Road vs railway: Which one is cost-efficient?
ULast part nlike the highly robotized truck- and car- making plants abroad, train- making, specifically in China, still retains a lot of its human labor assets, with work practices dating back to Edwardian age — when steam locomotives ruled. The design bias is still adheres to the mantra that “heavy is sturdy,” hence the need for heavy lifting equipment in train factories. The high manual labor input is a big burden in high labor cost Europe, which is why a lot of the traditional train makers, usually owned by the state, either closed shop or is on government subsidy, ICU- like drip feed ( as the labor unions and the state believe that keeping domestic train making, even at high cost, is a strategic necessity).
Investment banker and inventor of Rapid Bus Transit (RBT), Francis Yuseco, exposed that MRT-3 and LRT-1, financed by a so- called grants at concessionary rates, both come with an exorbitant 300% interest rate because these partly finances the train factory in Belgium ( or the Czech Republic). With many tradition-bound countries wedded to the idea of keeping their local train makers alive, the industry suffers dwindling orders and over capacity. The more aggressive train makers in Japan, Korea, Canada, France, Germany and China have embraced the latest technology in manufacturing, used in the aerospace and automotive industries. Lots of electronics, exotic lightweight metals, ceramics and plastics are used in their lightweight hyper- fast trains, which are exported overseas tied to financing grants.
Now, where does RBT (or BRT) fit in this scheme of things? As a rail hybrid, RBT uses pneumatic tired buses instead of railway train rolling stock, or rail cars. Many RBTs are powered by the overhead electric catenary systems familiar to trams and trolley buses. This makes buses cheaper to make than heavy rail cars, as buses are already a generic product made by the millions. In some parts of our country, buses can be made by rudimentary welding body shops, while such a method is impossible with rail cars.
The key element that makes RBT attractive is that, like a traffic- free railway, it uses an exclusive guide way. Contrast this to regular bus services, which are just as stuck with all private cars on urban roads, despite their priority bus lanes. For governments, RBT is quicker to implement and far cheaper to finance, build and operate. Considering the ink on the long- term operations contracts of MRT- 3 and LRT-1 is still fresh, DoTr Secretary Arthur P. Tugade, realizing the high finance cost of railways, wanted to follow Xiamen, China’s lead and studied junking government- owned LRT- 2 rail to convert it to PHILTRAK, the original RBT concept. Alas, it turned out that the LRT- 2’s guide way is narrower than LRT-1’s, making it less than ideal for RBT conversion.
Yet, the idea of minimizing, if not eliminating, the inescapable government subsidy of rail by taking out the rails and opting for rubber tires on paved roads rather than steel wheels on rails ( if only to cut operating costs drastically) appeals. So why not get the best of both worlds? Full control of trips, entry and exit to an exclusive road guide way ( instead of rails) combined with the lower costs of buses vis- a-vis rail rolling stock?
An ideal world is where all forms of transportation — on air, water, rail and road ( using bus, private car, cable car, motorcycle and bicycle) — have easily weighed compromises, trade- offs and cost/ benefit analyses so each transport- user can come to an intelligent decision. It is a given that the individual should be as safe, comfortable and convenient as each can possibly be vis- a- vis the other forms of transport. The commuter’s decision will boil down to his or her preference or mood, while duration, cost and safety are taken for granted.
Take the case of two advanced neighboring economies; Britain and France. Getting to either country’s principal city is almost just as fast from city center to city center. Take a flight from London City airport to Paris Orly, and the trip, including transfers to city center, takes just as long via Eurostar high- speed train that leaves St. Pancras, London, goes through the Channel Tunnel and arrives at Gare du Nord, Paris. Total cost? Almost par. A journey by private car, whether if one crosses the channel by tunnel or ferry, will take far longer and cost significantly more.
Thus, if you want to take a ride, you would — perhaps rather than have the government be taken for that ride. Despite this, train fares will continue to be cheap because governments still believe that a greater majority benefits from rail, justifying subsidies for the railroad industry. But isn’t this a confused chicken- and- egg situation; i. e., many people take the train because they’re cheap but its true cost is actually recovered by higher taxes? The reciprocal to this is to raise the train fares to breakeven point, and lower the taxes and just watch ridership fall.
Witness the low ridership of MRT- 3 upon its inauguration in 1999. Then- President Joseph E. Estrada slashed 70% of the fare, resulting in ridership way in excess of capacity — or at 130%. Still, if and when train service gets to be so good, one would choose to take the train and leave one’s car at home to preserve it for those nice, long, unstressed weekend/ vacation drives. It’s really not a difficult trade- off when you think of it. Go by rail or hybrid rail like RBT, and you actually get paid to ride. Go by your private car, and you are paying for everything while you go, along with everyone else who travels by rail.
Want the best of both worlds ( no subsidy buses on exclusive guide ways)? RBT by PHILTRAK may just be the answer.