[sustran] Re: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit

[Wendell Cox]

Dear Kisan..

Thank you for your well considered note and the informative details.

Part of the problem, from a western perspective, is that many of our
planners and politicians do not understand the fundamental differences
between Mumbai, Hong Kong or even Tokyo and Portland or Phoenix. Radically
different places. While I have not yet visited Mumbai, I suspect that it
could not survive without its railways and that alternative modes simply
could not do the job, physically or for the money. Those kinds of reasons
caused me to editorialize in the second largest Chinese daily newspaper in
Hong Kong for the government's aggressive plans for expanding the rail
system. I am not anti-rail. I am for what makes sense and opposed to waste.
In some cases rail makes sense, and in others it does not. It is safe to say
that where it does not exist in the former colonies it largely makes no
sense (that is, it is not the optimal solution) and was a mistake to build
in the first place. This exempts special places like Toronto, New York, and
Chicago (and perhaps more, but surely not St. Louis, Portland or God forbid,
San Jose).

Mumbai is of similar or even greater density than Hong Kong. It may be the
world's most dense urban area. Its center can be reached over land from only
one direction. This means that the corridors leading to the island city may
face volume challenges that dwarf that of Manhattan. The city's population
density is nearing 50k per square mile, even with a big national park in the
middle. Urbanized area density may approach 80k from what I can discern.
Compare this to Portland at 3000 or our champion, Los Angeles at 5800 or the
Canadian champion, Montreal at under 9000. These are entirely different
organisms, so you should just ignore us when we argue about what to do in
the affluent former colonies. It is just a different world.

As I indicated in my last post, the challenge in the dense developing world
cities is to make transit so attractive that people will not want cars as
their income goes up. Maybe Bogota is on to something in this regard.
Because if such a system is not provided --- a system that provides better
mobility (or at least competitive) than can be provided by car for virtually
every trip too far to walk, then people are going to buy cars as soon as
they can afford them. My concern is that all sorts of western "used car
salesmen" are riding circuit through the developing world selling systems
that will make their companies a lot of money and ensure that people forsake
walking and transit for the car as soon as they have the chance. It is time
we recognized that the resources available for transport are limited, and
that if we are serious we will do the most cost effective things, or pay the
price, as it were.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: kisan mehta <kisansbc at vsnl.com>
To: sustran-discuss <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Cc: Harshad Kamdar <hjk at rincon.net>; vinita salvi
<salvi_vinita at hotmail.com>; Surekha <surekha52 at yahoo.com>;
<marjaben43 at hotmail.com>; saksena <saksena6 at bom8.vsnl.net.in>; ISM
<ism at vsnl.com>
Sent: Friday, 26 October, 2001 20:26
Subject: [sustran] [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail
transit


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kisan mehta <kisansbc at vsnl.com>
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Cc:  hjk at rincon.net ;  salvi_vinita at hotmail.com  surekha52 at yahoo.com ;
> marjaben43 at hotmail.com ;
> saksena6 at bom8.vsnl.net.in ;  surekha52 at yahoo.com
> ISM
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7.00 AM
> Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
>
>
> > Dear Sustran friends,
> >
> > The Ridership debate is going on with so many actors
> playing so many different roles creating heat.  In
> countries having cold climate and getting colder due
> to incoming winter, heat made available free is welcome however in
tropical
> countries this additional heat causes  further discomfort.  The debate is
> certainly informative
> and instructive.  I do not want to add the last word
> because a person like me giving the first or second
> word cannot stop further discussion by declaring it
> as last word.
> >
> > I cannot relate my submissions to what is happening
> or has happened in the West or in affluent countries.
> I can only talk, if at all, about what is happening in the
> poor countries. which the rich euphematically address
> as developing countries.
> >
> > In India, railways are provided by the Government of
> India (GOI) and not even by state governments. Many diverse services
> developed by private companies and authorities were taken over and merged
by
> the GOI on
> the dawn of independence in 1947. The Indian Railways
> (IR) then split them up in zones.  Development or
> extension of services, frequency of trains etc is decided
> by the apex IR to be managed by zonal railways.  Finance, passenger and
> cargo fares are fixed through
> the GOI annual budget (though sometimes sporadic
> changes do come up).  So you can imagine that this
> is decided on political considerations. The area from
> where the ruling Railway Minister comes shall in all
> probability get more new services.
> >
> > IR are the largest employer in this country and in
> the world. The network is also the largest in the world
> though not adequate. All zones are required to end up in surplus. There is
> no subsidy. The GOI charges interest
> on capital invested in the railways.
> >
> > Suburban railways in four metro cities- Delhi, Kolkata,
> > Mumbai, Chennai- are however an exception. They
> are a part of the zone in which they operate. Except
> services in Mumbai all three end up in financial loss
> year by year, to be made good by the respective zone.   Mumbai suburban
> service provides 5 million journeys
> daily, accounting for slightly more than 35% of total
> journeys undertaken throughout the country. Trains
> run at suffocation level (like sardines in a tin) so
> some contend that though they charge a paltry fare
> (starting at much less than 10 US cents) they are not
> in loss due to overcrowding.  There is no subsidy in fares though the GOI
> bears total capital cost realising capital and recurring costs from users.
> >
> > For poor countries having much less than adequate
> > facilities, discussion on ridership appears to be
> > irrelevant or at the most academic.  New facility
> > comes up much later with demand high pant up at
> explosion level. We do not have underground or
> other than traditional land railways except in
> Kolkata where it makes heavy losses. Probably
> demand forecasts were not properly done or tram
> traffic has not been weaned over.  Kolkata again
> is the only metro where the ramshackle tram is
> the backbone for fast movement to city centre.
> >
> > We feel that railways running on their exclusive
> track have specific role of moving masses fast.
> They provide fastest direct and certainly the
> cheapest connection between two points and carry
> much larger number of commuters when compared
> to any other mode of traffic including public bus
> service.   In the interior India too, long distance
> passengers use railways though buses are more
> > frequent and direct.   Buses have become
> feeders to railways in many centres for providing
> closer link to the destination. Issue of financial loss
> does not arise or the subsidies.
> >
> > Railways have a definite and distinct role of
> spreading population and decongesting urban centres.
> Two private railway lines of Bombay set up two
> suburban railway lines in the Thirties and that has
> moulded the face and geography of Mumbai.  Mumbai
> has spread along these two corridors.  Two zones
> Central and Western headquartered in Mumbai
> (which took over 2 private railway operators) bring
> 55% of Mumbai workers from commuting areas spread
> upto 100-150 km in the congested Island City. No
> worker brings motor car (fortunately he does not own
> one) or commutes by a bus for commuting long
> distance to work.
> >
> > We do not think railways or buses are meant to
> > reduce traffic.  Both, in fact, increase traffic in
> the same way like facilities one provides to personal
> car traffic. While trains reduce traffic jams  cars
> aggravate.  We do not feel that trains are designed
> or result in reduction of traffic, as some discussants
> in our present debate, tried to show.  Job of trains
> is certainly different, nobody plans or builds a train
> facility to reduce traffic.
> >
> > Ridership counted in numbers is not a criterion
> either. All services existing or coming up are fully rather
> overfully used.  Very rarely the actual ridership data
> disappoints planned ridership.  Some in Mumbai have
> just started talking about installing light railway in
> Mumbai for a short distance. Number of journeys
> being planned is so small, compared to the demand,
> that others wonder as to why should light railway be
> considered at all.  It can neither ease the road traffic
> jams nor reduce pedestrian inconvenience. If it works
> within the present fare structure, it will be financially
> unviable for the money invested in creating the facility.
> Yet ridership issue will not come in.  As long as it
> runs charging affordable fares comparable to
> existing railway fare structure it will have users
> but it will be a financial loss.  We know of many
> workers walking 5 to 7 km along the railway track
> as they cannot afford even fare of much less
> than 10 cents.  Any takers?  Wendell, Eric, Alan
> and all those who vehemently participated in the
> ridership issue as well as intruders like me
> talking of railways as an affordable mode of
> traffic? Best wishes.
>
> Kisan Mehta  kisansbc at vsnl.com
> > .
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alan Patrick Howes <APHOWES at dm.gov.ae>
> > To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 9:18 AM
> > Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
> >
> >
> > > Many thanks for all the useful contributions on this subject.
> > >
> > > As far as transit investments and congestion reduction are concerned,
> > sticks
> > > and carrots are the answer. Provision of a good transit system
(whether
> > rail
> > > or bus) should make it feasible to introduce measures to restrain car
> > use -
> > > parking charges, tolling, gas taxes or whatever. At least, feasible in
> > terms
> > > of equity - whether politically feasible is another matter, and
depends
> > very
> > > much on where you are ...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor, DM Public Transport
Department
> > > aphowes at dm.gov.ae
> > > Tel:      04 286 1616 ext 214
> > > Mobile: 050 5989661
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Todd Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:13 PM
> > > To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> > > Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Ridership predictions, urban rail
transit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Mr. Cox indicates the basis of much disagreement about the
value
> > of
> > > rail and busways, and other transportation investments, in his second
> > > paragraph below which reflects the common assumption that
transportation
> > > investments in general and rail transit investments in particular
should
> > be
> > > evaluated based only on their congestion reduction impacts.
> > >
> > > Rail transit investments probably won't reduce congestion as it is
> > > conventionally measured, i.e., roadway level of service or average
> vehicle
> > > traffic speeds because urban congestion tends to maintain a
> self-limiting
> > > equilibrium.
> > >
> > > However, there is good reason to believe that rail transit can be a
> > > catalyst for more accessible land use and improved transportation
> choice.
> > > Although this will not significantly reduce traffic congestion, it can
> > > reduce overall transportatiion costs and allow consumers a better
range
> of
> > > transportation and land use options to choose from.
> > >
> > > This is not to say that I think that rail transit is always better
than
> > > busways. However, it means that critics of rail transit should
> acknowledge
> > > that there may be other significant evaluation criteria besides
> ridership,
> > > costs-per-trip and direct congestion impacts. For discussion of these
> > > issues see the following chapters in our Encyclopedia:
> > >
> > > "Social Benefits of Public Transit" -
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm62.htm
> > > "Accessibility" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm84.htm
> > > "Transit Oriented Development - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm
> > > "Measuring Transportation" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm55.htm
> > > "Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation"
> > http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm76.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Best wishes.
> > >
> > > -Todd Litman
> > >
> > >
> > > At 09:21 AM 10/23/01 -0500, Wendell Cox wrote:
> > > >Depends upon what you call official projections. In the case of
Dallas,
> > the
> > > >projections made at the time the program was sold to the public for
the
> > > >ballot referendum are way above anything that will ever be achieved
> even
> > > >when they finish the system.
> > > >
> > > >STL has done better, but as for reduction of traffic congestion
during
> > peak
> > > >hours, or even slowing its growth, the score is, frankly, zero.
> > > >
> > > >One of the important debate issues is what projections are used to
> > justify
> > > a
> > > >project. In Los Angeles, we approved the Blue Line light rail line
when
> > the
> > > >anticipated cost was less than $150 million. Even then, the votes
were
>
> > > >barely there at the time on the LACTC (commission). A series of cost
> > > >increases eventually got the project to over $900m, with a more than
> > > >doubling in real $ (dont remember the exact figure) by the time it
was
> > > >opened. Fact is that the votes would not have been there for a $900
> > million
> > > >project in 1981, even in 1981$. For me, the crucial ridership and
cost
> > > >projections are those made at the point that the decision to proceed
is
> > > >made. Rarely will a government agency cancel a project once approved.
> > Best
> > > >example of that is the world record holding Big Dig in Boston.
> > > >
> > > >DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
> > > >http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
> > > >http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
> > > >Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
> > > >PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: <BruunB at aol.com>
> > > >To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, 23 October, 2001 10:16
> > > >Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> The Hudson-Bergen line is on the west side of the Hudson in New
> Jersey,
> > > >right
> > > >> across from Manhattan. By the way, ridership has changed
> substantially
> > > >since
> > > >> the
> > > >> attack on the WTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> I want to point out two other things:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) There are some new rail systems that are well above official
> > > >projections,
> > > >> for example, Dallas and Saint Louis.
> > > >> 2) The concern that a line is not immediately near capacity is
> > misplaced.
> > > >Do
> > > >> we want our airports or motorways to be near capacity right after
> > > opening?
> > > >> No, we want reserve capacity, especially if we hope to attract
> develop
> > > >along
> > > >> the line.
> > > >>
> > > >> Eric
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Todd Litman, Director
> > > Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> > > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> > > 1250 Rudlin Street
> > > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> > > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> > > E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> > > Website: http://www.vtpi.org
> > >
> >