[sustran] [sustran] More on urban rail and transport problems in KL

[Eric Bruun]

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Alan P Howes wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:35:32 -0400 (EDT), Eric Bruun
> <ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Kathy & Eng Hwa" <katnlim at pd.jaring.my>
> >>   
> >> The sad thing is that in most countries, eg Europe, the public transport
> >> systems have always been cross-subsidised and are not able to "stand alone"
> >> as a business venture. Even so, if I am not mistaken, the European
> >> experience is that PT is fighting a losing battle as ridership for rail and
> >> PT decline.
> >>   
> >  This is an exaggeration. 
> 
> I agree with you there.
> >
> >Deregulation does not work. It has been a disaster for the UK.
> 
> But not entirely there. UK Dereg worked in that it achieved what the
> government wanted - big cuts in subsidy. (OK, they also said they
> wanted to revitalise Public Transport, but if you believed that ...)
> And IMO the public as a whole (including taxpayers) got better value
> for money out of PT after Dereg than before it. But crucially, Dereg
> failed to provide a PT system which would tempt people out of their
> cars, and the absence of effective anti-trust legislation in the UK
> resulted in abuse of monopoly power by a few large bus groups.
> 

  I would like to know your reasoning how you think the public is
getting more value for money from the present system. Fares are not
low by northern European standards, yet service is inferior to most
northern European cities.
   

> >London area did not deregulate and it did not suffer the ridership
> >losses the rest of the UK did. 
> 
> Yes, but London is different in many other ways too.
> 
  Agreed, they are historically much more transit-oriented than the
rest of the UK. The driving alternative is so terrible for many 
that even a bad system would get used. Fortunately, they still have
a good system, even if the fares are a bit high, since the UK
somehow thinks subsidies are a sin.

> >A planned network with integrated fares
> >works much better. But the trick is to get innovative and responsive
> >planning without having to resort to total deregulation, which throws out
> >much of the good in order to get rid of the bad (unresponsive public
> >monopolies).
> 
> Quite right. Many UK transit authorities were too politically
> motivated to look after PT effectively - for instance, spending money
> on rail lines used by relatively few middle-income passengers, while
> not supporting bus services used by lower income groups.
> 
> I firmly believe that the best transport networks are those planned by
> operators motivated by profit - BUT, working under the right
> regulatory framework. Which brings me back to my usual hobby-horse,
> Curitiba (Brazil).
> 
  I think a distinction has to be made between planning and operating.
Profit-motivated operators might be more efficient on a cost per
kilometer basis, but Howe himself agreed that there must be regulation.
Much of this regulation is in network design, that is, "planning", and
in service standards. In developed countries, the systems with high usage
are planned by public agencies, not private operators. The reason
this might not hold true in developing countries is because the
government may not have the institutions and funding needed to manage such
systems, or there might be corruption. Curitiba is not typical, it is much
better managed and organized than typical for developing countries. Not
only is its public transport better, its schools are better, its 
sewers are better, its recycling is better, its care for the poor
is better, etc, etc.


> As well as having a splendid "Bus Metro", they have a rather
> interesting regulatory system. There are several operators, operating
> on routes and at fares set down by the TA (if I remember correctly -
> I'm quoting from memory). I am not sure if they are limited in the
> bus-kms they run - though I guess they are. The clever bit is that the
> TA collects all the revenue, and allocates it to operators on the
> basis of bus-kms run. So the operators have an interest in maximising
> revenue on the system as a whole, but not in competing with other
> operators for revenue.
> 
> Neat, don't you think? I would have thought the Curitiba model might
> be of interest in KL.
> 
> >> Any comments ,  views , especially the pro-Keynesian advocates ??
> 
> I used to work in Milton Keynes - will that do?
> -- 
> Alan Howes, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Formerly Perthshire, Scotland)
> alanhowes at usaksa.com
> http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/  [Needs Updating!]
> 
> *** A debt-free start for a billion people in the world's poorest  ***
> *** countries - Jubilee 2000, http://www.jubilee2000uk.org         ***
> 
>