Economics of safe transport hinges on efficient management

By Robert S. Bain

JAKARTA (JP): Articles in the Sunday Post of Oct. 9 calling for the provision of safe transport services after dark have relevance beyond the Indonesian capital itself. Many European cities, for example, similarly offer a hostile travel environment for night-time public transport users, particularly women.

The financial viability of bus services hinges upon the operator being able to 'tap' a mass market, to maximize utilization of his vehicular capacity. After dark, this market is characterized by lower levels of demand and more dispersed trip- making patterns. In that context, it is unsurprising to read of Organda chairman Aip Syarifudin's comments about the unprofitability of night transportation.

If the cost of providing night-time transport were higher than the day-time equivalent, then there may be a case for charging users some form of premium fare, one of the solutions proposed by Syarifudin. If, however, these services are unprofitable simply because they generate less revenue, should the user really be charged extra? Bear in mind the levels of disposable income typically available to night-time public transport users.

From an economic perspective, the supply of public transport is said to be 'lumpy'. Because of the structure of operating costs, a bus service for 20 people (rather than for 40 people) does not necessarily cost 50 percent less. Thus operators cannot always adjust their costs in line with revenue expectations. As above, should users be penalized for this market characteristic?

A second solution proposed by Syarifudin calls for government subsidy. Certainly there are sectors in the economy (such as public transport provision) which justify some form of state intervention as they provide far reaching benefits for society as a whole. Benefits which commonly accord with political objectives.

But surely employers have a role to play, perhaps in partnership with government? After all, they are the ones who benefit directly from staff working night shifts. In Paris, city- based employers above a certain size pay a premium tax to the state, a tax that is used to support public transport services. Could this form of 'employer gain' be re-directed in Jakarta to help offset the costs of night-time public transport? I think so.

Psychologist Sarlito Wirawan misses the point when he disregards passengers' fears and anxieties as they "exaggerate the safety problems of night transportation". Certainly crime rates will be lower than public perception but it is precisely this perception which impacts upon people's travel behavior -- not the crime rate itself. Understanding (and responding to) people's perceptions is critical to the success of any solution.

The other psychologist quoted in one of the articles, Rini L. Kusien correctly acknowledges that the individual has a key role to play in the area of personal safety and the impact of the "common sense" solutions (relating to dress and behavior) that she proposes should not be underestimated. However, her suggestion that, if you are unable to control your anxiety, you should stay at home, takes the issue of personal responsibility too far and ignores the fact that society, surely, has on obligation in this respect.

A survey reveals a significant number of women were essentially prisoners in their own homes during the hours of darkness. This was through no fault of their own and was not a situation that they enjoyed. Women have a right to full social and economic participant and, economically, their contribution should not be undervalued. So where lies the solution?

From the research, there would appear to be no one solution. Rather, there are a series of measures which can be taken -- a package of solutions -- the success of which depends upon co- ordination between government departments, law enforcement agencies, employers, public transport providers and individuals. To focus this coordination, a clear set of objectives needs to be agreed.

Firstly, consider the behavior and actions of women and men. Women have been mentioned in this context already but what about men? In much the same way, there are 'common sense' solutions which can be applied. If you inadvertently find yourself following a woman on a lonely street at night, for example, think about ways in which you could alleviate her possible anxiety. Crossing the street or pausing to allow her to walk on further are simple remedies. Similarly, avoiding (perhaps unwelcomed) small talk or unprompted conversation can help. Certainly, leering and the use of sexist language and behavior should be refrained from. Simple, yet effective.

Turning to the built environment, much can be done to reduce anxieties about personal safety for both women and men. The appropriate use of lighting at bus stops and travel interchanges, obviating the need for long walks through isolated areas, ensuring that stops and interchanges are situated in busy, populated areas - these are just a few of the design solutions which can be considered. Planners and operators need to think people and consultation with user groups has undoubtedly got a useful contribution to make in this respect. This is particularly important in the context of cities experiencing considerable development such as Jakarta where opportunities to incorporate such features can often be taken at minimal extra cost. Retrospective redesign, on the other hand, can be disruptive and costly if possible at all.

Employers should be encouraged to consider the needs of their employees further with regard to personal safety. Indeed, it should become the 'mark' of a good employer that such issues are confronted. Staff training for both female and male employees need not be time consuming or costly and can reap benefits. In addition, consideration could be given to the introduction of a proportionately small tax surcharge for employers of significant numbers of evening and night-time workers and this revenue could be reallocated to public transport support. The levy need not affect the profitability of individual companies but the aggregate income could substantially improve late night services.

Public transport operators, too, have their role to play. be it through careful driver selection and training, they can raise awareness of such issues throughout their workforce and provide services better attuned to customer needs. Indeed, it could be used as a marketing instrument to illustrate to potential users how their services are better than those of a competitor. Appropriate staffing levels and ensuring a staff presence at key locations have significant effects on perceptions of personal safety. Technology also has a role. The use of closed circuit TV cameras, panic buttons, emergency telephones and so forth can be used to reduce the anxiety of passengers.

The solutions listed above are illustrative and are far from comprehensive. The optimal 'package' will depend upon the specific social, geographical and cultural facets of particular areas. It would be very difficult to eradicate fear entirely. Indeed, it may not be desirable as public transport users will still require to be vigilant when traveling after dark. However a practical, coordinated approach to this issue would serve to minimize the effects of what one of our female interviewees referred to as the 'unofficial curfew'.

The writer is a senior economist with transportation consultants Steer Davies Gleave