[sustran] How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com
Sat Jun 20 15:35:55 JST 2009
Dear all,
Thank you for the very useful comments. I find cities in India find
themselves in a 'catch' not knowing where to begin. Let me give some
examples to make my point -
1. The city of Pune has one of the most useless bus based public
transport systems. With majority of the 1200 odd buses in shambles - from
windows that rattle like sub-machine guns, rusty, dusty.........basically
run down. Some 700 buses ply on trunk roads leaving hardly anything for rest
of the city (spread over 220 sq km). This equates as one bus every hour or
so. No wonder only a fifth of the trips at best happen on the buses.
2. Now trying to solve the problem like above, where the basics are
lacking (route and frequency rationalisation) - where does one start? From
buying a handful of Volvo buses / AC buses or many more mid-range buses that
offer decent comfort. If simple lick of white paint could solve our
problems, perhaps buying AC buses would do it.
3. Now lets move to Mumbai. Focus only on the main island city (and not
the 5 other corporations that encompass the metropolitan region, all of
these regions have their own bus service which are even worse of than Pune
city described above). Some 3300 buses manage a healthy 4.5 million
passenger trips per day. Having used this service for 20 years, I find the
comfort levels (apart from over crowding at times, but the reasons for this
is a topic for another thread) even in a ordinary non-AC bus were similar to
any bus I have used in London in past 8 years.
4. Public consultation is massively important as Brendan points out. I am
more an empowered PT user and have nothing to claim as a transport expert. I
would hope I represent views shared by many Mumbai bus users - people in
Mumbai use buses because they offer reasonable comfort, are safe even late
nights, cover every nook and corner of the city, have well worked out routes
with brilliant frequencies and above all buses are punctual/reliable. These
factors have a far bigger weight in the mind of the regular bus user than
comfort of the Volvo AC, the charm of which wears away quickly. Public
consults are also a superb way of making people aware of unreasonable
expectations. It would be unreasonable for NHS for example to start funding
nose jobs simply because every one expects to have a nice straight nose.
People should be asked to wonder and reflect on what level of comfort is
needed keeping in mind that the average journey in Mumbai (and rest of
Indian cities) is about 8km. One would hope that any rational thinker will
differentiate the comfort needs of buses that run for hours inter-city and
those that are meant to provide urban means of transport.
5. Going back to the time when Mumbai started its AC bus service. The
fleet size so small that only 3 or 4 routes would have a AC bus at one bus
per hour. This was over and above the general bus service. People like me
who could afford to spend on the higher ticket price would get to a bus
stop. Can you imagine anyone waiting for that AC bus which may arrive 30
minutes from now, now when I could take the fairly decent bus that arrives
every 5 minutes to my destination?
6. The point I was making previously was - who uses these premium
services? The loyal bus user who may end up at the bus stop, finds an AC bus
arrive by chance in 5 minutes, can afford it and so takes it or the people
known to driving in the comforts of their cars who some believe will switch
to buses simply because a handful are AC? Can we imagine people used to
comforts of their cars leave the same for buses that run only on handful of
routes that too at frequencies of 1 bus per hour? I think not.
7. More the bus classes, more difficult is the task of route and
frequency rationalisation. One would think India would have learnt from its
history of caste (and the politics that stems frrom it) that creating
differences is a bad idea.
8. Now let's move to Bangalore - where I must say I go by heresay and
having looked up some news reports and BMTC website. 5000 buses run in the
most irrational manner as far as routes and frequencies are concerned (and
despite 1000 more buses than Mumbai manage only 3.8 million passenger
trips). Only 200 or so buses are Volvo's which come with an exclusive price
tag. But if my calculations and understanding is correct, these Volvo buses
are running at a loss (in the only bus company that claims to make profits
in India). So who subsidises these buses in a way (as the loss has to be
made up) - the regular bus users. Who uses them, I dare say a chunk of
regular bus users who can spend more.
9. Audaciously, there was a Bangalore bus transport official qouted in
news to have said - but we recover the costs of 1 Volvo in 3 years through
adverts on the buses. Well! Why then have a differential pricing structure?
Why not let everyone use the buses at the price of an ordinary bus fare? The
unstated is a the underlying belief that the those who 'have' will take to
buses if the 'have nots' or the general scum is filtered - but have the
'haves' left their cars in the garages? I am yet to see the evidence of
this. Indeed, the only routes where Volvo riderships are decent are the ones
where the routes are planned well and significantly have a sizeable fleet to
run decent frequencies.
10. Now the JNNURM funds (National funds) in India for improving public
transport are being used to buy these luxury buses. In an utopian world we
would all love every bus to a splendid AC Volvo. I am made to understand
that ex-tax the Volvo actually is 50 lakhs and not the price of 70 it gets
retailed at (happy to be corrected here). Bangalore says the costs of
running a Volvo are about Rs 35/ km. Further as we have been informed,
advertisement money can pay for the bus in 3 years. Alarmingly, in 21st
century India we have rudimentry laws, the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 which
demands every bus has a conductor on board. JNNURM funds come with the
condition that services reform. The biggest burden for all bus based public
transport systems in India is having to carry a dead weight / overheads of
paying salaries to a human ticket vending machine (8-12 staff are employed
per bus across all cities in India). BEST in Mumbai would be making profits
if it manages to become lean and mean. To make matters worse, these buses
pay road tax which could be removed or reduced (this shows how willing the
Government is when it comes to improving public transport). All this could
translate in to cheaper ticketing and more buses with greater comfort (for
all - the haves and the have nots). But no one dare bite this bullet given
the power of the unions.
11. Simply put, in Bangalore a 10km long route needs to fetch Rs 350/- to
even out. And there could be any number of economic models to help get to
this goal. One where we hope we find 35 people who can pay Rs10 / ticket or
actually one where we may think - a bus has capacities close to 70, not all
passengers travel the distance thus on a 10km route up to 90 people could be
served - how much is that if we value the ticket at Rs 5? The question is do
we need to run a model where we have functional efficiency of a McDonalds
that serves 99p burgers to masses and yet earn profits or my next door pub
that pulls small number of people each evening but serves a less tasty
burger four times its price. The pub too makes a profit, but who serves more
people?
12. In India we say the buses have reformed if they introduce
pre-ticketing and smart cards. The myth is that these technologies = faster
travel. This is true only if you have buses with no on board conductors thus
saving valuable time the driver may spend selling tickets to passengers. In
fact if we do not have the courage to say goodbye to the conductors, the
only way one may speed up travel is to have buses with wider doors for entry
and exit (tickets can be purchased as the driver moves on). The point I am
attempting make here again is the rather syllogistic thinking / fuzzy logic
which is being used to drive the so called reforms in India.
13. Lastly, I go back to finding out if there is research. Did bus
patronage in London go up 40% over 5 years because buses got more
comfortable or did this happen because of other factors - congestion
charging, the fact that free travel is now allowed to not just under 5s (as
was the case) but to all school age kids up to 16 - there are so many
confounding variables - is there a multi-variate analysis done to know which
factor contributes how much?
In summary, theoritically, we could have AC low floor buses (I am sure a
decent make other than Volvo will do just as well for a lesser price tag) as
the only single type of bus and run the services at tickets priced lower
than today, afforded by all, a fleet size large enough to run excellent
frequencies with good coverage provided the reforms happen in areas where
they ought to happen. But until the right steps are taken, this symbolic
buying of small number of posh buses will lead us in to a black hole.
Thanks
Adhiraj
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:01 AM,
<sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org>wrote:
> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sustran-discuss-owner at list.jca.apc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..."
>
>
> ########################################################################
> Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in
> your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you
> are responding to. Many thanks.
>
> About this mailing list see:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> ########################################################################
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses? (Brendan Finn)
> 2. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> (Todd Alexander Litman)
> 3. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses? (Brendan Finn)
> 4. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> (Sujit Patwardhan)
> 5. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> (bruun at seas.upenn.edu)
> 6. Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses? (Brendan Finn)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:01:57 +0100
> From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
> 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>
> Message-ID: <59F812C4008449718314B96BA970D432 at MicroPro271007>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090619/801be39e/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:46:13 -0700
> 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>
> Message-ID: <20090619184616.7E6172E0A7 at mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> 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-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:23:17 +0100
> From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
> 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>, "Todd Alexander Litman"
> <litman at vtpi.org>
> Message-ID: <F356B5DE4FDD4FFF93C196D2A66C0C07 at MicroPro271007>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar ; 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090619/fd0e20af/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:32:32 +0530
> From: Sujit Patwardhan <patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> To: Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie>
> Cc: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar <adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>,
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID:
> <8fba064c0906191302p274cc000i40d428aa41f4b7b6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> 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-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:16:24 -0400
> From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu
> Subject: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> To: Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie>
> Cc: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar <adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>,
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID: <20090619161624.157811a3qhqciiis at webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
>
> Todd and Brendan:
>
> You are both right. So it would make sense for the richer countries to
> give financial add
> in the form of modern buses. Better that they export subsidized buses
> than subsidized
> weapons, SUVs, etc.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
> Quoting Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie>:
>
> > 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
> > To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar ; 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
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:36:02 +0100
> From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" <patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com>
> Cc: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar <adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com>,
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID: <C02295B7D8E04068B0DA994620207039 at MicroPro271007>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Sujit,
>
> I completely agree with you that it depends on the objectives. This is why
> I stressed in my first posting the importance of talking to the customers.
> We need to understand what is important to them and their relative
> priorities. This applies to all of us 'experts' - city authorities, bus
> operators, planners, researchers, consultants, and advocacy groups.
>
> If the customers tell us that air-con, low-floor, modernity and self-image
> are the most important things, then we must focus on quality and spend more
> on each bus. But if they tell us that what is important is to be able to get
> to many different places (i.e. more routes in a well developed network) or
> that they want more frequent services, or they want less crowding, or they
> want cheap tariffs, then we probably need to focus more on volume. Of
> course, we have different groups of customers using the same services, and
> they are likely to have different priorities each from the other.
>
> We have to consider those who already travel with us; those who are eager
> to use the public transport if we make it more available to them; and those
> who today don't desire to use public transport and it is up to us to make it
> attractive to them. How do we balance these interests?
>
> I believe that there is no single 'right answer' to this. The value of a
> forum like Sustrans is that we can share our views and experiences. Ideally
> this would give us a broader perspective when we are faced with bus
> investment decisions.
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Brendan.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts at indigo.ie tel :
> +353.87.2530286
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sujit Patwardhan
> To: Brendan Finn
> Cc: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar ; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org ; Todd
> Alexander Litman
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?
>
>
>
> 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
> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar ; 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090619/14700133/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>
> End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090620/74401fc5/attachment.html
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list