explortary-metro
Metro Line comparison in Bogota
Author：Zhanchao Yang, Chuwen Zhong </br> Summer 2025
Introduction & Research Questions
Bogotá, long served by an extensive bus network yet plagued by chronic congestion and air pollution, is on the cusp of a major transit transformation. The city’s first metro lines—Line 1, which will link the northwest suburbs with the city center, and Line 2, running through the northern corridor—promise not only faster, more reliable journeys but also substantial environmental and socio-economic benefits. However, the success of this infrastructure depends as much on engineering and finance as on public buy-in, which encompasses how citizens perceive its effectiveness, its impact on air quality and noise, and its broader effects on livelihoods and equity.
This study examines how the near subway line household perception differs between Line 1 and Line 2, and how socio-economic factors influence their perception
By illuminating the perceptions held by various communities, we aim to inform both policy adjustments and communication strategies that will maximize public support and ensure that Bogotá’s metro delivers on its promise of cleaner, more equitable urban mobility.
Method
Sampling and Participants
This study employs a cross-sectional survey design to compare household perceptions and socio-economic profiles along Bogotá Metro Line 1 (elevated) and Line 2 (underground). A total of 537 households were collected, with 290 completed responses for Line 1 and 247 for Line 2 (response rates of 72.5% and 61.8%, respectively).
Data Processing and Analysis
- Data Cleaning: Responses were exported to R, where invalid entries were removed and categorical variables were standardized (e.g., income brackets).
- Descriptive Statistics: Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all variables by corridor.
- Comparative Analysis: Chi-square tests assessed significant differences in categorical responses between Line 1 and Line 2 households. （potential next steps)
- Visualization: Bar charts and cross-tabulations were generated to illustrate key contrasts.
All analyses were performed in R version 4.2.2, using packages ·dplyr·, ·ggplot2·.
Bivariate Analysis
We analyzed four specific targeted relationships for bivariate regression analysis.
Exploratory Results
The Results section presents a comparative overview of demographic profiles, travel behaviors, perception metrics, and implementation expectations among households adjacent to Metro Line 1 and Line 2. We begin by summarizing general socio‑demographic characteristics before exploring shifts in travel modes pre‑ and during the pandemic. Next, we examine attitudes toward the upcoming metro service—covering efficiency, safety, and environmental perceptions—followed by anticipated community impacts post‑implementation.
See the detailed results at results.md
Exploratory Results Key Takeaway
Pre- and During-Pandemic Travel Modes
- Bicycle use: Before COVID-19, 13.8% of Metro 2 commuters biked versus 7.3% for Metro 1; during the pandemic, this rose to 15.8% (Metro 2) vs. 9.3% (Metro 1)
- Walking: Metro 1 saw higher walking rates during the pandemic (19.7%) compared to Metro 2 (10.5%)
Socio-economic profiles
- Income distributions: Metro 1 has a higher share of respondents in the top income bracket of 2.5 – 3.5 million (16.5% vs. 9.0%), whereas Metro 2 peaks in the mid-range bracket of 1.16 – 1.5 million (24.2% vs. 15.5%)
Perceptions and Attitudes
- Quick and efficient: A larger share of Metro 1 respondents felt the system would be quick and efficient (62.6%) versus Metro 2 (53.4%)
- Optimism vs pessimism: “Very optimistic” ratings were more common in Metro 1 (34.9%) than Metro 2 (23.5%), while Metro 2 had more “Very pessimistic” responses (13.8% vs. 5.9%)
- Overall support: Support for the project was higher in Metro 1 (93.8%) than in Metro 2 (89.1%)
- Preference for other modes: Metro 2 users were somewhat more inclined to choose other transport options (70.4%) compared to Metro 1 (66.1%)
- Most important factors in travel: Metro 2 pays more attention to Punctuality of buses (20% vs. 10%), while Metro 1 focuses more on time of trips, comfort during trips, and cost of the trips.
- Optimism and support: Metro 1 users are more optimistic about the metro system than Metro 2 households, and Metro 1 shows stronger support for the system’s construction.
Information and Awareness
In general, information availability is low for both Metro One and Metro Two households. People are not sure of the infrastructure type, metro route, station location, and estimated year of operations. People are more willing to pay a lower price to ride the system.
- Access to information: Metro 1 respondents reported slightly better awareness of infrastructure details (13.2% “A lot of information” vs. 10.9%)
After implementing perception
There is no statistically significant difference in implementation perception between Metro 1 and Metro 2 households.
Summary
These patterns suggest that Metro 1 respondents tend to be more optimistic, better informed, and perceive greater benefits (efficiency, support) from the new line, while Metro 2 respondents—many of whom own their homes and live in larger households—exhibit higher cycling rates, greater concern for punctuality and security, and slightly less overall enthusiasm.