[sustran] Re: urban rail and transport problems in KL

[Kerry Wood]

Dear sustran-discussers,


>Although many, if not most, of the transport professionals are in favour of
>promoting Public Transport (PT) and rail systems to combat the
>ever-increasing onslaught of private vehicles, there is another school of
>thought (as featured in the latest issue of World Highways) that says ....
>" well, cater the need for private transport by building more roads.. it is
>a classic economic case of supply and demand...". (snipped)


It is also a classic example of the 'tragedy of the commons'.
In the UK villagers used to hold grazing land in common. Each villager
could get extra benefit by putting out an extra beast, even if that meant
all the other beasts were a little more starved because of over-grazing.
The system had largely collapsed by the time Adam Smith died. And the
fundamental problem is the same in transport: runaway demand when costs are
unrelated to use.

There is a view in New Zealand that unsubsidised public transport will work
when road users are charged full costs - that is, when the market
distortions are removed. But it has not been tried, the reform proposals do
not charge full costs (on the grounds the the environmental costs are not
sufficiently well established) and the gurus now seem to be backing away
from their proposals.

The cheapest car on the local market has 4 seats, reasonable luggage space
and can exceed the speed limit. Sales are limited. The most expensive has 2
seats, less luggage space and costs 25 times as much, but it can exceed the
speed limit by a larger margin. All of which suggests that the market is
responding to other considerations than cost. If this is correct, assuming
purely cost-based behavior will give the wrong answer, no matter what
economic theory is applied.

Privatising public transport in New Zealand has brought major cost
reductions, so perhaps shutting out the private sector is a mistake. But
leaving it all to the private sector is also a mistake, as shown by some
disastrous falls in UK patronage. In New Zealand the routes are decided by
the public sector, and bus operators register commercial (unsubsidised)
routes and tender for the subsidy they need to operate the other routes.
This two-level system has its problems, with integration difficulties and
data loss under 'commercial confidence'. A better system might be to tender
all routes, in the expectation that operators will submit 'negative
subsidy' tenders for the most profitable. However, all this gets more
difficult if you have major fixed structures, such as rail track,
trolleybus overhead or even bus shelters.

However it is done, the operators need to be able to optimise vehicle use,
while the route designers need to insist on timetables containing fixed
points, to allow the system to operate as an integrated whole. This means
that both groups need to respond positively to the other's proposals.

Taking another approach entirely, try looking at which transport modes use
road and parking space most efficiently, and what could be done with the
land that is not taken for new roads to meet an artificially inflated
'demand'. The busiest road in New Zealand is the Auckland Harbour Bridge (8
lanes, 10 000 vehicles/hr one way). Capacity could be doubled by building
the proposed new bridge alongside it, at a cost of over $ billion with
approach ramps, or by converting two existing lanes to light rail, or
converting three existing lanes to a busway. A cycle track would help, too.








Kerry Wood MIPENZ, MCIT
Transport Consulting Engineer
Phone/fax + 64 4 971 5549
1 McFarlane St  Wellington 6001  New Zealand