[sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

[Eric Bruun]

Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the operator
of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property over the stations.
In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should it occur). Also, in many regions
politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the real estate -- they
want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all be like Hong Kong does this
mean we should never build Metros?

I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once built, transport
infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take sustainable development
seriously, or not? 

As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with focusing on construction
costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential. What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs to be asked. 

Eric


-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Schipper <schipper at wri.org>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM
>To: ajain at kcrc.com, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Subject: [sustran]  Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great.
>
>We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never
>should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY
>with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the
>stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley,
>Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension
>towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no,
>repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would
>be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a
>parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the
>early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground.
>
>The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver
>high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We
>did. We burned money. too bad. 
>
>Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region
>for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so
>to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev!
>Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped
>center of the road.  What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend
>ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money!
>
>Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some
>money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East,
>as they say
>
>
>>>> ajain at kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>>
>Dear Lee,
>
>I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently.
>A
>metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same
>should
>apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being
>rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money
>in
>United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros.
>Along
>the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
>burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
>metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it
>(we
>also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no
>subsidy).
>
>The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or
>white.
>
>Alok
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper at wri.org] 
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
>To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
>building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
>cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
>countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
>cost effective way of moving the people, fine.
>
> Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
>lured -- the Lima metro
>stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
>middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
>friends
>have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
>money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the
>poor.
>
>My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
>Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro
>and
>rail lines,
>wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
>And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
>service. 
>
>They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
>Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of
>the
>Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!
>
>Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
>or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money. 
>
>It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
>course. Maybe that's the problem.
>
>You choose!
>
>>>> ajain at kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
>" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
>corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
>effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
>$500
>a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
>several
>times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
>books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
>this economic context.  "
> 
>I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
>the
>least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
>build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
>operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
>planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
>Metro
>depending on the corridor.
> 
>Alok Jain
>
>
>
>"KCRC - Better connections; better services"
>
>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.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.