英语论文网

it seems to be exacerbated in the developing world (Walters, 2007).

Due to the issue of limited funding and effectiveness problem, privatization of public transportation was then introduced. The privatization is perceived to have the potential to reduce the cost burden of the government in providing public bus service. Tiwari (2002) and Pucher et al. (2005) in their studies, concluded that privatization is needed in public transportation to generate funds and operate efficient bus service and reduce government subsidies. In New Delhi, it was found that privatization in the large capacity increased the capacity of public transport (Tiwari, 2002) while the privately-run services in Indian cities have higher productivity, lower cost and high revenues per bus km of service (Pucher et al., 2004). This proponent view is supported by other researchers. For example, Scholl (2006) mentioned that publicly owned and highly subsidized transit operations are inefficient due to higher labour cost, restrictive work rules and large bureaucracies. Due to the factor of escalating cost, declining productivity and constraint on funding for public transit, many governments have turned to transit privatization in an effort of improved cost efficiency (Ibid).

Several markets is failed to counteract the theorized benefits of privatization. For example, cost-cutting behaviour by transit companies often result in under insurance, substandard vehicle maintenance and higher levels of pollution, congestion and accident rates as well as inadequate coordination and integration of routes and fares (Scholl, 2006).

There were several studies oppose the idea of privatization in public bus transportation since it creates more problems. In Delhi1992, the large scale bus privatization without adequate regulation and coordination had created many problems such as lengthy, zig-zag routes, long waiting times, completely unreliable service, extreme overcrowding, unqualified drivers, and speeding and reckless driving, fights among competing buses, poor bus maintenance, unsafe, noisy, and highly polluting, adding to the already severe congestion, safety, and air pollution problems (Pucher et al., 2004). According to Haron& Noor (2010), the delay in bus arrivals leads into bunching of buses hence service cannot be performed towards the users during the scheduled hours which may result peaks in passenger demand. According to Putcher et al. (2005), privatization could be done either through opening up the market to private firms (who would own, manage, operate and finance their own systems) or by having public agencies contract with private firms to operate services on a system wide basis, for selective routes, or for selected functions (like maintenance). Privatization can facilitate the improvement but it also can frustrate if there is no regulation and rules to monitor their performance. Both Tiwari (2002) and Putcher et.. al, (2004) concluded that privatization does have potential to improve efficiency if only accompanied by the institutional capacity building in order to achieve the integrated network of public transport service.

Increasing Number of Private Vehicles on Road

Cited in Kasipillai and Chan (2008), public user has largely rejected public transportation as a viable mode of travel, as evidenced by a drastic drop in its usage rate in Kuala Lumpur from 35 per cent in 1980 to only 16 p