[sustran] India's new National Urban Transport Policy - a few comments

[Alan Howes]

Some quick points on this - perhaps people who know India better than I can take them up (Sujit?)
 
(1) It all seems very tentative.  It's all "would", and very little "will".  No action plans, costs, dates or targets - just mention of pilot projects.
 
(2) Talk about level playing fields for all operators of transport services (under Objectives).  Does that mean subsidising buses to the same extent as rail?
 
(3) Para 14 seems to suggest (and para 24 confirms) subsidising capital costs, but not revenue.  This favours capital-intensive modes.  What it is likely to mean is big subsidies for Big Projects - like Metros and Heavy Rail - while buses (labour -intensive rather than capital-intensive) get very little subsidy.  Perhaps an economist can explain why this makes sense - I can't.  In the UK this has in the past led to subsidising middle-class train users at the cost of low-wage bus users.  I know it's not quite the same in India, but ...
 
(4) In a similar vein, Para 17 says Central Government will offer support under NURM for "premium service infrastructure" for high-quality bus services aimed at attracting discretionary users.  Fine.  And para 16 says that the "basic" services should have subsidised low fares.  But it does NOT say that Central Government will pay this subsidy, and seems to do nothing to solve the current problem of who pays to keep fares down on basic bus services.
 
(5) Para 26 is about para-transit.  A most mis-used phrase.  I know what it means in North America - what does it mean in India?  Jitneys, taxis, auto-rickshaws (autos), illegal minibuses, legal minibuses ...?  Enlighten me, someone.  If it means autos and taxis, fine.  If it does not - these should have a clearly defined role.
 
(6) Segregated rights-of-way for pedestrians and cyclists (para 28) - possibly along the CENTRAL VERGE!  I smell a rat.  I have a nasty feeling that the highways guys will want to tuck the non-motorised modes out of the way where they don't get in the way of nice shiny cars.  What SHOULD be happening is that peds and cyclists (and buses, and autos and taxis in controlled numbers), should get priority in the "High Streets" (what's the Indian equivalent?), while the cars are controlled, restrained, removed or whatever.
 
(7) Parking. Para 35.  (What are FAR norms?)  The last thing Indian cities need (in CBDs, anyway) is more parking, whether on- or off-street.  At least, not without much more widespread charging regimes for on-street, as well as off-street, parking.  In general, parking generates traffic.
 
(8)  Attachment 1 - merits and demerits of transport systems.  Normal buses do not have "Very Low Capacity" - they are typically 15 or more times more efficient than the private car.  And why does GoI keep banging on about pollution from buses?  OK, buses are more polluting than electric rail (at least at the point of use) - but they are far LESS polluting than cars, taxis, autos etc, which is what counts.
 
Regards, Alan
 
 
 
-- 
Alan Howes
Associate Transport Planner
Colin Buchanan
4 St Colme Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6AA
Tel:       +44 131 226 4693
Mobile:  +44 7952 464335
email:  alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk <mailto:alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk> 

www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/


 

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
DISCLAIMER

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email.

Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business.

We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 7625 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/fc185343/attachment.bin