[sustran] [sustran] More on Denver thread and Sustainable Transport
kisan mehta
kisansbc at vsnl.com
Thu Nov 1 10:44:58 JST 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: kisan mehta <kisansbc at vsnl.com>
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Cc: Harshad Kamdar ; Saksena ; Priya Salvi ;
Trilok Kamdar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6.30 AM
Subject: [sustran] More on Denver thread and Sustainable Transport
> Dear Sustran friends inc Wendell, Eric, Todd, Matthias,
Kerry, Paul etc,
>
> As rightly said, discussion can continue ad
> infinitum. We say in India `till the moon and sun
> shine'. Without much significance to people who
> have public transport or physical walking as the
> only mode for moving from one place to another.
> They form the bulk of people needing affordable
> transport and not having access to personal car.
>
> We continue talking about a short sector of rail
> system. When whole human habitat has to move
> or is to be moved, sustainable transport is the only
> mode. Personal car cannot be the solution. Our
> cities and certainly the old parts still the hub of
> business, cannot cope up with the car invasion.
> Which human centre has the capacity to cope up
> with that number of cars if every one had one?
>
> Some of us have seen the Buchanan Report on the
> ways to improve traffic in London. I am citing only
> from my memory. He gave an instance. If the Oxford
> Street were to be widened to cope up with the large
> number of cars wanting to visit that street, it will need
> to be widened four times its present width and in the
> process everything that citizens value as heritage
> to be preserved will have to be demolished. He then
> took a different approach of restricting number and
> movement of vehicles.
>
> We talk of Cutiba. Ideal habitat where the needs of
> the common man are equitably met. And see what is
> happening in Jakarta and other cities of the poor
> countries. The authorities are vengefully snatching
> away the only morsel of bread from the poor without
> providing an alternative means for survival.
>
> We were discussing the situation in Jakarta where
> the people's convenient and affordable mode of
> traffic is being broken down with the stick of a
> law. Affordable habitats (we say slums) are being
> broken down again using the law. Some of feel
> that people should abide by the law. What law!
> The law foisted by the oligarchy all steeped in
> corruption? Can this situation be toterated by
> saying that there is a law and one ruler has come
> out to implement it no matter how many thousands
> would suffer alienation, starvation and death. Even
> in socalled civilised countries such situations exist
> where the poor has no say and must suffer.
>
> I neither can interject in the brilliant discussion
> going on on comparative advantages nor am in
> a position to provide an ideal solution. We talk of
> sustainable transport, sustainable from the point
> of affordability of the people, sustainable from
> the point of protecting environment, sustainable
> from the point of conserving natural resources.
> When we talk of affordabilty, we must talk of
> providing equity to all humans amongst human
> beings and nations to natural resources.
>
> I believe many or rather majority of human centres
> in the poor countries are crowded, have large
> populations with neighbouring areas full of people
> looking for job who must trudge to places where
> jobs exist or rather appear to exist. At least the
> centres I had occasion to visit in Asia, Africa and
> Americas are all crowded. Increasing need for
> moving large populations has to be satisfied.
>
> Public transport like trains, buses, rikshaws,
jeepneys, non-motorised transport and what not has
to be provided. It is the duty of the state to provide
> sustainable transport to ensure efficiency to human
> centres. It should also extend facilities to pedestrians.
> This may need curbing private transport to the extent
> that it ensures efficiency in human centres. The state
> should support self employed rikhsaw pullers and
> jeepney drivers as these modes can be affordable
> to large section of the community. It should upgrade
such modes to ensure protection of environment. Their
removal would deny the poor even of affordable mode.
>
> Selection between public bus and suburban trains
> can be made by the number of users and the
> direction that have to move. Trains have a
> natural advantage of carrying large number fast
> over the preselected routes while buses can take
> smaller number of commuters in out of way
> destinations.
>
> In Mumbai, two suburban railway lines (owned by
> the Government of India) starting from south for
> north and north-east directions provide ten million
> journeys a day at an unbelievably low fare (though
> many cannot afford and walk 3 to 6 km one way to
> work) while municipalised bus services at about
> 1.6 to 2 times the railway fare carry 4.6 million.
>
> There is no subsidy The Government of India
> fixes fares to cover all expenses including interest
> on capital invested. The state takes away about
> 15% of the bus fare though it has no role to play.
> Municipality additionally collects fixed amount from
> buses though it has not invested even a penny.
>
> Motor car owner has all the benefits without paying
> even a penny. Flyovers are built for cars to move
> fast where narrowed down carriageways at ground
> level have to carry the bulk of traffic. Non-owners of
car pay for the capital and recurring costs. Where is the
equity or the `polluter must pay' concept?
>
> Even in intercity expressways, the same bias in
> favour of the motor cars prevails with detriment
> to the entire econmy Project for constructing
> Mumbai-Pune Expressway came up about 5 years
> ago. The state indicated a cost of Rs 16 billion for
> the expressway which in reality is only 85 km of
> the total distance of 170 km. Many of us opposed
> the move and suggested instead building at about
> the same cost a set of special tracks for fast trains
> taking commuters to cover 170 km in less than 2
> hours. Citizen proposal was rejected.
The expressway is ready. Motor traffic is so low that
even the interest costs are not covered. So the people
lost a chance of sutainable mass transport yet must
bear the burden that the motor car owner should bear.
>
> In addition to mind boggling numbers to be moved, the
> poor countries lack the finances that can provide all
> modes of traffic for all people. How can the Sustran
> fraternity provide solutions in such situations? How
> can the Sustran fraternity support the common man
> in realising affordable mode of traffic? How can
> the Sustran help in throwing away laws that reflect
> autocratic thinking of oligarchy? Don't you think
these are the issues with the majority of the
humanity? Best wishes.
>
> Kisan Mehta kisansbc at vsnl.com
>
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list