Professional Documents
Culture Documents
File 1028201405440820 PDF
File 1028201405440820 PDF
Structure of Presentation
Evolution of PPP in bus Transport
Types of contracts
Pros and Cons of Contract
Selection of an appropriate model
Appraisal of Contracts
Problems and Issues
Case Studies
Municipalities
Bus
Operators
Government
General
Public
Stake
Holders
Educational
Institutions
Traffic Police
Regulators
(M.V.Dept)
Urban
Development
Authorities
Stake Holders of PT
Stakeholders of PT
Organizational Options
Disadvantages
Formed
under
a
special
enactment and hence has
greater
authority.
Special
powers as may be needed for
managing the city bus service,
such as the powers to acquire
land or penalize violators can be
entrusted to it under the law
setting it up
10
Disadvantages
11
Disadvantages
12
Traffic / operations
Maintenance
13
Before 1950
Private
Sector
Public
Sector
1980 onwards
Public Private
Partnership
2005 onwards
Efficacy of public private partnership (PPP) for city bus operations experience from Indian cities, Parashar & Dubey, 2011, European Transport Conference
14
100%
89%
85%
77%
80%
57%
Growth of STUs
40%
Increase in Losses of
STUs
1996
1991
1981
1976
1971
1966
1961
1956
1951
Nationalization Process
Phased Out
1986
20%
STUs asked to
cater to surplus
demand through
private sector
2006
60%
65%
2001
Policy of
Nationalization
Efficacy of public private partnership (PPP) for city bus operations experience from Indian cities,
Parashar & Dubey, 2011, European Transport Conference
15
100%
89%
85%
77%
80%
65%
60%
57%
2006
1996
1991
1.1%
1986
1981
1976
1971
1951
1966
11.1%
20%
1.25%
2001
1961
7.4%
1956
40%
16
17
Cluster Scheme
launched in 2009 on
Gross Cost model.
Gross
Cost
Conceived and launched
in 1964 as Kilometerage
Scheme
Hire Charges not
acceptable to Private
Operators
Scheme failed.
Net Cost
Net Cost
Kilometer Scheme relaunched in 1979
with higher acceptable Hire Charges.
Continued successfully until agitation by
DTC workers against collection of fare in
private buses
Eventually converted to Charge n Retain
Net Cost Model.
Got phased out owing to increase in input
costs and infrequent fare revision.
Gross
Cost
Efficacy of public private partnership (PPP) for city bus operations experience from Indian cities, Parashar & Dubey,
2011, European Transport Conference
18
19
Distributing
to
each
Public Domain
the
Planning
Private
Domain
Operation
City Bus
Operation
s
Monitoring
Regulation
Efficacy of public private partnership (PPP) for city bus operations experience from Indian cities, Parashar & Dubey, 2011, European Transport Conference
20
Type of Contracts
22
Type of contract
Service Contracts
Cost Plus
Gross Cost
Route Based
Net Cost
Area Based
Route Based
Area Based
Kilometerage
Cost
Minimum
Cost
Cost per
Passenger
Min. Subsidy/
Max. Premium
Operator states
the whole cost of
operating the
contract
Operators are
repaid based on
the cost per
passenger
Ex. London
(before 1993)
AMTS
JANMARG
SITILINK
BOGOTA
Delhi -cluster
Ex. Santiago
(Chile)
Ex. London
(after 1993)
Surat, Rajkot, Indore,
Vadodara, Jodhpur, DelhiBlue Line, Delhi Metro
Feeder, Bhopal
23
24
Pros
Cons
Contracting is simple
25
26
effectively
Avoid on-street
27
Cons
28
Quality Incentives
Typically gross cost contracts with significant bonuses or penalties
targets
29
infrastructure
Performance standards and quality standards
Enforcement of the standards and norms mentioned above
Extent to which the shared infrastructure can be used by the private
operators
30
basis
Minimum guaranteed kms committed by SPV (72,000 kms per annum)
SPV has financial as well as manpower support from MC
Fare revision linked with change in fuel price & WPI, periodic revision
31
The transport authority does not have the inclination and/ or the
resources to mange the revenue collection activity
32
Cons
33
Moratorium period
Contd..
34
35
36
Particulars
AICTSL-NCC (Indore)
AJL-1- GCC
(Ahmedabad)
AJL-2-GCC
(Ahmedabad)
Performance Guarantee
Rs per km
Rs per KM
Fare Revenue
Pass Revenue
All revenues to be
retained by AJL.
All revenues to be
retained by AJL.
Advertisement Revenue
Transfer Option
Buses transferred at
the end of contract
period to bus operator
Transferred to operator
on payment based on
the book value at the
end of contract period
37
Quality Indicators
Possible quality indicators
Fleet utilization
Vehicle utilization
Up-keeping of the bus
Adherence to Schedule, punctuality
Crew behaviour, driving practices
Customer information
Customer service
Equipment, special services
Rate of accidents
38
39
41
42
Closed or early
terminated
DMRC feeder
Amritsar
Single operator
Jalandhar
Vadodhra
Ujjain
Indore
Bhopal
Ludhiana (GCC)
No system expansion
since inception
43
No service on unviable
routes
Over crowding of
passengers in peak hours
Non-adherence to the
schedule & routes
Lack of infrastructure
Non-delivery of regulatory
functions
44
Root Problems
1.
2.
3.
45
Absence of
Fare policy
46
Absence of
Robust Inst.
monitoring
47
Inadequate
operations
planning
48
49
fuel subsidy
Tax holidays (80 IA)
Fare Policy
Strengthen SPVs (beyond paper)
Provision of Depot (part of master plans)
Safeguard of patronage through amendment in MV Act
Route rationalization incl. IPT
50
51
Maintenance Cost
Longer life than city buses
MAINTENANCE
OPEX
CAPEX
EXPENSES
52
Bus Q Shelters
53
Bus Q Shelters
54
Bus Q Shelters
55
Bus Q Shelters
Operating
Expenses
Regular
Maintenance
Expenses
Repayment
of Capex*
Revenue
from
Advertising
Revenue
Share to the
Government
56
Win-Win Proposition
PPP projects offer a win-win proposition if the initial steps have been
carried out diligently.
City
City Administration
Private Partner
Infrastructure
development at
ZERO cost
Well maintained
street furniture
formats are seen as
a sign of good
governance
Additional revenue
for development
work
Opportunity to
create a world class
showcase
Introduction of
Global Best
Practices
Return of
Investments
57
Heavy O&M costs- for bus terminal buildings and related facilities
58
59
Modes of Development
Build Operate Transfer (BOT/ BOOT) Contracts
Design frozen by the AD
The bidding Parameter can be Concession Period / Annual
Concession Fee / Upfront Premium / Revenue Share
concession
For example, Ludhiana, Amritsar & Jalandhar Bus Stands
60
Modes of Development
Design-Built-Finance-Operate-Transfer (DBFOT)
PSP responsible for designing, financing, construction and
operations
Bidding Parameter can be Concession Period / Annual
Concession Fee / Upfront Premium / Revenue Share
Sub leasing rights with the PSP for the concession period
Right to Escrow the revenue for raising the Finances.
Mohali Bus Stand, Himachal Bus Stands ( Una, Hamirpur,
Parwanoo)
Most Preferred mode of development appropriate risks
transferred to PSP
61
Obligations
While approving the design for Bus Stand following components
to be made intrinsic:
S.No
Number to be defined
Number to be defined
Area in Sqmt
Area in Sqmt
Number to be defined
Area in Sqmt
62
S.No
Area in Sqmt
Area in Sqmt
Number of Beds
10
Area in Sqmt
11
Seating capacity
12
BOT office
Area in Sqmt
13
Area in Sqmt
14
Toilets
Number to be defined
15
Number of ECS
16
Number of ECS
17
Number of Seats
18
Canteen / Restaurants
Area in Sqmt
19
Dormitory
Number of Beds
63
S.No
20
Slope to be defined
21
Wheel Chairs
Number to be defined
22
Number to be defined
23
Area in Sqmt
24
Area in Sqmt
25
Area in Sqmt
26
Dustbins
27
Display Boards
Number to be defined
28
Digital Clock
29
Area in Sqmt
30
Percentage of concourse
area
64
S.No
Area in Sqmt
Number to be defined
Number to be defined
Area in Sqmt
Dormitory
Number of Beds
Area in Sqmt
Number to be defined
Workshop Shed
Size in sqmt
10
Area in Sqmt
11
Area in Sqmt
12
Area in Sqmt
65
Thank You
Office Address
1st Floor, Anand Vihar Metro
Station Building,
(Entry adjacent to Gate No 1)
Delhi - 110 092.
Tel.: (91) 11 66578700-09,
Fax.: (91) 11 66578733
www.iutindia.org
Training room (2) with group seating arrangement IUT administration section