[sustran] Re: Rail or bus

Karl Fjellstrom karl at dnet.net.id
Mon May 3 15:51:08 JST 2004


Dear all,

I agree with Jonathan's replies on Bangkok. The simple analysis of Alok Jain
of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation on air con buses and the skytrain
is incorrect. For one thing air-con buses are not 'inefficient'. They have a
better cost recovery than the non-air con buses and with the exception of
the BMTA (the state operator which makes a loss on all routes, air-con and
non-aircon) they are all profitable despite the adverse operating
conditions. Secondly closing bus routes parallel to the skytrain would
improve skytrain ridership somewhat but is not a Harry Potter magical stroke
which would solve the skytrain ridership problem or magically make reduced
skytrain fares viable leading to buses and skytrain 'living happily
thereafter' as he puts it. And it would in the mid term lead to yet more
proliferation of the air-con passenger vans, as the skytrain is not an
option for many people (due to cost and the limited coverage - it's
predominantly a corridor of 'destinations') and cutting them off from buses
would result in a substantial unmet demand that would probably - based on
prior experience - subsequently be met by paratransit, further eroding the
viability of the formal large bus sector...

Imho rail metros (like bus-based 'metros') can have many benefits as e.g.
Todd Litman elaborated. And especially where expensive rail investments have
already been made, even if ill-advised, it makes sense to optimise them
including by re-organising bus routes.

But Hong Kong is a special case. Transit demands of 80,000 pax/hr/dir on one
corridor are probably unique. A more normal range is say up to 13,000
pax/hr/dir which can be handled by regular buses or by just a single lane
BRT, or in some cases up to 25,000 which is comfortably within the range of
BRT and still within the range of regular bus services. BRT currently
reaches 35,000 and can in fact go up to 50,000 on the existing Bogota
configuration, for example. There are few corridors where public transport
demand exceeds 40,000, and even where it does this demand can be split into
multiple corridors through establishing a transit network. (In Hong Kong on
the Kowloon side much of the demand is channeled into a single line, partly
due to unique topography I suppose. Likewise Sao Paulo can hit 60,000 phd by
focusing a line on Avenida Paulista with no parallel services.) So the
argument that some trunk corridors *require* rail based on demand levels is
true but only applies in some very exceptional cases.

In cities with demand above a bus-only threshold and below say 50,000 pphpd,
if a proper analysis of costs and benefits shows rail to be the better
option, then by all means proceed with rail. But so often there is no such
proper analysis....

Regards, Karl 

-----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: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote:

> Dear Eric and Jonathan,
>
> Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No 
> doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit 
> philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail
vs. bus discussion?

Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense.


> Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion?

Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor
results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that
squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income.

 There comes a time when
> passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the 
> logical choice.

Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example.

 You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong
> Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company).
>

I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete
sense. So does the metro of Mexico City.


> Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices 
> are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus 
> lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at 
> these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can 
> argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor 
> requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses 
> (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would 
> create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can
provide this service.


Absolutely agreed.

 In most of the circumstances if
> the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway 
> travel in terms of journey time.
>
> Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses 
> most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone 
> movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways 
> and buses can still supplement and provide local service.
>

As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there
is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite
wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not
serve needs.

Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be
made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a
very costly approach.

> I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok 
> briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not 
> because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And 
> these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to 
> reduce the parallel running bus services.

No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference
between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only
limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is,
indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor
timekeeping, but that is another matter).

 Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different
> segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon 
> buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The 
> alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in 
> exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily
thereafter.

The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range
of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them.

 Institutional
> issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with 
> a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics 
> (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months 
> time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!).

In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the
complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the
costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely
done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan


>
> Keep up the good work.
> Alok Jain
>
> This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or 
> proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / 
> entity to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the 
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any 
> action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and
may be unlawful.
> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
> arrive late or contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept 
> liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message 
> which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet.
> No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal 
> disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation 
> unless specifically so stated.
>

-----

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/




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list