The impact of delaying public transport reforms on Sustainability

1. The impact of delaying public transport reforms onSustainability Amal S. Kumarage FCILT Immediate 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?

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

4. 1. • Why PT is necessary for sustainability?

5. Sri Lanka- ‘Business-as-usual’ Transport Scenario Growth 2011-2031 Vehicle Fleet = 3 times Vehicle Kms = 4 times Road Space Requirement = 2 times

6. Demand for Travel by Mode (1958-2030)

7. Demand for Travel by Mode (1958-2030)

8. Indicator 1: Sustainability of Current Road Network Speeds

9. Indicator 2: Sustainability of New Urban Expressways

10. Indicator 3: Sustainability of Energy Consumption

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. 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

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

14. 2. • Why Reforms in PT are necessary?

15. USA, Australia, Canada Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Seoul Singapore, Hong Kong

16. Factors Determining Vehicle Ownership Levels

17. Jaffna Present High Density Areas for Consideration as PT Priority Areas Batticaloa Kandy Kurunegala CMC, DMMC, SJKMC Galle

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

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

22. Reforms in Bus Transport

23. Reforms in Railway Transport

24. Directions from the Land Transport Policy, 2009 • 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

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. Reforms in Railways • 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).

28. Reforms in Bus Sector • 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.

29. Development of Rapid Transit Parliament Rd Negombo Rd Peradeniya Rd Galle Rd Kandy Rd

30. Improving Urban Highways for PT View of BRT Corridors

31. Conclusion • 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

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!!