[sustran] Re: sustran-discuss V1 #141

[ROLAND YEO]

Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport

A very timely discussion on this matter indeed. The removal of subsidies on
petrol in Indonesia will increase the cost of using private cars as the main
mode of journey to work.  At the same time, the depreciating value of the
rupiah further contributes to the higher cost of owning imported cars.  It
appears that with the removal of preferential treatment for the Timur Car
project, the nation is caught between a rock and a hard place.  Given these
hard times, it is logical to assume that the demand for public transport,
particularly in a major city like Jakarta, will increase significantly.

However, the capital city's public transport system is not ready to take on
this challenge both in terms of fleet capacity and the service level
provided.  So, to answer Paul's question in around about way, the removal of
the petrol subsidy must be tied with the provision of alternate
transportation such as increasing the total operating fleet of buses (I
think that they have only something like 2000 or less buses deployed on the
road at any time), and regulating the industry such that the bus service
level is adequate both peak and off peak, and safe buses.  These have not
been spelled out and clearly adhered to by the operators to date.

Roland
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss <owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
To: sustran-discuss-digest at jca.ax.apc.org
<sustran-discuss-digest at jca.ax.apc.org>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 4:13 AM
Subject: sustran-discuss V1 #141


>* To leave, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss-digest
>* to majordomo at mail.jca.ax.apc.org
>
>sustran-discuss       Thursday, January 29 1998       Volume 01 : Number
141
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
>    [sustran] Response to Eric Bruun
>    [sustran] Santiago Metro FY97
>    [sustran] tip on list discussions
>    [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport
>    Re: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport
>    [sustran] Fwd: Light Rail To The Portland Airport (fwd)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:57:57 -0600 (CST)
>From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox )
>Subject: [sustran] Response to Eric Bruun
>
>Eric...
>
>1. The data doesnt indicate the 1.5 ratio --- look at 1995 NTDB. Data
>indicates little difference.
>
>2. Whether suburban emphasis is desireable or not is a matter of judgement.
>As for frequencies, etc. there are also issues of route spacing. My
>Seattle/Portland contacts disagree with your judgement and unfortunately
>there is no source of compiled, objective data on this. Sounds like a good
>project for the new national transit institute.
>
>3. Seattle's ridership is 30 to 40 percent higher than Portland's if you
>factor out the light rail-bus transfers. That is a difference similar to
the
>difference in service area population.
>
>Best regards,
>Wendell Cox
>
>>
>>Wendell, you simply do not know how the transit resources are distributed
>>in the Seattle area. Metro has a record-high vehicle-hour to revenue
>>vehicle-hour ratio of about 1.5 to 1 because of the extreme suburban
>>emphasis of the route system. The ridership is not much higher than
>>Portland either, considering that the service area is larger and
>>the CBD is much larger.
>>
>>Most city routes in Seattle are on very poor 30 minute headways during the
>>base period, deteriorating to 60 minutes at night. Also, the bus tunnel is
>>very poorly utilized, with few routes actually using it. As for the HOV
>>lanes on freeways, these are of little utility to intracity transit
>>routes. The very few bus lanes in downtown are not enforced, either.
>>By comparison, Portland has given over much more of its surface level
>>street space to bus transit, especially in the central area.
>>
>>I make no claims that the light rail line in Portland makes much
>>difference, one little route is not going to transform an entire city.
>>Eric
>>
>>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:
>>
>>> >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not
>>> >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better
>>> >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland
>>> >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle
>>> >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately
>>> >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle
>>> >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential
treatment.
>>> >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with
>>> >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute
>>> >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion
>>> >delays.  So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that
>>> >Portland is better in certain respects.  Eric
>>>
>>> As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel
does a
>>> pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service
area
>>> population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is
at
>>> least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of
HOV
>>> corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail
line
>>> --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph ---
>>> considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow  motorways. I
suspect
>>> that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of
Portland.
>>>
>>> Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects
the
>>> relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected.
Light
>>> rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this.
>>>
>>> Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with
>>> progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it
will...
>>> but I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Wendell Cox
>>> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
>>> International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic
>Planning
>>> The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
>>> http://www.publicpurpose.com
>>> Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
>>> P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
>>>
>>> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
>>> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a
cost
>>> that is no higher than necessary."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
>International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic
Planning
>The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
>http://www.publicpurpose.com
>Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
>P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
>
>"To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
>identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a
cost
>that is no higher than necessary."
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:00:46 -0300
>From: Christopher Zegras <chris at mailnet.rdc.cl>
>Subject: [sustran] Santiago Metro FY97
>
>Courtesy of ChipNews, Jan. 21  www.chip.cl
>
>- --  SANTIAGO METRO HAD 200 MILLION USERS IN 1997.
>The Santiago Metro saw a boost in passengers but a dip in profits
>last year, company President Daniel Fernandez said Tuesday.
>Metro had a total of 200 million passengers in 1997, an 11.9
>percent rise over the 178 million passengers in 1996.  The major
>cause in this rise was the incorporation of Line 5, which runs
>between Plaza Italia and Plaza Vespucio in La Florida, the most
>densely populated Santiago neighborhood.
>        Profits, however, fell 20 percent to US$2.6 million,
>Fernandez said, owing to the increase in depreciation tied to the
>investment in Line 5.  Metro earned US$78 million in ticket sales
>and spent US$75.4 million on operations.
>        The yearly passenger total works out to 779,000 average
>daily users, compared to 676,000 average daily users in 1996.
>The peak number of passengers reached 902,000 on December 23.
>        Metro plans to invest US$200 million this year in
>technological innovations and service improvement, including:
>operational improvements of US$22 million; the integration of 11
>new trains for US$108 million; train maintenance at a cost of
>US$4.25 million; communication system enhancements and ticket
>booth remodeling for US$18.2 million; and US$3.2 million worth of
>turnstiles.  Metro is also currently constructing, with a US$107
>million investment, an extension of Line 5, with service into the
>heart of Santiago to a new  station in the Plaza de Armas.
> Christopher Zegras       http://www.iiec.org                 /\   /^\
> Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ /   \
> General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE       /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\
> Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233                    /   (*)/(*)      \
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:48:59 +0800 (MYT)
>From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter)
>Subject: [sustran] tip on list discussions
>
>Dear sustran-discussers
>
>Just a reminder that when replying to a thread of discussion, please
>include in your reply only those parts of the earlier discussion that you
>are directly responding to.    Delete the rest of it.  Especially delete
>earlier signatures.
>
>Please do not include in your messages the whole of both sides of a
>discussion.
>
>Thanks,
>Paul.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:26:32 +0800 (MYT)
>From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter)
>Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport
>
>I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the implications
>for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the
>formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia.   Will the
>crisis help to bring about a change towards more equitable, people-friendly
>and sustainable transport policies? Or will it set back this cause?  Will
>any destructive projects that are now on hold just be revived when (if?)
>high growth resumes?  Will there be any fundamental rethink of the way
>things are done in the region?
>
>Some examples of transport-related impacts that I have heard of include:
>
>* Car sales are plummeting in a number of countries (eg. next year's sales
>in Malaysia expected to be 60% lower in 1998 than in 1997).
>*  Conspicuous consumption has suddenly become very unpopular.  This is a
>big change from attitudes a year ago.  Will expensive cars lose some of
>their status value?
>* Unfortunately a number of bus companies also have problems. There have
>been announcements of cancelled purchases of urban buses in Malaysia.  An
>intercity bus company in Malaysia has had 32 of its coaches repossessed by
>a finance company in the last few weeks.
>
>A number of mega-projects have been delayed or cancelled:
>* The proposed bridge between Indonesia and Malaysia has been deferred
>indefinitely.
>* Bangkok's  Hopewell expressway/mass transit project contract was
>cancelled (with about 20% built).  No new investors so far.
>*  Malaysia's Highland Highway,  that is opposed by all major environmental
>groups in the country, has been deferred.
>* A large number of toll-highways have been completed in Malaysia in the
>last two-years or are due to open over the next two years. There are now
>doubts about toll-revenue projections and hence the short-term health of
>the companies involved may be at risk.
>
>Fuel prices:
>*  Indonesia is to phase out gasoline subsidies (by April I think) at the
>urging of the IMF.  Diesel and kerosene subsidies (which effect the poor
>most) will be less effected.  While gasoline subsidies are probably a bad
>idea, many fear social unrest because of the timing and speed with which
>they are to be removed in Indonesia just when people have already seen
>their buying power plummet. Would a more gradual phase-out be safer?
>*  Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their
>oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect
>the international US$ price??  If not, then who is paying for this?
>Certainly Malaysia (an oil exporter) has NOT allowed fuel prices to rise.
>Presumably this means that fuel in Malaysia is now heavily subsidised (in
>the sense that the country must be forgoing income on oil that could be
>exported at a higher price)?
>
>
>It is widely thought that a lack of transparency in decision-making and
>accounting procedures has hampered the rebuilding of investor confidence.
>Therefore there is great pressure on Asian governments and corporate
>conglomerates (eg Korea's chaebols) to become more transparent:
>* Indonesia has announced that preferential treatment for the national car
>project (the Timur) has been cancelled.
>* Malaysia is considering reversing its long-standing practice of using
>(secretly) "negotiated tenders" for awarding privatised infrastructure
>projects (such as toll-roads and mass transit systems). Negotiated tenders
>have been criticised because of the suspicion that they encourage cronyism
>and the feather-bedding of contracts. The public works minister himself has
>called for a switch to the open tender method.  Such a change might provide
>a better chance for public scrutiny of project proposals.
>
>
>Any responses?   Please correct any  mistakes or omissions that I might
>have made.
>
>Paul.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:33:49 +0700
>From: John Ernst <jernst at loxinfo.co.th>
>Subject: Re: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport
>
>At 09:26 AM 1/28/98 +0700, Paul Barter wrote:
>>
>>I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the
implications
>>for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the
>>formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia.  =20
>>=85
>
>Paul makes a very timely request.  "The Nation", one of the two primary
>English-language newspapers in Bangkok, this morning featured a front-page
>editorial asking their readers to support a gas tax increase.  While
>arguing the economic benefits, the editorial states: "The government is
>understandably afraid of the political outcome".
>
>Indeed, Asian governments appear to be held hostage by consumers who feel
>that cheap fuel benefits everyone.  Since this issue hits everyone=92s
>pocketbook, it is not hard to mobilize a public outcry. =20
>
>Fuel price increases in the Philippines are widely perceived as hurting the
>poor.  A participant in a transport workshop last week in Manila argued
>that it was the government=92s duty to keep gas prices low to help all the
>people.   When I suggested that someone driving their own Mercedes around
>Manila ends up receiving a much higher subsidy from low fuel prices than a
>presumably poorer person riding in a jeepney, this appeared to be new
>information. =20
>
>Public transport in Manila is often viewed as more of the problem than the
>solution.  Jeepneys and buses have been targeted as sources of pollution
>and causes of congestion. (Robert Verzola has written a good summary of
>biases against public transport in Manila).  The concept of passenger-km as
>opposed to vehicle-km does not seem to be well understood in either the
>Philippines or Thailand. =20
>
>>=85
>>*  Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their
>>oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect
>>the international US$ price??  If not, then who is paying for this?
>>=85
>The Philippines are in a particular squeeze.  The government attempted to
>deregulate oil prices last year, but the law was declared unconstitutional
>in November.  While legislators attempt a new deregulation law, oil
>refiners have threatened to stop importing crude oil at current prices
>(reported in the Philippine Daily Enquirer, 17-Jan-98, p.1,14).  In
>response to this situation, last Friday, the Philippine Energy Regulatory
>Board raised fuel prices by 1.18 pesos ($0.03) per liter for premium
>gasoline.  The price of diesel, used by jeepneys, rose 50 centavos to 7.83
>pesos per liter (roughly $0.19/liter).  The price rise prompted strikes by
>jeepney operators at locations throughout the country. =20
>
>In Thailand, the currency has lost 50 percent of its value since June.  Gas
>prices have not doubled, but increased by about 33 percent.  A part, but
>not all, of this difference can be attributed to the fall in world oil
>prices.  Prices have fallen about 15 percent since June (the WTI - Cushing
>spot price for crude oil was $19.26 in June 97, $16.48 on January 16,
=9198)=