Transport Cost Analysis of City Bus and Private Car Usage in Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Authors

  • Anil Minhans Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
  • Ali Moghaddasi Postgraduate Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v65.2143

Abstract

Researchers worldwide are engaged in the evaluation of the performance of urban travel modes. Economic cost comparison studies are commonly used as instruments to substantiate the most favored mode in urban transport. This paper attempts to provide a comparison of current usage of city buses and cars in the Johor Bahru town of Malaysia. Technical costs, social costs and environmental costs are compared in ensuring accessibility and mobility on one hand and reducing accidents and environmental losses on the other. The study relates to a stretch of 14.5 km of 6-lane divided carriageway road connecting Pontian in the North and Johor Bahru, Malaysia, and Singapore in the South. Traffic data and Transport costs were obtained via primary and secondary sources. When car usage is involved, vehicle operating costs (VOC) was found to be three fold (RM 2.05/ person-km) than the VOC of bus usage (RM 0.7/ person-km). Similarly, social costs, which mainly included the cost of accidents, amounted to 80 times the accident cost associated with buses. Environmental costs were modeled based on speed and total vehicle volumes for CO, NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions and were expressed as total investment in pollution control. The environmental costs were then calculated in terms of medical costs believed to be caused by the pollution. These pollution costs amounted to 15 times the pollution cost associated with buses. The total transport costs were then obtained to provide comparative evaluation of the study modes. Furthermore, multiple future scenarios were created to provide cost analyses over time periods and modal split cases. In this regard, this paper provided a framework for a cost evaluation approach for an urban area. Results indicated that city buses are more cost-effective than cars, assuming equality in the number of passengers.

References

A. Jakob, J. L. Craig, G. Fisher. 2006. Journal of Environmental Science & Policy 9. Transport Cost Analysis: A Case Study of the Total Costs of Private And Public Transport in Auckland. 55–66.

A. M. Levinson, David, G. 1998. J. Transportation Research: D. The Full Cost of Intercity Highway Transportation. Pergamon. 3(4).

C. Wilkie. 2010. The Benefits of Public Transport. Paper Presented at the Tourism &Transport Forum. Australia.

Central Road Research Institute (CRRI). 1982. Road User Cost Study. Final Report. New Delhi.

COTPA. 2009. Benefits of Public Transport. Retrieved 22 May 2012, 2012, from http://www.gometro.org/benefits.

COTPA.2009. Benefits of Public Transport Retrieved 22 May 2012, 2012, from http://www.gometro.org/benefits.

D. W. Borchardt et al. 2009. Capacity And Road User Cost Analysis. Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.

David Meunier, Emile Quinet. 2012. Journal of Research in Transportation Economics. Applications of Transport Economics and Imperfect Competition. 36.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Official Release of EMFAC2011 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model for Use in the State of California. Federal Register. 78(44).

Environmental Resources Management Australia. 2008. www.erm.com Report No.001483.

J. J. Laird, J. Nellthorp, P. J. Mackie. 2005. Journal of Transport Policy 12. Network Effects and Total Economic Impact in Transport Appraisal. 537–544

J. Mallela, S. Sadasivam. 2011. Work Zone Road User Costs: Concepts and Applications, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Washington DC.

Litman, T. 2006. Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Malaysian Automotive Institute (MAI). 2011. Annual Report Global Automative Trends and Challenges. Strategic Research Publication.

Malaysian institute of Road and Safety Research (MIROS). 2013. General Road Accident Data in Malaysia, available at: http://www.miros.gov.my.

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS). 2012. Review Of The National Automotive Policy On Car Maintenance Issues: Malaysia's Automotive Ecosystem Explained.

P. K. Sarkar, V. Maitri. 2010. Theory and Applications of Economics in Highway and Transport Planning. New Delhi: Standard Publishers Distributors.

PTV. 2012. Benefits of Public Transport Retrieved 22 May 2012, 2012, from http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-metlink/benefits-of-public-transport/.

S.Grant-Muller, J. Laird. 2007. International Literature Review of the Costs of Road Traffic Congestion. Scottish Executive. Available at (www.scotland.gov.uk).

Silvia Banfi. et al. 2000. External Costs of Transport; Accident, Environmental and Congestion Costs in Western Europe. Available at: www.infras.ch and www.iww.uni-karlsruhe.de.

T. Litman. 2002. Evaluating Public Transit’s Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

T. Litman. 2013. Smart Congestion Relief: Comprehensive Analysis Of Traffic Congestion Costs and Congestion Reduction Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute

TCRP Report 28. 2002. Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects. National Academy Press. Washington.D.C.

Traffic and Transportation Planning. 2010. Central Road Research Institute of India. Annual Report.

Downloads

Published

2013-10-15

How to Cite

Transport Cost Analysis of City Bus and Private Car Usage in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. (2013). Jurnal Teknologi, 65(3). https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v65.2143