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

[Eric Bruun]

In my defense, I did say that I do not know the specific alignment 
in Jakarta. I am not surprised if it happens to serve affluent
areas, just like new projects tend to do here in the US.

Also, it seems that I was on the mark about there being no support 
for a Curitiba type system, no matter how much sense it makes. I 
think the reason is probably simple -- the elite drive their cars
and don't want "their" road space given to transit. The same thing
is true even in the US.

So this puts us back at the original question: is it worthwhile
proceeding with these types of projects? 

One more dimension we haven't mentioned so far is the fact that Metros
last indefinitely and will help many future generations, even if they
don't address the most urgent needs. New York, Paris, London, Boston folk
benefit from something started roughly 100 years ago.  Eric


On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, ITDP wrote:

> Might as well jump into the Jakarta metro fray.
> 
> The Jakarta Metro is another example of how it is easier to raise $1.2 billion
> for a project of questionable economic importance than it is to raise $1 million
> for something that would have as big an impact.
> 
> The metro project has some problems; its route selection was based on
> circumstances which no longer hold, it tends to serve the needs of a fairly
> moderate number of higher income people, etc.  That being said, if the proposed
> Japanese funding comes through, I doubt many governments could (or should) resist
> such low interest (3%) loans for any project given the level of unemployment in
> Jakarta.   If it leads to clustered development in the long run, maybe it could
> do some good.
> 
> There is no question that the money might be better spent.  There was a 1990 or
> 1992 plan for a curitiba-like 'pre-metro' that would give much more of the city
> coverage for much less money, but it has no political support that I can find.
> 
> Given that the metro has some political support and potential funding, and is
> probably not the worst way to waste money.   I think the NGOs working on
> sustainable and equitable transport in Indonesia will probably push to at least
> make sure that the access trips to this proposed MRT are thought through, and
> that some interrim bus prioritization plans are pushed through at the same time.
> 
> Meanwhile, paying a little bit of attention to the 40% of trips made by
> pedestrians, and the growing population of bicyclists, and the threatened
> population of becaks, would be nice.   Pedestrians have no sidewalks to walk on
> on 60% of the road network, and destitute bus drivers are burning subsidized
> kerosene instead of gasoline because its cheaper, filling the city with black
> smoke.  Bajaj drivers are buying polluting very small two-stroke engines.  None
> of the buses can afford spare parts, so they are falling apart.  Parking is
> completely out of control.
> 
> If Indonesians wish to press ahead with this metro plan using borrowed funds,
> okay.  But let us not hear from the same officials supporting this plan that
> there is no money these other, more important things, that might actually do
> something for the mobility of Jakarta's 10 million people before another decade
> has passed.
> 
> Best,
> Walter Hook
> 
> Eric Bruun wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Access ITDP's New Website: www.ITDP.org
> The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
> 115 W. 30th Street - Suite 1205 - New York, NY 10001 - USA
> tel: (212) 629-8001  fax: (212) 629-8033
> 
> 
> 
>