[sustran] Skytrain as "elite transit"

[Eric Britton]

Message from D. Scott TenBrink (via your servant eb)

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Scott TenBrink [mailto:scott at pedalsong.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:49 AM
To: sustran-discuss at egroups.com
Subject: Skytrain as "elite transit"

Sunny brings up an interesting issue in his description of Bangkok public
transit:

?Though Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making
the poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the
appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!?

I would disagree that bus service in general should be described as
?appalling? considering the extent and frequency of service, the relative
comfort of the A/C buses, and the reasonable fares for all lines.  The major
problem, as I see it, with Bangkok bus service is the traffic, which impacts
private vehicles just as much as public transit and so should not be blamed
on
PT.  While bus service is far from perfect in Bangkok, this term seems 
a little
strong.

The Skytrain is certainly a much more comfortable option.  It also
exclusively
services areas of the city dominated by Hi-So shopping malls, FIRE (Finance,
Insurance & Real Estate) service buildings, and expat communities.  Travel
between these areas during most of the day is much faster by Skytrain than
by
personal vehicle, taxi, or bus.  All of these areas- and consequently the
Skytrain service- are used by relatively wealthy Bangkokians.

Another thing that links the city?s well-to-do is car ownership.  While
ownership rates are growing rapidly and spreading across lower income
levels,
rich people still own far more cars per capita.  So the Skytrain is a mass
transit option targeted directly at those who are most likely to drive (or
be
driven).

Sunny argues that, ?Rich people at any state will not leave their cars
unless
any means like the ?Elite Transit? that Litman was talking a few posts back
might bring them to transit.?  Perhaps the Skytrain is already an example of
Litman?s Elite Transit?  Certainly many of the current Skytrain patrons came
from eclusively using private vehicles and taxis, not the bus.

Of course the down side is that this costly project was constructed at the
expense of other mass transit options that might have benefited a much
larger
segment of the population who cannot afford or do not benefit from the
routing
of the Skytrain.  As Sunny says, the government should not forget the poor
in
transit decisions.  But at the same time, in a city plagued with traffic
problems and rapidly expanding road infrastructure, the Skytrain has proven
that car owners can be attracted to mass transit.  Efforts to better serve
the
poor?s transit needs would not have had such success in converting that
important demographic, car owners.

While the poor continue to opt out of the bus system as soon as they 
can afford
to, the wealthy are actually opting out of car trips in favor of 
transit. Well, to be fair, many of those Skytrain rides may represent 
induced trips. People are probably going from their flat at Thong Lor 
to shop at Chit Lom a
lot more frequently now that it is so easy to get there.  But that is 
still the
direction that we are advocating, right?


>   Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:39:34 +0700
>   From: Sunny <sksunny at gmail.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12
>
> When accessibility has to be addressed then the need for high density
> has also to be satisfied making people use other means such as walking
> or cycling, but in developing cities and heavily car dependent cities
> this is not the case. Governments and people (in some cases) mistake
> mobility for accessibility and in their view as long as it is just a 15
> min car journey it is not far. Increasing the Public transit efficiency
> will encourage people to use bus for a short travel and encouraging
> walking an cycling and high density living with a mixed land use will be
> very advantageous. Many Asian cities be it India or a city like Bangkok
> has a very good urban fabric of mixed land-use, if required people need
> not travel long for daily needs, but the unwelcoming road infrastructure
> poses a threat and makes people use car even to cross a road. One such
> is the pedestrian overpass, in my opinion, it is an incentive for cars
> so that the cars need not stop for the people who cross the road. These
> overpasses in many places are not utilised properly and the people still
> cross the road in the conventional manner resulting in accidents and
> deaths in many cases.
>
> I absolutely agree with Zvi that rail investments are very wise and
> important for a city but the results of these investments are not
> immediate, they need time and one backdrop of these investments is the
> high initial cost and long pay back periods (if fares are to be
> affordable even by the poor). On the other hand an investment on BRT
> would be a next wise option as the system is similar to Light rail and
> can be integrated with regular bus service. On long run the system can
> be replaced for a light rail.
>
> Investing in other mass transit is also good but in many cases due to
> the over expectation of results the project are termed failed and even
> due to design and planning flaws these high investments fail. Some good
> failed examples would be the Delhi Metro this is not entirely due to
> financial reasons but due to lack of networks with other modes. Though
> Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making the
> poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the
> appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!.
>
> Charging car users might not be politically advantageous from the
> outside but mayors of cities like London, Seoul, Bogota Curitiba, Dar es
> Salaam *did not* *lose* their election for the second time. People will
> hesitate to spend money at first if there is no alternative but if they
> are given a good alternative means of travel then surely I feel they
> will not be disappointed. Transport planning has to be done keeping poor
> and middle class in mind. Rich people at any state will not leave their
> cars unless any means like the "Elite Transit" that Litman was talking a
> few posts back might bring them to transit.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sunny,
>
> Santhosh Kumar. K
> Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies,
> Mahidol University,
> Thailand
> sksunny at gmail.com
> sunnysanthosh at gmail.com
>
> sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org wrote:
>> In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which
>> are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not
>> necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course
>> as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can
>> afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding
>> regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient
>> accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) -
>> hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And
>> unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by
>> mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization!
>>
>> There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first:
>> concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve
>> them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted
>> effort by the government to integrate land use developments together
>> with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not
>> necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so
>> simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'.
>>
>> I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that
>> they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better
>> chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail
>> rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to
>> expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will
>> miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops?
>>
>> As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support
>> from the population by adding more taxes!
>>
>> Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions.
>>
>> Zvi