[sustran] [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit

kisan mehta kisansbc at vsnl.com
Sat Oct 27 11:26:24 JST 2001


----- Original Message -----
From: kisan mehta <kisansbc at vsnl.com>
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Cc:  hjk at rincon.net ;  salvi_vinita at hotmail.com  surekha52 at yahoo.com ;
marjaben43 at hotmail.com ;
saksena6 at bom8.vsnl.net.in ;  surekha52 at yahoo.com
ISM
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7.00 AM
Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit


> Dear Sustran friends,
>
> The Ridership debate is going on with so many actors
playing so many different roles creating heat.  In
countries having cold climate and getting colder due
to incoming winter, heat made available free is welcome however in tropical
countries this additional heat causes  further discomfort.  The debate is
certainly informative
and instructive.  I do not want to add the last word
because a person like me giving the first or second
word cannot stop further discussion by declaring it
as last word.
>
> I cannot relate my submissions to what is happening
or has happened in the West or in affluent countries.
I can only talk, if at all, about what is happening in the
poor countries. which the rich euphematically address
as developing countries.
>
> In India, railways are provided by the Government of
India (GOI) and not even by state governments. Many diverse services
developed by private companies and authorities were taken over and merged by
the GOI on
the dawn of independence in 1947. The Indian Railways
(IR) then split them up in zones.  Development or
extension of services, frequency of trains etc is decided
by the apex IR to be managed by zonal railways.  Finance, passenger and
cargo fares are fixed through
the GOI annual budget (though sometimes sporadic
changes do come up).  So you can imagine that this
is decided on political considerations. The area from
where the ruling Railway Minister comes shall in all
probability get more new services.
>
> IR are the largest employer in this country and in
the world. The network is also the largest in the world
though not adequate. All zones are required to end up in surplus. There is
no subsidy. The GOI charges interest
on capital invested in the railways.
>
> Suburban railways in four metro cities- Delhi, Kolkata,
> Mumbai, Chennai- are however an exception. They
are a part of the zone in which they operate. Except
services in Mumbai all three end up in financial loss
year by year, to be made good by the respective zone.   Mumbai suburban
service provides 5 million journeys
daily, accounting for slightly more than 35% of total
journeys undertaken throughout the country. Trains
run at suffocation level (like sardines in a tin) so
some contend that though they charge a paltry fare
(starting at much less than 10 US cents) they are not
in loss due to overcrowding.  There is no subsidy in fares though the GOI
bears total capital cost realising capital and recurring costs from users.
>
> For poor countries having much less than adequate
> facilities, discussion on ridership appears to be
> irrelevant or at the most academic.  New facility
> comes up much later with demand high pant up at
explosion level. We do not have underground or
other than traditional land railways except in
Kolkata where it makes heavy losses. Probably
demand forecasts were not properly done or tram
traffic has not been weaned over.  Kolkata again
is the only metro where the ramshackle tram is
the backbone for fast movement to city centre.
>
> We feel that railways running on their exclusive
track have specific role of moving masses fast.
They provide fastest direct and certainly the
cheapest connection between two points and carry
much larger number of commuters when compared
to any other mode of traffic including public bus
service.   In the interior India too, long distance
passengers use railways though buses are more
> frequent and direct.   Buses have become
feeders to railways in many centres for providing
closer link to the destination. Issue of financial loss
does not arise or the subsidies.
>
> Railways have a definite and distinct role of
spreading population and decongesting urban centres.
Two private railway lines of Bombay set up two
suburban railway lines in the Thirties and that has
moulded the face and geography of Mumbai.  Mumbai
has spread along these two corridors.  Two zones
Central and Western headquartered in Mumbai
(which took over 2 private railway operators) bring
55% of Mumbai workers from commuting areas spread
upto 100-150 km in the congested Island City. No
worker brings motor car (fortunately he does not own
one) or commutes by a bus for commuting long
distance to work.
>
> We do not think railways or buses are meant to
> reduce traffic.  Both, in fact, increase traffic in
the same way like facilities one provides to personal
car traffic. While trains reduce traffic jams  cars
aggravate.  We do not feel that trains are designed
or result in reduction of traffic, as some discussants
in our present debate, tried to show.  Job of trains
is certainly different, nobody plans or builds a train
facility to reduce traffic.
>
> Ridership counted in numbers is not a criterion
either. All services existing or coming up are fully rather
overfully used.  Very rarely the actual ridership data
disappoints planned ridership.  Some in Mumbai have
just started talking about installing light railway in
Mumbai for a short distance. Number of journeys
being planned is so small, compared to the demand,
that others wonder as to why should light railway be
considered at all.  It can neither ease the road traffic
jams nor reduce pedestrian inconvenience. If it works
within the present fare structure, it will be financially
unviable for the money invested in creating the facility.
Yet ridership issue will not come in.  As long as it
runs charging affordable fares comparable to
existing railway fare structure it will have users
but it will be a financial loss.  We know of many
workers walking 5 to 7 km along the railway track
as they cannot afford even fare of much less
than 10 cents.  Any takers?  Wendell, Eric, Alan
and all those who vehemently participated in the
ridership issue as well as intruders like me
talking of railways as an affordable mode of
traffic? Best wishes.

Kisan Mehta  kisansbc at vsnl.com
> .
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan Patrick Howes <APHOWES at dm.gov.ae>
> To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
>
>
> > Many thanks for all the useful contributions on this subject.
> >
> > As far as transit investments and congestion reduction are concerned,
> sticks
> > and carrots are the answer. Provision of a good transit system (whether
> rail
> > or bus) should make it feasible to introduce measures to restrain car
> use -
> > parking charges, tolling, gas taxes or whatever. At least, feasible in
> terms
> > of equity - whether politically feasible is another matter, and depends
> very
> > much on where you are ...
> >
> > --
> > Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor, DM Public Transport Department
> > aphowes at dm.gov.ae
> > Tel:      04 286 1616 ext 214
> > Mobile: 050 5989661
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Todd Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:13 PM
> > To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> > Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
> >
> >
> >
> > I think Mr. Cox indicates the basis of much disagreement about the value
> of
> > rail and busways, and other transportation investments, in his second
> > paragraph below which reflects the common assumption that transportation
> > investments in general and rail transit investments in particular should
> be
> > evaluated based only on their congestion reduction impacts.
> >
> > Rail transit investments probably won't reduce congestion as it is
> > conventionally measured, i.e., roadway level of service or average
vehicle
> > traffic speeds because urban congestion tends to maintain a
self-limiting
> > equilibrium.
> >
> > However, there is good reason to believe that rail transit can be a
> > catalyst for more accessible land use and improved transportation
choice.
> > Although this will not significantly reduce traffic congestion, it can
> > reduce overall transportatiion costs and allow consumers a better range
of
> > transportation and land use options to choose from.
> >
> > This is not to say that I think that rail transit is always better than
> > busways. However, it means that critics of rail transit should
acknowledge
> > that there may be other significant evaluation criteria besides
ridership,
> > costs-per-trip and direct congestion impacts. For discussion of these
> > issues see the following chapters in our Encyclopedia:
> >
> > "Social Benefits of Public Transit" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm62.htm
> > "Accessibility" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm84.htm
> > "Transit Oriented Development - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm
> > "Measuring Transportation" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm55.htm
> > "Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation"
> http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm76.htm
> >
> >
> > Best wishes.
> >
> > -Todd Litman
> >
> >
> > At 09:21 AM 10/23/01 -0500, Wendell Cox wrote:
> > >Depends upon what you call official projections. In the case of Dallas,
> the
> > >projections made at the time the program was sold to the public for the
> > >ballot referendum are way above anything that will ever be achieved
even
> > >when they finish the system.
> > >
> > >STL has done better, but as for reduction of traffic congestion during
> peak
> > >hours, or even slowing its growth, the score is, frankly, zero.
> > >
> > >One of the important debate issues is what projections are used to
> justify
> > a
> > >project. In Los Angeles, we approved the Blue Line light rail line when
> the
> > >anticipated cost was less than $150 million. Even then, the votes were

> > >barely there at the time on the LACTC (commission). A series of cost
> > >increases eventually got the project to over $900m, with a more than
> > >doubling in real $ (dont remember the exact figure) by the time it was
> > >opened. Fact is that the votes would not have been there for a $900
> million
> > >project in 1981, even in 1981$. For me, the crucial ridership and cost
> > >projections are those made at the point that the decision to proceed is
> > >made. Rarely will a government agency cancel a project once approved.
> Best
> > >example of that is the world record holding Big Dig in Boston.
> > >
> > >DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
> > >http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
> > >http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
> > >Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
> > >PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: <BruunB at aol.com>
> > >To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, 23 October, 2001 10:16
> > >Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
> > >
> > >
> > >> The Hudson-Bergen line is on the west side of the Hudson in New
Jersey,
> > >right
> > >> across from Manhattan. By the way, ridership has changed
substantially
> > >since
> > >> the
> > >> attack on the WTC.
> > >>
> > >> I want to point out two other things:
> > >>
> > >> 1) There are some new rail systems that are well above official
> > >projections,
> > >> for example, Dallas and Saint Louis.
> > >> 2) The concern that a line is not immediately near capacity is
> misplaced.
> > >Do
> > >> we want our airports or motorways to be near capacity right after
> > opening?
> > >> No, we want reserve capacity, especially if we hope to attract
develop
> > >along
> > >> the line.
> > >>
> > >> Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Todd Litman, Director
> > Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> > 1250 Rudlin Street
> > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> > E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> > Website: http://www.vtpi.org
> >
>



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list