[sustran] Re: more on Bus and rail

[Alan Patrick Howes]

Yes.

-- 
Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor, 
     Dubai Municipality Public Transport Department
aphowes at dm.gov.ae
Tel:    +971 4 286 1616 ext 214
Mobile: +971 50 5989661


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Beste [mailto:PeterBeste at smrtcorp.com.sg]
> Sent: Tue, March 05, 2002 8:20 AM
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: more on Bus and rail
> 
> 
> Alan
> 
> have the consultants for Dubai taken life cycle costs of vehicles and
> infrastructure into account for their evaluation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I'm not an expert on US funding arrangements, but if NYCTA can get
> > Maintenance treated as Capital (and thus presumably attract Federal
> > funding), I can see why they do it.
> >
> > But the whole idea of separating Capital and Operating 
> costs in the way
> they
> > do in the US is grotesque - the problem is that Americans 
> think it is the
> > way God planned, and what America thinks we all have to 
> think too :-)
> >
> > The only thing to be said for it is that it (sort of) puts transit
> spending
> > on a level playing field with road spending. The big 
> problem is that it
> > skews comparison of different transit solutions depending on how
> > capital-intensive they are (which is one of the reasons why our US
> > consultants are recommending an LRT for Dubai).
> >
> > But the real answer is for proper cost-benefit comparisons of ALL
> transport
> > schemes, taking into account environmental factors too - as 
> well as costs
> of
> > capital, and the sort of things Craig was talking about. 
> Seems the reason
> > this is not done in the US is that they can't agree on cost 
> parameters for
> > environmental effects - or even, I suspect, values of 
> personal time. OK,
> > that's a real problem, but it should not stop an attempt 
> being made with
> > quantified assumptions, plus a sensitivity analysis.
> >
> > Of course, if this was done, in urban areas at least, few road-based
> schemes
> > would be justified. Perhaps, bearing in mind who calls the 
> shots,  this is
> > why this approach is not followed in so many countries ...
> >
> > Just my personal opinions.
> > --
> > Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor,
> >      Dubai Municipality Public Transport Department
> > aphowes at dm.gov.ae
> > Tel:    +971 4 286 1616 ext 214
> > Mobile: +971 50 5989661
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: BruunB at aol.com [mailto:BruunB at aol.com]
> > > Sent: Tue, March 05, 2002 3:40 AM
> > > To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> > > Subject: [sustran] more on Bus and rail (fwd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that you, Walter, who raised these good points?
> > >
> > > Just to complicate things further, NYC's capital costs are
> > > higher than average
> > > due to the abnormal complexity of the system and the starving
> > > of repair
> > > budgets for many decades, up to the early 1980s. I think this
> > > is why normal
> > > maintenance balloons into major capital investments.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 3/4/02 3:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > mobility at igc.org
> > > writes:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >  Regarding the costs of operations, it would seem to depend
> > > on whether you
> > >  consider large scale maintenance part of operating costs or
> > > not.  If you
> > > exclude
> > >  large scale maintenance in New York,  the subways have lower
> > > operating costs
> > > than
> > >  buses, but if you include large scale maintenance they are
> > > higher.  We have a
> > >  habit in the US of calling large scale maintenance
> > > ''capital'' investment,
> > > but in
> > >  fact the entire capital budget of the NYCTA is not actually
> > > building anything
> > >  new, it is just keeping the system from further
> > > deteriorating, other than
> > > some
> > >  very slow signalling system improvements and perhaps
> > > marginally better
> > > trains.
> > >
> > >
> > >   >>
> > >
>