[sustran] More on Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun

[Eric Bruun]

Paula, et. al:

In truth, I don't really have strong feelings about the Jakarta project.
I am somewhat being a devil's advocate because we hear so much about
how little rail transit does, and not enough about the upsides.

I guess I also realize that many slums are actually very dense, but
my implicit assumption is that these are not permanent and are not
really woven into a grand scheme of development that includes
limiting ad-hoc development on a perimeter. My use of the
word "density" is sloppy as I really mean limiting sprawl. Making 
the big assumption that there will be a development scheme, rail can be
very helpful.

With that I will butt out.  Eric




On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote:

> The problem of transport in large metropolis in developing countries is not 
> only a problem of transport, it's also a matter of poverty.
> 
> 
> 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.
> The density in a Third World city is very different from the density in a 
> developed country. Just an example, in Mexico city, the slums in the 
> metropolitan area have a very high density, considering that a "house" has 
> approx. 45 square meters with 5 or 6 people living in there. That is a very 
> high density! The density is influenced primary by the capacity of people 
> to access to land.
> 
> 
> 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes
> if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips?
> Unfurtunately, in third world metropolis (at least in latin america), the 
> longer trips are made between the periphery and down town, but they are 
> long not only because long distances, but also because people need to wait 
> long periods of time for a bus.
> 
> 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.
> The high level of bus trips or alternative vehicles trips are the reflect 
> of the restricted offer of public transport by the public sector. The so 
> called "informal means of transport" are just the answer to an inefficient 
> "formal means of transport".
> 
> 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
> > >
> > 
>