Transport in Asian Megacities - ATSE Home · Transport in Asian Megacities Issues and insights for Infrastructure Planning Surya Raj Acharya, PhD Senior Research Fellow ... subway

©Acharya SR 2011, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Tokyo 1

Transport in Asian MegacitiesIssues and insights for Infrastructure Planning

Surya Raj Acharya, PhDSenior Research FellowInstitute for Transport Policy Studies, Tokyo

[email protected]

ATSE-IA Infrastructure Planning Workshop9-10 April 2013, Melbourne


Released on 31 July 2012

Contents

• Overview of transport in Asian megacities• Issues and insights for infrastructure planning



Population

2 mil5 mil

10 mil

Legend

Metropolitan Areas with Population >5 mil

Out of 55, 29 cities from Asia (2010)

1. Background: Why focus on megacity transport?

Asian Megacities: Population and income

5

Metropolitan Land area (sq. km)

Population in 2010 (thousand)

GRP per capita (US$)

GDP per capita (US$)#

Metro Core Metro Core For Core city National Shanghai 6,341 822 19,213 10,720 10,828 3,744Taipei 2,457 376 6,753 2,620 45,176 16,423Jakarta 13,601 664 24,100 10,100 8,186 2,349Tokyo 6,467 621 31,036 8,653 66,500 39,738Metro Manila 4,863 639 21,420 13,503 5,323 1,796Seoul 11,771 605 22,130 10,581 25,650 21,870Bangkok 7,762 1,569 11,970 9,100 10,977 3,893Ho Chi Minh 2,095 494 7,163 5,881 2,800 1,032


Context of Asian Megacities

• Rapid growth of city population

Data source: New York City: United States Census Bureau (June 1998); Greater London: McCann (2006); Tokyo: Statistics Bureau (2007), Tokyo Metropolitan government (2007); rest of the cities United Nation (2005); some of the figures are estimated based on the figures from the sources.

Years taken to increase city population from 2 to 8 millions


Road Space ratio in Selected Cities

• In adequate road• Inefficient road hierarchyAsian Megacities

City/AreaData year

Cityarea, Km2

Road area

Km2 % of city area

City of London 2005 3.2 0.8 25.0Inner London 2005 310 56.6 18.3Greater London 2005 1595 196.0 12.3New York City 2010 789 165.9 21.0Inner New York 2010 59 15.2 25.7City of Paris 1999 105 27.0 25.7Tokyo 23 ku 2010 622 101.2 16.3Inner Tokyo, 5 ku 2010 75 16.2 21.6Seoul City 2009 605 82.3 13.6Taipei City 2007 272 20.9 7.7Inner Shanghai 2008 108 13.0 12.0Jakarta City 2007 656 48.0 7.3Inner Bangkok 2006 225 16.0 7.1Data source: compile for STREAM Study from official data on land use or other publication

8

Trip Patterns: Tokyo and Jakarta

Source: JICA (2004)

Huge flow of passengers from suburban to city core

5 10 20 万トリップ

9Peak Hour Problems in Tokyo Urban Railway System

120

140

160

180

200

220

75 80 85 90 93 96 97 98 99 '00'01'02 '03'04

Cro

wde

dnes

s ra

tio

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Cap

acity

and

Dem

and

Inde

x (1

975=

100)Crowdedness

ratio

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

75 80 85 90 93 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Cap

acity

and

Dem

and

Inde

x (1

975=

100)

Con

gest

ion

Rat

io

Congestion Ratio

Demand Index

Capacity Index

Congestion Ratio and riding condition

250 %200 %180 %150 %100 %

• Crowded trains

• Crowded terminal stations

• Congested tracks

Data source: MLIT/ITPS, Railway in number

Trips by hours of departure and travel mode, London and Tokyo

10

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Journey stages, thousands

Hour of departure

RailBus

Car

Others

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Trips, thousands

Hour of departure

RailBusCar

Others

London 2006 Tokyo 2008

• In megacities, heavy concentration of trips into peak hours• Importance of transit system with high capacity with

significant degree of “elasticity”

11

• Terminal stations were connected by a circular line

• Suburban lines have direct operation through subway lines

• High speed intercity train terminal at the city center

Evolved into a hierarchical urban railway network

5 km

Railway network in Tokyo

Capacity problem of BRT in big cities

12

Passengers waiting for boarding (BRT, Jakarta)

• Bus capacity is lower • Elasticity of capacity for

train is higher (crush load could go up to 250 % of design capacity)

• Bus has lower elastic capacity (150%?)

• Not all waiting passenger can board the bus

• In Jakarta, the waiting time is as high as 20 minutes during rush hour

©Acharya SR 2011, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Tokyo 13$2,500 car…impact sustainability??

TATA nano ($ 2,500-Indian car)Alternative to “family motorcycle” in Asia? Bypassing public transport?


Why public Transport is important in Asian megacities?

• To serve large scale demand• Accessible and Efficient (Economically efficient)• Clean and healthy (Environmentally sound)• Safe, Affordable, Inclusive (Socially acceptable)

Modal share in selected developed metropolitan areas (trip based)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tokyo MA (2008)

New York MA (2001)

London MA (2006)

Paris MA (2008)

Modal share

Car Bus Rail Bicycle Walk Others

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Tokyo MA (2008)

New York MA (2001)

London MA (2006)

Paris MA (2008)

Modal share

Private Public

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tokyo MA (2008)

New York MA (2001)

London MA (2006)

Paris MA (2008)

Modal share

Car Bus Rail Bicycle Walk Others

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Tokyo MA (2008)

New York MA (2001)

London MA (2006)

Paris MA (2008)

Modal share

Private Public

All purpose- all modes All purpose- motorized modes only

Commuting- all modes Commuting- motorized modes only

Data source: person trip survey from respective public agencies; Metropolitan Area definition‐ New York (10 counties of NY State), Paris (Ile‐de‐France), London (Greater London), Tokyo (Tokyo and 3 surrounding pref) Data year is indicated in the parenthesis after the name of each MA; For Paris, Rail also includes Bus


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HCMC

M. Manila

Jakarta

Bangkok

Shanghai

Seoul

Tokyo

Taipei

Asian megacities: Modal split （１９９８～２００４）

Developing cities：Bus & Para-transit main modes for Public Trans.

出所： Compilation by STREAM Study (2006)

Car Motorcycle Bus Rail Others

Others（Jeepney）

Motorcycle

BusCar

Car Motorcycle Bus

Operating indicators for selected metro (subway etc) system

17

System/Agency

Rou

te-K

m

Ave

rage

dai

ly m

etro

ra

il pa

ssen

gers

per

ro

ute-

km

aver

age

rail

car

occu

panc

y (p

erso

ns p

er

rail

car)

2

Tota

l ope

ratin

g re

venu

e (m

illio

n U

S $)

3

Rat

io o

f ope

ratin

g re

venu

e an

d op

erat

ing

expe

nses

4

Fare

box

ratio

5

Dep

reci

atio

n an

d am

ortiz

atio

n (%

of

tota

l ope

ratin

g ex

pens

e)

Ave

rage

fare

reve

nue

per p

asse

nger

(US

$)

New York Subway6 337 12,844 28 2,246 0.58 0.58 15.1 1.42London Underground 402 7,544 2,999 0.95 0.86 12.2 2.45Paris Metro (RATP)7 214 18,935 36 3,117 0.60 0.52 14.1 1.03Tokyo Metro (Tokyo) 195 32,346 66 3,736 1.29 1.15 28.3 1.45Toei Subway (Tokyo) 109 21,331 36 1,484 1.15 1.08 37.6 1.63Seoul Metro (Seoul) 135 29,963 793 0.81 0.69 15.4 0.46SMRT Corp (Seoul) 152 11,007 455 0.71 0.62 25.5 0.65MTR Corp. (Hong Kong)8 218 16,321 60 2,082 1.80 1.39 14.4 1.23SMRT Singapore9 99 14,910 70 353 1.37 1.37 18.3 0.66TRT Corporation (Taipei) 101 13,739 399 1.01 0.88 4.2 0.69Sky Train (BTS, Bangkok) 26 15,300 122 1.43 1.29 35.9 0.76Bangkok Subway (BMPCL) 20 9,094 55 0.90 0.78 15.5 0.73Delhi Metro 161 8,789 220 0.95 0.88 54.0 0.40Santiago Metro 103 16,510 419 1.12 0.95 32.2 0.57

Data source: Annual report of respective agencies. Operating expenses includes all operating costs including depreciation.

Maintaining high ridership is important for sustainable operation of metro system

Asian megacities- overview• Large scale travel demand in megacities• Developed Asian megacities- Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai- Extensive

mass rapid transit (MRT) system • Due to higher ridership, profitable operation• Transit oriented development and value-capture• Developing megacities- heterogeneous demand simultaneous need

of various infrastructure resource constraint– Inefficient use of tax revenue, 2011 fuel subsidy in Indonesia c. 14 bil. US$

• Some cities are building MRT system- others looking for low-cost options such as BRT

• Notion of Low fare = Good fare!- public subsidy for operation rather than for capital investment

• Being late comers, advantage of – Knowing most facts about what works and what not– Using all technological options – Developing integrated transport system possible

18


Car use

Congestion

Car ownership

Income Level

--

+

+

+

• Toll/pricing• Fuel tax• Vehicle tax• Parking fee -

-

Land-use control

+

Rail Transit

+

+

• Road building• Traffic system

-

• Bus lane• Subsidy

+

++

+

5 +++2

Public Transport Ridership

-

Service quality of public transport

-

-

1

++4

Urban Density

-

+

װ -++3

Issues and insight: Urban Transport Dynamics

Vehicle Emission

•Accessibility &

efficiency•

Social welfare &

equity

-

+

+

+

+

+

Emission technology

-

Source: Morichi and Acharya (2013)

Issues and insights for infrastructure planning

• Transport performance is determined interaction of urban-transport subsystem- important to understand the dynamics

20

Land-use• Structure• Institutions

Policy measures

Policy measures Policy measures

Transport• Structure• Institutions

Behavior• Needs• Attitudes

Transport Performance


Typology of institutional approach for urban transport in developing Asia

©Acharya SR 2012, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Tokyo 21Source: Morichi and Acharya (2013)


Transit oriented development and value capture

Before development

After development

Railway and large scale high quality residential development (green field project)

• Value-capture (real estate development)

• Long-run profitability- TOD

• Land-use change led by railway investment


Timing Indicator

Desirable path

Do-nothing-path

Feasible

Publ

ic T

rans

port

mod

e sh

are

Difficult

Unfeasible

AppropriateEarly Late

Feasible

Public transport mode share and timing of MRT investment

Choice of appropriate timing indicator

• GDP/capita

• Car-ownership rate

• Size of urbanized area

• Migration, demographic factors

Appropriate timing of policy measures- Example



0

20

40

60

80

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005年

MR

T R

oute

, Km

0

1

2

3

Rid

ersh

ip:

mill

pas

s/da

y

0

2

4

6

8

10

1925 1950 1975 2000年

Tran

sit

inve

stm

ent

(bil

2002

US$

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ride

rshi

p, b

il pa

ss/y

ear

Timing of transit investment and ridership trend: Examples

US：Late investment

only marginal gain in ridership

Taipei：Investment not too late Ridership regained

Taipei

Transit Investment

Ridership

US cities

Ridership

MRT Route, Km

Access/egress distance for High Speed Rail station and competition against car and air


100

150

200

250

300

350

180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Critical distacne for com

petitive niche, Km

Average speed of railway, km/h

120 min

80 min

100 min

60 min

Car versus Rail

Access + Egress time for railway

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

180 210 240 270 300 330 360Critical distacne for com

petitive niche, Km

Average speed of railway, km/h

120 min

80 min

100 min

60 min

Rail versus Air Access + Egress time for railway

Source: Surya and Morichi (2013)


How to achieve higher modal split for public transit? Importance of integration and coordination

Integrated transport development • Make public transport more attractive- “pull”

– Higher service quality (urban rail, improved bus)• Make car use “less” attractive

– Impose real cost of driving (fuel tax, tolls, parking fees)• Tokyo, Singapore

– Road traffic congestion (self-regulation by system)• Developing megacities

Importance of public transport load-factorRisk of uncoordinated transport development

– Adequate roads/railways infrastructure– Lower cost of car use- traffic congestion– Lower transit ridership- operating subsidy


Unfair cost advantage for car use


1. Driving cost for a medium size car1.1 Operating cost (cents per miles)

Gasoline and Oil 10.5Maintenance 4.5Tires 0.9Operating cost (cents per miles) 15.9

1.2 Ownership cost @ 15000 miles per year ($ per year)Insurance 957 License, Registration, Taxes 572 Depreciation 3,401 Finance charge 786 Ownership cost per year 5,716

Total cost per mile, $ 0.54Operating cost per mile, $ 0.16

2. Cost of travel by public transit in New York City(1) Heavy Rail

Passenger miles (millions) 9,972,779 Operating expenses (mil $) 3,313,127 Average operating cost per pass-mile ($) 0.33

Funding of operationTotal fare revenue (mil $) 2,245,620 Average fare per passenger mile, $ 0.23Fare revenue as % of operating cost 67.8 %Public subsidies as % of operating cost 32.2 %

(2) Bus Passenger miles (millions) 1,838,396 Operating expenses (mil $) 2,289,448 Average operating cost per mile ($) 1.25

Funding of operationTotal fare revenue (mil $) 821,111 Average fare per passenger mile, $ 0.45Fare revenue as % of operating cost 35.9 % Public subsidies as % of operating cost 64.1 %

• Ownership bias• Indirect subsidies• (road investment and

maintenance , free parking)

• External costs (pollution, CO2, accident)

Travel cost in New York City, 2009

More tax on usages than on ownership !

Coordinating investment for roads and railways



Framework to make distinction between funding and financing

©Acharya SR 2012, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Tokyo 29Source: Morichi and Acharya (2013)

Thank you !

[email protected]


Documents

Transport in Asian Megacities - ATSE Home · Transport in Asian Megacities Issues and insights for Infrastructure Planning Surya Raj Acharya, PhD Senior Research Fellow ... subway