[sustran] Re: more on Subway in Jakarta

Eric Bruun ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu
Wed Nov 24 00:30:55 JST 1999



Of course we all like Curitiba-like approaches. Curitiba is progressive
on almost every urban development issue. But what do cities do when
it is not possible to get control of the streets? Nothing? Just stay
with buses in mixed traffic?  Sometimes separte rights-of-way are the only
realistic way to improve things.  Eric


On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote:

> Here is a short section from a recent paper of mine ("Transport and Urban
> Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues", by Paul A.
> Barter, Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.20, No.1, Spring 1999).  It is
> relevant to this debate over mass transit systems in large low-income and
> middle-income cities. 
> 
> Paul.
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> Low cost strategies in transport and urban development
> 
> A pro-poor approach to urban transport must inevitably be a low-cost
> approach. Such a strategy is also compatible with economic efficiency, an
> emphasis on ecological sustainability and with the creation of highly
> livable and attractive cities. 
> 
> The successful low-cost strategy of Curitiba in Brazil with its "surface
> metro" using busways is now well-known (Cervero, 1995; Rabinovitch and
> Leitmann, 1993). A low-cost, pro-poor approach is also not necessarily a
> second class transport approach. It is not widely realised that a number of
> cities that are now quite wealthy but which have successfully retained a
> high role for public transport (and in some cases also bicycles) actually
> adopted a low-cost strategy during the early stages of motorisation. Figure
> 1 illustrates some of the possible development trends in a schematic way.
> Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen are all cities in
> which the ownership of private cars was restrained severely for decades
> beginning when motorisation rates were low. Investment in public transport
> and road infrastructure were also kept at modest levels until incomes per
> capita had risen to high levels (Barter, 1999). Even Zurich in wealthy
> Switzerland has had great success with a relatively low-cost approach to
> both its public transport and road systems (Taplin, 1992). 
> 
> Few low-income cities can afford mass transit systems such as those now
> seen in Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong (Allport, 1994). But in fact,
> Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong began their restraint measures in the 1960s
> or early 1970s, long before they were able to afford to build mass transit
> systems. Indeed, it is likely that traffic restraint helped them to keep
> traffic congestion at bay and to buy time so that they could continue to
> function successfully with bus-based transport systems and then to
> eventually provide high quality public transport (Barter, 1999). Although
> it is not easy to formulate politically acceptable restraint policies that
> are equitable and that do not unduly damage rural interests and commerce
> (Foo Tuan Seik, 1995; Spencer and Madhaven, 1989; Tanaboriboon, 1992), but
> finding such measures needs to be a high priority for low-income and
> middle-income countries everywhere. Korea's example of very strong
> restraint of private vehicles throughout the post-war period right up until
> the mid-1980s may be a particularly useful example to other countries that
> currently have low-incomes and low motorisation (Barter, 1999; Gakenheimer,
> 1995). The examples presented here show that restraint of private vehicles
> offers a way for such cities to buy the time needed for a gradual
> improvement to public transport. Restraint of private vehicles also reduces
> the urgency to expand the road system.
>  
> It seems likely that restraining private vehicle ownership and use,
> especially in low-income and middle-income cities, will be an important
> part of a pro-poor transport policy (Linn, 1983; Thomson, 1977). However,
> mistaken equity arguments are often heard in the debates over such measures
> and it is vital that these debates be better informed. There is therefore
> an urgent need for a thorough examination of the equity impacts and the
> impacts on the poor of various options for transport demand management
> (TDM) and fuel pricing policies in low-income cities. How the relevant
> revenues are used is a KEY factor in the equity outcomes. If revenues are
> used in a progressive manner, lower income and mobility disadvantaged
> people may benefit overall. If they are dedicated to more road
> construction, or are rebated to drivers as a group, then they may be
> regressive (Litman, 1996). 
> -----------------------
> 
> References:
> Allport, R. (1994). Lessons Learnt from Worldwide Experiences of Rail
> Transit Systems - Implications for Future Policy. In Mass Transit Asia '94
> Conference,  Hyatt Regency Singapore, 31 May - 1 June.
> 
> Barter, P. A. (1999) An International Comparative Perspective on Urban
> Transport and Urban Form in Pacific Asia: Responses to the Challenge of
> Motorisation in Dense Cities. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Western
> Australia.
> 
> Cervero, R. (1995). Creating a Linear City with a Surface Metro: The Story
> of Curitiba, Brazil (Working Paper 643). National Transit Access Center
> (NTrac), University of California at Berkeley.
> 
> Foo Tuan Seik (1995). Economic Instruments and Regulatory Measures for the
> Demand Management of Urban Transport (Unpublished report for UNCHS in
> preparation for the Habitat II conference). United Nations Centre for Human
> Settlements.
> 
> Gakenheimer, R. (1995). Motorization in the Developing World: A draft Set
> of Research Concepts. Unpublished report for the World Bank.
> 
> Linn, J., F. (1983). Cities in Developing Countries: Policies for their
> Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford: World Bank Research Publication,
> Oxford University Press.  
> 
> Litman, T. (1996). Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport
> Policy Institute, Canada.
> 
> Rabinovitch, J. and  Leitmann, J. (1993). Environmental Innovation and
> Management in Curitiba, Brazil (UMP Working Paper 1). Washington, D.C.:
> Urban Management Programme.
> 
> Spencer, A. and  Madhaven, S. (1989). The Car in Southeast Asia.
> Transportation Research, 32A(6), 425-37.
> 
> Tanaboriboon, Y. (1992). An Overview and Future Direction of Transport
> Demand Management in Asian Metropolises. Regional Development Dialogue,
> 13(3), 46-70.
> 
> Taplin, M. (1992). Model system: the Zurich way. Light Rail Review, 3, 5-11.
> 
> Thomson, J. M. (1977). Great Cities and Their Traffic. London: Victor
> Gollancz Ltd.  
> -----------------------
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER
> 
> A. Rahman Paul BARTER
> Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN)
> P.O. Box 11501,  Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
> TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590
> E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
> SUSTRAN:  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/
> 
> The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises 
> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport 
> with a focus on Asia and the Pacific.
> 



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list