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

[jane.]

Bus safety became a--pardon the pun--hot topic in the Chinese media a few weeks ago, after a Chengdu city bus caught fire, killing 25 or 26 and injuring 76 to the point of hospitalization (seven had burns on over 95% of their bodies). 

Investigators believe that somebody brought a can of gasoline on board, which then tipped over, soaking the bus, and finally, the whole thing somehow ignited. One issue here is that there are no enforced rules about what can and cannot be brought aboard buses--so everything from live animals (pets and farmstock) to large, unidentified baggage of all sorts (vendors frequently bus their goods into the city from the outskirts) to hazardous chemicals.

But the second issue that media reports focused on was why so many people fell victim to the fire. One reason was overcrowding on the bus; another was that although the bus was reportedly equipped with safety hammers to break the windows, the panicked passengers either didn't know how or didn't think to use them. 

Some links:
Bus fire story: http://www.gochengdoo.com/en/blog/item/955/bus_fire_on_third_ring_road_leaves_more_than_20_dead
Citywide bus-safety overhaul report: http://www.cctv.com/program/chinatoday/20090616/102719.shtml (Note that a reported 1,000 new buses will enter Chengdu's fleet this September. In the four years that I've been here I've personally witnessed three generations of buses already. Despite the continual improvements made to the buses themselves, overcrowding remains, from my vantage point as a passenger, the largest deterrent from taking the bus. Besides, this is a very bikeable city, although with the high incidence of bike theft biking can be a pricey habit.)

Underlining the urgency of the safety issue, the week following the Chengdu bus fire, a bus in Shenzhen apparently exploded. I don't know the full details on that as many of the reports were blocked within the country.

Jane

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org> wrote:

From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
Subject: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer  buses?
To: "Dr Adhiraj Joglekar" <adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 2:46 AM


 


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'). 
 


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”

 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

-------------------------------------------------------- 
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'). 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090620/740099d8/attachment.html