[sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?

[Todd Alexander Litman]

I think it is very important to start improving public transit 
service quality, including nicer buses, reduced crowding, faster and 
more reliable service, nicer waiting areas, and amenities such as 
on-board wireless services. Unfortunately, many transit service 
performance indicators (such as cost per vehicle-kilometer or 
passenger-trip) encourage cost minimization rather than service 
maximization. If we fail to improve service quality we are 
encouraging economically successful travelers to purchase a car and 
abandon public transit because the system is only intended to serve 
the lower end of the market.

The largest costs of public transit service are labor and fuel. 
Vehicle capital costs represent 5-10% of total service costs. If 
spending a little more on the vehicle improves service reliability or 
attracts more riders (particularly discretionary travelers who would 
otherwise drive) it is a worthwhile investment.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 08:01 AM 19/06/2009, Brendan Finn wrote:
>Good points raised by Adhiraj. What it comes down to is which 
>value-set drives the decision-taking process. Do we spend a lot of 
>money needlessly for the brand name and the fancy stuff? Or do we 
>spend money wisely where we balance quality and long-life against 
>the possibility to buy and deploy a larger number of less-expensive models?
>
>Before comparing the merits, I think we have to acknowledge that the 
>expectations of users has risen a lot compared to when we were 
>growing up. People do want air-con in hot climates and they want 
>buses that don't break down. Cities demand buses with clean(er) 
>engines and fuels, although often the pressure for this comes from 
>donors. Even at the lower end, buses and engines have become more 
>sophisticated, and all the extra bits make them more expensive. That 
>said, there has been a huge advance over the past decade in the 
>quality of the buses coming from China and India, so you really do 
>have high-cost and low-cost options for most situations.
>
>In my opinion, there are three main factors to consider:
>
>1) What do the people want? What do they demand as a minimum 
>acceptable standard, what are their aspirations, and is there such a 
>big gap in price to go from acceptable minimum to something that 
>makes them feel good? There is only one way to find out and that is 
>to consult with the current and target future users. It sounds so 
>obvious, but how many city authorities and bus operators actually 
>consult their customers? How many truly try to understand what 
>features they like and hate about the buses they have today, what 
>would they like to keep, what are they crying out to change? Where 
>do we waste money on features that do not interest the customer and 
>where do we waste good opportunities that make people happy and cost little?
>
>2) What is the life-time cost of the vehicle, including maintenance, 
>spare parts, fuel consumption, offset by its residual/resale value 
>after 10-12 years? How important and what is the economic value of 
>reliability in the later years of the vehicle life, so that a 
>vehicle gives the same performance in its 10th year as in its first? 
>Traditionally, this is where Volvo, MAN, Mercedes and some other 
>makes gave an overall lifetime benefit. How much ground have the 
>Chinese, India, Korean and other brands caught up in the cost-quality curve?
>
>3) What can we afford compared to the urgency of the task to be 
>undertaken? If a city desperately needs 1,000 buses 
>additional/replacement buses, is it better to solve the supply-side 
>issue now with low-cost/lower-performance vehicles, in full 
>knowledge that many of these vehicles may only have a 5-7 year 
>economic life and have to be replaced relatively soon? But we can 
>offset the shorter life by the opportunity to develop the business 
>and revenue streams now that will provide the affordability of 
>better quality buses later.
>
>I don't think there is a universal right answer for this, despite 
>the many inflexible "orthodoxies" we hear. As always, each city 
>needs to assess its own situation. In some cases the more expensive 
>bus might turn out to be the best solution, in others we might find 
>we can do a lot more with scarce investment money.
>
>For me, this discussion highlights the importance of following up on 
>previous bus investment projects. We need to evaluate the actual 
>outcomes compared to the original objectives and justifications. We 
>need to learn where they vary from our original expectations (for 
>good or bad), and share that knowledge among practitioners and 
>decision-takers.
>
>With best wishes,
>
>
>Brendan.
>_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>Brendan Finn          e-mail : 
><mailto:etts at indigo.ie>etts at indigo.ie          tel : +353.87.2530286
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dr Adhiraj Joglekar" 
><<mailto:adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>
>To: 
><<mailto:sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:12 PM
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Beijing to build "public transport city"
>
> >I find the comments from Carlos very interesting. Yes, more 
> investment needs to happen in public transport but sometimes one 
> has to wonder if the monies are being put in the right place. For 
> example, the general push in India is to invest in better buses - 
> but how does one define a 'decent bus'? I grew up using buses in 
> Mumbai, these cost a fifth or so of Volvo buses that seem to be the 
> craze for now. I never felt the buses in Mumbai were any inferior 
> in cleanliness or the comfort - they used to sport cushioned seats 
> with green leather like upholstery. Having travelled on London 
> buses for past 8 years and being a medic I
> > can say the Mumbai buses had seats that did more justice to one's 
> spine than the reclined back rests that are increasingly common.
> >
> > Coming to the point - the whole idea of spending on a Volvo is 
> justified by authorities on the basis of a policy called 
> differential pricing - i.e. posh buses will pull posh people out of 
> their cars and
> > that they will be happy to spend more on the tickets.
> >
> > On paper, this may seem logical, but I have yet to see evidence 
> of people leaving their cars simply because the bus is a Volvo and 
> now has an aircon in it. If anything the regular loyal bus user shifts to
> > these buses and pays more or indeed the train users in Mumbai who 
> are fed of super-ultra-crush loads switch to buses.
> >
> > I find public transport a great equaliser of sorts, its great to 
> see someone in a decent suit sitting next to someone who may be 
> struggling to get food to the table each day. But ethical and moral reasons
> > apart, one needs to know for sure if people switch to PT only 
> because it got 'nicer'.
> >
> > I would be interested in knowing if there is research in this 
> regard elsewhere which rules out people switching to PT due to 
> confounders such as simultaneous improvement in route and frequency
> > rationalisation or TDM measures like congestion charging.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Adhiraj
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------
>To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>If you get sustran-discuss 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.
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>countries (the 'Global South').


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090619/a3f91b28/attachment.html