[sustran] Mass transit modes "competition"

[Carlosfelipe Pardo]

Hi,

I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, 
and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms of 
characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts and 
long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the city 
where a system is implemented (employment, local operator involvement, 
etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been reviewed and has 
given some impressive results (in the negative sense). The recent BRT 
Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, Hewlett, Viva has a nice 
chapter on this issue, which I invite everyone to check out (and the 
whole guide, for that matter).

The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is 
that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and into 
cars...

Best regards,

Carlos.

bruun at seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> Brendan
>
> Did I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history of who  
> sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame consultants  
> or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt around for  
> someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate should  
> never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some cases the  
> fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, important  
> destinations get deleted, etc.
>
> As I have said before, I am not opposing BRT. But my main point still  
> holds, I think. It is pretty unfair to say that a 65 km system  
> carrying 600,000 per day is "abysmal" by comparing it to the  
> hypothetical performance of BRT that is currently carrying about 0  
> passengers, 10 years after both projects were initiated.
>
> I also think it is short-sighted to not take into account the  
> long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also justify higher  
> initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting densification of  
> land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. This would make a  
> good topic for future discussion.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>   I
>
> Quoting Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie>:
>
>   
>> Dear Eric,
>>
>> When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned based on a   
>> projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the actual   
>> out-turn,  there is something seriously wrong. And not just with the  
>>  math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based systems  
>> are  very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling us  
>> that  consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and are  
>>  incapable of revising their methodologies?
>>
>> A lot of metro and rail projects around the world get approved on   
>> dodgy math and wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to   
>> pass. It is systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful   
>> deception, aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as  
>>  professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse   
>> such practices.
>>
>> With best wishes,
>>
>>
>> Brendan.
>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> Brendan Finn          e-mail : etts at indigo.ie          tel : +353.87.2530286
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <bruun at seas.upenn.edu>
>> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" <sujitjp at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 PM
>> Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Sujit
>>>
>>> 3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That doesn't make
>>> Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad predictions.
>>>
>>> But 600,000 is not insignificant.  You can argue that BRT would be
>>> better value for money, but how  much has been built? Both BRT and the
>>> Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and making a valuable
>>> contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing that BRT
>>> can be done quickly and Metros take forever.
>>>
>>> Eric Bruun
>>>
>>> Quoting Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Dear Eric,
>>>>
>>>> 65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 *is* "abysmal" when
>>>> compared to the project  projection of over 3.1 million. When projects
>>>> involving huge sums (of people's money) are invested in a project meant to
>>>> produce specific result it is highly objectionable when the actual figures
>>>> fall short not by 5% or 10% but by over 80%.
>>>>
>>>> This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up whether they be Mega
>>>> Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure projects. If the ridership of
>>>> 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did the Govt sanction the project,
>>>> particularly when much cheaper options were available?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington Metro are quite
>>>> relevant to Asian countries with much higher population densities. Pune
>>>> Municipal Transport buses of very poor quality, for instance carry over
>>>> 600,000 commuters each day. They do this with about 650 buses which are of
>>>> old technology, and in poor condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about
>>>> 2000 modern semi low floor and efficient buses would be able to provide
>>>> excellent quality public transport with a citywide network. If the  
>>>>  city were
>>>> to provide the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make
>>>> it functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone   
>>>> knows that
>>>> Bogota's  Transmilenio carries more passengers than the Washington Metro at
>>>> a much lower cost .
>>>>
>>>> So there are serious problems with Metro but politicians love expensive
>>>> projects and this is supported by the elites who want to keep up with the
>>>> Jones's. They say if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the
>>>> juvenile boast of "mine's bigger than yours" .
>>>> I think we need to move beyond that and face the hard reality of a choice
>>>> between car dominated "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New
>>>> Mobility" vision that honours walking, cycling and affordable public
>>>> transport system -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sujit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:18 AM, <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Aashish
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out of date. It
>>>>> was 66 kms 3 years ago.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I was asking is that Sujit said the ridership was
>>>>> "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 kms is actually pretty crowded.
>>>>> The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over 160 kms) and several of the
>>>>> lines are genuinely crush loaded during the rush hours with only
>>>>> 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, people in the U.S. tend to be
>>>>> larger than in India, which also aggravates the crowding.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems ridiculous. Of course,
>>>>> it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare was assumed to be very
>>>>> low and crowding standards were extreme......
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi
>>>>>> To: pttfgen at googlegroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 25 April 2008
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BRT in Delhi
>>>>>> =========
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes problems galore and I've been following the reports in the media
>>>>>> including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar was to appear on, but didn't for
>>>>>>             
>>>>> some
>>>>>           
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My take on all this is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deterioration in traffic has been an ongoing process in many Asian
>>>>>>             
>>>>> cities
>>>>>           
>>>>>> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker of
>>>>>>             
>>>>> water
>>>>>           
>>>>>> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro was
>>>>>>             
>>>>> taken
>>>>>           
>>>>>> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to the
>>>>>> minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" from
>>>>>> politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of budgets as
>>>>>>             
>>>>> well
>>>>>           
>>>>>> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was
>>>>>>             
>>>>> pardoned
>>>>>           
>>>>>> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made
>>>>>>             
>>>>> available
>>>>>           
>>>>>> without delay and cloaked in secrecy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Delhi Metro project is a marketing triumph that fills every Indian's
>>>>>>             
>>>>> chest
>>>>>           
>>>>>> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public Transport) the
>>>>>> very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big question mark.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> There
>>>>>           
>>>>>> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro
>>>>>>             
>>>>> represents
>>>>>           
>>>>>> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and cultural
>>>>>> centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities needed by the city.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> *But
>>>>>           
>>>>>> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic transport
>>>>>>             
>>>>> and
>>>>>           
>>>>>> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers,
>>>>>> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely provided
>>>>>>             
>>>>> by
>>>>>           
>>>>>> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler owners
>>>>>>             
>>>>> at
>>>>>           
>>>>>> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BRT unlike the Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our
>>>>>>             
>>>>> roads.
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor
>>>>>>             
>>>>> engineering,
>>>>>           
>>>>>> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and non
>>>>>> personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is blamed, if
>>>>>> drivers are indisciplined  BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV lane
>>>>>>             
>>>>> and
>>>>>           
>>>>>> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the BRT. If
>>>>>>             
>>>>> the
>>>>>           
>>>>>> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus carries
>>>>>> many more people), it is seen as  waste of an expensive resource --
>>>>>>             
>>>>> although
>>>>>           
>>>>>> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the
>>>>>>             
>>>>> *wasteful
>>>>>           
>>>>>> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very roads* -
>>>>>>             
>>>>> well
>>>>>           
>>>>>> before BRT appeared on the scene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it is clear that BRT planning should have been rooted in outreach and
>>>>>> marketing it as a concept that will improve mobility (of people as
>>>>>>             
>>>>> against
>>>>>           
>>>>>> just near-empty personal vehicles),  will greatly improve access for
>>>>>>             
>>>>> people
>>>>>           
>>>>>> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated
>>>>>>             
>>>>> buses, it
>>>>>           
>>>>>> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal
>>>>>>             
>>>>> transport,
>>>>>           
>>>>>> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a
>>>>>>             
>>>>> growing
>>>>>           
>>>>>> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even A/C
>>>>>>             
>>>>> buses
>>>>>           
>>>>>> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even the
>>>>>>             
>>>>> rich
>>>>>           
>>>>>> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational reasons
>>>>>>             
>>>>> of
>>>>>           
>>>>>> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode of
>>>>>>             
>>>>> travel.
>>>>>           
>>>>>> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we have
>>>>>>             
>>>>> no
>>>>>           
>>>>>> qualms about importing western concepts  (English medium education,
>>>>>>             
>>>>> wearing
>>>>>           
>>>>>> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather,
>>>>>>             
>>>>> listening to
>>>>>           
>>>>>> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Cheerleaders
>>>>>           
>>>>>> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start protesting
>>>>>> when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin American idea of
>>>>>> excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign concept??????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The need is to publicise wider benefits of public transport and to reach
>>>>>>             
>>>>> the
>>>>>           
>>>>>> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based
>>>>>>             
>>>>> public
>>>>>           
>>>>>> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will
>>>>>>             
>>>>> benefit
>>>>>           
>>>>>> most from a good BRT)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is this huge majority of commuters who will have the opportunity of
>>>>>> breaking free from the shackles of our present horrendous conditions of
>>>>>> urban traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's not worry too much about the high pitched screams coming from
>>>>>>             
>>>>> the
>>>>>           
>>>>>> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers)
>>>>>>             
>>>>> protesting
>>>>>           
>>>>>> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and let's
>>>>>>             
>>>>> reach
>>>>>           
>>>>>> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick ever
>>>>>> since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring them on
>>>>>>             
>>>>> the
>>>>>           
>>>>>> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene arrogant
>>>>>>             
>>>>> rant
>>>>>           
>>>>>> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra -  representing the car
>>>>>>             
>>>>> lobby/media/politician
>>>>>           
>>>>>> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying the
>>>>>>             
>>>>> BRT
>>>>>           
>>>>>> trials in Delhi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sujit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay Patil <abhay.patil at gmail.com>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point.  From the visuals
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> (CNN
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better than
>>>>>>> Pune.  Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and so
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> on.  I
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> don't know what went amiss in the capital.  Sheila Dixit has promised
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> that
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few weeks.
>>>>>>> Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to drop the
>>>>>>> project if they are unable to get their act together right away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now.  On a negative
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> note
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it.  Given the ugly
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> traffic
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - it
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> is
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water!
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> And,
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities.  I can
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> not
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Abhay
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. 
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). 
>
>