[sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer

[Karl Fjellstrom]

Some replies ***

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2004 9:32 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer


That is an interesting question, but before we get too hung up on Bus Rapid
Transit, it is worth mentioning that the crying need in so many cities is
for decent service for the urban poor, who depend on local buses and who are
too often neglected.
*** Agreed, the bus sector in Bangkok has been long neglected. But I don't
agree with the implication that bus rapid transit is not for the poor. Value
of time studies e.g. from Bangladesh show the very poor are in fact under
great time constraints and it's a myth to suggest they could afford to spend
hours to save a few baht. We also did surveys in Surabaya and Denpasar which
showed that even for the poor, the most important consideration in transit
service was not in fact low fare (this came in lower down the list), but
issues like reliability, speed, comfort (not being squashed in) and
security.

Here in Bangkok the 4 baht nonaircon buses, with dusty wooden floors and
filled with traffic fumes which come through their glassless windows, remain
packed out -- and not only with local low income people.
*** I'd query the basis in fact of this anecdote. These 4 baht services are
rapidly declining and conversely a/c services are rapidly increasing. Now a
majority of large buses in Bangkok are air-con and a majority of bus trips
are with air con buses. We surveyed some of the 4 baht routes and the
frequency of service they offer are very unreliable. As a result their
occupancy is actually not as high as the 5 baht blue/white buses, partly
because you can't rely on getting a 4 baht bus.

 I discovered that some of our AIT students cannot afford to transfer to the
(30-40 baht) Skytrain, but sit out journeys by bus across town that take an
hour or more longer to save a few baht.
*** But it's not a 'few baht'. Your students would probably pay a 'few baht'
to save an hour or more. But whereas for 2 bus trips they might pay 10 baht
in total (and the average bus route in Bangkok keep in mind is now more than
30km long, not including the 10,000 air con passenger vans which have longer
routes), for the skytrain this would cost them say 30baht for the skytrain
PLUS one or two transfer buses. About 75% of skytrain users have incomes
more than 17,000 baht per month. It's nice, but essentially a niche service
for the wealthy.

What risks happening is that busway transit will come to town and, as with
the new rail services, with it fares will go up. I know busway fares have
been controlled to decent levels in South American countries, but in places
like Bangkok there is a tradition of charging more for "premium"
services, and I can easily see major increases happening.
*** I agree with you it's a very important issue to consider, but I think
your observation about Bangkok is misleading. The cost structure of BRT is
radically different to rail. Operating and capital costs are much lower. BRT
in Bangkok would consist of trunk and feeder services or an open system or
some variation of the two. One great advantage of BRT would be that there
are existing good bus services in Bangkok and these would become part of the
feeder system. If you look into the history of fare rises in Bangkok you
will see that it's very much politically controlled. The 4 baht economy fare
was set for more than a decade prior to this year at 3.5 baht. Did this help
'the poor'? The result was that the 3.5 baht fare remained but the services
practically disappeared. Passengers, including low income passengers,
shifted to the more reliable 5 baht services and air con services. On
balance the fare controls in Bangkok have probably done more harm than good
to the level of service provided for the urban poor. The result has been
e.g. for the economy services the creeping disappearance of the service, and
10,000 up to recently unregulated air con passenger vans emerged because
'the poor' also require a reliable service. In my view it's a good thing to
offer a range of services, including premium services.

Of course, what may happen is that the nonaircon buses will continue
operations on parallel routes, going as slowly and uncomfortably as ever,
simply accentuating the differences between services made available
according to income.
*** You raise a valid concern. But I'd suggest BRT could be applied
virtually citywide due to the low cost and rapid implementation. I'm really
- as you seem to be - against the kind of 'transit apartheid' that e.g. sees
expenditure of US$150 million per km on the 20km subway, while the bus
services serving 90% of public transport trips are totally neglected. But to
bunch BRT in with this kind of very high costs metro spending is misleading.

It seems to me that there is a strong case for improving existing ordinary
services before investing in bus rapid transit, yet I do not hear advocacy
for this from the busway gurus any more than from the rail people.
*** There have been a long line of proposals for improving the bus services
in Bangkok. The World Bank did a very big study in the late 1990s. We did
some work on it in early 2003. The problem is that all of this work (none of
which by the way involved BRT though some of it involved modest proposals
for bus lanes) went to the shelf and virtually NOTHING was implemented.
That's why in late 2003 / early 2004 we tried to promote the concept of BRT
in Bangkok. I think (and still think) it's the only way to actually show the
policy-makers the potential political gains and actually get the reforms
implemented.
*** the most important point in my view is the one raised by Walter, that
buses cannot provide a good service or be profitable stuck in congestion,
and that BRT can greatly reduce costs of operators while raising service
quality. The potential for time savings for bus passengers through (genuine
& effective) bus priority measures is huge. Hopefully the bus sector will
eventually get some serious policy attention but the signs with the subway
expansion plans are not great.
*** regards, Karl Fjellstrom

 Perhaps we need to abandon planning based on specific modes and start
instead by looking at the needs of people as clients and as human beings we
are to serve.


                                                         --Jonathan
 -----

Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510 (office)
Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
Transportation Engineering program
School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B               02 524-8257 (home)
Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
PO Box 4
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509

e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa
        richmond at alum.mit.edu		              02 524-6051
					      Intl:  662 524-6051
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/