As a spin-off of a national research and training program, we were tasked to determine through publicly available information why many Southeast Asian transit properties visited by the program delegation have reportedly positive cash flows, i.e. are “profitable”. We found through a detailed comparative analysis of demand densities, asset utilization, regulatory frameworks, performance regimes, operating practices, and softer cultural factors that in fact only the “prudent commercial” portion of the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway were profitable in the purest sense where farebox revenues exceeded operating expense plus the long term cost of capital renewal. In other cities, the operators are more akin to contract carriers or management contractors where at least some infrastructure costs were separated from the operating entity using a variety of financial devices. These systems also received various real estate grants in transactions reminiscent of U.S. “land grant” railroads and have more autonomy and commercial freedom to develop their transit-oriented property holdings. Large metro systems in the U.S. had made network design choices with consequences in density and utilization, which explain some of the higher productivities observed in Asia. We conclude that direct comparisons in performance, profitability, and productivity should be avoided unless care is taken to analyze impacts of governance, social contexts, design criteria, and reasons for these differences. Nonetheless, we believe benchmarking exercises can yield valuable insights for operations improvement under prevailing local constraints.
Related Publications/Presentations:
Subway Productivity, Profitability, and Performance: A Tale of Five Cities
Presentation
