Metrobus: is it a fantasy? - II

There is controversy over Metrobus projects launched by the PML (N) government; Metrobus Lahore with a pejorative naming of Jungla bus is working well reportedly. There is another similar project in the pipeline connecting the twin cities of Pindi and Islamabad. One is intrigued by the stream of invective these projects have attracted on social and electronic media. In this article, we will try to explore the merits and demerits of the project and examine the objectivity of the arguments that have been levelled against such projects. We will also venture to make a few suggestions for improving the project efficiency in particular the energy and environmental aspects.
Following are some typical and more common questions and objections:
1. The projects are highly capital intensive diverting resources from other sectors and regions
2. These projects represent idiosyncrasies of Sharif brothers and do not conform to standard transport strategies and approaches.
3. The Lahore project has not attracted sufficient number of passengers and thus suffers from requisite cost-benefit ratio. High amount of subsidies have to be given to the project to support its operating costs. It has attracted elites and lower classes have escaped benefiting from it.
Fortunately, I came across a very useful publication brought out by a credible international organization called World Resources Institute. WRI publication has done a survey of such metro projects in various countries and has provided useful data to compare and evaluate the Lahore project, its configuration and inputs and outputs. We will make extensive use of this publications content. We have summarized and catalogued the international data provided in this publication in table 2. We have added a column for the Lahore Metro Project in an additional column in this table for ready comparability. Table 1 carries the data on Lahore Metro project. Before elaborating and discussing this data, it would be useful to offer some elaboration on the subject of metro projects, which we do in the following.
The whole idea is to isolate a track from the most used travel trajectories and run efficient and comfortable buses so that the common man goes and comes back from his workplace or other engagements without being stuck in a traffic jam. Even those having personal transport such as cars may be attracted so as to reduce traffic congestion and the associated pollution. Incidentally, we in this country underplay pollution issue and think that it is more of a fad better heeded to by rich developed nations and that our immediate concern is the bread and butter (do waqt ki roti).If we take stock of the road congestion and pollution problems in some of the major cities of the world, we would appreciate that it is no more a fad. The problem is real with dangerous consequences for passengers and residents. In New Delhi, Indian Supreme Court had to intervene and order improvement measures. So before problems become intractable, solutions have to be introduced. Metro projects are one of the solutions. Reducing the time to travel and operating hours of buses and introducing fuel efficient buses make a big difference for restraining pollution. This is a benefit which normally escapes from cost-benefit perceptions and calculations of the critics. Fortunately, there are methodologies available to quantify such benefit streams in an objective manner.
Coming to the idiosyncrasy argument, Metro projects have become increasingly popular in developing countries, especially in the period beginning the 21st century. There are more than 160 cities, which have launched similar projects and many more are coming in. There were only 23 examples before 2001, and the impetus has gathered in more recently with mounting problems of transport scarcity, congestion and pollution. Even in a conservative India, there are more than ten cities, which have already adopted this system and more are joining the league. Originally, the concept was developed and adopted in South America where several large and notable and successful projects were launched in Colombia, Mexico and Argentina. Developed countries have adopted the more expensive underground rails, while developing countries have taken to a less capital intensive approach of Metrobus. So it is not an obsession or idiosyncrasy of the Sharif brothers but is a standard and tried and tested approach.
Is it expensive? Yes, it is costing Rs 30 billion. It could have been cheaper and may be other newer projects may be able to cut corners and adopt a more cost stringent configurations. Let us compare as to what have been the costs elsewhere. A useful parameter is cost per kilometer, which comes out to be 12.35 USD per km. It is, admittedly, on the higher side matching only one country Colombia. Istanbul had it in 8.3 USD per kms but in 2007, and India implemented it in 2.4 USD per km also an older project in 2009-2011.So it is not a TajMahal kind of fantasy but is grouted and grounded in comparable international cost framework, although as has been mentioned, less fancier and stringent approaches can bring the costs down. And it will happen with experience and diversity of styles and approaches in other parts of the country.
Lahore Metro project spans a route of 27 kms, 26 stops and has 64 operational buses. The coverage may increase in future with success and more experience. Istanbul has 51.3 kms of route with... Buses, Mexico 93 kms with 161 buses etc. The fare is only 20 Rupees which is a double-edged sword; low fares benefit public and particularly the poor and less affording. However, subsidies have to be provided which are more than 100 % of the fare amount. Comfortable, air-conditioned transport is expensive generally. Average unsubsidized fare on such projects is 0.8 USD as per WRI Report. In all such cases where fare is less than 0.4 USD, there are subsidies. Eventually and gradually, fare may have to be doubled to Rs 40 per trip or a more differentiated ticket pricing be introduced charging per km. Fare is barely affording the Diesel cost.
Diesel consumption is quite a complicated issue. Volvo claims that it has introduced a technology that has reduced fuel consumption to almost 0.25 Liters per km. However, it may be for a lower number of passengers such as 60-70. In Lahore Metro, on the average 160 passengers, standing and sitting, ride the bus as per project data that I have been able to adduce. I am not sure which Volvo models have been introduced in Lahore. The project Tender document mentioned a consumption requirement of 0.9 liters per km.
In this respect, we have an important and useful suggestion towards reducing the fuel cost. In an earlier article(Part 1) of this series, we introduced the concept of Electrical Vehicles. Fuel cost (electricity consumption) in Electric Vehicles (EVs) is 25-33% of the Petrol cost Operating cost of BYD-EV has been estimated to be 0.20-0.30 USD per mile as opposed to diesel bus cost of 1.3 USD per mile in New York conditions. Electrical (EV) Buses consume 1-1.1 kWh of electricity per km, which brings out a consumption cost of 12-18 Rs per km or per passenger fuel (electricity cost) of Rs 5.00 only. This would certainly contribute towards making Metrobus more cost-effective and sustainable.
Admittedly, EV is a new and evolving technology. It is developing very fast, though. Large companies like Nissan, Toyota and Volvo are into it. In a few years, it would be a visible technology, at least in public transport, if not in the personal cars. Why other countries' Metros didn't adopt it? It was not there in its present and evolving form, when such projects were conceived and planned. Our Transport project planners should look into going electrical on buses. In addition to being cheaper, it is totally pollution- free or its pollution creating electrical power is produced in remote areas away from the congested and populous urban clusters.
Unit passenger cost comes out to be Rs 73.00 per. There are four cost categories; amortization of fixed costs like civil Works and furnishings (Rs 20.00 per); Vehicle operating cost including rental and maintenance (Rs 15.70); fuel cost (Rs 17.00 per); and O&M cost (Rs 20.00 per).If fixed investments are written off as a subsidy, one should be able to reduce the total fare cost by Rs 20.00.It would be worth the effort studying the civil works cost. The vehicle cost is only Rs 2.00 billion out of a total CAPEX of Rs 30.00 billion. Thus in order to reduce the actual fare cost, civil works costs are to be minimized and written off. Unit bus cost could be reduced, if low interest loan of 4% or so is given in this respect. If EV buses are introduced, fuel cost can be reduced to 25%. It is possible to bring it to the level of Rs 5.00 per passenger. O&M cost per passenger to be reduced to Rs 5.00 per passenger.
Creative approaches may have to be tried in new projects and even the existing Lahore project may also need some adjustments. Firstly, it may not be a grand and impressive project costing a lot of money and impressing people. An open or hybrid system may have to be experimented with. This means that other private sector operators may be permitted to bring in their buses into the Metrobus system under strict Quality Assurance rules. In Karachi, several modules, integrated or independent may have to be introduced with a total route kms of 100 plus. Permanent dependence on government cash doles have to be avoided. Government money has to come in kind such as fixed investment in facilities or interest rate subsidies etc.
It was not the purpose of this article to offer defence of PML (N) government and its policies. The idea was to explore, if the Metrobus is a good idea. If it is a good idea, it should be replicated, expanded and improved upon. There is always room for improvement and constructive criticism should point out such opportunities. It comes out that the idea and approach of Metrobus projects is a solid one, practical, environment-friendly, offering comfortable and efficient transport alternatives to the urban residents. Urbanization is continuing and is on the rise. It would not stop, as self-sufficient villages are nowhere in sight. Transport problems would aggravate with continuing urbanization. Public should support such projects and politicians should withdraw their destructive criticism from these projects. There are other areas that may keep them happy and busy.
Table 1: Salient Data and Parameters of Metro Bus Lahore Project

=================================================

CAPEX Total Billion Rs 30

CAPEX Total Million USD 333.33

Route Length-one way kms 27

average speed kms/hr 26

No of Trips per day 15

distance travelled/day kms/day 405

Total Passengers per day 150000

No of Buses pcs 64

CAPEX Buses Billion Rs 2

No of Stops 29

Fuel consumption Buses Liters/km 0.9

Passengers per trip-oneway 10000

Passengers per bus-trip 156.25

Passengers per bus-day 2344

Fuel cost per pass-trip 17.11

Fuel Cost per Bus-km Rs/km 99

Diesel Price Rs/Liter 110

Exchange Rate 1 USD Rs/USD 90

CAPEX per km 12.35

Bus Fare Rs/trip 20

=================================================

Source: Wiki, Punjab Metrobus Authority
Table 2: Comparative data and parameters BRT projects in selected Countries

===============================================================================

Turkey Mexico India Columbia Pakistan

Istanbul Mexico Ahmadabad Bogota Lahore

year of operation 2007 2011 2011 2000 2014

city Population Million 10.9 9 7.3 10

Passenger demand Pers/per day 600000 123000 120000 16000000 150000

Peak Load per Hour Pass/hr 24000 10500 1780 45000

Average load per hr Pass/hr 10000

Boardings/bus-day Pas/bus-day 2190 3636 857 1960 2344

Speed kms/hr 40 19 24 28 26

Route Length-oneway kms 51.3 93 120 27

No of Buses 161 1400 64

CAPEX per kms USD/km 8.3 9.8 2.4 12.5 12.35

Passenger Fare USD/km <0.80 <0.4 <0.4 <0.8 0.2

Social IRR % 66 14 23 ?

Benefit-cost ratio 2.8 1.2 1.6

===============================================================================