[sustran] Re: Article in Guardian Newspaper

[Alan Patrick Howes]

I read the comment on this article before I read the article itself - I would not call it exactly "rail bashing" - I am not sure whether "every metro in the world swallows up huge subsidies" is a comment by John Whitelegg or supposed to be a quote from Penalosa.

But would anyone dispute that, comparing "like for like" as much as possible, that the subsidy required per passenger-km (including capital costs) will be, on worldwide comparisons, higher for a Metro than for a bus system - a lot higher. But OK, the benefits will be different too. One factor that has to be considered is urban density - bus systems are generally more appropriate the lower the urban density. In fact, rich low-density cities like Los Angeles (or even Du*ai) may well be better served by busways, while relatively poor high-density cities such as New Delhi or Mumbai may justify rail!

But it is my view that more cities in the world get Metro systems when a Bus-based system would be more appropriate, than vice versa. And I think one of the reasons for this is the power of the rail industry lobby, and the desire of western governments to sell rail systems - which bring a lot more benefit to western companies than would a bus system to move the same demand. ("Oh dear, they might actually buy LOCALLY MADE buses" - shock horror)

And in my recent experience, some western consultants work to the same agenda, which may justify the crack "we should stop sending our transport consultants to developing countries" - which might have raised my ire! (I am about to leave Dubai to work for a consultant in the UK - one that believes that buses and trains each have a part to play!)

There are certainly cases where rail is preferable to bus for reasons such as speed or capacity - but the flexibility and ease of implementation of bus systems are a big advantage too. Curitiba and Bogota have shown that buses can move traffic volumes that previously have been thought to need rail - potentially up to 25,000 pax per hour per direction on a single lane, depending on suitable arrangements of stops/stations. And an elevated busway takes up no more space at ground level than does an elevated railway.

-- 
These comments are my personal opinion ONLY
Alan P Howes, Dubai
aphowes at dm.gov.ae
http://www.dubaipublictransport.ae/
Tel:    +971 4 286 1616 ext 214
Mobile: +971 50 5989661


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Bruun [mailto:ericbruun at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thu, 27 March, 2003 22:18
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org
> Cc: gh7 at york.ac.uk; Matoff, Tom; vuchic; Francis Vanek; 
> Ritjavakhtar at aol.com; oeyvind.espe at ps.ge.com
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Article in Guardian Newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 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°
> 
> 
> 
>