Negative thoughts on metro in general (and on from there)

[Dinesh Mohan]

The debate on metros in this forum seems to revolve around ideologies,
"successes", "failures", capital costs, etc. There are more issues:
history of technolgy, habitation density on the metro corridor,
structure of the city, per capita incomes etc.

The concept of a metro is over a century old. The concept of people's
rights for a decent living and to access whithin a city are of more
recent origin. Techonlogies available for making surface transport more
efficient, cleaner buses, online optimisation of movement, communication
systems, making buses move in platoons, etc are hardly a decade old.
With the advent of intelligent vehicle system technologies, surface
transport systems of the next decade will have little resemblance to the
past.

Metros are ideal for very high density corridors, eg Hong Kong. Very few
cities have living patterns similar to Hong Kong. As a matter of fact
the success of the metro in HK is an outlier.

Widely dispersed populations in cities with mixed land use patterns make
modern high capacity bus systems much more efficient. Certainly much
more amenable to change as the city changes structure and living and
business patterns with time.

Families generally cannot spend more than 10% of their income on
transportation. The break-even costs for a metro seem to be int he range
of USD 1.00 per trip, no matter where the metro is built. If we take a
figure of  4 trips per family per day, the annual expenditure comes to
USD 1,460 on transportation per family not counting other modes. This
means that the annual family income must be more than USD 14,600. A
figure beyond most families in the world.

Dinesh Mohan

Eric Bruun wrote:

> No disagreement about that. But I didn't say that, either. I was only
> reacting to Eric Britton's and a few others' comments that seemed to
> say no more metros anywhere.  Eric
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Negron Poblete Paula wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think metros are the worst choice we can make, but let's get
> a bit real.
> > Imagine a third world metropolis,which has multiple
> > deficiencies: health,education, urban transport,culture, etc. Does
> it seem fair
> > to invest a hughe amount of money in a subway system instead of
> investing in
> > some other aspects that are equaly important? Does it sound sobad to
> invest in
> > alternative modes like express buses or double buses?
> >
> >  ___________________________
> > Paula NEGRON POBLETE
> > Faculte de l'Amenagement
> > Universite de Montreal
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Eric Bruun wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric, et. al.
> > >
> > > I don't have the time to spend either, much as I would like, but I
>
> > > have to make a comment.
> > >
> > > Up to now, I have almost always agreed with you. But "Goodbye to
> > > Metros" is a bit much. Look at productive capacity - capacity
> times
> > > speed (Productive Capacity), to see what the investment buys - if
> > > tremendous capacity over long distances in a reasonable amount of
> time is
> > > needed - nothing can outperform them. Of course, cost is a
> problem, but it
> > > is not true that other modes have the same performance, that is my
> only
> > > point.  This doesn't mean they always go to the right places, have
>
> > > the right network configuration, or are properly connected to
> other
> > > modes, but one can say this about any proposed rail or busway
> investment.
> > > On the other hand, since the investment is permanent, one can
> eventually
> > > revise the connecting network to improve the overall system over
> time.
> > >
> > > Also, if you want to make service attractive in wealthier cities,
> you
> > > might have to invest in high performance. Parkinson's law does not
>
> > > always hold, either. Munich has had no increase in average trip
> length per
> > > capita for 20 years, even with massive increases in rail service.
> > > The secret is to take additional measures such as pedestrian
> malls,
> > > high parking prices, etc. to deter additional driving.
> > >
> > > Eric Bruun
> > >
> > >
> >
> >



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5th World Conference on Injury Control>> http://www.ciionline.org/fiwoco

If you have trouble sending mail to this server you may use
<trippdelhi at hotmail.com> temporarily.

************************************************************************

Professor Dinesh Mohan
Coordinator, Transportation Research & Injury Prevention Programme,
Head, WHO Collaborating Centre, Room 808 Main Building
Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India

Office: (91 11) 659 1147
FAX: (91 11) 685 8703 & 685 1169
E-mail: dmohan at cbme.iitd.ernet.in
Home: (91 11) 649 4910
************************************************************************