1. National Policy in Support of Urban Transport Coin Hughes: Global Nat’l Policy Research Clarisse Linke: Brazil Javier Garduno: Mexico

2. What is national policy? It is a means, not an end. It helps us get more projects in cities. MONEY – 30-50% of the funding for transport projects in Mexico comes from the National Government. 50% of the loan financing in Brazil comes from the National Government. We need to make sure more money goes to good projects. LAWS/REGULATIONS – It sets requirements for planning, for transport quality, for allowing cities to get important sources of revenue, and can even give them authority to take away lanes. VISION – When a national government has a vision for urban mobility, it trickles down to cities

3. Why do we need it? Replication! BrazilChinaIndiaMexico Existing RTR4.34.41.25.6 km Transit7503,349504556 Vkt per capita2,5531,173254983 2030 Target RTR20 1520 km Total Sustainable Corridor length3,94219,6078,8062,376 km New Transit3,19216,2598,3021,820 Population in Sustainable Corridors86,729,280607,828,780184,930,83052,262,760 Assumptions Assumed Reduction in VKT for Population in Corridor30% Sustainable Corridor Results Total GHG Reduction by 2030 (mMt)1436935054 Sustainable Corridor contains bronze BRT, bronze TOD ranking, thus it is BRT+TOD+NMT+TDM.

4. CITY INNOVATORS CITY INNOVATORS CITY CHANGE

5. ITDP BEST PRACTICES CITY CHANGE

6. ITDP BEST PRACTICES NATIONAL POLICY NATIONAL CHANGE

7. What is needed for replication: FINANCING: National Development Banks, MDBs POLICY SUPPORT: Mandates, Revenue, Risk QUALITY: Design Standards for Good Projects EXPERTISE: Building Capacity in Country PUBLIC OPINION: Communications & PR

8. Comparative Analysis of Rapid Transit Growth, Investment, & Access Bottom-Up Analysis of Financing for BRT, LRT, & Metro Projects Top-Down Analysis of National Policies, Programs, and Regulations 1 2 3

9. Comparative Analysis of Rapid Transit Growth, Investment, & Access 1 2 3 Objective Understand how mass rapid transit networks have grown in 9 countries over time and be able to compare countries of very different size and circumstances against each other and against their own urban growth. Understand the comparative costs (time and money) of investing in different modes and modal mixes. Implication Be able to show when countries are not growing their mass rapid transit networks commensurate with population growth. Understand where and when countries have been successful at rapid growth in mass rapid transit per urban capita.

10. Growth of Rapid Transit in Kilometers, 1980-2013

11. Rapid Transit to Resident Ratio (RTR ratio) Kilometers of Mass Rapid Transit Urban Residents RTR = Kilometers of Mass Rapid Transit Millions of Urban Residents BRAZIL RTR = 2013 456 km Metro + 275 km BRT 171 Million of Urban Residents = RTR 4.3 Example: That is to say, Brazil has 4.3 km of MRT for every million urban residents

12. Growth of Rapid Transit in 9 countries by RTR, 1980-2013

13. Zoom In: Growth of Rapid Transit in 7 countries by RTR, 1980-2013

14. Zoom In: Developing Countries Growth in RTR 1998-2013 by Mode

15. Growth & Value: Change in RTR & Km of Transit per Dollar Spent 2000-13

16. Example of Implications: Brazil Continued Growth in RTR Necessary 2013 RTR: 4.3 km of rapid transit per million urban residents Expected 2016 RTR: 6.2 km of rapid transit per million urban residents Benchmark Goal: 10 km per million urban resident (US has 9, France 30) Requires: Building 1060 km of Rapid Transit beyond 2013 levels. (700km beyond expected 2016 levels) Costs: 100% BRT would cost USD $11 billion 100% Metro would cost USD $176 billion 35% BRT and 65% Metro (current modal investment mix) total cost will be USD $118 billion Costs based on observed current average costs for constructing BRT and Metro currently in Brazil. BRT is less than 1/10 th the cost of Metro in Brazil!

17. Public Transportation Bottom-Up Analysis of Financing for BRT, LRT, & Metro Projects 2 Objective Engage in detailed data collection of at least 9 projects of different modes in each of 6 countries to understand how project development and financial structuring differs in each country. Identify weaknesses in funding and financing in each country such as under-leveraging, barriers to capital access, poor risk management. Understand in each country where the money (power) is for catalysing urban transport projects. Implication Be able to make empirically based comparisons and arguments for more effective policies. ITDP can target the most influential stakeholders.

18. Funding vs. Financing Importante a entender la differencia entre: Funder (‘Pagador’) – Pagando por un proyecto en effectivo o pagando un deuda/debito para pagar por un proyecto. Financer (‘Prestador’) – un banco que da un prestamo a los ciudades o estados que pagan por un proyecto.

19. Funding & Financing Transport in Brazil

20. Funding & Financing Transport in Mexico

21. Top-Down Analysis of National Policies, Programs, and Regulations Objective Understand the structure by which national funding and regulation is set and truly impacts the scaling up of mass rapid transit. Catalogue all the national policies that relate to urban transport and compare their goals to the empirical data obtained in sections 1 & 2 to determine if they are working or not. Implication Help ITDP determine most effective country strategy for using national policy to scale up best practices in urban transport Identify and publicize best practices in national urban transport policy to promote globally

22. Mexico Key National Urban Transport Policies Federal Mass Transit Support Program (PROTRAM) – Program to fund rapid transit projects in Mexican cities. Has strong project criteria…but few projects are approved due to stringent criteria and grant component Urban Transport Transformation Program (UTTP) – Program to finance rapid transit projects. Only financed 1 project financed so far.

23. Brazil’s Key National Urban Transport Policies Accelerated Growth Program (PAC) – Program to finance with loans many rapid transit projects in large Brazilian cities. Lots of investment, but weak project criteria…many bad projects approved, some good ones. Lei Mobilidade - Federal law to require urban mobility plans in all cities. However no funding for the law nor binding criteria about what goes into a mobility plan, so low expectations for plans.

24. Brazil’s Key National Urban Transport Policies General Findings: LEVERAGE: Many countries, more Mexico than Brazil, are under- leveraged their investments in transport, especially BRT. With limited capital, transport should be paid for by loans. STANDARDS: Funding/financing criteria must be perfectly balanced between vetting good projects and not slowing implementation up too much. MOBILITY PLANS: Requirements are only useful when they are 1) tied to money, 2) must be followed, 3) there is funding for their development, 4) There is set criteria for what they must contain, 5) there is capacity in country to develop and review them