[sustran] Re: transit in Mexico city

[kisan mehta]

We are happy that the Transit in Mexico city has really 
brought about lot of discussions and new ideas. 

We observe that as cities grow bigger and turn into metropolises, they need and should need wider 
choice of modes however both importance of walking 
and cycling as independent mode for movement 
cannot be reduced or rather should not be reduced. 

However authorities in the developing (poor) countries 
opt for motorised modes in place of cycling and 
non-motorised modes instead of developing all modes 
in harmony with cycles and public transport.  Substantial portion of public resources are used for motor cars, motorways, expressways, fly overs and what not.  

In Mumbai(population 12 million),  88% of journeys 
are performed by public transport, 7% by private 
vehicles and 5% by taxies. This breakup would 
continue substantially with the %age for public 
transport declining to 86% in the year 2011.  
Yet public money is being used on motor roads.  
Public transport services run always in loss, 
yet they are being taxed more. No tax on 
private vehicles. 

The classic example of public transport being 
given the lowest priority is observed on the JJ 
Hospital to Jyotiba Phule Market elevated
road now under construction. Construction 
requires diversion of motorised traffic at one point.  
Detour for motor cars is about 200 metres while 
public road buses providing 4.6 million journeys 
are made to detour involving 2 km longer travel.    

Cycles have a definite role to play in movement 
in human settlements.  This role is not diminished 
with cities becoming larger yet all restrictions are 
being placed and excuses of safety brought to the 
fore for cyclists only.  Importance of cycling cannot 
be discounted with cities being larger.  Cycles like 
motor cars are used for movement. Nobody asks a 
motorist the question on the distance then why for 
the cyclist? He may like to use for many other journeys 
such as shopping or taking the child to school, 
Best wishes. 

PriyaSalvi and Kisan Mehta  

---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lake Sagaris 
  To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:40 PM
  Subject: [sustran] Re: transit in Mexico city


  Hi everyone

  I've come in on this toward the end, because I've just got back from a meeting in Nairobi about successful urban transportation solutions from around the world. Bogota, Quito, Curitiba, are the logical examples from Latin America, and I'm glad that Eric mentioned Bogota and provided such useful links as well.

  It seems to me that either / or debates are not as fruitful as integrated solutions and Bogota is the best example I know of of that (anywhere in the world, actually, except perhaps Amsterdam). For our countries in the developing world, urban transport problems are compounded by an enormous number of trips as families cross the city several times daily as children commute to schools in "better" neighbourhoods, and the fact that cars (used by a small, but powerful minority) are choking out essential routes and infrastructure that should be dedicated to transport modes that serve the majority. This reality, compounded by the really disgusting quality of diesel fuels used by many vehicles, particularly buses, means that urban transport tends to be inefficient, unpleasant, stratified by income level, age and gender, and highly damaging to the environment, particularly in terms of noise and air pollution, but dirt is a serious problem -- and cost -- to the quality of life in all its aspects.

  Oddly enough, we have countries the world over (as this list has illustrated), which prefer to spend millions on highway infrastructure, which is extremely expensive, rather than on relatively cheap, more socially fair and more environmentally successful option. From Lloyd, in reference to a Chilean transport "authority" arguing that a Bogota type solution was too "expensive" for Santiago:

  "Incredible how there is enough money to build $60 million 
  per kilometer systems, but there is nothing for $2 million per kilometer systems (that actually serve more people)."

  We need -- and have a right to, if we look at the modal 
  distribution of transportation in most of our cities -- to cities 
  where more of existing infrastructure is dedicated and adapted 
  to the majority modes. In Santiago, 20% of trips are done by car, 20% by foot or bike, 60% by public transport, mostly buses. 

  This means (and again, Bogota has done this wonderfully well) that:

  1) When parking is eliminated from streets, SIDEWALKS and not roads used by cars, should be widened;
  2) More space should go to dedicated busways
  3) More space should go to pedestrians and bikes. 
  4) Where possible this should add up to more GREENSPACE, to improve usage, safety, quality and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

  Cyclists should have the use of an enormous network of bikelanes that not only are NOT shared with cars, but are PHYSICALLY SEPARATED from them. Otherwise, we will continue to see the disproportionate number of accidents and fatalities involving bikes, and these will grow with bike use. Even in Toronto, which is a relatively bike-friendly city, sharing bike lanes with car lanes without a physical separation does not work. Typically, cars park in the bike lanes or stop there illegally. While I congratulate the hardy souls who risk their lives daily to bike in Latin American or other cities where traffic is insanely careless of human life, this does not make bikes an option for millions of school children who could find more freedom and better health by biking rather than bussing or carring to school.

  It is particularly important, and often overlooked, that these new systems DISPLACE cars from roads. Otherwise, as we have learned over and over again, newly created space on roads used by cars will constantly be filled up by them (studies indicate that within four to five years, 90% of new road space is choked up again by cars). There is no such thing as "discouraging" car use, as so many national or municipal policies state, as long as new infrastructure is being built for them, particularly in a context where mass transit, bikeways and pedestrians are sadly neglected.

  By the way, for anyone who would like to carry on this discussion more in Spanish, please feel free to join innovacionurbana, our Latin America-based list, in Spanish, that exists expressly for this purpose. 

  All best
  Lake Sagaris
  Living City - Ciudad Viva
  Santiago

  At 09:27 AM 4/2/02 -0500, you wrote:

    Dear Kano and others,

    I think in big metropolis as Mexico city isolated solutions are not the best 
    ones. I used to live in Mexico city and even if I would love to make my everyday travel by bike, it wasn't possible. It's really too dangerous! since I've been living in Montreal I do my travel by bike (when the weather allows me that), and I certainly enjoy it. But in big cities I think we can only travel by using several transit modes, the question that rises then is how to coordinate these modes.


    Paula Negron

    En réponse à Harshad Kamdar <hjk at rincon.net>:

    > Dear Paula,
    > 
    > I have been following the exchanges re Cycling and Mexico which is 2400 M above MSL. Even in Khatmandu (Nepal) I was reading that they are trying to provide Cycleways. Even as an experimentation they have started a
    Mountain Cycle mounted Police for controlling traffic.
    > 
    > A bicycle is a poor man's vehicle and it also lends mobility to the  youth
    > 
    > Kanu
    > 
    > Kanu H J Kamdar
    > 
    > Tel:  +91 22 4010041
    > Fax: +91 22 4021590
    > E Mail: hjk @rincon.net <mailto:hjk at rincon.net>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20020402/f096abc5/attachment.htm