[sustran] Re: Negative thoughts on metro in general

[SUSTRAN Network Secretariat]

The debate over metro systems (and urban rail more generally) has been
particularly vexed in developing countries. In my thesis (which will soon
be available on the web) I present some evidence which may help to clarify
the rail versus bus debate in low-income or middle-income cities. 

Putting it simply, I argued that it is policies towards motorisation and
private vehicles (especially while the city is still low-income or
lower-middle-income) that are decisive in the long run. This EARLY
restraint of private traffic makes a big difference in influencing whether
a city becomes public-transport oriented or private transport-oriented when
it reaches upper-middle-income levels. 

It seems that a transit-oriented city (with urban rail) can be the
long-term result of a low-cost urban transport strategy.  I point out that
several of the successful cities that now have extensive urban rail
actually started out by pursuing a vigorous "low-cost" approach which
included restraining ownership and use of private vehicles (and often
refusing to build expensive expressways or subways - eg Zurich). Examples
include Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong and  a number of European cities
(for example Zurich, Amsterdam, Vienna and others). This strategy,
especially the restraint of cars, helped to make sure that the bus (and/or
tram) systems flourished even as incomes rose. So by the time these cities
had reached upper-middle-income or high-income levels and started to get
serious about investing in more expensive options, they still had rather
low ownership of private vehicles and still had very high usage of public
transport (50% or more of motorised travel). Also their urban land use
patterns had been influenced by the dominance of public over private
transport.  So urban rail then looked a good option and was by then
affordable. 

This "low-cost strategy leading towards transit-oriented cities" model
above contrasts with the evolution of cities such as Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok
and Taipei.  These cities (for various reasons) chose not to restrain
private vehicle ownership or usage as their incomes passed through the
middle-income range when motorcycles and cars start to become affordable.
So by the early 1990s when these cities reached upper-middle-incomes (or
high-income in Taipei) they were faced with high private vehicle ownership
- about 200 cars per 1000 people plus between 170 and 300 motorcycles per
1000 people. They also found themselves with poor, run-down bus systems
that were carrying only between 15 and 30 percent of motorised work trips.
In addition, rapid economic growth in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s took
place with transport dominated by cars and motorcycles. So there has been
quite a lot of dispersed building (by Asian standards - nothing like
American sprawl) which is hard to serve by public transport. Even so these
three cities have all now started to invest heavily in urban rail
systems... but it will be a very uphill battle to regain lost ridership for
public transport. 

This still begs the question of how does a city get the political will to
restrain cars and motorcycles (especially if this conflicts with national
priorities such as developing a motor industry). This is an open question.
The earlier restraint begins the more politically palatable. Most of the
cities I mentioned (Seoul, Hong Kong, and certain European cities) had high
car and road taxes and high fuel prices from very very early. So people
were accustomed to that.  Singapore is one of the few places that imposed
high levels of restraint rather late - after significant motorisation had
already taken place. Perhaps Singapore's semi-authoritarian style of
government made this possible. 

One big argument for urban rail is that it is essential to generating the
political will to restrain private vehicles. Indeed, the authorities in
Kuala Lumpur have been promising ("threatening"?) traffic restraint ever
since the late 1970s but the fact that the public transport system was not
good enough has always been the excuse. Now that a significant rail system
is in place it is still argued that it is not good enough. Traffic
restraint is now said to be waiting for the next major rail line to open.

There is more to the story of course (eg variations on the theme in Japan,
etc). I looked at a fairly small sample of cities so this is just a
hypothesis which I am keen to explore further. But I had better stop before
this becomes much too much to digest....

Paul
A. Rahman Paul BARTER
Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia 
and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network)
P.O. Box 11501, Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
URL: http://www.malaysiakini.com/sustran (under construction)

Ask about our SUSTRAN NEWS FLASHES - news updates on
people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport
with a focus on countries in the global 'South'.