[sustran] Yet more on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

[Eric Bruun]

Walter

(Sorry to others who may be getting bored. This is my last message on this subject.)

I wanted to drone on a little bit more, because you raised a really excellent point.

As you said, some of the aid is self-serving. In the case of Delhi, I think it is Japanese aid. I have mixed 
feelings on the subject of being committed to a certain technology or manufacturer. I have decided that
it is better that a country give self-serving aid that also helps others than prop up their industry by building more military hardware for export that drains poor countries of their foreign exchange.

I would love to see the huge defense industries of the US, France and the UK start building
railcars, control systems, hybrid propulsion systems, clean motorcycle engines, etc. for export rather than weapons. Better yet, I would like them to cut back on production for domestic military needs as well, and build even more export products. Not just finished equipment, but entire factories, industrial processes and training programs, so that the recipient nation eventually becomes self-sufficient.

In the long run, unless it is a monorail or other exotic mode that is being built, it probably isn't a lifetime commitment to one supplier. One can always switch to other suppliers later. In the case of India, I think that they are going to move towards steadily higher domestic content.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter Hook <whook at itdp.org>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 5:52 PM
>To: 'Eric Bruun' <ericbruun at earthlink.net>, 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>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>
>-----------------------------------------------------