WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 52 W TP-52 Urban Transit Systems Guidelines for Examining Options Alan Armstrong-Wright , v ,~~~ I,fr.S lxhl* fIL.;.K Iti, AFAPNlN ,/ "m ~ ~ ~~~.WJ ILJA AF;vj 9Ik-P W~~igTwJ 41l NJ,,xe«§ 4>l SIAA~ P MA.PM& Mt ux w -> 'WA1~1 F ILA _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . W'R9~t'iA, X^§ RX,,IkPI.JP ~ FILE CoPY WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS No. 1. Increasing Agricultural Productivity No. 2. A Model for the Development of a Self-Help Water Supply Program No. 3. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines: Recent Developments in Zimbabwe No. 4. The African Trypanosomiases: Methods and Concepts of Control and Eradication in Relation to Development 'No. 5.) Structural Changes in World Industry: A Quantitative Analysis of Recent Developments No. 6. Laboratory Evaluation of Hand-Operated Water Pumps for Use in Developing Countries No. 7. Notes on the Design and Operation of Waste Stabilization Ponds in Warm Climates of Developing Countries No. 8. Institution Building for Traffic Management (No. 9.) Meeting the Needs of the Poor for Water Supply and Waste Disposal No. 10. Appraising Poultry Enterprises for Profitability: A Manual for Investors No. 11. Opportunities for Biological Control of Agricultural Pests in Developing Countries No. 12. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Guidelines No. 13. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Case Studies No. 14. Water Supply and Sanitation Project Preparation Handbook: Case Study (No. 15.)Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries: Their Present and Potential Role (No. 16.)Managing Elephant Depredation in Agricultural and Forestry Projects (No. 17.)Energy Efficiency and Fuel Substitution in the Cement Industry with Emphasis on Developing Countries No. 18. Urban Sanitation Planning Manual Based on the Jakarta Case Study No. 19. Laboratory Testing of Handpumps for Developing Countries: Final Technical Report No. 20. Water Quality in Hydroelectric Projects: Considerations for Planning in Tropical Forest Regions No. 21. Industrial Restructuring: Issues and Experiences in Selected Developed Economies No. 22. Energy Efficiency in the Steel Industry with Emphasis on Developing Countries No. 23. The Twinning of Institutions: Its Use as a Technical Assistance Delivery System No. 24. World Sulphur Survey No. 25. Industrialization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategies and Performance (also in French, 25F) No. 26. Small Enterprise Development: Economic Issues from African Experience(also in French, 26F) No. 27. Farming Systems in Africa: The Great Lakes Highlands of Zaire, Rwanda, and Burundi (also in French, 27F) No. 28. Technical Assistance and Aid Agency Staff: Alternative Techniques for Greater Effectiveness No. 29. Handpumps Testing and Development: Progress Report on Field and Laboratory Testing No. 30. Recycling from Municipal Refuse: A State-of-the-Art Review and Annotated Bibliography No. 31. Remanufacturing: The Experience of the United States and Implications for Developing Countries No. 32. World Refinery Industry: Need for Restructuring ( ) Indicates number assigned after publication. (List continues on the inside back cover.) Urban Transit Systems Guidelines for Examining Options URBAN TRANSPORT SERIES This series is produced by the Water Supply and Urban Development Department to provide guidance on a number of technical issues in the urban transport field. The series supports the sector policy paper Urban Transport published by the World Bank, and is designed to assist city and central government officials, as well as World Bank staff and consultants, concerned with urban transport in developing countries. The series will comprise a number of papers: Institutional Building for Traffic Management (published as World Bank Technical Paper Number 8) Urban Transit Systems: Guidelines for the Examination of Options Bus Companies: Performance Evaluation and Improvement (under preparation) Bus Services: Criteria for Profitability (under preparation) Traffic Management Projects: Identification, Preparation and Appraisal (under preparation) A complementary paper Toward Better Urban Transport Planning in Developing Countries has been published in the World Bank Staff Working Paper Series (Number 600). It is expected that further guidelines will be added to the Urban Transport Series to cover other urban transport issues when the need arises. WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 52 Urban Transit Systems Guidelines for Examining Options Alan Armstrong-Wright The World Bank Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Copyright (© 1986 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing May 1986 This is a document published informally by the World Bank. In order that the information contained in it can be presented with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at a token charge to defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution. The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, which are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the World Bank or to its affiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the results of research supported by the Bank; they do not necessarily represent official policy of the Bank. The designations employed, the presentation of material, and any maps used in this document are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank or its affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, or of its authorities, or conceming the delimitation of its boundaries or national affiliation. The most recent World Bank publications are described in the annual spring and fall lists; the continuing research program is described in the annual Abstracts of Current Studies. The latest edition of each is available free of charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department T, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from the European Office of the Bank, 66 avenue d'I6na, 75116 Paris, France. Alan Armstrong-Wright is the urban transport adviser in the Water Supply and Urban Development Department of the World Bank. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Armstrong-Wright, Alan, 1929- Urban transit systems. (World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494 ; no. 52) (Urban transport series) Bibliography: p. 1. Local transit. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Urban transport series. HE4211.A73 1986 388.4'068 86-9146 ISBN 0-8213-0765-7 ABSTRACT This paper compares the characteristics and costs of the main types of urban transit systems, including buses, trains, light rail, rapid rail and suburban rail systems. As well as covering the examination of existing transport systems, the paper suggests a simple and quick screening process to avoid costly detailed examination of inappropriate solutions and to focus attention on systems most likely to meet the particular needs of a city. The paper asserts the need for careful consideration of all the implications of new transit systems before firm commitments are made to any systems in particular. It provides a series of checks to ensure that important questions, such as feasibility to meet changing demands, problems of revenue leakage, undue sophistication of systems, financing and cost recovery, and environmental impact, are not overlooked. Annexes to the paper contain details of city transport characteristics, bus services and rail services, together with brief case studies of transit systems in both developing and developed countries. TAB"L OF CONTNT List of Tables ix Foreword xi Acknowledgments xii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 2 BUS TRANSIT 3 Characteristics of Buses and Trolleybuses 3 Capacity and Speed 3 Cost 6 Role of Paratransit 9 Chapter 3 LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS 11 Types of Light Raii Systems 11 Tramways 11 Characteristics of Light Rail Transit (LRT) 13 LRT: Capacity and Speed 15 LRT: Cost 15 Chapter 4 RAPID RAIL TRANSIT (METROS) 17 Characteristics of Rapid Rail Transit 17 Capacity and Speed 19 Cost 19 Revenue 20 Chapter 5 SUBURBAN RAIL Characteristics of Suburban Rail 22 Capacity and Speed 22 Cost 24 Revenue 24 Chapter 6 EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM 25 Performance of the Existing System 25 Root Causes of Deficiencies and Opportunities 26 for Improvement Chapter 7 THE SCREENING OF OPTIONS 29 Forecast of Demand 29 Matching Supply to Demand 30 Costing of Systems 30 Financial Implications 33 Economic Appraisal 35 Environmental Aspects 36 Other Characteristics 37 Comparison of Results 37 - vii - - viii - Annex 1. Transit Options Study: Draft Terns of Reference 39 Annex II. Transit Comparisons 45 Annex III. The Approximation of Transit Demand 50 Annex IV. The Approximation of Transit Costs 53 Annex V. Bus Services: Key Indicators of Performance 62 Annex VI. Examination of High Capacity Transit Options: 64 A Checklist Annex VII. Brief Case Studies of Transit Systems - 9 Cases 68 Annex VIII. Capital Recovery Table 76 Bibliography 77 LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Characteristics of Buses 6 2.2 Bus Transit Total Costs 7 4.1 Rapid Rail Capital Costs 20 7.1 Infrastructure and Equipment (for two lanes or two tracks) 31 7.2 Vehicle Costs 32 7.3 Total System Cost 32 7.4 Sensitivity of Costs 33 7.5 Income Required for Cost Recovery 34 7.6 Level of Income for Benefits to Equate to Extra Costs 36 7.7 Environmental Impact of Transit Systems 37 11.1 Urban Transport Data: Selected Cities 45 11.2 Bus Services: City Comparisons, 1983 Data 46 11.3 Rail Services: City Comparisons, 1983 Data 47 11.4 Rail Services: Capital Cost of Typical Rail Systems 48 11.5 Transit System Characteristics 49 IV.1 Operating Unit Costs (1985 US$) 54 IV.2 Rapid Rail Transit (Example A) 56 IV.3 Calculation Sheet: RRT Example (A) 57 IV.4 Light Rail Transit (Example B) 58 IV.5 Calculation Sheet: LRT Example (B) 59 IV.6 Busway Transit (Example C) 60 IV.7 Calculation Sheet: Busway Example (C) 61 VIII Capital Recovery Factor 76 - ix - FOREWORD Most cities in developing countries are expanding rapidly and, having only strictly limited resources, often suffer serious deficiencies in urban services. Public transport, in particular, in many places is far from adequate and is unable to cope with the very heavy and increasing demands placed upon it. As a result services are severely overcrowded, and passengers have to endure excessive journey times and long periods of waiting. Inadequate public transport usually affects a high proportion of the public, and city authorities are under considerable pressure to make urgent and substantial improvements. Since it may be costly and time-consuming to correct faulty decisions, it is very important for city authorities to consider most carefully the various options they have to improve matters before becoming committed to any particular solution. These guidelines do not pretend to provide the final answer to transit deficiencies, but are designed to enable city and central government officials who may not be transport specialists to gain a better understanding of the options available for improvement and to appreciate the comparative characteristics and full costs of the main types of transit. By suggesting a simple, quick and inexpensive screening process, the guidelines should make it easier to focus on solutions most likely to meet the particular needs of a city and to avoid costly detailed examination of inappropriate transit systems. The process should lead to the identification of a number of options that may be worthy of detailed feasibility study. It also provides a series of checks to ensure that important questions, applying particularly to high capacity transit systems, are not overlooked. In view of the range of urban problems facing developing countries, Urban Transit Systems: Guidelines for the Examination of Options is but one of the Urban Transport series being prepared by this department to provide guidance on a number of technical issues in the urban transport sector. Anthony A. Churchill Director Water Supply and Urban Development Department -xi ACKNOWLEDGNNTS The author wishes to acknowledge his appreciation of the valuable assistance in the preparation of these guidelines provided by: - Simon Lewis, Veronique Bishop, and Charles Pill, who undertook the mammoth task of collecting and analyzing data from over one hundred transit operators and city authorities; - the many officials and transport operators who kindly provided information about their cities and transport services; - Neil Collie (Maunsell & Partners) and Geoff French (Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Partners), who provided valuable advice on the approximation of demand and costs; and - Norman Lea (N. D. Lea Associates) for background material and for his contribution to the sections on "The Examination of Existing Systems" and "The Screening of Options." Finally, the author wishes to express his thanks to his colleagues in the TJrban Transport Group of the World Bank for their support and advice on the preparation of these guidelines. - xii - Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of these guidelines is to help city authorities in making crucial investment decisions when faced with transit system deficiencies. The guidelines recognize that the need for assistance arises in quite different circumstances. For example, city authorities may: - wish to commission feasibility studies of prospective transit systems but want to avoid detailed and costly examination of inappropriate systems; - need to consider the results and recommendations of feasibility studies to determine whether or not important implications have been properly taken into account; - be faced with conflicting advice and wish to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of alternative systems; - need independent data to confirm or support their decision. These guidelines are not intended to replace detailed feasibility studies carried out by professional staff or consultants. Instead, they are designed as an aid to decision makers who may not necessarily be transport experts. In Chapters 2 through 5 the guidelines discuss the basic characteristics of a range of transit systems, including the capacity, costs, advantages, and disadvantages of each one. The main types of transit systems discussed in these guidelines are: - Bus transit systems, including motor buses and trolley buses normally operating on public streets, in either mixed traffic, bus only lanes or exclusive busways. - Light rail transit, ranging from trais operating in mixed traffic along public streets to semi-metro rail systems on exclusive tracks. Passengers usually board from the road surface or from low platforms and vehicles operate in single units or in short trains at slow to moderate speeds. - Rapid rail transit (often called metros, subways or "the underground") invariably operates on completely exclusive rights-of-way at high speeds and high capacity. Passengers board from high level platforms to facilitate rapid loading. Vehicles operate in trains composed of four to ten passenger cars. - Surburban rail transit (sometimes termed commuter rail systems) operate on tracks shared with inter-city passenger trains and freight trains. Rolling stock may be similar to heavy inter- city trains or metro trains. - 2 - A method of assessing the existing situation and opportunities for improvement is suggested in Chapter 6, while Chapter 7 presents a procedure for eliminating inappropriate options. To assist in the screening process and to provide a better under- standing of the different types of transit, comparative data on transit systems and methods for giving approximate demand and costs, together with brief case studies, have been assembled in the Annexes. Also included in the Annexes are draft terms of reference designed to provide guidance for a Transit Options Screening Study and to provide the basis for obtaining external technical assistance, should that be required. Capital and operating costs are based on 1985 prices, unless specifically indicated otherwise. - 3 - Chapter 2 BUS TRANSIT CHARACTERISTICS OF BUSES AND TROLLEYBUSES Bus transit systems comprising motorbuses or trolleybuses carry fare- paying passengers and normally operate on public streets. Routes, frequen- cies, fares, and stopping places are generally prescribed and are subject to various levels of government regulation. Fares may be uniform flat rates or rates based on zones or distance, and are usually collected on board the vehicles by conductors or drivers. Transit buses may carry from 12 to 240 passengers; some operate only with all passengers seated, but mostly there is a mixture of standing and sitting passengers. Various types of bus operations are possible, including local services with frequent stops, express services with limited stops, peak period services, shuttle services, and feeder services. The standard of service is usually perceived in terms of reliability, frequency, journey time, and quality of ride, which may vary from air- conditioned comfort to extreme crush loading conditions. Proper maintenance is vitally important, since buses often travel 60,000 to 70,000 km per year. Buses that are not properly maintained will suffer from substantially reduced output and operational life. In addition, poor maintenance causes air pollution and excessive noise, and leads to frequent breakdowns and traffic holdups. Most of the maintenance needed by minibuses and small buses requires only basic skills and is often undertaken by the owner. The maintenance of larger buses, which involves work on more sophisticated and non-standard equipment (e.g., retarders, articulation systems, remote-controlled doors, etc.), may require specifically trained staff and special facilities. A major advantage of bus transit is its flexibility in meeting changes in the shape of city development and in changes in demand in terms of both quantity and quality. If necessary, existing bus routes can be modified almost overnight at virtually no cost. Expanded or new services can be introduced quickly and at relatively low initial cost. Since bus transit is often provided by the private sector, the burden on city budgets is small. Trolleybus systems, however, lack the flexibility of conventional bus transit because they are constrained by their overhead power transmission system, and involve considerably higher capital costs. CAPACITY AND SPEED Transit systems using standard-size buses, each with a capacity of about 80 passengers, are able to carry up to 10,000 passengers per hour per lane in mixed traffic. Systems using larger buses with a capacity of 120 or S -/ X -g2- tt; l -t-00 5 eX ; 0 y ;0=;0 e v f z fr z_ X ,> 0 .- f > X - .e ;, af V = / B 2;. u l t' tSt- Ambl AWoi __l NJ\F XYS '\ ' . - 19 - to be supplemented by more flexible systems, in particular buses. Also, in order to recoup the extremely high costs of rail systems, there is consider- able pressure to maximize patronage and revenue by developing an "integrated" public transit system. This usually involves reshaping the bus network to provide feeder services to rail stations and curtailing competing bus routes. This inevitably erodes the viability of bus services and may necessitate large subsidies for both the bus and rail systems. Furthermore, through-ticketing to improve the attractiveness of integrated systems may prove difficult if it involves revenue-sharing between public and private transit operators. The construction of a rapid rail system is likely to take five years at the very least, and may take much longer. Much of the construction will take place on or under city roads and will involve substantial excavation and construction-related traffic. If serious and costly disruptions are to be avoided, very careful consideration needs to be given to traffic arrangements, and to diverting and protecting utility services. Rapid rail transit, particularly when underground, provides a very high level of reliability and safety in all weather conditions and is immune to the problems of traffic congestion. CAPACITY AND SPEED Rapid rail systems provide the highest capacity and the fastest speeds of all urban transit modes. Operating at headways of 2 minutes, and with top speeds of as much as 100 km/hr, rapid rail systems are able to carry up to 70,000 passengers per hour per line in each direction. Journey speeds are in the region of 30-35 km/hr. COST Capital Costs Table 4.1 gives an indication of the range of costs for elevated and underground (cut and cover construction) double-track rapid rail systems: - 20 - TABLE 4.1. Rapid Rail Capital Costs (millions of US$) Item Elevated In Tunnel Structure/tunnel(km) 20 - 40 60 - 90 Track (km) 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Signals (km) 1.0 - 5.0 1.2 - 5.0 Power (km) 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 1.5 Stations (each) 2 - 5 5 - 20 Depots (each) 10 - 40 Workshops (each) 15 - 50 Note: Rapid rail cars cost about US$1.0 million each (i.e., US$ 6.0 million per train set of six cars). These broad indicators mean that the total capital cost of a 25- kilometer underground rapid rail system with 25 stations, 400 cars, and two depots and workshops would be about US$3,000 million, or US$120 million/km. Operating Costs The operating cost of rapid rail systems, including depreciation but excluding financial charges, is in the region of US¢10-15 per passenger-km. Total Costs (Calculated in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex IV.) Because of considerable capital expenditures and inevitable indebtedness, financial charges will be a major element of the total cost of rapid rail systems. Total costs -- that is, operating costs, depreciation, and finance charges - can be expected to be about US¢15-25 per passenger-km. That is US¢75-125 for an average 5-km trip. REVENUE The farebox revenues of rapid rail systems are rarely able to cover total costs. Some systems may recover operating costs, including depreciation, but most require substantial capital and operating subsidies. - 21 - The Osaka surface rapid railway, for example, shows a profit, while the Sao Paulo underground metro requires operating subsidies of US47 for every passenger trip, together with substantial capital subsidies. Details of the revenues and costs of selected rail systems are set out in Annex II. - 22 - Chapter 5 SUBURAN RML CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBURBAN RAIL Suburban rail systems (sometimes termed commuter rail systems) operate on tracks shared with intercity passenger trains and freight trains. They either use heavy rolling stock similar to that used on intercity systems, or metro-type vehicles. When provided with exclusive use of tracks and platforms, suburban rail systems using metro vehicles take on most of the characteristics of the surface rapid rail system described in Chapter 4. Considerable benefits are obtained when the suburban sections of intercity rail systems are used to provide fast, high capacity, reliable and convenient commuter service. Upgrading of the rail system is usually required, and this upgrading usually involves electrification, improved plat- forms, new track and control systems, and new rolling stock. Because much of the right-of-way is likely to exist already, upgrading will not involve the construction of tunnels or elevated structures. As a result, the total cost of upgrading is likely to be only a fraction of the cost of building a new metro system. In Hong Kong, complete modernization and rebuilding of the suburban rail system, including electrification, double-tracking, and new rolling stock, cost only US$13.2 million per kilometer, compared to US$112 million per kilometer for the Hong Kong underground Island Line. Although suburban railways do not have the cost disadvantages of rapid rail systems, they do suffer from a number of the other disadvantages of fixed rail systems described in Chapter 4. Nevertheless, upgrading of an existing rail system is likely to be an attractive and viable solution along suburban corridors of high demand because of the low cost of upgrading. CAPACITY AND SPEED When a suburban railway is part of a multipurpose rail system, its performance depends on the amount and type of track sharing. A typical system that shares its track with intercity passenger and freight traffic will have a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour in one direction. Where track priority is given to the suburban system, or where it has exclusive use of tracks, capacity and regularity may be comparable to those of a rapid rail system. For example, the upgraded Porto Alegre suburban railway, with stations every 2 km and exclusive use of its tracks, has a capacity of 48,000 passengers per hour in one direction. The design provides for capacity to be boosted to 72,000 passengers per hour in one direction by comparatively simple extension of platforms and the introduction of longer trains. Journey speeds are greatly influenced by the type of vehicle and the spacing of stations. These vary considerably on suburban lines. Using modern metro-type vehicles and with stations every 2 to 3 km, journey speeds are in the region of 45 to 55 kph. C30 - 24 - COST Capital Costs For a new surface suburban rail system provided with an exclusive right-of-way, fully grade-separated, the cost of trackway, signals, and power system is likely to be about US$6-10 million per km. The cost of cars is approximately US$1.0 million each (i.e., US$6.0 million for a typical 6 car train). For the upgrading of an existing system, capital costs can be as low as US$2 to $5 million per km, excluding the cost of new cars. Thus, the cost of upgrading a 25-km suburban line, including 35 new train sets, would be about US$250 to 350 million. Operating Costs The operating costs of a suburban railway, including depreciation but excluding interest and financial charges, are in the region of US45-10 per passenger-km. Total Cost Depending on the level of sophistication and the amount of track sharing involved, total costs are likely to be in the region of US¢8 to 15 per passenger-km, assuming high utilization and patronage levels. REVENUE Some suburban railways are able to recover operating costs, including depreciation, from farebox revenues. Very few are able to recover total costs, including interest and financial charges. These few include several highly efficient surface systems (mainly in Japan) introduced at an early stage of city development, when right-of-way could be obtained with comparative ease and at low cost. These systems operate at very high levels of patronage, charge competitive fares, and are able to show a profit. A number of similar systems rely heavily on profits from the development of property that they own. - 25 - Chapter 6 EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEK A prerequisite to considering transit options is a review of the existing system to determine both its deficiencies and opportunities that can be developed for improvement. Substantial investment in new systems should only be considered after these potential opportunities have been explored and found to be insufficient. PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM A broad indication of the extent to which transit services are deficient can be obtained by measuring degrees of overcrowding, travel times, and fares against several rules of thumb. Overcrowding In any transit system, short periods of overcrowding must be expected. Heavy peak demand during the evacuation of a sports stadium or a traffic tie-up can often be discounted. But if overcrowding and excessive travel delays occur on a regular basis, then a serious condition exists. Overcrowding can be determined by counting the number of loaded buses that pass a bus stop without allowing people to board. If more than two or three buses, or 15 minutes, pass before boarding is possible, this can be considered as overcrowding at that location at that time. If such over- crowding extends over many kilometers of route and lasts more than an hour, a serious overcrowding condition exists. The number of hours and the extent of overcrowding will indicate the severity of the condition. Excessive Travel Time A condition of excessive travel time can be considered to exist when many journeys comprising transit use and a reasonable amount of walking (say 2 km) and waiting consistently exceed 40 minutes for a door-to-door trip of 6 km, 60 minutes for a 10-km trip, and 90 minutes for a 16-km trip. This may arise when transit journey speeds, including stops, are less than 12 km per hour. Discriminatory Fares or Service There are great variations in fare structure between cities and between modes. A fare structure discriminates against low-income people when cost makes it impractical for them to use the transit system. One reasonable criterion is the cost of a week's transit fares for trips to work in comparison with the total weekly income of the household. If the cost exceeds 10% of income for more than 15% of the population, the fare structure can be considered to be discriminatory. An examination of fares in eight cities in developing countries determined that, for seven of them, on at least one - 26 - transit mode (the regular bus), even the low-income sector of the population could travel unlimited distances for less than 10% of income. In the other city the fare structure was such that the poorest 20% of the population would need more than 10% of household income for one worker to travel only 5 km to work. Transit systems may also provide discriminatory services. For example, the rail transit system and the bus routes may be laid out primarily to provide service to more affluent regions. ROOT CAUSES OF DEFICIENCIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT The main causes of transit service deficiencies are inadequate transit equipment, poor transit operations, and street congestion. Inadequate Transit Equipment In some cases the root problem is simply that there is not enough transit equipment or that the equipment is in poor condition. There simply may not be enough transit vehicles in running condition to provide the needed public transport. Annex II., Table 11.1. shows the number of buses per thousand people in a number of cities. The cities in developing countries with inadequate transit equipment tend to be those with less than one bus per 2,000 people. The availability of transit vehicles has been improved in a number of ways. These include: - liberalizing the regulations for entry into the transit market in order to stimulate investment by the private sector; - avoiding undue taxation or financial restraints on investment and operation of transit vehicles; and - encouraging public corporations to improve their cost effectiveness in order to support investment in additional transit vehicles. Poor Transit Operations Even when transit equipment is adequate, operations may be so poorly organized and executed that the service is inadequate. This will usually be seen when the average kilometers travelled by each bus in service are seriously below what would be expected. The average revenue-service distance for each transit vehicle should be at least 150 km per day. A lesser number is evidence of either poor transit operations or congested street conditions. The goal should be 230 to 260 km per bus per day. A further indication of performance is the percentage of the vehicle fleet available for service. Anything less than 70% during peak periods is an unsatisfactory situation. Many well-run bus operations are able to out-shed between 80% and 90% of their fleets. These and other indicators of bus service performance are described in Annex V. - 27 - Poor transit operations may result from inadequate organization and management, due to either personnel weaknesses or institutional constraints. The results are inefficiency and low productivity. Experience indicates that the adequacy and viability of transit services can be improved by: - providing incentives for higher productivity in all aspects of transit services, including operations, fare collection, maintenance, administration, etc.; - ensuring that owners and managements have flexibility in dealing with staff recruitment, dismissals, and redundancy; - giving operators freedom to choose routes, size of vehicles, and frequency of service; - permitting competition between transit operators and between modes of transit, and providing greater freedom to set fares; and - using competitive bidding to ensure the operation of unprofit- able but socially desirable services, with any necessary subsidies directed towards selected users rather than operators. Street Congestion Traffic congestion is a frequent cause of deficient transit service. Congestion has been greatly reduced in many busy cities at comparatively low cost by a number of traffic management measures, including: - restrictions on on-street parking and stopping during peak periods on busy streets; - controls on street trading; - reducing conflicting traffic movement by traffic control at intersections, re-routing traffic flows, one-way streets, and banning certain turning movements; - providing priority for transit (discussed more fully in Chapter 2); - applying restraints on the use of uneconomic road vehicles, in particular private cars; and - providing facilities, such as flyovers and foot bridges, to separate heavy vehicle and pedestrian movements. Substantial improvements have been achieved in a number of cities throughout the world through vigorous use of such measures. Examples include Abidjan, Bombay, Porto Alegra, Bangkok, Tunis, and Manila. Through the introduction of low-cost improvements and innovations the capacities of existing systems have been increased enough to meet demands with reasonable - 28 - standards of service. These cities have thus avoided or have delayed for several years the need for expensive new systems and infrastructure. - 29 - Chapter 7 THE SCREENING OF OPTIONS The purpose of this section is twofold: (a) to screen the several options that are available -- including improving an existing system -- in order to determine which of the options may be worthy of a detailed feasibility study; and (b) to determine the appropriateness of systems that already have been proposed or recommended. The objective is to avoid expensive examination or design of a system that may not be appropriate. FORECAST OF DEMAND As a first step, it is necessary to gain some indication of the level of demand that can be expected in the future. Initially, it should be sufficient to identify the main traffic corridors and to estimate the likely range of future demand along those corridors. If a transport study has already been undertaken, as is the case in most cities, it should be possible to revise the traffic predictions and the likely share of the transit system on the basis of up-to-date population growth forecasts, income trends, and anticipated car ownership trends. If transit patronage forecasts are already available, care should be taken to ensure that these have not been overestimated. Competition from existing modes, higher fares, the low value that commuters sometimes place on time, and requirements that passengers interchange between modes often have a much greater dampening effect on demand than expected. It is important to be sure that these factors have been adequately taken into account. In the event that data from previous transport studies are not available, it may be necessary to commission a prelimary transport study to establish the likely range of demand along the main corridors. A shortcut method of assessing the approximate magnitude of demand is described in Annex III. If high demands are forecast, it is important to consider potential ways of reducing these before deciding to create an expensive new system. It is possible that excessive demand may have arisen because of direct or hidden subsidies - for example, low bus fares or low fuel prices. In these circumstances, a rational pricing policy will reduce demand. Heavy demand, particularly along radial corridors, can be reduced by modifying the road network, by pursuing city development plans that influence the pattern of demand, and by constructing bypasses and road links to disperse demand into other roads or corridors. - 30 - MATCHING SUPPLY TO DEMAND Once the likely range of demand along main corridors has been determined, it is possible to consider the systems that are likely to be able to cope with this demand. In this regard it must be borne in mind that much lower levels of demand are likely to occur in other corridors and areas of the city. Hence, a combination of compatible systems may prove to be the best solution (e.g., buses operating on reserved lanes or busways along the main corridors, buses in mixed traffic on secondary routes, minibuses to serve commuters in low-density areas). In matching supply to demand, the first step should be a review of the existing system to determine the extent to which it can be improved to cope with future demand, a step discussed in Chapter 6. If opportunities to improve the existing system have been explored and found to be insufficient, it will then be necessary to consider systems that provide higher capacity. Capacities in terms of peak hour volumes and journey speeds for the main categories of transit systems are set out in Annex II., Table II.5. It is important to understand that these capacities are based on a single track or lane. For example, the design capacity of a single lane of segregated busway may be as much as 30,000 passengers per hour in one direction; if two parallel busway routes in separate streets can be established, 60,000 passengers per hour can be moved down the same corridor. Even in mixed traffic, volumes as high as 35,000 bus passengers per hour in one direction have been observed in a single street if several bus lanes are available. It is likely that several different systems will offer sufficient maximum capacity to meet demand. A major factor in choosing from among these systems will be the total costs of each. COSTING OF SYSTEMS The cost characteristics of transit systems vary considerably. Operating costs predominate in bus systems in mixed traffic -- for example, the ratio of operating costs to capital costs usually exceeds 5:1 (84% operating costs, 16% depreciation and interest costs). But in the case of underground metros capital costs predominate (25% operating costs, 75% depreciation and interest costs). Operating costs, in turn, are greatly influenced by the costs of labor, energy, and materials, which vary consider- ably from country to country. Capital costs are closely related to the useful lives of vehicles and infrastructure. Useful life may vary from 8-15 years for buses to 30 years for rail cars and 100 years for tunnels. These variations and differences must be taken into account in calculating comparative costs. This is achieved by examining the operating cost elements of each system and by expressing capital costs in terms of annual depreciation and interest charges. The cost effectiveness of the various systems can then be compared by expressing total costs (operating costs, depreciation, and interest) in terms of passenger-kilometers. - 31 - Annex IV. offers a simplified method of determining total costs for screening purposes. Although the examples chosen to illustrate this costing method represent the main types of systems available, the method can be appplied to variations and combinations of these systems. Although the costs of transit systems vary considerably from country to country, an examination of some 40 bus services and 30 rail services around the world has made it possible to determine the range of costs likely to arise in developing countries. These have been discussed in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5; for ease of reference they are consolidated here. Infrastructure and Equipment Costs Broad indicators of the main infrastructure and fixed equipment costs of transit systems are provided in Table 7.1. TABLE 7 1.1 Irfrastructure and Equi~mEnt (for two lanes or -t tracks) (US$ mndlions) B-way Tramway IKr Rapid Rail Life Elevated structure (km) - - 20 - 40 20 - 40 40 - 60 Tunrl (km) - - 60 - 90 60 - 90 100 Segregated roadway(l) (km) 2.0 - 7.0 - 1.5 - 5.5 5 - 10 40 - 60 Track (im) - 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 1.5 20 - 35 Signals (km) - - 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 5.0 20 - 30 Power (kn) - 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 30 - 35 Stations: Surface (ea) <0.05 <0.05 0.1 - 0.15 0.2 - 0.5 40 - 60 Elevated (ea) - - 1.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 5.0 40 - 60 Undergraund (ea) - - 4.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 20 100 Yards (ea) 5 - 20 5 - 20 10 - 40 10 - 40 40 - 60 1Wbrkshops (ea) 10 - 30 10 - 30 15 - 50 15 - 50 40 - 60 (1) Segregated roadway costs assume ground level construction with grade separation at intersections. Vehicle Costs The costs of vehicles vary considerably, depending on level of comfort, domestic or overseas manufacture, production-line or custom-built models. Table 7.2 provides only a general indication of comparative costs. - 32 - TABLE 7.2. Vehicle Costs Vehicle Capacity Purchase Price, Life Seated Total excluding tax (in years) (US$) Minibus 12 18 25,000 8 Small bus 20 30 40,000 10 Standard bus 40 80 50,000 12 Large single-deck bus 50 100 80,000 15 Large double-deck bus 80 120 100,000 15 Super-large double-deck bus 80 170 120,000 15 Articulated bus 55 120 130,000 15 Super-articulated bus 55 190 150,000 15 Trams 60 100 300,000 20 Light Rail Vehicles 50 300 800,000 25 Rapid Rail Vehicles 50 350 1,000,000 30 Operating Costs, Depreciation, and Interest Charges Generally reliable details on operating costs are readily available, and in these guidelines it has been possible to make use of data provided by surveys. However, because of the wide variety of methods adopted by operators, the uniform method described in Annex IV. is used to calculate annual capital costs. In this way, total costs in terms of passenger- kilometers are approximated in Table 7.3. TABLE 7.3. Total System Cost (Operating cost, depreciation, interest charges) System Cost per Passenger-km (in US$) Bus in mixed traffic 0.02 - 0.05 Bus in reserved lane 0.02 - 0.05 Bus in expressway 0.05 - 0.08 Tramway 0.03 - 0.10 LRT (surface) 0.10 - 0.15 Rapid rail (surface) 0.10 - 0.15 Rapid rail (elevated) 0.12 - 0.20 Rapid rail (underground) 0.15 - 0.25 By using the method described in Annex IV., the results above can be refined for specific cities and specific systems. Care should be taken to adjust for the levels of patronage forecast. - 33 - It is important to remember that the results given in Annex IV. assume that the systems will be efficient, well-managed, and heavily patronized. In fact, rarely are all of these favorable circumstances found in transit systems, either in developed or developing countries. It is therefore advisable to test these results to determine what would happen if the desired standards were not achieved. For example, a 30% shortfall in patronage and a 30% capital cost over-run would cause the cost per passenger-km of the systems examined in Annex IV. to rise as shown in Table 7.4. TABLE 7.4. Sensitivity of Costs Cost per Passenger-km (US$) Original Adjusted for 30% Estimate cost over-run & patronage shortfall Busway 0.06 0.09 LRT 0.08 0.13 RRT 0.12 0.21 As would be expected, the capital-intensive LRT and RRT systems are particularly sensitive to cost over-runs. After all the options (including improvement of the existing system) have been costed, the financial implications and the benefits can be compared. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Since the commissioning of a new transit system is likely to be the largest single investment undertaken by most city authorities, it is vital that very careful consideration be given to the full financial implications of each option. Of primary importance is the impact of each investment option on the city's budget (or, as the case may be, on the national budget) and on user affordability. In assessing the impact on city finances (or national finances), the relationship between the investment for a new transport system and the city's investment program as a whole should be examined. For this purpose, an investment program outline should be prepared covering at least the period of implemention of a new transport system as well as all other major investments under consideration. The ability of the city to undertake the proposed level of investment needs to be closely examined, and the source of funding needs to be clearly identified. One means of gauging the likely impact of new transport investments is to compare the city's total investment program wit.h levels of investment in urban transport in previous years. - 34 - Another indication of the appropriateness of each option can be obtained by relating its total capital cost to the total number of people to be served. In Manila, for example, the capital cost of the new LRT is US$200 million. Approximately 500,000 people (8% of the population) are expected to use the system regularly, so the capital cost will be equivalent to US$400 for each user. Meanwhile, the city will spend an insignificant amount on public transport for the remaining millions of commuters, who mainly travel in privately owned buses and minibuses. An extreme example is provided by Caracas, where only 5% of the population regularly uses the underground metro, which was built at a cost in excess of US$1,440 million. That is equivalent to US$10,000 for each user. City expenditures on public transport for the remaining 95% of the population, including large numbers of urban poor, are negligible. In comparing options, therefore, the equity of wide variations in levels of expenditure needs to be considered. In considering user affordability, it is necessary to calculate the fare levels that would be required to achieve full cost recovery. An indication of these is given in Table 5 of Annex II. The likely household expenditure on transport at these fare levels as a proportion of household income needs to be assessed, and compared with current household expenditure on transport. Due consideration must be given to the likely reaction of the public to any fare increases that may be required for each of the systems being screened. It is not uncommon to find that 5%-10% of urban household income in developing countries is spent on transport. In some cities it is 15% or more. Table 7.5 indicates the affordability of various systems. TABLE 7.5. Income Required for Cost Recovery Bus LRT RRT Cost of 10 km(l) round trip (US$) 0.20 - 0.50 1.00 - 1.50 1.50 - 2.50 % of income spent Annual per capita income req Med to on transport afford cost recovery fares 5 1,200 - 3,000 6,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 15,000 10 600 - 1,500 3,000 - 4,500 4,500 - 7,500 15 400 - 1,000 2,000 - 3,000 3,000 - 5,000 20 300 - 750 1,500 - 2,250 2,250 - 3,750 (1) Higher daily expenditure on transport will result where it is necessary to interchange between modes. (2) Assuming 300 working days per year. - 35 - If full cost recovery is not contemplated, the implications of subsidies and their source will need to be carefully examined. (The implications of subsidies for urban transport systems are fully discussed in the World Bank Urban Transport Policy Paper.) ECONOMIC APPRAISAL While there are clear advantages to undertaking a full economic appraisal of each of the options, it is sufficient for screening purposes to establish the approximate costs and to broadly quantify the main user benefits. For transit in developing countries the primary user benefits are savings in journey times. Other benefits, such as convenience, comfort, safety, and reduced environmental impact need to be considered, but detailed appraisal can be deferred until a feasibility study of the options that survive the screening process is carried out. The savings in journey times should be assessed by comparing the forecast journey times (including waiting and interchange times) of each option with the journey times of the existing system. The magnitude of the benefits will depend on the number of passengers and the value placed on the time saved by each passenger. Most passengers on transit are commuters making non-business trips. Some authorities consider that no value should be placed on the time saved in taking non-business trips, while others suggest that it is equivalent to 25%-30% of the income earning rate. (Business trips are usually assessed at the full earning rate.) For screening purposes, and to recognize other user benefits, the value of time saved on non-business trips can be increased to 50% of passengers' earning rates. This will avoid eliminating systems with appreciable but unmeasured user benefits. A simple way to make a rough calculation of the significance of time savings benefits is to determine the level of income at which the value of time saved equates to the extra cost of switching to a new system. Table 7.6 shows the level of earnings necessary for the value of time savings to equate to a range of extra costs: - 36 - TABLE 7.6. Level of Income for Benefits to Equate to Extra CostS(1) Annual Extra Cost Per Capita Per Day Inco (US$) us$) 0.10 400 0.20 800 o*30 1,200 0.40 1,600 0.50 2,000 1.00 4,000 1.50 6,000 2.00 8,000 (1) Assumptions: time savings equal one hour per passenger on a 10-km round trip per day time savings are valued at 50% of the rate of earnings "extra costs" are derived from Annex II., Table II.5., and are for a 10-km round trip (2) Sensitivity: If time savings are doubled to two hours (which is not very likely) the above income levels will be halved. But if time savings are only 30 minutes per day (which is more than likely) then the above income levels would need to be doubled. In effect, the above table indicates that, on the basis of time savings, the increased cost ($1.00) of switching from bus service to a metro would be justified only if the average annual income of commuters exceeded $4,000. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS Because of very considerable differences in the value placed on the environment in different countries, and the complexity of the subject, no attempt is made in these guidelines to quantify the environmental impact of transit systems. Nevertheless, environmental impact on the community, including disruption of city life, is an important consideration in the selection of transit modes. For the purpose of this screening process, a system should not be ruled out on environmental grounds unless the system is also low or a borderline case among the options selected for detailed feasibility study. Nevertheless, the value of each option in reducing environmental impacts should be considered. - 37 - The following Table 7.7 provides a broad qualitative indication of the environmental impact of various systems: TANZ 77. Ewviromental IMpact of Trasit Systems Mbd e Air Pollution Noise Visual Intrusion Safety Bues in mbEd traffic Poor Average Good Avere uses in reserved lanes Average Average Good Avege Bbses in hsays Good Good Good Good Tra=Wys Very good Average Average Average LI surface Very good Average Average Good RRT surface Very good Poor Powr Good IR elevat Very good Poor Poor Very good RRT undergrounl Very good Very good Very good Very good OTHER CHARACTERISTICS The other characteristics of transit systems that need to be taken into account are: - flexibility in coping with changing demands - that is, temporary or permanent re-routing; - the amount of interchanging that may be necessary; - problems of fare collection, fare evasion, and revenue leakage; - degree of sophistication of operation and maintenance; - comfort and reliability; - construction and implementation difficulties. These are outlined in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 for each type of transit system. The particular problems that need to be addressed in an examination of high-capacity systems are listed in Annex VI. COMPARISON OF RESULTS When all the steps in the screening process have been completed, the findings concerning each of the systems need to be summarized and consolidated for ease of comparison. This can be done by setting out the details of each system along the lines of the data sheets used for the examples illustrated in Annex IV. In addition, the summary should cover the financial impact of each system, together with a brief note on its economic and environmental aspects. The checklist in Annex VI. should be used to ensure that important - 38 - questions have not been overlooked. The answers, if significant, should be added to the summary. There are likely to be some options that are clearly inappropriate and that should be rejected, while others may clearly deserve more detailed examination. Before any borderline cases are rejected, the possibility of modifying them to make them more acceptable should be carefully considered. Systems that offer insufficient capacity to meet demand but which otherwise are attractive should be examined to see if they can be duplicated in other streets to meet demand along the same corridor. Or it may be possible to combine attractive systems to provide the best arrangement. These guidelines have been designed to provide a rapid method of examining an array of transit options, and they are not intended as a substitute for a detailed feasibility study. Such a study will be necessary before the most appropriate solution can be selected and before detailed designs can be undertaken. Nevertheless, the guidelines should provide decision makers with a useful tool in assessing the validity of suggestions and recommendations for new transit systems and avoiding the costly examination and implementation of inappropriate options. - 39 - Annex I. Transit Options Study: Draft Terms of Reference Background [Here insert a brief description of the city, providing details of its population, area, and basic transport data. Outline problems in the current transport situation which are causing the most concern. List any earlier transit investigation and transport studies that may be relevant or of assistance to this study. Also, describe current Government policies regarding urban transport and development, and possible policy changes that may be under consideration.] Study Objectives The main objectives of this study are to: - identify the transit systems (which might include the existing transit systems) that are likely to be viable and to meet future demands, and thus worthy of detailed feasiblity study; - avoid expenditure of funds and other resources on detailed study of inappropriate systems; Specifically, the objectives of the study are to: - outline deficiencies in existing transit systems; - estimate the approximate current and future demand for transit services; - establish the most effective way of improving existing transit systems and determine the extent to which these are likely to be able to cope with future demand; - establish the general scope and character of new transit systems which are more likely to be viable and able to meet anticipated future demand; - assess the operational and economic feasibility and overall practicability of each transit option; - after eliminating those options that do not merit further considerations, compare the remaining alternatives with an improved existing system. The analysis should be made in sufficient depth to determine whether it justifies the cost of a subsequent feasibility study; - 40 - - present the findings in a form that assists the authorities in reaching a decision about a possible feasibility study. This may include the identification of candidate transit systems to be evaluated in greater detail and the Terms of Reference for a subsequent feasibility study. Scope Geographic. The study should examine the main commuter corridors [here identify two or three corridors with the heaviest demand and causing the most concern] and should cover the areas which significantly contribute to demand along these corridors. Technological. All transit technologies which have a chance of proving viable are to be considered. [Insert here any specific technologies that should be excluded because they recently have been considered in depth and are known to be inappropriate.] Particular attention is to be given to any system previously proposed [insert a description of any specific proposals which are required to be evaluated]. The study should consider the different forms of right-of-way that can be provided and which have a chance of proving viable. These may include shared, semi-exclusive, or completely exclusive rights-of-way over all or part of the network or route. Similarly, wholly or partly grade-separated crossings and systems should be considered. Institutional Options. The study should consider the institutional options that may be available and appropriate to ensure the viability of the improved or proposed new transit systems. In particular, the study should consider the opportunities for participation by the private sector. Problems to be Addressed The present transit system is suffering from [insert details of overcrowding, excessive travel time, etc. Identify the causes if these are known, such as inadequate transit equipment, poor transit operations, street congestion, or some other, and give details of any reports that diagnose the problems]. The final report must demonstrate how the systems proposed for further study will effectively address these problems in a cost-effective fashion. Available Data Sources Wherever possible, the analysis should be based on available statistics and past surveys of travel characteristics, and other relevant planning data. The gathering of new field data, if required at all, is to be kept to a minimum. Some limited investigation, however, may be necessary to obtain up-to-date and reliable cost details. - 41 - Study Approach Since only a broad indication of the suitability of various options is required, the study should rely on readily available data, experience, and simplified comparative analysis. It should avoid the need for comprehensive travel studies and detailed analysis of options. To reduce the amount of study time and effort involved, the study should concentrate on two or three of the main transit corridors. [If there are several major transit corridors, the most heavily utilized corridor and another which is most representative of the remainder should be selected for study.] The balance of the transit network need not be examined in detail, but compatibility with options for the main corridors should be checked. Study Methodology Base Year. A base year which represents the first full year of operation of the selected option should be chosen for analysis. [Initially it should be assumed that the base year will occur five years after completion of the feasibility study. Subsequently, the base year may have to be adjusted, depending on the anticipated implementation period of the options listed for further study.] Study Period. Assessments and forecasts should be made for the base year, for one year in the medium term [5 years after the base year], and for one year in the long term [15 years after the base year] [insert actual years]. Assessment of Demand. Estimate the base-year, medium-term, and long- term travel demands and modal splits for each of the corridors to be studied. Detailed travel surveys should not be undertaken. Instead, future demand in each of the study years should be estimated by projecting current passenger flows using simple growth factors based on forecast urban population growth and, if available, details of past trends in transport demand. Allowance should be made for unsatisfied demand and for demand likely to be generated by new development in areas close to the corridors being studied. If projections available from previous studies are to be used, the validity of the data should be checked. The study should examine opportunities to restrain the use of private cars (e.g., road pricing, user taxes), and to reduce demand where it is expected to be particularly heavy (e.g., by dispersing routes, road network modifications, etc.). The impact of these measures on the selection of options should be indicated in the study. Generating Options. A wide range of transit options, including improvements to the existing system, should be generated and defined in sufficient detail to permit initial screening. These options should include a variety of: - technical options; - right-of-way options; - network configuration options; and - institutional options. - 42 - Screening of Options. Using experience and simplified comparative analysis, the many options generated should be screened to eliminate dlearly inappropriate systems and to reduce the number to a manageable size. Approximately five options, including the neutral case, should be listed for further examination. Costs. For each transit system on the short list, estimate capital costs and operating costs for each of the three study years (the base year, medium-term year, and long-term year) [insert dates]. The estimates should assume that sufficient infrastructure, rolling stock, and operating resources will be provided when necessary to keep pace with the travel demand forecast for each of the study years. Economic Evaluation. A simplified method of cost-benefit analysis should be employed to judge each of the transit options on the short list, including the neutral case. The analysis should be for each of the three study years: the base year, the medium-term year, and the long-term year [insert dates]. Financial Evaluation. A financial evaluation should be made of each transit option on the short list, with particular regard to the funding of both capital and operating costs, and opportunities for full cost recovery. Sensitivity Test. The sensitivity of both the economic and financial evaluation results to key parameters, such as interest rates, fare levels, energy costs, and patronage levels should be tested for each system on the short list. Implementation, Integration, and Operational Aspects. For each option on the short list the study should consider in general terms: - the effect on traffic, services, and the environment during and after implementation; - the ease or difficulty of integrating any new system into the existing system, particularly the problems of any proposed rescheduling or curtailing of other services that may be involved; - the impact of highly concentrated demand on other city services and facilities; - operational feasibility, and the capability of meeting changing patterns and levels of demand; - ability to provide adequate services in areas of low and high density; - the level of sophistication and technology of any new systems, and the availability of people with the necessary skills for operation and maintenance. - 43 - Schedule and Reporting An interim report in .... copies will be submitted within .... weeks of instructions to proceed with the project. The interim report will outline the assessment of the problem, the proposed neutral case, and the wide range of options, with a description of the screening process and the shorter list of alternative transit systems proposed for more detailed investigation. It will also describe the estimation of unit costs, both for the fixed infrastructure and for operations. The draft final report will be submitted in .... copies within .... weeks of instructions to proceed with the project. The draft final report will present both the findings of the investigation and the data upon which the findings are based. The report will also contain proposed Terms of Reference for a subsequent feasibility study, provided such a study has been judged to be worthwhile. The final report in .... copies will be submitted within .... weeks of receiving the client's comments on the draft final report. Staffing It is envisaged that this study will require about .... man-months of professional work. It will be the consultants' responsibility to mobilize a team which can do justice to the requirements of the study. Expertise should be provided on the following subjects: - civil engineering, with particular experience in costing, - economics, - bus operations and management, - transport planning, - traffic engineering. Government Responsibilities The Government undertakes to give the consultants access to all available data that are relevant to this study. This will include the following data sources: - [here insert a description of the data sources, including reports, statistical series, etc.] The Government will also provide office space, secretarial and drafting help, transportation, and office equipment necessary to conduct the study quickly and efficiently. Moreover, it will assign ...................to the study full-time to provide liaison between the consultants and various Government Departments. Other Sections [Include here standard clauses on: - Method of payment - 44 - - Reference to a standard form of agreement - Exclusion of agents of manufacturers of transit equipment from the project - Procedures for immigration, work permits, housing, importation of equipment, etc. - Procedure for settlement of disputes.] UE U.l. Urban Trmspwt IetA S Ctl POPULATION WA; OF MMO CNP PMR IAL ARS RATE OF ItTAL IDSES ND. OF MFE PRICE PRI(E OF llB FARE M1AL SPLTr OF MRI7ZE) MIPS 1980 POPILIATI(U AREk CN'* NO. OF PER MOWIM MI. OF PE (P MFR. OF EIMYf CAR l1R FOR 5 km (1,000) aHiM h C4RS 1,000 OF CARS IES 1,OW0 VER(ICES GS/LlxrE TRIP AUID TAXI as PARA- RUL/ oCIR CllY 19704K 1980 198) 1980 FOP. 1970-{1 1980 PMP. 199) 1983 1983 1983 lRANStr SUBAY %per amm lkQ U $ (1,000) 1980 %pa 1980 T15 $ us $ us $ AIMJAN 1,715 11.0 261 1,150 85 50 10 2,410 1.41 - 6,560 0.80 0.26 33 12 50 - - 5 ACCRA 1,447 6.7 1,390 420 27 19 - 709 0.49 7,411 6,000 0.45 0.18 - - - - - - A?W 1,125 4.1 36 1,420 81 72 - 433 0.38 32,000 10,850 0.54 0.48 44 11 19 26 0 0 ANKMA 1,90D 4.4 237 1,470 65 34 14.2 781 0.41 - 7,097 0.50 0.14 23 10 53 9 2 2 BAWx( 5,154 9.1 1,569 670 367 71 7.9 6,300 1.22 34,155 10,870 0.48 0.09 25 10 55 10 - - BO=a 4,254 7.1 - 1,180 180 42 7.8 9,081 2.13 - 6,075 0.23 - 14 1 80 0 0 5 B%MAY 8,500 3.7 438 240 180 21 6.1 3,066 0.36 38,447 7,327 0.61 0.05 8 10 34 13 34 - BUENO AIRES 10,100 1.7 210 2,390 537 53 10 12,089 1.20 97,245 4,500 0.40 0.11 - - 45 27 - 28 CAGN 7,464 3.1 233 580 239 32 17 8,177 1.10 42,000 10,002 0.20 0.07 15 15 70 - - - cMM 9,500 3.0 1,414 240 95 10 5.6 3,160 0.33 28,500 7,922 0.69 0.04 - 2 67 14 10 4 ARAM. 670 5.2 - 630 107 160 3 504 0.75 5,300 - - 0.15 - - - - - - INKXrw 5,067 2.5 1,060 4,240 200 39 7.4 9,278 1.83 58,801 5,833 0.56 0.13 8 13 60 - 19 - J lAREA 6,700 4.0 650 430 222 33 9.8 4,798 0.72 77,781 18,697 0.34 0.16 27 - 51 - 1 21 IARkM 5,200 5.2 1,346 300 184 35 8.4 12,064 2.32 17,628 10,741 0.46 0.04 3 7 52 18 6 13 llAIA DJH)R 977 3.5 244 1,620 37 38 - 1,148 1.18 7,923 8,616 0.49 0.15 37 - 33 17 0 13 LKXs 1,321 3.1 665 1,010 62 47 - - - 58,857 - - 0.45 - - - - - - LIMIA 4,415 4.2 - 930 333 75 7.2 8,853 2.01 1,060 8,000 0.30 - - - 45 27 - 28 WMAA 5,925 5.1 636 690 266 45 8.0 31,403 5.30 100,725 9,187 0.49 0.07 16 2 16 59 - 8 lefWLIN 2,078 3.2 1,152 1,180 91 44 - 4,800 2.31 10,800 6,975 0.23 0.07 6 4 85 5 0 - MXfrX crmt 15,056 5.0 1,479 2,090 1,577 105 - 18,500 1.23 155,500 7,000 0.26 0.09 19 - 51 13 15 2 NAIIB 1,275 8.8 690 420 60 47 - 1,100 0.86 - - - 0.15 45 - 31 15 0 9 RIO IE JANE 9,2D 2.4 6,464 2,050 957 104 12.1 11,000 1.20 95,945 4,506 0.77 0.21 24 2 62 2 11 - SAN JOSE, OR 637 3.5 180 1,730 - - - 500 0.78 - - - 0.07 21 2 75 0 0 2 SAO PAIlI 12,800 4.5 1,493 2,050 1,935 151 7.8 16,400 1.28 240,000 5,469 0.65 0.26 32 3 54 - 10 1 SE)L 8,366 5.0 627 1,520 127 15 11.7 13,000 1.55 63,222 5,574 0.85 0.16 9 15 68 0 7 0 S nAPORE 2,413 1.5 618 4,430 164 68 6.8 6,512 2.70 78,038 16,563 0.70 0.24 47 - - - - 53 TnNIS 1,230 6.4 115 1,310 38 31 - 642 0.52 - 8,106 0.47 0.27 24 4 61 - 10 - IIXNY1 6,851 -0.9 1,579 7,920 1,932 282 2.6 11,479 1.68 78,723 8,354 0.70 0.61 61 1 23 0 12 2 NEW Yc 7,086 -1.0 759 11,360 1,545 218 - 10,481 1.48 90,692 9,000 0.33 0.75 12 2 14 0 72 0 PARIS 8,800 0.6 454 11,730 3,240 368 12.3 7,100 0.81 255,00w 4,592 0.54 0.30 56 - 8 0 21 15 sTXtOf 1,528 3 6,489 13,520 391 256 3 1,850 1.21 34,036 8,569 0.53 - 48 - 53 - - - S1UTAR 581 -0.8 207 13,590 199 343 2.5 332 0.57 - 7,833 0.55 0.82 44 6 33 6 - 11 TanD 8,352 -5.6 592 9,890 2,219 266 2.5 6,393 0.77 130,427 3,516 0.59 0.59 32 - 6 0 61 0 IWFlll?X 135 -0.7 266 7,090 61 452 - 256 1.90 24,432 9,279 0.59 0.67 56 - 26 - 5 10 * NatioeiL Data + Som cities hlve very substantial roportions cf wlk trips not reflected in uDtorized wldal split. - Data not available. SOIWICS: 1&,rld lak surveys, sties ard appra1iss. WMU1.2. lt Servicem. Cty 0x4arlswu. 193 Dca (Coverirg priripat -rporation or groW of private operators in each city does rot irdlude paratraruit.) km PER RAIO: NUMBR OFERAIlE SrAFF PER PASSERE ANRUAL iuAL aEr ARNJAL FAEE OPEAThE (NER- OF AVAIl- IIS OPERATIG PER *ALT. CPERATDr, PER PERAl (typical, REVlIE CIY SHIP lIS AlB PER DAY HI NE PM DAY aor PASSEWM REVERE 5 km) /IU1AL (Z) (US $ mill) KIRIEI (US $ mlll) (US $) (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) 1 ABDIJM MIXED 1,044 85 183 7.1 829 91.29 0.07 69.40 0.26 0.67 2 ACRA PUBLIC 44 24 292 28.1 2,092 1.03 0.03 0.63 0.13 0.51 3 ACRA PRIVAE 665 73 223 5.5 676 10.43 0.04 17.72 0.18 1.37 4 ADDIS ARBAA PISLIC 164 58 205 13.1 2,467 7.96 0.02 6.59 0.07 0.67 5 ANKARA, PUIC 899 67 210 5.8 1,273 25.62 0.01 15.31 0.14 0.48 6 BIY PUBLIC 2,325 92 216 14.0 2,093 81.95 0.01 72.97 0.05 0.77 7 CAIN) PRUIC 2,454 69 246 14.6 2,417 60.41 0.01 36.19 0.07 0.50 8 CAUr UMLIC 981 64 133 18.0 1,641 23.05 0.01 13.09 0.04 0.45 9 D1AKR MNDg 439 70 287 9.6 1,193 22.97 0.04 20.41 0.26 0.76 10 QUAIMA CGN PRIVArE 1,600 95 304 - 1,037 29.00 0.02 54.60 0.10 1.55 11 HO NIGW PRIVAME 2,392 85 243 4.7 1,610 117.96 0.03 136.10 0.13 1.00 > 12 KARACI RILIC 646 65 267 9.9 1,135 11.73 0.01 6.73 0.04 0.43 13 1OAIA UlM PRIVAME 358 80 250 4.3 753 12.03 0.02 12.38 0.17 1.00 14 MMASA MD[ED 89 90 315 7.5 1,640 3.93 0.03 4.48 0.11 0.96 15 NAIN)WI MIXED 295 84 330 9.7 1,762 16.31 0.03 17.98 0.15 1.08 16 1OM ALFE PllVAlR, 1,492 95 218 4.3 669 46.68 0.05 65.35 0.23 1.17 17 SAN JOE MIXED 621 80 128 - 2,013 19.39 0.02 24.24 0.07 1.04 18 SAO PAULD PUBLIC 2,631 83 284 7.4 795 159.51 0.03 75.64 0.26 0.41 19 SAO PAULU PRIVAIE 6,590 83 280 5.1 765 - - - 0.26 1.00(5) 20 SHIlL PRIMVAE 8,310 95 340 3.9 1,326 398.18 0.03 443.43 0.16 1.04 21 SITIAPORE PRIVAME 2,859 91 269 3.9 374 110.23 0.10 147.75 0.24 1.32 22 A15E PBLIC 1,768 87 245 6.6 910 100.36 0.05 37.39 0.23 0.34 23 IyFUN BaIC 1,505 85 199 5.8 992 234.99 0.16 130.08 0.78 0.51 24 CHICA PUBLIC 2,275 93 125 3.1 750 339.28 0.08 194.54 0.90 0.52 25 uION" 1UC 4,901 88 202 6.8 842 605.90 0.17 319.21 0.61 0.48 26 PARIS UTBLIC 4,005 87 142 4.5 419 512.00 0.25 191.45 0.30 0.37 27 SENDAI PUBLc 777 92 128 2.5 495 57.76 0.11 59.44 0.58 0.96 (1) lNumer of buses belornirg to the principal corporation or group of private operators covered by the survey. The total nnber of buses operated in the city as a uiiLe is given in Amex I. (2) Operatirg costs exddlirg depreciation awe interest charges. (3) Total costs inrludirg operating costs, depreciation ard interest dharges. for canparative purposes a uniform nmthad to deternrin deprediation anl interest charges has been used to obtain total costs. Passenger kilometers are imputed usirg an average trip lergh of five kilomters. (4) operatiYg revenre inludirE fare box and advertising revene but esdluding subsidies. (5) Cost ard revenue data for Sao Paulo private operators are not available; lwever private operators receive no subsidy frao the governxert and are krvwn to at least break even. SaiRQ: World Bawk survey of operators, studies and appraisals. UZ 11.3. fl Syjin: CltY am uD. 1983 Ba MdW. PASSM 1TML CAPAff P TRAIN Fl QE DDt. ANNUL RATIO TYYE 11 PMR. OF TOTAI ON UIST I1WA OSTS INAL CW1(TD TOTAL CDOST cO cF almJ "M or Swm SRA2MD CU1 TRAIS AMUAL L1IE PEK (aWATC (incl. cap. CI'VAAllN lmVw.E' PER PASS- crNy SYSi LDIE Gum Sr tE KM snc c TE PASSLE NS P m wss aosts) vE4ai FABE WM MST at-4m (udil) (US $ 1983) (US $ 1983) (US $ 1983) (5 Iln) (IK:. Am. (US $ 1983) (mfll) (vill) ("du) (US $) CAP. Os) (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (3) (5) 1 CARCBAS WM 12.3 90 14 408 1,265 1,668 14 80.6 28,700 33.34 120.28 42.16 0.47 0.35 0.332 2 SANG0 ISl 25.6 81 35 193 844 1,099 49 109.0 14,295 15.32 76.89 20.31 0.18 0.26 0.136 3 SM) PJ1L0 Mitm 25 70 26 198 666 - 52 347.0 58,000 67.15 210.54 40.68 0.07 0.19 0.081 4IUIIS SU911 RA1L 26 0 20 500 1,300 - 9 24.0 8,000 7.55 11.41 4.05 0.20 0.36 0.044 5 A1FAIlE S[lIWN FAIL 152.1 0 93 556 665 840 76 12.9 3,600 31.70 51.88 4.29 O.S4 0.08 0.538 6 BALTI&M MiM 12.8 56 9 456 540 996 12 7.8 - 99.20 147.33 48.10 0.75 0.33 2.518 > 7 BERLIN MM 10D.8 100 114 228 1,182 1,182 172 346.2 40,000 126.44 498.15 104.05 0.78 0.21 0.228 8CA M LIGH RAIL 12.5 10 8 128 324 440 20 11.9 4,650 5.44 15.43 - 0.81 - 0.146 9 (IIGC0D ?;1m 395.8 9 143 200 1,340 - 300 149.7 12,395 101.50 3a8.79 61.30 0.90 0.16 0.221 10 1nc XKM MMlm 26.1 77 25 288 2,250 2,250 92 412.0 60,000 60.96 152.06 132.27 0.06 0.87 0.049 11 )aUN mm 388 42 247 290 750 814 449 563.0 23,000 440.08 1,094.58 440.99 0.51 0.40 0.259 12 .RMEAI, M?llM 50.3 1CO 57 360 1,440 1,440 84 199.9 20,000 92.53 180.38 31.68 0.69 0.18 0.141 13 NACM SLTBUIBN RAIL 544.5 0 369 184 520 920 210 379.8 37,0D0 189.34 224.78 261.43 - 1.16 0.032 14 NMDuA CrIY ME1 57.5 96 59 211 603 1,508 93 330.0 43,697 127.09 326.43 158.73 0.72 0.49 0.432 15 NEW YCEK 1T 370 60 465 600 1,760 2,2ZO 564 952.6 68,000 1,100.00 4,750.99 955.34 0.90 0.20 0.480 16 SAKA mm 90.9 88 74 370 1,100 2,750 115 856.6 62,696 414.37 780.32 416.49 0.72 0.53 0.182 17 SAN DI8D L({ RAIL 25.6 0 18 128 376 800 24 4.7 1,267 5.30 14.86 4.34 0.50 0.29 0.524 18 SAN FRANCIS MCEM 113.6 28 34 540 810 1,080 43 55.5 15,086 128.20 401.66 69.80 0.60 0.17 0.341 (1) Cna- capacity reprsnets the nx1mn paseigers that can be safely carried in very cmaded conditions but withto causirg seriom diaeanfort. (2) Operatiig aests ecludiig depreciation and interest dages. (3) Total osts indLudirg operating cots. depreciation, asd interest darges. Fbr tarative pzrpcses a adform ethod to determine depreciation ard interest dages has been used to obtain tota coats. (4) Operatiig ree irc:ludirg fare box aid advertlsing revenie but edudire abldies. (5) Passengr ldlometers abe- -nt specified in the survey response ame iamuted usirg an averae trip lernth of 7.5 kilometers. San=: SbDrd Bat srkvey of all. qeratom, esxpplanted abr Srld Bark analyses amg studies. - 48 - MMZ ILA. Rbl Serwy : CqLtol Ciit E Typ1cmi Rdl Systm (A) Exsting Systems: Recently Co[trwcted Sections lmTm (1O STlcE TAL CAPW1& COa crIm T2P9 cF RAML SECN UT Ut (1983 US $ mill) D RXHf or wA TAL GlW IUTAL (RRI Wm PER km Liht Rail SAN DII) 9rf aoe TrciLle Total 25.6 0 18 0 127 5.0 HANNER Surface LR I Total 69.0 12.0 110 14 750 10.9 K2fA Elevated LRr Total 15.0 0 18 0 20 13.3 CAl&a Elevated LRT Main Lire + Ext. 22.3 1.5 24 1 348 15.6 Rar1Ew4 LRr/mttro N-S Ext. 4.3 0 3 0 86 20.1 UNIS Surface LWr Line 1 8.1 0.2 11 1 233 28.6 HWiM Tonal LRT Section of B 2.8 2.8 108 38.5 Suburban Rail NAl)YA Surface Varim Linm 414.0 1.7 291 13,668 33.0 Metro SANTIA4 Umlergrounl Total - 2 lins 25.6 2D.8 35 2B 1,015 39.7 BLTDV Surface/Undeground NW Line + Ext. 18.1 6.7 12 6 996 55.0 1RLI Uniergrx Extension (tuanel) 4.6 4.6 5 5 275 59.7 OSAA UTrdergroird Extensicn 14.1 13.8 13 12 898 63.7 T CNG Undergroud/evated Mainrland 26.1 20 26 18 1,519 58.2 SAO PAIJW Unlergrowd Total - 2 line 24.3 17 28 16 2,338 96.2 iYJ'A Underground Line 3 16.3 16.3 17 17 1,808 110.9 FOG KM Unuergrundftevted. Islan Lime 12.5 10.5 12 9 1,400 112.0 i A Unmiergraii Line 6 14.9 14.9 17 17 1,685 113.1 CRACAS Urdergrourd Line 1 Phase 1 12.3 11.0 14 12 1,440 117.1 (B) PLARM SYSIT MrraY TYPE Cl RAIL IE (kan) AD RT OF WAY SE ICf tMM FST141IM CAPIAL (138T YYL aRIW) TEL MI Ihn Light Rail SAN JOSE, rk M&A IM 32.0 0 316 9.9 TDR1W1D LN 7.1 0 109 15.3 Metro MDEILIN SurfaceELevated l1o Liries 22.5 0 500 22.2 BAN1X Evevated 30.0 0 730 24.3 LAGOS Elevated 25.7 0 950 33.9 CA5LOE Un3ergrwtd 16. 15.0 1,100 67.1 SI21AP Uniergroind/Surface Sec. 1 17.1 14.6 1,200 70.2 BARGAD Uierground Sec. 1 5.5 5.5 450 81.8 oCS Urdergrouri Total by 1989 40.0 30.9 3,600 90.0 SW S: World Bark survey of operators, studies an appralsas. u 1I.5. lrait Syatm ou 1 )ett*tic(1) Private Para- Buses Trams U1 Rapid Rail Car6 transit (ani trolley lses)(2) Systen mixed bus only segregated mixed surface surface elevated under- OCaracteristica traffic lares bu"ys traffic exlusive ground Vehicle cacity 4 to 5 4 8f 8f 100 car 200 300 300 300 to to to 120 to to to to to (1 to 2) 20 120 120 2C0 30( 375 375 375 (ocpany) 1 3 4 4 4 Vehicles per train - - - - - to to to to to 2 6 10 10 10 lwu/trwicv