National Policy in Support of Urban Transport Coin Hughes: Global Nat’l Policy Research Clarisse Linke: Brazil Javier Garduno: Mexico.

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.

CITYINNOVATORS

CITYCHANGE

ITDP BEST PRACTICES

CITYCHANGE

ITDP BEST PRACTICES

NATIONAL

POLICY

NATIONALCHANGE

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

Growth & Value: Change in RTR & Km of Transit per Dollar Spent 2000-13

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.

Funding & Financing Transport in Brazil

Funding & Financing Transport in Mexico

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