134 | Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Bus Systems
• Metrobús. Performance indicators are reviewed every six months to measure the mileage achieved, the incidence of faults, the incidence of accidents, and the impact of drivers on the provision of the service. • Transantiago. Indicators of fulfillment of the offer measure the achievement of frequency levels and customer service as well as the effective availability of transportation for users and transportation capacity (overcrowding in vehicles) according to those planned for each service. These indicators not only measure the quality of the service but also impose sanctions on operators for noncompliance. The incomes of concessionaires may be discounted by 3–10 percent depending on the level of quality provided. However, it is important that the percentages deducted not to be so high as to consume a substantial part of the operators’ resources. This situation would considerably reduce their capacity to execute the changes necessary to improve the quality of service.
INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY ELEMENTS Institutional elements The government should be in charge of systematizing, controlling, planning, programming, guiding, developing, organizing, approving, and, where appropriate, modifying the presentation and operation of the public transportation service as well as granting the corresponding concession and, if necessary, implementing the procedures for its closure. Having regulatory authorities and specialized support allows for legal certainty that there will be proper decision-making and acts of authority because they guarantee that institutions have not only the power to make decisions but also the technical capacity to promote the e fficiency and quality of the transportation system. Key agencies responsible for related actions include the following: • The national government • Subnational governments (states or provinces, metropolitan governments, and municipal governments) • Public transportation authorities. The World Bank’s “Institutional Labyrinth” (Kumar and Agarwal 2013) provides a good framework for understanding institutional settings for urban transportation projects. The following is a summary of its main messages: • No institutional model fits all situations. The appropriate model depends on the administrative policy of the country and the city. • Urban transportation institutions take time to evolve. The ideal cannot give rise to the moment of creation; patience is needed to align expectations appropriately. • New urban transportation institutions need financial resources and, above all, regulatory authority over the financial resources available to be successful. This fact, more than any other, provides the institutions with power to achieve their plans and carry out their mandate successfully. • Any new transportation institution will experience setbacks and opposition from existing agencies. The success of a lead institution depends primarily on its ability to implement policies in the public interest, develop technical
