Mass transport capacities (Part 2)

Last Sunday, we looked at mass transport capacities, specifically that of rail.  Going over the very diverse types of rail-based transport, we see that there is actually a very wide range of capacities, ranging from a mere 2,000 passengers per hour per direction to a huge 90,000 pphpd.  The bigger extreme is 45 times the smaller and certainly, the way these are configured and operated are very much different from each other.  When one thinks of a “train,” we should remember that, because, especially for the men, the image that comes to mind is those trains we play with when we were yet boys!  Many of us had the pleasure to ride on actual trains, of course, from the small ones to the giant shinkansen and their cousins.

 What were those ranges again?  Tramways and monorail have generally about 2,000 to 15,000 or pphpd, approximately, while Light Rail Transits (LRTs) carries between 12,000 – 32,000 pphpd.  On the other hand, Mass Rapid Transits (MRTs), or more commonly known as “metros” carry something like 28,000 up to as high as 90,000 pphpd.  There are as many permutations possible among the types and one sometimes cannot distinguish where the separation is between classes especially that people are fond of misnomers and unfortunately, names stick.  It’s easy to identify a tram, of course, especially from a metro!

 But in order to differentiate, especially when we place the bus-based systems side-by-side, we have to establish the point that we choose to build or establish the kind of mass transport depending on the need.  One will not build a tram to serve millions of passengers a day, nor will one establish a metro in a small tourist spot in an island somewhere.  Or explaining it simply, we build the kind of system depending on the expected “ridership” of that line or route.  Ridership refers to the measure of how many passengers will use that system for an hour, day or year, today, or in the future.  We can assume a certain growth rate but something reasonable, of course, and estimate what the projected volume will be 20 years from now.

 If the present estimated ridership is 10,000 pphpd and it is expected to grow to 20,000 pphpd 20 years from now, then we design a system for 20,000 pphpd.  Or it’s not as simple as that but that’s the gist of planning a sufficient system.  Two major reasons why we can’t or shouldn’t make it smaller or bigger: first, if we make it small, it will easily become congested and overcrowded; if we make it bigger, we make the trips less frequent in order to fill up the space.  Who wants a mass transport system that stops in a station only every hour?  Secondly, fare is proportional to the operations and maintenance costs, which in turn is proportional to the total cost of the system.  If you make a system much bigger than what you need, your fare rates will become so high and unaffordable.  Right-sizing is important.

 The last criteria, of course, is a no-brainer – initial costs.  If two systems carry the same capacities, but one cost twice than the other, which one will you choose?  Elementary, my dear Watson, right?  But you’d be surprised how many people will select the more expensive one just because “they like it,” especially if we don’t have to pay for it (or so they think).  That’s the problem with our understanding of the word “public.”  In my column last Jan. 5 of this year, I expounded on the difference between how the Japanese perceives “public” goods to how we do.  To many of us, anything public is owned by everybody, not by us individually, so we care less on how much a public infrastructure costs, not realizing we’re paying for it.

Of course, when one is rich, you can afford to buy things even if you don’t need it.  But to an ordinary man, the dictum is always, “Don’t spend beyond your means ...” Many people forget that or knowingly make the mistake.  Unfortunately, many governments, too!