[sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6
Joachim Bergerhoff
agimjo at gmail.com
Sat Oct 10 19:09:26 JST 2009
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 <sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org>
> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sustran-discuss-owner at list.jca.apc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..."
>
>
> ########################################################################
> Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in
> your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you
> are responding to. Many thanks.
>
> About this mailing list see:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> ########################################################################
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: 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 <simon.bishop at dimts.in>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5
> To: "sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org"
> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE30081C4E4E at 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 at list.jca.apc.org[mailto:
> sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop<sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bsimon.bishop>
> =dimts.in at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of
> sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:31 AM
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5
>
> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sustran-discuss-owner at list.jca.apc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..."
>
>
> ########################################################################
> Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in
> your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you
> are responding to. Many thanks.
>
> About this mailing list see:
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> ########################################################################
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. 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 <hghazali at gmail.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited
> To: cai-asia at lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID:
> <c4ee40d0910080014m3f4517b7odcccd8d2f8cb655a at mail.gmail.com>
> 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 <krc12353 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Wake up, Save Electricity by a small step
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Message-ID: <20091008220017.39EAC34ED at 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" <etts at indigo.ie>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5
> To: "Simon Bishop" <simon.bishop at dimts.in>,
> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <CF642A5C993C403CB21C9810E1DF2198 at MicroPro271007>
> 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 at indigo.ie tel :
> +353.87.2530286
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Bishop" <simon.bishop at dimts.in>
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> 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 <hghazali at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited
> > To: cai-asia at lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> > Message-ID:
> > <c4ee40d0910080014m3f4517b7odcccd8d2f8cb655a at mail.gmail.com>
> > 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)" <Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 5
> To: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>, "Simon Bishop"
> <simon.bishop at dimts.in>, <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>,
> <hghazali at gmail.com>
> Message-ID:
> <
> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66FC at 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 at 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 at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja<sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bsonal.ahuja>
> =capita.co.uk at list.jca.apc.or
> g] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn
> Sent: 09 October 2009 17:59
> To: Simon Bishop; sustran-discuss at 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 at indigo.ie tel :
> +353.87.2530286
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Bishop" <simon.bishop at dimts.in>
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> 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 <hghazali at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [sustran] Lahore Transport Company Revisited
> > To: cai-asia at lists.worldbank.org, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> > Message-ID:
> > <c4ee40d0910080014m3f4517b7odcccd8d2f8cb655a at mail.gmail.com>
> > 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)" <Sonal.Ahuja at capita.co.uk>
> Subject: [sustran] TRANSTEC 2010 Delhi Conference and Call for Papers
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> A1EF01DFD0E79C448BDDE9B6899841AC014C66B4 at 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 at 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 at 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
> **********************************************
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list