[sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

[Walter Hook]

Eric, 
 
Certainly we should all be glad that DMRC got something accomplished in
the complex political reality of Delhi.  If the head of DMRC had deeper
insight, he would realize that DMRC itself would benefit from
integration with a BRT systems serving corridors it will not reach for
decades if ever, and it even would be good if they themselves developed
BRT corridors as an integrated whole with the metro system.  The head of
DMRC is a rail oriented person, however, and has not been open to this
suggestion, but rather very competitive with BRT/HCBS.   We have been
pushing an integrated system, (at least at the ticketing system level:
we are worried about encumbering BRT with the ongoing operating losses
of the DMRC) and there has been some progress in this area, with the
first HCBS corridor to terminate adjacent to the Delhi Metro but HCBS's
ticketing system issues are not yet resolved. 
 
You are correct to be concerned about the risk of sub-par BRT being
built in India.  We are doing what we can to avoid this eventuality.
This is a risk everywhere.  Of course metro's also can go badly wrong:
witness the Lima holes in the ground, and the 2nd avenue subway hole in
the ground, etc.    
 
What is desperately needed in India is a reasonable planning process so
that some sort of longer term planning can be done, and various
transport plans integrated.  
Foreign money can either help or inhibit a rational planning process
where different alternatives can be weighed on their merits.  The
development banks, with procedures that in theory at least must past
some sort of cost benefit test and rudimentary alternatives analysis,
have theoretically better procedures than the bi-lateral loans and
grants involved in the metro business, which are loans and grants tied
to a specific technology with specific corporate backers, locking the
recipient into a long term dependence on imported spare parts and
technologies often from a single source supplier.  Transit passengers
would benefit the most from a planning process set the basic goals of a
mass transit system to be designed (speed, capacity) and different
interest groups were allowed to meet this technical specification at the
most reasonable cost and long term operating cost.  
 
Of course, we live in a sub-optimal world, so one should be hesitant to
criticize too harshly any system that has been implemented reasonably
well and has reasonable levels of patronage.  
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Bruun
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:03 PM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in
Europe
 



-----Forwarded Message----- 
From: Eric Bruun 
Sent: Feb 8, 2006 5:00 PM 
To: Walter Hook 
Subject: RE: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe 



Walter
 
I am sorry to hear that the DMRC backers are lobbying against BRT.  I
also like the idea of setting up a similar organization to manage BRT
projects. I am glad to hear that there are rights-of-way where  there
needn't be a conflict with auto users.
 
But I don't agree with you that the loans and other aid are necessarily
a bad thing.  There is a lot of technology transfer and management skill
development attached to this project. This will help other Indian cities
as well. Certainly Mumbai will be helped by a better domestic rail
industry.
 
I am also skeptical that BRT would actually be built to the same speed,
capacity and reliability standards as the Metro. If it is not, it will
not have the same impact, either in travel or in focusing development
along the lines. Given the urgency of the problems in Delhi, I can see
why authorities wouldn't want to take a risk on an unproven solution.
Maybe after the first real BRT line is built and it performs well, it
will be an easier sell. 
 
I recognize the fact of the low income in India, but lets put this in
perspective. The entire phases I and II of the Metro (about 100 kms) was
to cost a bit over $3 billion in 2002 US dollars. This is far less than
a similar system would cost in a richer country. And how much money gets
spent every year by the richest people in India just in importing cars
and fuel? ( I am actually going to try to find this out.)
 
On balance, I don't think it really rates as a major scandal or waste of
money that a city of 13+ million spends $3 billion given all of the
benefits. The scandals are 1) that it is so hard to also build BRT which
is also needed and 2) that the commuter railroads and existing bus
services are apparently poorly integrated with the Metro.
 
Eric Bruun
 
Eric Bruun



-----Original Message----- 
From: Walter Hook 
Sent: Feb 8, 2006 4:33 PM 
To: 'Eric Bruun' , 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' 
Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe 
Dear Eric,
 
Certainly Delhi can use both BRT and Metro.  However, the density of Old
Delhi is very high but the density of new Delhi is quite low, and the
metro only passes briefly and tangentially through old delhi.   The road
right of ways in New Delhi are massive, like 40 - 60 meters or more,
with much of this land underutilized, so one can easily retrofit many of
these streets with BRT without reducing motor vehicle throughput,
particularly given the fact that the buses are being relocated out of
the mixed traffic lanes where they currently consume two or more lanes
due to irregular stopping behavior and volumes of as many as 200 buses
an hour. 
 
The Delhi High Capacity Bus system is still being widely talked about
and they say they are going to implement the first corridor any day now,
but they have been saying that for more than three years.  
 
The main factor seems to be that there was simply enough money both
foreign and domestic in the Delhi metro to allow the project promoters
to force through the creation of a fully independent parastatal
organization, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which while quite
unaccountable has the decided advantage that it is capable of getting
things built and cutting through the bureaucracy. 
 
We have been pressing for years now to get Delhi to set up a Special
Purpose Vehicle akin to the Delhi Metro Rail Corp (DMRC) to give the BRT
interests an institutional home from where to coordinate the needed
works and also become a comparative lobbying juggernaut.  There has been
some recent progress in this regard, I hear, but the process is
frustratingly slow.  
 
The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under $500
a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several
times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
this economic context.  
 
Sensible municipal authorities in India could just make rational plans
for metro in one or two high volume corridors and BRT in other corridors
and develop integrated systems, but this just isnt' how projects are
promoted and implemented in India right now largely due to the weakness
of the government.  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Bruun
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:19 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific
sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
 
Sujit:
 
What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several
reasons, some of which
might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your
perspective. 

>From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of
bus lanes are being built.
I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and
severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances
involved.
 
While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my
analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather
the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities
reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have
to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have
protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the
policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from
autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is
also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in
China.)
 
It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the
BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and
through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long
station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for
a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living
in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also
what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.) 
 
As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros
sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more
money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on
infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities
facing megacities. 
 
Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of
the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be
pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140
kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush
hours. 
 
Eric Bruun  
 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Sujit Patwardhan 
Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM 
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport 
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe 

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>
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/fc7c5b39/attachment.html