<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Dear Sujit, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I completely agree with you that it depends on the objectives. This is why I stressed in my first posting the importance of talking to the customers. We need to understand what is important to them and their relative priorities. This applies to all of us 'experts' - city authorities, bus operators, planners, researchers, consultants, and advocacy groups.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>If the customers tell us that air-con, low-floor, modernity and self-image are the most important things, then we must focus on quality and spend more on each bus. But if they tell us that what is important is to be able to get to many different places (i.e. more routes in a well developed network) or that they want more frequent services, or they want less crowding, or they want cheap tariffs, then we probably need to focus more on volume.  Of course, we have different groups of customers using the same services, and they are likely to have different priorities each from the other. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We have to consider those who already travel with us; those who are eager to use the public transport if we make it more available to them; and those who today don't desire to use public transport and it is up to us to make it attractive to them. How do we balance these interests?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I believe that there is no single 'right answer' to this. The value of a forum like Sustrans is that we can share our views and experiences. Ideally this would give us a broader perspective when we are faced with bus investment decisions. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>With best wishes, </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Brendan.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Brendan Finn          e-mail : <A href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie">etts@indigo.ie</A>          tel : +353.87.2530286</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com href="mailto:patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com">Sujit Patwardhan</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=etts@indigo.ie href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie">Brendan Finn</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com href="mailto:adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com">Dr Adhiraj Joglekar</A> ; <A title=sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org href="mailto:sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org">sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org</A> ; <A title=litman@vtpi.org href="mailto:litman@vtpi.org">Todd Alexander Litman</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 19, 2009 9:02 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><BR>It depends on ones objectives. Even when the priority is for improvement of the basic city bus service, one must understand that introduction of better quality, semi-low floor or low floor buses, AC buses and even BRT are perfectly valid efforts that deserve to be supported by Citizens/NGOs involved in sustainable transportation advocacy. It's not enough to say that one can buy three ordinary buses for the cost of one high quality AC bus. <BR><BR>This is because the poor image of bus based public transport needs an urgent make-over if it is to win the support and ridership from the elite class of citizens, who today are strongly pushing for more and more infrastructure for the automobile dominated transportation model - such as flyovers, elevated roads, and free/cheap parking facilities - all of which work against NMT and Public Transport. <BR><BR>--<BR>Sujit<BR><BR> <DIV class=gmail_quote>On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Brendan Finn <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie">etts@indigo.ie</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=gmail_quote> <DIV bgcolor="#ffffff"> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Dear Todd, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I think we are facing one of the big differences between bus operations in the Western economies and in so-called 'Global South', which is the area primarily under discussion in the Sustran forum. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In both cases the bus industry is labour-intensive - even more so in 'Global South' - but labour rates in Western economies are many multiples of their counterparts in other parts of the world. In many countries labour and fuel do indeed account for almost 100% of the costs. However, this is often because the companies are operating fully depreciated vehicles - which would be considered life-expired elsewhere - and the operators are avoiding proper maintenance costs.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In my experience (and I very much welcome other views) four issues are faced in Global South that are not so important in the developed/high-wage economies:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>1) The cost of new and higher quality vehicles, along with more expensive maintenance requirements and spare parts, represents a much higher proportion of the total costs. From the payback viewpoint, a single fare might cost $1.00 in USA and $0.10 or less in Africa or parts of Asia. It takes the revenue of 10 passengers in many African/Asian cities to match the revenue from 1 North American or European passenger, but the bus and the spare parts cost the same amount in both countries. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>2) Capital for investment is usually not available under the same payment terms. In 'Global South', bus operators are often required to make the repayments over a short period (e.g. 3-5 years) at higher interest rates, with a significant deposit, and sometimes with unreasonable collateral requirements. This means that a lot more of the daily earnings go to bus repayment in the early years, even if you do fully own the bus after 5 years. However, you might have gone bankrupt in the meantime. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>3) Availability of finance is tougher, and quite often it is not possible to raise enough finance to meet what you would like to do. This forces many cities/operators to choose between (a) a smaller number of high-quality buses insufficient to meet the need - leading to unmet demand or keeping the bad-quality vehicles in circulation for a few more years; or (b) going for a higher number of lower-cost buses that meets the need and brings in more revenue immediately. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>4) There is less security of tenure, of necessary tariff increases, of subsidies, of reimbursement for free/reduced rate passengers, of protection from encroachment and illegal operation. In some cases there may be disruption of social order and stability. The more you spend and the longer your payback period, the more vulnerable you become. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The above are, of course, generalisations. Data on any of these aspects from our Sustran colleagues would be most welcome. This would be a good opportunity for some of our 'silent' members to share their knowledge with us. </FONT></DIV> <DIV class=im> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>With best wishes, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Brendan.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Brendan Finn          e-mail : <A href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie" target=_blank>etts@indigo.ie</A>          tel : +353.87.2530286</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=h5> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228); font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial"><B>From:</B> <A title=litman@vtpi.org href="mailto:litman@vtpi.org" target=_blank>Todd Alexander Litman</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B> <A title=adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com href="mailto:adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com" target=_blank>Dr Adhiraj Joglekar</A> ; <A title=sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org href="mailto:sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" target=_blank>sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 19, 2009 7:46 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Subject:</B> [sustran] Re: How much money should we spend on nicer buses?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3><BR>I think it is very important to start improving public transit service quality, including nicer buses, reduced crowding, faster and more reliable service, nicer waiting areas, and amenities such as on-board wireless services. Unfortunately, many transit service performance indicators (such as cost per vehicle-kilometer or passenger-trip) encourage cost minimization rather than service maximization. If we fail to improve service quality we are encouraging economically successful travelers to purchase a car and abandon public transit because the system is only intended to serve the lower end of the market.<BR><BR>The largest costs of public transit service are labor and fuel. Vehicle capital costs represent 5-10% of total service costs. If spending a little more on the vehicle improves service reliability or attracts more riders (particularly discretionary travelers who would otherwise drive) it is a worthwhile investment. <BR><BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR>-Todd Litman<BR><BR><BR>At 08:01 AM 19/06/2009, Brendan Finn wrote:<BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><FONT size=2>Good points raised by Adhiraj. What it comes down to is which value-set drives the decision-taking process. Do we spend a lot of money needlessly for the brand name and the fancy stuff? Or do we spend money wisely where we balance quality and long-life against the possibility to buy and deploy a larger number of less-expensive models? <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>Before comparing the merits, I think we have to acknowledge that the expectations of users has risen a lot compared to when we were growing up. People do want air-con in hot climates and they want buses that don't break down. Cities demand buses with clean(er) engines and fuels, although often the pressure for this comes from donors. Even at the lower end, buses and engines have become more sophisticated, and all the extra bits make them more expensive. That said, there has been a huge advance over the past decade in the quality of the buses coming from China and India, so you really do have high-cost and low-cost options for most situations. <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>In my opinion, there are three main factors to consider: <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>1) What do the people want? What do they demand as a minimum acceptable standard, what are their aspirations, and is there such a big gap in price to go from acceptable minimum to something that makes them feel good? There is only one way to find out and that is to consult with the current and target future users. It sounds so obvious, but how many city authorities and bus operators actually consult their customers? How many truly try to understand what features they like and hate about the buses they have today, what would they like to keep, what are they crying out to change? Where do we waste money on features that do not interest the customer and where do we waste good opportunities that make people happy and cost little? <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>2) What is the life-time cost of the vehicle, including maintenance, spare parts, fuel consumption, offset by its residual/resale value after 10-12 years? How important and what is the economic value of reliability in the later years of the vehicle life, so that a vehicle gives the same performance in its 10th year as in its first? Traditionally, this is where Volvo, MAN, Mercedes and some other makes gave an overall lifetime benefit. How much ground have the Chinese, India, Korean and other brands caught up in the cost-quality curve?<BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>3) What can we afford compared to the urgency of the task to be undertaken? If a city desperately needs 1,000 buses additional/replacement buses, is it better to solve the supply-side issue now with low-cost/lower-performance vehicles, in full knowledge that many of these vehicles may only have a 5-7 year economic life and have to be replaced relatively soon? But we can offset the shorter life by the opportunity to develop the business and revenue streams now that will provide the affordability of better quality buses later. <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>I don't think there is a universal right answer for this, despite the many inflexible "orthodoxies" we hear. As always, each city needs to assess its own situation. In some cases the more expensive bus might turn out to be the best solution, in others we might find we can do a lot more with scarce investment money.<BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>For me, this discussion highlights the importance of following up on previous bus investment projects. We need to evaluate the actual outcomes compared to the original objectives and justifications. We need to learn where they vary from our original expectations (for good or bad), and share that knowledge among practitioners and decision-takers. <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>With best wishes, <BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>Brendan.<BR>_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Brendan Finn          e-mail : <A href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie" target=_blank>etts@indigo.ie</A>           tel : +353.87.2530286<BR></FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT><FONT size=3><BR></FONT><FONT size=2>From: "Dr Adhiraj Joglekar" <<A href="mailto:adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com" target=_blank> adhiraj.joglekar@googlemail.com</A>><BR>To: <<A href="mailto:sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" target=_blank> sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org</A>><BR>Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:12 PM<BR>Subject: [sustran] Re: Beijing to build "public transport city"<BR></FONT><FONT size=3><BR></FONT><FONT size=2>>I find the comments from Carlos very interesting. Yes, more investment needs to happen in public transport but sometimes one has to wonder if the monies are being put in the right place. For example, the general push in India is to invest in better buses - but how does one define a 'decent bus'? I grew up using buses in Mumbai, these cost a fifth or so of Volvo buses that seem to be the craze for now. I never felt the buses in Mumbai were any inferior in cleanliness or the comfort - they used to sport cushioned seats with green leather like upholstery. Having travelled on London buses for past 8 years and being a medic I can say the Mumbai buses had seats that did more justice to one's spine than the reclined back rests that are increasingly common.<BR>> <BR>> Coming to the point - the whole idea of spending on a Volvo is justified by authorities on the basis of a policy called differential pricing - i.e. posh buses will pull posh people out of their cars and<BR>> that they will be happy to spend more on the tickets.<BR>> <BR>> On paper, this may seem logical, but I have yet to see evidence of people leaving their cars simply because the bus is a Volvo and now has an aircon in it. If anything the regular loyal bus user shifts to<BR>> these buses and pays more or indeed the train users in Mumbai who are fed of super-ultra-crush loads switch to buses.<BR>> <BR>> I find public transport a great equaliser of sorts, its great to see someone in a decent suit sitting next to someone who may be struggling to get food to the table each day. But ethical and moral reasons<BR>> apart, one needs to know for sure if people switch to PT only because it got 'nicer'.<BR>> <BR>> I would be interested in knowing if there is research in this regard elsewhere which rules out people switching to PT due to confounders such as simultaneous improvement in route and frequency<BR>> rationalisation or TDM measures like congestion charging.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> <BR>> Adhiraj<BR>> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>