[sustran] Re: Metros and sprawl

Eric Bruun ericbruun at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 10 12:06:04 JST 2006


Lee

I can't argue with you. I too think that the DC Metro might have gone out too far into the suburbs thereby promoting sprawl. I oppose all further extensions to the radial lines. I also agree that the BART extension to Dublin was a bad idea for the same reason. 

DC certainly should have some more tangential connections. This is where some BRT
is desperately needed yesterday. This is a problem almost everywhere in the US -- transit is being
built more for the benefit of higher-income commuters and for real estate developers than to promote
sustainable development or all-day use of transit. 

I would characterize BART and the DC Metro as "hybrid" systems. They use rapid transit
technology but serve two purposes: As rapid transit in the core and as commuter rail in
the burbs.   

Linking this back to places like Delhi: -- If the Metro goes too far out towards the fringes it 
might only aggravate the chaos out there. If anyone has done any research on the trade-off
between promoting sprawl and promoting sustainability, I would love to see it. 

Eric Bruun 


-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Schipper <schipper at wri.org>
>Sent: Feb 9, 2006 3:57 PM
>To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Subject: [sustran]  Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>
>But the other side of the DC and San Francisco question is whether the
>far extensions of metro that DO make sense simply invited people of
>means to move out there...as
>the population declined by almost 30% between 1975 and 1995 in
>WAshington. And the BART metro was explicitly built as an intercity rail
>system, NOt an in-town metro.
>
>Joining these two makes sense if one has a real city system, which we
>have in WAshington DC -- unfortunately I don't know Metro's market share
>of all travel in the corridors it serves. but as more and more movement
>because tangential, radil rail systems serving suburbus make less and
>less sense...
>
>>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 2/9/2006 3:47:23 PM >>>
>
>Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the
>operator
>of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property
>over the stations.
>In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should
>it occur). Also, in many regions
>politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the
>real estate -- they
>want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all
>be like Hong Kong does this
>mean we should never build Metros?
>
>I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once
>built, transport
>infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take
>sustainable development
>seriously, or not? 
>
>As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with
>focusing on construction
>costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than
>others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically
>function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential.
>What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs
>to be asked. 
>
>Eric
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lee Schipper <schipper at wri.org>
>>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM
>>To: ajain at kcrc.com, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
>>Subject: [sustran]  Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>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.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>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.
>
>
>================================================================
>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.



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list