[sustran] Jain's comment on Rail or bus

[Eric Bruun]

Jain

I enjoy these dicsussions to some extent, but it is taking too much time
when I am quite busy, so I must limit my comments.

Just one:  I agree fully with your viewpoint. It is not a rail versus bus
thing. I am not a "rail only" advocate. My apologies if this was not clear.
It is the network that counts. I am opposed to analyzing lines in isolation,
regardless of mode.

Eric




----- Original Message -----
From: "Jain Alok" <ajain at kcrc.com>
To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 10:29 PM
Subject: [sustran] Rail or bus


> 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?
> Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? There comes a time when
> passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the
> logical choice. 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).
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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. 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. 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!!).
>
> 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.