The “Developing” World?
Urban Passenger Mobility
Chris Zegras
2 December 2008
1.201
Objective and Content
Provide a brief, somewhat anecdotal, “survey”
of developing country urban mobility reality
1. Trends and Forces
2. A Developing World?
3. Developing Country Challenges and
Opportunities: 5 Key Areas
– Motorization, motorized 2-wheelers, public
transportation, land management, institutions
2
1
“Developing” World Urban Transportation:
Trends in Perspective
By 2030
~2 billion new residents
X
~3,000 vkm/person/year
=
~6 trillion additional vehicle kms/yr
=
~600 billion additional liters of gasoline/yr
or ~1.9 billion tonnes of GHG yearly
3
Some Relevant Forces
• Income growth…
• Accessibility is a “superior good”
• Urban decentralization (i.e.,
suburbanization)
• Increasing labor force participation
• Declining household size
4
2
In other words…
Urbanization
(Urban population growth)
+
Decentralization
(Urban outgrowth, “sprawl”)
+
Income Growth
=
More people making more trips over greater
distances
5
What do we mean by “developing”
world?
•
•
•
•
Can (should) we generalize?
What is different?
What is the same?
Sources of variation?
6
3
Range of “Developing World” Cities
7
Source: Various, see WBCSD, Table A-1.
Household Car Ownership
Hyodo et al, 2005.
8
4
100%
Other
90%
Metro/Train
Chilean
Cities:
Bike
80%
Colectivo
Bus
70%
Auto
60%
Walk
50%
40%
% Households
With No Motor
Vehicle
30%
20%
Vehicle
Ownership
& Mode
Shares
10%
Cu
r ic
Pu Cop o
nt
ia
p
a
Ar o
en
a
Pu Val s
er div
to ia
M
on
tt
Ta
lc
Ch a
illa
n
Ar
ica
Iq
ui
q
T e ue
m
R a uc
Co
o
n
qu An cag
i m to u a
b o fa g
-L
Va
as
a
lp
S ta
ar
ai Co ere
so nc na
-V
ep
i
Sa na ci on
nt del
i
Sa ago Ma
nt ( 1 r
ia
go 991
(2 )
00
1)
0%
9
Non-motorized transport “cultures”?
50
45
Bike
Walk
35
9
30
10
25
4
4
24
24
10
20
28
1.4
12
20
15
2
10
4
28
1
10
5
24
22
29
27
21
18
12
6
Ita
ly
itz
er
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
Au
st
ria
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
H
ol
la
nd
Sa
nt
ia
go
Sw
U
S
an
ad
a
En
gl
an
d
Fr
an
ce
0
C
Percent of AllTrips
40
10
Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003; Santiago derived from SECTRA, 2002.
5
Non-Motorized Urban Trips by Age Category
60
Bicicleta
Bike
Walk
Caminata
7
1.7 Santiago
Netherlands
1.2
11
Germany
2.3 2.8 2.2
10
47
44
40-64
25-39
<15
19
28 27 29
24
>75
40-64
>65
25-39
40-64
12 13 14
18-24
6
17
>75
4
22
23
65-74
5
0
19
39
45-64
7
25-39
1 USA 0.2
0.5 0.3
18-44
20
30
48
Edadinen
Años
Age
Years
65+
9
65-74
30
10
24
25
16-24
40
16-24
Percent of de
All Viajes
Trips
Porcentaje
50
11
Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003; Santiago derived from SECTRA, 2002.
Gender
• Again, significant variation by culture…
• Generally, women have less access to private
vehicles (all else equal)
• Women’s travel habits – more often than men’s
related to household maintenance – not conducive
to convenient public transport itineraries.
– Further suffer possible dangers on public transport.
• In developing countries, female trip generation rate
tends to be higher than males in most cities
– Exceptions in places like Cairo and Kuala Lumpur
– Likely religious and cultural influence (e.g. Hyodo et al, 2005).
12
6
A few accurate generalizations
Poverty
• By definition, developing world is poorer
– Accessibility poor
– Time poor
– Safety poor
– Energy poor
• Distribution of income: tends to be worse
– Gini coefficients
• Interacting effects: poor on periphery, isolated,
poor transport, long trips
13
Accurate generalizations
Dynamism
• E.g., land market changes in China and
Vietnam
• Political and institutional decentralization
• Rates of population growth
• Demographic
– Women in work force participation
Densities
14
7
Can we “buy (and/or learn) away”
some of the effects?
• Kuznets curve
• But, will this come in time?
• E.g.: traffic accident rates in India will not start
declining until 2042…(Kopitz and Cropper, 2003)
• Paths of development will depend, in part, on
time, speed, sequence of technological
adaptation
• Impacts and implications will vary across
contexts
15
Developing country challenges and
opportunities: Five key areas
• Motorization – does a foreseeable ceiling
exist?
• Motorized two-wheelers – friend or foe?
• Public transportation – what future?
• Land development – any possibility for
management for mobility?
• Institutions – capable of responding?
16
8
Motorization
In theory, a saturation point exists…
ALL of developing world is well-below
saturation
The “vicious cycle…”
Motorization (cars/capita) Income
Elasticity
Dargay, J. and D. Gately (1999); Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide:
1960-2015; Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 2.
18
9
Motorization: Influencing Factors
• Income distribution
• Local industry and trade policy
– Brazil, Malaysia,China
– Trade liberalization and used vehicles
• Peru, Senegal
– Local tax policies: Shanghai until recently
• Other policies, with potentially perverse effects
– “Hoy no circula”
• Will any country take a Singaporean approach to
long-term management of S-curve?
19
Motorization and Motorized
Two-Wheelers
The “ladder of mobility”?
Where does the 2-wheeler culture
come from?
10
Motorization and 2-wheelers
Kuala Lumpur
500
Autos
450
Autos + 2-wheelers
Vehicles per 1000
400
350
Belo Horizonte
Chennai
300
250
200
Mumbai
Mexico City
Dakar
150
Shanghai
Wuhan
100
50
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
GDP per Capita (US$)
21
Chennai, 1993
Percent of Households
70
Cars
60
Two Wheelers
50
40
30
20
10
9
9
>2
0
20
7
8
18
16
6
14
4
5
12
10
83
62
41
20
<2
0
0
Monthly Income (US$)
22
Rites, 1995.
11
2-wheelers
• The “worst of both worlds”? (Barter, 2004)?
– Traffic saturation and undercutting public
transport
• High levels of air and noise pollution
• Dangerous driving habits
• Difficult traffic management conditions
• Likely the “most challenging” transport
problem that Asia will face in the next
decade (Gwilliam, 2003)
23
Public Transportation
Developing cities mobility
backbone
12
Public Transportation
Ubiquitous service
Entrepreneurial spirit
Large potential demand…
Severe financial conditions
Inadequate capacity
Little network integration
Slow speeds
Deteriorating capital
25
Public Transportation: Obstacles
• Poverty
– Allport and Thomson (1990): with 1 dollar
fare, Metros in LDCs “break even”
(operationally)
• “Guerra del centavo”
• Potentially “counter-productive”
competition
26
13
Public Transportation: Competition
•
•
•
•
•
Car rapides (Dakar)
Matutus (Nairobi)
Two-wheelers (Chennai)
Colectivos (Mexico City)
Auto industry… (KL, Brazil, Mexico, etc.)
27
The Power of “Informality”
The Matutu minibus in Nairobi
Bus
Average wait time (min)
24
Average trip time (min)
65
Average travel time (min)
90
Average fare ($/km)
0.03
Average trip speed (km/hr)
13
Average travel speed (km/hr) 9
Matutu
Matutu
Advantage
14
38
52
0.02
18
13
44%
42%
42%
28%
42%
41%
Source: Koster and Hop (2000).
Note: Overall average based on AM/PM Peak and Off Peak.
28
14
Rise of the Informal Sector: Mexico City
16.1
25.4
4.3
25.0
15.1
17.9
1.3
1.7
10.9
9.8
1.1
2.4
61.3
73.2
% of All Public
Transport Trips
3.8
22.8
Bus
56.3
61.8
Colectivo
41.4
7.3
6.7
7.1
1986
1989
9.9
12.0
1992
1995
5.5
1998
29
Mexico City’s Colectivos
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
30
15
Public Transportation:
Institutional Challenges
Managing private industry in the public interest
• Private operators: strong political leverage
• Fare: conspicuous component of cost of living
• Ambivalence about “informality”
• Inter-jurisdictional coordination
– E.g., Mexico City
• Innovation in isolation
– Metrobus, KL’s rail, TransMilenio
31
Public Transportation:
A Range of Outcomes
• Mexico City Metro
– US$400 mn/year of operating subsidies
• Kuala Lumpur
– massive rail investment; bankrupts
“companies”, little mode share effect
• BRT “Revolution”?
– Curitiba, Transmilenio, MetroBus,
Transantiago, etc.
32
16
Land Management
What hope for managing
outcomes?
Urban Decentralization
Tokyo
New York
Paris
London
Detroit
San Francisco-Oakland
Washington
Melbourne
Hamburg
Vienna
Brisbane
Copenhagen
Amsterdam
Zurich
Frankfurt
pop/sq km (1960) pop/sq km (1990)
8,565
7,097
2,878
2,086
6,860
4,614
6,539
4,232
1,970
1,275
1,640
1,602
2,046
1,373
2,028
1,491
6,827
3,982
9,141
6,830
2,095
978
4,952
3,467
9,973
5,591
5,998
4,708
8,722
4,661
% chg. (1960-1990)
-17%
-28%
-33%
-35%
-35%
-2%
-33%
-26%
-42%
-25%
-53%
-30%
-44%
-22%
-47%
Will the developing world follow suit?
Source: Demographia, 2001
34
17
Decentralization in Santiago
800
200
Land Area
Density
700
175
150
500
125
400
300
100
Density (Pop./Has.)
Land Area (Sq. Kms.)
600
200
75
100
50
1995
1999
1991
1983
1987
1975
1979
1967
1971
1959
1963
1951
1955
1943
1947
1935
1939
0
35
Land Patterns: Generalizations
• Developing world still much denser than
industrialized
• Wuhan: 160 (persons/ha)
• Mumbai: 120 (persons/ha)
• Belo Horizonte: 63 (persons/ha)
• Santiago: 60-70(persons/ha)
• Shanghai at NY Metro Area density would
be 16 x current size…
36
18
37
Land Development: Changes
• Massive Mega-Developments
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nave Mumbai (Mumbai)
Pudong (Shanghai)
Sante Fe (Mexico City)
Chacabuco (Santiago)
Kuala Lumpur City Centre Project
Etc.
Represent influence the “modernizing” forces
(globalization, motorization, infrastructure expansion,
etc.)
38
19
Land Development: Challenges
Poverty, informality, spatial segregation
• Mexico City
– 49% of residents live in “irregular” settlements
• Navi Mumbai
– 39% in “informal” settlements
• China
– Land reform and government land conversion
incentives…
• Forces: continuous in-migration, low purchasing
power, segregation, etc.
39
Socio-Economic Spatial Segregation
Santiago
Mexico City
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
40
20
Urban Decentralization: The Rich & Poor
“Irregular” Settlements in Mexico City
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
Upper Income “Sprawl” in Santiago de Chile
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
41
Institutions
The ultimate challenge?
21
Institutions
• Dynamism of change
– Decentralization, democratization
– Income growth, motorization, etc.
• Outstrips
– Data relevance
– Institutional capability (jurisdictional, technical,
etc.)
43
Mexico City Metro Area:
Number of Local Jurisdictions
# of Jurisdictions
40
35
30
DF
EM
25
20
15
10
5
0
1950
1950­
1960
1960­
1970
1970­
1980
1980­
1990
1990­
1995
44
22
Institutions
• Developing country context makes things
worse
– Conditions for bureaucracy, civil service
– Information is scarcer, thus “more valuable”
– Greater asymmetries between public and private
sector
• Yet, interesting examples exist
– In part, perhaps, due to institutional ambiguities
45
Institutions, Politics and Planning…
• The allure of “Ribbon cutting” (e.g.,
highways, Metros) transcends parties
– Politics trumps planning (almost always?)
• Motorization and the vested interests
– Not just motor vehicle manufacturers…
• Urban expansion, speculators, real estate
developers and the invasion of ‘big box’
• Citizens Organizations can be co-opted
– But increasing in technical and political
sophistication
46
23
Politics, Planning and Ribbon-cutting:
Costanera Norte Highway in Santiago
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
47
Politics, Planning and Ribbon-cutting:
“Los Segundos Pisos” in Mexico City
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
48
24
Politics, Planning and Ribbons:
“Los Segundos Pisos” en Mexico City
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
49
Institutions, Politics and Planning:
Theory vs. Reality…
Development of Project Alternatives
Theory
• Concept and Scope welldefined
• Clearly respond to a need
• Consider all reasonable
options
• Provide a range of options,
illustrating trade-offs
• All alternatives should be
competitive as possible
• Process should be open,
well-documented, etc.
• Include “do nothing”
Source: Meyer & Miller, 2001
•
•
•
•
Practice
(“the Genetics” of a Project)
Personal Relationships
Financial Sources
Public Opinion
Technical Analysis
(Juan Tapia G., 2005)
50
25
Conclusions
• Urban developing world is mobility poor
• Still in early stages of motorization
– Unclear where saturation might lie
• Two-wheelers are a mobility “equalizer” and possibly
motorization “enhancer”
• Public transport faces street capacity constraints, low
management power/capability, low purchasing power
– Continued focus on high profile, costly “solutions”
– Unclear whether BRT-as-panacea will be productive
• Urban physical growth may be largest long-term
opportunity and challenge
• All of this (and more) poses massive challenge to undercapacitated institutions
51
26
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
1.201J / 11.545J / ESD.210J Transportation Systems Analysis: Demand and Economics
Fall 2008
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.