[sustran] Re: Article in Guardian Newspaper

[Eric Bruun]

Dear Colleagues:

Don't get me wrong, I am an admirer of John Whitelegg, and certainly an
admirer of the bus systems in Bogota, Curitiba, Quito, Kunming, and so on.

Nevertheless, after reading the Guardian article, I must react to this
continual rail bashing I see from people who are ostensible public transport
advocates. The situation is more complicated than buses always being better
than rail for poorer cities.

It may be true that the rich might advocate for expensive metros so that
they can continue to hog the street space. But the other side is that the
poor would have their space taken by an above-ground busway as well. Many of
the poor in some of world's densest cities would have to be displaced and
communities disrupted in order to build a Transmillenio-type system. It is
equivalent to a four to six-lane wide freeway, depending upon the standards
used. Where could one have built such a system in Old Delhi? A tunnel or
elevated section is sometimes the only solution.

Furthermore, as cities get really large, distances become long and demand
volumes become huge. A Metro can carry huge numbers of people at a high
average speed. The comparisons between rail and bus systems are often
confused because of different levels of crowding, peak versus average
performance, neglect of speed differences, etc. It may be expensive to
build, but a Metro really does have superior performance. This is not
changed by the fact that poorer cities can not afford them without outside
assistance.

The statement that metros consume huge subsidies everywhere in the world
also disappoints me, coming as it does from environmentally-conscious
quarters. Even in the most simplistic sense, it is not true. The Hong Kong
Metro recoups even its capital costs through land development over stations.
The London Underground recovers 130 percent of its operating costs.
Additions to existing rail systems are increasingly paid for by
beneficiaries through tax increment financing, joint development, etc. But
in a more sophisticated sense, in the richer countries, a network of metros
and buses is likely to have a much higher average operating cost recovery
ratio than a bus-only system. Thus, the capital costs defray some operating
expenses. This could well prove true in some of the poorer cities as well.

Furthermore, as Kenworthy, Newman, Laube, et. al.'s research shows, the
cities with excellent rail systems in the richer countries actually spend
less in total on personal transportation, so perhaps the "huge subsidies"
are justified. These cities also are more compact, consuming less farm land
and less petrol, benefits further justifying "huge subsidies". Again, this
could well prove true in some of the poorer cities as well, especially if it
slows down the otherwise rapid automobilization.

But what really disappoints me is the neglect of sustainable development
principles. Conventional economic analysis discounts all long-term
investments to zero fairly quickly. Yet, rail tunnels built over 100 years
ago still are just as important, if not more important, than the day they
were built.
The "huge subsidy" in fact is spread over many generations of beneficiaries.

I certainly think there is room for debate on what the investment and land
use policy should be for building public transport systems in moderately
sized cities. But I find it hard to believe that the increasing number of
megacities in the world would really be better served by bus-only systems.

Eric Bruun

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Barter" <geobpa at nus.edu.sg>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org>
Cc: <gh7 at york.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:18 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Article in Guardian Newspaper


Dear sustran-discussers

See message below from Gary Haq. By the way, "John" = John Whitelegg and the
book that Gary refers to is the new Earthscan Reader on World Transport
Policy and Practice:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/asp/bookdetails.asp?key=3890&field=new

I should declare an interest: I have a little chapter in it. Paul

Dr Paul Barter
Fellow in the Department of Geography and the Public Policy Programme
National University of Singapore 1 Arts Link, Singapore 117570
Tel: +65-6874 3860; Fax: +65-6777 3091
E-mail: geobpa at nus.edu.sg

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Haq
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2003 7:28 PM
To: ... <recipient list snipped>
Subject: Article in Guardian Newspaper related to book


Dear Colleagues,
You may be interested in the following article that John has written based
on the theme of the book that has just appeared in today's Guardian
newspaper in the UK see:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,7884,921595,00.html

Best regards

Gary


º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

Dr Gary Haq
Research Associate
Implementing Sustainability Group
Stockholm Environment Institute at York
University of York
York
YO10 5YW
UK

Telephone:  +44 (0) 1904 432917
Facsimile:  +44 (0) 1904 432898
E-mail:     gh7 at york.ac.uk
Website:    http://www.seiy.org/

NEW BOOK on World Transport Policy & Practice
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/asp/bookdetails.asp?key=3890&field=new

º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°