[sustran] Re: Rail or bus

Karl Fjellstrom karl at dnet.net.id
Tue May 4 14:02:25 JST 2004


Dear Alok,

Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas
around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach.
Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of Bogota
(you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a metro rail system
like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, trunk & feeders, but
without the main disadvantages of cost and construction time), but for now
I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok.

I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you
indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector servcies
(primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the skytrain'. If this
were true, then you may be right in some senses that "There is hardly any
difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services." But according to my
information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold.....

Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so microbuses
charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I don't know
exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people tend to use them
for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even shorter trips by the
skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there are the private a/c buses,
around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. These charge from 8 to 18 baht
depending on distance. Again, average routes are long (around 30km!) but a
normal fare for a city trip up to 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the
skytrain is at least triple or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the
BMTA (state operator) air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These
charge from 12 to 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's
12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain.
(Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less price
difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.)

Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, but
they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as well as
being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they also enable less
transfers (hence further savings) than would be required if they were forced
to use the skytrain for part of the trip.

Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you
mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a huge
chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator cannot pay
back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments.
Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we consider
the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised projections
following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during the first year of
system opening* (back in late '99), with projections for further rapid
growth after that.

I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for an
important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise the
image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done to better
integrate the formal bus services. (This could have preempted the explosion
in informal services.) But I am a leery of some of the inflated claims made
(often by those with a very strongly vested interest) in using public funds
to further expand the skytrain network - or develop other metro rail lines -
without even considering alernatives.

Best rgds, 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 Jain Alok
Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2004 8:57 AM
To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus

Probably Karl and Jonathan are right. My analysis of Bangkok were too
simplistic. Let me present it in a more complicated way.

There are many types of bus services in Bangkok (I may be a bit out-dated on
this, so please feel free to correct me).

1. non aircon buses by BMTA: they lose money with both hands but are more of
a social service 2. aircon buses by BMTA: more than double the price of
non-aircon buses but they are loss-making anyway 3. other air-con buses by
private sector: prices comparable to skytrain.
Probably breaks even (?). Limited stops
4. informal sector services (vans, minibuses etc.): prices comparable to
skytrain. Must be money-making otherwise why would they exist. Limited
stops.

I have got nothing against 1 if the taxpayers don't feel bad about it. There
is every reason to get rid of 2 if they duplicate (extra emphasis because
this was missed by Karl) any of 1, 3 or skytrain. There is hardly any
difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services. Again, there is opportunity
to rationalise "duplicating" services. There are many other reasons for this
than helping skytrain ridership (which according to the latest stats is not
bad by any means - over 300,000/day). I don't think august audience of this
group needs elaboration on that.

Lets say sombody has the political will to achieve this. The ridership of
skytrain would improve, the poor still have a basic bus service (which now
probably be faster with some of 2 off-road), even 3 and 4 can co-exist by
serving corridors not served by skytrain. It is arguable whether any extra
profits made by skytrain can be translated into fare reduction but if the
rationalisation deal can be "sold" to the financiers in exchange of fare
reduction (x% reduction in fare for x% increase in ridership), I do not
think it would be impossible. Financing institutions care about bottomline
and as long as that could be maintained they don't care.

Again, I must insist, there may not be an easy solution but my two pence
worth of analysis says that it is better than keeping the status quo. We all
know that everybody likes to have point-to-point (sorry door-to-door) first
class service for free of almost free but can somebody tell me how it could
be provided. Railway is a rigid system but then what bus system is not.
Probably every citizen should own a car which should be fully subsidised by
state and then let everybody be stuck in the traffic - that could also be
considered an equitable system.

I am not against bus system. By all means run them on dedicated
right-of-way. To me at this point, there is hardly any difference between
railway and buses except the power transmission and wheels. Bogota BRT is
2-4 lanes with extra widening of right-of-way at the stops. No doubt it is
an impressive system but doesn't it resemble a railway system. Does it not
have main service corridors (or trunks or backbone, no matter what you call
it)? Do all the buses stop at every place in-between, especially the long
distance ones?

There is of-course no one-size-fits-all and every situation requires careful
analysis.

Alok
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl at dnet.net.id]

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

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. 




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list