[sustran] Re: more on Subway in Jakarta

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

Here is a short section from a recent paper of mine ("Transport and Urban
Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues", by Paul A.
Barter, Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.20, No.1, Spring 1999).  It is
relevant to this debate over mass transit systems in large low-income and
middle-income cities. 

Paul.
---------------------------------------

Low cost strategies in transport and urban development

A pro-poor approach to urban transport must inevitably be a low-cost
approach. Such a strategy is also compatible with economic efficiency, an
emphasis on ecological sustainability and with the creation of highly
livable and attractive cities. 

The successful low-cost strategy of Curitiba in Brazil with its "surface
metro" using busways is now well-known (Cervero, 1995; Rabinovitch and
Leitmann, 1993). A low-cost, pro-poor approach is also not necessarily a
second class transport approach. It is not widely realised that a number of
cities that are now quite wealthy but which have successfully retained a
high role for public transport (and in some cases also bicycles) actually
adopted a low-cost strategy during the early stages of motorisation. Figure
1 illustrates some of the possible development trends in a schematic way.
Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen are all cities in
which the ownership of private cars was restrained severely for decades
beginning when motorisation rates were low. Investment in public transport
and road infrastructure were also kept at modest levels until incomes per
capita had risen to high levels (Barter, 1999). Even Zurich in wealthy
Switzerland has had great success with a relatively low-cost approach to
both its public transport and road systems (Taplin, 1992). 

Few low-income cities can afford mass transit systems such as those now
seen in Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong (Allport, 1994). But in fact,
Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong began their restraint measures in the 1960s
or early 1970s, long before they were able to afford to build mass transit
systems. Indeed, it is likely that traffic restraint helped them to keep
traffic congestion at bay and to buy time so that they could continue to
function successfully with bus-based transport systems and then to
eventually provide high quality public transport (Barter, 1999). Although
it is not easy to formulate politically acceptable restraint policies that
are equitable and that do not unduly damage rural interests and commerce
(Foo Tuan Seik, 1995; Spencer and Madhaven, 1989; Tanaboriboon, 1992), but
finding such measures needs to be a high priority for low-income and
middle-income countries everywhere. Korea's example of very strong
restraint of private vehicles throughout the post-war period right up until
the mid-1980s may be a particularly useful example to other countries that
currently have low-incomes and low motorisation (Barter, 1999; Gakenheimer,
1995). The examples presented here show that restraint of private vehicles
offers a way for such cities to buy the time needed for a gradual
improvement to public transport. Restraint of private vehicles also reduces
the urgency to expand the road system.
 
It seems likely that restraining private vehicle ownership and use,
especially in low-income and middle-income cities, will be an important
part of a pro-poor transport policy (Linn, 1983; Thomson, 1977). However,
mistaken equity arguments are often heard in the debates over such measures
and it is vital that these debates be better informed. There is therefore
an urgent need for a thorough examination of the equity impacts and the
impacts on the poor of various options for transport demand management
(TDM) and fuel pricing policies in low-income cities. How the relevant
revenues are used is a KEY factor in the equity outcomes. If revenues are
used in a progressive manner, lower income and mobility disadvantaged
people may benefit overall. If they are dedicated to more road
construction, or are rebated to drivers as a group, then they may be
regressive (Litman, 1996). 
-----------------------

References:
Allport, R. (1994). Lessons Learnt from Worldwide Experiences of Rail
Transit Systems - Implications for Future Policy. In Mass Transit Asia '94
Conference,  Hyatt Regency Singapore, 31 May - 1 June.

Barter, P. A. (1999) An International Comparative Perspective on Urban
Transport and Urban Form in Pacific Asia: Responses to the Challenge of
Motorisation in Dense Cities. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Western
Australia.

Cervero, R. (1995). Creating a Linear City with a Surface Metro: The Story
of Curitiba, Brazil (Working Paper 643). National Transit Access Center
(NTrac), University of California at Berkeley.

Foo Tuan Seik (1995). Economic Instruments and Regulatory Measures for the
Demand Management of Urban Transport (Unpublished report for UNCHS in
preparation for the Habitat II conference). United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements.

Gakenheimer, R. (1995). Motorization in the Developing World: A draft Set
of Research Concepts. Unpublished report for the World Bank.

Linn, J., F. (1983). Cities in Developing Countries: Policies for their
Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford: World Bank Research Publication,
Oxford University Press.  

Litman, T. (1996). Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, Canada.

Rabinovitch, J. and  Leitmann, J. (1993). Environmental Innovation and
Management in Curitiba, Brazil (UMP Working Paper 1). Washington, D.C.:
Urban Management Programme.

Spencer, A. and  Madhaven, S. (1989). The Car in Southeast Asia.
Transportation Research, 32A(6), 425-37.

Tanaboriboon, Y. (1992). An Overview and Future Direction of Transport
Demand Management in Asian Metropolises. Regional Development Dialogue,
13(3), 46-70.

Taplin, M. (1992). Model system: the Zurich way. Light Rail Review, 3, 5-11.

Thomson, J. M. (1977). Great Cities and Their Traffic. London: Victor
Gollancz Ltd.  
-----------------------


PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER

A. Rahman Paul BARTER
Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN)
P.O. Box 11501,  Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590
E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
SUSTRAN:  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/

The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises 
people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport 
with a focus on Asia and the Pacific.