THE IMPACT OF DELAYING PUBLIC TRANSPORT REFORMS ON

SUSTAINABILITY 

Amal S. Kumarage FCILTImmediate Past-President CILT Sri Lanka

Senior Professor, University of Moratuwa

CILTSL International Conference

2nd November 2012

2

Q.

WHY DO WE NEED TO DEVELOP A PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM?

WILL NOT THE PROBLEM BE SOLVED, WHEN WE CAN ALL AFFORD A PRIVATE VEHICLE IN THE FUTURE?

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?

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

2011 7.5% p.a. 2.7 mn 130 27 bn 100 bn 55 5 26 14

2021 6.0% p.a. 4.8 mn 250 55 bn 150 bn 41 5 38 16

2031 5.0% p.a. 7.8 mn 370 111 bn 226 bn 20 4 57 19

Growth 2011-2031

Vehicle Fleet = 3 times Vehicle Kms = 4 timesRoad Space Requirement = 2 times

Demand for Travel by Mode (1958-2030)

DEMAND FOR TRAVEL BY MODE (1958-2030)

Speed km/hrTime for Road Capacity to be

doubled2011 2021 2031 2031

Daily Average Peak Hour Years

Sri Lanka 25.75 22.62 19.13 11.42 18-20

Colombo District 21.69 17.48 14.41 9.10 10-12

8

Indicator 1: Sustainability of Current Road Network Speeds

2021 2031

Daily AverageSpeed (Km/hr)

Peak Hour Speed

(Km/hr)

Years to Double Capacity required to

maintain Speeds

Outer Circular (Kottawa-Ja ela) 40.4 19.7 8.0 7-10 years

Colombo-Katunayake (P’goda- K’yake) 47.8 24.7 8.0 6-8 years

Indicator 2: Sustainability of New Urban Expressways

Indicator 3: Sustainability of Energy Consumption

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

To maintain current road speeds by 2031

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

Sustainability

Why?

Living within the limits

Understanding the

interconnections among economy,

society, and environment

Equitable distribution of resources

and opportunities

2. Why Reforms in PT are necessary?

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,0000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Vehicle Ownership Rate Vs Per Capita Income at Different Levels of Intervention

Low

Moderate

High

Per Capita Income 1995 PPP(USD)

Ve

hic

le O

wn

ers

hip

Ra

te (

pe

r 1

00

0

pe

rso

n)

Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,

Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Seoul

Singapore, Hong Kong

USA, Australia, Canada

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% 700-900 No restriction on ownership or Use

Moderate 25-75 1-4 15-35% 400-600 No restriction on ownership

restrictions on use High > 75 < 1 50-80% 200-300 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

17

CMC, DMMC,

SJKMC

Kandy

Batticaloa

Kurunegala

Galle

Jaffna

PRESENT HIGH DENSITY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION

AS PT PRIORITY AREAS

18

Cities/Metros that Have Achieved More Sustainable Transport Shares

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

Transport

Private

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]

Zürich 8% 5% 63% 25% 2001

Conclusion

Public Transport must be developed to

provide a service that will be competitive

with private transport use for:

Urban Transport

Inter-urban transport

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

1907Single Bus Owners

ResultHigh investmentOwner Operators

Intense CompetitionLow Fares

Environment·1938Route Licensing

Territorial MonopoliesFare Control

Bus CompaniesResult

Exploitation of WorkersPoor Service Quality by Failing

CompaniesOthers make High Profits

ResultPoor Reinvestment

Low Fares Quality Improves

then DeclinesLow Labour Productivity

1979Mixed State & Private Operators

Poor RegulationResult

Owner Operators

Standards Decline High Investment Oversupply

Collusive Behaviour High Load Factors

1958Nationalized

Monopoly

Policy Paradigms in Bus Transport

Reforms in Bus Transport

Policy Reform carried out

Problems/Alternate Reform

1958

Nationalization Political Objective/ PPP for underperforming companies

1978

Peoplization of state buses & Re-entry of Private

Operators

Private Management for SLTB and Corporate Operators

2003

Private Management for State buses

Stopped due to transparency issues

2005

SLTB Re-instituted with controls

Political control continues

2008

Private Bus regulatory control reforms on trial

basis

Discontinued in favour of political control

Reforms in Railway Transport

Policy Reform carried out

Problems/Alternate Reform

2003

Railway Authority Trade Union Opposition/ Restructuring

2005

Railway Management Council

No political will to enforce/Restructuring to SBUs

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 affordability24

DIRECTIONS FROM THE LAND TRANSPORT POLICY, 2009

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

4. What reforms are necessary to improve PT?

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

REFORMS IN RAILWAYS

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

REFORMS IN BUS SECTOR

29

DEVELOPMENT OF RAPID TRANSIT

Parl

iam

ent

Rd

Kan

dy R

dG

alle

R

d

Neg

om

bo R

dPe

raden

iya

Rd

View of BRT Corridors

IMPROVING URBAN HIGHWAYS FOR PT

Corporatize or Cooperatize Private 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

Conclusion

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

THANK YOU

……for sustainable education reforms!!