From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 2 00:45:23 2009 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:45:23 +0200 Subject: [sustran] [World Streets] PARK(ing) Day in Cape Town (Not everybody loves it equally) Message-ID: <033b01ca42ae$3c21c7f0$b46557d0$@britton@ecoplan.org> cid:image003.jpg@01CA3E11.3A83E910 Paris. Thursday, 01 October, 2009 PARK(ing) Day in Cape Town (Not everybody loves it equally) - By Gail Jennings, Cape Town, South Africa A few weeks back, a local police vehicle - which had been circling for a while - came to abrupt halt on a no-stopping line in front of me in Fish Hoek, and asked if my colleagues and I had permission to be in our parking bay*. The nearby businesses were complaining, you see; by occupying our bay, they said, we were preventing others from doing so, and this meant, no doubt, that their daily takings would suffer. --> Full text of this article appears in today?s World Streets at http://WorldStreets.org/ --> Last month on World Streets - at http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html ? ?? New Mobility Partnerships - http://www.newmobility.org 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France, Europe +331 4326 1323 eric.britton(at)newmobility.org Skype: newmobility -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 7674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091001/4fbb61a9/attachment.jpe From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Oct 6 08:59:20 2009 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:59:20 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: Brian Williams References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091006/446e2ff2/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Tue Oct 6 12:08:16 2009 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:08:16 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Brian Williams In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e55ad30910052008raf8135cm9da16dec35b9279e@mail.gmail.com> A few words about Brian, since it was really brian meeting up with anwar fazal and paul barter that started sustran back in the day. Paul must know better than I do. I just sent him off to asia with nothing more than a airplane ticket and a few contacts, and he got some things going. he'd done time in the Philippines for peace corps, so he knew his way around Asia pretty well. in those early days when i took over itdp after it nearly collapsed in the early 1990s, it was just brian, me, karen overton, and ney oliveira, running the place part time while we worked on our PhDs at Columbia. we were just barely keeping the lights on in those days. then he organized the habitat ii transport events in Istanbul, which got transport back on the habitat agenda. even in the mid 1990s not too many people thought motorization in Asia was anything to worry about...Later, brian tried to kick start sustran africa and organized a great meeting a few years back in Nairobi. Didnt make it through the GEF process until it changed and changed again and just recently got passed. He also labored under some less constructive bosses until recently, so things were really looking up. When I met his kids in Nairobi, i really liked them, and his wife. his good experience with adoption inspired me to adopt also, and its also worked out great. I sure feel bad for his wife and kids. Brian will be missed. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Paul Barter wrote: > Many on sustran-discuss know Brian. I am sorry I have to pass on sad > news. Brian worked on sustainable transport issues, working for UN Habitat > in Nairobi and was an early and important member of ITDP. > Paul > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Niklas Sieber > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:49:26 +0200 > To: TTI Mail Server > Conversation: Transport Training Initiative Brian Williams > Subject: Transport Training Initiative Brian Williams > > Dear TTi members > > I just received a sad message this morning. Our TTi member Brian Williams > has died last weekend from a heart attack while jogging in Nairobi. > > I learned to know Brian as a very pleasant person who cared a lot about > other people, social injustice, poverty and environment. His death is a > huge > loss for the transport sector in the developing world. > > Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife and his two children. > Niklas > > ______________________ > > Dr. Niklas Sieber > Heidestrasse 47 > 70469 Stuttgart > Germany > Office + 49 711 / 806 3269 > Mobile + 49 178 / 723 3548 > Fax: + 49 711 / 806 7426 > www.niklas-sieber.de > www.transport-training-initiative.org > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca Tue Oct 6 12:35:20 2009 From: pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca (Pendakur) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 20:35:20 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Brian Williams In-Reply-To: <38e55ad30910052008raf8135cm9da16dec35b9279e@mail.gmail.com> References: <38e55ad30910052008raf8135cm9da16dec35b9279e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001ca4636$07ae6b50$170b41f0$@ubc.ca> I am enormously sorry to hear this news: great guy, always cheerful and willing to help. He sounded happy at UNCHS and our common ground and work were always productive and enormously pleasant. I will miss his thoughtfulness and steady continuity of friendship and warmth. Do any of you have his home address or shall we just write to his family c/o UNCHS? Thanks for the info. Best wishes; Setty Dr. V. Setty Pendakur Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences; Director, ITDP (NY) & Secretary, ABE90-TRB Senior Counselor, State Council of the PRC President, Pacific Policy and Planning Associates 702-1099 Marinaside Crescent, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z2Z3 T: 604-263-3576; 1-604-374-3575-Mob -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+pendakur=interchange.ubc.ca@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+pendakur=interchange.ubc.ca@list.jca.apc.org ] On Behalf Of Walter Hook Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:08 PM To: Paul Barter Cc: Elliott Sclar; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; mbareck diop; asteria_mlambo@yahoo.com Subject: [sustran] Brian Williams A few words about Brian, since it was really brian meeting up with anwar fazal and paul barter that started sustran back in the day. Paul must know better than I do. I just sent him off to asia with nothing more than a airplane ticket and a few contacts, and he got some things going. he'd done time in the Philippines for peace corps, so he knew his way around Asia pretty well. in those early days when i took over itdp after it nearly collapsed in the early 1990s, it was just brian, me, karen overton, and ney oliveira, running the place part time while we worked on our PhDs at Columbia. we were just barely keeping the lights on in those days. then he organized the habitat ii transport events in Istanbul, which got transport back on the habitat agenda. even in the mid 1990s not too many people thought motorization in Asia was anything to worry about...Later, brian tried to kick start sustran africa and organized a great meeting a few years back in Nairobi. Didnt make it through the GEF process until it changed and changed again and just recently got passed. He also labored under some less constructive bosses until recently, so things were really looking up. When I met his kids in Nairobi, i really liked them, and his wife. his good experience with adoption inspired me to adopt also, and its also worked out great. I sure feel bad for his wife and kids. Brian will be missed. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Paul Barter wrote: > Many on sustran-discuss know Brian. I am sorry I have to pass on sad > news. Brian worked on sustainable transport issues, working for UN Habitat > in Nairobi and was an early and important member of ITDP. > Paul > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Niklas Sieber > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:49:26 +0200 > To: TTI Mail Server > Conversation: Transport Training Initiative Brian Williams > Subject: Transport Training Initiative Brian Williams > > Dear TTi members > > I just received a sad message this morning. Our TTi member Brian Williams > has died last weekend from a heart attack while jogging in Nairobi. > > I learned to know Brian as a very pleasant person who cared a lot about > other people, social injustice, poverty and environment. His death is a > huge > loss for the transport sector in the developing world. > > Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife and his two children. > Niklas > > ______________________ > > Dr. Niklas Sieber > Heidestrasse 47 > 70469 Stuttgart > Germany > Office + 49 711 / 806 3269 > Mobile + 49 178 / 723 3548 > Fax: + 49 711 / 806 7426 > www.niklas-sieber.de > www.transport-training-initiative.org > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From bayk_aksyon at yahoo.com Wed Oct 7 11:31:08 2009 From: bayk_aksyon at yahoo.com (Ramon Fernan) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Brian Williams In-Reply-To: <38e55ad30910052008raf8135cm9da16dec35b9279e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97416.64821.qm@web56004.mail.re3.yahoo.com> My few words about Brian. What a shock! I still can't believe it's actually happened. I don't think I ever heard of him having heart problems. I know he was tired from the recent traveling he's had to do, what with setting up Genus and his other work. This is reallly sad news and I feel like I've lost a good friend, someone I've known since 1993. He was a good person and, I'm sure, a loving husband to his wife and kind father to his kids. He loved to tell the story of how, as a Peace Corps volunteer, he was assigned to work in a small town in the Visayas region (central Philippines) to assist in setting up something, maybe a water system, I don't remember anymore, and how, frustrated with the town mayor, he exiled himself out in the country, living in a small native hut with a kid assisting him and keeping him company. We were in Penang together with Paul Barter and Anwar Fazal from UNDP and some other people for the workshop that launched Sustran. In the mid-90's he was in Manila for a while working as a fellow and advising our Department of Transportation on sustainable transport. We used to bicycle around the city even though I think he hated having to inhale the pollution from cars and jeepneys and buses, and to dodge careening motor vehicles on Manila's chaotic streets. He had such stories of his adventures here. I hope that all the good work he was doing at UN Habitat wilI continue as he would have wanted. I will certainly miss him. Ramon Fernan III From hghazali at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:14:22 2009 From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited Message-ID: Friends, With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier this year. We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public transport sector. At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for procurement of buses? Many thanks in advance. Hassaan Institutional Development Specialist The Urban Unit Planning & Development Department, Government of the Punjab A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) F: 9213585 M: 0345 455 6016 Skype: halgazel http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk *When conditions are right, things go wrong* From krc12353 at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 07:00:17 2009 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (krc12353) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/attachment.html From simon.bishop at dimts.in Fri Oct 9 14:23:54 2009 From: simon.bishop at dimts.in (Simon Bishop) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20091009030102.9F2DF2C503@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20091009030102.9F2DF2C503@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Dear Hassan, I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many passengers as possible. Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are becoming saturated). The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their comfort. You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting quality performance models. All the best, Simon Bishop -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org You can reach the person managing the list at sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 From: Hassaan Ghazali Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Friends, With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier this year. We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public transport sector. At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for procurement of buses? Many thanks in advance. Hassaan Institutional Development Specialist The Urban Unit Planning & Development Department, Government of the Punjab A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) F: 9213585 M: 0345 455 6016 Skype: halgazel http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk *When conditions are right, things go wrong* ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) From: krc12353 Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 ********************************************** From etts at indigo.ie Sat Oct 10 01:59:00 2009 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> References: <20091009030102.9F2DF2C503@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Message-ID: Dear Hassan, I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not require subsidies: 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for them to be profitable. 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they have even if it is functional. In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it is? Only then decide how to achieve it. A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The questions for the Government are: a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service attractive to users. c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute something. But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. With best wishes, Brendan. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Bishop" To: Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > Dear Hassan, > > I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many passengers as possible. > > Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. > > In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting quality performance models. > > All the best, > > Simon Bishop > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > From: Hassaan Ghazali > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Friends, > > With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier this year. > > We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public transport sector. > > At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for procurement of buses? > > Many thanks in advance. > > Hassaan > > Institutional Development Specialist > The Urban Unit > Planning & Development Department, > Government of the Punjab > > A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > F: 9213585 > M: 0345 455 6016 > Skype: halgazel > http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk From Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk Sat Oct 10 02:46:03 2009 From: Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: <20091009030102.9F2DF2C503@mx-list.jca.ne.jp><247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Message-ID: Dear Hasan, This paper may be useful http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not get some contribution from government finances. If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to guarantee quality of service to passengers. In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering subsidies on public transport. The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an economic but a political decision as well. With warm regards Sonal Sonal Ahuja Associate Director, Development Transport and Infrastructure CAPITA SYMONDS 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk www.capitasymonds.co.uk Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 Dear Hassan, I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not require subsidies: 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for them to be profitable. 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they have even if it is functional. In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it is? Only then decide how to achieve it. A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The questions for the Government are: a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service attractive to users. c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute something. But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. With best wishes, Brendan. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Bishop" To: Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > Dear Hassan, > > I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many passengers as possible. > > Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. > > In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting quality performance models. > > All the best, > > Simon Bishop > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > From: Hassaan Ghazali > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Friends, > > With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier this year. > > We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public transport sector. > > At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for procurement of buses? > > Many thanks in advance. > > Hassaan > > Institutional Development Specialist > The Urban Unit > Planning & Development Department, > Government of the Punjab > > A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > F: 9213585 > M: 0345 455 6016 > Skype: halgazel > http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email. Copyright reserved. All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are monitored for legitimate business purposes. The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It is the recipient’s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for the presence of viruses. The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use or transmission of this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. From Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk Sat Oct 10 00:19:04 2009 From: Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Apologies for cross posting. Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and Technology Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major player in transport industry and a global economic power. The Conference website can be visited at http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for transport operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis is on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be given to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one of the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which is in the heart of New Delhi. The key areas of focus this year will be: * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, * Intelligent Transport Systems, * Urban traffic Management, * Transport Modelling, * Traffic simulation, * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, * Transport Policy, * Traffic Engineering, * Transport economics and Finance, * Muti-modal transport systems, * Aviation, * Ports, * Railways, * Freight, * Tourism and transport, * Global health and transport, * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, * Traffic Safety, * Pedestrian issues and environment, * Urban Design, Built form and transport, * Transport in developing countries. Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations in sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, advanced systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and simulation will be considered. Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic relevance and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a full paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings to be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the same person. TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session presentations and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of 4-5 papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a few minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster and then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if your abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. Abstract guidelines * 1000 words maximum. * May include one figure or table. * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or session presentation). * Identify one author as the contact person. * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI ABSTRACT" in the subject line. * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: ITS, traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft computing, developing countries, ports etc. For more information : Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , 2007 web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ With warm regards Sonal Sonal Ahuja Associate Director, Development Transport and Infrastructure CAPITA SYMONDS 86 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1EN United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk www.capitasymonds.co.uk www.capita.co.uk Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email. Copyright reserved. All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are monitored for legitimate business purposes. The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It is the recipient’s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for the presence of viruses. The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use or transmission of this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. From agimjo at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 19:09:26 2009 From: agimjo at gmail.com (Joachim Bergerhoff) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:09:26 +0300 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Hassaan, thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction of car congestion. However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and practical. I would like to make two points: - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure from public subsidy to operations - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This should also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an indicator for poor market regulation. In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private motorised transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. If it can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private motorised transport has competitive advantages and public transport suffers operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to the preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful bus system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able to respond to the success with more services, because you will quickly reach to limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets stuck. Public money is needed for so many other things, starting with education and health. It should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is inefficient because public policy really favors the private car wherever it can. Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not persist in bad regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public transport enough to make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit and those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in better infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public transport. It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in the long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and marketing in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. There are many low and high quality examples of profitable public transport operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. Looking forward to the continued debate, Yours sincerely, Joachim 2009/10/10 > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) > 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) > 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 > From: Simon Bishop > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" > > Message-ID: > <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Hassan, > > I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I > wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and > it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a > 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the > existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently > and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private > 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many > passengers as possible. > > Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of > 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost > bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in > contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS > and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. > The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was > much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back > of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the > government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth > Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it > says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest > that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with > private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising > the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, > even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, > I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport > system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus > system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from > private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, > congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that > the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about > 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the > elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize > that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily > in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what > they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy > is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice > in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally un-integrated > in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as > 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based > service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could > 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, > comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop > what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing > costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in traffic for > instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. > > In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we > want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we > get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, > cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How > do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned > round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting > quality performance models. > > All the best, > > Simon Bishop > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org[mailto: > sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop > =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) > 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > From: Hassaan Ghazali > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Friends, > > With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task > which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to > sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier > this > year. > > We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to > enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public > transport sector. > > At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely > on > government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has > been > arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for > procurement of buses? > > Many thanks in advance. > > Hassaan > > Institutional Development Specialist > The Urban Unit > Planning & Development Department, > Government of the Punjab > > A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > F: 9213585 > M: 0345 455 6016 > Skype: halgazel > http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > > *When conditions are right, things go wrong* > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: krc12353 > Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 > ********************************************** > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 > From: "Brendan Finn" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > To: "Simon Bishop" , > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Hassan, > > I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get anything > resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support > funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without > any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, it could be > possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a > common misconception among some politicians and senior decision-takers that > if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any subsidies because > the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. > > There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > require subsidies: > > 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for them > to be profitable. > > 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality vehicles > and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself > varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either > the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they have even if > it is functional. > > In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first and > assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? > How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people > move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it is? Only > then decide how to achieve it. > > A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service > levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The questions > for the Government are: > > a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, > service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to get > involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. > > b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method which > boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service attractive to > users. > > c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers and > the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the > operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all > users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > something. > > But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth to > the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be expensive > freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's resources are > squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning > cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, > it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be willing to pay, > and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simon Bishop" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > > > Dear Hassan, > > > > I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I > wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and > it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > > > In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a > 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the > existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently > and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private > 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many > passengers as possible. > > > > Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system > of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest > cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in > contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS > and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. > The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was > much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back > of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the > government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth > Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > > > The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it > says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest > that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > > > The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete > with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of > raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking > charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and > motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public > transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year > 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money > from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > > > The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, > congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that > the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about > 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the > elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize > that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily > in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what > they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy > is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > > > You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you > could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of > running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more people. > You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are > accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be > to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces > ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in > traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive > service. > > > > In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we > want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we > get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, > cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How > do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned > round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting > quality performance models. > > > > All the best, > > > > Simon Bishop > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > > From: Hassaan Ghazali > > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > > To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Friends, > > > > With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a > task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab > to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier > this year. > > > > We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to > enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public > transport sector. > > > > At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > > > (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely > on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > > > (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has > been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for > procurement of buses? > > > > Many thanks in advance. > > > > Hassaan > > > > Institutional Development Specialist > > The Urban Unit > > Planning & Development Department, > > Government of the Punjab > > > > A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > > T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > > F: 9213585 > > M: 0345 455 6016 > > Skype: halgazel > > http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 > From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" > , , > > Message-ID: > < > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Hasan, > > This paper may be useful > > http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf > > My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes > or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either > (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not > get some contribution from government finances. > > If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts > on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial > private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to > guarantee quality of service to passengers. > > In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of > services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. > Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of > public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social > exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but > cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I > would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering > subsidies on public transport. > > The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an > economic but a political decision as well. > > With warm regards > Sonal > > Sonal Ahuja > Associate Director, > Development Transport and Infrastructure > CAPITA SYMONDS > 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > www.capitasymonds.co.uk > > Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja > =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or > g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn > Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 > To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > Dear Hassan, > > I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get > anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or > support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a > company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or > tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the > citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and > senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need > to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. > Alas, this does not hold true. > > There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > require subsidies: > > 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for > them to be profitable. > > 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality > vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service > itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities > that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what > they have even if it is functional. > > In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first > and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want > to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its > people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it > is? Only then decide how to achieve it. > > A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service > levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The > questions for the Government are: > > a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, > service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to > get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial > outcomes. > > b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method > which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service > attractive to users. > > c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers > and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the > operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all > users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > something. > > But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth > to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be > expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's > resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other > better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want > and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they > would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can > get it for less. > > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > ________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________ > Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simon Bishop" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > > > Dear Hassan, > > > > I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and > I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you > think. > > > > In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have > a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace > the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other > is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so > requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to > capture as many passengers as possible. > > > > Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a > system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the > lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km > run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of > rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require > government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or > so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 > million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 > of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are > becoming saturated). > > > > The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because > it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and > suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > > > The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete > with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of > raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing > cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a > viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were > constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be > possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year > to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > > > The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if > you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you > should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a > time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and > will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them > drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're > Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will > eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their > comfort. > > > > You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you > could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of > running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more > people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so > they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce > costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT > system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses > spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from > a fast, competitive service. > > > > In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do > we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How > can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by > taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so > they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like > London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved > journey times by adopting quality performance models. > > > > All the best, > > > > Simon Bishop > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > > From: Hassaan Ghazali > > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > > To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Friends, > > > > With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a > task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the > Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was > formed earlier this year. > > > > We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them > to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the > public transport sector. > > > > At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > > > (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not > rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > > > (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing > has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering > process for procurement of buses? > > > > Many thanks in advance. > > > > Hassaan > > > > Institutional Development Specialist > > The Urban Unit > > Planning & Development Department, > > Government of the Punjab > > > > A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > > T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > > F: 9213585 > > M: 0345 455 6016 > > Skype: halgazel > > http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan > service. > > This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are > strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the > intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or > reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the > email. Copyright reserved. > > All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > monitored for legitimate business purposes. > > The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It > is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for > the presence of viruses. > > The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability > for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use > or transmission of this email. > > Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 > From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > To: > Message-ID: > < > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Apologies for cross posting. > > > > Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and Technology > Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd > TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with the > 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and > explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green > transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major > player in transport industry and a global economic power. > > > > The Conference website can be visited at > > http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html > > We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in > four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for transport > operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis is > on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, > engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally > sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be given > to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. > > > > We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government > officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national > collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one of > the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which is > in the heart of New Delhi. > > The key areas of focus this year will be: > > > > * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, > > * Intelligent Transport Systems, > > * Urban traffic Management, > > * Transport Modelling, > > * Traffic simulation, > > * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, > > * Transport Policy, > > * Traffic Engineering, > > * Transport economics and Finance, > > * Muti-modal transport systems, > > * Aviation, > > * Ports, > > * Railways, > > * Freight, > > * Tourism and transport, > > * Global health and transport, > > * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, > > * Traffic Safety, > > * Pedestrian issues and environment, > > * Urban Design, Built form and transport, > > * Transport in developing countries. > > Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations in > sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, advanced > systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and > simulation will be considered. > > > > Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st > December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic relevance > and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a full > paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. > > > > All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings to > be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be > peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a > selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of > participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers > reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the > same person. > > > > TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session presentations > and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of 4-5 > papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a few > minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions > during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster and > then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the > poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection > procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if your > abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. > > > > Abstract guidelines > > > > * 1000 words maximum. > > * May include one figure or table. > > * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. > > * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, > abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or > session presentation). > > * Identify one author as the contact person. > > * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI > ABSTRACT" in the subject line. > > * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: ITS, > traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft > computing, developing countries, ports etc. > > > > For more information : > > > > Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, > > Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, > > Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , 2007 > > web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ > > With warm regards > > > > Sonal > > > > Sonal Ahuja > > Associate Director, > > Development Transport and Infrastructure > > CAPITA SYMONDS > > 86 Fetter Lane > > London EC4A 1EN > > United Kingdom > > > > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > > Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > > Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > > Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > > www.capitasymonds.co.uk > > www.capita.co.uk > > > > Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > > > This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are > strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the > intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or > reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the > email. Copyright reserved. > > All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > monitored for legitimate business purposes. > > The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It > is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for > the presence of viruses. > > The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability > for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use > or transmission of this email. > > Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. > > ------------------------------ > > ================================================================ > 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 74, Issue 6 > ********************************************** > From yanivbin at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 21:18:42 2009 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:18:42 +0300 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?Metro_will_=91drain=92_city?= Message-ID: <86b8a7050910100518x6073751fr4a2acf20d4b66764@mail.gmail.com> http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengaluru/metro-will-%E2%80%98drain%E2%80%99-city-389 Metro will ?drain? city By By Our Correspondent Oct 10 2009 Bengaluru, Oct. 9: The underground stretch of the Metro rail, which will run for 10 km in two stages from Minsk square to BDA Circle and beyond, and the proposed road below ground have given rise to fears that the already depleting groundwater resources of Bengaluru, could worsen with countless borewells becoming defunct in the process. Currently Bengaluru has over four lakh borewells providing between 200 to 400 million litres of water per day (MLD) to the city . Of them only five per cent are recharged and about 20 per cent have gone dry, with the groundwater level in the city already depleting from 600 ft to 900 ft, says water expert Vishwanath. As the Metro rail and the road below ground will cut across the existing dykes (a natural slope to regulate water levels) and faults (fractures in the rocks), the movement of groundwater in the area could be badly affected, warns Captain S .Raja Rao, former principal secretary, department of ecology and environment. All the existing borewells downstream, beyond the intersection points of the dykes and faults, will become dry, leaving their existing users with no water supply, he says ,explaining that the Metro Rail?s effect on groundwater should have been examined in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. ?Unfortunately, the new EIA notification of September 14, 2006 issued by the Union ministry of environment and forests, does not cover such infrastructural projects of local authorities. This serious omission is taken advantage by these authorities, who don?t bother to prepare EIAs and even if they do, the projects do not come up for public hearing as they should,? Capt. Rao says. In his view, the people living downstream of the Metro tunnel should ensure that proper measures are taken to minimise the harm done to the already depleting groundwater resources by adopting rainwater harvesting and other practices. Also, those who stand to lose their water supply should be compensated, he says. ------------------------------ *Source URL:* http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengaluru/metro-will-%E2%80%98drain%E2%80%99-city-389 From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 21:57:10 2009 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:57:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Public transport subsidies In-Reply-To: <493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD084A6.9020907@gmail.com> Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is anyway debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so public transport can benefit) while education and health can be subsidized properly. Best regards, Carlos. Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: > Dear Hassaan, > > thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. > > There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport > operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction of > car congestion. > > However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and > practical. I would like to make two points: > - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure from > public subsidy to operations > - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This should > also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an > indicator for poor market regulation. > > In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private motorised > transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. If it > can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private > motorised transport has competitive advantages and public transport suffers > operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad > interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to the > preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. > > The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful bus > system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able to > respond to the success with more services, because you will quickly reach to > limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets stuck. Public money > is needed for so many other things, starting with education and health. It > should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is > inefficient because public policy really favors the private car wherever it > can. > > Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not persist in bad > regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public transport enough to > make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit and > those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in better > infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public transport. > It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in the > long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and marketing > in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. > > There are many low and high quality examples of profitable public transport > operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. > > Looking forward to the continued debate, > > Yours sincerely, > > Joachim > > > > > 2009/10/10 > > >> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) >> 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) >> 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >> 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 >> From: Simon Bishop >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" >> >> Message-ID: >> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Dear Hassan, >> >> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I >> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and >> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >> >> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a >> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the >> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently >> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private >> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many >> passengers as possible. >> >> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of >> 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost >> bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in >> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS >> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. >> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was >> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back >> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the >> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth >> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >> >> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it >> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest >> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> >> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with >> private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising >> the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, >> even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, >> I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport >> system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus >> system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from >> private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >> >> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, >> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that >> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about >> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the >> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize >> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily >> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what >> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy >> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >> >> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice >> in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally un-integrated >> in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as >> 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based >> service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could >> 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, >> comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop >> what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing >> costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in traffic for >> instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. >> >> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we >> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we >> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, >> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How >> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned >> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting >> quality performance models. >> >> All the best, >> >> Simon Bishop >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org[mailto: >> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop >> =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of >> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> >> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) >> 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >> From: Hassaan Ghazali >> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Friends, >> >> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task >> which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to >> sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier >> this >> year. >> >> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to >> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public >> transport sector. >> >> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >> >> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely >> on >> government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> >> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has >> been >> arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for >> procurement of buses? >> >> Many thanks in advance. >> >> Hassaan >> >> Institutional Development Specialist >> The Urban Unit >> Planning & Development Department, >> Government of the Punjab >> >> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >> F: 9213585 >> M: 0345 455 6016 >> Skype: halgazel >> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >> >> *When conditions are right, things go wrong* >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) >> From: krc12353 >> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 >> ********************************************** >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 >> From: "Brendan Finn" >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> To: "Simon Bishop" , >> >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Dear Hassan, >> >> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get anything >> resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support >> funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without >> any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, it could be >> possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a >> common misconception among some politicians and senior decision-takers that >> if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any subsidies because >> the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. >> >> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >> require subsidies: >> >> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for them >> to be profitable. >> >> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality vehicles >> and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself >> varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either >> the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they have even if >> it is functional. >> >> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first and >> assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? >> How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people >> move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it is? Only >> then decide how to achieve it. >> >> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service >> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The questions >> for the Government are: >> >> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, >> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to get >> involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. >> >> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method which >> boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service attractive to >> users. >> >> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers and >> the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all >> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >> something. >> >> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth to >> the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be expensive >> freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's resources are >> squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning >> cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, >> it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be willing to pay, >> and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. >> >> With best wishes, >> >> >> Brendan. >> >> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Simon Bishop" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> >> >> >>> Dear Hassan, >>> >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I >>> >> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some depth and >> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >> >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a >>> >> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace the >> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite inefficiently >> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a fully private >> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many >> passengers as possible. >> >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system >>> >> of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest >> cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in >> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS >> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. >> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, but it was >> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back >> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the >> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth >> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >> >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it >>> >> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest >> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete >>> >> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of >> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking >> charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and >> motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public >> transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year >> 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money >> from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >> >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>> >> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify (accidents, >> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that >> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about >> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the >> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize >> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily >> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what >> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy >> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >> >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >>> >> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you >> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of >> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more people. >> You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are >> accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be >> to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces >> ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in >> traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive >> service. >> >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we >>> >> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we >> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, >> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How >> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned >> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting >> quality performance models. >> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Simon Bishop >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> Friends, >>> >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a >>> >> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab >> to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier >> this year. >> >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to >>> >> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public >> transport sector. >> >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>> >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely >>> >> on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has >>> >> been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for >> procurement of buses? >> >>> Many thanks in advance. >>> >>> Hassaan >>> >>> Institutional Development Specialist >>> The Urban Unit >>> Planning & Development Department, >>> Government of the Punjab >>> >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>> F: 9213585 >>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>> Skype: halgazel >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 >> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" >> , , >> >> Message-ID: >> < >> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Dear Hasan, >> >> This paper may be useful >> >> http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf >> >> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes >> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either >> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not >> get some contribution from government finances. >> >> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts >> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial >> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to >> guarantee quality of service to passengers. >> >> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of >> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. >> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of >> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social >> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but >> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I >> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering >> subsidies on public transport. >> >> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an >> economic but a political decision as well. >> >> With warm regards >> Sonal >> >> Sonal Ahuja >> Associate Director, >> Development Transport and Infrastructure >> CAPITA SYMONDS >> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX >> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >> >> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja >> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or >> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn >> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 >> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> >> Dear Hassan, >> >> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get >> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or >> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a >> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or >> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the >> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and >> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need >> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. >> Alas, this does not hold true. >> >> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >> require subsidies: >> >> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for >> them to be profitable. >> >> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality >> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service >> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities >> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what >> they have even if it is functional. >> >> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first >> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want >> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its >> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it >> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. >> >> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service >> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >> questions for the Government are: >> >> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, >> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to >> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial >> outcomes. >> >> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method >> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >> attractive to users. >> >> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers >> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all >> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >> something. >> >> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth >> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be >> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's >> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other >> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want >> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they >> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can >> get it for less. >> >> >> With best wishes, >> >> >> Brendan. >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> _______________________________________ >> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Simon Bishop" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> >> >> >>> Dear Hassan, >>> >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and >>> >> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you >> think. >> >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have >>> >> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace >> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other >> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so >> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to >> capture as many passengers as possible. >> >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a >>> >> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the >> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km >> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be >> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of >> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require >> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or >> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 >> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 >> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are >> becoming saturated). >> >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because >>> >> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and >> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete >>> >> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of >> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing >> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a >> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were >> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be >> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year >> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >> >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>> >> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if >> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you >> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a >> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and >> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them >> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're >> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will >> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their >> comfort. >> >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >>> >> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you >> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of >> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more >> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so >> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce >> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT >> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses >> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from >> a fast, competitive service. >> >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do >>> >> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by >> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most >> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so >> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like >> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved >> journey times by adopting quality performance models. >> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Simon Bishop >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> Friends, >>> >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a >>> >> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the >> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was >> formed earlier this year. >> >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them >>> >> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >> public transport sector. >> >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>> >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not >>> >> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >>> >> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering >> process for procurement of buses? >> >>> Many thanks in advance. >>> >>> Hassaan >>> >>> Institutional Development Specialist >>> The Urban Unit >>> Planning & Development Department, >>> Government of the Punjab >>> >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>> F: 9213585 >>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>> Skype: halgazel >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). >> >> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan >> service. >> >> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are >> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the >> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or >> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please >> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the >> email. Copyright reserved. >> >> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >> >> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It >> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for >> the presence of viruses. >> >> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability >> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use >> or transmission of this email. >> >> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 >> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >> To: >> Message-ID: >> < >> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Apologies for cross posting. >> >> >> >> Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and Technology >> Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd >> TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with the >> 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and >> explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green >> transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major >> player in transport industry and a global economic power. >> >> >> >> The Conference website can be visited at >> >> http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html >> >> We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in >> four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for transport >> operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis is >> on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, >> engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally >> sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be given >> to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. >> >> >> >> We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government >> officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national >> collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one of >> the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which is >> in the heart of New Delhi. >> >> The key areas of focus this year will be: >> >> >> >> * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, >> >> * Intelligent Transport Systems, >> >> * Urban traffic Management, >> >> * Transport Modelling, >> >> * Traffic simulation, >> >> * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, >> >> * Transport Policy, >> >> * Traffic Engineering, >> >> * Transport economics and Finance, >> >> * Muti-modal transport systems, >> >> * Aviation, >> >> * Ports, >> >> * Railways, >> >> * Freight, >> >> * Tourism and transport, >> >> * Global health and transport, >> >> * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, >> >> * Traffic Safety, >> >> * Pedestrian issues and environment, >> >> * Urban Design, Built form and transport, >> >> * Transport in developing countries. >> >> Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations in >> sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, advanced >> systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and >> simulation will be considered. >> >> >> >> Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st >> December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic relevance >> and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a full >> paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. >> >> >> >> All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings to >> be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be >> peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a >> selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of >> participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers >> reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the >> same person. >> >> >> >> TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session presentations >> and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of 4-5 >> papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a few >> minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions >> during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster and >> then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the >> poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection >> procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if your >> abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. >> >> >> >> Abstract guidelines >> >> >> >> * 1000 words maximum. >> >> * May include one figure or table. >> >> * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. >> >> * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, >> abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or >> session presentation). >> >> * Identify one author as the contact person. >> >> * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI >> ABSTRACT" in the subject line. >> >> * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: ITS, >> traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft >> computing, developing countries, ports etc. >> >> >> >> For more information : >> >> >> >> Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, >> >> Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, >> >> Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , 2007 >> >> web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ >> >> With warm regards >> >> >> >> Sonal >> >> >> >> Sonal Ahuja >> >> Associate Director, >> >> Development Transport and Infrastructure >> >> CAPITA SYMONDS >> >> 86 Fetter Lane >> >> London EC4A 1EN >> >> United Kingdom >> >> >> >> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >> >> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >> >> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >> >> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >> >> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >> >> www.capita.co.uk >> >> >> >> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >> >> >> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are >> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the >> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or >> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please >> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the >> email. Copyright reserved. >> >> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >> >> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It >> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for >> the presence of viruses. >> >> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability >> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use >> or transmission of this email. >> >> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ================================================================ >> 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 74, Issue 6 >> ********************************************** >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Sun Oct 11 07:25:38 2009 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:25:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies In-Reply-To: <4AD084A6.9020907@gmail.com> References: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com> <4AD084A6.9020907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091010182538.10796nxjq7sdqeos@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Carlos and Joachim: You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an immediate, practical problem. If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is requird, and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to support public transport, you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy often have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their costs or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed or nothing will improve. And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending can be offset by reduced private spending. Eric Bruun Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is anyway > debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging > real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking > charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, > subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, > education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because > there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let > transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so > public transport can benefit) while education and health can be > subsidized properly. > > Best regards, > > Carlos. > > Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: >> Dear Hassaan, >> >> thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. >> >> There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport >> operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction of >> car congestion. >> >> However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and >> practical. I would like to make two points: >> - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure from >> public subsidy to operations >> - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This should >> also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an >> indicator for poor market regulation. >> >> In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private motorised >> transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. If it >> can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private >> motorised transport has competitive advantages and public transport suffers >> operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad >> interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to the >> preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. >> >> The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful bus >> system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able to >> respond to the success with more services, because you will quickly reach to >> limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets stuck. Public money >> is needed for so many other things, starting with education and health. It >> should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is >> inefficient because public policy really favors the private car wherever it >> can. >> >> Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not persist in bad >> regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public transport enough to >> make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit and >> those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in better >> infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public transport. >> It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in the >> long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and marketing >> in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. >> >> There are many low and high quality examples of profitable public transport >> operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. >> >> Looking forward to the continued debate, >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Joachim >> >> >> >> >> 2009/10/10 >> >> >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) >>> 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) >>> 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >>> 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 >>> From: Simon Bishop >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" >>> >>> Message-ID: >>> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> Dear Hassan, >>> >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >>> depth and >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >>> >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to >>> replace the >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >>> inefficiently >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a >>> fully private >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many >>> passengers as possible. >>> >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system of >>> 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest cost >>> bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, >>> but it was >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a >>> year - the >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >>> >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >>> >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete with >>> private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of raising >>> the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking charges, >>> even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and motorbikes, >>> I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport >>> system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus >>> system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from >>> private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >>> >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >>> (accidents, >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >>> >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I notice >>> in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >>> un-integrated >>> in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could use them as >>> 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based >>> service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could >>> 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are accessible, >>> comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would be to develop >>> what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing >>> costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in >>> traffic for >>> instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. >>> >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting >>> quality performance models. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Simon Bishop >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: >>> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org[mailto: >>> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop >>> =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of >>> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) >>> 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> Friends, >>> >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a task >>> which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to >>> sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier >>> this >>> year. >>> >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public >>> transport sector. >>> >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>> >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely >>> on >>> government subsidies or viability gap funding? >>> >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has >>> been >>> arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for >>> procurement of buses? >>> >>> Many thanks in advance. >>> >>> Hassaan >>> >>> Institutional Development Specialist >>> The Urban Unit >>> Planning & Development Department, >>> Government of the Punjab >>> >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>> F: 9213585 >>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>> Skype: halgazel >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >>> >>> *When conditions are right, things go wrong* >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: krc12353 >>> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 >>> ********************************************** >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 >>> From: "Brendan Finn" >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> To: "Simon Bishop" , >>> >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Dear Hassan, >>> >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get anything >>> resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support >>> funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without >>> any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, it could be >>> possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a >>> common misconception among some politicians and senior decision-takers that >>> if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any subsidies because >>> the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. >>> >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >>> require subsidies: >>> >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the >>> conditions for them >>> to be profitable. >>> >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low >>> quality vehicles >>> and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself >>> varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either >>> the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they >>> have even if >>> it is functional. >>> >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first and >>> assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? >>> How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people >>> move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it is? Only >>> then decide how to achieve it. >>> >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >>> questions >>> for the Government are: >>> >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to get >>> involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. >>> >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method which >>> boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >>> attractive to >>> users. >>> >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers and >>> the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >>> something. >>> >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth to >>> the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be expensive >>> freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's resources are >>> squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning >>> cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, >>> it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be willing to pay, >>> and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. >>> >>> With best wishes, >>> >>> >>> Brendan. >>> >>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >>> +353.87.2530286 >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Simon Bishop" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dear Hassan, >>>> >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I >>>> >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >>> depth and >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >>> >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a >>>> >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to >>> replace the >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >>> inefficiently >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a >>> fully private >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many >>> passengers as possible. >>> >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system >>>> >>> of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest >>> cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be measured by GPS >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, >>> but it was >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in London (back >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a >>> year - the >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >>> >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it >>>> >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and suggest >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >>> >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete >>>> >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking >>> charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and >>> motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public >>> transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and >>> in, say Year >>> 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to >>> raising money >>> from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >>> >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>>> >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >>> (accidents, >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around more easily >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to realize a subsidy >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >>> >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >>>> >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing >>> more people. >>> You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are >>> accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce >>> costs would be >>> to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system >>> that reduces >>> ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in >>> traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive >>> service. >>> >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we >>>> >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, para-transit, >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most importantly, 'How >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that have turned >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting >>> quality performance models. >>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Simon Bishop >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>>> >>>> Friends, >>>> >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a >>>> >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab >>> to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier >>> this year. >>> >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to >>>> >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public >>> transport sector. >>> >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>>> >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely >>>> >>> on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >>> >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has >>>> >>> been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for >>> procurement of buses? >>> >>>> Many thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> Hassaan >>>> >>>> Institutional Development Specialist >>>> The Urban Unit >>>> Planning & Development Department, >>>> Government of the Punjab >>>> >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>>> F: 9213585 >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>>> Skype: halgazel >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >>>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" >>> , , >>> >>> Message-ID: >>> < >>> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> Dear Hasan, >>> >>> This paper may be useful >>> >>> http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf >>> >>> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes >>> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either >>> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not >>> get some contribution from government finances. >>> >>> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts >>> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial >>> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to >>> guarantee quality of service to passengers. >>> >>> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of >>> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. >>> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of >>> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social >>> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but >>> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I >>> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering >>> subsidies on public transport. >>> >>> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an >>> economic but a political decision as well. >>> >>> With warm regards >>> Sonal >>> >>> Sonal Ahuja >>> Associate Director, >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure >>> CAPITA SYMONDS >>> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >>> >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja >>> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or >>> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn >>> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 >>> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> >>> Dear Hassan, >>> >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get >>> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or >>> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a >>> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or >>> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the >>> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and >>> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need >>> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. >>> Alas, this does not hold true. >>> >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >>> require subsidies: >>> >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for >>> them to be profitable. >>> >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality >>> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service >>> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities >>> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what >>> they have even if it is functional. >>> >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first >>> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want >>> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its >>> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it >>> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. >>> >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >>> questions for the Government are: >>> >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to >>> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial >>> outcomes. >>> >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method >>> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >>> attractive to users. >>> >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers >>> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >>> something. >>> >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth >>> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be >>> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's >>> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other >>> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want >>> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they >>> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can >>> get it for less. >>> >>> >>> With best wishes, >>> >>> >>> Brendan. >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> _______________________________________ >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >>> +353.87.2530286 >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Simon Bishop" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dear Hassan, >>>> >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and >>>> >>> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >>> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you >>> think. >>> >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have >>>> >>> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace >>> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >>> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other >>> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so >>> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to >>> capture as many passengers as possible. >>> >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a >>>> >>> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the >>> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km >>> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be >>> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of >>> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require >>> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or >>> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 >>> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 >>> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are >>> becoming saturated). >>> >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because >>>> >>> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and >>> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >>> >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete >>>> >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >>> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing >>> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a >>> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were >>> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be >>> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year >>> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >>> >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>>> >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >>> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if >>> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you >>> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a >>> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and >>> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them >>> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're >>> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will >>> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their >>> comfort. >>> >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >>>> >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more >>> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so >>> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce >>> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT >>> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses >>> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from >>> a fast, competitive service. >>> >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do >>>> >>> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >>> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by >>> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >>> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most >>> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so >>> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like >>> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved >>> journey times by adopting quality performance models. >>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Simon Bishop >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>>> >>>> Friends, >>>> >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a >>>> >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the >>> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was >>> formed earlier this year. >>> >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them >>>> >>> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >>> public transport sector. >>> >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>>> >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not >>>> >>> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >>> >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >>>> >>> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering >>> process for procurement of buses? >>> >>>> Many thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> Hassaan >>>> >>>> Institutional Development Specialist >>>> The Urban Unit >>>> Planning & Development Department, >>>> Government of the Punjab >>>> >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>>> F: 9213585 >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>>> Skype: halgazel >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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'). >>> >>> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan >>> service. >>> >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the >>> email. Copyright reserved. >>> >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >>> >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any >>> attachment for >>> the presence of viruses. >>> >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the >>> receipt, use >>> or transmission of this email. >>> >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >>> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >>> To: >>> Message-ID: >>> < >>> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> Apologies for cross posting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and Technology >>> Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd >>> TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with the >>> 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and >>> explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green >>> transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major >>> player in transport industry and a global economic power. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Conference website can be visited at >>> >>> http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html >>> >>> We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in >>> four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for transport >>> operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis is >>> on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, >>> engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally >>> sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be given >>> to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. >>> >>> >>> >>> We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government >>> officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national >>> collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one of >>> the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which is >>> in the heart of New Delhi. >>> >>> The key areas of focus this year will be: >>> >>> >>> >>> * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, >>> >>> * Intelligent Transport Systems, >>> >>> * Urban traffic Management, >>> >>> * Transport Modelling, >>> >>> * Traffic simulation, >>> >>> * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, >>> >>> * Transport Policy, >>> >>> * Traffic Engineering, >>> >>> * Transport economics and Finance, >>> >>> * Muti-modal transport systems, >>> >>> * Aviation, >>> >>> * Ports, >>> >>> * Railways, >>> >>> * Freight, >>> >>> * Tourism and transport, >>> >>> * Global health and transport, >>> >>> * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, >>> >>> * Traffic Safety, >>> >>> * Pedestrian issues and environment, >>> >>> * Urban Design, Built form and transport, >>> >>> * Transport in developing countries. >>> >>> Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations in >>> sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, advanced >>> systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and >>> simulation will be considered. >>> >>> >>> >>> Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st >>> December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic relevance >>> and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a full >>> paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings to >>> be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be >>> peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a >>> selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of >>> participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers >>> reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the >>> same person. >>> >>> >>> >>> TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session presentations >>> and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of 4-5 >>> papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a few >>> minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions >>> during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster and >>> then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the >>> poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection >>> procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if your >>> abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Abstract guidelines >>> >>> >>> >>> * 1000 words maximum. >>> >>> * May include one figure or table. >>> >>> * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. >>> >>> * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, >>> abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or >>> session presentation). >>> >>> * Identify one author as the contact person. >>> >>> * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI >>> ABSTRACT" in the subject line. >>> >>> * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: ITS, >>> traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft >>> computing, developing countries, ports etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> For more information : >>> >>> >>> >>> Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, >>> >>> Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, >>> >>> Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , 2007 >>> >>> web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ >>> >>> With warm regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Sonal >>> >>> >>> >>> Sonal Ahuja >>> >>> Associate Director, >>> >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure >>> >>> CAPITA SYMONDS >>> >>> 86 Fetter Lane >>> >>> London EC4A 1EN >>> >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> >>> >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >>> >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >>> >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >>> >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >>> >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >>> >>> www.capita.co.uk >>> >>> >>> >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >>> >>> >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the >>> email. Copyright reserved. >>> >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >>> >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any >>> attachment for >>> the presence of viruses. >>> >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the >>> receipt, use >>> or transmission of this email. >>> >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ================================================================ >>> 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 74, Issue 6 >>> ********************************************** >>> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From etts at indigo.ie Mon Oct 12 06:28:05 2009 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:28:05 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Lahore and Public transport subsidies In-Reply-To: <20091010182538.10796nxjq7sdqeos@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp><493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com><4AD084A6.9020907@gmail.com> <20091010182538.10796nxjq7sdqeos@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <00EF1BC3E7994E139564053F404436E6@MicroPro271007> Dear all, Perhaps good quality PT can be provided in Lahore without subsidy, perhaps it can't, I can't tell from this distance. A few thoughts: - If the politicians demand that it is without subsidy, this will set an agenda and will certainly result in a different outcome. I'm not sure that this is the best starting point. - It is always possible to make PT profitable, especially where car ownership and affordability is low. However, where profitability is a prerequisite, there will be places that won't get served (at least not as well as others) and there will be people that won't be able to afford the fares. These are tough decisions, the ground rules need to be made clear from the outset. Otherwise, everyone's time gets wasted (good scenario) or the public transport gets financially undermined and degenerates (bad scenario). - Key financial drivers such as vehicles capital costs and fuel will be priced in first-world prices, but have to be paid for from third-world incomes. Even allowing for low driver and maintenance worker wages, this is still a tough equation to solve, especially if you want clean vehicles. If politicians want public transport to pay its way, it has to give the operators sufficient tariff freedom to generate a sustainable income - actually, it has to take the trouble to learn the cost structure of the industry and formally recognise it. - I agree with Joachim's point that Government can invest in the infrastructure for public transport (I made this point in my earlier e-mail) which can establish the conditions for more productive PT with lower unit costs. However, this requires a capacity and political will on the Government side which is not always present. - Put it another way, if Government is willing to roll up its sleeves and work hard, it may indeed be able to get finaicially viable PT. However, if it won't do the tough work and dumps the problem on others, then no-subsidy is a pipe dream or else the poorer sectors of the community get excluded. I think Lahore is going to be quite interesting, and I would appreciate if Hassan keeps us informed on how the thinking develops. My memory is a bit hazy, but didn't Lahore previously try to offer out city or area franchises for bus operations? With best wishes, Brendan. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 11:25 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies > Carlos and Joachim: > > You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an > immediate, practical problem. > If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so > that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is requird, > and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to > support public transport, > you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy often > have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their costs > or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed or > nothing will improve. > > And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. > If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by > the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities > with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation > than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is > that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk > about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending > can be offset by reduced private spending. > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > >> Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is anyway >> debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging >> real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking >> charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, >> subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, >> education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because >> there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let >> transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so >> public transport can benefit) while education and health can be >> subsidized properly. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Carlos. >> >> Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: >>> Dear Hassaan, >>> >>> thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. >>> >>> There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport >>> operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction of >>> car congestion. >>> >>> However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and >>> practical. I would like to make two points: >>> - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure from >>> public subsidy to operations >>> - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This should >>> also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an >>> indicator for poor market regulation. >>> >>> In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private motorised >>> transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. If it >>> can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private >>> motorised transport has competitive advantages and public transport suffers >>> operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad >>> interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to the >>> preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. >>> >>> The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful bus >>> system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able to >>> respond to the success with more services, because you will quickly reach to >>> limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets stuck. Public money >>> is needed for so many other things, starting with education and health. It >>> should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is >>> inefficient because public policy really favors the private car wherever it >>> can. >>> >>> Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not persist in bad >>> regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public transport enough to >>> make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit and >>> those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in better >>> infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public transport. >>> It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in the >>> long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and marketing >>> in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. >>> >>> There are many low and high quality examples of profitable public transport >>> operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. >>> >>> Looking forward to the continued debate, >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> Joachim >>> >>> .dimts.org> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 >>>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>>> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" >>>> , , >>>> >>>> Message-ID: >>>> < >>>> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >>>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> >>>> Dear Hasan, >>>> >>>> This paper may be useful >>>> >>>> http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf >>>> >>>> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes >>>> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either >>>> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not >>>> get some contribution from government finances. >>>> >>>> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts >>>> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial >>>> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to >>>> guarantee quality of service to passengers. >>>> >>>> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of >>>> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. >>>> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of >>>> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social >>>> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but >>>> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I >>>> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering >>>> subsidies on public transport. >>>> >>>> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an >>>> economic but a political decision as well. >>>> >>>> With warm regards >>>> Sonal >>>> >>>> Sonal Ahuja >>>> Associate Director, >>>> Development Transport and Infrastructure >>>> CAPITA SYMONDS >>>> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX >>>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >>>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >>>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >>>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >>>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >>>> >>>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >>>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja >>>> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or >>>> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn >>>> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 >>>> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>>> >>>> Dear Hassan, >>>> >>>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >>>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get >>>> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or >>>> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a >>>> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or >>>> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the >>>> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and >>>> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need >>>> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. >>>> Alas, this does not hold true. >>>> >>>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >>>> require subsidies: >>>> >>>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >>>> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for >>>> them to be profitable. >>>> >>>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >>>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality >>>> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service >>>> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities >>>> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what >>>> they have even if it is functional. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first >>>> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want >>>> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its >>>> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it >>>> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. >>>> >>>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service >>>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >>>> questions for the Government are: >>>> >>>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, >>>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to >>>> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial >>>> outcomes. >>>> >>>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >>>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method >>>> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >>>> attractive to users. >>>> >>>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers >>>> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >>>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all >>>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >>>> something. >>>> >>>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth >>>> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be >>>> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's >>>> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other >>>> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want >>>> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they >>>> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can >>>> get it for less. >>>> >>>> >>>> With best wishes, >>>> >>>> >>>> Brendan. >>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>> _______________________________________ >>>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >>>> +353.87.2530286 >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Simon Bishop" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Hassan, >>>>> >>>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and >>>>> >>>> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >>>> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you >>>> think. >>>> >>>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have >>>>> >>>> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a >>>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace >>>> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >>>> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other >>>> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so >>>> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to >>>> capture as many passengers as possible. >>>> >>>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a >>>>> >>>> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the >>>> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km >>>> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be >>>> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of >>>> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require >>>> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or >>>> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 >>>> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 >>>> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are >>>> becoming saturated). >>>> >>>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because >>>>> >>>> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and >>>> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >>>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >>>> >>>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete >>>>> >>>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of >>>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >>>> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing >>>> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a >>>> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were >>>> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be >>>> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year >>>> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >>>> >>>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, >>>>> >>>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >>>> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if >>>> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you >>>> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a >>>> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and >>>> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them >>>> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're >>>> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will >>>> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their >>>> comfort. >>>> >>>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >>>>> >>>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >>>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you >>>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of >>>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more >>>> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so >>>> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce >>>> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT >>>> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses >>>> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from >>>> a fast, competitive service. >>>> >>>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do >>>>> >>>> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >>>> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by >>>> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >>>> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most >>>> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so >>>> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like >>>> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved >>>> journey times by adopting quality performance models. >>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Simon Bishop >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >>>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >>>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >>>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>>>> >>>>> Friends, >>>>> >>>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a >>>>> >>>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the >>>> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was >>>> formed earlier this year. >>>> >>>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them >>>>> >>>> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >>>> public transport sector. >>>> >>>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not >>>>> >>>> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >>>> >>>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >>>>> >>>> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering >>>> process for procurement of buses? >>>> >>>>> Many thanks in advance. >>>>> >>>>> Hassaan >>>>> >>>>> Institutional Development Specialist >>>>> The Urban Unit >>>>> Planning & Development Department, >>>>> Government of the Punjab >>>>> >>>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >>>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >>>>> F: 9213585 >>>>> M: 0345 455 6016 >>>>> Skype: halgazel >>>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk From dazzle_dwds at yahoo.com Tue Oct 13 05:09:44 2009 From: dazzle_dwds at yahoo.com (Roselle Leah K. Rivera) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Joy of India's women-only trains Message-ID: <251571.70290.qm@web110105.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ** Joy of India's women-only trains ** The BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi travels on a newly-introduced 'ladies' special', a train exclusively for the use of women. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8290377.stm ? ROSELLE LEAH K RIVERA Faculty Department of Women and Development Studies College of Social Work and Community Development University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon City PHILIPPINES --- On Sun, 10/11/09, roselle wrote: From: roselle Subject: BBC E-mail: Joy of India's women-only trains To: dazzle_dwds@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 7:45 PM roselle saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have?been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm From litman at vtpi.org Wed Oct 14 06:43:25 2009 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:43:25 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies In-Reply-To: <20091010182538.10796nxjq7sdqeos@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <20091010030051.E40532C462@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <493cf1c00910100309x3287ec65u3dbda2e52797960c@mail.gmail.com> <4AD084A6.9020907@gmail.com> <20091010182538.10796nxjq7sdqeos@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <20091013214335.3A8982D75B@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> I agree with Eric. There are several specific justifications for subsidizing public transportation that do not apply to automobile travel: * Public transit provides affordable transportation and basic mobility for non-drivers. This justifies subsidies on equity grounds. In the U.S., about half of all transit service is justified purely on this basis (transit service at times and places with low demand, and special features such as wheelchair lifts). Although this type of transit may seem costly, it is far cheaper than the alternative: physically and economically disadvantaged people who lack access, and motorists forced to chauffeur non-drivers. * Public transportation enjoys economies of scale and scope (as the system expands and ridership increases unit costs decline). This creates a technical justification for subsidies, in order to capture these efficiencies. * Public transit subsidies are a second-best response to underpricing of automobile travel. An efficient transportation market would require much higher user charges for automobile travel, including road pricing, parking pricing, distance-based insurance and registration fees, and higher fuel taxes. My research indicates that if these are implemented, North American motorists would choose to drive 25-50% less and rely much more than they do now on alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit). Until all of these reform are implemented, significant subsidies are justified for alternative modes to reduce problems such as congestion, accidents and pollution emissions. * Public transit investments often repay themselves through increased local property values around stations. Thus, property owners (or local governments which capture local taxes) can justify subsidies for high quality transit. For more information see: Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. Todd Litman (2006), Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf. Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 03:25 PM 10/10/2009, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >Carlos and Joachim: > >You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an >immediate, practical problem. >If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so >that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is requird, >and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to >support public transport, >you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy often >have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their costs >or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed or >nothing will improve. > >And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. >If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by >the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities >with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation >than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is >that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk >about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending >can be offset by reduced private spending. > >Eric Bruun > > > >Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > > > Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is anyway > > debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging > > real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking > > charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, > > subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, > > education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because > > there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let > > transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so > > public transport can benefit) while education and health can be > > subsidized properly. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Carlos. > > > > Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: > >> Dear Hassaan, > >> > >> thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. > >> > >> There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport > >> operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction of > >> car congestion. > >> > >> However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and > >> practical. I would like to make two points: > >> - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure from > >> public subsidy to operations > >> - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This should > >> also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an > >> indicator for poor market regulation. > >> > >> In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private motorised > >> transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. If it > >> can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private > >> motorised transport has competitive advantages and public > transport suffers > >> operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad > >> interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to the > >> preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. > >> > >> The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful bus > >> system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able to > >> respond to the success with more services, because you will > quickly reach to > >> limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets > stuck. Public money > >> is needed for so many other things, starting with education and > health. It > >> should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is > >> inefficient because public policy really favors the private car > wherever it > >> can. > >> > >> Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not > persist in bad > >> regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public > transport enough to > >> make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit and > >> those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in better > >> infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public transport. > >> It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in the > >> long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and marketing > >> in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. > >> > >> There are many low and high quality examples of profitable > public transport > >> operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. > >> > >> Looking forward to the continued debate, > >> > >> Yours sincerely, > >> > >> Joachim > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2009/10/10 > >> > >> > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) > >>> 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) > >>> 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > >>> 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 > >>> From: Simon Bishop > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" > >>> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>> > >>> Dear Hassan, > >>> > >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > >>> depth and > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > >>> > >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to > >>> replace the > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > >>> inefficiently > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a > >>> fully private > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many > >>> passengers as possible. > >>> > >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop > a system of > >>> 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the > lowest cost > >>> bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > measured by GPS > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, > >>> but it was > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in > London (back > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a > >>> year - the > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). > >>> > >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, > and suggest > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > >>> > >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to > compete with > >>> private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of > ways of raising > >>> the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > parking charges, > >>> even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and > motorbikes, > >>> I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public transport > >>> system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say > Year 2 a bus > >>> system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money from > >>> private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > >>> > >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > >>> (accidents, > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around > more easily > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to > realize a subsidy > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. > >>> > >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following > ways. I notice > >>> in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > >>> un-integrated > >>> in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could > use them as > >>> 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a bus-based > >>> service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could > >>> 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are > accessible, > >>> comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would > be to develop > >>> what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces ongoing > >>> costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in > >>> traffic for > >>> instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. > >>> > >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > para-transit, > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > importantly, 'How > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that > have turned > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting > >>> quality performance models. > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> > >>> Simon Bishop > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: > >>> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org[mailto: > >>> > sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop > >>> =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > >>> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) > >>> 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>> Message-ID: > >>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>> > >>> Friends, > >>> > >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your > assistance in a task > >>> which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the Punjab to > >>> sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed earlier > >>> this > >>> year. > >>> > >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public > >>> transport sector. > >>> > >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > >>> > >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not rely > >>> on > >>> government subsidies or viability gap funding? > >>> > >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has > >>> been > >>> arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for > >>> procurement of buses? > >>> > >>> Many thanks in advance. > >>> > >>> Hassaan > >>> > >>> Institutional Development Specialist > >>> The Urban Unit > >>> Planning & Development Department, > >>> Government of the Punjab > >>> > >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > >>> F: 9213585 > >>> M: 0345 455 6016 > >>> Skype: halgazel > >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > >>> > >>> *When conditions are right, things go wrong* > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) > >>> From: krc12353 > >>> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>> > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: > >>> > http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 > >>> ********************************************** > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 > >>> From: "Brendan Finn" > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> To: "Simon Bishop" , > >>> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>> > >>> Dear Hassan, > >>> > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to > get anything > >>> resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or support > >>> funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company without > >>> any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, > it could be > >>> possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is a > >>> common misconception among some politicians and senior > decision-takers that > >>> if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any > subsidies because > >>> the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold true. > >>> > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > >>> require subsidies: > >>> > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the > >>> conditions for them > >>> to be profitable. > >>> > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low > >>> quality vehicles > >>> and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service itself > >>> varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that either > >>> the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they > >>> have even if > >>> it is functional. > >>> > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its > goals first and > >>> assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to be? > >>> How important is transportation to that vision and how should its people > >>> move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as > it is? Only > >>> then decide how to achieve it. > >>> > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The > >>> questions > >>> for the Government are: > >>> > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it > starts to get > >>> involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial outcomes. > >>> > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious > method which > >>> boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service > >>> attractive to > >>> users. > >>> > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the > customers and > >>> the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > >>> something. > >>> > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system > is worth to > >>> the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can > be expensive > >>> freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's > resources are > >>> squandered in congestion and investments go to other better-functioning > >>> cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's worth, > >>> it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be > willing to pay, > >>> and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. > >>> > >>> With best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> Brendan. > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > >>> +353.87.2530286 > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dear Hassan, > >>>> > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and I > >>>> > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > >>> depth and > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > >>> > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have a > >>>> > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to > >>> replace the > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > >>> inefficiently > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a > >>> fully private > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as many > >>> passengers as possible. > >>> > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a system > >>>> > >>> of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the lowest > >>> cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km > run but in > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > measured by GPS > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and penalties. > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, > >>> but it was > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in > London (back > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a > >>> year - the > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the Commonwealth > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). > >>> > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because it > >>>> > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, > and suggest > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > >>> > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete > >>>> > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from parking > >>> charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and > >>> motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a > viable public > >>> transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and > >>> in, say Year > >>> 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to > >>> raising money > >>> from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the > ADB or WB. > >>> > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > >>>> > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > >>> (accidents, > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think that > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think about > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even the > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to realize > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around > more easily > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know what > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to > realize a subsidy > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. > >>> > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > >>>> > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing > >>> more people. > >>> You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are > >>> accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce > >>> costs would be > >>> to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system > >>> that reduces > >>> ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in > >>> traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive > >>> service. > >>> > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do we > >>>> > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How can we > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > para-transit, > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > importantly, 'How > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that > have turned > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by adopting > >>> quality performance models. > >>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> Simon Bishop > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Message: 1 > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>>> Message-ID: > >>>> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>>> > >>>> Friends, > >>>> > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a > >>>> > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister > of the Punjab > >>> to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was > formed earlier > >>> this year. > >>> > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them to > >>>> > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the public > >>> transport sector. > >>> > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > >>>> > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which > does not rely > >>>> > >>> on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > >>> > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing has > >>>> > >>> been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering > process for > >>> procurement of buses? > >>> > >>>> Many thanks in advance. > >>>> > >>>> Hassaan > >>>> > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist > >>>> The Urban Unit > >>>> Planning & Development Department, > >>>> Government of the Punjab > >>>> > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > >>>> F: 9213585 > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 > >>>> Skype: halgazel > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > >>>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 3 > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" > >>> , > , > >>> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> < > >>> > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > >>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>> > >>> Dear Hasan, > >>> > >>> This paper may be useful > >>> > >>> http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf > >>> > >>> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all modes > >>> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either > >>> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport not > >>> get some contribution from government finances. > >>> > >>> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious impacts > >>> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial > >>> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to > >>> guarantee quality of service to passengers. > >>> > >>> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline of > >>> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. > >>> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of > >>> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to social > >>> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but > >>> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi and I > >>> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering > >>> subsidies on public transport. > >>> > >>> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an > >>> economic but a political decision as well. > >>> > >>> With warm regards > >>> Sonal > >>> > >>> Sonal Ahuja > >>> Associate Director, > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS > >>> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk > >>> > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > >>> > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja > >>> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or > >>> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn > >>> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 > >>> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> > >>> Dear Hassan, > >>> > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get > >>> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or > >>> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a > >>> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or > >>> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of the > >>> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and > >>> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't need > >>> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always profitable. > >>> Alas, this does not hold true. > >>> > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > >>> require subsidies: > >>> > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions for > >>> them to be profitable. > >>> > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality > >>> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service > >>> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities > >>> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what > >>> they have even if it is functional. > >>> > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals first > >>> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want > >>> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should its > >>> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as it > >>> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. > >>> > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and service > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The > >>> questions for the Government are: > >>> > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network coverage, > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts to > >>> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial > >>> outcomes. > >>> > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method > >>> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service > >>> attractive to users. > >>> > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the customers > >>> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or all > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > >>> something. > >>> > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is worth > >>> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be > >>> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's > >>> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other > >>> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they want > >>> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they > >>> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they can > >>> get it for less. > >>> > >>> > >>> With best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> Brendan. > >>> ________________________________________________________________________ > >>> _______________________________________ > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > >>> +353.87.2530286 > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dear Hassan, > >>>> > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon and > >>>> > >>> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > >>> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than you > >>> think. > >>> > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have > >>>> > >>> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as a > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to replace > >>> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > >>> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other > >>> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so > >>> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to > >>> capture as many passengers as possible. > >>> > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a > >>>> > >>> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the > >>> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km > >>> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > >>> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of > >>> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require > >>> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds or > >>> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 > >>> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing 24 > >>> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are > >>> becoming saturated). > >>> > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because > >>>> > >>> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and > >>> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > >>> > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to compete > >>>> > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways of > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > >>> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing > >>> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a > >>> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were > >>> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be > >>> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that year > >>> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > >>> > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs elsewhere, > >>>> > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > >>> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if > >>> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you > >>> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a > >>> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and > >>> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps them > >>> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're > >>> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will > >>> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for their > >>> comfort. > >>> > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > >>>> > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more > >>> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so > >>> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce > >>> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT > >>> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses > >>> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues from > >>> a fast, competitive service. > >>> > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do > >>>> > >>> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How > >>> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by > >>> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > >>> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > >>> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so > >>> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like > >>> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and improved > >>> journey times by adopting quality performance models. > >>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> Simon Bishop > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Message: 1 > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>>> Message-ID: > >>>> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>>> > >>>> Friends, > >>>> > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in a > >>>> > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the > >>> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was > >>> formed earlier this year. > >>> > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them > >>>> > >>> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the > >>> public transport sector. > >>> > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > >>>> > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not > >>>> > >>> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > >>> > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing > >>>> > >>> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering > >>> process for procurement of buses? > >>> > >>>> Many thanks in advance. > >>>> > >>>> Hassaan > >>>> > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist > >>>> The Urban Unit > >>>> Planning & Development Department, > >>>> Government of the Punjab > >>>> > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > >>>> F: 9213585 > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 > >>>> Skype: halgazel > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > >>>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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'). > >>> > >>> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan > >>> service. > >>> > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any > other use or > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the > >>> email. Copyright reserved. > >>> > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. > >>> > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be > guaranteed. It > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any > >>> attachment for > >>> the presence of viruses. > >>> > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude > all liability > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the > >>> receipt, use > >>> or transmission of this email. > >>> > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the > author only. > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 4 > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > >>> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > >>> To: > >>> Message-ID: > >>> < > >>> > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > >>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>> > >>> Dear Colleagues, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Apologies for cross posting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and Technology > >>> Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd > >>> TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with the > >>> 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and > >>> explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green > >>> transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major > >>> player in transport industry and a global economic power. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Conference website can be visited at > >>> > >>> http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html > >>> > >>> We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in > >>> four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for transport > >>> operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis is > >>> on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, > >>> engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally > >>> sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be given > >>> to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government > >>> officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national > >>> collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one of > >>> the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which is > >>> in the heart of New Delhi. > >>> > >>> The key areas of focus this year will be: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, > >>> > >>> * Intelligent Transport Systems, > >>> > >>> * Urban traffic Management, > >>> > >>> * Transport Modelling, > >>> > >>> * Traffic simulation, > >>> > >>> * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, > >>> > >>> * Transport Policy, > >>> > >>> * Traffic Engineering, > >>> > >>> * Transport economics and Finance, > >>> > >>> * Muti-modal transport systems, > >>> > >>> * Aviation, > >>> > >>> * Ports, > >>> > >>> * Railways, > >>> > >>> * Freight, > >>> > >>> * Tourism and transport, > >>> > >>> * Global health and transport, > >>> > >>> * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, > >>> > >>> * Traffic Safety, > >>> > >>> * Pedestrian issues and environment, > >>> > >>> * Urban Design, Built form and transport, > >>> > >>> * Transport in developing countries. > >>> > >>> Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations in > >>> sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, advanced > >>> systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and > >>> simulation will be considered. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st > >>> December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic relevance > >>> and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a full > >>> paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings to > >>> be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be > >>> peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a > >>> selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of > >>> participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers > >>> reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the > >>> same person. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session presentations > >>> and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of 4-5 > >>> papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a few > >>> minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions > >>> during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster and > >>> then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the > >>> poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection > >>> procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if your > >>> abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract guidelines > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * 1000 words maximum. > >>> > >>> * May include one figure or table. > >>> > >>> * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. > >>> > >>> * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, > >>> abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or > >>> session presentation). > >>> > >>> * Identify one author as the contact person. > >>> > >>> * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI > >>> ABSTRACT" in the subject line. > >>> > >>> * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: ITS, > >>> traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft > >>> computing, developing countries, ports etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For more information : > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, > >>> > >>> Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, > >>> > >>> Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , 2007 > >>> > >>> web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ > >>> > >>> With warm regards > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sonal > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sonal Ahuja > >>> > >>> Associate Director, > >>> > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure > >>> > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS > >>> > >>> 86 Fetter Lane > >>> > >>> London EC4A 1EN > >>> > >>> United Kingdom > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > >>> > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > >>> > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > >>> > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > >>> > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk > >>> > >>> www.capita.co.uk > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any > other use or > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the > >>> email. Copyright reserved. > >>> > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. > >>> > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be > guaranteed. It > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any > >>> attachment for > >>> the presence of viruses. > >>> > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude > all liability > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the > >>> receipt, use > >>> or transmission of this email. > >>> > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the > author only. > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> ================================================================ > >>> 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 74, Issue 6 > >>> ********************************************** > >>> > >>> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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'). > >> > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >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@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" From agimjo at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 22:00:04 2009 From: agimjo at gmail.com (Joachim Bergerhoff) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:00:04 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <20091014030057.B4F3C2C55D@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20091014030057.B4F3C2C55D@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <493cf1c00910140600u3087c6b4nd3e26667513858e4@mail.gmail.com> Dear Hassaan, we are all discussing from our own "home" perspective, exposing more the differences between these situations than fundamental differences in approach. I hope this is useful for you and look forward to reading your reactions. @ Eric: I am not suggesting to wait until conditions are right, but to make them right asap. Let me give the practical example of the developing country I am working in. It has a car ownership of around 10% and a regional bus system with fairly good service, running between the principal cities every 15 minutes. The system is regulated by the state who sells concessions by the slot. It is operated by a host of private companies. Most of them don't have more than 5 vehicles and they all just break even. There also is an informal market outside the regulated hours and lines or even in competition with them. The situation is unstable as falling ridership threatens to make break even impossible. What should be done ? 2009/10/14 > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@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: Public transport subsidies (Todd Alexander Litman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:43:25 -0700 > From: Todd Alexander Litman > Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Message-ID: <20091013214335.3A8982D75B@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > I agree with Eric. There are several specific justifications for > subsidizing public transportation that do not apply to automobile travel: > > * Public transit provides affordable transportation and basic > mobility for non-drivers. This justifies subsidies on equity grounds. > In the U.S., about half of all transit service is justified purely on > this basis (transit service at times and places with low demand, and > special features such as wheelchair lifts). Although this type of > transit may seem costly, it is far cheaper than the alternative: > physically and economically disadvantaged people who lack access, and > motorists forced to chauffeur non-drivers. > * Public transportation enjoys economies of scale and scope (as the > system expands and ridership increases unit costs decline). This > creates a technical justification for subsidies, in order to capture > these efficiencies. > * Public transit subsidies are a second-best response to underpricing > of automobile travel. An efficient transportation market would > require much higher user charges for automobile travel, including > road pricing, parking pricing, distance-based insurance and > registration fees, and higher fuel taxes. My research indicates that > if these are implemented, North American motorists would choose to > drive 25-50% less and rely much more than they do now on alternative > modes (walking, cycling and public transit). Until all of these > reform are implemented, significant subsidies are justified for > alternative modes to reduce problems such as congestion, accidents > and pollution emissions. > * Public transit investments often repay themselves through increased > local property values around stations. Thus, property owners (or > local governments which capture local taxes) can justify subsidies > for high quality transit. > > For more information see: > > Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, > VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at > www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. > > Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria > Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at > www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. > > Todd Litman (2006), Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The > Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI > (www.vtpi.org); at > www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf. > > Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit > Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy > Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); > at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 03:25 PM 10/10/2009, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > >Carlos and Joachim: > > > >You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an > >immediate, practical problem. > >If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so > >that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is > requird, > >and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to > >support public transport, > >you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy > often > >have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their > costs > >or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed > or > >nothing will improve. > > > >And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. > >If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by > >the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities > >with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation > >than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is > >that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk > >about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending > >can be offset by reduced private spending. > > > >Eric Bruun > > > > > > > >Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > > > > > Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is > anyway > > > debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging > > > real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking > > > charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, > > > subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, > > > education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because > > > there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let > > > transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so > > > public transport can benefit) while education and health can be > > > subsidized properly. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Carlos. > > > > > > Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: > > >> Dear Hassaan, > > >> > > >> thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. > > >> > > >> There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport > > >> operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction > of > > >> car congestion. > > >> > > >> However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and > > >> practical. I would like to make two points: > > >> - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure > from > > >> public subsidy to operations > > >> - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This > should > > >> also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an > > >> indicator for poor market regulation. > > >> > > >> In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private > motorised > > >> transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. > If it > > >> can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private > > >> motorised transport has competitive advantages and public > > transport suffers > > >> operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad > > >> interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to > the > > >> preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. > > >> > > >> The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful > bus > > >> system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able > to > > >> respond to the success with more services, because you will > > quickly reach to > > >> limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets > > stuck. Public money > > >> is needed for so many other things, starting with education and > > health. It > > >> should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is > > >> inefficient because public policy really favors the private car > > wherever it > > >> can. > > >> > > >> Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not > > persist in bad > > >> regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public > > transport enough to > > >> make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit > and > > >> those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in > better > > >> infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public > transport. > > >> It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in > the > > >> long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and > marketing > > >> in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. > > >> > > >> There are many low and high quality examples of profitable > > public transport > > >> operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. > > >> > > >> Looking forward to the continued debate, > > >> > > >> Yours sincerely, > > >> > > >> Joachim > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2009/10/10 > > >> > > >> > > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> > > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) > > >>> 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) > > >>> 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > > >>> 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > >>> Message: 1 > > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 > > >>> From: Simon Bishop > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" > > >>> > > >>> Message-ID: > > >>> < > 247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> > > >>> Dear Hassan, > > >>> > > >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon > and I > > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > > >>> depth and > > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > >>> > > >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have > a > > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as > a > > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to > > >>> replace the > > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > > >>> inefficiently > > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a > > >>> fully private > > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as > many > > >>> passengers as possible. > > >>> > > >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop > > a system of > > >>> 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the > > lowest cost > > >>> bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in > > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > > measured by GPS > > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and > penalties. > > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, > > >>> but it was > > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in > > London (back > > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a > > >>> year - the > > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the > Commonwealth > > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > >>> > > >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because > it > > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, > > and suggest > > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > >>> > > >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to > > compete with > > >>> private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of > > ways of raising > > >>> the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > > parking charges, > > >>> even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and > > motorbikes, > > >>> I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public > transport > > >>> system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say > > Year 2 a bus > > >>> system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money > from > > >>> private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > >>> > > >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs > elsewhere, > > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > > >>> (accidents, > > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think > that > > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think > about > > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even > the > > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to > realize > > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around > > more easily > > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know > what > > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to > > realize a subsidy > > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > >>> > > >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following > > ways. I notice > > >>> in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > > >>> un-integrated > > >>> in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could > > use them as > > >>> 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a > bus-based > > >>> service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could > > >>> 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are > > accessible, > > >>> comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would > > be to develop > > >>> what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces > ongoing > > >>> costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in > > >>> traffic for > > >>> instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. > > >>> > > >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do > we > > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How > can we > > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > > para-transit, > > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > > importantly, 'How > > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that > > have turned > > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by > adopting > > >>> quality performance models. > > >>> > > >>> All the best, > > >>> > > >>> Simon Bishop > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: > > >>> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto: > > >>> > > > sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop > > >>> =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > > >>> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM > > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> > > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> > > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) > > >>> 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > >>> Message: 1 > > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > > >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > > >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> Message-ID: > > >>> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > >>> > > >>> Friends, > > >>> > > >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your > > assistance in a task > > >>> which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the > Punjab to > > >>> sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed > earlier > > >>> this > > >>> year. > > >>> > > >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them > to > > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the > public > > >>> transport sector. > > >>> > > >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > >>> > > >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not > rely > > >>> on > > >>> government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > >>> > > >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing > has > > >>> been > > >>> arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for > > >>> procurement of buses? > > >>> > > >>> Many thanks in advance. > > >>> > > >>> Hassaan > > >>> > > >>> Institutional Development Specialist > > >>> The Urban Unit > > >>> Planning & Development Department, > > >>> Government of the Punjab > > >>> > > >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > > >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > > >>> F: 9213585 > > >>> M: 0345 455 6016 > > >>> Skype: halgazel > > >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > > >>> > > >>> *When conditions are right, things go wrong* > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> Message: 2 > > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) > > >>> From: krc12353 > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step > > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> > > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >>> URL: > > >>> > > > http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 > > >>> ********************************************** > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> Message: 2 > > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 > > >>> From: "Brendan Finn" > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> To: "Simon Bishop" , > > >>> > > >>> Message-ID: > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >>> > > >>> Dear Hassan, > > >>> > > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to > > get anything > > >>> resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or > support > > >>> funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company > without > > >>> any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, > > it could be > > >>> possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is > a > > >>> common misconception among some politicians and senior > > decision-takers that > > >>> if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any > > subsidies because > > >>> the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold > true. > > >>> > > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > > >>> require subsidies: > > >>> > > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the > > >>> conditions for them > > >>> to be profitable. > > >>> > > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low > > >>> quality vehicles > > >>> and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service > itself > > >>> varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that > either > > >>> the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they > > >>> have even if > > >>> it is functional. > > >>> > > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its > > goals first and > > >>> assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to > be? > > >>> How important is transportation to that vision and how should its > people > > >>> move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as > > it is? Only > > >>> then decide how to achieve it. > > >>> > > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and > service > > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The > > >>> questions > > >>> for the Government are: > > >>> > > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network > coverage, > > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it > > starts to get > > >>> involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial > outcomes. > > >>> > > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious > > method which > > >>> boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service > > >>> attractive to > > >>> users. > > >>> > > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the > > customers and > > >>> the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the > > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or > all > > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > > >>> something. > > >>> > > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system > > is worth to > > >>> the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can > > be expensive > > >>> freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's > > resources are > > >>> squandered in congestion and investments go to other > better-functioning > > >>> cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's > worth, > > >>> it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be > > willing to pay, > > >>> and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. > > >>> > > >>> With best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Brendan. > > >>> > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > > >>> +353.87.2530286 > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" > > >>> To: > > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Dear Hassan, > > >>>> > > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon > and I > > >>>> > > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > > >>> depth and > > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. > > >>> > > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to > have a > > >>>> > > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as > a > > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to > > >>> replace the > > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > > >>> inefficiently > > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a > > >>> fully private > > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap > > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as > many > > >>> passengers as possible. > > >>> > > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a > system > > >>>> > > >>> of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the > lowest > > >>> cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km > > run but in > > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be > > measured by GPS > > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and > penalties. > > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, > > >>> but it was > > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in > > London (back > > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a > > >>> year - the > > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the > Commonwealth > > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). > > >>> > > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far > because it > > >>>> > > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, > > and suggest > > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > >>> > > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to > compete > > >>>> > > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways > of > > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > parking > > >>> charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars > and > > >>> motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a > > viable public > > >>> transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and > > >>> in, say Year > > >>> 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to > > >>> raising money > > >>> from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the > > ADB or WB. > > >>> > > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs > elsewhere, > > >>>> > > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > > >>> (accidents, > > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think > that > > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think > about > > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even > the > > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to > realize > > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around > > more easily > > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know > what > > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to > > realize a subsidy > > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. > > >>> > > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > > >>>> > > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost > you > > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs > of > > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing > > >>> more people. > > >>> You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they > are > > >>> accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce > > >>> costs would be > > >>> to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system > > >>> that reduces > > >>> ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time > in > > >>> traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive > > >>> service. > > >>> > > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much > do we > > >>>> > > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How > can we > > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking > > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > > para-transit, > > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most > > importantly, 'How > > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the > > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that > > have turned > > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by > adopting > > >>> quality performance models. > > >>> > > >>>> All the best, > > >>>> > > >>>> Simon Bishop > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Message: 1 > > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>>> Message-ID: > > >>>> > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > >>>> > > >>>> Friends, > > >>>> > > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in > a > > >>>> > > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister > > of the Punjab > > >>> to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was > > formed earlier > > >>> this year. > > >>> > > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending > them to > > >>>> > > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the > public > > >>> transport sector. > > >>> > > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > >>>> > > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which > > does not rely > > >>>> > > >>> on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > >>> > > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing > has > > >>>> > > >>> been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering > > process for > > >>> procurement of buses? > > >>> > > >>>> Many thanks in advance. > > >>>> > > >>>> Hassaan > > >>>> > > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist > > >>>> The Urban Unit > > >>>> Planning & Development Department, > > >>>> Government of the Punjab > > >>>> > > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > > >>>> F: 9213585 > > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 > > >>>> Skype: halgazel > > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > > >>>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> Message: 3 > > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 > > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" > > >>> , > > , > > >>> > > >>> Message-ID: > > >>> < > > >>> > > > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> > > >>> Dear Hasan, > > >>> > > >>> This paper may be useful > > >>> > > >>> > http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf > > >>> > > >>> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all > modes > > >>> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either > > >>> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport > not > > >>> get some contribution from government finances. > > >>> > > >>> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious > impacts > > >>> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial > > >>> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to > > >>> guarantee quality of service to passengers. > > >>> > > >>> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline > of > > >>> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. > > >>> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of > > >>> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to > social > > >>> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but > > >>> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi > and I > > >>> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering > > >>> subsidies on public transport. > > >>> > > >>> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an > > >>> economic but a political decision as well. > > >>> > > >>> With warm regards > > >>> Sonal > > >>> > > >>> Sonal Ahuja > > >>> Associate Director, > > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure > > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS > > >>> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX > > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@ > list.jca.apc.org > > >>> > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja > > > >>> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or > > >>> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn > > >>> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 > > >>> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> > > >>> Dear Hassan, > > >>> > > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The > > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get > > >>> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy > or > > >>> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a > > >>> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality > or > > >>> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of > the > > >>> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and > > >>> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't > need > > >>> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always > profitable. > > >>> Alas, this does not hold true. > > >>> > > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not > > >>> require subsidies: > > >>> > > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not > > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions > for > > >>> them to be profitable. > > >>> > > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where > > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality > > >>> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the > service > > >>> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities > > >>> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with > what > > >>> they have even if it is functional. > > >>> > > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals > first > > >>> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it > want > > >>> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should > its > > >>> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as > it > > >>> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. > > >>> > > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and > service > > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The > > >>> questions for the Government are: > > >>> > > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network > coverage, > > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts > to > > >>> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial > > >>> outcomes. > > >>> > > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation > > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method > > >>> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service > > >>> attractive to users. > > >>> > > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the > customers > > >>> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to > the > > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or > all > > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute > > >>> something. > > >>> > > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is > worth > > >>> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be > > >>> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the > city's > > >>> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other > > >>> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they > want > > >>> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much > they > > >>> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they > can > > >>> get it for less. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> With best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Brendan. > > >>> > ________________________________________________________________________ > > >>> _______________________________________ > > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > > >>> +353.87.2530286 > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" > > >>> To: > > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM > > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Dear Hassan, > > >>>> > > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon > and > > >>>> > > >>> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some > > >>> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than > you > > >>> think. > > >>> > > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to > have > > >>>> > > >>> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working > as a > > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to > replace > > >>> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite > > >>> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The > other > > >>> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so > > >>> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed > to > > >>> capture as many passengers as possible. > > >>> > > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a > > >>>> > > >>> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to > the > > >>> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each > km > > >>> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would > be > > >>> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of > > >>> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require > > >>> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds > or > > >>> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 > > >>> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing > 24 > > >>> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are > > >>> becoming saturated). > > >>> > > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far > because > > >>>> > > >>> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and > > >>> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a > > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. > > >>> > > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to > compete > > >>>> > > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways > of > > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from > > >>> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. > Taxing > > >>> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without > a > > >>> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were > > >>> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be > > >>> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that > year > > >>> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. > > >>> > > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs > elsewhere, > > >>>> > > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify > > >>> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even > if > > >>> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you > > >>> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast > approaching a > > >>> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and > > >>> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps > them > > >>> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're > > >>> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will > > >>> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for > their > > >>> comfort. > > >>> > > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I > > >>>> > > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally > > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost > you > > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs > of > > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more > > >>> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification > so > > >>> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to > reduce > > >>> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a > BRT > > >>> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of > buses > > >>> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues > from > > >>> a fast, competitive service. > > >>> > > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much > do > > >>>> > > >>> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How > > >>> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by > > >>> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, > > >>> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' > Most > > >>> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so > > >>> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like > > >>> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and > improved > > >>> journey times by adopting quality performance models. > > >>> > > >>>> All the best, > > >>>> > > >>>> Simon Bishop > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Message: 1 > > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 > > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali > > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited > > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > >>>> Message-ID: > > >>>> > > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > >>>> > > >>>> Friends, > > >>>> > > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in > a > > >>>> > > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the > > >>> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was > > >>> formed earlier this year. > > >>> > > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending > them > > >>>> > > >>> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the > > >>> public transport sector. > > >>> > > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: > > >>>> > > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not > > >>>> > > >>> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? > > >>> > > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing > > >>>> > > >>> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering > > >>> process for procurement of buses? > > >>> > > >>>> Many thanks in advance. > > >>>> > > >>>> Hassaan > > >>>> > > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist > > >>>> The Urban Unit > > >>>> Planning & Development Department, > > >>>> Government of the Punjab > > >>>> > > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan > > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) > > >>>> F: 9213585 > > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 > > >>>> Skype: halgazel > > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk > > >>>> > > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> 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'). > > >>> > > >>> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs > SkyScan > > >>> service. > > >>> > > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, > are > > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not > the > > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any > > other use or > > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error > please > > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete > the > > >>> email. Copyright reserved. > > >>> > > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. > > >>> > > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be > > guaranteed. It > > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any > > >>> attachment for > > >>> the presence of viruses. > > >>> > > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude > > all liability > > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the > > >>> receipt, use > > >>> or transmission of this email. > > >>> > > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the > > author only. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> Message: 4 > > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 > > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" > > >>> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers > > >>> To: > > >>> Message-ID: > > >>> < > > >>> > > > A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> > > >>> Dear Colleagues, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Apologies for cross posting. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and > Technology > > >>> Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd > > >>> TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with > the > > >>> 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and > > >>> explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green > > >>> transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major > > >>> player in transport industry and a global economic power. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The Conference website can be visited at > > >>> > > >>> http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html > > >>> > > >>> We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in > > >>> four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for > transport > > >>> operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis > is > > >>> on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, > > >>> engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally > > >>> sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be > given > > >>> to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government > > >>> officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national > > >>> collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one > of > > >>> the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which > is > > >>> in the heart of New Delhi. > > >>> > > >>> The key areas of focus this year will be: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, > > >>> > > >>> * Intelligent Transport Systems, > > >>> > > >>> * Urban traffic Management, > > >>> > > >>> * Transport Modelling, > > >>> > > >>> * Traffic simulation, > > >>> > > >>> * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, > > >>> > > >>> * Transport Policy, > > >>> > > >>> * Traffic Engineering, > > >>> > > >>> * Transport economics and Finance, > > >>> > > >>> * Muti-modal transport systems, > > >>> > > >>> * Aviation, > > >>> > > >>> * Ports, > > >>> > > >>> * Railways, > > >>> > > >>> * Freight, > > >>> > > >>> * Tourism and transport, > > >>> > > >>> * Global health and transport, > > >>> > > >>> * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, > > >>> > > >>> * Traffic Safety, > > >>> > > >>> * Pedestrian issues and environment, > > >>> > > >>> * Urban Design, Built form and transport, > > >>> > > >>> * Transport in developing countries. > > >>> > > >>> Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations > in > > >>> sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, > advanced > > >>> systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and > > >>> simulation will be considered. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st > > >>> December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic > relevance > > >>> and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a > full > > >>> paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings > to > > >>> be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be > > >>> peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a > > >>> selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of > > >>> participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers > > >>> reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the > > >>> same person. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session > presentations > > >>> and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of > 4-5 > > >>> papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a > few > > >>> minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions > > >>> during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster > and > > >>> then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the > > >>> poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection > > >>> procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if > your > > >>> abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Abstract guidelines > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * 1000 words maximum. > > >>> > > >>> * May include one figure or table. > > >>> > > >>> * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. > > >>> > > >>> * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, > > >>> abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or > > >>> session presentation). > > >>> > > >>> * Identify one author as the contact person. > > >>> > > >>> * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI > > >>> ABSTRACT" in the subject line. > > >>> > > >>> * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: > ITS, > > >>> traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft > > >>> computing, developing countries, ports etc. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> For more information : > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, > > >>> > > >>> Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, > > >>> > > >>> Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , > 2007 > > >>> > > >>> web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ > > >>> > > >>> With warm regards > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sonal > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sonal Ahuja > > >>> > > >>> Associate Director, > > >>> > > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure > > >>> > > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS > > >>> > > >>> 86 Fetter Lane > > >>> > > >>> London EC4A 1EN > > >>> > > >>> United Kingdom > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 > > >>> > > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 > > >>> > > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 > > >>> > > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> www.capita.co.uk > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, > are > > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not > the > > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any > > other use or > > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error > please > > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete > the > > >>> email. Copyright reserved. > > >>> > > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are > > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. > > >>> > > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be > > guaranteed. It > > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any > > >>> attachment for > > >>> the presence of viruses. > > >>> > > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude > > all liability > > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the > > >>> receipt, use > > >>> or transmission of this email. > > >>> > > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the > > author only. > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> ================================================================ > > >>> 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 74, Issue 6 > > >>> ********************************************** > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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'). > > >> > > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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'). > > > > > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >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@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > ------------------------------ > > ================================================================ > 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 74, Issue 10 > *********************************************** > From agimjo at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 23:18:59 2009 From: agimjo at gmail.com (Joachim Bergerhoff) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:18:59 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <20091014030057.B4F3C2C55D@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20091014030057.B4F3C2C55D@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <493cf1c00910140718s5993e72fidd47be97dd82c73c@mail.gmail.com> (sorry for the post that went out unfinished) Dear Hassaan, we are all discussing from our own "home" perspective, exposing more the differences between these situations than fundamental differences in approach. I hope this is useful for you and look forward to reading your reactions. Eric, I am not suggesting to wait until conditions are right, but to make them right asap. Let me give the practical example of the developing country I am working in. It has a car ownership of around 10% and a regional bus system with fairly good service, running between the principal cities every 15 minutes. The system is regulated by the state who sells concessions by the slot. It is operated by a host of private companies. Most of them don't have more than 5 vehicles and they all just break even. There also is an informal market outside the regulated hours and lines or even in competition with them. The situation is unstable as falling ridership threatens to make break even impossible. What should be done ? One consultant proposed to reduce the scheduled service as to adapt it to shrinking demand, crack down on informal (illegal) competition, and pay a subsidy to the operators so they can bus new vehicles. At the same time, the country's principal investments go into enlarging roads to 2x2 or more. Well, with this policy, ever fewer clients will ride in ever nicer looking buses, while the whole system goes down the drain of car dependency and huge private and public deficits for car and petrol imports. The buses are losing passengers because they do not provide competitive service in three respects: access, speed and flexibility. The informal sector is a good complement in regard to flexibility and it keeps the fares in check. Speed is a shared responsibility of operators and authorities. More modern buses could operate faster, but increasingly, congestion is the handicapping factor. Access to the bus services (mainly appropriate location of stops and convenient walking to the stops and waiting conditions) is entirely the authority's responsibility. If buses could operate at higher speeds thanks to appropriate infrastructure and better serve the market thanks to better access, the system would not only remain self-financed, but could develop. Todd, I am not advocating that the public should not spend money on public transportation. On the contrary, it should spend a lot on public transport and on non-motorised transport. But not in subsidies that compensate high production costs due to automobile congestion and that attract passengers with artificially low fares. All around the globe people (are willing to) spend a lot on transportation. Public transport is the more efficient mass transport. Operations that cannot break even suffer (infra-)structural handicaps and the need for subsidy is a symptom of bad infrastructure and regulation policy. Public policies should not cure the symptoms, but fix the cause. Therefore, public money should foremost go into investments that allow public transport to compete in the transport market, i.e. operate with profit. Anybody who has the privilege to think of a new public transport system should try to build this success into the system, not start with raising the subsidy for failure. Yours, Joachim Today's Topics: 1. Re: Public transport subsidies (Todd Alexander Litman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:43:25 -0700 From: Todd Alexander Litman Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Message-ID: <20091013214335.3A8982D75B@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I agree with Eric. There are several specific justifications for subsidizing public transportation that do not apply to automobile travel: * Public transit provides affordable transportation and basic mobility for non-drivers. This justifies subsidies on equity grounds. In the U.S., about half of all transit service is justified purely on this basis (transit service at times and places with low demand, and special features such as wheelchair lifts). Although this type of transit may seem costly, it is far cheaper than the alternative: physically and economically disadvantaged people who lack access, and motorists forced to chauffeur non-drivers. * Public transportation enjoys economies of scale and scope (as the system expands and ridership increases unit costs decline). This creates a technical justification for subsidies, in order to capture these efficiencies. * Public transit subsidies are a second-best response to underpricing of automobile travel. An efficient transportation market would require much higher user charges for automobile travel, including road pricing, parking pricing, distance-based insurance and registration fees, and higher fuel taxes. My research indicates that if these are implemented, North American motorists would choose to drive 25-50% less and rely much more than they do now on alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit). Until all of these reform are implemented, significant subsidies are justified for alternative modes to reduce problems such as congestion, accidents and pollution emissions. * Public transit investments often repay themselves through increased local property values around stations. Thus, property owners (or local governments which capture local taxes) can justify subsidies for high quality transit. For more information see: Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. Todd Litman (2006), Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf. Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 03:25 PM 10/10/2009, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >Carlos and Joachim: > >You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an >immediate, practical problem. >If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so >that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is requird, >and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to >support public transport, >you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy often >have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their costs >or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed or >nothing will improve. > >And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. >If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by >the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities >with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation >than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is >that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk >about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending >can be offset by reduced private spending. > >Eric Bruun > > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Thu Oct 15 09:57:12 2009 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:57:12 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <493cf1c00910140600u3087c6b4nd3e26667513858e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091014030057.B4F3C2C55D@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <493cf1c00910140600u3087c6b4nd3e26667513858e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091014205712.212769apse483u88@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Joachim I don't disagree with anything you said about your example in this message. My point was that actually getting the changes we both agree should be made can be very difficult and a lot of time elapses. So, bad is it might be, letting the service disappear or deteriorate further because no one will pay a subsidy is even worse. Eric Bruun Quoting Joachim Bergerhoff : > Dear Hassaan, > > we are all discussing from our own "home" perspective, exposing more the > differences between these situations than fundamental differences in > approach. I hope this is useful for you and look forward to reading your > reactions. > > @ Eric: I am not suggesting to wait until conditions are right, but to make > them right asap. Let me give the practical example of the developing > country I am working in. It has a car ownership of around 10% and a > regional bus system with fairly good service, running between the principal > cities every 15 minutes. The system is regulated by the state who sells > concessions by the slot. It is operated by a host of private companies. > Most of them don't have more than 5 vehicles and they all just break even. > There also is an informal market outside the regulated hours and lines or > even in competition with them. The situation is unstable as falling > ridership threatens to make break even impossible. What should be done ? > > > > > > 2009/10/14 > >> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Public transport subsidies (Todd Alexander Litman) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:43:25 -0700 >> From: Todd Alexander Litman >> Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Message-ID: <20091013214335.3A8982D75B@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >> >> >> I agree with Eric. There are several specific justifications for >> subsidizing public transportation that do not apply to automobile travel: >> >> * Public transit provides affordable transportation and basic >> mobility for non-drivers. This justifies subsidies on equity grounds. >> In the U.S., about half of all transit service is justified purely on >> this basis (transit service at times and places with low demand, and >> special features such as wheelchair lifts). Although this type of >> transit may seem costly, it is far cheaper than the alternative: >> physically and economically disadvantaged people who lack access, and >> motorists forced to chauffeur non-drivers. >> * Public transportation enjoys economies of scale and scope (as the >> system expands and ridership increases unit costs decline). This >> creates a technical justification for subsidies, in order to capture >> these efficiencies. >> * Public transit subsidies are a second-best response to underpricing >> of automobile travel. An efficient transportation market would >> require much higher user charges for automobile travel, including >> road pricing, parking pricing, distance-based insurance and >> registration fees, and higher fuel taxes. My research indicates that >> if these are implemented, North American motorists would choose to >> drive 25-50% less and rely much more than they do now on alternative >> modes (walking, cycling and public transit). Until all of these >> reform are implemented, significant subsidies are justified for >> alternative modes to reduce problems such as congestion, accidents >> and pollution emissions. >> * Public transit investments often repay themselves through increased >> local property values around stations. Thus, property owners (or >> local governments which capture local taxes) can justify subsidies >> for high quality transit. >> >> For more information see: >> >> Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, >> VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at >> www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. >> >> Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria >> Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at >> www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. >> >> Todd Litman (2006), Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The >> Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI >> (www.vtpi.org); at >> www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf. >> >> Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit >> Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy >> Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); >> at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf. >> >> >> Best wishes, >> -Todd Litman >> >> >> At 03:25 PM 10/10/2009, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >> >Carlos and Joachim: >> > >> >You are talking theoretically but the request for advice addresses an >> >immediate, practical problem. >> >If you are going to wait until the conditions are right on the streets so >> >that operations can be fast and efficient and no operating subsidy is >> requird, >> >and/or umtil car owners are taxed so that this money can be used to >> >support public transport, >> >you might be waiting a long time. The people who decide public policy >> often >> >have a conflict of interest. They often aren't willing to raise their >> costs >> >or restrict their driving. So, in the meaniime, public support is needed >> or >> >nothing will improve. >> > >> >And, in actuality, the subsidies do often pay for themselves ecomonically. >> >If even a small percentage of the money spent on private automobiles by >> >the population can be saved, this might well justify the subsidy. Cities >> >with good public transport spend less overall on passenger transportation >> >than those that don't. The problem that policy makers often have is >> >that politicians don't like to make this point, they only like to talk >> >about how they are saving tax dollars but not about how public spending >> >can be offset by reduced private spending. >> > >> >Eric Bruun >> > >> > >> > >> >Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : >> > >> > > Hi, I think if there were subsidies to public transport (which is >> anyway >> > > debatable) they should come from within the sector and from charging >> > > real costs to cars via fuel surcharge (or un-subsidized fuel), parking >> > > charges, congestion charging, etc. Especially in developing cities, >> > > subsidies are not something that you can assign to all sectors (health, >> > > education, etc) but that you have to choose where to put them because >> > > there's not enough money for everything. Maybe it's best to let >> > > transport be closer to a real market (i.e. have cars pay real costs so >> > > public transport can benefit) while education and health can be >> > > subsidized properly. >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > >> > > Carlos. >> > > >> > > Joachim Bergerhoff wrote: >> > >> Dear Hassaan, >> > >> >> > >> thanks for letting us have a share in your beautiful challenge. >> > >> >> > >> There are many good arguments for public subsidy to public transport >> > >> operations. Simon has mentioned many of them, including the reduction >> of >> > >> car congestion. >> > >> >> > >> However, there are also strong arguments against it, theoretical and >> > >> practical. I would like to make two points: >> > >> - it is crucial to distinguish public investment in infrastructure >> from >> > >> public subsidy to operations >> > >> - public transport is praised for its sustainable efficiency. This >> should >> > >> also translate in market success. Need for operating subsidies is an >> > >> indicator for poor market regulation. >> > >> >> > >> In dense areas, public transportation is cheaper than private >> motorised >> > >> transportation as it consumes less capital, less energy, less work. >> If it >> > >> can't compete with private motorised transport, it is because private >> > >> motorised transport has competitive advantages and public >> > transport suffers >> > >> operating handicaps (difficult access to stops, slow speeds, bad >> > >> interconnections). This is the poor market regulation, mostly due to >> the >> > >> preference given to private cars in all infrastructure projects. >> > >> >> > >> The practical argument is that if you manage to set up a successful >> bus >> > >> system by keeping prices low through subsidies, you will not be able >> to >> > >> respond to the success with more services, because you will >> > quickly reach to >> > >> limit of subsidies you can mobilise and the system gets >> > stuck. Public money >> > >> is needed for so many other things, starting with education and >> > health. It >> > >> should not be wasted on paying inefficient public transport that is >> > >> inefficient because public policy really favors the private car >> > wherever it >> > >> can. >> > >> >> > >> Hence, my suggestion is that the public authority should not >> > persist in bad >> > >> regulation and pay subsidy just enough subsidy to public >> > transport enough to >> > >> make the system (hardly) bearable for those who depend on mass transit >> and >> > >> those who suffer from congestion. Public policy should INVEST in >> better >> > >> infrastructure that allows for profitable operations of public >> transport. >> > >> It can even aim at public transport paying back the infrastructure in >> the >> > >> long run. Whether and how much you include customer service and >> marketing >> > >> in the 'infrastructure' or not is a secondary question. >> > >> >> > >> There are many low and high quality examples of profitable >> > public transport >> > >> operations from all continents. You could add an even better one. >> > >> >> > >> Looking forward to the continued debate, >> > >> >> > >> Yours sincerely, >> > >> >> > >> Joachim >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 2009/10/10 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >> > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> >> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >> > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Simon Bishop) >> > >>> 2. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 (Brendan Finn) >> > >>> 3. Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >> > >>> 4. TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >> > >>> (Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)) >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 1 >> > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:53:54 +0530 >> > >>> From: Simon Bishop >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" >> > >>> >> > >>> Message-ID: >> > >>> < >> 247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Hassan, >> > >>> >> > >>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon >> and I >> > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >> > >>> depth and >> > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >> > >>> >> > >>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to have >> a >> > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as >> a >> > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to >> > >>> replace the >> > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >> > >>> inefficiently >> > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a >> > >>> fully private >> > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >> > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as >> many >> > >>> passengers as possible. >> > >>> >> > >>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop >> > a system of >> > >>> 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the >> > lowest cost >> > >>> bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km run but in >> > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be >> > measured by GPS >> > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and >> penalties. >> > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, >> > >>> but it was >> > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in >> > London (back >> > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a >> > >>> year - the >> > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the >> Commonwealth >> > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >> > >>> >> > >>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far because >> it >> > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, >> > and suggest >> > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> > >>> >> > >>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to >> > compete with >> > >>> private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of >> > ways of raising >> > >>> the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >> > parking charges, >> > >>> even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars and >> > motorbikes, >> > >>> I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a viable public >> transport >> > >>> system available, but, if a plan were constructed and in, say >> > Year 2 a bus >> > >>> system was in place, it would be possible to commit to raising money >> from >> > >>> private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >> > >>> >> > >>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs >> elsewhere, >> > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >> > >>> (accidents, >> > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think >> that >> > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think >> about >> > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even >> the >> > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to >> realize >> > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around >> > more easily >> > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know >> what >> > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to >> > realize a subsidy >> > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >> > >>> >> > >>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following >> > ways. I notice >> > >>> in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >> > >>> un-integrated >> > >>> in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost you could >> > use them as >> > >>> 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs of running a >> bus-based >> > >>> service considerably and possibly employing more people. You could >> > >>> 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they are >> > accessible, >> > >>> comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce costs would >> > be to develop >> > >>> what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system that reduces >> ongoing >> > >>> costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time in >> > >>> traffic for >> > >>> instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive service. >> > >>> >> > >>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much do >> we >> > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >> can we >> > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >> > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >> > para-transit, >> > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most >> > importantly, 'How >> > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >> > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that >> > have turned >> > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by >> adopting >> > >>> quality performance models. >> > >>> >> > >>> All the best, >> > >>> >> > >>> Simon Bishop >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -----Original Message----- >> > >>> From: >> > >>> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org >> [mailto: >> > >>> >> > >> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop >> > >>> =dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of >> > >>> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM >> > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> >> > >>> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to >> > >>> sustran-discuss@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@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> >> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >> > >>> sustran-discuss-owner@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. Lahore Transport Company Revisited (Hassaan Ghazali) >> > >>> 2. Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step (krc12353) >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 1 >> > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >> > >>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >> > >>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> Message-ID: >> > >>> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> > >>> >> > >>> Friends, >> > >>> >> > >>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your >> > assistance in a task >> > >>> which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the >> Punjab to >> > >>> sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was formed >> earlier >> > >>> this >> > >>> year. >> > >>> >> > >>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending them >> to >> > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >> public >> > >>> transport sector. >> > >>> >> > >>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >> > >>> >> > >>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not >> rely >> > >>> on >> > >>> government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> > >>> >> > >>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >> has >> > >>> been >> > >>> arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering process for >> > >>> procurement of buses? >> > >>> >> > >>> Many thanks in advance. >> > >>> >> > >>> Hassaan >> > >>> >> > >>> Institutional Development Specialist >> > >>> The Urban Unit >> > >>> Planning & Development Department, >> > >>> Government of the Punjab >> > >>> >> > >>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >> > >>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >> > >>> F: 9213585 >> > >>> M: 0345 455 6016 >> > >>> Skype: halgazel >> > >>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >> > >>> >> > >>> *When conditions are right, things go wrong* >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 2 >> > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) >> > >>> From: krc12353 >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step >> > >>> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED@giancana.dreamhost.com> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >>> >> > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > >>> URL: >> > >>> >> > >> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20091008/257f94d9/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 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> ********************************************** >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 2 >> > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:59:00 +0100 >> > >>> From: "Brendan Finn" >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> To: "Simon Bishop" , >> > >>> >> > >>> Message-ID: >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Hassan, >> > >>> >> > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >> > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to >> > get anything >> > >>> resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy or >> support >> > >>> funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a company >> without >> > >>> any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality or tariff, >> > it could be >> > >>> possible, but that would not meet the needs of the citizens. There is >> a >> > >>> common misconception among some politicians and senior >> > decision-takers that >> > >>> if you privatise bus services you don't need to give any >> > subsidies because >> > >>> the private sector is always profitable. Alas, this does not hold >> true. >> > >>> >> > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >> > >>> require subsidies: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >> > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the >> > >>> conditions for them >> > >>> to be profitable. >> > >>> >> > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >> > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low >> > >>> quality vehicles >> > >>> and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the service >> itself >> > >>> varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities that >> either >> > >>> the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with what they >> > >>> have even if >> > >>> it is functional. >> > >>> >> > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its >> > goals first and >> > >>> assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it want to >> be? >> > >>> How important is transportation to that vision and how should its >> people >> > >>> move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as >> > it is? Only >> > >>> then decide how to achieve it. >> > >>> >> > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and >> service >> > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >> > >>> questions >> > >>> for the Government are: >> > >>> >> > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network >> coverage, >> > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it >> > starts to get >> > >>> involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial >> outcomes. >> > >>> >> > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >> > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious >> > method which >> > >>> boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >> > >>> attractive to >> > >>> users. >> > >>> >> > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the >> > customers and >> > >>> the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to the >> > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or >> all >> > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >> > >>> something. >> > >>> >> > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system >> > is worth to >> > >>> the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can >> > be expensive >> > >>> freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the city's >> > resources are >> > >>> squandered in congestion and investments go to other >> better-functioning >> > >>> cities and countries. When they know what they want and what it's >> worth, >> > >>> it's a lot easier for them to figure how much they would be >> > willing to pay, >> > >>> and will recognise a good bargain if they can get it for less. >> > >>> >> > >>> With best wishes, >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Brendan. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> > >>> +353.87.2530286 >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >> > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" >> > >>> To: >> > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> Dear Hassan, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon >> and I >> > >>>> >> > >>> wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >> > >>> depth and >> > >>> it made me think that your task might be even harder than you think. >> > >>> >> > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to >> have a >> > >>>> >> > >>> 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working as >> a >> > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to >> > >>> replace the >> > >>> existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >> > >>> inefficiently >> > >>> and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The other is a >> > >>> fully private >> > >>> 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so requires cheap >> > >>> uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed to capture as >> many >> > >>> passengers as possible. >> > >>> >> > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a >> system >> > >>>> >> > >>> of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to the >> lowest >> > >>> cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each km >> > run but in >> > >>> contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would be >> > measured by GPS >> > >>> and an Operational Control Centre with a system of rewards and >> penalties. >> > >>> The fact was that this turned out to require government support, >> > >>> but it was >> > >>> much less than the 650 million pounds or so that is charged in >> > London (back >> > >>> of the envelope figure = about 150 million pounds or 3 flyovers a >> > >>> year - the >> > >>> government are constructing 24 of these in the run up to the >> Commonwealth >> > >>> Games and already they are becoming saturated). >> > >>> >> > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far >> because it >> > >>>> >> > >>> says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, >> > and suggest >> > >>> that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> > >>> >> > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to >> compete >> > >>>> >> > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways >> of >> > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >> parking >> > >>> charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. Taxing cars >> and >> > >>> motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without a >> > viable public >> > >>> transport system available, but, if a plan were constructed and >> > >>> in, say Year >> > >>> 2 a bus system was in place, it would be possible to commit to >> > >>> raising money >> > >>> from private vehicles in that year to pay back someone like the >> > ADB or WB. >> > >>> >> > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs >> elsewhere, >> > >>>> >> > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >> > >>> (accidents, >> > >>> congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even if you think >> that >> > >>> the government will say, "All very well, but....." you should think >> about >> > >>> 'playing the long game'. There is fast approaching a time when even >> the >> > >>> elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and will start to >> realize >> > >>> that having a good bus system actually helps them drive around >> > more easily >> > >>> in their government cars - in India they're Ambassadors, don't know >> what >> > >>> they are in Pakistan. The elite will eventually come to >> > realize a subsidy >> > >>> is a small price to pay for their comfort. >> > >>> >> > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >> > >>>> >> > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >> > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost >> you >> > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs >> of >> > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing >> > >>> more people. >> > >>> You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification so they >> are >> > >>> accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to reduce >> > >>> costs would be >> > >>> to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a BRT system >> > >>> that reduces >> > >>> ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of buses spending less time >> in >> > >>> traffic for instance and increasing revenues from a fast, competitive >> > >>> service. >> > >>> >> > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much >> do we >> > >>>> >> > >>> want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >> can we >> > >>> get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by taking >> > >>> advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >> > para-transit, >> > >>> cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' Most >> > importantly, 'How >> > >>> do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so they sanction the >> > >>> funds?' You could start by looking at places like London that >> > have turned >> > >>> round their loss of bus patronage and improved journey times by >> adopting >> > >>> quality performance models. >> > >>> >> > >>>> All the best, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Simon Bishop >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Message: 1 >> > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >> > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >> > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >> > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>>> Message-ID: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Friends, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in >> a >> > >>>> >> > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister >> > of the Punjab >> > >>> to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was >> > formed earlier >> > >>> this year. >> > >>> >> > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending >> them to >> > >>>> >> > >>> enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >> public >> > >>> transport sector. >> > >>> >> > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which >> > does not rely >> > >>>> >> > >>> on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> > >>> >> > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >> has >> > >>>> >> > >>> been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering >> > process for >> > >>> procurement of buses? >> > >>> >> > >>>> Many thanks in advance. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Hassaan >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist >> > >>>> The Urban Unit >> > >>>> Planning & Development Department, >> > >>>> Government of the Punjab >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >> > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >> > >>>> F: 9213585 >> > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 >> > >>>> Skype: halgazel >> > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >> > >>>> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 3 >> > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0100 >> > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> To: "Brendan Finn" , "Simon Bishop" >> > >>> , >> > , >> > >>> >> > >>> Message-ID: >> > >>> < >> > >>> >> > >> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Hasan, >> > >>> >> > >>> This paper may be useful >> > >>> >> > >>> >> http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf >> > >>> >> > >>> My argument in favour of subsidy for public transport is that all >> modes >> > >>> or road transport including car are far from indirect subsidy either >> > >>> (fuel or highway construction costs) so why should public transport >> not >> > >>> get some contribution from government finances. >> > >>> >> > >>> If there is no subsidy for public transport there can be serious >> impacts >> > >>> on service quality of public transport. In all cases even partial >> > >>> private participation needs to be closely monitored and regulated to >> > >>> guarantee quality of service to passengers. >> > >>> >> > >>> In particular in urban and regional transport a considerable decline >> of >> > >>> services may be expected without subsidy for urban public transport. >> > >>> Moreover, fares are bound to increase. Often taking subsidy out of >> > >>> public transport is detrimental to low income groups and leads to >> social >> > >>> exclusion of the people who need the public transport the most but >> > >>> cannot afford it. Simon has highlighted some the issues with Delhi >> and I >> > >>> would agree with Brendan's observations regarding impact of lowering >> > >>> subsidies on public transport. >> > >>> >> > >>> The level of subsidy in public transport is eventually is not just an >> > >>> economic but a political decision as well. >> > >>> >> > >>> With warm regards >> > >>> Sonal >> > >>> >> > >>> Sonal Ahuja >> > >>> Associate Director, >> > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure >> > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS >> > >>> 24/30 Holborn, London EC1N 2LX >> > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >> > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >> > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >> > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >> > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >> > >>> >> > >>> -----Original Message----- >> > >>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja=capita.co.uk@ >> list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> >> > >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja >> >> > >>> =capita.co.uk@list.jca.apc.or >> > >>> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn >> > >>> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59 >> > >>> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Hassan, >> > >>> >> > >>> I am in agreement with the general direction of Simon's e-mail. The >> > >>> Government of the Punjab is being unrealistic if it expects to get >> > >>> anything resembling a quality public transport system without subsidy >> or >> > >>> support funding. I guess if they give an exclusive franchise to a >> > >>> company without any restrictions on coverage, service level, quality >> or >> > >>> tariff, it could be possible, but that would not meet the needs of >> the >> > >>> citizens. There is a common misconception among some politicians and >> > >>> senior decision-takers that if you privatise bus services you don't >> need >> > >>> to give any subsidies because the private sector is always >> profitable. >> > >>> Alas, this does not hold true. >> > >>> >> > >>> There are two categories of urban public transport system that do not >> > >>> require subsidies: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1) A few rare exceptions such as Hong Kong and Singapore which do not >> > >>> receive Government money, but Government has created the conditions >> for >> > >>> them to be profitable. >> > >>> >> > >>> 2) Most cities in Africa and many in other parts of the world where >> > >>> unregulated buses and paratransit provide services with low quality >> > >>> vehicles and poor conditions for the workers. The quality of the >> service >> > >>> itself varies but I don't think you will find in any of these cities >> > >>> that either the citizens or the city authorities are pleased with >> what >> > >>> they have even if it is functional. >> > >>> >> > >>> In my opinion, a city such as Lahore needs to set outs its goals >> first >> > >>> and assess the value of achieving them. What sort of city does it >> want >> > >>> to be? How important is transportation to that vision and how should >> its >> > >>> people move? Will the city's economy function if traffic continues as >> it >> > >>> is? Only then decide how to achieve it. >> > >>> >> > >>> A good public transport system which has reasonable coverage and >> service >> > >>> levels will cost money (actually, even a bad one costs money). The >> > >>> questions for the Government are: >> > >>> >> > >>> a) What role does Government believe it should have in network >> coverage, >> > >>> service design, vehicle specification, quality, etc.? Once it starts >> to >> > >>> get involved, it must take some responsibility for the financial >> > >>> outcomes. >> > >>> >> > >>> b) What can it do to minimise the cost and maximise transportation >> > >>> effectiveness? Well-enforced priority for buses is an obvious method >> > >>> which boosts productivity, reduces unit costs, and makes the service >> > >>> attractive to users. >> > >>> >> > >>> c) What should be the balance of paying the costs between the >> customers >> > >>> and the government? Is Government willing to allow price freedom to >> the >> > >>> operators, or does it wish to provide tariff protection for some or >> all >> > >>> users? If the latter, then it had better be prepared to contribute >> > >>> something. >> > >>> >> > >>> But ultimately it boils down to figuring what a good PT system is >> worth >> > >>> to the city, and what the alternatives cost. The alternatives can be >> > >>> expensive freeway-construction, or cheap do-nothing in which the >> city's >> > >>> resources are squandered in congestion and investments go to other >> > >>> better-functioning cities and countries. When they know what they >> want >> > >>> and what it's worth, it's a lot easier for them to figure how much >> they >> > >>> would be willing to pay, and will recognise a good bargain if they >> can >> > >>> get it for less. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> With best wishes, >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Brendan. >> > >>> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>> _______________________________________ >> > >>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> > >>> +353.87.2530286 >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >> > >>> From: "Simon Bishop" >> > >>> To: >> > >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 AM >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> Dear Hassan, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I do not underestimate the size of the task you are embarking upon >> and >> > >>>> >> > >>> I wish you all the luck. I was thinking about your question in some >> > >>> depth and it made me think that your task might be even harder than >> you >> > >>> think. >> > >>> >> > >>>> In my experience it nearly always requires additional finance to >> have >> > >>>> >> > >>> a 'quality' public transport network. In Delhi I have been working >> as a >> > >>> consultant with Delhi Transit which has pushed the government to >> replace >> > >>> the existing bifurcated system of a state monopoly that runs quite >> > >>> inefficiently and requires regular top ups to be kept alive. The >> other >> > >>> is a fully private 'Blueline' system that breaks even but, to do so >> > >>> requires cheap uncomfortable truck body buses running at high speed >> to >> > >>> capture as many passengers as possible. >> > >>> >> > >>>> Delhi Transit borrowed heavily from the London model to develop a >> > >>>> >> > >>> system of 17 zonal clusters in the city which would be franchised to >> the >> > >>> lowest cost bidder. The bidder would collect a per km fee for each >> km >> > >>> run but in contrast to the state monopoly his/her performance would >> be >> > >>> measured by GPS and an Operational Control Centre with a system of >> > >>> rewards and penalties. The fact was that this turned out to require >> > >>> government support, but it was much less than the 650 million pounds >> or >> > >>> so that is charged in London (back of the envelope figure = about 150 >> > >>> million pounds or 3 flyovers a year - the government are constructing >> 24 >> > >>> of these in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and already they are >> > >>> becoming saturated). >> > >>> >> > >>>> The government has stalled on taking on the commitment so far >> because >> > >>>> >> > >>> it says the charge is too much. However, I would argue strongly, and >> > >>> suggest that you too strongly consider looking at and arguing for a >> > >>> performance-based bus system even if a subsidy is required. >> > >>> >> > >>>> The first reason is that you will need quality performance to >> compete >> > >>>> >> > >>> with private vehicles and you will need to pay for it. Think of ways >> of >> > >>> raising the money like a cess on fuel or cross subsidization from >> > >>> parking charges, even like Bogota, support from carbon credits. >> Taxing >> > >>> cars and motorbikes, I acknowledge, is difficult politically without >> a >> > >>> viable public transport system available, but, if a plan were >> > >>> constructed and in, say Year 2 a bus system was in place, it would be >> > >>> possible to commit to raising money from private vehicles in that >> year >> > >>> to pay back someone like the ADB or WB. >> > >>> >> > >>>> The second reason is that the bus network will reduce costs >> elsewhere, >> > >>>> >> > >>> which, as part of your project you should independently quantify >> > >>> (accidents, congestion, pollution, technology transfer, etc). Even >> if >> > >>> you think that the government will say, "All very well, but....." you >> > >>> should think about 'playing the long game'. There is fast >> approaching a >> > >>> time when even the elite will be beleaguered by long traffic jams and >> > >>> will start to realize that having a good bus system actually helps >> them >> > >>> drive around more easily in their government cars - in India they're >> > >>> Ambassadors, don't know what they are in Pakistan. The elite will >> > >>> eventually come to realize a subsidy is a small price to pay for >> their >> > >>> comfort. >> > >>> >> > >>>> You could also mitigate some of the costs in the following ways. I >> > >>>> >> > >>> notice in India the preponderance of cycle rickshaws that are totally >> > >>> un-integrated in the public transit system. At virtually zero cost >> you >> > >>> could use them as 'feeder routes' to BRT, thereby reducing the costs >> of >> > >>> running a bus-based service considerably and possibly employing more >> > >>> people. You could 'upgrade' rickshaws in your contract specification >> so >> > >>> they are accessible, comfortable and desirable. Another way to >> reduce >> > >>> costs would be to develop what we are trying to develop in Delhi, a >> BRT >> > >>> system that reduces ongoing costs by improving the efficiency of >> buses >> > >>> spending less time in traffic for instance and increasing revenues >> from >> > >>> a fast, competitive service. >> > >>> >> > >>>> In the end I think we need to start asking the question, 'How much >> do >> > >>>> >> > >>> we want to pay for a quality public transport system rather than 'How >> > >>> can we get it for free'? 'How can we mitigate some of these costs by >> > >>> taking advantage of the strengths already existing in Asian cities, >> > >>> para-transit, cheaper labor (non-existent in the Western world)?' >> Most >> > >>> importantly, 'How do we COMMUNICATE these needs to our politicians so >> > >>> they sanction the funds?' You could start by looking at places like >> > >>> London that have turned round their loss of bus patronage and >> improved >> > >>> journey times by adopting quality performance models. >> > >>> >> > >>>> All the best, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Simon Bishop >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Message: 1 >> > >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:14:22 +0600 >> > >>>> From: Hassaan Ghazali >> > >>>> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited >> > >>>> To: cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> > >>>> Message-ID: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Friends, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> With all due apologies for cross postings, I seek your assistance in >> a >> > >>>> >> > >>> task which has been assigned by the Honourable Chief Minister of the >> > >>> Punjab to sort out some of the matters regarding the LTC which was >> > >>> formed earlier this year. >> > >>> >> > >>>> We are reviewing the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and amending >> them >> > >>>> >> > >>> to enable a sustainable financial and regulatory framework for the >> > >>> public transport sector. >> > >>> >> > >>>> At this point I have two specific questions which are as follows: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (1) Is there any public transport system in existence which does not >> > >>>> >> > >>> rely on government subsidies or viability gap funding? >> > >>> >> > >>>> (2) If not, are there any examples or case studies of how financing >> > >>>> >> > >>> has been arranged and how this has been reflected in the tendering >> > >>> process for procurement of buses? >> > >>> >> > >>>> Many thanks in advance. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Hassaan >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Institutional Development Specialist >> > >>>> The Urban Unit >> > >>>> Planning & Development Department, >> > >>>> Government of the Punjab >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A: 4-B Lytton Road, Lahore, Pakistan >> > >>>> T: 9213579-84 (Ext.116) >> > >>>> F: 9213585 >> > >>>> M: 0345 455 6016 >> > >>>> Skype: halgazel >> > >>>> http://www.urbanunit.gov.pk >> > >>>> >> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >> > >>> 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'). >> > >>> >> > >>> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs >> SkyScan >> > >>> service. >> > >>> >> > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, >> are >> > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not >> the >> > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any >> > other use or >> > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error >> please >> > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete >> the >> > >>> email. Copyright reserved. >> > >>> >> > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >> > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >> > >>> >> > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be >> > guaranteed. It >> > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any >> > >>> attachment for >> > >>> the presence of viruses. >> > >>> >> > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude >> > all liability >> > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the >> > >>> receipt, use >> > >>> or transmission of this email. >> > >>> >> > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the >> > author only. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> Message: 4 >> > >>> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:19:04 +0100 >> > >>> From: "Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)" >> > >>> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers >> > >>> To: >> > >>> Message-ID: >> > >>> < >> > >>> >> > >> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4@CAPPRWMMBX09.central.ad.capita.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >>> >> > >>> Dear Colleagues, >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Apologies for cross posting. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Abstract are invited for the 3rd Transportation Science and >> Technology >> > >>> Congress and Exhibition in New Delhi from April 4-7, 2010. The 3rd >> > >>> TRANSTEC congress in Delhi is an international event coinciding with >> the >> > >>> 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Talks at the event will discuss and >> > >>> explore new directions in the field of sustainable transport, green >> > >>> transport solutions and the rise of developing countries as a major >> > >>> player in transport industry and a global economic power. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> The Conference website can be visited at >> > >>> >> > >>> http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/index.html >> > >>> >> > >>> We envision presentations and exhibits of research and technology in >> > >>> four main areas: sustainable transport, advanced systems for >> transport >> > >>> operations, ITS and transportation modelling and simulation. Emphasis >> is >> > >>> on the methodological, theoretical and practical advances in science, >> > >>> engineering, and technology of transportation and environmentally >> > >>> sustainable transport systems. Particular emphasis would also be >> given >> > >>> to transport in developing and lesser developed countries. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> We invite audience that includes private entrepreneurs, government >> > >>> officials, and academics to exchange ideas and build cross-national >> > >>> collaborations. TRANSTEC will take place 4-7th April, 2010, in one >> of >> > >>> the finest art deco venues in Delhi in Imperial Hotel, Janpath, which >> is >> > >>> in the heart of New Delhi. >> > >>> >> > >>> The key areas of focus this year will be: >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> * Sustainable transport solutions, transport and environment, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Intelligent Transport Systems, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Urban traffic Management, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Transport Modelling, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Traffic simulation, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Travel Demand Management and Congestion Charging, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Transport Policy, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Traffic Engineering, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Transport economics and Finance, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Muti-modal transport systems, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Aviation, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Ports, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Railways, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Freight, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Tourism and transport, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Global health and transport, >> > >>> >> > >>> * BRTS, PRT, LRT and Mass transit systems, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Traffic Safety, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Pedestrian issues and environment, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Urban Design, Built form and transport, >> > >>> >> > >>> * Transport in developing countries. >> > >>> >> > >>> Papers addressing theory, methodology or analysis, and demonstrations >> in >> > >>> sustainable transport solutions, intelligent transport system, >> advanced >> > >>> systems for transport operations, and transportation modelling and >> > >>> simulation will be considered. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Abstracts for presentation can be submitted at any time until 31st >> > >>> December 2009. Presentations will be selected based on topic >> relevance >> > >>> and early submission. After the initial selection of abstracts, a >> full >> > >>> paper is expected by 15th February, 2010. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> All papers received will be published in the conference proceedings >> to >> > >>> be distributed at the conference. A small number of papers will be >> > >>> peer-reviewed by a technical steering committee to be published in a >> > >>> selection of refereed journals. To give the highest number of >> > >>> participants the possibility of presenting a paper, the organizers >> > >>> reserve the right to select one out of multiple submissions from the >> > >>> same person. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> TRANSTEC includes two types of delivery of papers: session >> presentations >> > >>> and poster presentations. Session presentations are in sessions of >> 4-5 >> > >>> papers with each paper taking 15 minutes for the presentation and a >> few >> > >>> minutes for questions. Poster presentations are interactive sessions >> > >>> during which each author has about 5 minutes to highlight the poster >> and >> > >>> then 1.5 hours to discuss details with a smaller audience around the >> > >>> poster. Proposals for poster presentations undergo the same selection >> > >>> procedure and criteria as session presentations. Please indicate if >> your >> > >>> abstract is for a poster or a session presentation. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Abstract guidelines >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> * 1000 words maximum. >> > >>> >> > >>> * May include one figure or table. >> > >>> >> > >>> * Format should be in PDF or MSWord. >> > >>> >> > >>> * Include the names, affiliation and country of the authors, title, >> > >>> abstract, and the type of presentation you wish to make (poster or >> > >>> session presentation). >> > >>> >> > >>> * Identify one author as the contact person. >> > >>> >> > >>> * Submit by email to transtec2010@gmail.com with "TRANSTEC DELHI >> > >>> ABSTRACT" in the subject line. >> > >>> >> > >>> * Include a list of keywords with your abstract submission such as: >> ITS, >> > >>> traffic technology, software, hardware, modeling, simulation, soft >> > >>> computing, developing countries, ports etc. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> For more information : >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Abstract Submission: 31st December 2009, >> > >>> >> > >>> Notification of Abstract Acceptance: 15th January 2010, >> > >>> >> > >>> Full Paper Submission and early bird registration: 15th February , >> 2007 >> > >>> >> > >>> web: http://www.ewebevolution.com/transtec/ >> > >>> >> > >>> With warm regards >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Sonal >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Sonal Ahuja >> > >>> >> > >>> Associate Director, >> > >>> >> > >>> Development Transport and Infrastructure >> > >>> >> > >>> CAPITA SYMONDS >> > >>> >> > >>> 86 Fetter Lane >> > >>> >> > >>> London EC4A 1EN >> > >>> >> > >>> United Kingdom >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7870 9300 >> > >>> >> > >>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7870 9399 >> > >>> >> > >>> Mob: +44 (0) 77 88 666 523 >> > >>> >> > >>> Mail: sonal.ahuja@capita.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> www.capitasymonds.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> www.capita.co.uk >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Think of the environment. Print only if necessary. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, >> are >> > >>> strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not >> the >> > >>> intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any >> > other use or >> > >>> reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error >> please >> > >>> notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete >> the >> > >>> email. Copyright reserved. >> > >>> >> > >>> All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are >> > >>> monitored for legitimate business purposes. >> > >>> >> > >>> The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be >> > guaranteed. It >> > >>> is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any >> > >>> attachment for >> > >>> the presence of viruses. >> > >>> >> > >>> The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude >> > all liability >> > >>> for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the >> > >>> receipt, use >> > >>> or transmission of this email. >> > >>> >> > >>> Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the >> > author only. >> > >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> ================================================================ >> > >>> 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 74, Issue 6 >> > >>> ********************************************** >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> 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'). >> > >> >> > >> >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- >> > > 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'). >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >-------------------------------------------------------- >> >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@vtpi.org >> Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 >> 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA >> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ================================================================ >> 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 74, Issue 10 >> *********************************************** >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Oct 15 13:55:52 2009 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:55:52 +0600 (Central Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Request for EOIs for Dhaka BRT/Corridor Restructuring Project Message-ID: We have now requested Expressions of Interest for our Dhaka BRT and corridor restructuring project. Please find the message sent to prospective candidates plus our advertisement below. If you are interested in participating in any way, please be free to get in touch. --Jonathan! Dear Friends, Please find attached two documents: The advert for our Request for Expressions of Interest for a BRT and Corridor Restructuring Implementation Study and Preliminary Design Work for the Uttara-Mohakhali-Ramna-Sadarghat Corridor in Dhaka; and further information and instructions for those planning to respond to the request. Please note a few things: Our objective here is to try to radically improve transport conditions in the selected corridor. Thus, while BRT is an important element, it is only one part of an overall attempt to restructure corridor operations. We wish to improve traffic management because poor traffic management is said to cost Dhaka 50% of its road capacity today, and we wish to make the project have broad appeal by providing benefits to as wide a cross-section of the public as possible. So please attend to these overall goals in your reply. Secondly, please note that this is an implementation study and request for design work and not purely a feasibility study. Obviously, anything proposed will have to be tested for feasibility, but this corridor has already been selected for implementation by the Government of Bangladesh, and so the focus is to be on implementing it successfully as soon as possible and to design it in preparation for construction. If questions over alternatives arise during project work, they will need to be discussed and decisions made. But we wish to end up with a plan ready for action and not a theoretical report. Thirdly, please note the special needs of this project. Government relations, communication and strategies to build anti-corruption measures into project work are all important. So too is effective urban planning as well as designing effective management. And so too is a genuine interest in social equity: we want the poorest people of Dhaka to benefit, and see this project as a development tool as part of larger efforts to end poverty. So please try to think of ways of putting together a creative team that can properly address issues that are often neglected. Up until RFP submission, this is a relatively open process and you are encouraged to contact the Project Director, myself, or other appropriate people to learn about our needs. The evaluation committee will be looking for evidence of your understanding of and sensitivity to the special problems of Dhaka, so please do include a good narrative description to tell us about your planned methodology and working techniques and to show you have knowledge of the city and its issues. Looking forward to receiving your Expressions of Interest. --Jonathan Please note that I am pasting the contents of our advertisement below. Although further details are said to be on the web site, they have not been put there yet -- so please email back if you would like further details or have any questions! 1. Introduction The People?s Republic of Bangladesh has received a credit from the International Development Association (ida) towards the cost of the proposed Clean Air and Sustainable Environment (case) Project to be implemented by the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (dtcb) in coordination with other government entities, and intends to apply part of the proceeds for consultancy services for a brt and corridor restructuring implementation study and preliminary design work for the Uttara-Mohakhali-Ramna-Sadarghat corridor in Dhaka. 2. Description of Corridor The corridor runs from Uttara to the north to Dhaka to Sadarghat near the Buriganga River at the southern end of the cbd. With loop operation in the cbd, brt route length will be approximately 25 km, much of it on existing roads suffering severe congestion, with the possibility of incorporating some sections of new elevated right of way. 3. Scope of Tasks/Service The Consultant will perform an implementation study and prepare preliminary design and a plan for inaugurating Bus Rapid Transit (brt) and improving overall traffic flows in the Uttara-Mohakhali-Ramna-Sadarghat corridor in Dhaka city with the goals of improving mobility while reducing congestion and negative environmental impacts from transport emissions and improving the general quality of the urban fabric and social conditions in Dhaka. The consultants will: ? Identify and analyze alternative options for constructing and operating the corridor and develop a conceptual plan. ? Provide market analysis, including survey work; data collection; and preparation of necessary forecasts of demands and costs (capital and operational) to confirm feasibility and for implementation planning/design of brt, other bus services, and operation of general traffic lanes in the selected corridor. ? Provide a plan for restructuring existing bus and rickshaw services in the corridor to optimize service of corridorwide travel needs and integrate them effectively with brt services. ? Recommend and provide design (up to but not including final engineering) for physical transformation of corridor facilities to accommodate brt, improved traffic flows in general traffic lanes, and safe and secure vehicular and pedestrian movements. ? Provide analysis and planning/design in the areas of safety, parking, pollutant emissions reduction, social equity, land use and beautification. ? Develop a plan for operation of the corridor, including institutional arrangements, regulation, management, and security/operational enforcement. The plan is to include provision for operations of brt, other bus services, rickshaw services, and general traffic facilities. ? Propose a financing plan for construction works and operations, including exam?ination of public???private partnership schemes. ? Assess needs for land use relocation planning and prepare a land-acquisition proposal. ? Undertake economic, financial, environmental and social assessments in compliance with World Bank guidelines. ? Perform such other tasks as will be detailed in the Terms of Reference to be supplied to successfully shortlisted candidates following ranking of submitted Expressions of Interest. 4. Qualification/ Selection Criteria The project director now invites consulting firms to express their interest in providing the above services. Interested consultants must provide information indicating that they are qualified to perform the services (brochures, descriptions of similar assignments, experience in similar conditions, availability of appropriate skills. The EOIs will be reviewed on the basis of the following to prepare a shortlist: ? Registration of the firm ? Availability of appropriate skills among staff ? Demonstrated capacity to handle such assignments in terms of resources ? Experience in similar tasks 5. Associations Applicants may associate to enhance their qualifications but should clearly/explicitly mention whether the association is in the form of a ?Joint Venture? or ?Sub- consultancy.? In the case of a ?Joint Venture,? all members must have real and well defined inputs to the assignment, and it is preferable to limit the total number of firms including associates to a maximum of 3 (three). 6. Selection Procedures The consulting firm will be selected in accordance with procedures set out in the World Bank?s guidelines, Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers May 2004, Revised October 2006. A maximum of six firms will be initially shortlisted according to evidence of their understanding of the tasks to be performed and capacity to perform them in terms of appropriate expertise and experience along with a demonstrated ability to apply creativity to address complex problems in the Dhaka local context. 7. Commencement of Service It is expected that the service will commence in March 2010 at Dhaka, Bangladesh. 8. Further Information Further details and instructions should be obtained from http://www.dtcb.gov.bd or by email to the project director from whom background documents are also available. 9. Submission Due Date Expressions of Interest (eoi) for the above study must be delivered to the address below by 5 pm on 9 November 2009. The envelopes must be clearly marked ?eoi for brt/?Corridor Restructuring Project.? 10. Right to Select/Reject The procuring entity reserves the right to accept or reject all eois. Project Director, piu, dtcb, Clean Air and Sustainable Environment (case) Project, Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (dtcb), 13/14th Floor, Nagar Bhaban, Dhaka-1000 Bangladesh Telephone: +8802-9569262 Fax: +8802-9568892 Email: rahman2005@gmail.com ----- Jonathan Richmond Transport Advisor Dhaka Transport Coordination Board Ministry of Communications Government of Bangladesh Nagar Bhaban, 13-14th Floor Dhaka-1000 Bangladesh Phone: +880 (0)1714 179013 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From sutp at sutp.org Thu Oct 15 16:24:03 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:54:03 +0530 Subject: [sustran] GTZ and CAI-Asia to organize a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning Message-ID: <4AD6CE13.80300@sutp.org> As a part of the Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) program, GTZ along with Clean Air Initiative (CAI-Asia) will be organizing a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning. The course is designed specifically for policy-makers, transport engineers, urban planners and academia. The course will be conducted on the 27 - 28 October 2009 at Hotel Ramada Plaza, New Delhi. The trainers for the course will be from World Resources Institute (WRI-EMBARQ), Institute for Transport and Development Policy (ITDP), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Urban Mass Transit Company Limited (UMTC) and Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System (DIMTS). The course is also a pre-event to the two days SUMA Summit which will also be held in Delhi during 29-30 October 2009, followed by a technical visit to the Ahmedabad BRT system. Participation in the course is at *no charge*, snacks and lunch will be provided at the venue. Interested participants may write to santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org to book a place for the two day course at the earliest as the seats are limited. Funding *only for* *accommodation* is available for a very few participants from outside Delhi and the travel costs are to be borne by the participants. *Register early* by sending an email to santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org along with your name, designation and contact details. More information and the agenda: http://www.sutp.org /index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1777&Itemid=1?=uk From sutp at sutp.org Thu Oct 15 21:28:34 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:58:34 +0530 Subject: [sustran] SUTP Newsletter Aug-Sep'09 Message-ID: <4AD71572.6080402@sutp.org> **** SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT PROJECT (SUTP) **** **** Newsletter 04/09 - Aug - Sep 2009 **** Important: A PDF version of this text based newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.sutp.org/documents/NL-AUG-SEP-09.pdf ****** Upcoming Training Courses by GTZ ****** GTZ and CAI-Asia to organize a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning As a part of the Sustainable Mobility in Asia (SUMA) program, GTZ along with Clean Air Initiative (CAI-Asia) will be organizing a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning. The course is designed specifically for policy-makers, transport engineers, urban planners and academia. The course will be conducted in New Delhi on the 27 - 28 October 2009 (venue yet to be confirmed). The trainers for the course will be from World Resources Institute (WRI-EMBARQ), Institute for Transport and Development Policy (ITDP), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Urban Mass Transit Company Limited (UMTC) and Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System (DIMTS). The course is also a pre-event to the two days SUMA Summit which will also be held in Delhi during 29-30 October 2009, followed by a technical visit to the Ahmedabad BRT system. Participation in the course is at no charge, snacks and lunch will be provided at the venue. Interested participants may write to santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org to book a place for the two day course at the earliest as the seats are limited. *Funding for accommodation is available for a very few participants from outside Delhi.* Click on the link below to know more on registering and the agenda for the course Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=1777&Itemid=1&lang=uk *** New Publications *** Road Safety ? Recommended Reading and Links Emerging and developing countries are continuously increasing the capacity of their road networks, but often at the expense of the safety of vulnerable road users. As a result, over 1.2 million people are killed unnecessarily in road accidents every year. Social, economic and health burdens imposing heavy constraints on sustainable development. Almost 86 percent of road accidents occur in emerging and developing countries, although these countries only own around 30 percent of the world?s vehicle fleet. The majority of road casualties in developing countries are not motor vehicle occupants, but pedestrians, motorcyclists and bicyclists. The reading list aims at providing the reader with an overview of relevant literature on Road Safety. In addition to relevant websites, links to recent and interesting publications of a variety of organizations are listed. It is strongly recommended to visit the indicated websites for detailed information and additional reports and publications. Link:http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1774&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- GTZ Sourcebook module on ?Intelligent Transport Systems? updated Technology has been playing an important role in promoting vehicular safety, reducing driving stress, comfortable travel and increased efficiency of the whole transport system. These technologies applied in a package are called ?Intelligent Transport System (ITS)?. Often, policy-makers are in a situation where they are not properly informed on the right technological choices. The GTZ Sourcebook module on ?Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)? focuses on choices for a city and also informs the reader of the various available ITS options, their function and advantage. The module was written by Mr. Phil Sayeg and Prof. Phil Charles and also updated by the authors. Link:http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1771&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- Reading List ? Public Transport Integration Travelling from A to B by public transport in any major city most often involves some kind of mode change. While such transfers are necessary even in the most sophisticated transport networks, there are some principles that make a journey by different forms of public transport as seamless as possible. Summarized here under the term Public Transport Integration, these measures aim at facilitating the use of any public transport mode available in a city or region to reach one?s destination. Prominent features of Public Transport Integration include, for example, one single ticket for the whole journey, adequate transfer facilities, and coordinated schedules of different transport modes. This document aims at providing the reader with an overview of relevant literature on Public Transport Integration. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1757&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- Transport Alliances: Promoting cooperation and integration to offer a more attractive and efficient public transport Closely connected to the issue of Public Transport Integration is the topic of a recently published book. Since its first appearance in Germany more than 40 years ago, the concept of Public Transport Associations has steadily increased in both number and significance. While the majority of examples are located in Germany and a few other European countries, the issue receives increased attention from a wider audience. The bi-lingual book ?Transport Alliances ? Promoting cooperation and integration to offer a more attractive and efficient Public Transport? has been produced not at least to provide international readers with a greater insight into the specific features of the German public transport system shaped by the ?Verkehrsverbund? model. The book is recommended for stakeholders and anyone interested in public transport Integration. DVV Media Group Cologne, ISBN-10: 3777104035, 305 Pages http://www.vdv.de/publikationen/buecher.html ---- *** SUMA News Update *** About SUMA: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=104&Itemid=132&lang=uk or http://www.cleanairnet.org/suma ---- SUMA training activities in India go ahead with SUMA+ GTZ and CAI-Asia, as a part of the extended SUMA project, conducted a 4 day training workshop in Delhi from 23-26 September 2009. The topic of the training course was "Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning". The training activities were funded by the Swedish government through the SUMA program. The participants of this training were preselected trainers who have undergone the three stages of the SUMA "Train-the-Trainer" course. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1768&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- *** Recent Events *** GTZ and UITP training at OTP, Bangkok Under the Sustainable Urban Transport Project, GTZ and UITP held a training at the Office for Transport and Traffic Policy (OTP) in Bangkok. Daniel Bongardt (GTZ) introduced the concept of sustainable urban transport and presented examples for public transport organization in Germany. Heather Allen from UITP discussed the economic, social and environmental benefits of public transport and Thirayoot Limanond (GTZ-SUTP) explained pedestrian and bicyclist needs. About 25 participants from OTP and the Ministry of Transport had lively discussions with the trainers. Based on a long history of cooperation, further collaboration in transport integration and policy development is envisaged. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=1769&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- GTZ contributes to the CSE workshop on urban transport and mobility Mr. Santhosh Kodukula, Urban Transport Expert, participated in the workshop held by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) titled "Urban Transport and Mobility: Agenda for Reforms". The workshop was held between 16-19 September at the CSE premises in New Delhi. The three day event attracted town and city planners from various cities and distinguished presenters have also delivered presentations. Mr. Kodukula held a presentation on September 19 on "TDM: What, Why, Where - Global Practices in Congestion Reduction". Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1769&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- GTZ-SUTP supports the CITYNET 2009 Congress in Yokohama, Japan Mr.Santhosh Kodukula, Urban Transport Specialist, attended the CITYNET 2009 Congress held in Yokohama, Japan, held from 07-11th September 2009. The congress brought together more than 300 participants including mayors, deputy mayors, international organisations, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs and academics from various Asia Pacific cities. Mr. Kodukula also delivered a presentation in the Infrastructure Cluster discussion group on "Lessons learnt from the Sustainable Urban Transport Project for Asia". About 20 participants attended the session. Also present in the discussion group were representatives from ADB-CDIA, Veolia, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, City of Palembang, Indonesia. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=1760&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- GTZ participates in the UNESCAP Road Safety Meeting Mr. Santhosh Kodukula, GTZ SUTP Urban Transport Specialist, participated in the United Nations' "Expert Group Meeting on Improving Road Safety". The meeting was held from 2 - 4 September 2009 at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, Thailand. More than 40 delegates from various Asia and Pacific region countries attended the meeting and gave updates on the status of road safety in their respective countries and also gave information on the existing situation of the Asian Highway in their country. The principal agenda item of the meeting was the UN project on "Improving Global Road Safety: Setting Regional and National Road Traffic Casualty Reduction Targets". Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1759&Itemid=1&lang=uk ---- Parking Rates Show Surprising Resilience - Around the Globe Colliers' second global parking rate survey now tracks 140 downtown parking districts from around the globe. The intent of this survey is to provide corporate real estate executives with the relative cost of parking, both on a daily and monthly basis. Readers will be able to determine the relative cost to park a car both within countries and across borders. With data for both 2008 and 2009 year-over-year pricing trends are now available and something that will be a key feature of reports going forward. The survey methodology varies by country but in almost all cases Colliers' researchers have surveyed the majority of parking garages with the central business district (CBD). Link: http://campaigns.colliers.com.au/ve/YU59977782sbIkQ0/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=409771 73316779 ---- BRT in Johannesburg (Rea Vaya) successfully launched! Rea Vaya was successfully launched on 30 August at Westgate station to much excitement. The Minister of Transport and the Mayor of Johannesburg as well as the Gauteng Premier and other dignitaries were there to experience the inaugural bus rides and unveil the plaque. Commuters were able to experience the Rea Vaya system for the first time and to buy their tickets for Monday's historic operations. GTZ supports the City of Johannesburg (on behalf of KfW) in the planning of its BRT system since April 2008. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1758&Itemid=1&lang =uk *** Upcoming Events *** Upcoming Events 18.10.2009 - Porto, PT: Low Carbon Cities |45th ISOCARP Intl Congress http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=367&lang=uk 20.10.2009 - Lille, FR: 9th International Conference on ITS Telecommunication http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=394&lang=uk 25.10.2009 - Cape Town, SA: Promoting road safety for vulnerable road users http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=324&lang=uk 25.10.2009 - Doha, QT: 2 nd MENA Public Transport Congress and Showcase http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=369&lang=uk 26.10.2009 - Singapore, SG: 2nd World Roads Conference http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=306&lang=uk 27.10.2009 - California, US: 4th Intl Conference on Women?s Issues in Transport http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=272&lang=uk 27.10.2009 - New Delhi, IN: MRT and BRT Planning Training Course http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1777&Itemid=1&lang=uk 16.11.2009 - Surabaya, ID: 8th International Conference of EASTS http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=301&lang=uk 25.11.2009 ? Nice, FR: 22 nd Rencontres nationales du transport public http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=376&lang=uk 03.12.2009 ? New Delhi,IN: Urban Mobility India http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=317&lang=uk 07.12.2009 ? Copenhagen, DK: Climate Talks http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=400&lang=uk Important: A PDF version of this text based newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.sutp.org/documents/NL-AUG-SEP-09.pdf Note: All the documents mentioned here are available for download from the SUTP website. For registration please visit http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers&lang=uk From edelman at greenidea.eu Fri Oct 16 19:54:51 2009 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:54:51 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The Train to Mecca Message-ID: <4AD850FB.1020305@greenidea.eu> The Train to Mecca Saudi Arabia is launching the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro, more widely known as the Mecca Metro, in 2010. The project seems likely to revolutionise the journey of some 3 million Muslim pilgrims who make their way to the holy city each year during Hajj. Alex Hawkes speaks exclusively to Thales, which is providing its driverless train control and telecommunication systems for the project.... *** As the largest annual pilgrimage in the world, Hajj poses a steep and at-times dangerous logistical nightmare for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In 2008, for example, about 3 million pilgrims from around the globe descended on the holy city of Makkah (Mecca) to celebrate the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The annual event sees hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously converge on Mecca during the week of Hajj -- which takes place on the eighth to the 13th day of Dhu al-Hijjah -- and perform a series of rituals. These include walking counter-clockwise seven times around the Ka'bah (the central positioned building that serves as the Muslim direction of prayer) and hurling stones at the plains of Mount Arafat (the Stoning of the Devil). Naturally, an event of this scale and complexity is not without its share of problems. In 2006, stampeding led to the deaths of 362 pilgrims during the Stoning of the Devil ritual. With an increasing number of international airline services into the Kingdom, the attendance of foreign pilgrims has also risen in recent years -- from 1,080,465 in 1996 to 1,729,841 in 2008 -- placing additional demand for transportation to the site *Safe transport solution* As a result, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed a contract with the China Rail Construction Company (CRCC) in February 2008 to construct a new 17.7km metro line linking Mina, Arafat and Muzdalifah. The line, which will be named the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro (MMMP), is expected to reach a full operating capacity of 72,000 passengers per hour per direction in time for Hajj 2011. Each train supplied by the Chinese rolling stock manufacturer CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Company will carry up to 3,000 passengers. The line will have a total of nine stations, three of which will loop around the holy site. Each train will consist of 12 cars and travel at a speed of 100km per hour. The project also takes on a more European dynamic with Knorr-Bremse supplying braking systems for the trains and platform screen doors for the stations, and Thales supplying, integrating and deploying its driverless train control and telecommunications systems. For Thales, the project -- along with its involvement with the Dubai Metro -- marks a new era for business in the Middle East. The company will install its SelTrac Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) system from its Urban Signalling Centre of Excellence located in Toronto, Canada, which has been implemented on a number of other metro networks across the world including Hong Kong, New York, London, Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Beijing and, of course, Dubai. The system was originally pioneered by Thales' Rail Signalling Solutions unit in Toronto in the early 1980s and has since become one of the world leaders in the rail market Thales signed a contract worth EUR103m with CRCC back in June and is working towards completing the first phase of the project, which will see the line operate with Automatic Train Protection and Automatic Train Supervision in time for Hajj in November 2010. Following the Hajj 2010 operation, the suppliers will finalise the second phase of the project before Ramadan in mid-2011 when the line will operate driverless with an attendant on board. As Dan Filip, marketing & strategy director of Thales Rail Signalling Solutions is quick to point out, even with the project split into two phases, the deadline is a tight one: "The challenge of this project is definitely the delivery time," he says. "Effectively we have to complete design and implementation of the CBTC solution in two years, which if you compare it to the two years we spent designing the Dubai Metro is a strong contrast marked by a great challenge. "The Dubai Metro, however, was a much larger project [the network covers 76km in total and will be the longest driverless system in the world]. There was a lot of experience gained during that project that we have been able to reuse for the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro. We have also previously successfully implemented the same SelTrac CBTC solution on over 30 rail networks worldwide, so have a wealth of experience to draw on." *Full steam ahead* The initial opening period for the Dubai Metro is likely to prove an interesting point of comparison for the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro. The fully automated metro network opened to the public on September 10th 2009 making it the first urban train system in the Arabian Peninsula. More than 110,000 people -- nearly 10% of Dubai's population -- rode the metro during its first two days of operations, which, for a region not traditionally associated with the rail sector, appears a largely positive response. Thales has built-up a substantial client relationship in the Middle East in recent years. The company is also involved in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's mammoth North-South railway, which will connect the northern mineral belt with Riyadh and the industrial city of Jubail through a 2,400km rail line, as well as three sections of Algeria's North Railway Bypass and a number of rail programmes in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. "Our experience in the Middle East has made us aware of Arab culture and how to conduct business effectively over here," Filip adds. "With the vision, enthusiasm and perseverance of local government and transportation authorities from each country combined with the consultants' depth of transport experience, all the projects that were implemented, or are under construction or are subject to feasibility studies are on a successful track following international standards and processes. Yet, the Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro will eventually serve a purpose very different from that of any other Middle Eastern rail project. The line will provide for an impressive 25,000 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD) when it initially opens for Hajj 2010, which will rise to a staggering 72,000 PPHPD the year after. The period of extreme demand the metro therefore must meet during Hajj is almost unparalleled by any other rail system worldwide. "The other thing you must remember is the pilgrims, who include a variety of ages and genders, may have to walk about 17--20km in the heat as part of the Hajj ritual so are often heavily fatigued," explains Filip. "Once the system will be operating 24 hours per day during the Hajj period at maximum passenger capacity in 2011, the line will be able to carry close to one million passengers, a third of the pilgrim population. "If it operates successfully, the Kingdom wants to construct another two or three parallel metro lines that would be able to support the entire pilgrimage." The first phase of the metro is expected to open in time for 2010's Hajj . -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory Urbanstr. 45 D-10967 Berlin Germany Skype: toddedelman Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081 Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu www.facebook.com/toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman CAR is over. If you want it. "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!" - B. Brecht (with slight modification) From sutp at sutp.org Mon Oct 19 21:16:08 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:46:08 +0530 Subject: [sustran] GTZ-SUTP Vacancy announcement for a Junior Expert Message-ID: <4ADC5888.3030308@sutp.org> Dear Colleagues, We are currently undergoing an expansion of our staff in our team in India. If you or someone you know are eligible for the post described below, please contact santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org sending an updated CV, please mention ?CV for the post of Junior Expert? in the subject. Job Title: Junior Expert ?Minimum Requirements?: - Graduate or Post-Graduate in Transport Planning, Transportation Engineering, Traffic Engineering or a related discipline from a reputed university - 0 - 2 years professional experience in transport or related activities - Knowledge of Sustainable Urban Transport and familiarity with its concepts such as non-motorised transportation, travel demand management - Fluent in spoken English and very good in written English (if possible, give details of test of English proficiency such as TOEFL, IELTS, etc) - Indian National, preferably staying in Delhi or is wiling to relocate to Delhi for at least 1 year Additional requirements (plus?s): - Experience on organizing events - Knowledge of other Asian languages - Knowledge of Dreamweaver and other web-design software, as well as advanced knowledge of Office software Please read the complete job description of activities from here (http://www.sutp.org/TOR-JR.pdf). Contact santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org for additional inquiries. If you do not meet the above minimum requirements for this job, please refrain from applying to this job. Only selected applicants will be notified for an interview. Best regards, Mr. Santhosh K. Kodukula GTZ - Sr. Technical Expert Urban Transport Specialist santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org santhoshk.kodukula@gtz.de From sutp at sutp.org Tue Oct 20 17:25:11 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:55:11 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Planning and Implementation of Non Motorized Transport Facilities Workshop in Delhi 3-4 November 2009 Message-ID: <4ADD73E7.6080404@sutp.org> GTZ-SUTP in partnership with the WRI-EMBARQ will be organizing a two day workshop on ?Planning and Implementation of Non Motorized Transport Facilities?. The workshop will be held on 3-4 November 2009 at the India International Centre, New Delhi. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for participants to understand the approach to planning for Non Motorized Transport (NMT) facilities viz. walking and cycling, and gain exposure to the various issues involved in the planning and implementation of NMT Facilities. As a part of the workshop there is also a site visit in Delhi to analyze the conditions of walking and cycling. EMBARQ is organizing this workshop as part of the city peering program for the India ? GEF ? World Bank ? UNDP Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP). The program is part of the Sustainable Urban Transportation Project - a partnership between the Government of India (GoI), Global Environment Facility (GEF), The World Bank, and The United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The project supports the implementation of the National Urban Transport Policy, which was issued by GOI?s Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in April 2006. EMBARQ?s participation in this event is funded by AUSAID. People interested in attending the workshop please send an email to Mr. Madhav Pai ( mpai@wri.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) and cc to Mr. Santhosh Kodukula ( santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ). More information: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1780&Itemid=1&lang=uk From sutp at sutp.org Wed Oct 21 21:46:55 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:16:55 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Resending: GTZ and CAI-Asia to organize a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning Message-ID: <4ADF02BF.2030607@sutp.org> Resending the following message, few places are available, in case not yet registered please register until 24.10.09: As a part of the Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) program, GTZ along with Clean Air Initiative (CAI-Asia) will be organizing a two day course on Mass Rapid Transit/BRT Planning. The course is designed specifically for policy-makers, transport engineers, urban planners and academia. The course will be conducted on the 27 - 28 October 2009 at Hotel Ramada Plaza, New Delhi. The trainers for the course will be from World Resources Institute (WRI-EMBARQ), Institute for Transport and Development Policy (ITDP), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Urban Mass Transit Company Limited (UMTC) and Delhi Integrated Multi-modal Transit System (DIMTS). The course is also a pre-event to the two days SUMA Summit which will also be held in Delhi during 29-30 October 2009, followed by a technical visit to the Ahmedabad BRT system. Participation in the course is at *no charge*, snacks and lunch will be provided at the venue. Interested participants may write to santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org to book a place for the two day course at the earliest as the seats are limited. Funding *only for* *accommodation* is available for a very few participants from outside Delhi and the travel costs are to be borne by the participants. *Register early* by sending an email to santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org along with your name, designation and contact details. More information and the agenda: http://www.sutp.org /index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1777&Itemid=1?=uk From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 07:24:24 2009 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:24:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Pro-Bicycle legislation Message-ID: <4AE0DB98.5030604@gmail.com> Hi, We're doing some work related to legislation which has some content about bicycles (helmet use, circulation, bicycle parking, registration, penalties, reflective gear and/or lights, bike taxis, e-bikes, import duties and taxes, public bikes....), but have found mostly "bad practices" (mostly because we don't know languages different from Spanish and English). Can anyone point me to either existent legislation with specifics or documents which compile these? I can send you what we've found but it's mostly in Spanish and few things in English. I guess this is of interest to the entire list, so it may be useful to get information on the list rather than off-list. And now that I think of it, just for the sake of it it would also be useful to see what anti-bicycle legislation exists. Thanks in advance! Carlos. From Regina.Anderson at worleyparsons.com Fri Oct 23 12:08:15 2009 From: Regina.Anderson at worleyparsons.com (Anderson, Regina (Singapore)) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:08:15 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pro-Bicycle legislation References: <4AE0DB98.5030604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <786FA965F7F7384F9BB242BBD23B6570583A5F@sgsinwpexm01.WorleyParsons.com> Hi Carlos. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in the US is a pretty active group, and likely has best examples from the US, as well as CROW from Holland. http://www.apbp.org/ Best, Gina Regina Anderson, AICP Manager - Select Infrastructure & Environment WorleyParsons www.worleyparsons.com Tel: +65 6501 7195 Singapore Power Building, 12th Floor 111 Somerset Road Singapore 238164 -----Original Message----- From: Carlosfelipe Pardo [mailto:carlosfpardo@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:24 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Pro-Bicycle legislation Hi, We're doing some work related to legislation which has some content about bicycles (helmet use, circulation, bicycle parking, registration, penalties, reflective gear and/or lights, bike taxis, e-bikes, import duties and taxes, public bikes....), but have found mostly "bad practices" (mostly because we don't know languages different from Spanish and English). Can anyone point me to either existent legislation with specifics or documents which compile these? I can send you what we've found but it's mostly in Spanish and few things in English. I guess this is of interest to the entire list, so it may be useful to get information on the list rather than off-list. And now that I think of it, just for the sake of it it would also be useful to see what anti-bicycle legislation exists. Thanks in advance! Carlos. From edelman at greenidea.eu Fri Oct 23 20:08:52 2009 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:08:52 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: [WorldCityBike] Pro-Bicycle legislation In-Reply-To: <00c501ca5396$a1cfcb30$e56f6190$@britton@ecoplan.org> References: <00c501ca5396$a1cfcb30$e56f6190$@britton@ecoplan.org> Message-ID: <4AE18EC4.5040307@greenidea.eu> Hi Carlos, Wow, this is such a potentially huge category. In reality a lot of things which help or encourage cycling would or could not even mention it. So, for example, laws which give an unfair advantage to large supermarkets means small shops die out, which can stimulate cycling because people have to travel further to get stuff, but probably only if these big stores are difficult to park cars at.... or a law which says that a health care system gets paid for my a new tax on personal car-driving also might not mention cycling at all but might increase it as driving becomes more expensive (and if tax revenue goes down for the hospitals etc it be okay because people are exercising more, etc)... your question reminds me of one asked recently on the Sustran list about road safety (not "road safety") but only talking about things like zebra crossings and not restrictions on vehicle use, design, motive power, etc. which would actually make these zebras less necessary.... all these knock-on effects! Gravity+Economy+Legal+ probably even lawyers and psychologists have to describe this using a combination of fluid dynamics and algebra..... in other words is who,ever you are working with asking not all the right questions? - T (please also see below for correct current placement of Mr. Pardo) Britton wrote: > > > Hi, > > We're doing some work related to legislation which has some content > about bicycles (helmet use, circulation, bicycle parking, registration, > penalties, reflective gear and/or lights, bike taxis, e-bikes, import > duties and taxes, public bikes....), but have found mostly "bad > practices" (mostly because we don't know languages different from > Spanish and English). Can anyone point me to either existent legislation > with specifics or documents which compile these? I can send you what > we've found but it's mostly in Spanish and few things in English. > > I guess this is of interest to the entire list, so it may be useful to > get information on the list rather than off-list. And now that I think > of it, just for the sake of it, it would also be useful to see what > anti-bicycle legislation exists. > > Thanks in advance! > > Carlos. > > Carlosfelipe Pardo > Country Director, Colombia > Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) > > Regional Office > Carrera 7 N? 79B-15, Oficina 404 > Bogot?, DC, COLOMBIA > Tels: +57 (1) 211-0654 / 803-9397 - Fax: +57 (1) 211-0654 > Cel 320 837 5858 > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic > > (1) Reply (via web post) > > | Start a new topic > > > Messages > > | Files > > | Photos > > | Links > > | Database > > | Polls > > | Calendar > > > Check in here via homepage at http://www.citybike.newmobility.org > To post message to group: WorldCityBike@yahoogroups.com > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole > (Might it be that your note is best sent to one person?) > MARKETPLACE > Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their > families, for the world and for each other > > > Yahoo! Groups > > > Change settings via the Web > > (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest > > | Switch format to Traditional > > > Visit Your Group > > | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | > Unsubscribe > Recent Activity > > Visit Your Group > > > Yahoo! Finance > > It's Now Personal > > > Guides, news, > > advice & more. > > Yahoo! Groups > > Weight Management Challenge > > > Join others who > > are losing pounds. > > Yahoo! Groups > > Mom Power > > > Kids, family & home > > Join the discussion > > . > > __,_._,___ -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory Urbanstr. 45 D-10967 Berlin Germany Skype: toddedelman Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081 Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu www.facebook.com/toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman CAR is over. If you want it. "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!" - B. Brecht (with slight modification) From litman at vtpi.org Tue Oct 27 09:22:38 2009 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:22:38 -0700 Subject: [sustran] VTPI Newsletter - Autumn 2009 Message-ID: <20091027002357.854AD2C525@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> ----------- VTPI NEWS ----------- Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ------------------------------------- Autumn 2009 Vol. 12, No. 4 ----------------------------------- The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW DOCUMENTS ============== "Where We Want To Be: Household Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth,"(http://www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf ). This paper investigates consumer housing preferences and their implications for future urban development patterns. Market research indicates that households increasingly prefer smart growth features such as location accessibility (indicated by shorter commutes), land use mix (indicated by nearby shops and services), and transportation diversity (indicated by good walking conditions and public transit services), and many will choose small-lots and attached homes that offer these features over large-lot sprawl homes that do not. The current stock of large-lot housing should be adequate for decades, but the supply of small-lot and attached housing will need to approximately double by 2025 to meet consumer demands. "Evaluating Transit-Oriented Development Using a Sustainability Framework: Lessons from Perth's Network City," (www.vtpi.org/renne_tod.pdf ), by Professor John Renne. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is compact, mixed-use development that facilitates walking, bicycling, and use of public transport through its urban design. This chapter from the book 'Planning Sustainable Communities,' presents a method to evaluate TOD sustainability based on outcomes, including travel behaviour, local economic development, natural environment, built environment, social environment and policy context. The study applies this analysis framework to five rail transit precincts in Perth, Western Australia to test the feasibility of data collection and analysis. "Who Is Really Paying For Your Parking Space? Estimating The Marginal Implicit Value Of Off-Street Parking Spaces For Condominiums In Central Edmonton," (www.vtpi.org/jung_parking.pdf ), by Owen Jung. This master's thesis (economics) uses hedonic pricing to estimate the marginal effect of each additional structured parking space on condominium prices in downtown Edmonton, Alberta. The analysis indicates that the value of a parking space is statistically significant but substantially less than the typical cost of supplying such spaces. The results suggest that retail prices do not fully reflect the parking costs. This adversely affects housing affordability because developers must charge more per unit, and to the degree that the additional parking costs cannot be recovered by higher prices, are likely to provide less housing, leading to a higher market-clearing price, particularly in lower price ranges. "Making the Most of Models: Using Models To Develop More Effective Transport Policies And Strategies" (http://www.vtpi.org/FerWig_Modelling.pdf ) by Peter Furnish and Don Wignall This paper discusses how simplified transport models in evaluating transportation policies and programs. An example of a simplified model is described to illustrate the use of this type of modelling for policy and strategy development purposes. * * * * * PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE =================== "Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy: Recommendations and Research" (188-page report) and "The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America" (36-page summary report) by PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute Convergence Partnership (http://www.convergencepartnership.org/transportationhealthandequity ) These publications, written by leading academics and advocates, discuss key issues related to health, equity and transportation. They identify specific transportation policies and programs that can improve public health and quality of life, particularly for vulnerable communities. Includes an introduction by Representative Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 'Mobility as a Positional Good: Implications for Transport Policy and Planning,' by Todd Litman, in "Car Troubles: Critical Studies of Automobility and Auto-Mobility" (Jim Conley and Arlene Tigar McLaren eds), Ashgate (http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754677727 ). Introduction at http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Car_Troubles_Intro.pdf . Chapter summarized in http://www.vtpi.org/prestige.pdf . This book, with chapters written by various researchers, uses social theory, specific case studies and policy analysis to examine issues related to automobility. "Parking Solutions: Essential Info Packet, Planning Advisory Service" (http://www.planning.org/pas/infopackets ), published by the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service. Includes papers by various authors including Todd Litman if VTPI. These packets include: * 'Parking Solutions' (130 pages): six documents that describe modern approaches to parking management. * 'Shared Parking" (133 pages): more than thirty documents concerning shared parking, parking in-lieu fees, parking requirement reductions and exemptions, and downtown district special parking requirements. * 'Green Parking Lot Design" (66 pages): three documents that describe ways to improve parking lot environmental performance including landscaping, stormwater management and reduced heat island effects. * 'Permeable Pavement and Bicycle Parking' (38 pages): five documents concerning the use of permeable parking lot pavement materials and five documents concerning bicycle parking requirements and design. "Investment Of Commonwealth And State Funds In Public Passenger Transport," 31 July 2009, Rural And Regional Affairs And Transport References Committee, Australian Senate; at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/report.pdf. Todd Litman's comments are at www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12320.pdf . This study identified various benefits of public transportation and recommended various reforms to increase the value of transit investments. 'Creating Safe and Healthy Communities,' by Todd Litman, in "Environments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies," (http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/research/environments/index.html ), Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 21-43. 'Integrated University Parking & Access Management Programs' by Dennis Burns and Todd Litman, in "Parking Management - Planning, Design and Operations" (Volume 3 in the Parking 101 Series, 2009), International Parking Institute (http://www.new.parking.org/products/parking-management-pdo ). Recent Planetizen Blogs (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/2394 ): "Rea Vaya ('We are Moving') In South Africa" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/41414 ) "Sidewalk Design Vehicle" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/41262 ) "Universal Design - Accommodating Everybody" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/41097 ) "Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/40461 ) "Moving Cooler Report: Solutions and Criticisms" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/39945) * * * * * BEEN THERE - DONE THAT ======================= Below are a few recent presentations by VTPI: "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: Implications of Population Aging on Transportation and Community Planning" presented at, Exploring Age-Friendly Environments, Winnipeg, Canada. "Capacity Building for Young Professionals," professional development classes in Argentina. This enjoyable visit to Buenos Aries involved teaching transportation and land use planning principles to a class of smart, enthusiastic young professionals. Muchas gracias to my hosts! "Sustainable Transport Performance Indicators," presented at Toward Sustainable Transport System for Green Growth in the North Pacific, sponsored by the East-West Center and Korean Transport Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. * * * * * UPCOMING EVENTS ================= "Where We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For New Urbanism," to be presented at The Congress for the New Urbanism's 2009 Transportation Summit (http://www.cnu.org/transportation2009 ) to be held in Portland, Oregon, 4-6 November 2009. This Summit will advance new ideas for creating compact, walkable communities that provide residents a high quality of life while preserving the natural environment. It brings together 150 to 200 expert engineers, planners, public officials and design professionals to present ideas and work toward reforming transportation standards that obstruct urbanism. "Bicycle Friendly Planning," to be presented at the International Cycling Symposium for Gumi, South Korea, 18 November 2009. "Transportation and Health: The Evidence and the Opportunities," to be presented at the American Public Health Association 137th Annual Meeting, Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM, in Philadelphia, PA. (http://apha.confex.com/apha/137am/webprogram/Session27792.html ). "The VMT Reduction Target Debate: Will This Get Us Where We Want to Go?" (P10-0710) Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 10-14 January 2010, Washington DC (http://www.trb.org ). This session will debate the role of VMT reduction targets to help achieve climate change emission reductions and other planning objectives . Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada Marlon G. Boarnet, University of California, Irvine In opposition to the use of VMT Reduction Targets as an effective GHG reduction strategy: (P10-0723) Alan E. Pisarski, Consultant Samuel Staley, Reason Foundation * * * * * USEFUL RESOURCES ================= "Economic Impact Of Public Transportation Investment," American Public Transportation Association (http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/economic_impact_of_public_transportation_investment.pdf ). This report describes methods for evaluating the economic development benefits of investments in public transportation. "Non-Toll Pricing: A Primer," (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08044/cp_prim6_00.htm ). This short document by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration describes various innovative pricing reforms, including efficient insurance and parking pricing. "What Policies Are Effective At Reducing Carbon Emissions From Surface Passenger Transport? A Review Of Interventions To Encourage Behaviroual And Technological Change," (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgrammes/TechnologyandPolicyAssessment/0904TransportReport.aspx ) by the UK Energy Research Centre. "On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study" (http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/303/149 ). This study by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority reviews the city's existing on-street parking management programs, considers innovative strategies and technologies for improved parking management, and discusses residential parking management issues, including the use of parking revenues to support neighborhood transportation enhancements. It includes several peer city parking management case studies. It provides recommendations for comprehensive neighborhood parking management to improve parking conditions and support policy goals. "Walkability and Health; BC Sprawl Report 2009," (http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/sgbc-sprawlreport-2009.pdf ). This study by Ray Tomalty and Murtaza Haider evaluates how community design factors (land use density and mix, street connectivity, sidewalk supply, street widths, block lengths, etc.) and a subjective walkability index rating (based on residents' evaluation of various factors) affect walking and biking activity, and health outcomes (hypertension and diabetes). The analysis reveals a statistically significant association between improved walkability and more walking and cycling activity, lower body mass index (BMI), and lower hypertension. The study also includes case studies which identified policy changes likely to improve health in specific communities. "Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions," (http://www.movingcooler.info ). This report, sponsored by a number of major transportation, business and environmental organizations evaluates several dozen climate change emission reduction strategies, including their emission reductions, implementation costs, impacts on vehicle costs, and equity impacts. It estimates the emissions that could be reduced under a range of assumptions about how they are implemented. "Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions" (http://www.transportation1.org/RealSolutions/index.html ). This report by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials identifies various ways to reduce transportation climate change emissions. "A Conceptual Framework For The Reform Of Taxes Related To Roads And Transport" (http://apo.org.au/research/conceptual-framework-reform-taxes-related-roads-and-transport ), School of Economics and Finance, La Trobe University for the 'Australia's Future Tax System' review by Treasury, Canberra. This report examines how transport services in Australia should be priced and transportation facilities funded. It discusses various economic principles related to efficient prices and taxes, estimates various transportation-related external costs (road and parking facilities, congestion, accidents, energy consumption and pollution), evaluates current pricing efficiency and recommends various reforms to help achieve transportation planning objectives. "Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities" (http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities1.pdf ). This study by Joe Cortright of CEOs for Cities evaluates the effects of walkability on housing prices using the used Walkscore (www.walkscore.com) and 95,000 real estate transactions, controlling for house (size, number of bedrooms and baths, age) and neighborhood characteristics (proximity to the CBD, income, and accessibility to jobs). It found that, each walkscore point increase was associated with a $700 to $3000 increase in home values, after controlling for other observable factors, so for example, shifting from a 50th to a 75th percentile walkscore typically increases a house's value $4,000 to $34,000, depending on the market. "Are TODs Over-Parked?" (http://www.uctc.net/papers/882.pdf ). This study by Robert Cervero, Arlie Adkins, and Cathleen Sullivan investigated the degree to which residential developments near urban rail stations are "over-parked," that is, more parking is provided than needed. It found the mean parking supply of 1.57 spaces per unit was 31% higher than the 1.2 spaces recommended in ITE Parking Generation, and 37% higher than the weighted-average peak demand of 1.15 parked cars per unit at 31 residential projects near BART rail stations. The analysis indicates that increased parking supply tends to increase vehicle ownership: an increase of 0.5 spaces per unit is associated with a 0.11 additional cars parked per unit at the peak. Parking demand tends to decline with improved pedestrian access to stations and improved transit service frequency. "Applying Health Impact Assessment To Land Transport Planning" (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/reports/375.pdf ). This report by the NZ Transport Agency describes Health Impact Assessment (HIA), a process to inform decision makers about the likely positive and negative effects of a proposal on public health and on health inequalities in order to avoid unintended consequences and to make informed decisions. This report recommends transport policy and planning practices to protect and promote public health. "Transportation Demand Management: A Small and Mid-Size Communities Toolkit" (http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/programs/documents/FBC_TDM_toolkit_web.pdf ). This toolkit provides guidance on implementing TDM programs and strategies in smaller and medium-size communities. It includes an introduction to transportation demand management (TDM) and what it takes to implement a TDM strategy. There are 10 TDM case studies of small and mid-size communities. The toolkit shows how to start a TDM initiative and how to turn it into a comprehensive program, offering helpful resources. Co-Benefits Asia Hub Website (http://www.observatory.ph/co-benefits_asia ) provides information on climate change emission reduction strategies that provide additional benefits related to environment (e.g. air quality management, health, agriculture, forestry and biodiversity), energy (e.g. renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy efficiency) and economics (e.g. long-term economic sustainability, industry competitiveness, income distribution). "Getting More with Less: Managing Residential Parking in Urban Developments with Carsharing and Unbundling" (http://www.citycarshare.org/download/CityCarShare2009BestPracticesReport.pdf ). This new report describes examples of residential developments that rely on unbundled parking and on-site carshare services to significantly reduce parking requirements. Provides guidance to developers and planners on applying these strategies. "CityTalent: Keeping Young Professionals (and their kids) in Cities," (http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/CEOs_CityTalent_Kids.pdf ) This new report by CEOs for Cities helps urban leaders understand, support and scale the behaviors of multi-generation urban families. Researchers studied parent concerns of safety, space and schools developing concepts to counter them through density, public space and using the city as a classroom. "The Challenge of Sustainable Mobility in Urban Planning and Development in Oslo" (http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2009/1024-2009/1024-2009-nett.pdf ) This report provides detailed analysis of transportation and land use development trends in Oslo, Norway. It indicates that smart growth policies and investments in alternative modes (particularly high quality public transit) can reduce per capita vehicle travel and energy consumption. It discusses this decoupling of economic development and VMT. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" From yanivbin at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 03:58:21 2009 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:28:21 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Transition city blues Blr on BBC news Message-ID: <86b8a7050910271158v15892ed8ic67d8db8b08133f6@mail.gmail.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8293648.stm *Transition city blues * By Jamillah Knowles BBC News * Bangalore is an Indian city where hi-tech and crippling poverty live side by side. * * As the rate of development in Bangalore gathers pace, some fear that the many impoverished communities that also call the city home may be left behind. * Since the liberalisation of the Indian economy in the 1990s, the Indian tech sector has expanded rapidly. The major players - including Microsoft, Infosys, Cisco and Google - exist in enormous "tech parks" crammed with tall, shiny office buildings. Meanwhile on the same block, piles of rotting rubbish, beggars and stray dogs surround traffic that is heavy with pollution and often locked in a loud and aggressive jam. Contrast in this city is not new; the levels of poverty are growing faster than the tech industry as migrant workers from other states join the population to aid the development. There are concerns that this impoverished population could be left behind in the city of the future, unless big businesses acknowledge that the local infrastructure is under a great deal of pressure. * Ethical business offline * Many foreign businesses have set up outsourcing hubs in Bangalore and beyond - India is a leader in this type of business. Meanwhile non-governmental organisations and aid workers struggle to support the poorer aspects of society, and many believe that big businesses could have a more influential hand in helping those who are not doing so well out of the tech boom. Azim Premji is the chairman of Wipro, one of the largest companies in India. He recognised the issues of his local communities and created the Azim Premji foundation. It is a separate venture to his corporation and privately funded. It addresses methods of education in the hope that supporting youth will mean creating a better society in the long run. ? * If corporations accept that their employees have a life beyond the work place then they should take some responsibility and reach out to that life. * ? Dileep Ranjekar CEO, Azim Premji Foundation Foundation chief executive Dileep Ranjekar believes that large corporations could be making more effort to invest in their communities. "Many corporate efforts are fairly myopic, narrow minded and self centred. These are strong words but they are realities," he argues. "If corporations accept that their employees have a life beyond the workplace then they should take some responsibility and reach out to that life." Bangalore is not the only tech city in India. Hyderabad was initially seen as a forerunner in the race for a technology capital. Nishant Shah is the director of research at the Centre for Internet and Society. He says that the problems Bangalore faces are not unique. "People only look at the IT industry and economy in Bangalore. But there are questions of culture, language and communities which also constitute this city." * Culture change * However winds of political change may begin blow in the favour of smaller businesses, as India's bureaucrats are starting to emerge from more diverse backgrounds. Some live themselves in neighbourhoods that are officially designated as slum areas, and so have first-hand knowledge of the infrastructure problems that need to be addressed. ? * I think the argument about Bangalore changing too fast and growing too fast is a false argument. * ? Solomon Benjamin National Institute for Advanced Studies "It's these political conflicts and upheavals that show what democracy is all about," said Dr Solomon Benjamin, associate professor at the National Institute for Advanced studies. "I think the argument about Bangalore changing too fast and growing too fast is a false argument." * New order * On the surface it may look as though big business, outsourcing and technology have brought about a socio-economic catastrophe. Along the Mahatma Gandhi Road, couples used to walk, people used to meet. Today it is a muddy area where the already crazed traffic struggles to get around the metro site construction. People don't tend to want to spend time there. Bangalore feels like a city in planning where too many people turned up to populate it too soon. But it's those people who will hopefully build and restructure their city to make it work for them. Dileep Ranjekar believes that they will pull together. "When the pride of a society is challenged, people unite. Change comes when there is an acceptance that it is in the self interest of every individual. Everyone sees the benefit of that. You must create the right conditions." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8293648.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8295856.stm From sutp at sutp.org Thu Oct 29 14:52:23 2009 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:22:23 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Resending: Planning and Implementation of Non Motorized Transport Facilities Workshop in Delhi 3-4 November 2009 Message-ID: <4AE92D97.4070304@sutp.org> GTZ-SUTP in partnership with the WRI-EMBARQ will be organizing a two day workshop on ?Planning and Implementation of Non Motorized Transport Facilities?. The workshop will be held on 3-4 November 2009 at the India International Centre, New Delhi. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for participants to understand the approach to planning for Non Motorized Transport (NMT) facilities viz. walking and cycling, and gain exposure to the various issues involved in the planning and implementation of NMT Facilities. As a part of the workshop there is also a site visit in Delhi to analyse the conditions of walking and cycling. EMBARQ is organizing this workshop as part of the city peering program for the India ? GEF ? World Bank ? UNDP Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP). The program is part of the Sustainable Urban Transportation Project - a partnership between the Government of India (GoI), Global Environment Facility (GEF), The World Bank, and The United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The project supports the implementation of the National Urban Transport Policy, which was issued by GOI?s Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in April 2006. EMBARQ?s participation in this event is funded by AUSAID. People interested in attending the workshop please send an email to Mr. Madhav Pai ( mpai@wri.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) and cc to Mr. Santhosh Kodukula ( santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ). More information and agenda of the course is available at http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1780&Itemid=1&lang=uk *** Register Soon *** From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Oct 31 18:47:38 2009 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:47:38 +0100 Subject: [sustran] MOBILITY ISSUE 7 - Jan-March 2010 Message-ID: <013a01ca5a0f$31fd65e0$95f831a0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Mobility people... I'm preparing the diary for our January-March 2010 edition (issue 7) and am wondering whether (hoping that...) you have anything in particular that you'd like to see covered - or anything you'd like to write about - that would be of value, interest and inspiration to our southern-African policy- and decision-makers. Micro-projects, lessons learned, citizen action, policy, implementation, projects, programmes, opinion... To read issue 6, visit http://emag.mobilitymagazine.co.za. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. Wish best wishes Gail Jennings [mailto:gail@mobilitymagazine.co.za] -- EDITOR: MOBILITY MAGAZINE Integrated transport for the 21st century Director: MOBILITY Media, Communication & Advocacy Cell - +27 83 658 5386 Skype - gail-galeforce Email - gail@mobilitymagazine.co.za Web - www.mobilitymagazine.co.za Digital edition - emag.mobilitymagazine.co.za Physical address - 10th floor, Church Sq House, 5 Spin St, Cape Town, 8000