, G.R. and Dulal, H.B. (2011). Urban road transportation externalities: costs and
choice of policy instruments. World Bank Research Observer, 26(1), 162-191.
TRB. (2002). Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A Guidebook
for Practitioners (Vol. TCRP Report 78). Washington D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Tseng, Y., Rietveld, P. and Verhoef, E. (2005). A meta-analysis of valuation of travel time
reliability. Paper presented at the Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk,
Antwerpen.
Turner, M., Kooshian, C. and Winkelman, S. (2012). Case Study: Colombia’s Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Development And Expansion Center for Clean Air Policy.
UN-Habitat. (2011). Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements
2011. London, Washington D.C.: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat. (2012). State of the World's Cities 2012/2013: Propsperity of Cities.
Nairobi, Kenya.
Valdés-Parada, F.J., Varela, J.R. and Alvarez-Ramirez, J. (2012). Upscaling pollutant
dispersion in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and its Applications, 391(3), 606-615.
Vincent, W. and Callaghan, L. (2007). A Preliminary Evaluation of the Metro Orange Line
Bus Rapid Transit Project. Transportation Research Record, 2034, 37-44.
Wardman, M. and Whelan, G. (2011). Twenty Years of Rail Crowding Valuation Studies:
Evidence and Lessons from British Experience. Transport Reviews, 31(3), 379-
398.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development.
Wee, B. van. (2011). Transport and Ethics: Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport Policies
