THE IMPACT OF DELAYING PUBLIC TRANSPORT REFORMS ON SUSTAINABILITY

Transcription

1 THE IMPACT OF DELAYING PUBLIC TRANSPORT REFORMS ON SUSTAINABILITY Amal S. Kumarage FCILT Immediate Past-President CILT Sri Lanka Senior Professor, University of Moratuwa CILTSL International Conference 2 nd November 2012

2 Q. WHY DO WENEEDTO DEVELOP A PUBLICTRANSIT SYSTEM? WILL NOT THE PROBLEM BE SOLVED, WHEN WE CAN ALL AFFORD A PRIVATE VEHICLE IN THE FUTURE? 2

3 Outline of Presentation 1. Why PT is necessary for sustainability? 2. Why reforms in PT are necessary? 3. Why reforms have not been fully successful? 4. What reforms are necessary to improve PT?

4 1. Why PT is necessary for sustainability?

5 Sri Lanka- Business-as-usual Transport Scenario Year 10 Year Fleet Growth Rate Operational Vehicle Fleet Vehicle Ownership per 1000 persons Vehicle Kms Operated Passenger Kms Carried Modal Share Bus Rail Private Other % p.a. 2.7 mn bn 100 bn % p.a. 4.8 mn bn 150 bn % p.a. 7.8 mn bn 226 bn

6 Demand for Travel by Mode ( )

7 DEMAND FOR TRAVEL BY MODE ( )

8 Speed km/hr Time for Road Capacity to be doubled Daily Average Peak Hour Years Sri Lanka Colombo District

9 Daily Average Speed(Km/hr) Peak Hour Speed (Km/hr) Years to Double Capacity required to maintain Speeds Outer Circular (Kottawa-Ja ela) years Colombo-Katunayake (P goda- K yake) years

10

11 In last 20 years: Fuel use has increased by 3 times Fuel cost has increased by 6 times That amounts to a 16% growth annually

12 Increase in Road capacity requirement will be 100% (more to improve speed) Require doubling of spending of GDP on highways from 2% to 4% Constrained by Space in Urban areas. Increase of Fuel Bill from 4% of GDP to 8% even at current oil prices Benefits will reduce and costs increase if speeds cannot be maintained. Congestion, pollution, environmental and road safety impacts will increase. Quality of Life will deteriorate & Overall transport costs will increase 12

13 Sustainability Living within the limits Why? Understanding the interconnections among economy, society, and environment Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities

14 2. Why Reforms in PT are necessary?

15 Vehicle Ownership Rate (per 1000 person) Vehicle Ownership Rate Vs Per Capita Income at Different Levels of Intervention Low Moderate High USA, Australia, Canada Belgium,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Seoul 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 Per Capita Income 1995 PPP(USD) Singapore, Hong Kong

16 Factors Determining Vehicle Ownership Levels Pop Density Population Density (pop/ ha) Roads (m/ pop) Share of Public Transport Vehicle Ownership Saturation (per 1000 p) Restrictions Low < 25 > 4 < 5% No restriction on ownership or Use Moderate % No restriction on ownership restrictions on use High > 75 < % Restrictions on ownership and use Sri Lanka 3 p/ha 5 m/p Colombo District 35 p/ha 2 m/p Colombo City 174 p/ha <0.2m/p 16

17 PRESENT HIGH DENSITY AREAS FORCONSIDERATION ASPT PRIORITY AREAS Jaffna Batticaloa Kurunegala Kandy CMC, DMMC, SJKMC Galle 17

18 What they have done? Europe Mostly Suburban and Light Rail Systems supported by buses. Some with NMT. Latin America Renewal led by Bus Transit (BRT) now 97 cities operating East Asia Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, Osaka have successes with Rapid Transit and Buses to curtail motorization. South Asia In India 17 cities have or are planning Bus Transit Systems 10 of then under JnNURM City Walking Cycling Public Private Transport Motor Vehicle year Amsterdam 4% 22% 30% 44% 2004 Bern 11% 11% 54% 24% 2001 Bratislava 4% 0% 70% 26% 2004 Budapest 22% 2% 30% 46% 2004 Helsinki 12% 6% 40% 41% 2004 Copenhagen 6% 36% 29% 26% 2004 Frankfurt 11% 7% 39% 43% 2004 Hamburg 8% 8% 33% 51% 2004 Lisbon 10% 0% 46% 40% 2001 Madrid 9% 0% 43% 48% 2004 Munich 9% 8% 41% 41% 2004 Paris 55% 3% 31% 11% 2008 [3] Prague 23% 1% 43% 33% 2009 [4] Stockholm 15% 7% 43% 33% 2004 The Hague 5% 22% 30% 43% 2004 Stuttgart 13% 4% 32% 51% 2004 Vienna 28% 5% 36% 31 % 2010 [5] Warsaw 21% 1% 54% 24% 2005 [6] 18 Zürich 8% 5% 63% 25% 2001

19 Conclusion Public Transport must be developed to provide a service that will be competitive with private transport use for: Urban Transport Inter-urban transport

20 3. Why Reforms in PT in SL have not been fully successful?

21 Policy Paradigms in Bus Transport Result Poor Reinvestment Low Fares Quality Improves then Declines Low Labour Productivity 1979 Mixed State & Private Operators Poor Regulation 1907 Single Bus Owners Result Owner Operators Standards Decline High Investment Oversupply Collusive Behaviour High Load Factors Result High investment Owner Operators Intense Competition Low Fares 1958 Nationalized Monopoly Result Exploitation of Workers Poor Service Quality by Failing Companies Others make High Profits Environment 1938 Route Licensing Territorial Monopolies Fare Control Bus Companies

22 Reforms in Bus Transport Policy Reform carried out Problems/Alternate Reform 1958 Nationalization PoliticalObjective/ PPP for underperforming companies 1978 Peoplizationof state buses & Re- Private Management for SLTB and entry of Private Operators Corporate Operators 2003 Private Management for State buses Stopped dueto transparency issues 2005 SLTB Re-instituted with controls Political control continues 2008 PrivateBus regulatory control reforms on trial basis Discontinued in favourof political control

23 Reforms in Railway Transport Policy Reform carried out Problems/Alternate Reform 2003 Railway Authority Trade Union Opposition/ Restructuring 2005 Railway Management Council Nopolitical will to enforce/restructuring to SBUs

24 Encourage Use of Public Transport Influence shift from Road to Rail from Private modes to Public modes Provide public the widest possible choice of Modes Optimize land and road use Conservation of Environment and Energy Achieve cost effectiveness and affordability 24

25 Lessons from failure of Reforms (or lack of them) in PT Political objectives supersede the desire to improve functionality and service levels Poor policy formulation that is not sustainable and creates more problems than what is solved Lack of transparency in dealing with private sector No commitment to explicit policy-led governance

26 4. What reforms are necessary to improve PT?

27 Internal management restructuring to create SBUs Create operational SBUs (e.g. freight, tourism, property) to enter in to PPP for investment to develop services that will return financial surpluses. Provide public investment to develop further the SBUs responsible for (a) sub urban and intercity passenger services and (b) track related infrastructure. Provide Public Service Obligations for other SBUs such as (regional passenger trains). 27

28 Restructure management with possible private sector assistance on depot level while retaining ownership. Convert individual operators to franchised companies/ cooperatives. De-politicize and Institutional Strengthening of Regulators. 28

29 29 Parliament Rd Negombo Rd Peradeniya Rd Kandy Rd Galle Rd

30 View of BRT Corridors

31 Conclusion Corporatize or CooperatizePrivate Bus Service Providers Management Concession for SLTB operations New urban modes of PT Unbundling of SLR Services and set up SBUs for private sector investment in non-core areas Design Urban Highways for PT Services

32 Overall Policy Reforms in PT Policy reversal on using PT supply for political objectives over service objectives Ensure qualified management Maintain balance between State and private investment De-politicize regulators and improve capacity to plan and regulate

33 THANK YOU for sustainable education reforms!!