[sustran] Re: Rail or bus

[Brendan Finn]

Dear Sustran group,

For those who are interested, the review on LRT was carried out by the
National Audit Office in the UK and is available at
www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm

In my opinion, the review does not pan LRT - on the contrary, it appears to
be positive about the implemented systems. However, it is concerned about
the financial performance, and has tried to get at the reasons LRT systems
have invariably failed to meet the expectations and promises of the
promoters. The recommendations are aimed at identifying the causes of scheme
delays, cost inflation and revenue shortfalls, and avoiding these in future
schemes. The issues are relevant beyond the UK, and they have compared
elements of UK practice with that in France and Germany.

For information, the UK has implemented 7 such schemes with the public
sector being the biggest investor. They are facing the possibility of 25
further schemes, of which 12 are already at various stages in the planning
pipeline. As the agency responsible for auditing the effectiveness of public
expenditure, the NAO wants to ensure best value for public money. While the
report has been welcomed by the industry sector, I think it will force more
realism about future schemes so that they are planned on reality. This is in
everyone's interests.

I agree with Gina's comment that this discussion should not descend into a
bunfight. However, this is not a trivial issue nor is it irrelevant to
sustainable transport. There is a growing array of case studies in Europe,
SouthEast Asia and North America where the solution has come before the
analysis. In some cases, these projects have clearly not been the best
options. This brings transportation professionals into disrepute, and has
serious negative impacts on the cities and their citizens.

Since these projects devour the public funds available for transportation
investment, it is important that they really do produce the best solution.
That requires an honest appraisal of the proposed project, and an equal
consideration of the best alternatives.

With best wishes,


Brendan Finn.
_______________________________________________________________________
Contact details are : e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Fjellstrom" <karl at dnet.net.id>
To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus


> 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.
>
>
>