BMTC and possible open-market proposals or experiments

So far as I know, Bus Shelters are built by BBMP, not BMTC.

BBMP gave the job to private companies who are constructing them as per their own design with an eye on only advertisements.

Many new shelters are duplicated, occupying the scace pavement space, without giving the commuters requiored protection from sun and rain.

The name of the bus stops is written in tiny letters which cannot be read, especially at night as lighting is provided only for the ads, but not the name of the stop.

In case BBMP give the building and maintenance of these stops to private companies the design should be decided by BBMP making it mandatory to display bus stop name on all three sides with minimum 50% space earmarked . Also the route information should be displayed promimnently.

K.V.Pathy

The ground realities

I think there isn't much doubt left in assuming that private city buses of the kind seen in India are rash & unmindful of other street users, be these cars, 2-wheelers, pedestrians or bicyclists. It is of academic interest to conclude that such type of privatization is undesirable since it is unsafe & has brought in only small-time operators, wrestling with one another for scarce space in their pursuit for more passengers.

I don't think BMTC employees losing jobs is a matter of concern since they will continue to have employment with private parties that can operate BMTC bus services, assuming that BMTC leases out it's buses (with staff) on several different zones.

Further, citizens will gradually accept any service that fulfills their necessities for travel, irrespective of who provides them - as long as services continue to remain dependable.

This reminds me of a Chinese proverb: "To open a shop is easy, to keep it open is an art"

With only bus as the mode for public transport, I don't think operating independent local loop shuttle services would have been profitable - the volumes are bound to be poor, other than during peak hours. BMTC states that they had already tried this & found it unviable.

The city is also coming up with new mode/s of fast, exclusive-track mass transits, which will require shuttle services to feed it, but these shuttles would cater to area/s around stations rather than providing services to feed buses that do not enjoy exclusivity of any kind. Hence, shuttle services to feed mass rail transits may be more fortunate & their viability might be better.

Given these realities, what would be the way ahead, if privatization is to be opted for ?

Assuming this can be done with BMTC as the sole regulator, & it's buses are leased out to firms ---

The European examples where PT services concentrated on quality of service rather than battles between competing vehicles has clearly not worked in India - due mainly to low economic conditions, some BMTC volvo services being the only exception to this.

Allowing multiple bus owners to operate along the same route/s has been a recipe for disaster - thus, the logical first steps in any move toward privatization is to first find way/s to address these, apart from addressing issues that ensure reliability of services & cut revenue leakages :

1) Competition must be encouraged for the market, rather than within the market.

2) To ensure reliability, operator compensation & payment must be based largely on vehicle-kilometers driven, maintaining pre-determined schedules & with a component based on number of passengers carried.

3) A fare collection system that is wholly transparent & ensures revenues are effectively retained by government through the regulating authority. Thus, electronic ticketing will have to be resorted to for all bus or combined ticketing.

4) A system of incentives & rewards to commuters that encourages purchase of tickets, rather than opt to go without ticket & pay less (to the conductor). This can be by way of daily lucky dips; or coupons for free travel when a certain number of tickets (say, 25) have been accumulated.

5) Aggressive monitoring by BMTC, as regulator for ticketless travel, with severe penalties.

This means that bus firms will have to aggressively compete to be allowed to operate in one or more of several pre-determined zone/s on specified routes, offering various types of bus standards (equivalent to very basic services such as low-cost mini-buses, ordinary buses, parisara vahinis, pushpaks & volvos). However, once the firms have been selected, there will be no more wrestling on the streets to get passengers away from other firms, since only one firm will be operating in each zone.

What will this offer ?

Bus firms will have incentives to provide reliable services. They will be free of negative attributes such as reckless driving, speeding, low profit margins or cutting off other road vehicles in their pursuit for gaining advantage on the street/s.

Tolerence of illegal private operators that will fill remaining gaps & operate because of unfulfilled demands will also remain in check since bus firms have an incentive to protect their turf. The bus firms will be forced to make recommendations to BMTC to come up with solutions to meet such demands. They will also help police their respective areas to be free of illegal operators.

The challenges

1) First, the creation of political will & acceptance of a new, radical idea that addresses lacunae in BMTC's operations, with clear focus on commuters, ignoring it's present profitability.

Difficult, because :

a) They have been recognized the world over as a responsible operator, being conferred several awards each year.

b) Opposition by their staff since they have got accustomed of ways to siphon off some funds illegally, within the prevailing system.

2) Turf wars & possible lack of co-ordination may effect inter-zone travellers, initially.

3) Possible manipulation of vehicle kilometers driven: meters that cannot be tampered need to be installed (GPS monitoring of schedules & kilometers driven will help greatly).

4) Sharing depot infrastructure & resources, maintenance issues - these may be hard to overcome, but once established, it might work smoothly.

Mr. Naveen,

I hope you are caqware of the Grid system which was worked out in great detail by the 'Commuter Comfort Task Force' a few years back and submitted to the MD of BMTC. Some of the recommendations were partly implemented. It included the circular routes also as being suggested by you.( Mr. Muralidhar can throw more light on this).

I feel the Task Force should be revived as discussed during our meeting with BMTC- CMT(O).

K.V.Pathy

SB :

The zoning sketch is just a basic illustraion. To work out all details is actually a huge exercise - I referred to the BMTC route map & realized how complicated the task can be. When zones are created, it would have to be inclusive of Big-10 routes, say a couple of kilometres on each side of an arterial road (ie. Big-10 route) would ideally be the border between sectoral zones.

The inner circle can be larger than the erstwhile kendriya saarige, connecting all inner areas of the city, rather than a CBD circuit.

Routes from various sectoral zones will converge towards the city center - this is necessary as majority of the commuters will be city-bound & need to have direct connectivity. Also, the routes will have to go past the city center on to the other side, again to reduce the number of transfers for through passengers.

Two evenly sized zones in the centre would involve additional transfers & make it inconvenient for commuters. If some zones are larger than others, it would be acceptable (& may command higher bids during auctions) since commuter interests should be foremost in any plan.

These generalizations apart, I have emphasized that only one operator must be permitted to perform in each zone. An operator may bid & operate successfully in more than one zone, but there must never be two operators within a single zone. This way, there will be no battles or turf wars between operators.

BMTC can gradually change roles & become a regulator that oversees all city-bus related operations. Inter-zonal routes (indicated by circles) will have to be handed out as a separate zone with a separate operator, or BMTC, as regulator, may opt to operate it themselves, without any overlaps or duplication of services with other zone operators (again, to prevent turf wars).

TTMCs & Metro /Mono stations that fall within a zone can be catered to by the desiganted zonal operator, inclusive of local /feeder routes. If a TTMC or a Metro /Mono station falls on or close to a zonal border, both adjacent zonal operators can provide connectivity to the same, minimizing route overlaps as best possible.

The route plans can be detailed to include TTMC to TTMC services by the zonal operator, within whose zone two or more TTMCs are situated.

As you mentioned, routing recommendations will be made by the operators who will be interested in maximizing profits whilst the regulator (ie. BMTC) will ensure that schedules & services are maintained - payouts to operatars will be based on multiple criteria that gets them to maintain schedules, carry more passengers & drive more kilometers.

Who would be these parties ?

Well, as I see it, to start with, it would be the same small-time bus firms that have experience in bus operations - the only difference being that BMTC will be leasing out it's buses & staff. Thus, all hardware will continue to remain state-owned & operators will not have to invest heavily, at least initially.

However, as the process develops, more responsible players will be drawn in as it will begin to be seen as a respectable, profit-making business like any other, devoid of any wrestling on the streets, & accepted hopefully, by the public at large as a reliable & dependable service, better than BMTC operating it as a monopoly & with improved connectivity & maintaining timely schedules.

Electric local shuttles are still far away - the costs for minibuses are too high - I had discussed this with the reva people.

Vijay,

I admit that such examples have not been seen in India before, but, some similar bus privatization efforts have proved successful in many cities in Latin America & Africa, particularly with ones that opted for BRTs.

There is bound to be some reluctance by the existing private bus operators to venture into this new field, no doubt, but since investments on their part will be negligible (other than office space & some bus monitoring infrastructure), some may take it on & that's all we need to start a process :

On the one hand, we have BMTC's very large bus inventory, bus depots, bus maintenance infrastructure & other assets, & also it's vast experience in operating a resonable & profitable bus service over several decades - attributes that make it suitable for establishing a public institutional structure that can be readied & pushed into place easily & quickly.

On the other hand, what we do not have are indigenous bus firms that have the sophistication to evolve themselves into modern corporate entities, without some form of government /public support, assistance, encouragement & a push towards that goal.

It is also highly unlikely that the many respected corporates in other areas would be interested to venture into an area that is known to be fraught with risks & is generally seen as low-grade business.

The challenges are how to transform an existing, large market structure into one that delivers in quality with better coverage over even smaller neighbourhoods frequently, in a cost-efficient manner & discourages generation of low quality private services that are springing up with the high growth rates of the city.

If the privatization process has to be pursued seriously, then obviously BMTC will have to freeze or cancel all fresh orders since such investment for procurements can be entrusted to the bus firms in the future, when the first steps taken have stabilized.

To start with & in the near-term, since investments into buses can run very high, these bus firms can be contracted with payment (based on incentives to meet certain criteria) for taking on buses on lease & operation for city services. All revenues generated can return to the state (at least, initially) to prevent digression of the city bus services into a new form of income that promotes illegal activities, for which safeguards must be pushed into place first, such as electronic ticketing.

Thus, broadly, the business plan must include at least these objectives, at the minimum :

1) Addresses commuter needs - safe & efficient services at all hours of the day with sufficient frequency & coverage.

2) Prevents uncertainties or dislocation of existing BMTC employees (this can be highly sensitive).

3) Calls for limited investment initially by bus firms with incentives to operate responsibly (criteria to be set out accordingly).

4) Avoids drastic changes since dangers associated with unsafe & sub-standard operation of services is very real.

5) Encourages bus firms to slowly graduate to professional bus companies that serve responsibly for the public good.

Over the long-term, the goals would be to minimize costs of travel & maximize private sector investments.

Vasanth - there is a saying :  "If you do not create change, change will create you" !

it takes years to take a shape even if they start now

Quite true. However, reasonable as it is at present & without strong incentives to improve, the quality & reach of BMTC's services are likely to diminish in the long run with growth overtaking - in fact, overwhelming it's reach. Sensing opportunities, illegal, poor grade operators have already started stepping in to fill the vacant slots created (SB has posted some pictures of sub-standard private vans /tempos & minibuses on another post).

In many examples around the world, it is also an established fact that both - public monopolies & unregulated private operators are not very efficient, result in well known problems & end up in compromising quality. Typical problems of public monopolies will be overpayment for purchases, graft, corruption & poor maintenance, though the extents can vary considerably.

Generally, some form of an institutional & business structure can actually work better. All it needs is clever application of well placed incentives that persuade operators to concentrate more on customer service & less on battles between vehicles.

A system that mixes public regulation with private operation is an optimal approach for acheiving a competitive & transparent system that is responsive to user needs.

The ideas for phased transition that have been proposed has a chance to eventually see the system move to full privatization with good institutional control, protects job losses & prevents wrestling on the streets for the same commuters between multiple operators.

In this respect, it differs from Mr.Murali's idea which, in my opinion is to be avoided - such ideas have only encouraged unsafe roads & might invite more unregulated, illegal parties & even more chaos.

However, the process requires a great deal of supervison & the right decisions need to be taken at the right time. With praja's support, I don't see why it cannot be undertaken by BMTC.

"Whenever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous decision" - Peter Drucker

There is a misconception that just by replacing the public operator with a private one we would have achieved nirvana. Any operator works well only when there is substantial laws and regulation laid down. Choice for the transport regulator to terminate contracts, enforce penalties and choice for the customer to choose what he likes are the main benefits of opening up, it works for both side not just the traveller customer.

I think moves toward privatization are better begun with caution & guardedly to achieve "nirvana". I believe it will be opposed (by both, BMTC & also the general public) if a start is made with discouraging & discipline imposing moves, such as penalities.

I would choose to use a more subtle approach, such as offering incentives for compliance with laid down procedures & laws, as outlined in the various posts above. Once the initial steps have succeeded, belts can be tightened as necessary.

What prevents BMTC from becoming the best? The quality of people they have at lower levels, the inability of management to take substantive punitive action due to labour laws governing govt institutions, the inability to change things quickly due to the nature of the bodies and the multiple procedures and regulations etc.

Exactly. This is why I thought that it might be best for BMTC to change role & gradually become an enforcer - they already know all the existing problems & hence, will be in a good position to set them right, as enforcers - problems that they could never correct themselves, being a govt monopoly, with the associated procedures that limit changes & effect governance. If they are appointed as enforcers, it would be a 'promotion' of sorts, acceptable to them with less resistance, & has a better chance of succeeding.

First step is making up an independent regulator who will lay down minimum standards for buses.

Typically you will need to award contracts to 3 operators to operate all routes. BMTC could be the 4th player.

The zones need to be marked out clearly by the regulator. While the operators can start with select zones, there has to be minimum service covering all zones within a specific timeframe as minimum committment.

The class of service could be premium volvo type only. New routes and buses will need to be approved by the regulator. Frequency can be left to the operator.

it promotes competion on the streets between the privatized volvos & the other services operated by different company (BMTC).

I feel this may not be the best approach. Why I say this is because of many reasons :

First, the newly appointed regulator will not have had any experience in city bus operations.

Second, BMTC & it's staff might oppose any moves to bring in such an entity as also the new parties in the ring for bus operations, sensing the risk of losing it's 'prima donna' status in the city bus arena, despite being hailed as a profitable provider.

Third, there is a risk:   Even if they did accept these changes, the new regulator will take time to learn the ropes, get acquainted with the system & govern effectively, by which time things may have gone sour & public pressures might force a roll back.

Fourth, when incomes of bus operators is directly related to the number of passengers they pick up, it will lead to poor behavioral patterns that can soon become severe & problematic. Typically, they will tend to ignore other road users of whatever form, & more specifically, try to cut off the other operator/s & towards this end, they are likely to drive recklessly, speed dangerously, stop randomly anywhere along the road rather than at designated bus stops to capture customers, etc.. This will lead to unsafe operations such as the blue line in Delhi, as also other privatized services in the country.

Fifth, in the worst case scenario, the bus drivers might wait at the beginning of a route (or anywhere inbetween when they feel that customers may be forthcoming) for the bus to fill up, before resuming the trip. This will make the scheduling unpredictable, driving customers to wait for the day when they can afford to buy their own vehicles - exactly, where we are today !

They need to focus on creating depot space and manage space allocation for the operators. 

With real estate costs soaring, it might be difficult for operator exclusive depot infrastructure to be established at multiple locations since routes will be spread across the city. This is why I mentioned that the leased bus route might work better, to start with.

As regards rash driving. There are 2 aspects, 1 where a strong regulator can cancel contracts on incidents, 2 where traffic police have figured out an effective way of enforcng safe driving for all vehicles on the roads not just for bus operators. There are threads on traffic calming and bus priority lanes all these need to be implemented

Enforcement will be a recurring problem when incomes relate directly to passenger volumes, as already mentioned. Changing operators frequently on disciplinary grounds will defeat the whole purpose of privatization. Exclusive bus lanes will work, but my approach was for conditions without such lanes since there appears to be no move toward this from the authorities.

Traffic calming cannot be along entire stretches, & will have limitations that may not stem such behavior sufficiently.

Mr Murali

your solutions I find rather convoluted

Well, I have quoted from examples of bus privatization from around the world whilst applying it to our specific city-situation, as already mentioned & from what I had either studied or seen. I know this approach is new to most, but change is not going to be made overnight for sure. A step by step approach is always the best - I have explained this in fair detail, I think.

As regards the boards in local language - this is similar to the regn no plates discussion. Unless a counry wide approach is taken, there is no point in accussing BMTC for this - they will point fingers to other cities or states as will KRV & others. I feel it's best to refrain from complaining & canvas for a country wide uniform code for this - I have already mentioned this before, & you have my support for this, if done in this manner !

@SB
Your Bagmane techpark shuttle services proposal looks perfect for my 'social entrepreneurship' project. And, now that BMTC has anyway stated that it is not interested in shuttle services, why don't we (I expect some PRAJAgalu would be interested in joining me) apply to the government for a licence to take it up? I expect they will grant the licence, but as a 'contract carriage' service, which, as I have elaborated elsewhere, is a minefield I would not want to touch even with a barge-pole. I will ask for a regular bus service licence (what they call 'stage carriage' operation - it's time these distinctions are done away with, in the first place - check here). If they don't grant it, can we all then jointly pursue this option?

And, if they grant it, in the course of a year or two, we (along with other similar players) can expand and cover the whole of Bangalore, leaving just the BIG-10, 500 and similar operations (at much higher frequency) to BMTC. Somewhere along, we can take over the high-end operations also, may be in tie-up with a Corporate.

So, all game?

@IDS
I can't agree more with each of the points you have made.

@vijay44
Firstly, welcome to PRAJA. Your writing makes immense sense too. But, I only agree partially with "I am not recommending privatization,  it is really sensitive and no politians would allow this to happen". I am not asking for privatisation of BMTC. But, their monopoly has to go.
 

This is where the regulator steps in with stiff penalties, automated monitoring, bus stop inspectors, roaming patrols etc. Today private vehicle bad behaviour does not have a proper redressal mechanism so you believe the status quo will continue. When we know what problems will arise we have been given the wisdom to prevent it by implementing appropriate measures. Havent we all been clamouring for strict measures to curb rash driving on our roads? Havent we talked of proper lane engineering and marking PT lanes etc? Stiffer fines, more legwork by police, what prevents the new regulator from taking it up?

What I have stated as weaknesses in your suggestion are after referencing various bus privatization efforts in many developing country cities. I could not find any city that had privatized it's buses successfully with multiple operators along the same routes in mixed traffic (as also with BRT lanes) due to the difficulties faced as enumerated above.

Many tried on their lesser populated roads. Implementation measures with severe monitoring, stiff penalties, proper roads, cameras, etc. etc. have all been tried & privatization had to be rolled back each time with public takeover in most of the cities due to continuing problems & difficulties on the roads.

I think we would be wiser if we analyzed privatization efforts & bad road behaviour in our smaller cities (Kochi/Mangalore) as also in Delhi, a large city with blue line buses that killed pedestrians daily. However, such analysis is never done by most & the clamour for enforcement continues when street road vehicle volumes have crossed the danger level decades ago. To get the streets back in order, traffic has to be reduced - nothing else will work.

Even when street vehicle volumes were much lower & pedestrians lesser, such attempts to create competition on the roads had failed. So, it is wishful thinking that continued clamouring will work with yet another threat.

Currently, I am travelling & therefore am short of time to post links to articles about privatization examples from Latin America & Africa. In Asia-Pacific, mostly all privatization efforts have been with BRT & this has been with multiple operators, but on separate routes (only one operator per route).

@Ravi

Before all of what you have listed, can you first get them to change the callous way the boards are written and displayed. Even if the board here is displayed right side up, you'll notice there are two sets of writings - one in blue, another in red. Very likely the bus is operating on two different routes at different times of the day. The crew/ staff can't even bother to change the boards for the different operations, and have therefore come up with this 'ingenious' solution. Well, the approach is 'the regulars know, so why bother with these minor details'. And, therefore, it's only the regulars that they will get. But, is that a satisfactory situation? And, if left like that, tomorrow a driver may come up with 'seeing my face, the passengers know which route the bus is taking; so, the board is not necessary'.

As to the matter of BMTC doing a 'fine' job, I have commented enough - I'll not add more. All I would like to say is that if the %age of trips made using PT in the city has to go up from the present dismal level of 35% to some respectable level(and, that's a must if we have to contain our burgeoning traffic problems), the present level of performance is not going to be able to achieve it.

And, what you have suggested is out-sourcing of many of the functions, right? Do try it, though, from my personal experience, I'll say it's a rather tall order.
 

regulators are made up of people from the industry, Look at other regulatory bodies like TRAI, IRDA etc. THe only prerequsite will be that the people in are good and visionary and they go through different models in various other countries. This can be done with a study report by experts as well.

On another thread, an argument was made (& well supported by all) that people in administration were improfessional & not up to their tasks - I agree with this :

The quality of people in the public sphere is very low. They are from an archiac system which lay emphasis on defensive administration instead of providing leadership in taking the city and country forward. These people are not going away they are only shunted around the govt agencies. The visionaries in administration are very few.

This being the reality, I really don't see where these "experts" are going to be sourced from. In Dubai & Singapore, for example, they had relied heavily on Western professionals & still continue to do so. In India, such means may not be easily accepted by the public for public services. They will keep questioning cost/s & motives, etc.

Furher, in the successful examples from other countries (UK - London, for one), bus operations involving privatization are usually headed by a public bus corporation which is also an operator to some extent to enable them to have a hands-on approach on things. This is mainly owing to the nature of the operation, which has features that require very close monitoring (steps to increase bus profits mean increased threat on the streets, etc) unlike an authority that remains aloof & makes policy. Thus, it differs from other businesses in this respect & the examples of TRAI, IRDA, DGCA etc. are inappropriate.

BMTC has been in the business for decades & has been recognized as a resoanable provider internationally. It is also one of the very few profit making PT services in the world. This is what makes them my choice to move on & slowly transform themselves & become a regulator.

DULT /BMLTA as regulator for city bus transport will also not be appropriate since their jurisdiction covers all land transport issues.

Couple of years back, can we imagine a corporate entity bidding for a toll road or a bridge?  Can we imagin a private operator running trains? no, but things have changed. There are no corporate entities in bus operations, because there is no business opportunity exists now. There are reputed operators (in TN, Bombay etc) who got 500+ buses in their fleet. I am sure if there is an opportunity they should be able to scale up pretty easily.  If there is an opportunity, i am sure corporate entities like  KTC/ ABT/ TVS will surely jump in. 

This is incorrect - Delhi had opened up, Mangalore & Kochi has had private operators for decades.  Did they produce responsible corporate entities in these cities ? All that we have seen are rash buses & a killer blue line, so far. Whilst KTC /ABT /TVS may be good corporates for inter-city movement they might not jump in for city operations. They may have probably stayed away since city bus operations are seen generally as low class. Progress & survival in city bus operations puts operators squarely as risks for other road users, no different from world-wide experiences. Thus, city bus privatization is unique & very unlike other sectors that can quickly change - thoughtful contracts, close monitoring, clever use of incentives is the only way to get the best for users without endangering others.

About the high investment,  The operator could lease buses from the  manufacturer ( or special entities controlled by the bus manufacturer such as Tata Finance/AL Finance) and get into annual maintenance contract with the manufactuerer. That is how it works in developed countries.  This will make the bus manufacturer also an stake holder indirectly, reduce the initial investment for the operator and also provide peace of mind.

This is a good idea, but we are still struggling to make a successful beginning in any city with good operations. I think we need to study how the PPP operations are done in Indore.

SB, Yajman, Muali - I dont think there is any doubt that operating a transport bus is profitable. What is highly doubtful is whether we will ever see how to go about privatization successfully !

As I see it there are three broad issues to be dealt with here

a. How to regulate private players and ensuring fair competition.  How to ensure safety of the traveling and non-traveling public.   How does one ensure fair pricing.  The last issue should really be a non-issue as we are targeting non-PT people who have their cars as last resort.

b. How to attract reputed players into this segment.  Is there money to be made.  Are there hidden costs?  What are the risks - business and operational?

c. How to convince the government/BMTC to let this happen.  Are BMTC's interests sacrosanct?  Indian Airlines improved a great deal from 1993.   Can we bring in congestion pricing along with this so that both BMTC and the private operators can improve their speed of travel.

Srivathsa

What can be the argument against giving out a 3-yr licence to a single player in a given area, say Koramangala, with an option to extend his services to adjoining areas like HSR layout (just BDA complex), Indiranagar (12th main)? The only condition need be a fairly liberal upper limit on the 'per ride' charge, which in all likelihood will be fixed, leaving all the operational details to him.

Say 6 months down the line, another licencee can be commissioned in say Rajajinagar and adjoining areas, with the terms modified based on the learnings from the Koramangala operations.

In a years' time, the licensing terms can be fine-tuned, and operationalised in the rest of Bangalore, with Koramangala and Rajajinagar also coming on board at the time of renewal, if not earlier, depending on the willingness of the licencee to agree to revised terms, whatever.

These are going to be monopolies (atleast as envisaged now), which should address Naveen's greatest concern also. But, with the performance being assessed on a regular basis by the regulator, who can possibly outsource it to PRAJA, I guess we will have a fairly decent shuttle/ feeder service system going.

I'll call it model-M for reference purposes. Crtiques welcome.

What can be the argument against giving out a 3-yr licence to a single player in a given area, say Koramangala, with an option to extend his services to adjoining areas like HSR layout (just BDA complex), Indiranagar (12th main)? The only condition need be a fairly liberal upper limit on the 'per ride' charge, which in all likelihood will be fixed, leaving all the operational details to him.

1) Operations by this player being confined to one small area, commuters will have to make a transfer when they have to get to places outside this area, which will make it inconvenient for most users. Thus, services will become fragmented with many seams, with resultant wastage of time & inconveniences for users.

2) Such moves may bring in only small-time operators who will make all efforts to generate income whilst ignoring basic conveniences in buses for commuters since they operate in a small way with limited turnaround - similar to the private bus companies in Kochi /Mangalore.

i will have to read a bit more carefully at all the proposed models.

meanwhile as a first hand user for atleast the last 10 months, some non technical user psychology inputs:

mobility is incredibly important! sounds like a cliche and statement of the obvious. but i experienced what it means. mobility directly impacts your life experiences and growth. it determines, what you can and cannot do, whether you can attend that lecture or not, whether you can take those classes or not, whether you can attend that cultural event or not, whether you go hungry or not, whether you can go to the doctor or not, whether you can meet your buddy or not, whether you can go get the kirani necessary to make that delicacy you are craving or not and so on. i am fairly sagely in my desires, but even i have needs and wants. and i discovered what i can have is a direct a function of mobility.

and the distance that separates you from these need not be great at all. even 1-2 miles (1.6 - 3.2 kms) is a lot of distance especially when you translate that distance in time. things beyond that are not even accessible without motorized transport.

despite knowing all this, when travelling long distances, i used to find it annoying when buses used to stop to pick up folks who just like me needed access and i am pretty sure there were many others who felt the same when the bus stopped to pick me up.

i have become a great fan of shuttles - short user centered quasi point-to-point transit. over short distances stops dont matter. over long distances, stops matter and when you are travelling long distances, frequent stops are incredibly annoying.

point: when travelling long distances i wanted non-stop services. when travelling locally, i wanted stops on my demand and didn't mind stops requested by others. and surprisingly, i didn't mind changes. to get groceries for example, i had to change between local and long haul. and as long as the connection was made in reasonable time, i actually didnot mind getting off one bus and getting on the next. having said that, i avoided >2 changes. prolly because of my bias reading surveys in TRP etc.

bottom line as a user, i wanted to feel as if i was constantly on the move and a sense that i was moving in the direction of my destination efficiently.

Before we reach the how of regulation what aspects of PT do we want to regulate?

a. Safety - of primary importance.  Will include roadworthiness of buses, driver training and licensing, how buses are driven, maintenance of buses

b. Fair competition - no playing dirty.  no damaging others' equipment, etc.  Can become very ugly if not taken care of properly.

c. Pricing - do we want to regulate or will the operator be forced to charge reasonable prices to ensure demand

d. Coverage - again should we leave this to the operator? 

Anything else?

Srivathsa

I think we are jumping the gun here. Yes, regulation needs to be there and the details need to be chalked out, but can be done later. 

 Also, the question of the bus service providers being private or public or a combination of both can be addressed later. Public or private will work equally well if executed properly. But, first and foremost the underlying infrastructure needs to be addressed; first by coming out with detailed specifications of the underlying infrastructure and then building up the infrastructure to those specifications.

I am making an attempt to document something which has been on my mind for quite some time, hopefully i will be done with it this weekend.

The PT subject needs to be addressed from the bottom up with a complete infrastructure  revamp in coordination with -> 1) the metro AND most importantly 2) proper urban planning. Once the proper infrastructure is in place any number of services - private/public/premium/economy etc. can be added as per market demand and needs. Othwerwise, just by adding regulations OR by privatizing bus operations OR just by planning a proper route map will not make a dent in how things are currently.

Sorry for digressing a little bit off topic - It looks like there are several schools of thought here.  Does all this finally get archived in a gyaan section as something like PT privatization options with a nice summary of the discussions and conclusions here documented.  It need not just cover one school of thought.  Multiple schools of thought can be summarized as options with pros and cons.

It would be good if something like that happens so that discussions can be built upon with additional analysis and case studies.   That will be a good knowledge building exercise and something valuable for the future.

Just a thought I am throwing out there.

@Naveen - Agree with you. An additional stipulation of maintaining minimum frequency during off-peak hours (general operation hours being say from 5.30 AM to 11 PM), and on Sundays and holidays, can also be incorporated. That makes it 'model-1A'.

So, are we all set to make an application to the government?
 

Just added this post to a "book" (see left hand side, top of this pae).

Since we know not many will have the time to actually prepare summarize these discussions, or merge such discussions into nice summaries (exception - blrpraj, n, tarle, etc), an easier way is to outline post that carry analytical content into books.

See if it helps. If you would like to help outline and club together analytical posts into books, let us know - will give you the needed administrative rights.

Fairly easy to do (this book outlining business) - whats neede is some harhs analytical judgement on whats geeky and worthy and whats not.

Corporate bigwigs to make inroads into Delhi bus services 

The corporate buses will have government drivers and conductors and also be controlled by the DTC, but the maintenance work will be done by the companies themselves, the official said.

The Delhi government will provide the companies Rs.27-42 as earning per kilometre even when the service runs into losses, but it will take the ticketing amount.

Asked about the possibility of DTC going into losses, Transport Minister Arvinder Singh Lovely said: "Why losses when the whole amount for ticketing will come to the DTC?"

Sure recipe for disaster. While, the talk of getting big players like Kingfisher, etc, into the picture is welcome, I can't see them being interested when so many things are under government control.

But, this much is becoming clear - public bus transport services are the emerging as the next big business opportunity. But, left to a 'Lovely' of even a 'Ashok', it's going to take its time, delaying the process of finding solutions to cities' burgeoning traffic problems (and myriad others resulting thereof). Time PRAJA took take charge.

A good solution as far as Bangalore is concerned, at least to begin with, I'll insist is Model-P (described here).