Syndicate content

urban transport financing

Maximizing finance for sustainable urban mobility

Daniel Pulido's picture
Photo: ITDP Africa/Flickr

The World Bank Group (WBG) is currently implementing a new approach to development finance that will help better support our poverty reduction and shared prosperity goals. This crucial effort, dubbed Maximizing Finance for Development (MFD), seeks to leverage the private sector and optimize the use of scarce public resources to finance development projects in a way that is fiscally, environmentally, and socially sustainable.
 
There are several reasons why cities and transport planners should pay close attention to the MFD approach. First, while the need for sustainable urban mobility is greater than ever before, the available financing is nowhere near sufficient—and the financing gap only grows wider when you consider the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation. At the same time, worldwide investment commitments in transport projects with private participation have fallen in the last three years and currently stand near a 10-year low. When private investment does go to transport, it tends to be largely concentrated in higher income countries and specific subsectors like ports, airports, and roads. Finally, there is a lot of private money earning low yields and waiting to be invested in good projects. The aspiration is to try to get some of that money invested in sustainable urban mobility.

Próxima Parada: El Centro Comercial

Daniel Pulido's picture
Also available in: English
Sigue a los autores en Twitter: @danpulido y @IrenePortabales
 

Estación de Metro de Madrid esponsorizada
Muchos de los sistemas de metro del mundo no consiguen cubrir sus costos de operación con los ingresos tarifarios, mucho menos sus costos de capital. Una comparativa internacional llevada a cabo por las asociaciones de metros CoMET y Nova indica que, en promedio, los ingresos tarifarios de un sistema de metro cubren el 75% de sus costes de operación, mientras que los ingresos comerciales cubren aproximadamente un 15%, lo que supone un déficit del 10%. De igual modo, hemos hecho un cálculo de “números gordos” basado en los estados financieros de diversas empresas de metro de América Latina, corroborando que en promedio éstas presentaron un déficit en operación del 10% en el 2012, el cual asciende al 30% si se incluyen los costes de capital. Por supuesto existen ejemplos de metros que sí cubren sus gastos operacionales como son Santiago de Chile o Hong-Kong, pero otros como México DF necesitan subvención de la mitad de sus gastos de operación. Esta brecha de fondeo es un gran impedimento para mantener la calidad de los servicios y para ampliarlos para poder responder adecuadamente a las crecientes necesidades de desplazamiento.

Lamentablemente, el desfinanciamiento de los sistemas de transporte urbano es un problema generalizado, difícil de remediar con presupuestos públicos sobrecargados y/o soluciones inmediatas que aunque efectivas en teoría son difíciles de implementar en la práctica: el aumento de tarifas, por ejemplo, es una medida políticamente difícil y además genera mayor presión sobre los pobres, quienes más usan el transporte público; cobrar una tarifa que realmente cubra los costes socioeconómicos del uso del vehículo particular (tales como cargos por congestión) como instrumento de financiación del transporte público es también una medida impopular y difícil de implementar.

Dada esta situación, los operadores de transporte están continuamente buscando nuevas formas de recaudar fuentes adicionales de ingresos y así disminuir el déficit de financiación,  en muchos casos a través de asociaciones con el sector privado. A pesar de que muchos de los ejemplos se concentran en países desarrollados, algunos metros en América Latina y en otras regiones en vías de desarrollo están buscando aumentar sus ingresos no tarifarios:

Mind the (funding) gap, next stop: Making some extra money

Daniel Pulido's picture
Also available in: Español
Follow the authors on Twitter: @danpulido and @IrenePortabales
 

A branded metro station in Madrid
Most metro systems around the world are unable to cover their operating costs with fare box revenues, let alone fund capital expenditures. According to data from international benchmarking programs CoMET and Nova, tariff revenues cover an average 75% of operating costs, while other commercial revenues provide about 15%, resulting in an operating deficit of 10%. Similarly, a back of the envelope exercise that we conducted for Latin American metro companies showed that these had an average operating deficit of 10% in 2012. When including capital expenditures, this deficit grew to 30%. There are of course examples of metro systems that do recoup their operating costs, such as Santiago de Chile and Hong Kong, but others like the Mexico City Metro only cover half of their operating expenses with fare revenues. We should all mind this funding gap as it is a significant impediment to maintaining service quality and addressing growing urban mobility needs.

Unfortunately, the underfunding of transit systems can become chronic as public budgets are under growing pressure and the most direct solutions for increasing revenues are hard to implement: increasing fares, for instance, has proved to be politically difficult and disproportionately affects the poor, who use public transport the most; and charging a price that fully covers the social cost of private vehicle usage (i.e., congestion charges) as a way to fund transit is also politically sensitive.

In that context, transit operators are increasingly looking at new ways to tap additional sources of commercial revenue and make up for funding shortfalls, often through agreements with the private sector. Although most examples are concentrated in developed countries, some metro systems in Latin America and the developing world are looking at ways to increase non-tariff revenues: