Hanoi context and suggestions

URBAN MOBILITY AND INSTITUTIONAL ORGANISATION OF MASS TRANSIT IN HANOI HANOI SEMINAR MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012

JULIEN ALLAIRE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR CODATU

PRESENTATION OUTLINE 

Part 1: Strategy of Hanoi for urban mobility 







retrospective 2000-2010: 

Urban growth in Hanoi



Motorbike dominated



Development of public transport

perspective 2010-2020: Development of public transport

Part 2: Public transport and mobility governance 

Different possibilities for Hanoi



International benchmarking



The division of tasks between operators and Transport Authority

Part 3: Perspectives and conclusions

PART 1:

STRATEGY OF HANOI

http://tin180.com/xahoi/phong-su-anh-clip/

FOR URBAN MOBILITY

HANOI: A CAPITAL CITY WITH A STRONG GROWTH

Figure 20: Expansion of Hanoi urban zone in 1983 and 2003 (Source: HAIDEP, 2007; quoted in LEE et al., 2008)

HANOI: A CAPITAL CITY WITH A STRONG GROWTH Economic growth in excess of 10% over the last 10 years.  Population growth (see opposite)  Territorial expansion (administrative extension)  Rapid growth of mobility  More motorbikes and cars Therefore:  More energy consumption and pollution  More congestion  More emphasis on accidentology 

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP IN VIETNAM Share of motorbikes in vehicle fleet (Source: LE Anh Tu, 2006)

FROM 2-WHEELER TO 4-WHEELER VEHICLES? Growth in number of vehicles

In Hanoi: Motorbikes: + 13%/year Cars: + 21%/year

MOTORBIKE HEGEMONY IN HANOI Pattern of modal market in Hanoi since rebirth of bus mass transit in 2000 (TRAMOC)

Over 600 motorbikes per 1000 inhabitants in Hanoi

Over 80 % of modal share

80% of households own a motorbike 40% of households own 2 or more

PLANNING FOR MOBILITY IN HANOI – WHAT? 100 % active modes

0 % public transport

Cities dominated by private transport

100 % private transport

Cities dominated by active modes

Mixed cities

0 % active modes

From Replogle (1992)

0% private transport Cities dominated by public transport

Since the early 2000s a commitment to develop collective transportation

Modal split: what is the target ?

100 % public transport

TREMENDOUS EXPANSION OF BUS NETWORK Very strong development of a quality public transport service, accessible for Hanoi dwellers.

TRAMOC

TRANSPORT PLANNING TO 2020

Planning goal to the year 2020 (Source: HAIDEP, 2007)

MASS TRANSIT TO 2020

TIME LINE FOR COMMISSIONING OF METRO LINES

MOT / Vietnam Railway Administration

L1

Metro Rail Transport Project Board (HRB) / CPH

L2

MOT / Vietnam Railway Administration

L2a

MOT / Vietnam Railway Administration

L3

Metro Rail Transport Project Board (HRB) / CPH

L5

PART 2: PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND MOBILITY GOVERNANCE IN HANOI

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SCHEME Proposed organization in JICA report Hanoi City

VNR Group

L1

O&M 1

L2

L2a

O&M 2

L3

L5

Need of coordination at the city level to have an integrated network for users

D’après JICA

THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF RESPONSABILITY

What do we want to achieve? With what resources?

(Territory to be served, level of compensation, level of accessibility, general features of the service

Elected representatives

TACTICAL LEVEL Characterising the solutions needed to meet the targets: What services need to be developed to achieve these targets? How? Fixing rates, line, mode, time tables, type of service

Transport Organising Authority

MID TERM

Formulation of the policy and targets

LONG TERM

STRATEGIC LEVEL

Develop appropriate means to guarantee delivery How can the services be delivered efficiently ?

Vehicle management, maintenance, personnel management, consumables, fleet renewal, etc.

D’après Mezghani (2012)

Operator

SHORT TERM

OPERATIONAL LEVEL

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SCHEME AND THE CREATION OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Hanoi People ‘s Committee

?

DOT MRB Tramoc

D’après JICA

Transerco

VNR Group

Buses

L1

O&M 1

L2

L2a

O&M 2

L3

L5

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SCHEME AND THE CREATION OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Hanoi People ‘s Committee

DOT

?

Tramoc + MRB

Transerco

VNR Group

Buses

L1

O&M 1

L2

L2a

O&M 2

L3

L5

CHARACTERISTICS MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY  

     

Territory involved Legal form: specialised public authority, department of an existing authority, coalition of local governments, company formed by the governments.

Partners: share breakdown or composition of board of directors Public involvment Jurisdictions and responsibilities: public transport, mobility or urban development Financial resources : Receipts from ticketing, subsidies, direct taxes, etc.

Human resources and expertise Organisation chart: various components, level of management, interrelationship

From Naniopoulos et al. (2012)

EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT FORMS IN EUROPE Region

The metropolitan transport authority can take different forms

+ local governments

Region

Region

Region



Madrid



Amsterdam



Valencia



Lisbon



Stockholm 

Barcelona



Frankfurt



Lyon



Paris



Berlin



Copenhagen



Helsinki



Milano



London

Several municipalities

Municipality

From Naniopoulos et al. (2012)

POTENTIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERS Various possibilities… 

Representatives of municipalities and other local governments: Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Copenhagen, etc.



Representatives of regions and local government: Spain, France, Italy, Holland



Government officials (with or without voting right): Barcelona, Madrid, Bologna, Athens

From Naniopoulos et al. (2012)









Union and chamber of commerce representatives: Madrid, Valencia) Staff representatives: Athens Consumer association representatives: Madrid Representatives of carriers: Madrid, Valencia

FOCAL AREAS Urban development Integration of transport and urban planning

Urban mobility policy Traffic and parking Urban logistics Modal integration

Overall public transit “market” Organisation of “informal transit” Mobility services Taxis

Public transport regulation Regulatory framework Identification of network and required services Monitoring public service obligation Contracted out services Technical standards Promotion and information Quality monitoring

From Mezghani (2012)

21

BREAKDOWN OF MISSIONS: EXAMPLE OF CITIES IN GERMANY The people

Stakeholders

Relations

Strategic level

Urban transport organising authority Policy committee Democracy

Hierarchy

Transport policy

Discussion

Social policy Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Tactical level

Transport administration

Standard for mobility

Standard for accessibility

Fixing rates Lines Frequency Type of vehicle Marketing

Tactical level

Information Personnel management Vehicle management

From Didier Van De Velde

BREAKDOWN OF MISSIONS: EXAMPLE OF LONDON, CITIES IN FRANCE, ETC. The people

Stakeholders

Relations

Strategic level

Urban transport organising authority Policy committee Democracy

Tactical level

Tactical level

Transport administration Hierarchy

Transport policy

Discussion

Social policy Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Transport operators Private or public companies Contract

Standard for mobility

Standard for accessibility

Fixing rates Lines Frequency Type of vehicle Marketing

Marketing

Information

Information Personnel management Vehicle management

From Didier Van De Velde

BREAKDOWN OF MISSIONS: INCENTIVE THROUGH INVOLVEMENT AT TACTICAL LEVEL The people

Stakeholders

Relations

Strategic level

Urban transport organising authority Policy committee Democracy

Tactical level

Tactical level

Transport administration Hierarchy

Transport policy

Discussion

Social policy Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Transport operators Private or public companies Contract

Standard for mobility Standard for accessibility

Min. standards Min. standards Min. standards Min. standards Min. standards Min. standards

Fixing rates Lines Frequency Type of vehicle Marketing Information Personnel management Vehicle management

From Didier Van De Velde

PART 3:

PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS

CURRENT SPREAD OF JURISDICTIONS? Urban Planning Master Plan (HAUPA) Land Use

Development of Roads (Highway Eng. Agency)

(DONRE)

BRT

Metro lines

Street management (Municipality) Urban traffic management (DOT) PT Master Plan

Rail Master Plan

Passenger information, ticketing Management of urban transport

MRB

(TRAMOC)

Cars

Motos

Taxis Xe-Om

Transerco

Public Transport Source: Consia Consulting team

O&M O&M

26

CHANGE OF JURISDICTIONS? Urban Planning Master Plan (HAUPA) Land Use

Development of Roads (Highway Eng.Agency)

(DONRE)

BRT

Metro lines

Street management (Municipality Urban Traffic Management (DOT) PT Master Plan

Rail Master Plan

Coherence Passenger information, ticketing ManagementStage of 1 urban transport

Cars

Motos

Taxis Xe-Om

Mgt Urban railways

(TRAMOC)

MRB

Bus Operation Transerco

Railway op.

O&M O&M

27

Source: Consia Consulting team

IN THE FUTURE TWO AUTHORITIES? PTA

URA

Urban Planning Master Plan (HAUPA) Land Use

Development of Roads (Highway Eng.Agency)

(DONRE)

BRT

Metro lines

Street management (Municipality Urban Traffic Management (DOT) PT Master Plan

Rail Master Plan

Coherence Passenger information, ticketing Management ofStage 1 Urban transport (Tramoc)

Cars

23/11/2012

Motos

Taxis Xe-Om

Bus Operation Transerco

Mgt of urban Railways (MRB)

O&M O&M

28

IN THE FUTURE ONE AUTHORITY? PTA Urban Planning Master Plan (HAUPA) Land Use

Development of Roads (Highway Eng.Agency)

(DONRE)

BRT

Metro lines

Street management (Municipality Urban Traffic Management (DOT) PT Master Plan

Rail Master Plan

Coherence Passenger information, ticketing Management of 1 Stage Urban transport (TRAMOC)

Cars

23/11/2012

Motos

Taxis Xe-Om

Bus Operation Transerco

Mgt of urban Railways (MRB)

O&M O&M

29

CHALLENGE OF ONE AUHTORITY WITH JURISDICTION OVER ALL MODES

1: buses 2: taxis

4: motorbikes

6: pedestrians

5: cars

3: bicycles

As many as two thirds of people use a motorbike to go less than 500 m (survey LAM Quang Cuong, 2004)

THE CHALLENGE OF COORDINATION OR INTEGRATION 

3 types of integration and three different phases Level of integration

Design phase (2010–2015)

Implementation phase (2010–2020)

Operational phase (after 2020)

At the institutional level (regulation)

Coordination between the various project owners (Task Force)

Public transport organising authority

Urban transport organising authority

At the systems level (equipment)

- Ticketing technology: pros and cons of the different technologies - Pros and cons of system centralisation/decentralisation?

At the hands-on level (work)

- Multimodal hub: safe, comfortable transfers - Parking, routing and other services: land reserves?

... ...

... ...

NETWORK: COMPLEMENTARITY Complementarity between modes

OR COMPETITION

?

Competition between modes

5 000 VDN 8 000 VDN 10 000 VDN

MULTI MODAL STATION: COMPLEMENTARITY OR COMPETITION ?

Intégration du réseau

Réseau non intégré

CONCLUSIONS 





 

Objectives: 

Put in place a quality transportation service so that Hanoians prefer mass transit over private transit



Simplification of the use of mass transit



Economic efficiency

The challenge: 

Integration and/or coordination of policies and initiatives in urban transit



At what level: strategic, tactical or operational?

Start right now coordination of technical and organisational choices Provide high-level coordination in the work phase Integrate or coordinate at the metro operation level: 



One company means less coordination effort on the part of the transport organising authority

Seamless multimodal transport hubs: 

Physical integration for transferring from one mode to another



Provide for urban development around the stations (land reserves)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! MERCI DE VOTRE ATTENTION! CẢM ƠN BẠN ĐÃ QUAN TÂM CỦA BẠN!

JULIEN ALLAIRE JALLAIRE@CODATU.ORG