[sustran] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?

[eric.britton at free.fr]

Dear Sudhir and Sujit,

 

"High cost underground metros"?  Why not?  Sounds great to me.  Eh?

 

But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and necessarily
waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in and is finally
ready to do those good works.  We refer to this necessary step in the planning
and policy process as . . . 

 

BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! 

 

That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible policy
maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers.

 

So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend it
tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now.  As
opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good metro is
going to take.

 

This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs to
be asked each time.  For starters you have to make that long list of the real
needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put quantities to
them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the ledger and start
to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting at the problems NOW!

 

Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get them
right, hugely gratifying and effective.  That is if you can bear in mind what
the whole thing is indeed all about.

 

Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, along
with those who are urging them on?  And perhaps, do they have something else in
mind?

 

It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and brilliance,
and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media and before the
attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in the state of
Denmark (or wherever).

 

I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave it to
him and to all of you on this.

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Sudhir
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM
To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities

 

Dear Sujit,

 

On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that high
cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion.

Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which has
the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users.

 

It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced
traffic.

 

Regards

Sudhir

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton at free.fr;
WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org
Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities

 

25 December 2006
Christmas



Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in my
humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros)
transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on the
roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. 

Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty of
them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded
streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that we
simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so let's
not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto vehicles)
but get on with building the underground tunnels with their promise of high
(overkill levels) capacity,  which may de-congest the streets. 

This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve
congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at huge
cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two wheelers) to
come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at the cost of other
needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership projected in the
concocted project reports. 

But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the infrastructure
companies their obscenely high profits and the public left high and dry with
over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised underground metro. 

If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed
sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles have
long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW faster/high
capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels,  we can certainly pursue but let's not lose
sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. Incentives for Public
Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) and real disincentives for
auto vehicles through various TDM measures appropriate for each city. I know I'm
not saying anything new but in all the technical discussions of pphpd and cost
per Km etc we sometimes miss the most obvious. 
--
Sujit



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 10496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20061227/279cee14/winmail.bin