Peshawar to Debut Special 'Chainless Bike' Sharing System...

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Well I don't agree. People would be ok once its complete. Stock market reacts to local and international events not just Pakistan decision to go to IMF. Shangai stock market plunged same day also most of Asian's stock markets remained negative. I was looking at PSX index for last two days and it has recovered most of its Monday's loses. Still stock market is not any indicator of economy. Pakistan's real issue is budget and trade deficit. Things will be on track once these deficits come down. Specially once government will reduce import/export disparity in $ terms.
Perhaps you didn't get my point in its entirety, rather you are just focusing on one point of stock markets. A loan is evaluated against the terms of its repayment and your strategy. A loan from IMF is given on terms that the recovery will be made by increasing the price of base utilities like electricity and gas, as well as increasing the taxes. This in turn, raises the cost of production and more taxes means less disposable income for the people living inside Pakistan, therefore even the consumer spending decreases. People will buy less.

Furthermore, as it unfolds, Govt runs short of payments that are to be made to payoff the circular debt. In turn, the money supply has to be increased. This introduces inflation and your money is further devalued, means that at the end you will have less in terms of Greenbacks to return to IMF. Do you think any of the govts were really able to break off this vicious cycle of debt of IMF? Even UK and US are not able to break this cycle and have an 87% and 106% debt to GDP ratios (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXWDG_NGDP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/PAK).

It will be nothing but a daydream/wishful thinking that IMF loans will straighten up your economic outlook in the medium or long run. Investors know it, therefore they start shifting their capital elsewhere. Though, I agree to your point that stock market is not the only indicator of economy, but it is certainly one of them and is taken as an early warning sign by the economists around the globe (https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/economy/recession-warning-signs/#9).
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Well, I don't agree here either. Project is a failure only when it fails to meet its object or the cost of the project is higher than the benefits. Over running initial budgets estimates is failure at part of the planners. Also, before a project starts cost and schedules are just estimates. Over running both of these is very common in any country (Pakistan is no exception). As I said, this project is important however, same money could have been used on something better e.g power generation or technical university/education.
Even if I take your point for discussion's sake, is or was there ever a business case against which we could measure the benefits of this project? Even in your last point in this post, you have expressed your own thinking here, that this money could have been used for something better. This is one indicator, as it shows stakeholder's view of the benefits achieved through a project. Yes, you are right here, the benefits far outweighs the costs and the time taken by this project will further add up to the benefits shortfall.

I agree that initially the estimates of cost and schedules are not met 100%, therefore there is a leverage to it as I explained that 10% of cost overruns and 20% of schedule delays in construction projects are taken as within limits. However, anything exceeding that adds up to the degree of failure. Adding insult to the injuries are the scope creeps. It means that a feasibility/Business case was not properly made and the project administrators have either hidden motives. The causes of this state of affairs in terms of perverse incentives that encourage promoters to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in the business cases for their projects. Whether you agree to it or not, but the whole world agrees that if you fail to plan, then you are planning to fail.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Partially I agree that at tough times, it really gets tough and often the projection and hopes fail! and the managers go for easy path to chew on the public funds than to reform and cut down. I might have argued for saving and investing for the bad times, but perhaps managers aren't to be trusted; In any case Keynesian arguments are out of fashion.

However, to call this project an utter failure seems not right but rather a rhetoric to make an unrelated point.
Theoretically I'm not against reasonable subsidies for the public transport sector as long as the the direct beneficiary i.e. the city, pays for it. There is enough economic justification for this policy, times are tough or not. One may, perhaps rightly, argue that the public infrastructure is in itself that establishes the long term economic stability. Even in purely economical sense it is not some luxury but a real investment if we were to count beyond the daily budget. Subsidies on the public transport are justified because they earn more (directly or indirectly) to the exchequer especially in terms of the property taxes.- the city collects the fair property taxes on this investment or not that is an unrelated issue to this debate.. You must be aware of a good number of other economic benefits like worker efficiency or fuel saving etc.
Not just in greece, similar problems arose in related projects in Montreal or for an old example of Baltimore fair investment; there were bad times however over the decades it worked well. If, according to you, we are get into an economic crises, that projection is not enough of an argument to oppose the project. The objections over the PMLN project focused on the funding model and financial lapses and the extent of solutions to the public transport rather than on project per se.

Look, there is a saying in Punjabi that "Jo Lahore ganjay, woh Peshawar bhi ganjay"... hope you have got my point here. The same objections sustain on the BRT project at Peshawar, which were levied on Metro projects elsewhere, with respect to time and space. The project costs have ballooned beyond thresholds and the funding is still coming through borrowed money, whereby there is no solid business case which could really monetize the benefits of this project. Can you tell me what is the financial outcome of this project? How saving time in intra-city travel of Peshawar is going to speed up the industrial output of the city? or either how much money will be saved? are there any figures or numbers to compare with? In reality, there are none. Therefore, I have cautiously termed this project a luxury than a real need of the time. Rather your earlier comments, referring to the use of this money for funding a much needed project of electricity or a similar infrastructure which could stimulate the economic growth in the country reflects the same thinking as well. The only problem is of accepting the reality and a courage to call spade a spade regardless of being deluded by a political rhetoric. We are humans and we make mistakes, but great humans always accept them and learn from them, this is what makes them great.


As far as luxury is concerned in terms of public appeasement, Let's be a bit fair; if we are to spent a chunk of foreign exchange on the luxury cars for the upper class, why not to loosen the pocket for the working class.

In a country like Pakistan, these subsidies are never a burden on the elites (as they easily escape the tax net), rather it is at the expense of the working class which pays the taxes like GST. So it is like a jugglery of putting money in one pocket and taking it out from the other. The result is zero, or sometime negative.

There is one valid argument to oppose the public transport investment; that is it lowers the price of transportation, resulting in larger travel and mobility to the inner cities, that results in even more bloated cities and, in result the public utilities are stressed and often the size of the city lead to unsolvable problems, regardless of the size of investment. investment Further it hinders the expansion and relative property worth of adjacent small cities. One may use that argument in case of Karachi where a transport system ought to be designed not to facilitate long distance travel into the city but for segmentation and thinning out the current city.
It seemed your objections to the public transport sector were in principle however you did not give any alternative but to leave it to the private sector!!! (unfortunately that is another economical argument to invest/subsidies in public transport because the when the times are tough, the response of the private sector is even more harmful to the recovery.)
For your outlook of Pak economics, I personally have a positive out look. The current problems of BOP would continue only for few year and soon we'll be out of water - that's an altogether different topic.

I guess you did not follow me completely here. Let me rehash my point that I was also agreeing with the alternative you provided yourself that this investment should have been gone to a project like a hydropower entity. Everyone knows that we are in dire need of Water and Power and if we fail to counter these problems adequately, then I guess that public transport projects like these would be nothing but White Elephants. The maths is simple here.... if you are short of water, short of electricity and short of money as well, there is no point that these Metro buses will do any good to the people of Pakistan. If you say that the public transport, if left to the private sector will result in more devastation, then I guess you are presuming that the private investors are all foreign. In fact, the ground realities for this sector are completely opposite to your presumption. The investors are 99% indigenous and this results in collection of taxes in terms of road taxes, duties on import of commuter vehicles or an increase in the production of local parts manufacturers. I am really unable to understand your point here. Perhaps you are right here, but I can only comment if you may please further elaborate it that how in tough times the response of private sector with respect to public transport sector in urban areas. I'll be thankful.
 
Last edited:

Eyeaan

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Supposedly, a more efficient bike and at less risk for breaking the chain while biking...

Also, possibly more people may use it due to it's novelty factory.
I had doubt about 'more efficiency'. For power transmission or for the initial torque, I don't see any engineering benefit except for its lower efficiency!
The Same seems true for the strength and reliability: Carbon steel (nickle alloy?) is trusted for its elasticity, lateral flexibility and fatigue and It would be hard to find fiber (or fiber-cum-steel belt) to exceed these properties. I rather find belt to be more prone to snap.
Of course the belt in the video look beautiful, shiny, neat, low cost and light weight. (Low replacement cost may be correct but as, I saw in the video, it required a new 'gear' transfer system, hence overall cost (weight?) might are much higher). However humidity, temperature, rain, rocks and dirt - steel seems better to face these stresses with best tensile properties and strength.
Belt is a very old technology and there were reasons to replace it with cam-pin chains.

However that was not what irked me to comment. Maintenance and replacement costs and market availability are to be the prime consideration for such public projects. This bike seems to fail on these accounts. I wonder what the project managers were really thinking.