[sustran] Re: [[sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)]

[Lloyd Wright]

As I previsously stated, I do not wish to engage in a contest between public
transit options since I would hope that the relative merits can be weighed by
each municipality in a transparent and fair way.  And also, I think the debate
on the particular technology obscures more important issues like customer
service and general political will towards supporting public transit. 
However, I thought it would be worthwhile to address a few issues that have
been raised.

1.	Image

A common point raised in the favour of rail is that it has a superior image,
and thus has greater potential to draw a wider base of customers, including
high-income groups.  This would certainly appear to be the case when rail is
compared to a typical diesel-belching, trapped-in-congestion municipal bus
system.  A more relevant comparison, though, would be to a system like
Bogota’s TransMilenio.  Such systems appear as “sexy” and visually attractive
as any metro system in the world.  I do not believe the people of Bogota, or
Curitiba or Quito, feel in any way that they have an inferior product.  And by
the looks of the clientele, the systems seem to attract a large number of
well-suited, upwardly mobile professionals.   

Having said this, though, I would agree that image and market draw is a
legitimate issue.  And it remains to be seen if the high-quality bus systems
in developed-nation cities like Brisbane, Honolulu and Bradford can draw
people out of their cars.  But then again, metros face the same issue.

2. Noise, Community, and Grade Separation

It was mentioned that busways can be noisy and can separate communities.  Yes,
these are certainly issues of concern and hopefully can be ameliorated with
good design.  However, I am not sure that rail is exempt from these issues. 
It seems like a rail line in your backyard creates noise and can cut through
your sense of community.  And some of the solutions are similar.  Quieter
buses, such as the Electric Trolebus in Quito, are one option.  Additionally,
there is sometimes the presumption that separating grades is something that
only rail can do.  Cities like Seattle and Boston have gone underground with
their bus lines.  Quito uses underpasses to avoid conflicts at intersections. 
Certainly there are costs to consider here, but I am not sure the concepts are
exclusive to rail.

3.  Operating costs

It was suggested that rail performs better with respect to operating costs,
especially since its operating costs are the same throughout the day,
including peak times.  I am not sure I understand this.  It seems like labour
and fuel costs go up with use regardless of the type of system. I have also
not seen any advantage to rail in terms of operating costs in Latin America. 
The majority of the bus rapid transit systems (Bogota, Curitiba, Porto Alegre)
run with zero operating subsidies and relatively low fares.  Porto Alegre,
Brazil is a good example because it has both a bus rapid transit system and a
metro rail system.  The bus rapid transit lines receive no public monies. 
Each rail fare must receive a public subsidy of 69% to break even.

4. The Trojan Horse Strategy and Industrial Policy

A point was made that rail offers much in terms of industrial policy, namely,
high skilled, well paying jobs and the introduction of new technologies.  It
has also been argued that governments like Japan (I would also add France)
will provide financing at very favourable terms.  Well, part of the reason
Japan and France are aggressively marketing these systems is that it does
create jobs and technological advantages, but mostly in Japan and France.   

The capital-intensive nature and low economies of scale of rail production
tends to make it difficult to disperse manufacturing, and thus keeping jobs
and technology in the north.  Bus manufacturing, and its associated jobs and
technology, is common in many countries.  Mercedes Benz has a plant in Sao
Paulo, and Volvo, in response to the success of Curitiba, manufactures from
Curitiba.  Marco Polo now manufactures in Colombia in response to the success
and market draw of Bogota’s TransMilenio.  Also, many bus manufacturing firms
are indigenous companies creating local solutions to local needs.  I would
also point out that you can find the same favourable financing deals from
governments with successful bus manufacturers.  

Municipalities should first decide what system and technology is best for
them, and then seek out the best terms and offers.  However, in many places,
the opposite is happening.  Sales people dazzle municipal staff with their
technology and successfully lock out competitive ideas.   These countries
likewise are partaking in a form of the Trojan Horse strategy.  An initial
line of a technology is built on highly subsidized terms.  The municipality is
now committed to a particular technology, and the expectation is that future
lines will opt for the same technology, albeit at non-subsidized prices.

A few examples from Latin America:

Medellin, Colombia’s second largest city, opted for a European-built metro
rail system several years back.  The system came with the usual array of
subsidized financing.  However, it has been a quite costly decision for the
city.  The high operating costs mean that the system runs perpetually with
taxpayer subsidies.  And now that the favourable financing terms are no longer
available, the city cannot not afford to expand as transit needs have grown. 
With the successful Bogota TransMilenio system now in full view, Medellin is
looking to extend its metro system using bus rapid transit.

The French government recently funded studies into the form and design of a
public transit system for Panama City.  The study concluded that the only
technology meeting the city’s needs was a French-built light rail system.  Bus
rapid transit was eliminated from consideration because the consultants told
the city that bus rapid transit cannot carry more than 6000 passengers per
hour per direction, which clearly contradicts international experience.  The
French government is offering $60 million in subsidies for system
construction, which will take the price of the one line down to $12 million
per kilometre.  Like Medellin, though, future lines will probably not receive
this subsidy, and the tax payers of Panama will be paying rather large sums
for an over-priced system.  

If one is selling a particular technology, then crafting the argument and
shaping the debate to your product is a legitimate part of marketing.  And I
am not necessarily criticising governments like Japan and France since they
may well be acting in the best interests of their industrial firms.  However,
as an NGO actor, I would like to see municipalities have all the options
before them in a fully transparent manner, and make the decision on a number
of criteria including capital costs, operating costs, and system performance. 


It is terrible that pro-auto groups in countries like New Zealand are using
bus systems as a means to further road construction for private vehicles and
not as a means to better public transport.  However, this should not be a
reason to oppose the consideration of improved bus services.  Rail firms will
win their share of the contracts without any additional help.  Bus rapid
transit should be an option on the table and should be given equal
consideration.

Best wishes,

Lloyd

Lloyd Wright
Director, Latin America
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
Email LFWright at usa.net

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1