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

[Todd Alexander Litman]

Yes, it is important to maximize public 
transportation system safety and security. 
However, even at its worst, public transit tends 
to be much safer overall than automobile travel. For discussion see:

Todd Litman (2005), "Terrorism, Transit and 
Public Safety: Evaluating the Risks," (www.vtpi.org/transitrisk.pdf ).

Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy (2008), "Safe 
Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic 
Safety Impacts," (www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf ).


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 04:50 AM 20/06/2009, jane. wrote:
>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>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>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 (<http://www.vtpi.org/>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>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>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/20090621/96f24bb0/attachment.html