[sustran] Re: Yet more on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway

[Jonathan E. D. Richmond]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote:

>
>
> Jonathon
>
> I hope we can agree to disagree.
 I have read your paper.
> I don't accept that you have studied this more than I have.
> I an in the consuting business nowadays, not in academia, so I haven't been
> publishing.  But this doesn't mean that I haven't worked on it.
>
> I have a few comments in my self defense.
>
> "Right-wing idealogues" is not a cheap shot. The history of the British
> deregulation is that it was promoted by right-wing idealogues in the early
> 1980s. There was very little support for it in the professional public
> transport community.

Isn't it better to go on the evidence of performance?


>
> I also said that there are factors that support rail in some circumstances,
> I did not say in all circumstances. Thus, I don't disagree with some of your
> comments. So, of course, bridges and tunnels should be avoided, but
> sometimes there simply isn't any other realistic choice.  Of course, there
> might be a lot of railcars sitting around during midday -- these are the
> types of trade-offs one has to make.  (There might be many buses sitting
> around as well, by the way).
>
> And I certainly don't disagree that the analysis can be complex. That is the
> point I thought I was making.
>
> Efficiency, for example, is not the only criterion. It must be balanced
> amongst others. If one does only what is the most efficient, service would
> be limited only to certain corridors and at certain times, serving limited
> types of trips. In the case of most US cities, this would be mostly
> commuters to the Central Business District. Yet, there are lots of people
> who need to get to places not on these corridors.

Exactly, and with rail systems you are constrained to a small number of
corridors while, with the same resources, far more varied services can be
provided with buses.


 Should we just forget
> them?

No, but the rail promoters in the US cities who have recently acquired
rail have done exactly that.

 In the real world of political pressure on management, equity also
> counts.

Exactly, and lower income people suffer when they lose direct services and
are made to transfer from feeder buses to rail and when bus services get
cut back for budgetary reasons taking away vital short-distance local
connections for people without access to cars.

 Radial trunk services with feeders are one way this is addressed.
> This is the idea behind many of the new LRT rail/bus networks; this has
> increased the connections for suburbs.


It has made connections slow and inconvenient in many cases and removed
important local services.

 The Houston bus-on-freeway network
> may be efficient, but it is not equitable -- this system works for downtown
> commuters but is very weak in the cross-suburb market and gets its speed by
> limiting the amount of service between intermediate origins and destinations
> along the corridor, and by having stops along the motorway rather than
> closer to where passengers want to go.


In fact, Houston has two types of system. The park and ride, which caters
to suburban commuter interests and an urban bus system that complements it
with a range of other services.

Commuters going downtown get a much faster service than if light rail were
to be stopping at a range of stations, and this works well in the Houston
context, as does the ability of the busways to accommodate carpools. The
urban system specifically targets low-income users.

How would a rail system help the "cross-suburban market?"


>
> As for my "conjecture" that better service for an equal operating budget can
> be provided with a trunk and feeder system than with separate radial routes,
> this can be shown with an engineering cost model.

I prefer to go by a substantial amount of available empirical evidence to
the contrary.


 Since so many people keep
> challenging my assertion, I am submitting an academic paper that gives a
> good example in the very near future.  In the meantime, there is empirical
> evidence to support my assertion. Have a look at Thompson and Matoff's
> article "Keeping up with the Jones" in the Summer 2003 edition of Journal of
> the American Planning Association. The newer LRT systems using trunk and
> feeder have comparable or better efficiency than the radial bus systems and
> much better equity, in that they provide the suburban and off-peak markets
> with more frequent service.
>

I hve not yet seen this article, but I have done a great deal of
painstaking research on this subject which has strikingly revealed the
negative impacts on financial performance of going from a bus only to a
rail plus bus feeder configuration. As for equity, just note the
demonstrations and protests that took place in Los Angeles following the
opening of rail services and parallel degradation of bus services due to
budgetary shortfalls occasioned by expensitures on rail. "No more rail.
Billions for buses," the placards read, while a major lawsuit, which
focused among other things on the discriminatory nature of the rail
projects has forced the MTA to put a new emphasis on buses.

                     --Jonathan


> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" <richmond at alum.mit.edu>
> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:23 PM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
>
>
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Sustran readers:
> > >
> > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would
> be
> > > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe
> and
> > > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is
> > > problematic, of I will mention more below.
> > >
> > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they
> are
> > > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the
> circumstances
> > > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations
> that
> > > can often makes rail a better alternative:
> > >
> > > 1) High labor costs.  If demand is high and service is frequent, then
> very
> > > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages
> are
> > > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor
> costs
> > > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid.
> > >
> >
> > The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth.
> > Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in
> > well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level.
> > I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains
> > were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does
> > influence decision makers. The reality is different.
> >
> >
> > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or
> consists
> > > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost.
> >
> > Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the
> > day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing
> > consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one
> > of many.
> >
> >
> >  Each unit of bus capacity
> > > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and
> old
> > > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are
> in
> > > mixed traffic operation.
> > >
> >
> > But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not
> > comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are
> > substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system
> > approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a
> lot of
> > > time and money for rail projects.
> >
> > And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major
> > problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they
> > exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples
> > of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail
> > crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges.
> Once
> > > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be
> such
> > > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of
> > > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in
> Bogota
> > > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of
> massive
> > > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be
> serious
> > > water crossings.
> >
> > These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in
> > Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing
> > surface-level infrastructure work better.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes.
> >
> > So enforce them!
> >
> >  Rail rights-of-way can be designed to
> > > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory,
> but
> > > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty
> space".)
> > >
> >
> > This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain
> > cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the
> > extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well,
> > thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston
> > has documented substantial environmental improvement from its
> transportation
> > developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail.
> >
> >
> > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand
> is
> > > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a
> > > continuous wall of them in the future.
> >
> > More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are
> > disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more
> > of an impediment than trains.
> >
> >  This becomes quite unattractive in
> > > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means
> that
> > > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal
> > > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the
> > > right-of-way more open.
> > >
> > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is
> > > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some
> > > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles
> and
> > > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and
> > > tangential connectors.
> >
> > This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on
> > this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well
> > below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you
> > generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk
> > services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and
> > then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial,
> > but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in
> > rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost
> > is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach."
> > But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do
> > not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you
> > don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do
> > not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower
> > income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments
> > while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at
> > a far lower cost.
> >
> >
> >  In this way, more service to more origin-destination
> > > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true
> when
> > > there are high peak-to-base ratios.
> >
> > As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts.
> >
> >                                          --Jonathan
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
> > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
> > > <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM
> > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
> > >
> > >
> > > > For what it's worth :
> > > >
> > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The
> UK
> > > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information
> > > here.
> > > >
> > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with
> CONNEX
> > > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have
> a
> > > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast
> > > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue
> > > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK
> National
> > > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to
> > > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are.
> > > >
> > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover
> direct
> > > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to
> the
> > > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance
> > > costs
> > > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing
> > > services
> > > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future
> > > development.
> > > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the
> "international
> > > > standard" forecasts.
> > > >
> > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on
> these
> > > two
> > > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not
> > > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry
> the
> > > vast
> > > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10
> > > times
> > > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network
> > > which
> > > > is well under way.
> > > >
> > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous
> > > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a
> > > legacy
> > > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their
> > > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that
> > > they
> > > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared
> with
> > > the
> > > > very best bus-based alternatives.
> > > >
> > > > With best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > Brendan Finn.
> > > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alan Howes" <Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk>
> > > > To: ">" <SUSTRAN <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM
> > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint
> (I
> > > > gave that up myself a long time ago).  I gave the information so that
> > > people
> > > > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing.
> > > >
> > > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from
> being
> > > too
> > > > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes
> are
> > > > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common.
> > > >
> > > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as
> is
> > > > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in
> the
> > > UK
> > > > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based
> > > systems
> > > > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones.  An
> > > over-short
> > > > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present.
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alan Howes
> > > > Associate Transport Planner
> > > > Colin Buchanan and Partners
> > > >
> > > > 4 St Colme Street
> > > > Edinburgh      EH3 6AA
> > > > Scotland
> > > > email:  alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk
> > > > tel:      (0)131 240 2892 (direct)
> > > >            (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard)
> > > >            (0)7952 464335  (mobile)
> > > > fax:     (0)131 220 0232
> > > > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/
> > > > _______________________________
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended
> > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.
> > > > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for
> the
> > > > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else.
> If
> > > you
> > > > have received this email in error please contact the sender by
> replying to
> > > > this email.
> > > > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not
> > > > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of
> CBP,
> > > do
> > > > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional
> advice
> > > or
> > > > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and
> conditions
> > > > of business.
> > > > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting
> software
> > > > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by
> > > > software viruses.
> > > > _______________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>>
> > > >
> > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this
> is
> > > the
> > > > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something.
> > > >
> > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of
> what
> > > > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America.
> > > > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return
> required
> > > are
> > > > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the
> > > > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in
> London
> > > > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial
> success
> > > > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for
> > > > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so
> that
> > > > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors
> are
> > > not
> > > > being compensated for this change of plans.
> > > >
> > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is
> not
> > > > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with
> bus
> > > > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service.
> > > >
> > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had
> interesting
> > > > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's
> viewpoint.
> > > >
> > > > Eric Bruun
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alan P Howes <alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk>
> > > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM
> > > > To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> > > > Cc: Jerry Schneider <jbs at peak.org>
> > > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
> > > >
> > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above.  Most of the
> > > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local
> > > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line.
> > > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan.
> > > >
> > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm  Useful links to follow too.
> > > >
> > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website.  It's big,
> > > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article.  But if you take a look
> > > > at -
> > > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170
> > > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and
> > > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport
> > > > plans settlement - December 2003]
> > > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport.  Lots
> > > > of busways - no trams!  If you dig around on the DfT site you might
> > > > find more.
> > > >
> > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK
> > > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm
> > > >
> > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full
> > > > report.  But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes
> > > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and
> > > > looks at why.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Alan
> > > > --
> > > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland
> > > > alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk
> > > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/  [Needs Updating!]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > 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/
> >
>

-----

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/