[sustran] Re: Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun

[Eric Bruun]

I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything
about a "universal solution". A few points to consider:

1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It
would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths.

2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes
if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips?  

3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low
density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently.
The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of
just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding.

4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail
lines?

5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous
thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public
transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal
security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience
is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are
traveling.


On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote:

> I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess 
> without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we 
> usually see in  those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and 
> mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that 
> I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive 
> (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, 
> that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial 
> perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico 
> city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for 
> the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are 
> used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility 
> than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". 
> It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily 
> prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate 
> also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid 
> transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that 
> important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the 
> example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every 
> day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the 
> number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than 
> buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems 
> are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic 
> and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their 
> implantation.
> 
> _________________
> Paula Negron Poblete
> Universite de Montreal
> Faculte d'Amenagement
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu]
> Sent:	19 novembre, 1999 13:07
> To:	sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject:	[sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have
> some general comments. There is always the conflict between the
> long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta
> should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with
> people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be
> adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City
> or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks.
> 
> Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more
> money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the
> government refuses to take road space and give it to public
> transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must.
> We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep
> criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost
> never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests
> that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos,
> not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly
> projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that
> benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that
> can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this
> better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably
> yes.
> 
> Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise
> fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on
> car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because
> it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to
> be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can
> afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is
> wrong with this picture?  Eric Bruun
> 
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote:
> 
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati
> > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its
> > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious
> > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern
> > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area.
> >
> > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise 
> ticket
> > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak)
> > in Jakarta.
> >
> > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of
> > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on
> > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport
> > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction.
> >
> > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Jachrizal Sumabrata
> > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
> > The University of Melbourne
> > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
> > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863
> > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532
> > 
>