[sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 74, Issue 10
bruun at seas.upenn.edu
bruun at seas.upenn.edu
Thu Oct 15 09:57:12 JST 2009
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 <agimjo at 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 <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: Public transport subsidies (Todd Alexander Litman)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:43:25 -0700
>> From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Public transport subsidies
>> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>> Message-ID: <20091013214335.3A8982D75B at 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 (<http://www.vtpi.org/>www.vtpi.org); at
>> <http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf>www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.
>>
>> Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria
>> Transport Policy Institute (<http://www.vtpi.org/>www.vtpi.org); at
>> <http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf>www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf.
>>
>> Todd Litman (2006), Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The
>> Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI
>> (<http://www.vtpi.org/>www.vtpi.org); at
>> <http://www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf>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 (<http://www.progress.org/geonomy>www.progress.org/geonomy);
>> at <http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf>www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> -Todd Litman
>>
>>
>> At 03:25 PM 10/10/2009, bruun at 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 <carlosfpardo at 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 <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@
>> list.jca.apc.org
>> > >>>
>> >
>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sonal.ahuja<sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bsonal.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
>> > >>> **********************************************
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> 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 at 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').
>
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list