[sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister

Todd Alexander Litman litman at vtpi.org
Fri Apr 29 21:00:57 JST 2011


There are a number of important factors to consider when comparing public
transit and automobile costs, and therefore when comparing the
cost-efficiency of roadway versus transit investments.

* Automobiles require a vehicle, road space and parking facilities at every
destination. Rail transit and BRT systems include all of these cost
components (rights-of-way, vehicles and stations). 

* Motor vehicles only serve the portion of travelers who can afford them and
are able to drive or hire a driver.

* A large portion of automobile travel consists of chauffeured trips (a
special trip made by a driver to deliver a passenger) and so generates an
empty backhaul. Such trips generate one wasted vehicle-km per passenger-km
of travel.

* Expanding urban roadways often simply shifts the location of traffic
congestion. For example, building an urban highway or flyover tends to
increase total traffic volumes, which increases congestion on surface
streets.

* Automobile travel is very resource intensive, requiring 10-100 times as
much land area for roads and parking, and 10-1,000 times as much
non-renewable energy, as the same trips made by walking, cycling and public
transport (www.planetizen.com/node/46570 ). Most road and parking costs are
subsidized (borne through general taxes and businesses), resulting in
regressive subsidies of wealthier people at the expense of poorer people.

* A typical car is only operated one or two daily hours, compared with 14-18
for a typical bus. A typical car lasts 10-15 years, a typical bus or train
15-40 years. Buses and trains are therefore much more efficiently used
assets. 


There are also additional factors that should be considered when comparing
bus and PRT. PRT systems require passengers to travel in enclosed "pods"
with strangers, which creates insecurity problems. They often require
passengers to walk up several flights of stairs to boarding platforms, which
requires extra time and effort, and elevators at each station to accommodate
people with disabilities and luggage, which increases financial and energy
costs, costs often seem overlooked in project analysis. As a result, their
demand is probably lower and their costs probably higher than proponents
project. 

For illustrations of PRT systems, and other "advanced" transport, visit
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/whatsnew.htm . They all look great
in the drawings, but think about what it would actually be like to travel in
a little pod in hot weather after a few years when the plastic is scratched
and cracked, the interior is worn and damaged by vandals, and it smells of
previous passengers' body odor. I think there are good reasons to be
skeptical about these systems. I suspect that improving walking, cycling and
public transit, and increasing the supply of affordable housing along major
transit corridors, will be far more cost effective investments overall.

This is not to suggest that cities should invest nothing to accommodate
automobile transport, nor that BRT is the only solution to urban transport
problems, but all of these factors should be considered when evaluating and
comparing options, and determining how they should be financed. In general,
efficiency and equity require that automobile users be charged the full
costs for the roads, parking facilities and fuel they consume, while there
are good reasons for society to subsidize some public transit costs, and
where there are conflicts (such as limited road space), favor public transit
over automobile travel, since it is more efficient and equitable. 


For more information on these issues see:

Todd Litman (2006), "Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The Role
Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation," VTPI (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf . 

Todd Litman (2007), "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism," Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf . 

Todd Litman (2009), "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs," VTPI
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf . This includes sections on
comparing automobile and transit, and comparing bus and rail.

Todd Litman (2010), "Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings
>From High Quality Public Transit Service," VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at
www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf .

Todd Litman (2010), "The Selfish Automobile," Planetizen
(www.planetizen.com); at www.planetizen.com/node/46570 .   


Sincerely,
Todd 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"

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of ashok datar
Sent: April-28-11 10:52 PM
To: Sarath Guttikunda
Cc: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister

*cost of bus and car per person *

Dear All,
if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a bus
we get a disturbing picture
If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats
it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs
on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all cost
around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees .
that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat
why does it have to be so ?
Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs-
obviously they  were very basic and the costs are up but in those days
investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000
I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs to
be so high in India
can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs
and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should cost
for a bus ?
Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the fuel
cost
let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the
approach of people to buses and cars
that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers
ashok datar

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda
<sguttikunda at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Lee and Co.,
>
> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban
> Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good
> story of where the cities are headed.
>
> Important messages on this page:
>
>    - As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the
>    geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins
travel
>    time decreases
>    - As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus
>    transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good
sign,
>    meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public
>    transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand
>    - As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form
>    of walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is
the
>    sad part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is
overtaking
>    the need to promote NMT
>    - Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the
>    service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and
>    higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal
>    transport
>
> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the
> travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel,
presents
> the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the
> population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in
the
> megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack
> of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary
>
> With regards,
> Sarath
>
> --
> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India
> UrbanEmissions.Info <http://www.urbanemissions.info/> | TED Fellow |
> +1(202)683-0937 (till June)
> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda
>
 




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list