POST EARTHQUAKE TRANSPORT FOR CHRISTCHURCH - Bus Rapid Transit or Rail Options? Dr CHRISTOPHER KISSLING PROFESSOR EMERITUS LINCOLN UNIVERSITY ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
POST EARTHQUAKE TRANSPORT
FOR
CHRISTCHURCH
Bus Rapid Transit or Rail Options?
Dr CHRISTOPHER KISSLING
PROFESSOR EMERITUS
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENT EASTS NEW ZEALAND
City Design: How Retrofit PT?
Going, Going, Gone.
Two Years On - Central Christchurch, New Zealand Post Earthquake October 2012.
The open spaces are what has already been cleared of buildings for reasons of safety
Land classification Post Earthquakes
Christchurch, New Zealand
Technical Category 1
Future land damage from
liquefaction is unlikely
Technical Category 2
Minor to moderate land
damage from liquefaction is
possible in future significant
earthquakes
Technical Category 3
Moderate to significant land
damage from liquefaction is
possible in future significant
earthquakes
Red Zone
Underground Transport not an option for Christchurch Land repair would be
prolonged and uneconomic
EXMPLE NOT TO BE COPIED
• Public transport is shared passenger transport
• Anyone can use it
• Someone pays for it
Mass Transit
• Main focus is on
urban or city transport
• Modes?
– Road
– Rail
– Water
KEY POINTS • BUILD AND USE ENERGY EFFICIENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS • USE TRANSPORT NETWORKS TO HELP SHAPE URBAN FABRIC AND LAND USES • DEVISE ATTRACTIVE, INTEGRATED, and EFFECTIVE MULTIMODAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT • USE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO HELP GUIDE USERS AND TO OPTIMISE SERVICE EFFICIENCIES
Bus Rapid Transit
• Similar characteristics to
rail
• Private rights of way
Photos. Wikipedia
• Higher capacity vehicles
– More articulated and double articulated
– Double decked (see Phileas bus videos on U Tube)
• Computer managed systems
• Distinction between bus and trains becomes
blurred
– Eg. Rubber tired trams and metro systems
• Cars also become more sophisticated
– Hybrid, electric
Vehicle Innovation
Double
articulated
bus in Photo: Wikimedia
Hamburg
• On street
• Mixed Traffic
• No physical separation
• No grade separation at
intersections
Photo: The Transit Pass
Guided bus
WAY TO GO ?
• Unprecedented opportunities
• Need to get it right in harmony with rebuild
• Should adopt World Class systems
• Must be resilient
• Must enthuse the public and businesses
• Must be energy efficient
• A laboratory for the World to watch – so come and
visit several times over next 10 years
Eastern Asia Summit for Public
Transportation
Session I: Policy & Financial Sustainability of Public
Transportation
‐ The Case of Metro Manila, Philippines
By: Hussein S. LIDASAN, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Urban & Regional Planning, University of the Philippines
President, Transportation Science Society of the Philippines
2012 October 16
Taipei, Taiwan
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION:
I. Public Transport System in
Metro Manila
II. Transport Administration and
Financial Policy Framework
III. Policy Recommendations
I. Public Transport System in Metro Manila Metro Manila: National Capital Region of the Philippines
Public Transport System in Metro Manila:
Basically land‐based and operated by the private sector, consists
of:
a. Rail‐based mass transit system
b. Bus
c. Jeepney (PUJ)
d. Shared taxi on fixed route (vans)
(HOV, also known as GT Express)
e. Taxi
Supported by low‐occupancy indigenous transport
system, for short trips:
‐ Motorized tricycles
‐ Motorcycle taxi
‐ Non‐motorized tricycles
Traffic Demand by Mode of Transport in MM, 1996Comparison of PT Structure in MM, 1996 & 2006 Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011 Current Railway Network in Metro Manila Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011
Performance Indicators of Rail Sector in Metro Manila On‐going and Proposed Rail‐based Mass Transit Systems in Metro Manila Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011
II. Transport
Administration and
Policy Framework
Urban Transport Administration:Total DOTC and DPWH Budgets as a share of GDP, 1990‐2006 (in %)
Source: Transport Public Expenditure Review, World Bank 2007
DOTC Annual Budget, 2004 ‐ 2009
YEAR BUDGET (PhP ‘000) Growth Rate
2004 8,283,399 ‐
2005 8,324,244 0.5
2006 8,702,885 4.5
2007 18,041.374 107.3
2008 21,942.337 21.6
2009 23,660.782 7.8
Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011Financial Structure for Transport Development
Philippine • Appropriate financing mechanisms,
Government including planning/programming for
formulates its transport projects & programs are
CAPITAL outlined and defined
INVESTMENT • Menu of financing schemes:
PROGRAM, CIP, • General Appropriations Act, GAA,
outlining various enacted by Philippine Congress
programs & projects • Overseas Development Aid (ODA),
supporting the six‐ loans/grants by IFIs
year medium‐term • Bonds or similar instruments of the
development plan, Government
MTDP (also known • Private Sector Participation
as Philippine (PSP)/Public Private Partnership (PPP)/
Development Plan, Private Financing Initiatives (PFI)
PDP) modalities
Budget Process for Transport Projects
Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011Typical Risk Allocation Matrix for Solicited BOT Project using NEDA Format Plausible PPP modalities, under RA 6957 & RA 7718, the private sector can choose: Build‐and‐Transfer (BT) Build‐Lease‐and‐Transfer (BLT) Build‐Operate‐and‐Transfer (BOT) Build‐Own‐and‐Operate (BOO) Build‐Transfer‐and‐Operate (BTO) Contract‐Add‐and‐Operate (CAO) Develop‐Operate‐and‐Transfer (DOT) Rehabilitate‐Operate‐and‐Transfer (ROT) Rehabilitate‐Own‐and Operate (ROO)
PPP Modalities for Development of Transport Systems and Infrastructure Projects
Source: AusAid PEGR PPP Study, 2009
PPP Project Approval and Bid Flowchart
Source: JBIC Research on Urban Railway Transport in Metro Manila, April 2011Financial Sustainability Issues & How to Address Them
Accuracy and validity Updated and relevant data for demand estimation
travel demand Correct demand projection methodology and
projections calibrated model for estimation
Appropriate assumptions and responsive development
framework
Proper identification of Risk Analyses
risks and allocation Clearly stated in transaction arrangements/documents
Viability gap Employment of the concept of VFM (Value for Money)
Choosing the ‘best PPP option beneficial to public
transport (PT) project
– government develop/construct PT system &
proponent manage, operate and maintain
– development thru ODA and proponent operate
and maintain PT system
– Proponent develop and operate PT system
Direct subsidy by the government to fill the gap
Conduct of business case prior to address the above issues and determining
most viable and sustainable financial scheme/modality
Coming up with a viable framework
for sustainable financing of PT
system in Metro Manila is timely
Development of a mass transit
system anchored on the BRT (Bus
Rapid Transit) is gaining popularity
Davao City
Cebu City
Metro ManilaThank you very much!!
Eastern Asia Summit Forum for Public Transportation
Session 1: Policy and Financial Sustainability of Public
Transportation
Situation of Urban Public Transportation
in Japan
2012.10.16
Prof. ISHIDA Haruo
President, EASTS-Japan
The University of Tsukuba
Public Transportation
Rising Expectations
Environment
Safety
Equity
Attractive Towns
Walkable Neighborhood
Tough Realities
Decreasing demand
㻌 Difficult management
Increasing car demandTrend of
Modal Split Cars
Changes
All
Japan →
Rural Areas㻌 →
Cars
Car share is increasing
Struggling Buses
㯮Ꮠ
Bus companies are
continuously loosing
money
㉥Ꮠ
They stop operations
7,000䡚10,000km/year㻌
㏻ᨻ⟇ᑂ㆟㈨ᩱCommunity Buses
To provide transportation services
mainly in areas without good public
transport.
Basically not profitable
Almost two thirds of local governments
have their operate
But, financial situation of community bus䞉䞉
ேཱྀつᶍู䚷ᨭ⋡䠄䠂䠅
㻝㻜㻜
㻥㻜
㻤㻜 ᖹᆒᨭ⋡䚷㻞㻤䠂
㻣㻜
㻢㻜 㻡㻢㻚㻢
㻡㻜
㻠㻜
㻟㻣㻚㻠
㻟㻜㻚㻡
㻟㻜
㻞㻜 㻝㻢㻚㻝
㻝㻜
㻜
㹼ே ே㹼ே ே㹼ே ே㹼
䚷䈜ᅜ䝁䝭䝳䝙䝔䜱䝞䝇䛾ᨭ䜢䝷䞁䝎䝮䛻㻠㻝㊰⥺ศ䡠㟁ヰㄪᰝ䛧䛯⤖ᯝ
Revenue : Cost 䠙㻌 䠍㻌 䠖㻌 䠎䡚䠑Actions taken toward
Sustainable Public Transportation
• At implementation stage with good effects
– Subsidy to Public Transportation
– Sales / Marketing Activities of Bus Companies
– Provision of New Services
BRT, Special Discount Ticket, Community Bus
– Mobility Management
• Just started
– Smart Shrink to Compact City Toyama, Aomori,…
• At discussion stage,
– Basic Law on Transportation Policy
– Road Pricing / Environmental Pricing
Mobility Management in Japan
MM is a series of sustained efforts aimed at facilitating a spontaneous modification
of personal mobility patterns of individuals and collective mobility patterns
of organizations/communities that is desirable for both individuals and society
as a whole through the utilization of
diverse transport policy measures, centering on communication.
㻝㻠㻜
㻝㻝㻤
㻝㻞㻜
㻝㻜㻜
The number of MM projects 㻤㻜 㻢㻢
has been steadily increasing. 㻢㻜
㻠㻜 㻟㻡
㻞㻜 㻝㻜 㻝㻠
㻞 㻟 㻢
㻝
㻜
㻝㻥㻥㻥 㻞㻜㻜㻜 㻞㻜㻜㻝 㻞㻜㻜㻞 㻞㻜㻜㻟 㻞㻜㻜㻠 㻞㻜㻜㻡 㻞㻜㻜㻢 㻞㻜㻜㻣
A meta-analysis of those domestic MM projects has revealed that
CO2 emissions were reduced by about 19%
car use was reduced by about 12%,
public transport use increased by about 50%
among participating households.Basic Law on Transportation Policy
• Still in discussion in the Diet
• Provision of basic framework of transportation policy on
both passenger and freight transport, covering all modes
• Central government must develop a Master Plan and
local governments can
– To meet basic mobility needs of people
– To maintain environmental quality
– To establish collaboration/ cooperation among stakeholders
– To identify responsibility of stakeholders
• High Expectations
-To raise transportation issues among people
-To get support from communities
-To secure subsidy
-To develop integrated comprehensive transportation
policyPublic Transportation Funding in Australia
Proportion of State spending on Transport services
(Source: Commonwealth Grants Commission 2012)Public Transportation Funding in Australia
Actual spending on transport services by each state (per capita)
(Source: Commonwealth Grants Commission 2012)
Patronage using 2001-2002 as Base YearFacts Behind the Trends
• Perth opened the Mandurah rail line in late 2007
• South East Queensland has been investing in bus services
significantly in recent years, including radial bus ways to the
Brisbane CBD, the drop in 2010 due to flood
• Melbourne’s patronage has grown despite hardly any
significant increase in service on trains and trams
• Auckland and Christchurch had very strong growth to a peak
in 2002-03. Christchurch patronage fell dramatically in 2010-
11 following a major
• Adelaide has not been investing significantly in bus or train
services in recent years, but now is changing, i.e. bus priority
in CBD
Train PatronageFacts Behind the Changes
• Auckland train patronage is off the chart. 2010-11 patronage was
almost 384% of 2001-02’s. Heavily investing in services and a new
city terminal.
• Significant surge in Perth train patronage following the opening of
the Mandurah line in late 2007.
• Melbourne has seen a steady increase in train patronage since
2005. Short extensions Sydenham and Craigieburn, and mostly peak
period services added over the last 9 years.
• Sydney (City Rail) showed some modest growth between 2005-06
and 2008-09.
• Adelaide train patronage has been fairly flat, with a drop in 2010-
11, probably related to the closing of the Gawler line from 6 June
2010.
• Wellington train patronage had a peak in 2002-03, and has had
modest growth since then, stronger in 2009-10.
Bus PatronageFacts Behind Trends
• South East Queensland is by far the standout for bus
patronage growth, followed substantial investment in bus
ways/bus frequency
• Melbourne’s bus patronage growth follows significant
increases in services from 2006-07 onwards
• Perth’s bus patronage is an interesting story. 2007-08 and
2009-10, patronage increased by 14%, while timetabled kms
only increased by 2.8%. When the Mandurah line was opened
in late 2007, buses that previously travelled into the city were
converted into rail feeder buses. This significantly reduced the
bus trip lengths and hence passenger trip lengths for people
who now transfer onto trains.
Financial Sustainability in Transportation
World Bank (1996):
To be economically and financially sustainable, transport must be …
• Cost-effective
• Continuously responsive to changing demands
Furthermore ..
• Competition is to be facilitated by regulatory reform to enable private firms to enter
and exit the market more freely
• To force transport suppliers to respond to users' needs at lower costs
• Charges for the use of infrastructure and services that reflect the full
cost of that use to society are necessary for market signals to be meaningful
• The commercialisation of remaining public sector firms is also necessary for
economic and financial sustainability.Financial Sustainability in Public Transport
Factors influencing the costs recovery by pubic transport revenue:
¾ Fares policy
For fare box maximization?!
Receiving contributions (usually from government) for reduced fares for
special groups of people (the disable, senior citizens, students, etc.)
¾ Service frequency
Providing a service more frequent than is justified on economic criteria
(particularly at off-peak)
¾ The extent and management of PT network (profitable/ non-profitable routes)
¾ Policies towards land use planning and road traffic managementFinancial Sustainability in Public Transport
Common funding models for public transportation:
• Fare box
• Commercial revenues (advertising)
• Compensation for social consideration and service quality
• Subsidy the services!!!
• Using free capital investment and infrastructure
• User paying one third of the real cost for fares only
Fare Determination
The major objectives:
• To attract the maximum number of passengers
Trade-off!
• To generate the maximum revenue
Political
• To achieve specific goals decisions
• increasing the mobility of users
• improving access to services
• promoting patronages
The common requirements and constraints:
• Elasticity of supply/demand
• Social justice
• Lower income
• DisabledFinancial Sustainability in Public Transport
Cost recovery by fares ?!
Major increase in
fare
Less cost- Diverting passengers to
effectiveness auto
Less revenue Less patronage
+ +
Low-quality services Traffic Congestion
Other extreme side: Neglecting the revenue objective?!
Considering ensured government inefficient system and extremely
funds dependent on political decisions.
Utilisation Based on Population
16Modal Split (trips) in Australia
Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics 2009
(Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics 2009)
Public Transportation Funding in Australia
• In all States, the revenue received from public transport fares fails to cover the
expenses in providing the service.
• States need to subsidise public transport services.
• The Commonwealth also provides funds for some transport infrastructure.
States’ subsidies to public transport providers:
• To assist with the operation of bus or train services
• To cover concession fares
• To undertake the capital investment needed for the supporting
infrastructure (e.g. bus fleets, rail tracks and rolling stock)
In 2010-11, States spent $7.4 billion on transport services, representing 3.7% of total State
expenses at average(Commonwealth Grant Commission 2012 ).Fares in Australian Cities (2009)
19
Developing Financially Sustainable Public Transport
• Designing services to maximise user benefits and increase patronage within existing
resources
• Competing with other transport modes by providing high-quality services to attract as
many potential users as possible (Requires the policies which make car usage more costly
and less convenient)
• Operating in accordance with the sufficient demand to meet revenue expectations without
equity criteria issues (fining a balance)
• Finding a balance between service productivity and service coverage
• Specifying productivity and efficiency indicators and monitoring them constantly
• Promoting legal means to obtain other sources of revenue (advertising, taxes, etc.)
• Facilitating private sector partnership and attracting private sources of financing via
regulated competitive environment
• Collaborating with governmental sectors and labour unionsDeveloping Financially Sustainable Public Transport (cont.)
The institutional integration among the all associated bodies to enhance outcomes
At lower level:
the integration of public transport systems
• in their own right
Different
• between different modes and operators modes
• other transport modes
at the stages of investment, planning and
operation Other Policy Infrastructure
areas Provision
Policy
At higher level: Instruments
the integration with other policy frameworks
associated with transport policies
• urban planning
• environmental policies Land use Pricing
• social systems (e.g. health, social services
and educational systems)You can also read
