national policy in support of urban transport coin hughes: global nat’l policy research clarisse...
TRANSCRIPT
National Policy in Support of Urban Transport
Coin Hughes: Global Nat’l Policy Research
Clarisse Linke:
Brazil
Javier Garduno:
Mexico
What is national policy?
It is a means, not an end. It helps us get more projects in cities.
MONEY – 30-50% of the funding for transport projects in Mexico comes from the National Government. 50% of the loan financing in Brazil comes from the National Government. We need to make sure more money goes to good projects.
LAWS/REGULATIONS – It sets requirements for planning, for transport quality, for allowing cities to get important sources of revenue, and can even give them authority to take away lanes.
VISION – When a national government has a vision for urban mobility, it trickles down to cities
Why do we need it? Replication!
Brazil China India Mexico
Existing
RTR 4.3 4.4 1.2 5.6km Transit 750 3,349 504 556Vkt per capita 2,553 1,173 254 983
2030 Target
RTR 20 20 15 20km Total Sustainable Corridor length 3,942 19,607 8,806 2,376km New Transit 3,192 16,259 8,302 1,820
Population in Sustainable Corridors 86,729,280 607,828,780 184,930,830 52,262,760
AssumptionsAssumed Reduction in VKT for Population in Corridor 30% 30% 30% 30%
Sustainable Corridor Results
Total GHG Reduction by 2030 (mMt) 143 693 50 54
Sustainable Corridor contains bronze BRT, bronze TOD ranking, thus it is BRT+TOD+NMT+TDM.
What is needed for replication:
FINANCING: National Development Banks, MDBs
POLICY SUPPORT: Mandates, Revenue, Risk
QUALITY: Design Standards for Good Projects
EXPERTISE: Building Capacity in Country
PUBLIC OPINION: Communications & PR
Comparative Analysis of Rapid Transit Growth, Investment, & Access
Bottom-Up Analysis of Financing for BRT, LRT, & Metro Projects
Top-Down Analysis of National Policies, Programs, and Regulations
1
2
3
Comparative Analysis of Rapid Transit Growth, Investment, & Access
1
2
3
Objective• Understand how mass rapid transit networks have grown in 9 countries
over time and be able to compare countries of very different size and circumstances against each other and against their own urban growth.
• Understand the comparative costs (time and money) of investing in different modes and modal mixes.
Implication• Be able to show when countries are not growing their mass rapid transit
networks commensurate with population growth.• Understand where and when countries have been successful at rapid
growth in mass rapid transit per urban capita.
Growth of Rapid Transit in Kilometers, 1980-2013
19801981
19821983
19841985
19861987
19881989
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Figure 1: Growth in Kilometers of Rapid Transit 1983-2013
BrazilChinaColombiaFranceIndiaIndonesiaMexicoSouth AfricaUnited States
Year
km o
f Tra
nsit
Rapid Transit to Resident Ratio (RTR ratio)
Kilometers of Mass Rapid
Transit
Urban Residents
RTR = Kilometers of Mass Rapid Transit
Millions of Urban Residents
BRAZIL RTR = 2013
456 km Metro + 275 km BRT
171 Million of Urban Residents = RTR 4.3
Example:
That is to say, Brazil has 4.3 km of MRT for every million urban residents
Growth of Rapid Transit in 9 countries by RTR, 1980-2013
19801982
19841986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20042006
20082010
20122014
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
BrazilChinaColombiaFranceIndiaIndonesiaMexicoSouth AfricaUnited States
Year
Km o
f Tra
nsit
per M
illio
n Ur
ban
Resid
ents
Zoom In: Growth of Rapid Transit in 7 countries by RTR, 1980-2013
1993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220130
1
2
3
4
5
6
BrazilChinaColombiaIndiaIndonesiaMexicoSouth Africa
Rapi
d Tr
ansit
to R
esid
ent (
RTR)
Rati
o
Zoom In: Developing Countries Growth in RTR 1998-2013 by Mode
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
1998
2003
2008
2013
Brazil China Colombia India Indonesia Mexico South Africa
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
White Fill
BRT
LRT
Km o
f Tra
nsit
per M
illio
n Ur
ban
Resid
ents
Example of Implications: BrazilContinued Growth in RTR Necessary
2013 RTR: 4.3 km of rapid transit per million urban residents
Expected 2016 RTR: 6.2 km of rapid transit per million urban residents
Benchmark Goal: 10 km per million urban resident (US has 9, France 30)
Requires:
Building 1060 km of Rapid Transit beyond 2013 levels. (700km beyond expected 2016 levels)
Costs:100% BRT would cost USD $11 billion
100% Metro would cost USD $176 billion
35% BRT and 65% Metro (current modal investment mix) total cost will be USD $118 billion
Costs based on observed current average costs for constructing BRT and Metro currently in Brazil. BRT is less than 1/10th the cost of Metro in Brazil!
Public Transportation
Bottom-Up Analysis of Financing for BRT, LRT, & Metro Projects
2
Objective• Engage in detailed data collection of at least 9 projects of different
modes in each of 6 countries to understand how project development and financial structuring differs in each country.
• Identify weaknesses in funding and financing in each country such as under-leveraging, barriers to capital access, poor risk management.
• Understand in each country where the money (power) is for catalysing urban transport projects.
Implication• Be able to make empirically based comparisons and arguments for
more effective policies.• ITDP can target the most influential stakeholders.
Funding vs. Financing
Importante a entender la differencia entre:
Funder (‘Pagador’) – Pagando por un proyecto en effectivo o pagando un deuda/debito para pagar por un proyecto.
Financer (‘Prestador’) – un banco que da un prestamo a los ciudades o estados que pagan por un proyecto.
Top-Down Analysis of National Policies, Programs, and Regulations
Objective• Understand the structure by which national funding and regulation is
set and truly impacts the scaling up of mass rapid transit. • Catalogue all the national policies that relate to urban transport and
compare their goals to the empirical data obtained in sections 1 & 2 to determine if they are working or not.
Implication• Help ITDP determine most effective country strategy for using national
policy to scale up best practices in urban transport• Identify and publicize best practices in national urban transport policy
to promote globally
Mexico Key National Urban Transport Policies
Federal Mass Transit Support Program (PROTRAM) – Program to fund rapid transit projects in Mexican cities. Has strong project criteria…but few projects are approved due to stringent criteria and grant component
Urban Transport Transformation Program (UTTP) – Program to finance rapid transit projects. Only financed 1 project financed so far.
Brazil’s Key National Urban Transport Policies
Accelerated Growth Program (PAC) – Program to finance with loans many rapid transit projects in large Brazilian cities. Lots of investment, but weak project criteria…many bad projects approved, some good ones.
Lei Mobilidade - Federal law to require urban mobility plans in all cities. However no funding for the law nor binding criteria about what goes into a mobility plan, so low expectations for plans.
Brazil’s Key National Urban Transport PoliciesGeneral Findings:
• LEVERAGE: Many countries, more Mexico than Brazil, are under-leveraged their investments in transport, especially BRT. With limited capital, transport should be paid for by loans.
• STANDARDS: Funding/financing criteria must be perfectly balanced between vetting good projects and not slowing implementation up too much.
• MOBILITY PLANS: Requirements are only useful when they are 1) tied to money, 2) must be followed, 3) there is funding for their development, 4) There is set criteria for what they must contain, 5) there is capacity in country to develop and review them