Chennai monorail controversy

[Jonathan Richmond]

Developing countries like India can less afford the luxury
of squandering scarce resources on projects which will benefit the few.

It is very easy for you to say that "we deserve the same as others," but
you need to look at who the "we" is. Low income residents generally
benefit most from a well-managed bus system. Often the issue isn't even a
need for BRT, but a requirement for a sanely-managed regular bus service
that is operated according to industry good practices, is reliable, safe
and clean. Once that has been achieved, BRT can be added to that.

Those who call for costly metro rail are often the ones being elitist
unless they want to pay for it out of their own pocket, which is
never the case.

Resources are scarce. In India, they are less abundant than in the
developed world. Spend them wisely to benefit as many people as possible.

 --Jonathan






On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jain Alok wrote:

> " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
> corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
> effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under $500
> a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several
> times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
> books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
> this economic context.  "
>
> I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the
> least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
> build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
> operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
> planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro
> depending on the corridor.
>
> Alok Jain
>
>
>
>
>
> "KCRC - Better connections; better services"
>
> This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet.
>
> No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated.
>

-----
Jonathan Richmond
Visiting Scholar
Department of Urban Planning and Design
Graduate School of Design
Harvard University
312 George Gund Hall
48 Quincy St.
Cambridge MA 02138-3000

Mailing address:
182 Palfrey St.
Watertown MA 02472-1835

[phone]

e-mail: richmond@...
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Jain Alok]

Dear Lee,

I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. A
metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same should
apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being
rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money in
United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. Along
the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it (we
also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no subsidy).

The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or white.

Alok
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
To: sustran-discuss@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
cost effective way of moving the people, fine.

 Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
lured -- the Lima metro
stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
friends
have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the poor.

My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro and
rail lines,
wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
service.

They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of the
Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!

Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money.

It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
course. Maybe that's the problem.

You choose!

>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
$500
a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
several
times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
this economic context.  "
 
I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
the
least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
Metro
depending on the corridor.
 
Alok Jain



"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Lee Schipper]

Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great.

We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never
should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY
with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the
stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley,
Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension
towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no,
repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would
be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a
parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the
early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground.

The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver
high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We
did. We burned money. too bad.

Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region
for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so
to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev!
Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped
center of the road.  What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend
ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money!

Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some
money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East,
as they say


>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>>
Dear Lee,

I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently.
A
metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same
should
apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being
rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money
in
United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros.
Along
the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it
(we
also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no
subsidy).

The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or
white.

Alok
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
To: sustran-discuss@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
cost effective way of moving the people, fine.

 Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
lured -- the Lima metro
stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
friends
have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the
poor.

My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro
and
rail lines,
wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
service.

They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of
the
Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!

Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money.

It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
course. Maybe that's the problem.

You choose!

>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
$500
a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
several
times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
this economic context.  "
 
I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
the
least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
Metro
depending on the corridor.
 
Alok Jain



"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or
proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity
to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or
contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a
result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal
disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
unless specifically so stated.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Eric Bruun]

Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the operator
of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property over the stations.
In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should it occur). Also, in many regions
politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the real estate -- they
want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all be like Hong Kong does this
mean we should never build Metros?

I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once built, transport
infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take sustainable development
seriously, or not?

As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with focusing on construction
costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential. What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs to be asked.

Eric


-----Original Message-----

>From: Lee Schipper <schipper@...>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM
>To: ajain@..., sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran]  Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great.
>
>We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never
>should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY
>with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the
>stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley,
>Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension
>towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no,
>repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would
>be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a
>parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the
>early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground.
>
>The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver
>high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We
>did. We burned money. too bad.
>
>Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region
>for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so
>to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev!
>Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped
>center of the road.  What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend
>ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money!
>
>Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some
>money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East,
>as they say
>
>
>>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>>
>Dear Lee,
>
>I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently.
>A
>metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same
>should
>apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being
>rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money
>in
>United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros.
>Along
>the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
>burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
>metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it
>(we
>also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no
>subsidy).
>
>The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or
>white.
>
>Alok
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
>To: sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
>building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
>cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
>countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
>cost effective way of moving the people, fine.
>
> Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
>lured -- the Lima metro
>stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
>middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
>friends
>have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
>money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the
>poor.
>
>My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
>Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro
>and
>rail lines,
>wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
>And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
>service.
>
>They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
>Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of
>the
>Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!
>
>Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
>or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money.
>
>It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
>course. Maybe that's the problem.
>
>You choose!
>
>>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
>" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
>corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
>effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
>$500
>a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
>several
>times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
>books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
>this economic context.  "
>
>I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
>the
>least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
>build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
>operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
>planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
>Metro
>depending on the corridor.
>
>Alok Jain
>
>
>
>"KCRC - Better connections; better services"
>
>This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or
>proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity
>to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended
>recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or
>omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
>unlawful.
>
>Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
>as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or
>contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
>errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a
>result of transmission over the Internet.
>
>No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal
>disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
>unless specifically so stated.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Lee Schipper]

But the other side of the DC and San Francisco question is whether the
far extensions of metro that DO make sense simply invited people of
means to move out there...as
the population declined by almost 30% between 1975 and 1995 in
WAshington. And the BART metro was explicitly built as an intercity rail
system, NOt an in-town metro.

Joining these two makes sense if one has a real city system, which we
have in WAshington DC -- unfortunately I don't know Metro's market share
of all travel in the corridors it serves. but as more and more movement
because tangential, radil rail systems serving suburbus make less and
less sense...

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/9/2006 3:47:23 PM >>>

Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the
operator
of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property
over the stations.
In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should
it occur). Also, in many regions
politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the
real estate -- they
want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all
be like Hong Kong does this
mean we should never build Metros?

I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once
built, transport
infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take
sustainable development
seriously, or not?

As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with
focusing on construction
costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than
others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically
function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential.
What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs
to be asked.

Eric


-----Original Message-----

>From: Lee Schipper <schipper@...>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM
>To: ajain@..., sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran]  Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great.
>
>We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never
>should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY
>with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the
>stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley,
>Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension
>towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that

no,
>repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density
would
>be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a
>parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in
the
>early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground.
>
>The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have
ver
>high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well).
We
>did. We burned money. too bad.
>
>Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC
region
>for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or
so
>to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a
maglev!
>Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the
undeveloped
>center of the road.  What's wrong with $200 million when you can
spend
>ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money!
>
>Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some
>money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the
East,

>as they say
>
>
>>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>>
>Dear Lee,
>
>I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently.
>A
>metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same
>should
>apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country

being

>rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money
>in
>United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros.
>Along
>the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
>burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
>metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it
>(we
>also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no
>subsidy).
>
>The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or
>white.
>
>Alok
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
>To: sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
>building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
>cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
>countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
>cost effective way of moving the people, fine.
>
> Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
>lured -- the Lima metro
>stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
>middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
>friends
>have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
>money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the
>poor.
>
>My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
>Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro
>and
>rail lines,
>wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
>And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
>service.
>
>They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
>Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of
>the
>Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!
>
>Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
>or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money.
>
>It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
>course. Maybe that's the problem.
>
>You choose!
>
>>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
>" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
>corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
>effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
>$500
>a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
>several
>times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
>books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
>this economic context.  "
>
>I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
>the
>least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
>build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
>operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
>planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
>Metro
>depending on the corridor.
>
>Alok Jain
>
>
>
>"KCRC - Better connections; better services"
>
>This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or
>proprietary information that are intended solely for the person /

entity
>to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended
>recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken
or
>omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
>unlawful.
>
>Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free
>as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or
>contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for
any

>errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a
>result of transmission over the Internet.
>
>No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal
>disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
>unless specifically so stated.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing

countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Paul Barter]

I have learned a lot from the discussion of mass transit options over the last few days. It was sparked by the news of Chennai's debate over Monorail, and has included examples from Malaysia, Thailand, the USA, Hong Kong and Singapore (have I missed any?).

Four key issues emerged in the discussion that seem particularly important to me.


ONE - CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, NOT JUST ONE PROPOSAL:  

As some have said in the last few days, the specific mass transit technology gets a lot of attention but is often beside the point. If ALL reasonable options were fairly evaluated on a level playing field, some corridors would merit ordinary bus, some BRT, some LRT, some Metro (and perhaps some rare cases might even suit monorail?). Unfortunately, unsolicited proposals from purveyors of specific options often get evaluated in isolation.


TWO - CONSIDER URBAN STRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS:

The criteria for evaluation must be framed with a keen awareness of the long-term land-use futures that are implied or assumed in each option. The implications for the future structure of the city are rarely an explicit part of the evaluation.

These urban structure alternatives need to be more often an explicit part of the debate. Singapore was mentioned yesterday as an exception. In the MRT debate in Singapore which took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, different expectations (and normative views) about the role of the city centre (number of jobs in CBD) became one of the central issues in choosing between MRT against the express buses on expressways option, which assumed and would have supported more dispersed employment.

Dinesh Mohan of IIT-Delhi once argued to me that numerous, middle-density BRT-based corridors would be more sustainable for Delhi (building on its existing structure) and would allow more affordable housing for the poor, than a small number of very dense (with expensive real estate) MRT-based corridors.


THREE - ECONOMIC VIABILITY, NOT FINANCIAL VIABILITY:

How do we judge 'success' of a mass transit system? There seem to be various perspectives here, resulting in some muddle I think. Some have implied that financial success is the key. This might be reasonable IF road transport was paying its full costs AND mass transit projects could capture their external benefits (especially in the form of property value increments). In reality these are never (rarely?) the case. In any case, fares should not be expected to cover the fixed infrastructure costs. This is because scale economies in most mass transit means that marginal cost pricing will never cover the full cost. In all conditions except an extreme crush load, the marginal cost of an extra passenger is always less than the average cost per passenger.

It is ECONOMIC viability NOT FINANCIAL viability that must be the test. Public sector investment in the fixed assets of mass transit can be justified, provided it is subjected to the best cost-benefit analysis we can manage (various problems with real-world CBA notwithstanding!). This is why it is a common model for government to build the fixed asset then contract out the operations (eg in Singapore).  

It is therefore extremely surprising that anyone ever tries to build capital-intensive forms of mass transit with private finance alone. This argument provides circumstantial evidence therefore that Karl is probably right in saying that the investors in projects like Kuala Lumpur's LRT were bearing few of the risks, and cynically expected to be bailed out. Yes, it would have been better to get the public/private mix correct from the start. But it also means that it is overly harsh to say that a mass transit system has 'failed' its city if it cannot cover its capital costs from fares.


FOUR - NEED TO BE POLITICALLY AWARE:  

Despite all the rational planning notions that I have drawn on above, in reality, politics and power play a key role in these decisions. We cannot ignore the political economy of urban transport.

We can see this in many of the examples mentioned in the last few days. Rational analysis and evaluation is one tool in the game but it is often trumped by other tools (eg rallying public opinion, lobbying politicians, sweetening a deal with bilateral aid, etc) that are often wielded in the narrow interest of one powerful group or another.

So should we drop the analytical tools and just play the politics, focusing on winning the rhetorical battles? I don't think so. But it is probably naïve to think that the public interest and sustainable development aspirations will win out with rational planning alone. We need to be politically aware even as we appeal to careful analysis (AND scrutinise any evaluations that seem to be skewed by vested interests).

We should oppose politically driven disasters but may sometimes need to pragmatically support sub-optimal (but politically viable) projects that are better than the other politically possible alternatives (such as no improvement at all, or flyovers and expressway building). Telling the difference is not so easy however.

For some of us on this list, such Metros seem to be a politically viable alternative to having no improvement to public transport at all, and provide a politically vital demonstration that public transport, not expressways, can be the attractive 'modern' centrepiece of urban transport, and need not be just for the poor. Some also argue that Metro's help bring about the land use structures that are more sustainable in the long run.

For others here, metros in low-income countries (such as the Delhi Metro) smack of a disastrous white elephant with tragic opportunity costs, stealing scarce investment funds that could do so much more if pumped into BRT. Worse, some see Metros as part of avoiding difficult choices over space allocation ('we can't do BRT if it means taking lanes from general traffic'), and might actually complement a sprawling, private-vehicle-based transport system in the long-run.

Who is right? I don't know.


Paul

Paul A. Barter
Assistant Professor, LKY School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore, 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore 119620
Tel: [phone];  Fax: [phone]
Email:  paulbarter@...
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/

I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.

Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ and consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or  http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Jain Alok]

As I am subscribing to the digest mode, I am bit slow with replying to
the chain of mail that my comments have elicited. Paul has given a very
good summary which very well says that there is not ONE solution to all
problems. Instead of slandering specific types of transport systems,
they should be looked as a whole. Cities like Singapore and Hong Kong
have shown how this can be done with political resolve (this might be
completely a different agenda for discussion, I must admit).

************
From: Jonathan E. D. Richmond [mailto:richmond@...]

> Developing countries like India can less afford the luxury
> of squandering scarce resources on projects which will benefit the
few.

I fully agree with your comment but in this context it pre-supposes that
Delhi Metro is bad. I think the jury is still out. If you look through
the entire concept of the densification of land use around stations is
one of the prime goals of Delhi metro development. They certainly have
over-projected the usage (and I have questioned some DM presenters in
various conferences) but I do not think it is difficult for them to
achieve operating break-even. A lot needs to be done and can be done in
the area of inter-modal integration, seamless transfers etc. but as we
all know it is part of the evolution.

> It is very easy for you to say that "we deserve the same as others,"
but
> you need to look at who the "we" is. Low income residents generally
> benefit most from a well-managed bus system. Often the issue isn't
even a

One can compare the prices of DM with bus for long-distance routes and
factor in the quality of travel (aircon vs non-aircon, exposure to
elements). Other way to look at is fare over average income, which in my
opinion (I do not have average income for Delhi, I would be gald to do
the comparison) does not stand much different from rich cities. At no
point do I deny the existence for buses and/or BRT but I have lived in
Delhi long enough to differentiate the efficacy of the two for all type
of journeys in Indian context.

> Resources are scarce. In India, they are less abundant than in the
> developed world. Spend them wisely to benefit as many people as
possible.

Absolutely.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]

> The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have
ver
> high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well).
We
> did. We burned money. too bad.

Without any prejudice, landuse and transport should be well-integrated.
Sometimes you build railway to induce high densities and sometime it is
after you have them. It is always easier to integrate, cheaper to
construct and effective to operate if railway are considered when
landuse is being planned. Many a recent lines in Hong Kong/Singapore
have gone down this path and have been successful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@...]

> You say that 'I could just change name of the city and "monorail" to
any
> other public transport mode and it would still turn out to be
accurate".
> Please do so. Can you back this up by providing a couple of examples
of
> bus-related projects (preferably in Asia) with problems of similar
> magnitude?

Bangkok - bus lanes implementation around 1992 (I am sure, one can say
it was not done effectively but hey, that's exactly what I have been
saying for monorail/metro projects). I can't name more immediately but I
can give a whole list of bus operations which are financially unviable
(does not mean I am against them as one should look at all direct and
indirect costs). I do not want to argue about the magnitude. To me, a
spade is always black.

> With regard to demand, finances and construction time, all the recent
Asian
> BRT/busway systems (Seoul 04, Jakarta 04, Brisbane 00, Kunming 99,
Beijing
> 06, Taipei 01) that I'm familiar with are having problems with
passengers
> exceeding rather than trailing projections and all are taking various

Karl, most of the cities you quoted above also have a metro system. And
that precisely is what I have been saying all along. There is a place
for both BRT as well as Metro as long as they have been planned
properly.

> problems to recent metros such as HK's West Rail (operated by your
company),
> Bangkok's Blue Line or Skytrain, Singapore's NEL, KL's systems, etc.

Let me provide some stats about West Rail. Its true that it failed to
meet projection at the time of opening but so did all the socio-economic
projections made in 1997 (heard of Asian crisis?!). Out of 9 stations, 6
were supposed to have big property developments (in total over 20,000
flats) and all the profit from this development belonged to Government
(not to MY company). As it turns out, none of the property development
has even begun construction. To the credit of rail, it was constructed
on time, well below its original cost. Since its opening in Dec 2003,
the patronage has almost doubled by end of 2005.

----Original Message-----
From: Eric Bruun [mailto:ericbruun@...]

> Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and
the operator

In addition to Singapore and Hong Kong, metros are doing well in Sau
Paulo, Shenzhen, many cities in Japan and possibly Taipei.

> of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property
over the stations.

Not always but even if it does I do not see anything wrong with it. At
least on a operating basis, if the railways can break-even, there can be
strong case for them. Along the same lines, try putting in cost of
right-of-way into BRT equation and then see how many are financially
viable.

> What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs
to be asked.

I am tempted to go down the philosophical line on this but refrain.
Mankind would not have come this far if at every step we asked this
question.
**************

I think a lot is becoming very repetitive and I would consider this to
my final mail on this topic. If anybody likes to continue, you are most
welcome to do so off-list.

Regards
Alok





"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

[Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory]

Thanks to Paul for summary of all of this.

Also, Iike what people have been saying about any motorised transport system enabling spawl

Some specific things seem to have not been addressed much if at all in the past days in any detail:

1 - Future energy security for BRT systems. I want to hear more about hydrogen studies, etc. One advantage of rail is proven catenary system. If onboard hydrogen is a problem, what about next generation of vehicles being BRT trolley-buses with catenary (if possible dont lengthen routes, BUT improve the existing routes to focus on density) or even ground-powered systems, like in Bordeaux lightrail scheme. I am talking about next generation of vehicles, so 15 years from now!
http://www.transport.alstom.com/pr_transp/2006/21362.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/pr_transp/2006/&idRubriqueCourante=6267

2 - New thing: Thoughts on subsurface metro for freight (what is called "metrofreight" in Joel Crawford book "Cafree Cities".) rather than the chaos of all those trucks, no matter how clean smelling they are, individually.


Thanks,
T

  ---------- Original Message ----------
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport (sustran-discuss@...)
From: Paul Barter (paulbarter@...)
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
Date: 10/2/2006 3:57:54
>
> Four key issues emerged in the discussion that seem particularly
> important to me.  
>

------------------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
International Coordinator
On the Train Towards the Future!

Green Idea Factory
Laubova 5
CZ-13000 Praha 3

++420 605 915 970

edelman@...
www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.