[sustran] More on Bus and rail (fwd)]

[BruunB at aol.com]

I have inserted some brief comments below.  Eric


In a message dated 3/1/02 9:03:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, lfwright at usa.net 
writes:

<< ubj:  [sustran] Re: [[sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)]
 Date:  3/1/02 9:03:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
 From:  lfwright at usa.net (Lloyd Wright)
 Sender:    owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
 Reply-to:  sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
 To:    sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
 
 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.
 
>> It is not always just image, sometimes there is a difference in speed and 
comfort. 
Buses can be very good, rail can be very bad, but at their best, rail can 
reach higher standards. That is my only point.


 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.


>> No argument that rail can be loud as well. But lets look at BART in San 
Francisco 
to state a clear case. It has 10 car trains every 15 minutes on most lines 
with 5 minutes in the peak. If this were to be done with buses, the buses 
would be coming by every few seconds. This makes a difference.

 
 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.
 
>> I am not just suggesting the difference in operating costs, its a fact. If 
one actually has to cost out a schedule based on lengthening consists versus 
adding more vehicles, the latter costs more. At least this is true with the 
cost structure of the richer countries. Cities with good rail systems tend to 
also have better bus frequencies, since the trunk line is relatively cheap to 
operate while buses run shorter connecting routes.

 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
  >>