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

[Lee Schipper]

Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great.

We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never
should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY
with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the
stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley,
Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension
towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no,
repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would
be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a
parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the
early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground.

The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver
high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We
did. We burned money. too bad. 

Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region
for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so
to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev!
Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped
center of the road.  What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend
ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money!

Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some
money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East,
as they say


>>> ajain at kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>>
Dear Lee,

I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently.
A
metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same
should
apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being
rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money
in
United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros.
Along
the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to
burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but
metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it
(we
also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no
subsidy).

The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or
white.

Alok
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper at wri.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
cost effective way of moving the people, fine.

 Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
lured -- the Lima metro
stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
friends
have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the
poor.

My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro
and
rail lines,
wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
service. 

They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of
the
Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!

Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money. 

It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
course. Maybe that's the problem.

You choose!

>>> ajain at kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
" 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.  "
 
I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
the
least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
Metro
depending on the corridor.
 
Alok Jain



"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or
proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity
to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or
contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a
result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal
disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
unless specifically so stated.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.