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

[Sujit Patwardhan]

It depends on ones objectives. Even when the priority is for improvement of
the basic city bus service, one must understand that introduction of better
quality, semi-low floor or low floor buses, AC buses and even BRT are
perfectly valid efforts that deserve to be supported by Citizens/NGOs
involved in sustainable transportation advocacy. It's not enough to say that
one can buy three ordinary buses for the cost of one high quality AC bus.

This is because the poor image of bus based public transport needs an urgent
make-over if it is to win the support and ridership from the elite class of
citizens, who today are strongly pushing for more and more infrastructure
for the automobile dominated transportation model - such as flyovers,
elevated roads, and free/cheap parking facilities - all of which work
against NMT and Public Transport.

--
Sujit



On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie> wrote:

>  Dear Todd,
>
> I think we are facing one of the big differences between bus operations in
> the Western economies and in so-called 'Global South', which is the area
> primarily under discussion in the Sustran forum.
>
> In both cases the bus industry is labour-intensive - even more so in
> 'Global South' - but labour rates in Western economies are many multiples of
> their counterparts in other parts of the world. In many countries labour and
> fuel do indeed account for almost 100% of the costs. However, this is
> often because the companies are operating fully depreciated vehicles - which
> would be considered life-expired elsewhere - and the operators are avoiding
> proper maintenance costs.
>
> In my experience (and I very much welcome other views) four issues are
> faced in Global South that are not so important in the developed/high-wage
> economies:
>
> 1) The cost of new and higher quality vehicles, along with more expensive
> maintenance requirements and spare parts, represents a much higher
> proportion of the total costs. From the payback viewpoint, a single fare
> might cost $1.00 in USA and $0.10 or less in Africa or parts of Asia. It
> takes the revenue of 10 passengers in many African/Asian cities to match the
> revenue from 1 North American or European passenger, but the bus and the
> spare parts cost the same amount in both countries.
>
> 2) Capital for investment is usually not available under the same payment
> terms. In 'Global South', bus operators are often required to make the
> repayments over a short period (e.g. 3-5 years) at higher interest rates,
> with a significant deposit, and sometimes with unreasonable collateral
> requirements. This means that a lot more of the daily earnings go to bus
> repayment in the early years, even if you do fully own the bus after 5
> years. However, you might have gone bankrupt in the meantime.
>
> 3) Availability of finance is tougher, and quite often it is not possible
> to raise enough finance to meet what you would like to do. This forces many
> cities/operators to choose between (a) a smaller number of high-quality
> buses insufficient to meet the need - leading to unmet demand or keeping the
> bad-quality vehicles in circulation for a few more years; or (b) going for a
> higher number of lower-cost buses that meets the need and brings in more
> revenue immediately.
>
> 4) There is less security of tenure, of necessary tariff increases, of
> subsidies, of reimbursement for free/reduced rate passengers, of protection
> from encroachment and illegal operation. In some cases there may be
> disruption of social order and stability. The more you spend and the longer
> your payback period, the more vulnerable you become.
>
> The above are, of course, generalisations. Data on any of these
> aspects from our Sustran colleagues would be most welcome. This would be a
> good opportunity for some of our 'silent' members to share their knowledge
> with us.
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Brendan.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Brendan Finn          e-mail : etts at indigo.ie          tel :
> +353.87.2530286
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>  *From:* Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
> *To:* Dr Adhiraj Joglekar <adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com> ;
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2009 7:46 PM
> *Subject:* [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
>
>
> 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 : etts at indigo.ie           tel :
> +353.87.2530286
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr Adhiraj Joglekar" < adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>
> To: < 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').
>



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment
to destroy the city“

Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel
Munich 1970

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com
sujitjp at gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parisar: www.parisar.org
PTTF: www.pttf.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090620/fec5d82c/attachment.html