OPTIONS FOR MASS RAPID TRANSIT (MRT) UNDER AN INTEGRATED URBAN TRANSPORT FRAMEWORK

1
OPTIONS FOR MASS RAPID TRANSIT (MRT)UNDER AN
INTEGRATED URBAN TRANSPORT FRAMEWORK

• National Workshop on Urban Air Quality Management
  and Integrated Traffic Management organized by
  IUCN
•  
• at Avari Towers, Karachi
• 13-14 September, 2006

by Amer Z. Durrani (World Bank), with
contributions from Ayaz Parvez, Gerhard
Menckhoff and Vincent Gouarne (World Bank)
South Asia Sustainable Development Unit The World
Bank
2
(No Transcript)
3

1. The Typical Urban Transport Scenario Continuing
   Trends in Developing Countries
2. The Focus for Banks involvement in Urban
   Transport
3. Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
   Interventions
4. Types of MRT
5. Comparison of MRT Options
6. Strategic Considerations for MRT Decisions
7. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
8. Operational Features of some BRTs in Different
   Countries
9. Comparison of Performance and Cost of Typical MRT
   Systems
10. An India Case Study Urban Poverty and Transport
11. A Pakistan Case Study An Urban Transport
    Situation Assessment for Karachi

4
The Typical Urban Transport Scenario Trends in
Developing Countries

• Urban population expanding at more than 6 percent
  per year in many developing countries.
•  
• The number of mega-cities (with over 10 million
  inhabitants) expected to double within a
  generation.
•  
• More than one-half of the developing worlds
  population and between 1/3rd and one-half of its
  poor will live in cities.
•  
• Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution is on the
  rise in these cities.
•  
• Pedestrians and Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) are
  poorly served by the cities transport systems.

5
The Typical Urban Transport Scenario Trends in
Developing Countries

• Journeys to work are becoming excessively long
  and costly for the extreme poor.
• Municipalities are under-pricing the congested
  road space and right of way, and not charging
  appropriate impact fees for land development.
• Fare and service controls are ill-directed, and
  are not part of comprehensive city transport
  financing plan, and worse still, their impacts on
  poor are not assessed.
• Financing issues hindering provision,
  improvement, and maintenance of appropriate and
  demand driven mass transit solutions for the
  cities residents.

6
World Banks Focus in Urban Transport

• Urban transport contributes to poverty reduction
• indirectly through its impact on the city economy
• directly through its impact on the daily needs of
  the poor.
• View transport needs in the broader context of
  urban development
• Need a shift of emphasis from economic and
  financial viability alone to a strong poverty
  focus.
• Need to target socially excluded (in terms of
  inaccessibility to jobs, schools, health
  facilities and social activities) and not just
  the income poor.
• Therefore, the three pillars of the Banks Urban
  Transport strategy include
• improving the operational efficiency of
  transport
• better focusing of interventions to assist the
  poor and,
• policy and institutional reform.

7
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Remedies for The Road System

• Improve transport efficiency through better
  system management
• Technical Assistance and Investment for Adoption
  of Modern traffic management techniques
• Better road operation and maintenance

8
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Remedies for Non Motorized Transport

• Due Recognition in Transport Planning, including
  road design
• Provision for the rights and responsibilities of
  pedestrians and bicyclists in traffic law
• National Strategy on NMT
• Provide Separate Infrastructure where appropriate

9
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Public Passenger Transport

• Bus lanes and automatic priority at intersection
  help, but constrained by inadequate enforcement
  by untrained police
• Exclusive bus-ways perform (have been a success
  in many developing countries) nearly equivalent
  to rail-based systems at much lower cost (except
  in very high traffic volume corridors)

10
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Mass Transit

• Investment decisions based on comparative
  analysis of strategic objectives, technological
  alternatives, and socio-economic and financial
  implicationsnot on short-term political or
  commercial opportunism.
• Rail-based mass transit systems have a role only
  in very large cities, as these are less
  congesting and serve the peripherally located in
  work journeys.
• Plans for urban rail systems must be part of an
  overarching urban transport strategyphysical and
  fare integration between modes, specially to
  avoid the exclusion of the poor.

11
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Mass Transit

• Mass transit projects should be cautiously
  appraised vis-à-vis fiscal sustainability and
  affordabilitygiven the very high costs of
  building and operating, and since these can prove
  expensive for passengers (especially the poor).
• Mass transit interventions appear to yield the
  greatest benefits when incorporated into citywide
  price-level, with an advance estimation of full
  cost of investment on municipal budgets, fares
  and impacts on the poor.

12
Improving the Operational Efficiency of
Transport Defining the Role of the private
sector in improving efficiency

• In cases of very high demand for faster movement,
  private capital finance can be secured for
  investments in roads and metros. Examples include
  Bangkok, Buenos Aires and Kuala Lumpur
• Public sector must maintain a strategic, planning
  and regulatory role in such scenarios need very
  high quality public institutions to perform this
  role.

13
Better focusing of Interventions to assist the
Poor

• Designing poverty-targeted transport
  interventions
• 1st Approach Directly serve locations where the
  poor live and work (such as access to slums)
• 2nd Approach Target disadvantaged groups as a
  social safety net
• Addressing environmental pollution (poor tend to
  most vulnerable) and safety/security concerns

14
Different Transport Demands

• Empirical studies in individual cities show
  evidence of differences in the composition,
  number, and mode of trips between poor and
  non-poor (Thompson, 1993 Godard and Olvera,
  2000).
• The urban poor make fewer trips per capita than
  the non-poor, but the differences are not
  extreme.
• The travel purposes of the poor are more limited
  in scope, with journeys to work, education and
  shopping dominating.
• Transport mode differs substantially, with the
  urban poor relying heavily on walking, and the
  non-poor making many more motorized trips.

15
Policy and Institutional Reform

•  Infrastructure Pricing
• Service Provision Pricing
• Urban Transport System Financing
• Strengthened Institutions
• Sound Political Framework

16
Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
Interventions Types of MRT

• Busways these are generally segregated sections
  of roadway within major corridors, with
  horizontal protection from other traffic, and
  priority over other traffic at junctions, which
  are generally signalized.
• Light rail transit (LRT) this is at-grade, with
  similar horizontal protection to busways.
•  
• Metros these are fully segregated, usually
  elevated or underground. It is the segregation
  that is critical to providing a rapid service,
  and the technology that allows a high mass
  ridership to be carried.
• Suburban rail these services are usually
  physically part of a larger rail network, usually
  at-grade and fully segregated incorporating
  road-rail segregation or controlled
  level-crossings.

17
Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
Interventions Comparison of MRT Options

• Use of space
• Busways usually involve reallocation of existing
  roadspace
• LRT often does the same, but may also add new
  capacity, e.g., when using former rail alignment.
• Metros add new capacity, typically increasing the
  passenger-carrying capacity of a major corridor
  by a factor of 3 (they may have no impact on road
  capacity, or if elevated lead to small reduction)
• Integration
• All systems require interchange to provide an
  integrated public transport system
• Rail systems, and busways operating
  trunk-and-feeder services require more
  interchange.

18
Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
Interventions Comparison of MRT Options

• Capacity
• Busways depending on specification, have a
  practical capacity of 10-20,000 passengers per
  hour per direction (pphpd), or occasionally
  higher.
• There are no examples of LRT carrying flows in
  excess of 10,000 pphpd, and there is reason to
  doubt whether they can achieve much higher flows.
• Metros by comparison carry very large passenger
  volumes 60,000 pphpd or higher and
  high-specification suburban rail can typically
  carry 30,000 pphpd.
•  

19
Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
Interventions Comparison of MRT Options

• Level of service
• Rail systems can generally provide a high quality
  ride, and when segregated, regularity.
• Bus systems perform less well in these respects.
•  
• Ability to segment the market
• Bus systems have this ability, by running basic
  and air conditioned/guaranteed seated/express
  buses.
• Rail systems exceptionally provide women-only
  carriages, but otherwise do not segment the
  market.

20
Strategic Framework Decision Model for MRT
Interventions Strategic Considerations for MRT
Decisions
Planning MRT should be part of an overall transport strategy, validated by key stakeholders Consider all MRT options and select on the basis of comparative costs, benefits, demand (specially pro-poor) and sustainability MRT should be part of broader long-term plans for urban and transport development Carry out an assessment of impacts on existing transport system, land use and the environment Ensure the availability of land and rights-of-way
Finance Should be part of a comprehensive financial plan, with secure funding commitments from funding agencies, upfront and during project implementation to avoid delays and cost overruns Full cost implications of new MRT interventions on municipal budgets, fares and the poor should be known MRT systems should be incorporated in citywide price-level and approved city structure or master plans
Management and Pricing Must have strong political support, competent implementation management, and institutional coordination between multiple public agencies Ensure physical coordination with other modes of transport for efficient modal interchange Have fares coordination to keep public transport attractive and protect the poor (through prior impact assessments for the poor)
21
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Worldwide Examples and
Some Common Features

• North America (Ottawa, Boston, Charlotte,
  Cleveland, Miami, Honolulu), Latin America
  (Santiago, Lima, Quito, Bogota, Buenos Aires,
  Curitiba Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre,
  Leon de Guanajuato ), Europe (England, Germany,
  France, Sweden), Asia (Japan), Australia
• Common Features
• Physically segregated busways
• Trunk-feeder operations
• Fare prepayment, flat fares, free transfers with
  feeder buses
• High station platforms
• Mostly operated by private bus companies
• High passenger demand
• Quick implementation
• Much lower cost than LRT or metro alternative
• Metro-like appearance
• Distinct identity and good image

22
What do these BRTs have in common? Quick
implementation

• Bogotá (TransMilenio)
• From idea to commissioning of initial line (9
  miles) 29 months
• Total Phase 1 (additional 16 miles) 19 months
• Phase 2 (additional 28 miles, 2003-2005) 36
  months
• TOTAL -- 7 trunk lines totaling 53 miles 84
  months
• (Metro Option 1 line totaling 18 miles was
  planned to take gt100 months)
• Washington, DC (Metrorail)
• 5 metro lines totaling 103 miles gt360 months
• (gt30 years)

23
What do these BRTs have in common? Much lower
cost than rail alternative

• Bogotá
• TransMilenio infrastructure investment (Phase 1)
  240 million
• TransMilenio private investment
  100 million
• Total public investment 3.6 million/mile
  0.34/pass. (3 years)
• Rail Metro was ready for bidding in 1998
  (18 miles, 3.04 billion, 1.1million pass/day
  estimated for 2008) 167 million/mile
  2.45/pass. (3 years)
• Quito (Trole Phase 1 7 miles)
• Total investment 57.6 million,
  i.e. 3.2 million/mile of which 80 for trolley
  buses and electrical equipment.
• Non-electrical investment (11.3 million)
  0.6 million/mile

24

• Bogota Transmilenio
• 53km segregated busways
• Integrated trunk- feeder scheme
• 117 stations, 7 transfer terminals
• 800,000 ppd, max load point 35,000 pphd
• Commercial speed 20-30kph
• Public investment 2.25m/km,
• funded by a local gasoline surtax

25
What do these BRTs have in common? Metro-like
appearance

• Curitiba

Bogotá
26
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Also, soon to be
implemented in

• Guayaquil (Ecuador)
• Lima (Peru)
• Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cartagena,
  Medellin, Pereira (Colombia)
• San Jose (Costa Rica)
• San Salvador (El Salvador)
• Dehli (India, 132 km of center-lane busways on 7
  major corridors)

27
Mumbai Case Study Main Mode to Work
28
Mumbai Case Study Main Mode to Work

• Rail remains the choice (22 percent of total) for
  long distance commutesand even higher (25
  percent) for middle income households
• Commuters in the In Rs 7,500-20,000 income range
  (the middle income households) who are the
  largest users of public transit .
• In the highest income category (In Rs 20,000 or
  more), the share of walking declines to 15 and
  is replaced 21 for two-wheeler and 25 for car.

29
Mumbai Case Study Expenditure on Transportation
Mean Per Capita Expenditure (InRs/Month) on
Transportation and Share in Income ()
The poor travel less but still spend more of
their meager incomes on travel
30
Mumbai Case Study Conclusions

• The majority of urban households (44 of
  commuters)but especially poor households (63
  percent)rely on walking. Implies that majority
  of households will not benefit directly from
  improvements in public transit, but will benefit
  from the construction of footpaths and roads.
• Public transit remains an important factor in the
  mobility of the poor, and especially in the
  mobility of the middle class.
•  
• Overall, rail remains the main mode to work for
  23 of commuters, while bus remains the main mode
  for 16 of commuter.

31
Mumbai Case Study Conclusions

• The modal shares for bus are highest for the poor
  in zones 1-3 while rail shares are highest for
  the poor in the suburbs.
• Poor are forced to choose lower paid work closer
  to their homes (and thus would appear to have
  fewer job opportunities resulting in greater
  unemployment) due to the high share of transport
  expenditures as percent of their incomesthus
  impeding poverty alleviation.

32
Karachi Urban Transport Challenges

• Fast urbanization Karachi is growing 3.5
  annually, person-trips per day are increasing 9
  annually, and population is increasingly living
  farther away from the city center.
• Rapid motorization 6 per annum share of
  cars/motor cycles has increased from 37 to 45
  in the last decade.
• Increasing traffic congestion motorization,
  encroachments, uncontrolled parking, poor traffic
  enforcement, inadequate investments in transport
  system improvementtravel times increasing making
  Karachi un-competitive.
• Declining share of trips by public transport (53
  to 44) - mostly due to poor quality quantity
  of public transport services, poor incentives,
  weak legislation regulatory framework.
• Declining road safety and air-quality, and
  growing noise pollution - additional health
  burden.

33
Framework
Growth and Poverty Reduction
34
Karachi The Way Forward

• First Steps
•  
• Formulate An Urban Transport Policy Strategy
  with participation role of consumers/voice of
  poor and women
• Develop prioritized multi-year investment plans
•  

35
Karachi The Way Forward

• In the short-term Focus on intensive management
  of existing urban road space
•  
• Traffic engineering management (re-circulation,
  off-street parking, traffic signaling).
• Selective capacity safety improvements (key
  junctions, walkways).
• Introduce measures to manage growing demand
  (charged parking, higher road use charges).
• Facilitate private sector investments,
  rationalize fare policies, introduce route/area
  franchising, provide terminal facilities.
• Update legislation regulatory framework (motor
  vehicle ordinance, bye-laws).
• Proper enforcement public awareness citizens
  support.
• Introduce systematic air quality monitoring,
  enforce vehicle emission standards, phase-out
  gross polluting vehicles.

36
Karachi The Way Forward

• In the medium-term
•  
• Develop a mass transit system BRT with 20,000
  passengers/hour at 1/10th the cost of rail-based
  system
•  
• In the long-term
•  
• Convert high demand BRT corridor(s) into rapid
  rail system
• Integrate public bus and rail systems

37
Karachi The Way Forward

• Challenge urbanization motorization
• Pressure on scarce street space rapidly
  deteriorating service levels -- especially for
  buses and non-motorized modes
• Modal shift to car, further increasing
  congestion levels
• Physical capacity addition alone cannot win this
  game
• Traffic management
• Mode segregation
• Supportive regulation of public transport
  transport
• Demand, parking management (and pricing)
• Pavement management
• Key success factors appropriate revenue sources,
  information management, enforcement

38
Thank you for listening and just remember, its
her future that we hold in our hands..