[sustran] Re: The Private Provision of Public Transport

Craig Townsend townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au
Fri Feb 1 14:53:51 JST 2002


I agree with virtually all of Eric and Brendan's insights. In response to 
one of Brendan's questions ("...what can developed countries with their 
protected markets learn from the diversity of private sector participation 
in countries they consider to be less developed?") I would like to 
(provocatively) answer not much!

The substantial negative externalities resulting from highly competitive, 
responsive, and cheap motorized transport far outweigh the benefits. In 
order for cities in developed countries to achieve the level of abundant 
and cheap supply (which is also often low comfort and safety) of motorized 
"public" passenger transport found in cities of developing countries, many 
things would have to be thrown out the window (eg. public safety, traffic 
laws, air quality standards, minimum wages). So much quality of life would 
have to be "given away" in order to achieve more competitive and responsive 
urban passenger transport, that at the end of the day the net quality of 
life impact would be negative. In addition, the competition is mainly among 
the bus operators, while top officials and gangsters skim off payments 
which enhance elite power and privilege and contribute to large income 
inequalities and the overall poor quality of life!

Nonetheless, the transition to a better quality public transport system is 
not without pitfalls. The removal of the minibuses in Kuala Lumpur in order 
to make way for the higher quality, less dangerous and less polluting LRTs 
(which are on their way to becoming publicly-owned) has created a lack of 
affordable and available public transport in many areas of the city. I 
would argue that it is a necessary transition, though. I suspect that many 
less lives are lost, air quality has improved ...

As Eric points out, Richmond's examples of successful private transport in 
some US cities ignores the overall experience of a largely poor and captive 
passenger market in those cities. How do those people feel about the 
system? For reasons that are unclear to me from a quick read of his 
conclusions, Richmond is interested in private provision of public 
transport as an end in itself, not as a means of reaching a higher quality 
of life for most citizens.

Best wishes,

Craig

>7) But what of cities in developing countries, or where the economy is weak
>or in turmoil ? Here, the public provision may be quite weak, and the
>private sector participation is necessary to meet the needs of the citizens.
>In some cases this is well structured, in others it is chaotic. Is the
>experience of the developed countries relevant for them ? Or indeed, what
>can developed countries with their protected markets learn from the
>diversity of private sector participation in countries they consider to be
>less developed ?


________________________________________________
Craig Townsend
Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy
Murdoch University
South Street, Murdoch
Perth, Western Australia 6150

tel: (61 8) 9360 6278
fax: (61 8) 9360 6421
email: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20020201/ef179562/attachment.htm


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list