[sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

[Sujit Patwardhan]

8 February 2006


I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being 
hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) 
implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central 
lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on 
the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr 
Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating 
the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking 
and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such 
cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the 
roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of 
cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) 
implementation of BRT.
--
Sujit

Sujit Patwardhan
PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India





At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
>Zvi,
>In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
>applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
>median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
>there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
>usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
>the other.
>In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
>of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
>both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
>Karl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
>Of Zvi Leve
>Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>Hello,
>
> >
> >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
>for developing countries:
> >
> >
>As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
>mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
>non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
>"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
>steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
>vehicles.
>
>For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
>ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
>often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
>certain roads.
>
>Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
>improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
>accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
>procede?
>
>  From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
>per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
>energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
>3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
>no emissions, what is the better use of the space?
>
>Just some food for thought!
>
>Zvi
>
Sustainable Urban Transport
---------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
Member

PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India

Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
Email: <sujit at vsnl.com>, <sujitjp at gmail.com>
----------------------------------------------------- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/21a47881/attachment.html