[sustran] Re: The Private Provision of Public Transport

[Brendan Finn]

There is a lot of validity in Craig's answer. In many developing countries, there is the combination of low cost labour (often exploiting themselves), many opportunities for gain, and slack enforcement. This is not what developed countries want. 

Nonetheless, throughout Asia and South America we see that the private sector provides extensive and sometimes innovative transport solutions. Just because the end result may look chaotic or rather grubby - compared to say, Amsterdam or Zurich which has the money to spend - doesn't mean that the people involved are incompetent or poorly organised. They work within (or sometimes outside!) the framework they are given, and the available resources. 

It is unlikely that paratransit entrepreneurs could simply walk into a European city and run profitable services to the demanded standard there. But perhaps there are valuable lessons to be learned from how they identify their markets, develop their business, manage their staff, maximise their resources. I would like to hear suggestions from the Sustrans community.

Coming back to the original question, two areas which surely have applicability in the developed cities : 

a) The use of river and canal transport in Bangkok, which offers fast options to bypass the street traffic.

b) Collective paratransit services in urban areas provide the 'intermediate transport' layer which is missing in developed cities where the transit is based on mass services - rail and big buses on fixed routes. Many car trips just cannot be made by public transport because the local links are missing. While the business model and the cost base may not be directly transferrable, the market knowledge and organisational techniques may be. 

With best wishes,



Brendan Finn. 
______________________________________________________

Please note contact details as follows : 

Address : 28, Leonie Hill, #02-28 Leonie Towers, Singapore 239227
Mobile : +65.94332298     Tel : +65.7340260   Fax/Tel : +65.7340412   
e-mail :  bfinn at singnet.com.sg        Website  :  http://www.europrojects.ie/etts
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Craig Townsend 
  To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org 
  Sent: 01 February 2002 13:53
  Subject: [sustran] Re: The Private Provision of Public Transport


  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/20020204/d8a344cc/attachment.htm