Short run fare elasticities for Bogotá’s BRT system: ridership responses to fare increases

  • Luis A. GuzmanEmail author
  • Santiago Gomez
  • Carlos Alberto Moncada


The fare policy of the BRT system in Bogotá, in order to cover its operating costs, has consisted of steadily fare increases, since its creation until 2012. To date, no study has been done to estimate the users’ reaction to these changes in the short-term. That is, there is no information about price-demand elasticities. This issue should be a key factor in deciding on price changes and evaluating the impact of these changes on ridership. In the case of Bogotá’s BRT (Transmilenio), estimating such elasticity is a need, but also a complex task: the travel demand is growing constantly and few fare changes happen at the same time throughout the whole system. To overcome this barrier, an econometric panel data model at station level was developed that takes advantage of highly disaggregated information on ridership for the Transmilenio system. The database provided information on entrances to the system’s stations between 2001 and 2012 at the daily level (phases 1 and 2). Monthly information on other factors that may influence ridership, like fuel prices, unemployment rates, population and traditional bus fares, were also included. After the introduction of a fare increase, the elasticity’s absolute value decreases from − 0.565 (1 week) to − 0.408 after a month. In addition, low-income users are more sensitive to these changes. We also test for differences between the effects during peak and off-peak hours. The results show higher values in the off-peak hours than in the peak hours. This should inform decision takers in Bogotá about the effect of fare changes on ridership responses and also on equity and accessibility.


BRT elasticity Public transport elasticity Short-term elasticities Transmilenio Bogotá 


Authors’ contribution

LAG: Manuscript writing, analysis of results, content planning and review (corresponding author). SGC: Econometric model and manuscript writing. CAMA: Analysis of results, manuscript writing and literature search.


  1. Batarce, M., Galilea, P.: Cost and fare estimation for the bus transit system of Santiago. Transp. Policy 64, 92–101 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cats, O., Susilo, Y.O., Reimal, T.: The prospects of fare-free public transport: evidence from Tallinn. Transportation 44(5), 1083–1104 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cordera, R., Canales, C., dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A.: Public transport demand elasticities during the recessionary phases of economic cycles. Transp. Policy 42, 173–179 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daldoul, M., Jarboui, S., Dakhlaoui, A.: Public transport demand: dynamic panel model analysis. Transportation 43(3), 491–505 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Grange, L., González, F., Muñoz, J.C., Troncoso, R.: Aggregate estimation of the price elasticity of demand for public transport in integrated fare systems: the case of Transantiago. Transp. Policy 29, 178–185 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, A.: Bus rapid transit: Is Transmilenio a miracle cure? Transp. Rev. 28, 439–467 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodwin, P.B.: A review of new demand elasticities with special reference to short and long run effects of price changes. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 26, 155–169 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. Guzman, L.A., Bocarejo, J.P.: Urban form and spatial urban equity in Bogota, Colombia. Transp. Res. Procedia (2017). Google Scholar
  10. Guzman, L.A., Oviedo, D., Bocarejo, J.P.: City profile: The Bogotá metropolitan area that never was. Cities 60(Part A), 202–215 (2017a). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guzman, L.A., Oviedo, D., Rivera, C.: Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region. J. Transp. Geogr. 58, 236–246 (2017b). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guzman, L.A., Oviedo, D.: Accessibility, affordability and equity: assessing ‘pro-poor’ public transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transp. Policy 68, 37–51 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guzman, L.A., Moncada, C.A., Gómez, S.: Fare discrimination and daily demand distribution in the BRT system in Bogotá. Public Transp. 10(2), 191–216 (2018a). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guzman, L.A., Oviedo, D., Cardona, R.: Accessibility changes: analysis of the integrated public transport system of Bogotá. Sustainability 10(11), 3958 (2018b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensher, D.A.: Assessing systematic sources of variation in public transport elasticities: some comparative warnings. Transp. Res. Part A 42, 1031–1042 (2008). Google Scholar
  16. Hidalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñán, N., Jiménez, P.L.: TransMilenio BRT system in Bogota, high performance and positive impact—main results of an ex-post evaluation. Res. Transp. Econ. 39, 133–138 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmgren, J.: Meta-analysis of public transport demand. Transp. Res. Part A 41, 1021–1035 (2007). Google Scholar
  18. Litman, T.: Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria (2012)Google Scholar
  19. Nijkamp, P., Pepping, G.: Meta-analysis for explaining the variance in public transport demand elasticities in Europe. J. Transp. Stat. 1(1), 1–14 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Oum, T.H., Waters, W.G., Yong, J.: Concepts of price elasticities of transport demand and recent empirical estimates. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 26, 139–154 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. Paulley, N., Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Titheridge, H., Preston, J., Wardman, M., Shires, J., White, P.: The demand for public transport: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transp. Policy 13, 295–306 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pham, L., Linsalata, J.: Effects of fare changes on bus ridership. American Public Transportation Association, Washington DC (1991)Google Scholar
  23. Savage, I., Miller, C.: Does the demand response to transit fare increases vary by income? Transp. Policy 55, 79–86 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SDM: Encuesta de Movilidad de Bogotá 2015. Secretaría de Movilidad de Bogotá, Bogotá (2016)Google Scholar
  25. Shiftan, Y., Sharaby, N.: The impact of fare integration on travel behavior and transit ridership. Transp. Policy 21, 63–70 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Venter, C., Jennings, G., Hidalgo, D., Valderrama Pineda, A.F.: The equity impacts of bus rapid transit: a review of the evidence and implications for sustainable transport. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. (2017). Google Scholar
  27. Wang, Z., Li, X., Chen, F.: Impact evaluation of a mass transit fare change on demand and revenue utilizing smart card data. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 77, 213–224 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wardman, M.: Price elasticities of surface travel demand a meta-analysis of UK evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 48, 367–384 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería Civil y AmbientalUniversidad de los Andes, Grupo de Sostenibilidad Urbana y Regional, SURBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Research Center for Environmental EconomicsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Departamento de Ingeniería Civil y AgrícolaUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations