<br><br><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><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 class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; 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-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; 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-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 19, 2009 7:46 PM</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; 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<br>> 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>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------<br>
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit<br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss</a><br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------<br>
If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to <a href="http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss" target="_blank">http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss</a> to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.<br>
<br>
================================================================<br>
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). <br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>“..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment <br>to destroy the city“<br><br>Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel <br>Munich 1970<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>Sujit Patwardhan<br><a href="mailto:patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com">patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com</a><br><a href="mailto:sujitjp@gmail.com">sujitjp@gmail.com</a><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India<br>Tel: +91 20 25537955<br>Cell: +91 98220 26627<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Parisar: <a href="http://www.parisar.org">www.parisar.org</a><br>
PTTF: <a href="http://www.pttf.net">www.pttf.net</a><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>