Urban Transport Issues Asia

Now blogging at "Reinventing Urban Transport"

2008-02-18T21:54:00.000+08:00

The Urban Transport Asia blog is dead, long live the Reinventing Urban Transport blog!

I have decided to start blogging on urban transport again after a long break.

But instead of writing more here, I will be blogging at Reinventing Urban Transport.

Make not owning a car the smart choice

2006-12-05T09:52:00.000+08:00

I submitted this article to the Straits Times and it appeared on 17 November 2006.

Make not owning a car the smart choice
by Paul Barter

Urban transport policy in Singapore is becoming more difficult to handle.

In the early 1970s Singapore faced traffic chaos, a failing bus system, little money for infrastructure and acute awareness of space limitations.

The answer was a hard-headed “bargain” that offered steady improvements in space-efficient public transport at the price of making ownership of space-wasting cars unattainable for most. This has been widely seen as a success

However, both sides of this bargain are under growing strain. Demands for broader access to cars have been difficult to resist. At the same time, pressure has intensified to dramatically improve public transport. These trends may be heading us towards a policy dead end and may be a concern for LTA policy makers as they conduct the recently announced ten-year review of land transport policies.

Restricting car ownership has been a key plank of Singapore transport policy since the 1970s. It works but it is a blunt instrument. Ownership restriction is an indirect way to tackle congestion and there is political fallout from the frustration of those denied car ownership. But with space at a premium, the need to keep traffic under control remains strong. Congestion remains a constant threat, even with only one third of households owning a car. At the same time, the scope for cost-effective expansion of road capacity is modest.

These issues prompted policy-makers to seek ways to allow broader access to cars while containing their usage, especially at congested times and places. 'Off-peak' cars are an example - although much cheaper to buy, they cannot be used during the busy times of the week. Car-sharing, which offers short-term car use with fees based on time and distance, is another promising option, as we will see.

For a decade now, the policy for mainstream privately-owned vehicles has been shifting from high purchase and ownership taxes, to one with a greater reliance on usage charges, especially Electronic Road Pricing, to deal with traffic problems. This policy shift also foreshadowed a slight relaxation of the vehicle quota limit, although recent low COE prices have been as much a result of soft demand as of increased supply.

Implementation of this policy to have lower fixed costs and higher usage costs has in fact been cautious. This is apparently from concern that easing ownership restrictions too quickly could cause a surge in car numbers and soaring ERP and parking prices.

Nevertheless, if the policy remains in place we can expect gradually lower price barriers to ownership - in addition to the decreases of recent years - together with rising usage costs. A logical extension of this policy, which is not yet on the agenda, would be to put all vehicle taxes, and even insurance, on a 'pay-as-you-drive' basis. This would require reliable measurement of distance driven, perhaps via an improved ERP system.

Meanwhile, more affordable access to cars has paradoxically fuelled mounting political pressures to improve public transport. Traditionally, policy makers face constant calls to keep fares affordable for the poorest sections of society. Not surprisingly, this is the case in Singapore as well. But here, it will be increasingly those in the middle of the income scale - with a wider range of transport options to compare with mass public transport - who will demand improvements.

It is likely that more households with rising incomes will tend to keep using public transport, such as the expanded MRT and LRT network and buses, for some trips but become intolerant of less-than-excellent service. A growing group can afford liberal use of taxis. Also, as usage costs go up, even car-owning households can be expected to keep the car at home and use public transport.

As a result, the number of “part-time” public transport customers will continue to grow, straddling a broader band of incomes. This is because cars are increasingly an option at lower incomes than previously, while usage costs are rising. Declining satisfaction with bus waiting times and complaints about taxis are a foretaste of things to come. More calls for better public transport service can be expected from this group of “part-time” customers.

However, current regulatory and financing arrangements for public transport make it difficult for the regulators to drastically raise standards and require the operators to meet this challenge for better service, especially if fares cannot be significantly increased.

Are these three constraints - from lower-income households to keep fares down and from the middle-income to both expand access to cars and raise public transport service standards - taking us to a dead end then? Must we retreat to a policy of just suppressing aspirations for cars? Fortunately, there are other possibilities.

What if we instead embrace these trends and even take them much further? There might be a cost-effective way to push most car costs onto usage fees, to address aspirations for greater access to cars, and to simultaneously embrace the need for excellent alternatives to privately owned cars. But how?

Strangely, offering greatly expanded access to cars could actually be an important part of the solution. Not by increasing car ownership, but on a fee-for-service basis, especially through the growing car-sharing industry. At least five car-share companies now operate in Singapore, offering their members short-term access to cars, without the high fixed costs of actually owning one. They have a highly usage-based price structure which encourages them to be used in moderation, as a complement to other modes of transport. This means there should be no need to limit the number of car-share cars via COEs or ARF. In fact, they should be much more explicitly encouraged.

We should view car-sharing, together with car-rental and taxis, as important elements of the alternative to privately owned cars. They are a natural fit to join with public transport and the humble modes of walking and bicycles in a comprehensive 'alternative mobility package'. The best examples of this concept have been pioneered since the late 1990s by Switzerland's highly successful car-sharing company, 'Mobility', through its customer-friendly cooperative arrangements with other transport businesses, especially public transport.

On their own, none of these modes can compete with the convenience of owning your own car. But the Swiss experience is showing that together they can offer a competitive package of transport services that in many ways is comparable with privately owned cars, but at much lower up-front cost. Public transport must continue to improve as well, but a mobility-package approach should share the burden and take some pressure from its shoulders.

So we could make car-ownership increasingly unnecessary by working harder to make a non-car-owning lifestyle an attractive option. This policy emphasis offers a way to address the aspirations for convenient mobility which many of us currently focus on having our own car.

The low levels of car ownership in places like Tokyo, Manhattan, Hong Kong island or central Paris demonstrate that affluent people will happily remain “car-free” if the alternatives are comprehensive enough. Singapore too can aspire to be a place where not owning a car becomes the smart choice for people in every income bracket.

Kyoto funding opportunity for BRT

2006-09-23T15:26:00.000+08:00

The prospects of funding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the 'Global South' just improved!

According to Business News Americas (found via http://www.transportnews.org)

The TransMilenio public transport system in Colombian capital Bogotá has become the first mass transit system in the world to be considered a clean development mechanism (CDM) in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) stated in a press release.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has approved CAF's methodology to consider the TransMilenio scheme as having a CDM component.

This means that it is officially accepted that the TransMilenio system reduces the emission of greenhouse gases because of its greater efficiency in transporting passengers and due to the partial substitution of private means of transport by high quality public services.

This means that it will be "be eligible for carbon emission reduction certificates (CERs), which can be traded with developed countries to help the latter reach the carbon emission reduction goals set out under the Kyoto Protocol".

This answers a call made by Wright and Fulton in a paper that I reviewed last year. They argued that projects like Bogotá's BRT system, which involve mode shifts to inherently more efficient modes of transport, such as well-used public transport systems, are far more cost effective than efforts that focus on fuel technology. Their arguments focused especially on BRT as offering widespread opportunities.

It will be interesting to see if this sets a precedent that can be followed up on by many other similar projects.

The photos with this post are of Mexico City's BRT line, known as Metrobus.

'Naked streets' and safe chaos

2006-08-03T13:58:00.000+08:00

I recommend taking a look at YouTube's GlobalSouth group which has more than 60 short videos now on transport in developing countries.

A striking number of the videos are simply footage of streets or intersections in countries like India, China or Vietnam. Most of them show traffic that at first glance looks completely and utterly CRAZY, often with a mind-boggling diversity of road users doing anything and everything you could imagine.

And the amazing thing is that it seems to work. For some good examples look here or here.

One traffic clip (this one of an Indian intersection) provoked hot discussion at sustran-discuss in April. Some saw it as horrifying, while others suggested it was actually working very well. No consensus emerged I am afraid (see here and several responses). By the way, the Indian video looks to me like it may have been deliberately sped up a little to improve the slapstick effect!

Here is one of the approving sustran-discuss comments:

As it happens, I shot a similar video last summer in Urumqi, except there's also a pedestrian crossing going through it which is freely used by the cars doing u-turns. I started to video it to show people how bad the traffic and driving was. After 10 minutes of filming I realised that it all worked rather well, and felt suitably humbled about my prejudices.

Let me assume for today that the chaotic looking situations in these videos are actually rather safe, with few serious accidents (although probably quite a few minor ones). This is a big assumption (and I don't have the evidence to make it) but it does not seem unreasonable.

The roads in these videos all seem somewhat 'naked' - along the lines of the 'shared space' approach to road and intersection design. Maybe they are inadvertently naked and not by careful design as shared space advocates might want. But these streets or intersections are working (maybe even working well!?) without all the traffic engineering paraphernalia or signs and traffic lights, etc. Or maybe the signs and lights are just being ignored.

Does this threaten to turn our quest for order and traffic discipline on its head? Maybe streets with vulnerable road users actually NEED a certain amount of chaos to work safely!? Maybe they need to have all those crazy turning movements, mixed vehicles, pedestrians meandering and bicycles sailing through in order to keep everyone awake and alert to the unpredictable? Maybe, as David Engwicht puts it, safe streets need more intrigue and uncertainty not more predictability.

Someone else wasn't so sure, however:

It is a trade-off of efficiency and safety! Similar driving behaviors
and situation in most of Chinese cities, resulting an "official record"
of 100,000 more fatalities and 520,000 more injuries annually!!

Indeed, some of the videos DO show examples of chaotic Chinese urban traffic going HORRIBLY wrong (WARNING: not for the squeamish - some of these crashes are a tad upsetting).

This made me wonder. A casual look suggests that the key difference might be speed. The accident scenes in the video from China almost all show situations in which the traffic is light and the speeds high, even though in most cases nothing much else is different about these crash intersections compared with other 'chaotic' intersections. This is more a question than a conclusion, of course, based on this little video-based 'investigation'!

But running with this idea for a minute anyway, maybe the horrendous traffic accident statistics that we read about low-income countries (high rates of accident per vehicle, not per capita) are not happening at the really 'crazy' times at all and are not a result of the obvious disregard for rules - at least not when it is at its most obvious?

Maybe these same chaotic places only become dangerous when the traffic is lighter, when there is not enough chaos, and the motor vehicles tend to pick up speed? A hypothesis that would be worth testing more carefully I think.

A bunch of other questions arise. I wonder if there are any simple design features for such places that could prevent speeds, and hence danger, from increasing at times when traffic is light?

The naked streets toolbox apparently can work such magic ... with designs that make it feel like a pedestrian or playing child or bicycle might leap out in front of you at any moment, even if there are none around. Could we find low cost ways to do this that would suit Indian or Vietnamese cities? Or maybe I don't know enough about shared spaces as done in Europe. Could it be that Dutch naked streets also get dangerous when there are too few people using them?I must find out.

On the traffic efficiency side there are other questions, which I will save for another day.

2006-07-24T14:14:00.000+08:00

Part 3 of "Moving Forward: towards better urban transport"

This is the third and final part of the video.

2006-07-24T13:57:00.000+08:00

Part 2 of "Moving forward: towards better urban transport"

SUSTRAN Video "Moving forward" now online

2006-07-24T13:45:00.000+08:00

Six years ago I helped produce an educational video on urban transport policy for the SUSTRAN Network (and some funds from the Southeast Asia Regional Canada Fund.

I have finally got around to putting it on YouTube. So here is Part 1, and Parts 2 and 3 will follow shortly.

Sorry they are a little grainy. The VCD version was never of super high quality.

"Moving forward : towards better urban transport" gives a brief introduction to some of the isssues related to modern urban transport in the 'global South', with a focus on Southeast Asia. It has footage from Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore, this documentary outlines problems associated with transport in cities. It also introduces some of the key tools to tackle these challenges, and make urban transport safer, cleaner, healthier and more people-friendly.

Credits: Produced in 2000 by the SUSTRAN Resource Centre (Malaysia) for the SUSTRAN Network, with the assistance of the Southeast Asia Regional Canada Fund. Produced and directed by Zaitun M. Kasim and Paul Barter. Video concept by Paul Barter, Tamim Raad, Zaitun M. Kasim; editing by Neil Felix, Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Singapore taxis

2006-07-19T19:41:00.000+08:00

[updated for brevity]

I was asked by the media to comment on the taxi industry in Singapore, which has been in the news here recently. These were some of my comments.

[BTW, since I first blogged this, some of the comments below have been mentioned in 'Today', 22 July 2006 in a long article which offers a pretty good overview of issues for the Singapore taxi industry.]

Background: Singapore's taxi deregulation
Singapore has 'deregulated' the taxi industry. But what does that mean?

First, there is now no cap on the number of taxis. And the numbers did indeed go up.

Second, there is no limit on the number of taxi companies (although complying with service standards means that tiny operators would have difficulty staying in the market).

Third, each taxi company can set fares to whatever the market will bear - provided they inform the government and the public in advance. Thus, deregulated fares does not mean unpredictable fares. The drivers must still use the tamper-proof meters. In practice, the differences among the companies are small and restricted mainly to the extras.

See here for the official line on the basics of Singapore's taxi deregulation policy (as of 2003) and here for a basic guide (for tourists) on Singapore's taxis.

Below is my take on a few specific issues.

A. Competition among the cab-owning companies not yet sufficient?
Most taxi drivers here rent their cab from one of the companies (at S$90 per day). The taxi companies are thus basically rental companies - with medium term rental agreements with the drivers of their fleet.

In this model, the drivers face an extremely competitive environment out on the streets. The companies are competing to keep drivers so that their taxi fleets are fully utilised.

However, this competition does not yet appear very fierce. For example, drivers complain that the cab companies have never reduced their daily rental, even though COE prices have gone down. This complaint sounds like a fair comment.

Why have the companies not been offering lower rentals? There is certainly one dominant player in the industry (Comfort-Delgro) and it is hard not to wonder if this market dominance is the problem. On the other hand, there are reports that some of the companies now do have significant numbers of idle taxis. So maybe stiffer competition to retain drivers is coming soon? Or maybe there are grounds for requiring the market dominant player to divest part of its fleet?

BTW, see here for a brief official explanation of the thinking behind deregulation.

B. Exempt taxis (and car-share cars and car-rental cars) from purchase taxes like COE and ARF?

In Singapore private motor vehicle purchases are heavily taxed, via the Vehicle Quota Scheme (which results in an extra cost, the COE) and the Additional Registration Fee (ARF). Together with Excise Duty, these more than double the price of a new car. So a small car costs around S$60,000 (about US$38,000).

Taxis (and car-share and rental cars) are currently treated almost exactly like private cars for the purpose of these taxes (except for some small differences) (see for example, the 2002 Budget for the rationale - because they are like cars basically). So the cost structures of the taxi industry and car-sharing (eg NTUC car-coop) and car rental are heavily weighed down by COE and ARF.

BUT I beg to differ. The rationale for ARF and COE is to contain the rate of growth of privately owned motor vehicles? Carsharing, taxis and car rentals (together with public transport, walking and cycling) are among the ALTERNATIVES to owning your own private vehicle.

So exempting these industries from COE and ARF would be in line with the objectives of these taxes.

Would this cause some of these low-tax vehicles to leak into the private car fleet? I don't think so. It is easy to enforce such things with relatively few actors in the industry.

Of course, lower capital costs for taxis will not help drivers or customers, unless there is real competition among the cab companies so that they pass on the savings (see point A above).

C. Peak period issue - allow 'ERP on entry' to be passed to next customer?

Singapore's taxi users have long complained about how difficult it can be to get a cab in peak periods. Peak hour surcharges are aimed at fixing that problem and probably do help.

BUT, one part of the afternoon peak problem for taxis has not been solved yet. It is an unintended side-effect of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) cordon around the city centre. Taxi passengers have to pay for ERP. However, for an empty cab ERP costs the driver. This creates an artificial shortage of taxis in the central zone in the late afternoons when few occupied cabs are entering the area and empty ones avoid the extra cost of ERP.

Here is a suggestion. How about we change the rules to allow cabs enteringt empty to automatically add the ERP charge to the next fare. I suspect that taxi meters could handle this, since they are already equipped to add on various surcharges and ERP costs. This "ERP needs paying" status could also be displayed somehow - say on the cab's rooftop display or simply with a low-tech sign (like the change of shift signs).

In evening peak, some customers will be willing to pay this extra in order to get a cab. Some will not. Which is not a problem. They will just continue to wait for a cab without ERP to pay.

The driver would need to be able to cancel the extra ERP charge in case he/she cannot quickly find a willing customer. If no luck, then just cancel it and swallow the loss.

We would need to think through how this would work at cab ranks. I don't think these issues would be impossible though. So maybe this idea is worthy considering?

Mexico City impressions

2006-07-19T18:09:00.000+08:00

Recently I was lucky enough to visit Mexico. Here are a few observations and impressions.

I am grateful to Bernardo Baranda (formerly with the Center for Sustainable Transport Mexico (Centro de Transporte Sustenable, and now Mexico country director with ITDP) for helping me learn more about the transport scene in Mexico City.

As I flew in I was struck by the grid layout and that the city was low-rise (rarely more than 2 or 3 storeys) mostly. Also impressive was the sheer scale of the place (around 20 million in the metropolitan area I was told) and the bright colours of many houses. This was my first time anywhere in Latin America so I couldn't help but make comparisons and contrasts with Asian middle-income and low-income cities that I am more familiar with.

Here are a few transport-related impressions that I jotted down along the way.

The large number of street stalls and hawkers surprised me, especially near Metro stations, possibly more even than in Bangkok or Jakarta... And more tolerance of them apparently.

The Metro has rubber tyred wheels, is very frequent, very extensive, mostly crowded, and much cleaner than books had made me expect.

Most housing and buildings tend to front onto the street even in outer areas. I didn't see any really suburban looking places. However, I did find a few US-style strip mall areas, complete with Wal-Mart (although I was pleased to notice that its car parking was not free).

The historic centre has a rather European look and feel to me, certainly much more so that I am familiar with in Southeast Asia, where local and Chinese styles are just as prominent

I was impressed by the quality of public spaces, especially the many squares (plazas), which are very well used and lively. It is hard to find such wonderful public spaces in Southeast Asia. And despite various dire warnings about crime and personal security, I never felt threatened.

Public transport is incredibly cheap. For example tickets to the Metro are per entry 2 pesos per entry (unlimited distance). Two pesos is just under 20 US cents.

Minibuses ('peseros') are ubiquitous and appear to fill a real need as feeder services to metro as well as for longer rides to some extent. They have been steadily increasing in numbers, causing some concern to some.

The metrobus busway seems successful. Actually another city, Leon, was first to build BRT in Mexico. Leon is apparently lucky to have an institute for urban policy (or something like that) that does very good planning; their busways have been done very well at relatively low cost. Bernardo reports that it is estimated that Mexico City's Insugentes busway is carrying about 250,000 per day with just 80 buses, a little more than the 220,000 or so who were carried before by hundreds of Peseros, and ordinary buses. (BTW the newly elected Mayor of Mexico City has recently announced plans for several more busway corridors). Read more about Metrobus's early success here. It is also estimated that 5% of busway users were not public transport users before, so some success in making public transport attractive to richer groups. This particular corridor is a rather upmarket one in general. By contrast, the Metro apparently has a poor image with many of the middle and higher income groups, for being crowded and difficult to access with vendors crowd all approaches.

I didn't witness much serious congestion. Maybe I was never at the right places at the right times. Nevertheless, this surprised me having heard so many stories about legendary Mexico City traffic jams.

The pedestrian environment was generally good I thought. Certainly not as bad as I had thought it would be and much better than in many Southeast Asian cities.

Efforts to help bicycle users are in their early stages, but there are already a few bicycle ways. The efforts so far are being strongly encouraged by a vocal and enthusiastic group of bicycle activists as well as the CTS ('Centro de Transporte Sustenable'). By chance I witnessed one of the bicycle activist events - a NUDE bike ride, which had more than 100 riders. The Sunday crowds in the historical centre gaped at the extraordinary sight. A very successful event in that it got huge press coverage (including TV news and front page of several papers) despite competing with the fierce election season and the football World Cup! And no, I did NOT participate myself.

I also saw quite a number of pedicabs, using mountain bikes fitted with trailers. Quite nifty really. Most of the ones I saw were in and around the historic centre, near the Zocalo. But also saw one or two working in the outer suburbs in poor neighbourhoods. As the nude bike rally (mentioned above) was passing by I happened to be standing beside a pedicab driver. With my rather poor Spanish I managed to ask him why HE had his clothes on. Luckily for me he did not take offence. Just laughed and said they are all loco! Loco!

If you want to read more about Mexico City try here and for more on its urban transport issues in Mexico City you could start here (pdf).

Q&A on tackling urban congestion

2006-07-11T19:23:00.000+08:00

I was asked to do a long radio interview in Malaysia on Friday and to prepare some talking points. I took the opportunity to try to think through how best to explain in simple terms some of the key arguments as I see them.

It was a rushed job, I have overdone it (the DJs may be horrified!) and I am probably oversimplifying outrageously.

But for what it is worth, I would like to share it here.
--------------

We have asked Paul to come in to the studio to chat about how can Malaysian cities solve their transport woes.

Paul, thanks for coming in. First, how familiar are you with the urban transport problems in the Klang Valley and other Malaysian cities?

I lived in KL for five years before moving to Singapore and my research over the last 12 years or so has included comparing Malaysian cities’ urban transport with other cities around the region.

As you know, many Malaysian cities seem to be facing nasty traffic problems and it just seems to get worse. Is there any hope?

Well the good news is that there IS hope for better urban transport. There are cities around the world that have made good progress. The bad news is that the obvious, popular solutions are not enough. Even worse, some of the obvious solutions actually make thing worse!

What obvious, popular solutions are you talking about, Paul?

The key example is just expanding the roads and building more expressways. It can seem like a good idea but it only ever gives temporary relief (and sometimes not even that). In the long run traffic actually gets worse.

Building bigger roads seems like it should work, a least a bit. What is going wrong?

Expanding roads does not address any of the underlying changes that are making traffic increase. These include the choices we all make about buying vehicles, about where to live, about where to build shops and offices.

In fact, bigger roads actually influence our choices in ways that create even MORE traffic. Some people stop riding public transport, they move to houses further away, developers build things further out, etc. All these changes make it even harder for alternatives to driving to compete, so we end up with even worse traffic problems than before.

If it is so obvious that bigger and bigger roads do not solve the problem why do we seem to keep doing it?

I don't blame people for crying out for more road space. It SEEMS like a good idea.

We are getting into trouble by looking at the problem too narrowly.

I teach at a Public Policy School and our students are people who will be solving public policy problems when they leave. They are mostly civil servants, NGO workers, and policy consultants. One of the most important lessons that we try to get them to understand is to be careful how you frame a problem.

For example, someone who starts gaining weight COULD say, 'Oh the problem is my pants are too tight'. Of course it is true but it is not a useful way to look at the problem. You would probably not ever think of eating healthily or exercising if your focus is 'tight pants'.

That was a silly example, but people really do look at traffic jams and simply say, 'well obviously the roads are too small'. Just like the tight pants, it may be true, but it is not a very helpful way to look at the issue. If we look at the problem that way, then we will miss a lot of other possible solutions. We need to be careful how we 'frame the problem'.

So saying the roads are too narrow is not a useful way to look at traffic congestion you say. But what is a better way?

A very good start is to stop focusing so much on the traffic jams themselves. Stop focusing so much on vehicles.

That sounds pretty “zen”! Like, 'Grasshopper, let us solve congestion by not thinking about congestion' What do you mean?

Focus on people and goods instead of vehicles and traffic jams. Concentrate on how can we move people and goods in the most efficient ways.

When you think like that, you tend to think a lot more about public transport, which is much more space efficient.

You might be more willing to do things like (gasp!) take away lanes of traffic and devote the space to a Bus Rapid Transit busway that can carry more people in the same space than if they were in cars. By the way, Bus Rapid Transit busways are a growing trend around the world, with some wonderful success stories. For example, Bogota in South America has achieved an amazing transformation with BRT as a key part of it. Even Jakarta is starting to get really excited about busways.

Here in KL we have been building lots of KTM komuter rail lines and LRT lines and monorail. And we have been shaking up the bus system. But the traffic seems to be as bad as ever. Improving public transport does not seem to be enough!

Let's go back to the gaining weight analogy. Imagine we bought some bigger pants but a few months later THEY are too tight as well! So we decide we really need to start eating healthier food. But you go to the hawker centre at lunch break and the healthy options are not so convenient. You really have to hunt for them, while the nasi lemak and fried kuay teow and deep fried treats seem to be everywhere. And when you are used to a salty, high fat diet, those healthy options just don't seem to taste so good. We have a real problem - will power is not enough and all the incentives seem to be in the wrong direction!

It is the same with cars and public transport. When you are used to driving everywhere, even good public transport seems inconvenient. It seems like a second best option. Just putting the healthy option on the table along with the tempting unhealthy ones, does not guarantee that people use the healthy one.

At the LKY School of Public Policy we also train our students to always think about the INCENTIVES in any policy situation. We drum it into them to ask themselves what incentives the actors in the situation are facing.

By the way, we also have a cooperation problem here (another public policy concept). Everyone would be better off if some of us switched from cars to other ways of moving. But none of us wants to be the one to change. And none of us has any strong incentives to change.

AND we still haven’t really tackled the underlying incentives that are encouraging more and more people to drive more and more. Even when the trains are full, traffic keeps getting worse.

I can smell where you are going with this! That word, incentives, is code for pricing right? Are you going to say we are just going to have to pay more for driving to stop us being tempted? That would make a lot of people very angry! Give us one good reason why we shouldn’t just kick you out of the studio right now?!

Not so fast! First, we can consider come other kinds of incentives.

And by the way, we only need to tempt at least SOME people not to use cars at least SOME of the time OR to use them in less congested places or at less congested times. We don't need everyone to change their ways. Even a few less cars on the road at the crucial times can make a big difference.

Some of the incentives are about convenience and not money.

Just improving public transport is not enough but we should certainly make sure that we get the best out of those big investments by making sure they link up seamlessly together and can use one ticket and easily get information about how to plan a trip. This is starting to happen in KL i believe.

Car parking is another big opportunity for incentives, both money and non-money. Deliberately making parking a little less convenient and more expensive helps people think twice before jumping in their car.

But if you ask Malaysian drivers about prices and convenience they will tell you that they are already slugged with high and rising fuel prices, road tolls, and lots of inconvenience! Are you suggesting more price slugs? Are you SURE we shouldn't kick you out now?

Wait!! What I am suggesting is cleverer and better targeted prices and careful changes in incentives

Just increasing motoring prices willy-nilly is not the answer either. It is not just about the total price.

My bet is that we could reduce congestion without increasing the typical total costs for Malaysian drivers. We need to reduce some but increase other.

By the way, Singapore has been actually reducing car-related costs over recent years, without congestion getting out of control. The price signals have been getting cleverer and better targeted.

NOW you're talking, Paul. But how can we do that?

We need to make sure that whatever we do pay makes sense in terms of the incentives that the payments send us.

We need prices that encourage us to do the right thing in the most efficient way, so that we don't need to be slugged unnecessarily.

Right now, the way we pay for urban transport mostly does NOT help us make the right choices. For example, road tax and registration fees do nothing to help us choose to drive any less. Paying for a season ticket for parking does not make you think twice about driving each morning. Even though the risk of a crash increases the more you drive, insurance is the same, whether you drive a lot or a little.

So you are saying that it is not HIGHER prices but DIFFERENT price schemes that could help? So what exactly do you suggest?

One example is peak pricing: road tolls should be higher during rush hour and lower during off-peak times. (the average price could stay the same) This would tempt a few people to change their trip time. Of course, if you really have to travel at peak hour you will pay a little more, but at least you will get less delay. And the buses, which have no choice, will move better at peak period with fewer cars getting in their way. Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing works that way. You pay more at peak times, and often pay nothing at off-peak time.

It might be tricky to get the toll road companies to do that. Any other examples?

Here is a second example. Let’s focus on the costs that you CAN’T save even if you don’t use your car. They are fixed costs. You already paid for the import taxes, road tax, the registration fee, insurance, and you may have paid a monthly season parking fee. Not only do these fees not go down if you drive less, they actually make you think to yourself, “well I paid all that, so I should get my money’s worth”.

So it would be much better if we shifted all these costs so that you pay them as a small fee per kilometer. The name for this is PAY AS YOU DRIVE. So you can have ‘pay as you drive insurance’, ‘pay as you drive road tax’, etc.

Don’t forget that for most people the total cost does not go up, because we reduced or eliminated the old fixed taxes and fees.

In fact, if you can find ways to drive less then you can now SAVE money. You would now have a better incentive to try to drive less.

The catch is that we need better and affordable technology to keep track of distance driven and send bills accordingly. The technology is just about here.

I can see that Pay As You Drive can apply to fees like road tax and insurance. But what about the car itself? I paid a lot of money for my nice car. So now I want to use the thing right? Why would I want to leave it at home to rust?

You are quite right! In fact, you have hit the nail on the head. Actually, once people have a car, it is very hard to persuade them to use it less. Not impossible! The suggestions earlier do help. BUT the best way to stop traffic from getting worse is to catch people BEFORE they buy their car (or before they buy their second or third car for the household) and try very hard to persuade them that there are alternatives.

But you said earlier that the alternative, public transport, is never as attractive as cars. So how are you going to convince anyone not to buy cars?

Yes, public transport on its own is not enough. Bicycles are not the solution on their own. Pay as you Drive or Road pricing reforms are not enough on their own.

They need to gang together. Public transport needs ALLIES to help it.

To make not owning a car attractive, we would need to make it much easier for people to use a combination of various kinds of transport. We need better public transport, better taxi service, safer cycling, safer walking.

Sorry to sound skeptical Paul, but even that package doesn’t sound like it could be as convenient as my car

That’s right! There is a missing link there. Many people would want to able to use a car sometimes, when they really need it. Taxis can help but they are not enough either.

This is where the rise of car-sharing comes in. It is an exciting new industry that has been taking off just in the last few years. You could think of car-sharing as short term car rental (or maybe as ‘self-drive taxi’).

But it is more than that. It aims to let people sign up to a kind of ‘club’ which gives them access to a car whenever they want one, but without much up front cost and hassle of actually owning a car. For people who don’t drive much but who do occasionally need a car, this is very attractive.

Car-sharing is Pay As You Drive for the actual capital cost of the car too! With car-sharing, ALL of the cost of driving is paid for when you drive. You don’t drive you don’t pay. You drive a lot, you pay a lot.

Only a COMBINATION of really good options (better public transport, improved taxi service, affordable car rentals, car-sharing, and please don’t forget walking and bicycling) just MIGHT tempt at least some people not to buy a car in the first place or tempt them to use these options instead of getting that second or third car.

Have many places done what you are suggesting?

Several places have taken some steps in this direction but there is a long way to go.

Change is still a little slow. Part of the reason is that the technology to make vehicle-related pricing cleverer has not been good enough until very recently.

But Switzerland, Austria and Germany have started to charge lorries by distance. In return they reduced their fixed taxes.

Oregon in the USA is now doing a trial of charging every car a fee per kilometer driven.

Singapore has realized that making cars expensive to buy might have been a mistake, because then those who do have cars in Singapore drive them a lot! So they are shifting more costs to usage costs, like parking and Electronic Road Pricing.

Car-sharing is gradually getting more and more popular but it is still small. Switzerland is the place it has grown most. Singapore has a thriving car-sharing industry. And I believe it is coming to KL very soon!

Switzerland and several cities in Germany, like Bremen and Hannover, have been trying very hard to promote the kind of cooperation between car-sharing, public transport and the others to make not owning a car at all a really good option. There are some signs that they are onto something important.

Many European cities also have very attractive season tickets for public transport, so that you save a lot by committing yourself to being a regular public transport user. This makes it very tempting not to use (or buy) a car. I am glad that the LRT system here has started to offer interesting season passes.

The government has been reducing the subsidy for fuels and raised petrol and diesel prices twice in the last two years. What do you think about that?

The short answer is that it would have been much better to never have started to subsidise fuel in the first place.

Subsidies are not always bad but you need to be wise about what you subsidise. Fuel is certainly not something that is wise to subsidise. A key reason is that it gives everyone an incentive to waste fuel (to use it more than is efficient).

Another key reason relates to the concept in public policy (and economics) of OPPORTUNITY COST. The real cost of what you spend money on is what you therefore cannot spend that money on. If you buy something it means you have less money to buy something else. Money spent subsidizing fuel is money not spent on education or health or whatever.

Thirdly, it is crazy to subsidise something that the rich use much more than the poor. Fuel is exactly like that. Every step up the income ladder, people use more and more fuel, driving bigger vehicles further and further. And of course the really poor don’t have a vehicle at all. Some may have a motorcycle and use it sparingly.

But doesn’t raising the fuel prices hurt the poor?

Remember, the richer people are getting a lot more of that subsidy than the poor.

BUT once you start subsidizing something, then it is hard to stop! And if you stop SUDDENLY then YES you will hurt people (directly and indirectly because prices will go up slightly). And the poorest people always have less ability to cope with sudden changes.

This suggests that that there should be a very explicit effort to help the poorest groups to cope with the price increases. This is exactly what Indonesia did last year when they raised fuel prices.

The Malaysian government has said they will use the money to improve public transport. This sounds good and is probably well intentioned. But the benefits do not necessarily help the poor folks who are really suffering in real ways from the change. It is a poorly targeted effort to compensate for the change.

So your short answer on fuel prices, Paul?

Of coursed, fuel price reform is just a small part of the transport policy story as we have been talking about.

But I think fuel should be TAXED not subsidized

This is because would be fairer than handing wads of money to the rich and a few shillings to the poor, which is what subsidizing fuel does. Taxing fuel by contrast involves taking wads of money from the rich (who can afford it), but only shillings from the poor. Governments need to get revenue from somewhere. Fuel tax is among the better options. If not fuel, they will still have to tax something.

BUT when ending the subsidy a SIGNIFICANT ASSISTANCE PACKAGE (probably as CASH) should be provided for everyone below median income.

What about bicycles?

2006-03-16T17:07:00.000+08:00

What about bicycles I hear you ask? True, I haven't talked about bicycle policy much so far on this blog. That is partly because I often write about bike stuff over at the Cycling in Singapore group blog.

It occurs to me that a few postings over there might have wider interest beyond Singapore. So here are a few examples in case you are interested (btw only some of them were posted by me). I hope all the links still work.

Urban cycling in Jakarta

September 25, 2004
Cyclists, get set, ...oh the tracks are yet to be built!
Urip Hudiono, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

...
"I hope I can ride my bike to work... or at least use it to travel a short distance around my office building, to go out for lunch for instance," the 35-year-old resident of Bintaro, South Jakarta, told The Jakarta Post on Friday.

His wish, however, is not yet on the agenda of the Jakarta administration.
...

UK debate - 'Don't force people to wear helmets'

Helmet compulsion article index. BikeBiz.com, 16 Apr 2004

The pro-helmet, anti-compulsion BikeBiz.com makes a commentary prior to listing an index of stories carried to date on UK's MP Eric Martlew's private members' bill 'protective headgear for young cyclists' as well as post-bill helmet compulsion articles.

Cycle helmet compulsion needs to be fought tooth and nail by anybody who cares about the health of children in this country.
...

Three cheers for speed limit enforcement!

Please, please do enforce the speed limits more strictly! This may be an unpopular view, but as a regular bicycle commuter on the roads here in Singapore I am looking forward to much stricter enforcement of the speed limits by the Traffic Police!

Park connectors are all very well but many of us need to cycle on the road and in my opinion one of the most dangerous and unpleasant things about Singapore's roads is the high-speed traffic. Traffic speeds are a key factor in the risk and severity of crashes, especially when they involve pedestrians or cyclists.
...

New Australian National Cycling Strategy

Australia has just released a new national cycling strategy - AP-C85/05 : The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2005-2010. See also the Australian Bicycle Council, which is the body which administers the strategy.

Although its draft version was criticised by Australian bicycle advocacy organisations for its lack of firm commitment from governments, it should provide an interesting resource for bicycle transport advocates in Singapore where we are just taking baby steps on policy for bicycles as transport.
...

"Cycling track or obstacle course?"

"Cycling track or obstacle course?"
Letter from Elke Eskes-Frey. Today, 09 Feb 2006.

Pedestrian bridges along park connector give cyclists a back-breaking experience.

I grew up in an environmentally-conscious nation where people cycle not only to exercise, but also to commute and save energy — even if they have two cars at home. So, perhaps I was spoilt to think that I have rights on the road as a cyclist.
...

Low stress route makes for a joyful bike ride

Joyful? By bicycle? In Singapore? On the roads?? Yes! Let me explain.

My daily ride to work has become a joy since I found a low stress route to take. It takes me mostly along quiet streets. These stretches are linked up by some short off-road short cuts (and a few short stretches of busy roads). Riding to work is now a real pleasure.
...

Cross border transport cooperation (not)

2006-03-09T16:22:00.001+08:00

Cross border transport always poses cooperation difficulties and Singapore and Malaysia provide an interesting set of case studies.

I recently completed a draft paper that focuses on the often prickly negotiations over the fixed transport links between Johor in Malaysia and Singapore. [Update: the paper was published in Asia Pacific Viewpoint] . Here is a pdf of the paper.]

Crossing the narrow straits between Singapore and Malaysia one meets some puzzling features. Departing Singapore by rail from the Tanjung Pagar station of Malayan Railways (Keretapi Tanah Melayu or KTM) it is startling to find not a Singapore checkpoint but a counter where Malaysian immigration officials examine passports but stamp none and ignore filled out forms.
Heading to Johor Bahru (JB) from Singapore in a shared taxi via the busy causeway that connects the two, your driver might point out the new Malaysian customs and immigration complex that is under construction. It sits to the east of central JB, apparently marooned on a hill, where it was designed to connect to a bridge (maybe a ‘crooked’ one says the driver) that may replace the causeway (or just the Malaysian half of it).
Travelling by car from Malaysia into Singapore via the Second Link bridge located at the western end of Singapore you might be impressed by expressways, the checkpoint complexes and the bridge itself, but would also be struck by the lack of traffic (much less than the causeway’s).

By the way, you can view realtime online traffic cam images of both the causeway and Second Link.

The paper was triggered by curiosity over these puzzling features and uses these cases to examine the role of transport links in cross border processes more generally. It is not primarily a policy paper but transport policy folks might find something of interest in it.

The paper includes an analysis of the ‘Crooked Half Bridge’ issue that has been hot in recent weeks. Since it is more topical than the other examples in the paper I will provide a few excerpts:

… in 1996 with the Second Link not yet open, [Malaysia's then PM] Dr Mahathir suggested informally that the causeway be replaced by a bridge. Singapore was reluctant but in 1998 suggested inclusion in the package approach … Talks on the bridge continued into 2002 but when the package approach fell through in October the Singapore Government dropped its support.

Dr Mahathir’s surprising response was to announce in early 2003 that Malaysia would replace its side of the causeway with a bridge, saying ‘It does not involve Singapore. It is ours. We are implementing it on the Malaysian side... no need to seek permission’ (Reme Ahmad, 2002). In order to meet the causeway halfway, the bridge would need to be curved (or ‘crooked’) in order to reach sufficient height for small ships...

The bridge project was deferred in a 2004 budget trimming exercise but in late January 2006 it burst back onto Malaysia’s official agenda. Malaysian leaders have announced the intention to proceed. If Singapore agrees it will be a full bridge and if they don’t, then it will be a half bridge (now to be called the ‘scenic’, not ‘crooked’, bridge).

We can try to understand this in terms of ‘bargaining chips’:

… the half bridge proposal might be seen as a clever move by Malaysia. It seems to transform the bridge proposal from a chip for Singapore to a Malaysian one. If it is true that the half bridge does not require Singapore’s agreement, the proposal changes the bridge from a Malaysian request into an issue that might pressure Singapore to seek compromise. …

We can also see the proposal as a ‘window to development opportunities’:

The proposal can also be seen as consistent with Malaysia’s developmental approach to major projects and, some critics have said, of Dr Mahathir’s fondness for mega-projects (Kim, 2005).
Singapore has usually been seen as more cautious in such investments, with cost-benefit analysis as a key tool (albeit rarely made public). However, Singapore’s developmental state has in fact also made ‘strategic’ investments in transport infrastructure in order to enhance national competitiveness and strategic interests even when evaluation has not clearly supported them (Phang, 2003).

This developmental interpretation makes more explicable the lack of evidence presented publicly regarding economic evaluation or cost-benefit analysis, including impacts on traffic and capacity. Most proponents tend to imply that it is self evident that the causeway has a capacity problem. Perhaps the benefits are thought to be obvious in light of demographic scenarios that raise the not-too-distant prospect of almost 10 million people in this region?

I have also been intrigued by something that has NOT been discussed much in the recent news coverage, namely TOLLS:

… the half-bridge proposal may be intended to avoid a repeat of the toll-related problems of the Second Link [more on this below]. In contrast with the Second Link, this is a government financed project under the Ministry of Public Works ... Although this financing model does not require tolls, it seems likely that a toll will be levied. There are several reasons for this: the causeway already has a modest toll (Malaysian, and a symmetrical toll by Singapore); the Second Link is still losing money and undercutting it with a new and better bridge would make this worse; and a toll-free bridge (especially a half-bridge built entirely by Malaysia) might be seen as benefiting mainly Singapore users at the expense of Malaysian taxpayers.

Singapore’s leaders have expressed concern publicly over possible toll rates. At the signing of the 2001 agreement that included a full bridge, Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued for toll charges to be the same as the Causeway (Pereira and Ng, 2001). Later in an echo of the Second Link problems, Prime Minister Goh argued that symmetrical tolls would have to be applied (Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003).

Interestingly, a half-bridge option would make such symmetrical tolls absurd in the eyes of the public. This reveals another benefit for Malaysia of the half bridge idea, in that it undermines Singapore’s position on symmetrical tolls.

I should explain that tolls had been a source of conflict when the Second Link opened in early 1998. Singapore authorities insisted that any toll would need to be shared by both sides, or else both sides would need to impose a toll (Straits Times, 25 March 1990). The rationale for this appears to be concern to prevent the other side from ‘creaming’ all the toll revenue that the market would bear at the crossing. However, the Malaysian Minister for Public Works complained at the time that the Malaysian concessionaires had spent much more on the project than Singapore had, including building 1.7 km of the 2.0 km bridge (Straits Times, 24 December 1997). A result of all this is apparently excessive tolls, which seems to be a key factor in the Second Link being a missed opportunity for both sides.

Returning to the Crooked Bridge story, we should note that this short border is one of the busiest in the world, with roughly 80 to 90,000 people crossing each way per day (some say more). Trade is huge. Police on each side routinely hand over suspects to the other. Clearly there is a huge amount of pragmatic cooperation going on.

Yet, it is particularly striking that efforts to enhance a transport link are here being pursued in such a way as to avoid the need to cooperate, and in ways that actually worsen bilateral relations! A crooked half-bridge would provide a wonderfully ironic symbol of the prickly yet intimate relationship across the straits.

Changing petrol price politics in Malaysia and Indonesia?

2006-03-08T16:15:00.000+08:00

Last week I promised to write more on fuel price politics in this region. High oil prices are forcing governments that had been subsidising motor fuel to think again. The hole in their budgets is just too big. Leakage from smuggling has been growing too as price differences with neighbouring countries have grown.

Auto-dependent development fuelled by fuel subsidies in Malaysia

Malaysia - struggling to change the politics of fuel pricing
Last Tuesday Malaysia announced its largest ever single increase in petrol prices. It raised petrol prices by 19 per cent, diesel by 23 per cent and LPG by 21 per cent. This still leaves a considerable subsidy at today's oil prices. According to the announcements last week, if it were not subsidised petrol would be 28 per cent more expensive than the new price and diesel 25 per cent more.

Malaysia fixes its motor fuel prices with the result that unless world oil prices are low, Malaysian petrol is subsidised. Malaysia has been raising petrol prices, step by step over the last two years, while making some concessions in the face of squeals of protest - for example, by lowering or capping some other motoring costs, such as the tolls on expressways.

The protests this time have been louder, which I guess is to be expected given the size of the price rises. But I also notice more voices being raised in support of the change. The government has said that a large chunk of the money saved from petrol subsidies will be used to improve public transport. This seems like smart politics but does not seem to be enough. From what I see in the Malaysian press it has been met with some scepticism. {and I hope to write more on Malaysian public transport soon.}

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out. Will the experience encourage the government that the political cost has not been too great or will the political pain be enough to deter further reform to fuel pricing?

Indonesia's surprising success - but a long way still to go

Here Indonesia's example is worth noting. They have also been struggling to reduce budget-destroying fuel subsidies in the face of huge protests that have shaken Indonesian governments in the past (most dramatically in 1998). Yet the current government under President SB Yudhoyono has persisted with its phased elimination of fuel subsidies.

The latest rounds of price increases in 2005 were more significant than Malaysia's. In October 2005 Indonesia raised its fuel prices by 126%! This came after a rise of (on average) 29% in March 2005. Amazingly, these price hikes proceeded without TOO much trouble (relatively speaking).

The key to success? It seems to have been the explicit effort (however imperfect) to cushion the immediate blow to the poor by giving direct cash payments to poor households. In addition, there has been strong effort to raise awareness that fuel price subsidies are extremely regressive - that they are in fact not helping the poor but are benefiting the wealthy, big business and smugglers.

It seems the politics of fuel prices in Indonesia may be changing. There is still a very long way to go but something has changed. Protests have happened but have not destabilised the country.

My view on fuel prices?

I don't see any good reason to subsidise motor fuel. On average, the richer you are, the more benefit you get from such a subsidy, since the rich tend to own more vehicles, their vehicles tend to be larger, and they tend to drive them further. In fact, there are good arguments for taxing fuel rather steeply (as just one of a range of pricing measures to internalise the unpaid costs of motoring).

If you think fuel subsidies help the poor you are mistaken. Don't believe me? Then look here regarding the Malaysian subsidies, or here for arguments for eliminating Indonesia's subsidies.

HOWEVER, it is also true that any sudden change in prices, and its impact on other prices, will tend to hurt the poor in the short term. This pain is real and can be severe.

Political success in raising these prices further will depend on cushioning the blow. The help to the poor needs to be real and it should be well targeted to those who really need it.

As much as I like public transport, Malaysia's promise to improve public transport is not well targeted enough at helping those who need help most. Indonesia's cash payments look much better on this score. Maybe this is why Indonesia seems to be doing better than Malaysia at changing the political dynamic of fuel prices.

POSITIVE visions and austere transport policies

2006-03-06T15:30:00.000+08:00

The PUTRA LRT line, the Federal Highway, and a private toll expressway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Big new roads and shiny new mass transit systems are popular with politicians everywhere.

Much less popular are many of the key elements in the package of tough choices that is really needed for long-term sustainable urban transport.

Achieving 'successful' urban transport sometimes seems to be all about 'restraint', austerity or denial of 'legitimate aspirations'. Dry rational arguments, especially economics-based arguments) don't excite people’s passions (surprise!).

Transport demand management (TDM) is especially difficult to sell. Taking away space from general traffic to give to public transport seems even harder to sell (witness Bangkok's recent announcement that BRT is again OFF the agenda!).

Yet certain cities HAVE managed to make some of the key tough choices, including restraining private vehicle use and giving substantial road space to public transport, pedestrians and bicycles.

Famous examples in democratic contexts include:

Bogota: Transmileneo BRT system, improved public realm, traffic restraint, bicycle ways ...
Seoul: public transport reforms including BRT, pedestrian improvements, reclaiming a river by demolishing an elevated expressway, congestion pricing (on two tunnels) ...
Curitiba: the 'surface metro' pioneering busway (BRT), pedestrian zones, transit-oriented land use planning ...
Copenhagen: extensive pedestrianisation and improvements to public realm, central area parking reductions (consistently over many decades), bicycle planning, 30 kph speed limit zones ...
Zurich: tram priority (low cost approaches to public transport improvement), integrated public transport and its marketing, parking policy, traffic calming and parking restraint...

How did they do it when so many others have failed?

I have a working hypothesis that a focus on POSITIVE VISIONS might be an important aspect of these successes.

For example, ‘democratic public space’ was the dramatic rallying call in Bogotá. The proponents of the transport reforms there went to great lengths to make the changes about getting something good, instead of being about restraint, austerity or denial. Anyone who has heard former Mayor Peñalosa speak can attest to the persuasive power of his arguments in terms of democratic public space. These positive arguments appealed to broad constituencies. Does it have a particular resonance in Latin America's cultural and political landscape? Would this appeal elsewhere?

I should mention that rational arguments do sometimes work. Examples include space-limited and technocratic Singapore and Hong Kong where rather dry efficiency arguments are routinely used to justify policies that are tough on cars. However, I suspect that voters in most places will probably need the appeal of something more positive and exciting to compete with the all-too-obvious private appeal of personal mobility.

Not persuaded by such anecdotal evidence from a tiny sample?

OK, me neither yet. So I would be keen to find out more about the successful (and unsuccessful) arguments that have been prominent in urban transport debates around the world.

Changing petrol price politics? Americans would support petrol tax?

2006-03-02T09:51:00.000+08:00

One of Tom Friedman's NYT columns appeared in the Straits Times today (sorry subscribers only). In "Green is the new color of patriotism" he argues that even Americans would support higher petrol taxes if political leaders framed it the right way.

... confirmed by the latest New York Times/CBS News poll: Americans not only know that our oil addiction is really bad for us, but they would be willing to accept a petrol tax if some leader would just frame the stakes for the country the right way.

Here is Friedman on the result of that poll:

when asked simply whether they'd favour a petrol tax, 85 per cent said no and only 12 per cent said yes. But when the petrol tax was framed as part of a national strategy to achieve energy security and climate security, pollsters got a very different answer. When the tax was presented as reducing US dependence on foreign oil, 55 per cent favoured it and 37 per cent said no.

And when asked about a petrol tax that would help reduce global warming, even more respondents supported it - with 59 per cent in favour and 34 per cent opposed.

And that is without a single Democrat or Republican leading on this issue! Imagine if someone actually led?

The United States is not the only place where the politics of petrol prices is changing. It is changing in Southeast Asia too, for different reasons.

More on this soon.

Electric bicycles and other modes that "fall in the cracks"

2006-03-01T19:18:00.000+08:00

The WorldChanging blog some time ago drew my attention to a fascinating article about the rise and rise of electric bicycles in China that was in IEEE Spectrum in June 2005.

The article raises several important points for me.

One is that the electric bicycle market in China is BIG! Amazingly big. With an estimated 1 million of them in Shanghai alone. Three times more electric bicycles are sold in China than automobiles.

Another important point is that there is a struggle going on over what to do about these machines. A number of local authorities have banned or tried to ban them. Manufacturers and retailers have been fighting back. It is too soon to say how it will turn out.

This struggle is reminiscent of many others around the world over many different kinds of vehicle. Transport authorities seem to have a hard time knowing what to do with "in between" modes of transport. By that I mean modes that are not in the standard textbook lists of the main modes.

There seems to be a pervasive urge to force traffic to look like the traffic engineering textbooks say it should look like. There are no doubt lots of reasonable sounding practical reasons for trying to do so ... but the real world keeps refusing to become so neat and tidy.

In Asia, the mode of transport that seems to attract most ire from tidy minds is the three-wheel pedicab (in its various incarnations as bicycle rickshaw, becak, trishaw, tricycle, ciclo, etc). Off the top of my head a short list of places that have banned or restricted these includes: Singapore (ages ago, but now allowed as a tourist thing), Kuala Lumpur (also ages ago), Bangkok, Jakarta (famously throwing many into the ocean), Dhaka (banned them from several key streets recently) and Delhi (where they are banned from grand, colonial New Delhi).

Of course, bicycles are mainstream in some countries (I am very envious), but in a lot of places they fall in the cracks between transport planners' neat categories. Regrettably Singapore is one of the mamy places aound this region where the authorities seem to wish bicycles would fade away (see the Cycling in Singapore blog).

Our friends at TRIPP in Delhi have done a lot of research into the uniquely mixed traffic of India's cities and how this requires new approaches to road safety. You need to be realistic when your traffic includes handcarts, animal drawn vehicles, three-wheelers both motorised and non-motorised and straying cattle as well as pedestrians and bicycles doing some unpredictable things.

Maybe the whole world never was really converging on a simple mix of vehicles (and obeying the text books finally). And anyway, things are now getting more complicated even in rich countries. Electric bicycles are just part of this.

The advent of the Segway has also provoked the question for authorities everywhere of where should they be used? No-one knows quite where to put them.

The indomitable Todd Litman and Robyn Blair have written a thoughtful article (presented at the TRB Annual Meeting January 2004) about the policy dilemmas posed by personal mobility devices on non-motorised transport facilities (pdf). They methodically provide some definitions:

A Personal Mobility Device (PMD) is any relatively small, wheeled device that provides personal mobility and can operate on nonmotorized facilities. PMDs include skates, skateboards, wheelchairs, powered scooters, and Segway-type scooters. For the purposes of this paper, PMDs also include bicycles ...

Their opening paragraph sums up some of the difficulty:

In theory, managing transportation facilities is simple. Wheeled vehicles should use roadway and pedestrian should use nonmotorized facilities, including walkways, sidewalks and paths. But in practices these categories don’t always work. An increasing variety of wheeled Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) such as wheelchairs, skates and skateboards may use both roads and non-motorized facilities. Recently, several new types of Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices (EPAMD) have entered the market, such as those illustrated in Figure 1. These are technically innovative, energy efficient and attractive to many people. Proponents have lobbied to allow their use on sidewalks and other nonmotorized facilities. This has generatedconsiderable debate.

This also reminds me of an article from Australia that talked about "Feral travel"(in Australia, "feral" animals are the non-native ones that have run wild and multiplied.. but in slang the word also gets applied to a lifestyle). They were talking about skateboards, in-line skates, foot scooters, and such like. Sorry nothing on-line but the reference is:

Stratford, E. Harwood, A. (2001) Feral Travel and the Transport Field: Some Observations on the Politics of Regulating Skating in Tasmania, Urban Policy and Research, 19 (1): 61-76

Should transport planners be more open to all these diverse travel modes, with their variety of characteristics? How would standard practice need to change to better on this? I don't know but these things are not going away.

Transport information resource: global Transport Knowledge Partnership

2006-02-17T15:58:00.000+08:00

I have just been alerted to another useful web-based information resource on transport, with a focus on development-related issues. It is the global Transport Knowledge Partnership (gTKP).

Why haven't I noticed it before? I guess I have not been paying enough attention!

The site includes a large number of useful documents in various formats. Note: you need to allow popups in your browser for the site to work properly.

"The global Transport Knowledge Partnership is an initiative to promote and disseminate sustainable transport knowledge, whilst encouraging greater participation from the developing world.

gTKP is currently sponsored and chaired by Peter O’Neill of the UK’s Department of International Development with an Interim Board that includes David Silcock (GRSP), Adrian Walsh (Roadsafe), David Ward (FIA), Charles Melhuish (ADB), Brian Williams (UN-Habitat), Madan G Maleku (HMG/N), Nu’uman Danbatta (MoT, Nigeria) and Dai Dongchang (TPRI, China), Peter Njenga (IFRTD, East and Southern Africa)."

New urban transport news site with an Asia focus

2006-02-16T17:29:00.000+08:00

I have posted before about news sources on urban transport issues in Asia.

There is a new site called Transport News to add to the list. Here is a recent sample of what you can find there:

Green logos tricky to spot [Shanghai, 2/16/2006]

Monorail project receives financial support from Bank Dubai [Jakarta, 2/15/2006]

Xiamen To Be World's Top Producer Of Mid-Large Passenger Buses [Xiamen, 2/13/2006]

Huge funds earmarked for transport construction in N. China province [Hebei, 2/13/2006]

ComfortDelGro reports 1.3% rise in full-year net profit [Singapore, 2/13/2006]

Mayor's stream project may face investigation [Seoul, 2/13/2006]

Group wedding ceremony in metro [Nanjing, 2/13/2006]

Guangdong Becomes No.1 Motorcycle Producer [China, 2/13/2006]

China's Bus Output Rises Slightly in 2005 [China, 2/13/2006]

Experts: China's urban poverty worsens [China, 2/12/2006]

LTA, Mitsubishi in road pricing services tie-up [Singapore, 2/10/2006]

Yutong Is China's Top Bus Exporter [China, 2/10/2006]

Beijing plans to build 3 more subway routes [Beijing, 2/10/2006]

Race on to get emission stickers as ban approaches [Shanghai, 2/9/2006]

Pudong trams may resume running [Shanghai, 2/9/2006]

More cameras for roads [Hong Kong, 2/9/2006]

China's Motorcycle Output, Sales Up [China, 2/9/2006]

Fewer plates sold [Shanghai, 2/8/2006]

Volvo India eyes Asia, Africa sales [India, 2/8/2006]

EIL launches seven electric bikes in Gujarat [Ahmedabad, 2/8/2006]

Public Refuses to Be Taken for a Ride [Penang, 2/8/2006]

Singapore to shift to fully accessible buses

2006-02-12T13:15:00.000+08:00

Today the Straits Times (subscribers only, sorry) reports that

Singapore

’s buses will progressively be made fully accessible to all, including wheelchair users.

Congratulations to all of you who have been pushing for this over the years (some quietly, some noisily)!

They seem to be adopting a universal design approach. The announcement by the Prime Minister involved accepting the recommendations of the Committee on Ageing Issues that were released last week.

"This process is already well under way in the stations, where new MRT and LRT systems come barrier-free and wheelchair-friendly. Older stations have been upgraded with lifts and ramps, with the last few to be completed soon.

Where the change is most dramatic is in the bus system. Despite repeated calls to make buses wheelchair-accessible, the Government had hesitated in the past because of the cost involved.

'It is expensive and it slows down the buses to have the wheelchairs go on, go down,' said Mr Lee.

But the environment has now changed, with the population ageing and more people needing such access. 'So, after reconsidering the matter, we have decided to go ahead,' he said.

Old buses will be replaced progressively with new low-floor and step-free buses that can take wheelchairs.

It will take 15 to 20 years to change the entire bus fleet, but significant numbers will be wheelchair-accessible 'within a few years'."
(from the Straits Times article,‘Every HDB estate to be elder-friendly’ by Laurel Teo, 12 Feb. 2006)

I wonder if it is really true that this will slow down the buses? Average boarding and alighting time should improve with wider doors and low floors making it easier for everyone. This time saving might outweigh infrequent delays for wheelchair users? I would be very happy to see any data on this.

By the way, an excellent starting point for anyone hoping to achieve the same result in your own country would be the Access Exchange International organisation, which promotes accessible transportation worldwide, especially in developing nations.

You might also like to refer to these UK guidelines on accessibility and buses.

In addition to making the public transport system accessible, Singapore also plans to progressively make every Housing Development Board (HDB) housing area barrier free. The HDB is Singapore's public housing agency that develops housing for the vast majority of the population here.

Mass transit debates in developing country cities

2006-02-09T10:38:00.000+08:00

An entrance to the Delhi Metro in the midst of Old Delhi

This is an edited version of a posting I made this morning on the sustran-discuss email discussion group in response to a discussion there over public transport options that was sparked by the news of Chennai's debate over Monorail. The debate has included examples from Malaysia, Thailand, the USA, Hong Kong and Singapore.

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

ONE - CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, NOT JUST ONE PROPOSAL:

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.

A model in the TRIPP office of Delhi's yet-to-be-realised
High Capacity Bus System (HCBS), including kerbside NMV lanes

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 TRIPP at 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). The World Bank Urban Strategy review document, 'Cities on the Move' (pages 121 and 122 for example) is worth a look on this point.

It is therefore extremely surprising that anyone ever tries to build capital-intensive forms of mass transit with private finance alone, as has been tried in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur. This argument provides circumstantial evidence therefore that Karl is probably right in saying that the investors in projects like KL's LRT systems 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 on sustran-discuss. 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 on the sustran-discuss 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, 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.

Success Story: Seoul’s 2004 Public Transport Reforms (new article)

2006-02-04T16:52:00.000+08:00

Sustran-discuss alerted me to a new paper, ‘Public Transport Reforms in Seoul: Innovations Motivated by Funding Crisis’ by John Pucher, Hyungyong Park, Mook Han Kim and Jumin Song, in the Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2005.

It describes reforms in 2004 that ‘completely reorganized bus services, installed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, improved coordination of bus and metro services, and fully integrated the fare structure and ticketing system between routes as well as modes.’

Necessity seems to have been the mother of invention.

‘…the acute funding crisis of Seoul’s public transport system has prompted a complete re-examination of ways to improve service quality while keeping costs and subsidies affordable.’

Dramatic regulatory reforms behind improved integration!

High-profile physical changes, like the median busways and ticketing changes, are just part of the story. Please don’t ignore the important but unglamorous regulatory reforms that are crucial to achieving a more integrated public transport system.

‘the Seoul Metropolitan Government greatly increased its control over bus routes, schedules, fares, and overall system design. It introduced what it calls a “semi-public operation system” that retains private bus firms but leaves route, schedule, and fare decisions to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Moreover, it now reimburses bus ﬁrms on the basis of vehicle km of service instead of passenger trips…’ (p.48)

‘Fares are now based only on distance traveled, with free transfers permitted between bus lines as well as between metro and bus.’ (p.51)

By the way, these changes are similar to those introduced on Bogotá’s TransMileneo BRT system and its feeders. A recent World Bank discussion paper praises such ‘hybrid’ regulatory arrangements for urban bus systems in developing countries. (A Estache, A Gomez-Lobo, C Santiago (2004) The Limits to Competition in Urban Bus Services in Developing Countries, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3207, see here for pdf)

Seoul's median busways (photo from ITDP)

Results so far?

The initial public response was actually disastrous, with a period of confusion and frustration! But after a month or so the confusion eased and teething problems with the ticketing system were ironed out. Public reactions then turned very positive.

Benefits claimed so far include impressive increases in bus speeds (especially on the BRT corridors), reductions in bus-related accidents, and an upward trend in bus passenger numbers (about 700,000 extra per day without a drop in subway use).

Operating subsidies for the bus system have risen however. But the authors argue that this should be set against reduced expenditure on metro/subway extensions with their associated debt servicing and operating deficits.

Seoul's future public transport expansion plans (to complement the existing enormous subway and suburban rail systems) are now mostly focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with some LRT. By the way, the publictransit.us blog has a nice list of links to Korean mass transit sites.

Who to thank?

Seoul's Mayor, Myung-Bak LEE and transport specialists at the Seoul Development Institute (SDI) led by Dr Gyengchul KIM and Dr Keeyeon HWANG, apparently deserve much of the credit. At the recent TRB annual meeting, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) gave a special award to Mayor Lee for his contributions to Seoul's sustainable transport successes. International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has also honoured Mayor Lee and the Seoul Metropolitan Government a special award for “extraordinary success at implementing so many transit reforms in such a short period of time, integrating innovative technologies with new infrastructure” (p.58)

I suspect that some credit should also go to the long-term efforts of the green transport movement in Korea, led by the non-profit NGO, ‘Network for Green Transport’ (site in Korean only). Over more than a decade they have helped prepare the ground of public and expert opinion for reforms like these.

ITDP has a .wmv video on Seoul's recent sustainable transport achievements.

One question troubles me

I wonder if the bus reforms have had any effect beyond the boundaries of the City of Seoul? After all, the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s area accounts for only about half of the 22 million people or so in the wider metropolitan area, which includes Inchon and much of the province of Kyonggi-do.

Battles Over the Future of Mass Transit in India

2006-02-03T18:20:00.000+08:00

India's cities are struggling with rapid motorisation, increasing congestion and parking problems.

One response is a flurry of mass transit proposals. This is in line with India's new National Urban Transport Policy.

[By the way, see here for a critical review of the policy especially its mass transit aspects and its failure to consider seriously any restraint of private vehicle ownership (or even to slow growth in vehicle numbers).]

Delhi's Metro is operating and being expanded. Depending on who you listen to, it is a great success or an under-utilized white elephant. Delhi had a BRT versus Metro debate but is now proceeding with a 'multi-modal' approach, with Metro, BRT, monorail and ordinary buses. The first corridor of Delhi's High Capacity Bus System (HCBS) has been approved supposedly but mysteriously keeps being delayed. Delhi has also approved a monorail project as a feeder to the Metro in certain areas.

Mumbai has long been trying to improve its very busy and heavily used suburban rail lines. It has more recently been debating elevated rail options, including monorail, 'skybus' and others.

Chennai (formerly Madras) is currently debating monorail versus BRT.

Hyderbad has a metrorail project out for tender with bids coming in.

Bangalore has been fiercely debating various mass transit rail options for several years now but seems to have decided on Metro Rail.

Ahmedabad has reportedly approved a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with technical assistance from ITDP.

There seem to be many others! I wonder how this will play out. For now Metro rail seems to have strong momentum, powerful interests behind it, and high-level support in governments. Can BRT prove itself the cost-effective option for many corridors? Can institutional arrangements be found to make BRT happen in South Asia?

Jakarta public transport: the good, the bad and the ugly?

2006-01-29T11:50:00.000+08:00

News about Jakarta's public transport during the week included some highs and lows.

The Good?
Two new busway (or BRT) corridors opened last week to join the original TransJakarta Blok M to Kota route. News reports (as shared on sustran-discuss) highlighted how far the busway has come since its shaky start, that is has won over many sceptics and overcome numerous obstacles. The new routes were apparently widely welcomed.

The Bad?
Transport commentators in Jakarta, such as ITDP's Darmaningtiyas, welcomed the new corridors but worried about the remaining problems, especially difficulties with feeder buses who often refuse to honour the common tickets that are supposed to allow a discounted transfer from busway to feeder bus without buying a new ticket. I commented on this on the sustran-discuss list.

... something caught my eye in the coverage of the new BRT corridors in Jakarta (which John Ernst posted on 19 Jan).

"As it is, the integrated ticketing system for both feeder buses and the busway does not work properly. In my experience, after buying the higher-priced tickets, conductors on the feeder buses still demand a fare because they do not recognize the integrated ticket," he said. {that is, Darmaningtiyas, of Intrans and
ITDP Indonesia said}

Can anyone who knows the project explain more about how the integrated ticketing was supposed to work and reasons for it going wrong?

In some ways I find it impressive and ambitious that they even tried to introduce integrated ticketing given that the regulatory framework for buses in Jakarta (from what little I know) seems an unlikely context for integrated ticketing reforms...

John Ernst then responded with further information.

Such problems and issues are common to many developing cities. {warning - outrageous generalisations to follow...} Public transport systems in developing cities is usually of low-quality at low-price, but usually plentiful (even though often overcrowded). The mainly bus and minibus-based systems have minimal formal integration (no free or discounted transfers, little or no information for passengers, little explicit cooperation between operators) and serve primarily low-income captive customers.

How can they do better? Retaining market share as incomes rise will be impossible unless public transport improves. Doing this without breaking the bank on subways (or monorails - see below) will mean the bus and minibus systems have to improve drastically. BRT is a new hope but can only be part of the solution. I suspect that better integration is one of the key strategy that can help. But it is not easy, as the news from Jakarta reminds us, alas.

The Ugly?
Ugly or sexy? Depends on your point of view I guess. But speaking of breaking the bank ...

Another twist in the tussle over who will build the Jakarta Monorail project (and with what technology) was reported in the Straits Times (26 Jan. 2006). The delay in financing has prompted the city government to give the existing consortium, under PT Jakarta Monorail (JM), a deadline of tomorrow to submit their financial closing, following which it would award the contract to another party.

The choice of technology suppliers has also been vexed. Monorail News Briefs reported last year (based on reports in the Jakarta Post) that:

Siemens is the latest in a series of companies that have been in the running to build the system. Malaysia's MTrans, Japan's Hitachi and Korea's Rotem have all been favored for the system at different times, but reportedly costs and other factors have created a manufacturer musical chairs game.

According to the Straits Times (26 Jan. 2006), Korea's Rotem system uses maglev technology and was to have been supplied by a Singapore-led consortium which was sidelined last month after months of dispute with the Indonesian partners over the cost of its system (US$826 million) versus rival Siemens and its Indonesian partners (US$496 million).

The system consists of 2 lines totalling 29 kilometres in length, with a claimed passenger capacity of 270,000 people per day.

My white elephant radar is beeping loudly. But I would really like to see some careful analysis of the relative merits and 'bang for the buck' of recent monorial. This seems urgent because of a recent rash of monorail proposals seeking to add to the short list of Asian systems that includes the venerable Tokyo system and Kuala Lumpur's short city-centre system. India alone is seeing a rush into monorail apparently! I have seen news reports on monorail proposals for Bangalore, Delhi, Kolkata, Goa and Chennai).

Pedestrian environment in Jakarta - little report

2006-01-26T09:42:00.000+08:00

I just stumbled across a short report by Andi Rahmah of the Indonesian NGO Pelangi, Indonesia. It is entitled "Creating Pedestrian Environment as a Strategy in Developing Livable Jakarta".

It is based on a small study by Pelangi and ITDP that was prompted by the initial bus rapid transit ('TransJakarta Busway') project in Jakarta. {By the way, Jakarta has just opened two more Busway corridors. ITDP also has a lot more about the Jakarta Busway story over the years on its website.}

This pedestrian report includes some fascinating photos and diagrams. Here is one describing pedestrian movements near the Kota Station in the old centre of Jakarta. I am not sure if the pedestrian environment has changed since this survey was carried out in 2003.

Although this is a very brief report (and doesn't include much of the actual data collected) but still interesting since pedestrian studies in developing seem hard to get hold of.

I was interested that pedestrian bridges are a target of some strong criticism. I wonder how the Jakarta authorities responded.

There was a brief but interesting discussion on pedestrian overpasses at sustran-discuss in 2004.

Challenges for Singapore's public transport?

2006-01-17T17:07:00.000+08:00

I was invited to speculate on scenarios for Singapore's urban transport future for a seminar last week. Here is one aspect of what I said.

In the period from the 1970s to 2000 or so Singapore's urban transport policies have been remarkably successful in slowing the growth of vehicle ownership, restraining private car usage, improving the bus system, building a Metro (the MRT), and create transit oriented land-use patterns (eg see some effusive praise for the Singapore model here).

The Government already plans a gradual shift of demand management away from using high fixed costs (especially the Additional Registration Fee, ARF, and the Vehicle Quota Scheme, with its Certificates of Entitlement or COEs) towards a greater reliance on usage charging, especially with a revamped, more comprehensive version of Electronic Road Pricing - ERP Mark II. Car-like services that are primarily charged on a usage basis are significant too and have growth potential. Taxis account for over 10% of daily trips, and car-sharing is still small but growing fast.

In many ways, this shift towards usage-based pricing is a good thing and most transport policy makers would support it. But it is also likely to pose some unanticipated challenges to public transport.

One unfortunate side-effect of the focus (so far) on controlling ownership of private vehicles is that public transport operators seem (I am sticking my neck out a little here) to behave as if they are making the following assumptions:

that very few public transport users have access to cars or can afford to use taxis very often, and
that very few people with access to cars or who can afford to use taxis often ever use public transport.

I am basing this speculation in part on the fact that they seem to make surprisingly little effort to market public transport to people who can afford alternatives. This is not to say that the authorities are not trying to improve public transport. They are. The expansion of the rail system seems to be the primary strategy. Efforts through TransitLink to integrate the system would be the envy of many cities, although they seem to have stalled in recent years and still fall well short of best practice. Bus priority lanes are widespread - but appear not to have expanded in recent years. But to be fair, one small sign that the operators themselves may be changing their assumptions is the launch and subsequent expansion of SBSTransit's FastForward limited-stop bus services recently.

If it is true that operators are making the two assumptions above, it is not so unreasonable! I don't have data on this but anecdotally at least, it does seem that surprisingly few members of car-owning households use public transport regularly, especially not the buses. And of course, Singapore's motorists have more reason than most to try to 'get their money's worth' from their expensive vehicles (the average car here travels a surprisingly high 20,298km per year according to the LTA).

However, the shift to usage-based charging (among other trends) will mean that such assumptions will become less and less accurate. An increasing number of people will have more transport mode choice. For those who have a car already, high usage charges will prompt them to consider other options for some trips. Those who do not own a car will be less and less 'captive' to public transport (as the taxi industry, car-sharing, and other on-demand services expand). Increasingly public transport will face direct competition.

The last two years might provide a prelude of what to expect.
The price of COEs has decreased significantly since 2003 (mainly for market reasons, not yet the impact of policy) and other fixed taxes have dropped. So cars are cheaper than they have been since the 1980s. At the same time usage costs have risen, with further small expansions of the network of ERP gantries and high petrol prices eroding the savings from lower COE prices and taxes for typical car usage).

So with this slight shift of costs from fixed to usage-based costs, are there any signs yet that I am right? Perhaps. The Straits Times reported on 27 Nov 2005 that bus passengers are increasingly dissatisfied (especially with long waiting times and overcrowding (based on the latest bus passenger satisfaction survey by the Public Transport Council, which oversees service quality and fares). In addition, 2004 data on mode choices suggest that the bus system especially is having problem staying attractive and showed that public transport trips actually dropped between 1997 and 2004.

If my speculations are correct then public transport customers in Singapore will become more and more demanding as car costs shift even more to a usage basis. The pressure to improve public transport will hit the politicians too, since the political viability of increasing reliance on usage pricing depends on making the alternatives to cars sufficiently attractive.

It will be a challenge to start treating car owners as potential customers and its existing customers as potential defectors to other transport modes. It won't be easy and, for reasons that I may explain some other time, it may require significant changes to public transport regulation and funding approaches here.

But, since failure is not an option in the dense urban environment of Singapore, my prediction is that public transport policy makers will have no choice but to rise to this challenge. Which will be a good thing for public transport customers.

Paper finds mode shifts more cost effective than technofixes for climate change mitigation

2005-12-21T09:58:00.000+08:00

I have just digested a recent paper:

Lloyd Wright and Lewis Fulton (2005) “Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations,” Transport Reviews 25, 6, 691–717 (click here for journal contents but full access is for subscribers only; or peek here for a possibly-naughty pdf of the full paper)

I found it is a striking read. Assuming its methods can stand up to scrutiny then governments and funders of climate change mitigation projects should take notice... Are you listening GEF and the others?

It makes a strong case that an emphasis on encouraging mode shifts away from private vehicles (or even just slowing mode shifts towards private vehicles) is by far the most cost effective way to mitigate greenhouse emissions. In fact, fuel focused approaches are simply not cost-effective. Yet these are the projects that are getting the lion's share of funding!

Allow me to quote from its conclusions, starting on page 715:

... The scenario analyses indicated that the cost of fuel-based solutions ranged from approximately US$148 to over US$3500/tonne of CO2. By contrast, shifting mode share from high-emitting sources (private vehicles) to lower-emitting sources (public transport and nonmotorized options) produced emission reduction costs between US$14 and US$66/tonne of CO2.

This research has thus indicated that fuel-based solutions alone will not likely achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The most cost effective means to emission reductions appears to be a diverse and integrated package of measures that promote shifts to lower-emitting modes.
...

Despite the transport sector representing the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, there has been relatively little project activity to address emissions from the sector. The number of transport projects under the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol and under the GEF is relatively small in comparison with other sectors.
...

While the projections of increased motorization indicated in the IEA reference case are a cause for concern, these trends are not preordained. An alternative is still achievable for most developing nation cities. The low-cost solutions that have emphasized public transport, bicycling and walking, and land-use changes in Bogota and Curitiba are certainly possible elsewhere. Whether the political will exists elsewhere is a question to be answered.

Other points in the paper that struck me:

the world is fast approaching 1 billion motor vehicles on its roads!
citing a study by the UNFCCC, Finland stands out as the only country to have decoupled transport sector growth from economic growth (with both the 'Nokia effect' in which a key economic driver is not transport intensive, and as a result of strong efforts to curb vehicle ownership and usage

The authors suggest a few plausible reasons for the popularity of technical fixes over efforts at modeshifting (quoting here from p. 715):

Technological solutions (tailpipe technologies, fuels, propulsion systems) can appear to be simple black-box solutions that are intrinsically easier for public officials to understand than a broader systems approach.
Higher-technology options may be perceived as being ‘modern’ by many political officials, while non-motorized transport may be perceived as counter to national aspirations.
It may be far more politically expedient to promote increased motorization rather than public transport and non-motorized transport.
BRT is a relatively new concept and there may be informational barriers to its wider application.
It is possible that simply improving the state of developing-nation footpaths could be one of the most effective long-term measures, from the perspectives of both cost and overall development. However, it is unlikely that any global footpaths initiative is on the horizon anytime soon.

Should Asian governments try to slow down motorisation?

2005-12-18T16:14:00.000+08:00

Should governments actively slow down the rate of increase in private vehicle ownership? This is relevant to urban transport predicaments in many developing countries.

It seems to be out of fashion (not to mention politically difficult) for governments to consider trying to influence the rate of change of vehicle ownership (or ‘motorisation’ in transport studies jargon).

India's recent draft national urban transport policy (go here for pdf) explicitly rejects slowing down ownership growth but suggests that urban areas contain vehicle use. Shanghai's efforts to contain car ownership through its licence plate auction are disapproved of by China's national government. Even Singapore now wants to 'strike a better balance between the ownership and usage costs of a car' (see Budget 2002). (BTW I have a relevant paper: go here for the journal page or here for a pdf.)

There seems to be a widespread consensus that transport demand management should focus on vehicle usage not ownership. There are various good reasons for this.

However, there are also some arguments in favour of influencing ownership (especially slowing its growth).

the practical difficulties of usage pricing in the context of low and middle-income countries
by contrast, taxes and charges on vehicle ownership are common and feasible for most countries
there are some valid budgetary and luxury tax arguments suggesting purchase or ownership taxes can be welfare enhancing
household travel behaviour seems to change drastically with the purchase of a vehicle, with the ease of movement inducing extra travel
and this effect seems difficult to reverse ... there seems to be 'hysteresis' with cars being seen as a luxury before they are bought but as a necessity after they are owned! (see Dargay, J.M. (2001) ‘The effect of income of car ownership: evidence of asymmetry’, Transportation Research A, 35, pp. 807-21).
The sunk costs of vehicle ownership also contribute probably. A household has a considerable incentive to make good use of such a significant piece of capital equipment that is depreciating whether it is used or not.
at the whole-metropolitan area level we can also see difficult to reverse changes:
- once motorisation reaches highish levels a series of system-wide changes seem to start to happen in the transport system and the land-use system that may tend to 'lock in' continued high levels of car use (many call this the emergence of 'automobile dependence' or 'automobile dependency').
- conversely, slowing down the rate of motorisation might buy time in which cities can enhance their ability to cope and enhance the various alternatives to private motor vehicles (Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and others seem to have benefited from this effect, even if it was not always deliberate, and have been able to retain high levels of public transport use despite high levels of affluence).
Finally, in the big picture it seems clear that motor vehicle use, fossil fuel use in transport, and other impacts of traffic such as road deaths, are all highly correllated with vehicle ownership. At the national scale, differences in usage per vehicle are relatively small (although in cities such differences can be larger apparently).

But what government could even consider taxing car purchases or ownership more severely? Doesn't everyone aspire to the freedom offered by private vehicle ownership?

Certainly the politics are curly. I wonder if the way forward is to look for the aspirations that lie behind the desire for car ownership?

People certainly do want transport to serve them very well... including many or all of the benefits that a private vehicle offers. But is it a car that most people really want? Or is it the convenient access to the contacts, goods, services and places that high mobility with your own car seems to offer?

Obviously none of the alternatives can match the attractions of cars on their own - even in the most transit-oriented places I suspect. Not public transport. Not even a wonderful metro system. Not bicycles. Not taxis. Not car sharing even.

But there are some signs that maybe a package of all of these alternatives, working in cooperation, MIGHT just start to offer people a level of mobility service that approaches car ownership's and which beats it on price decisively. Switzerland's car sharing industry has been leading the way on this. HannoverMobile in Germany seems to be taking it further - offering a mobility package that is competitive with car ownership.

If we can offer a vision of meeting people's real mobility aspirations without private car ownership then could a policy of slowing vehicle ownership actually become politically acceptable?

A thousand pink elephants in the room? Should we be paying more attention to small and medium-sized cities?

2005-12-16T18:58:00.000+08:00

Are we missing something by paying so much attention to large cities and megacities in urban transport policy for developing countries?

OK, it is currently a fact that a high percentage of the motor vehicles in low-income and middle-income countries tend to be in the largest cities (where the affluent people who can afford them live).

And sure, the big cities are the densely built-up places where motor vehicles (even in small numbers per capita compared with OECD countries) wreak the most havoc in terms of pollution, congestion, crashes, etc.

But I have been wondering if maybe we should be paying more attention to smaller and medium-sized cities such as those with populations between 100,000 and two million or so?

Here are a few reasons off the top of my head... thinking aloud here:

* A high proportion of the urban population is in small and medium urban areas. For example, Asia had just over 60% of its urbanised population living in urban areas with population 1 million or less. according to the UN World Urbanization Prospects 2003 Revision. By the way, this was not so much different from other regions and all regions are relatively stable over time in these proportions. Henderson and Wang in a work in progress on 'Urbanisation and City Growth' (download from here) say that in 2000 of all those people in significant urban areas (those of more than 100,000 people), 37.2% of them are in cities between 100,000 and 1 million and 28.9% of them are in cities between 1 and 3 million in population. So worldwide 66% of the people in significant urban places are in cities between 100,000 and 3 million. And they also argue that these proportions seem stable over time.

* It is harder to promote and improve public transport in smaller cities. Smaller cities lack dense corridors and face more difficulty building up their demand for public transport. On the other hand, Asia's big, dense cities probably have relatively limited options. Sooner or later they find that space constraints force them to bite the bullet and adopt policies to restrain private vehicles and promote the alternatives.

* The risk of an auto-oriented future seems greater for the small and medium cities. For those of us who think that ever-increasing motorisation is a threat to global sustainable development, smaller cities look like a tougher arena than big cities. They seem more likely than big cities to succumb to the temptations of accommodating private vehicles too generously. They are also more likely to 'get away with this' for a time. Many will muddle along, expanding roads and intersections, decongesting their centres and expanding car and motorcycle parking ... possibly until it is 'too late' and they have already 'built in' a dependence on private vehicles. In rich countries, the residents of small towns and cities are generally more automobile dependent than big city folks. Economic success in middle-income countries is likely to see motorisation in small cities catch up and overtake that of the megacities. For example, I am watching Malaysia closely on this. Kuala Lumpur's metropolitan area (with about 5 million people) is a very car-oriented place (considering its modest average income levels) but the public transport alternative is at least slowly improving. However, public transport is extremely poor in Malaysia's smaller cities, such as Georgetown, Ipoh, Seremban, Malacca, Kuching, etc. (as has been discussed recently in the msia-plan-transp yahoogroup).

But what are the keys to enhancing alternative to private cars and motorcycles in small and medium cities where sexy mass transit is clearly not an option?

And where will the political urgency for alternatives come from?

Car Sharing in Asia?

2005-12-07T12:46:00.000+08:00

Car Sharing in Asia?

A recent Transportation Research Board (TRB) notice on a new report caught my eye. The report from the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Report 108: Car-Sharing— Where and How It Succeeds, has an Executive Summary online. It focuses on the North American experience and finds:

Car-sharing is overwhelmingly concentrated in metropolitan cores – around 95% of members are found in these settings. High density, a good pedestrian environment, a mix of uses and parking pressures all help car-sharing to succeed. Most important appears to be the ability to live without a car – or with just one vehicle. Low vehicle ownership rates are the best predictor of a strong market for car-sharing. University campuses also provide an important market niche. (p.ES-3)

This reminded me that I have been wondering about the progress of car sharing in the Asia Pacific region, and which Asian cities might have conditions well suited to flourishing car sharing. It is certainly taking off in Singapore with three competing companies - NTUC INCOME Car Co-op, Whizzcar and Honda ICVS.

At first glance it would seem that many other middle and higher-income Asian cities also have the right characteristics (or at least those that have managed to achieve some decent public transport). Most are certainly dense and have mixed land uses. Parking is often in short supply. Car ownership is low to modest throughout most of the region (with the exceptions of Malaysian cities and Brunei).

A quick search for Asian car sharing examples revealed that it is indeed starting to catch on in Japan (including Tokyo, Yokohama and Nagoya at least) according to an article in the Japan Times and an excellent web article on Car Sharing in Yokohama and Fukuoka which also provides a good description of car sharing and its background.

But elsewhere I drew a blank. What about Korean cities? Seoul is as public transport oriented as they come. Taipei’s public transport has been steadily improving and its urban characteristics look ideal. Certain parts of cities like KL and Bangkok might even have potential? Other places?

Does this suggest there is a business opportunity for car sharing in numerous cities around the region?

ITDP on negotiations over public space in Jogja

2005-11-25T16:05:00.000+08:00

The lastest edition of ITDP's annual magazine is out and is a great read for anyone interested in urban transport in developing countries. You can download Sustainable Transport #17 as a pdf.

I was struck by the article "Pedestrianization in Yogyakarta: Transforming the Malioboro One Step at a Time". It offers a fascinating insight into the complex range of actors involved as local academics, the local authorities and NGOs try to launch a pedestrianisation effort in Yogyakarta's main street - Malioboro.

We had been warned by Electrowatt’s consultants that the real problem lay in the opposition from groups representing parking, becak, and street vendor interests. Instran began a dialog with these various interest groups, to see whether or not a plan could be developed that incorporated their concerns without sacrificing the public interest. This analysis showed that at least 13 groups were profiting from the appropriation of public space along Malioboro Road. These groups include all strata of society. Six were vendors associations that controlled specific localities. Several were becak unions. Several other were organized societies of street children who make a few pennies helping the vendors with minor tasks. One or two were legal chambers of commerce. The rest are basically protection rackets and criminal gangs, mostly controlling the parking, with connections all the way up to senior government figures who earn a few dollars by pretending not to notice the expropriation of public space by private interests.

Among those groups, the parking attendants and the groups that control them are clearly the most powerful and profitable. In addition, the structure of the parking industry turned out to be much more complex than anyone had imagined.

Wow! That is a little sobering. In such a context efforts to move forward with a pedestrianisation plan are obviously very complex, as the article discusses in some depth. Such insights are an important antitode to technocractic thinking for anyone seeking to transform public spaces in cities.

It will be interesting to watch as the story unfolds further.

Urban transport news sources

2005-11-23T18:51:00.000+08:00

It is not easy to keep up with news on urban transport policy issues around the region (or world).

Helpful compilers of urban transport-related news include SUTP's news page and the Clean Air Initiative-Asia (CAI-Asia) newsletter and some of the other links from there.

News, comments, announcements and debates on urban transport with relevance to Asia can also be seen on discussion forums, such as Asia-focused Sustran-discuss and often on the more general new mobility cafe.

Blogging on urban transport in Asia or for Asia

2005-11-23T18:13:00.000+08:00

I keep a close eye on urban transport policy issues, with a focus on Asia, from a base in Singapore. I plan to use this blog to focus my mind and share some thoughts on the transport and urban issues that interest me.

All over the region people are desperate for better urban transport policy... and desperately trying to work out what that means.

I hope this blog can be useful and interesting for anyone interested in the role of transport in making cities and towns better for everyone.

The focus is Asia but I will also post things from elsewhere that might be of interest here in Asia.

It should complement the great work being done by people like the GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP), the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and many others.