[sustran] Re: Rail or bus
Todd Alexander Litman
litman at vtpi.org
Tue May 4 06:52:52 JST 2004
Let me address a few points that have been raised in this discussion. I
agree that it is a mistake to approach this as simply a debate over whether
rail is better than bus transit or vise versa. Both have advantages and
disadvantages, and each is most appropriate in certain situations. These
issues are discussed in the "Rail Versus Bus Transit" section of
"Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf).
My report does not argue that rail transit is always better than bus.
Rather, it argues that in a variety of ways conventional evaluation
practices tend to undervalue transit in general and rail transit in
particular. I've added a new section in my paper which discusses these
(bullet points on page 6), and I'm in the process of updating "Guide to
Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs"
(http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf) to more clearly explain these
distortions. Let me mention two distortions that I think are particularly
relevant to this discussion.
First, some arguments raised in this discussion seem to assume that a
choice must be made between spending money on bus or rail. This may be
partly true, but as often as not the choice is between rail and highway
investments. This seems to be true in both developed countries and in the
developing country cities that I'm familiar with (Kingston, Jamaica;
Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City). Although from some perspectives rail may
be less beneficial than bus, it is far more beneficial overall than
expenditures on urban highways which stimulate more urban sprawl and
automobile dependency.
One interesting finding from my study is that in cities with large rail
transit systems, per capita transit subsidies are far higher, and total
transit service cost effectiveness tends to increase, including bus transit
services. This seems to result because of the higher per-capita transit
ridership, less dispersed land use patterns, and because, with more middle-
and upper-class riders, there is more political support for the various
management strategies to favor transit.
Second, much of the benefit of rail transit tends to result from the
changes it leverages in land use and motor vehicle transportation patterns.
Rail transit can provide a catalyst for more accessible, multi-modal
neighborhood development, and reduced per capita vehicle ownership and
mileage. A number of studies, including my own, indicate that these
indirect benefits can be far larger than the direct benefits that result
from shifts of individual trips from automobile to transit. For example,
comparing U.S. cities, those with major rail transit systems have more than
50% greater transit ridership, more than 50% less per capita traffic
congestion delays, 50% lower per capita traffic fatalities, and about 15%
lower per capita transportation expenditures, even accounting for
differences in city size, due to these leveage effects. It's possible that
busways may also have this effect, if implemented in conjunction with other
smart growth strategies, but conventional bus services do not.
Critics of rail transit tend to ignore these land use impacts and use
biased evaluation methods. For example, they often evaluate traffic
congestion reduction benefits based on roadway level-of-service ratings or
travel time index, which evaluate congestion from the perspective of a
peak-period driver and ignore the congestion reduction benefits that occur
when people shift to alternative modes. Similarly, evaluation that focuses
on short-term impacts (i.e., high discount rate) will tend to favor bus and
highway improvements compared with evaluation that takes a longer-term
perspective.
Put differently, rail advocates face two specific obstacles. Many rail
transit benefits only occur if rail is implemented with supportive
transport and land use policies, and these benefits are difficult to
quantify. However, when properly implemented and evaluated, I think that
rail transit is probably justified in many medium and large cities where
conventional planning would consider it an unjustified luxury.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 01:51 PM 5/3/2004 +0700, Jonathan Richmond wrote:
>-----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
>
>-----
>
>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/
Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
Email: litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list