From sujit at vsnl.com Mon Mar 6 13:03:24 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:33:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Can Cheaper Cars Move Faster? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060306092952.01e1a738@vsnl.com> 5 March 2006 Dear All, Thought you may like to read this excellent article. Why can't we get stories researched in this manner instead of the ones merely "reporting" inauguration of every new flyover? -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 India The Hindu Date:04/03/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/04/stories/2006030405271100.htm ---------- Opinion - News Analysis Can cheaper cars move faster? G. Ananthakrishnan The car may appear to be more affordable now. However, restrictions on its use such as congestion charging, costlier parking, and reduced right of way in favour of buses, pedestrians, and cyclists may be inevitable. (Photo not included due to limitation on attachments) GRIDLOCKED: Bangalore is one of the cities worst affected by the explosion in the number of vehicles on the road. THERE HAS never been a better time to buy a car it would appear after the Union budget slashed excise duty. The eight per cent duty reduction for the small car has translated into a tangible and immediate lowering of the sticker price by up to Rs. 25,000. Much of the middle class views cheaper cars as a form of social justice, a somewhat belated correction introduced to an iniquitous system that has historically favoured the wealthy minority. Affordable cars, many think, also provide freedom from the hazardous, uncomfortable, and grossly insufficient buses in the public transport system and costly alternatives such as autorickshaws and taxis. Even before the latest price reduction, car sales registered strong growth since the availability of hire purchase on affordable terms. Things are even better after the budget ? cars that breach the promised one-lakh price barrier seem very feasible. Sales of passenger cars, already enjoying strong growth from the start of the present decade, are bound to grow even faster. The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers says 567,728 passenger cars were sold in 2000-01 and four years later, sales touched 819,918. The car is promoted heavily as a symbol of independence, comfort, and efficiency, and, above all, unfettered mobility. Those who wait for buses are forlorn figures, literally left out in the cold, waiting for the kindly soul to provide a lift in a car. Children are proud of fathers who can buy a "big car." Reality is different from advertising spots. In the urban context such creative images of freedom are replaced by the reality of gridlocked traffic, road rage, health impacts, higher accident rates, and, above all, a reduction in mobility. Travel times are actually becoming longer as a result of "automobilisation." Perhaps the best-known example of urban travel stress at a peak, with steady growth in private car (and two-wheeler) ownership is Bangalore. The discourse in Karnataka's capital has shifted to the need for public transit options as the default travel mode. Many other cities in early stages of gridlock are also actively considering investments in rail and bus systems. The imperative for public transit remains strong. During the time that it takes to put such systems in place, the States may have to meet the challenges of a rising car population. This is inevitable given the pressure that a sharp rise in the number of cars will exert on the poor civic infrastructure available even in the biggest cities today. Most apartment blocks do not have adequate parking slots if the majority of residents opt to own cars; parking facilities in public places are also scarce and there is increasing pressure to carve out road space currently serving pedestrians, cyclists and buses, to facilitate car parking. Compulsion to park on the kerb also raises the risk of theft and vandalism, besides the threat of policing penalties. While some of these issues can be addressed through policy interventions for short-term relief, the wider issue of declining efficiency caused by congestion, exemplified by the Bangalore experience, is unlikely to be mitigated. Chennai's experience, which is not exceptional, indicates that State Governments and municipal administrations are following civic policies that are in no position to handle rising car ownership. In its policy note for 2005-06 on Housing and Urban Development, the Tamil Nadu Government identifies nine intra-city sites for planned development of parking facilities in the State capital (some of them contentious from an environmental perspective because they privilege automobiles over other road users), but as the year draws to a close, these projects have not progressed to any appreciable degree. Another project announced at the start of the year, on creating a centralised testing track to assess applicants for driving licenses has not been commissioned in Chennai. Rising car ownership also has serious implications for fuel demand, pollution, and road safety. The Rocky Mountain Institute, quoted by Scientific American in a survey of energy in 2005, states that only 13 per cent of fuel energy used in a car reaches the wheels, the rest dissipating as heat and noise in the engine, the drive train, air conditioning, and idling. Moreover, 95 per cent of the accelerated mass is the car itself and only one per cent of fuel is utilised to move the driver. Few will be convinced that there is a case for facilitating the continued use of costly and polluting fossil fuels in this fashion. There is then the question of safety. Professor Dinesh Mohan, a traffic injury prevention expert at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, told a recent seminar on Bus Rapid Transit in Chennai that a staggering 20 million to 30 million people have been killed by motor vehicles and 500 million injured; about 80,000 lives are lost on Indian roads alone each year; the majority of those killed are pedestrians, cyclists, and riders of motorised two-wheelers. Need for policy change The World Health Organisation thinks that without a change in policies, vehicular accidents could kill or disable more people in 2020 than HIV, tuberculosis, stroke, diarrhoeal diseases, pneumonia, emphysema/bronchitis, and war. Are governments alive to the impending danger? Urban infrastructure is in a broken down condition. The journal Transport Policy put the issue in perspective in a 2005 paper titled "Urban transport crisis in India." John Pucher and his colleagues note that some gains have been made in reducing non-particulate emissions by changing the composition of automotive fuels, such as removing lead and lowering sulphur content, but India's cities remain seriously plagued by fundamental problems such as weak and low quality roads, unsafe driving behaviour, poor traffic signalling, signage, and law enforcement. National policy towards cars may thus have to progressively consider curbs on inefficient use of private vehicles, of which cars are the best example. Cost-effective alternatives such as buses, urban rail and para transit modes need active consideration and support. Though the car may appear to be more affordable now, restrictions on its use, such as congestion charging, costlier parking, ban in some pedestrian areas, and reduced right of way in favour of buses, pedestrians, and cyclists may be inevitable. ? Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 India Telephone: +91 20 255 37955 Email: , Web Site: www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060306/f98e0405/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Mar 7 17:02:43 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:02:43 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Recent blog posts Message-ID: Dear sustran-discussers Some of you may be interested in some of my blog postings at http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ since early February. Here is a list of headings. # POSITIVE visions and austere transport policies # Changing petrol price politics? Americans would support petrol tax? # Electric bicycles and other modes that "fall in the cracks" # Transport information resource: global Transport Knowledge Partnership # New urban transport news site with an Asia focus # Singapore to shift to fully accessible buses # Mass transit debates in developing country cities # Success Story: Seoul's 2004 Public Transport Reforms (new article) # Battles Over the Future of Mass Transit in India Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ | I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Perspectives on urban transport in developing countries: http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Wed Mar 8 17:50:59 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:50:59 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Apology Re: Recent blog posts Message-ID: Many apologies if you are using Internet Explorer and tried to visit http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ recently. The page probably did not load properly and might have caused your browser to hang. Firefox was OK. Not sure about other browsers. I believe I have now fixed the problem, so it should be safe to take another look. Will try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Today's posting is "Changing petrol price politics in Malaysia and Indonesia". Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ | I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Perspectives on urban transport in developing countries: http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Barter > Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:03 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Recent blog posts > > Dear sustran-discussers > > Some of you may be interested in some of my blog postings at > http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ since early February. > Here is a list of headings. > > # POSITIVE visions and austere transport policies # Changing > petrol price politics? Americans would support petrol tax? > # Electric bicycles and other modes that "fall in the cracks" > # Transport information resource: global Transport Knowledge > Partnership # New urban transport news site with an Asia > focus # Singapore to shift to fully accessible buses # Mass > transit debates in developing country cities # Success Story: > Seoul's 2004 Public Transport Reforms (new article) # Battles > Over the Future of Mass Transit in India > > Paul > > Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public > Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng > Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: > +65-6778 1020 | Email: > paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ | I am > speaking for myself, not for my employers. > > Perspectives on urban transport in developing countries: > http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ > > > From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Fri Mar 10 11:01:07 2006 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 21:01:07 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Transportation Planning position ... Message-ID: <45AEE06A4800AF4FAD8BEF09C433D85F0193397D@EXCHANGE2VS2.campus.mcgill.ca> Greetings all, I should like to draw your attention to the following academic position at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Madhav Badami McGill UNIVERSITY School of Urban Planning Full-time, tenure-track position in Urban Transportation Planning The School Urban Planning of McGill University invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track position at the rank of Assistant Professor, to begin in September 2006. Applicants should have a Ph.D. in Urban Planning or City & Regional Planning (or be in a position to earn the degree by the time they join the School) and show excellence or great promise in teaching and research. Though the position is initially targeted at junior faculty, exceptional candidates at the level of Associate or Full Professor will be considered as well. Situated in the heart of bilingual Montreal, McGill University is an international university whose primary language of instruction is English. McGill University contributes to, and benefits from, Montreal?s stimulating and cosmopolitan urban environment. The School of Urban Planning is part of the University's Faculty of Engineering and offers an accredited professional program in a teaching and research environment well-known for its academic excellence and collegiality. It houses a new Urban Systems Laboratory where professors and graduate students do research and modelling work. Further information about the School can be found at www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning. The ideal candidate will have expertise in urban transportation planning and policy, the link between land development and transport, transportation demand modelling and the use of quantitative methods of analysis and GIS. An ability to work in an inter-disciplinary environment and a desire to obtain professional accreditation are important as well. The successful candidate will teach at the graduate and undergraduate levels, with an average teaching load of three courses per year. He or she will be expected to develop an externally-funded research portfolio and to attract and supervise graduate students. A commitment to service to the academic, professional and local communities is also expected. For that purpose, knowledge of French, or a strong willingness to learn the language rapidly, will be essential. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Candidates should submit their curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching and research interests, and the names of at least three references to: Search Committee, Transportation Planning School of Urban Planning McGill University 815 Sherbrooke Street West, Room 400 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6 Application documents may also be sent by e-mail to Ms. Anand Sood at anand.sood@mcgill.ca. Review of applications will begin on March 31, 2006, and will continue until the position is filled. In accordance with Canadian Immigration requirements, priority will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada. McGill University is committed to Equity in Employment. ************************************************************************ "As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it." Antoine de Saint-Exupery Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work); 514-486-2370 (Home) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca From edelman at greenidea.info Sat Mar 11 01:41:33 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:41:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Mass-produced hybrid Diesel engine for buses In-Reply-To: <45AEE06A4800AF4FAD8BEF09C433D85F0193397D@EXCHANGE2VS2.campus.mcgill.c a> References: <45AEE06A4800AF4FAD8BEF09C433D85F0193397D@EXCHANGE2VS2.campus.mcgill.ca> Message-ID: <1265.62.245.95.24.1142008893.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Truck maker Volvo to launch hybrid engine in 2009 Questions/comments: 1 - Is there an online list of bus services using BioDiesel or better yet post-consumer BioDiesel in Asia? 2 - What kind of local development and manufacturing is there with bus engines in Asia? 3 - Trains have been "hybrids" for many years and a "this is what hybridism was meant for" could be a strong message in relation to buses 4 - Volvo system seems to use engine+generator+battery system but the company MAN is continuing a project with a working ultracapacitor hybrid bus in Nuremburg, Germany. This has significant advantages over battery and technology will trickle "down"... I have tech. info in German. 5 - What is the state-of-the-art in BRT buses in Asia or elsewhere (lowest emissions, energy use, etc)? The Orange Line bus in Los Angeles? - Todd ------ Reuters / March 10, 2006 - 8:00 am STOCKHOLM -- Truck maker Volvo aims to begin mass production in 2009 of a hybrid diesel-electric truck engine which would cut fuel consumption by up to 35 percent, it said on Friday. The Swedish group said that rising oil prices and political efforts to fight global warming by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide meant it now saw potential for a commercial launch of a more expensive, but more fuel-efficient hybrid truck engine. The new engine runs on both diesel and electric power from a battery. "The higher capital cost is compensated by lower fuel costs," Volvo CEO Leif Johansson told a news conference. "And then we are not counting on even higher fuel prices which could very well materialize, according to some forecasts." Volvo said that the new engine would be economically viable mainly for short-haul trucks, buses and construction equipment as electric propulsion was used mainly in connection with starting and stopping and at low speeds. "These are large segments of the market. We are talking about half of the overall heavy truck market and perhaps as much as 75 percent of the bus market and 100 percent of construction equipment," Johansson said on the sidelines of the conference. "The production volumes will to a great extent depend on the oil price. If the oil price stays at the current level or rises I am convinced that (this product) will have a major impact. We are talking at least several tens of thousands of vehicles (per year)." Volvo said it had invested $44.4 million to $50.8 million (350 million to 400 million Swedish crowns) in developing the engine and related components and would spend "one or more" billions in setting up serial production. ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From arulgreen at yahoo.com Sat Mar 11 18:10:35 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:10:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Bad idea again ? Chennai : CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots Message-ID: <20060311091035.63344.qmail@web51109.mail.yahoo.com> CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots Special Correspondent - The Hindu At Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government Estate ? High growth of vehicle ownership in the city ? Authorised parking space is only 5,100 PCE in 161 stretches ? Multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure, say experts ? "Better to adopt different strategies in different places" CHENNAI: After more than a decade of delay, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is finally set to issue orders on setting up multi-storeyed parking lots at three locations in the city. The announcement of elections though has temporarily postponed the launch of the projects. Places identified According to official sources, the Government agency has identified places for setting up the parking lots near Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government Estate. The mechanised parking lots are aimed at decongesting high traffic zones. The on street parking at Chennai Corporation-designated parking lots has resulted in severe clogging of several commercial zones in the city. Growing vehicle ownership A study on "Parking requirements of Chennai Metropolitan Area" carried out by Wilbur Smith Associates in 2003 had pointed at the high growth of vehicle ownership in the city - from 4 vehicles per 100 persons in 1981 to 14 per 100 persons in 1991 to 30 per 100 persons in 2001. The peak hour parking demand in the city was calculated at around 13,000-passenger car equivalent (PCE; which is roughly equal to space needed for parking 5,000 cars and 15,000 two wheelers). Authorised parking space maintained by Chennai Corporation was only 5,100 PCE spread across 161 stretches. In the commercial zones of T. Nagar and Parrys Corner, parking demand far exceeded the on street capacity. This also led to an average loss in road capacity of over 40 per cent. The study suggested a comprehensive review of the parking policy to address the problem. Private construction firm Mecon India took up a detailed study of the proposals for multi storey parking lots in six locations in Chennai. Three projects at Broadway, Panagal Park and Government Estate off Anna Salai are to be taken up initially. A 3.5-acre land near Broadway bus stand will be developed as a four-storeyed parking lot. The automated facility will be used for parking over 300 two wheelers and over 350 cars, besides the buses. The facility at Panagal Park will come up on half an acre plot within the park premises. It will be used for parking close to 300 two-wheelers, 350 cars and around 20 commercial vehicles. At the Omandurar Government Estate off Anna Salai, parking facility will be created for over 400 cars. Others places where similar parking facilities are being considered include the 4-acre-MUC (Madras United Club) grounds in Broadway, and the 0.4-acre MTC depot on Pattullous Road. Officials are preparing detailed project reports for the proposals. Holistic approach Experts have maintained that multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure and it would be better to adopt different strategies in different places. The Western countries, especially in Europe, have found success in reducing congestion by declaring them fully pedestrian zones. Vehicles are parked outside the market. http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/11/stories/2006031117570300.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sksunny at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 16:01:48 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:01:48 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <20060312030117.40F172BD8C@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060312030117.40F172BD8C@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <4413C75C.2050309@gmail.com> Hello All, Finally, Chennai is having its multi-storeyed parking lots. So chennai people will be seeing more cars, and even more pollution. When I was in chennai there was a city wide project to increase the flyover constructions. In a booming metropolitan like Chennai providing gererous parking facilties will not do any good for the lower and middle income categories especially who depend on the Transit. For a city like chennai which has already got a good public transit need to improve the exisitng and provide more interactions with the Public rail aka MRTS in Chennai. I have seen a good interaction of MRTS in Mylapore but the other stations are a bit far from the bus centers. The roads are perfectly fit and there is not need for an extension or widening of the roads, because more roads will lead to more traffic, induced demand. In my opinion Chennai has to invest more in their public transit, and improve the quality of their buses. if more preseference is given to private mobility then the poor will be the most disadvantaged forllowed by the disabled and the otehr vulnerable groups. A BRT would be a good idea in Chennai especially on the stretch of Anna Salai (Mount Road) extending right from Broadway to the Airport (Tirushulam). Apart from investing in public transit CMDA can encourage non-motorised transit like walking and cycling. Walking condition in Chennai is not as bad as here in Bangkok, where I am writing from. but the levels are dropping at a steady pace and this is because of the incentives that people get to buy a car and these incentives are both direct, flexible bank loans etc. and indirect, more road and parking. A perfect place for pedestrianising would be the Pondy Bazaar area where there is lot of shopping activity and it is proved by many researches including mine that pedestrianising the shopping centers will increase the income for the businesses. Pricing for the parking would be a great income for the government which in turn can be used for developing the parks or increasing the public spaces. But for all this to happen there has to be 2 main igniting sources. One is the local government or the CMDA and the 2nd is the people. Any attempt to motivate these two ajor stakeholders will result in a sustainable transport in Chennai. I will be very happy if other members post their comments on the above. Sunny --------- Santhosh Kumar K, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, Salaya, Thailand sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: >Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >"Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > > >######################################################################## >Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > >About this mailing list see: > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >######################################################################## > > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Bad idea again ? Chennai : CMDA to issue orders for > multi-storeyed parking lots (arul rathinam) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:10:35 -0800 (PST) >From: arul rathinam >Subject: [sustran] Bad idea again ? Chennai : CMDA to issue orders for > multi-storeyed parking lots >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >Message-ID: <20060311091035.63344.qmail@web51109.mail.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots > >Special Correspondent - The Hindu > >At Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >Estate > >? High growth of vehicle ownership in the city >? Authorised parking space is only 5,100 PCE in 161 >stretches >? Multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure, >say experts >? "Better to adopt different strategies in different >places" > >CHENNAI: After more than a decade of delay, the >Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is >finally set to issue orders on setting up >multi-storeyed parking lots at three locations in the >city. >The announcement of elections though has temporarily >postponed the launch of the projects. > >Places identified > >According to official sources, the Government agency >has identified places for setting up the parking lots >near Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >Estate. The mechanised parking lots are aimed at >decongesting high traffic zones. The on street parking >at Chennai Corporation-designated parking lots has >resulted in severe clogging of several commercial >zones in the city. > >Growing vehicle ownership > >A study on "Parking requirements of Chennai >Metropolitan Area" carried out by Wilbur Smith >Associates in 2003 had pointed at the high growth of >vehicle ownership in the city - from 4 vehicles per >100 persons in 1981 to 14 per 100 persons in 1991 to >30 per 100 persons in 2001. > >The peak hour parking demand in the city was >calculated at around 13,000-passenger car equivalent >(PCE; which is roughly equal to space needed for >parking 5,000 cars and 15,000 two wheelers). >Authorised parking space maintained by Chennai >Corporation was only 5,100 PCE spread across 161 >stretches. > >In the commercial zones of T. Nagar and Parrys Corner, >parking demand far exceeded the on street capacity. >This also led to an average loss in road capacity of >over 40 per cent. > >The study suggested a comprehensive review of the >parking policy to address the problem. >Private construction firm Mecon India took up a >detailed study of the proposals for multi storey >parking lots in six locations in Chennai. > >Three projects at Broadway, Panagal Park and >Government Estate off Anna Salai are to be taken up >initially. > >A 3.5-acre land near Broadway bus stand will be >developed as a four-storeyed parking lot. The >automated facility will be used for parking over 300 >two wheelers and over 350 cars, besides the buses. > >The facility at Panagal Park will come up on half an >acre plot within the park premises. > >It will be used for parking close to 300 two-wheelers, >350 cars and around 20 commercial vehicles. >At the Omandurar Government Estate off Anna Salai, >parking facility will be created for over 400 cars. > >Others places where similar parking facilities are >being considered include the 4-acre-MUC (Madras United >Club) grounds in Broadway, and the 0.4-acre MTC depot >on Pattullous Road. Officials are preparing detailed >project reports for the proposals. > >Holistic approach > >Experts have maintained that multi-storeyed parking >lots are no miracle cure and it would be better to >adopt different strategies in different places. > >The Western countries, especially in Europe, have >found success in reducing congestion by declaring them >fully pedestrian zones. > >Vehicles are parked outside the market. > >http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/11/stories/2006031117570300.htm > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > >------------------------------ > >================================================================ >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. > >End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 6 >********************************************** > > > From arulgreen at yahoo.com Sun Mar 12 19:10:49 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:10:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction of multi-storeyed parking lots Message-ID: <20060312101049.32772.qmail@web51110.mail.yahoo.com> NGO criticises proposal for construction of multi-storeyed parking lots The Hindu ? 12-03-2006 Chennai : Opposing the proposal to construct a multi-storeyed parking lot at Panagal Park and T. Nagar, Pasumai Thayagam, a non-Governmental organisation, on Saturday said only an integrated traffic development system should be attempted to find a solution to the city's traffic congestion. The idea to construct a parking lot at the Park would amount to ignoring the requirements of a vast majority. More vehicles The organisation explained that the main reason for the congestion was the explosion in vehicle population. Increasing the number of public transport buses and frequency of train services, improving footpaths and according preference to bicycles would ease the situation. It said construction of parking lots should be regulated and suit the needs of the locality. When countries around the world were trying to find progressive solutions, wrong schemes such as multi-storeyed parking and monorail system were being planned in Chennai, a release from the organisation lamented. http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/12/stories/2006031217390300.htm CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots The Hindu ? 11-03-2006 At Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government Estate ? High growth of vehicle ownership in the city ? Authorised parking space is only 5,100 PCE in 161 stretches ? Multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure, say experts ? "Better to adopt different strategies in different places" CHENNAI: After more than a decade of delay, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is finally set to issue orders on setting up multi-storeyed parking lots at three locations in the city. The announcement of elections though has temporarily postponed the launch of the projects. Places identified According to official sources, the Government agency has identified places for setting up the parking lots near Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government Estate. The mechanised parking lots are aimed at decongesting high traffic zones. The on street parking at Chennai Corporation-designated parking lots has resulted in severe clogging of several commercial zones in the city. Growing vehicle ownership A study on "Parking requirements of Chennai Metropolitan Area" carried out by Wilbur Smith Associates in 2003 had pointed at the high growth of vehicle ownership in the city - from 4 vehicles per 100 persons in 1981 to 14 per 100 persons in 1991 to 30 per 100 persons in 2001. The peak hour parking demand in the city was calculated at around 13,000-passenger car equivalent (PCE; which is roughly equal to space needed for parking 5,000 cars and 15,000 two wheelers). Authorised parking space maintained by Chennai Corporation was only 5,100 PCE spread across 161 stretches. In the commercial zones of T. Nagar and Parrys Corner, parking demand far exceeded the on street capacity. This also led to an average loss in road capacity of over 40 per cent. The study suggested a comprehensive review of the parking policy to address the problem. Private construction firm Mecon India took up a detailed study of the proposals for multi storey parking lots in six locations in Chennai. Three projects at Broadway, Panagal Park and Government Estate off Anna Salai are to be taken up initially. A 3.5-acre land near Broadway bus stand will be developed as a four-storeyed parking lot. The automated facility will be used for parking over 300 two wheelers and over 350 cars, besides the buses. The facility at Panagal Park will come up on half an acre plot within the park premises. It will be used for parking close to 300 two-wheelers, 350 cars and around 20 commercial vehicles. At the Omandurar Government Estate off Anna Salai, parking facility will be created for over 400 cars. Others places where similar parking facilities are being considered include the 4-acre-MUC (Madras United Club) grounds in Broadway, and the 0.4-acre MTC depot on Pattullous Road. Officials are preparing detailed project reports for the proposals. Holistic approach Experts have maintained that multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure and it would be better to adopt different strategies in different places. The Western countries, especially in Europe, have found success in reducing congestion by declaring them fully pedestrian zones. Vehicles are parked outside the market. http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/11/stories/2006031117570300.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ajain at kcrc.com Mon Mar 13 12:46:09 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:46:09 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction ofmulti-storeyed parking lots Message-ID: It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport. This is the loud minority and have almost always gotten their way (it may be wrong but it's a fact) in India. But instead of opposing the car-parks, why shouldn't one ask for: - high parking charges with all of it going towards improvement of public transport - corresponding pedestrianisation, BRT, MRT or whatever is most suitable (I remember when Singapore launched Area Licensing, they built multi-story car parks on the periphery of the cordon and it worked quite well - removal of grade-level parkings and converting these lots into public spaces Alok -----Original Message----- From: arul rathinam [mailto:arulgreen@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:11 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction ofmulti-storeyed parking lots NGO criticises proposal for construction of multi-storeyed parking lots "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. From ganant at vsnl.com Tue Mar 14 00:18:10 2006 From: ganant at vsnl.com (ganant at vsnl.com) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:18:10 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots Message-ID: <31bda731be52.31be5231bda7@vsnl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060313/11620f55/attachment.html From arulgreen at yahoo.com Tue Mar 14 03:10:17 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:10:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots In-Reply-To: <31bda731be52.31be5231bda7@vsnl.net> Message-ID: <20060313181017.21885.qmail@web51113.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Mr.Anant We are planning to organize a small citizen?s consultation in April 2006 on ?the Role of Railways in Chennai Transport? to prepare recommendations to for Railway Ministry. Then we will have a larger meeting with the Union Minister of State for Railways Mr. Velu and other high officials. We need advice. ARUL --- ganant@vsnl.com wrote: --------------------------------- There is a lot of merit in what Jain says. Also, what Pasumai Thayagam says is not really new. A proposal to build a car park in or near the park in question was raised even by the Government in power in the State between 1996-2001 (the party in power then, the DMK, is a political ally of Pasumai Thayagam's founding party now, in the Indian federal government). The parking lot plan was resisted by some environmentalists and the media. There was not much political support for such a stance six years ago, and it was seen as a fringe demand by elitist environmentalists who were opposed to development. There are many non-controversial sites available to provide car parking at whatver user fee. As I have mentioned earlier on this list, the Railway Ministry of India is sitting on a lot of property, including the underutilised stations of the Mass Rapid Transit System between Beach and Thiruvanmiyur and the suburban lines. Pasumai Thayagam (PT) is ideally placed to use its excellent equation with the Union Minister of State for Railways, Mr.Velu (who belongs to the party that founded Pasumai Thayagam), to demonstrate the ideal use of rail-private vehicle integration through park and ride. PT must first work to reform the way the railway park and ride system works. It has unclean, unsafe and antiquated park and ride facilities for motorised two wheelers and bicycles. Can these be improved? Can there be tiered, clean, safe and accountable systems in the railway stations? Will PT campaign to get existing public buses to at least drive through these station complexes wherever feasible ? Anant ----- Original Message ----- From: Jain Alok Date: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:16 am Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots > It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift > immediately to public transport. This is the loud minority and have > almost always gotten their way (it may be wrong but it's a fact) in > India. But instead of opposing the car-parks, why shouldn't one > ask for: > > - high parking charges with all of it going towards improvement of > public transport > - corresponding pedestrianisation, BRT, MRT or whatever is most > suitable(I remember when Singapore launched Area Licensing, they built > multi-story car parks on the periphery of the cordon and it worked > quitewell > - removal of grade-level parkings and converting these lots into > publicspaces > > Alok > > -----Original Message----- > From: arul rathinam [arulgreen@yahoo.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:11 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction > ofmulti-storeyed parking lots > > NGO criticises proposal for construction of > multi-storeyed parking lots > > > > "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. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From litman at vtpi.org Tue Mar 14 05:59:45 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:59:45 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction of multi-storeyed parking lots In-Reply-To: <20060312101049.32772.qmail@web51110.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060312101049.32772.qmail@web51110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060313125447.0321c958@mail.islandnet.com> See our new report, "Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) which discusses various ways of encouraging more efficient use of parking facilities. Mutli-story parking lots are so costly that they seldom recover their full costs, and so require public subsidy (often a hidden subsidy in the form of tax exemptions). It is far better to use mobility and parking management strategies as much as possible before any new parking supply is added. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 02:10 AM 3/12/2006, arul rathinam wrote: >NGO criticises proposal for construction of >multi-storeyed parking lots > >The Hindu ? 12-03-2006 > >Chennai : Opposing the proposal to construct a >multi-storeyed parking lot at Panagal Park and T. >Nagar, Pasumai Thayagam, a non-Governmental >organisation, on Saturday said only an integrated >traffic development system should be attempted to find >a solution to the city's traffic congestion. > >The idea to construct a parking lot at the Park would >amount to ignoring the requirements of a vast >majority. > >More vehicles > >The organisation explained that the main reason for >the congestion was the explosion in vehicle >population. > >Increasing the number of public transport buses and >frequency of train services, improving footpaths and >according preference to bicycles would ease the >situation. > >It said construction of parking lots should be >regulated and suit the needs of the locality. > >When countries around the world were trying to find >progressive solutions, wrong schemes such as >multi-storeyed parking and monorail system were being >planned in Chennai, a release from the organisation >lamented. > >http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/12/stories/2006031217390300.htm > > >CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots > >The Hindu ? 11-03-2006 > >At Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >Estate > >? High growth of vehicle ownership in the city >? Authorised parking space is only 5,100 PCE in 161 >stretches >? Multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure, >say experts >? "Better to adopt different strategies in different >places" > >CHENNAI: After more than a decade of delay, the >Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is >finally set to issue orders on setting up >multi-storeyed parking lots at three locations in the >city. >The announcement of elections though has temporarily >postponed the launch of the projects. > >Places identified > >According to official sources, the Government agency >has identified places for setting up the parking lots >near Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >Estate. The mechanised parking lots are aimed at >decongesting high traffic zones. The on street parking >at Chennai Corporation-designated parking lots has >resulted in severe clogging of several commercial >zones in the city. > >Growing vehicle ownership > >A study on "Parking requirements of Chennai >Metropolitan Area" carried out by Wilbur Smith >Associates in 2003 had pointed at the high growth of >vehicle ownership in the city - from 4 vehicles per >100 persons in 1981 to 14 per 100 persons in 1991 to >30 per 100 persons in 2001. > >The peak hour parking demand in the city was >calculated at around 13,000-passenger car equivalent >(PCE; which is roughly equal to space needed for >parking 5,000 cars and 15,000 two wheelers). > >Authorised parking space maintained by Chennai >Corporation was only 5,100 PCE spread across 161 >stretches. > >In the commercial zones of T. Nagar and Parrys Corner, >parking demand far exceeded the on street capacity. >This also led to an average loss in road capacity of >over 40 per cent. > >The study suggested a comprehensive review of the >parking policy to address the problem. > >Private construction firm Mecon India took up a >detailed study of the proposals for multi storey >parking lots in six locations in Chennai. > >Three projects at Broadway, Panagal Park and >Government Estate off Anna Salai are to be taken up >initially. > >A 3.5-acre land near Broadway bus stand will be >developed as a four-storeyed parking lot. The >automated facility will be used for parking over 300 >two wheelers and over 350 cars, besides the buses. > >The facility at Panagal Park will come up on half an >acre plot within the park premises. > >It will be used for parking close to 300 two-wheelers, >350 cars and around 20 commercial vehicles. >At the Omandurar Government Estate off Anna Salai, >parking facility will be created for over 400 cars. > >Others places where similar parking facilities are >being considered include the 4-acre-MUC (Madras United >Club) grounds in Broadway, and the 0.4-acre MTC depot >on Pattullous Road. Officials are preparing detailed >project reports for the proposals. > >Holistic approach > >Experts have maintained that multi-storeyed parking >lots are no miracle cure and it would be better to >adopt different strategies in different places. > >The Western countries, especially in Europe, have >found success in reducing congestion by declaring them >fully pedestrian zones. Vehicles are parked outside >the market. > >http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/11/stories/2006031117570300.htm > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > >================================================================ >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. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060313/6a642b43/attachment.html From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Tue Mar 14 05:51:53 2006 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:51:53 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai Message-ID: I'm sure this topic must have come up before on the list, but please forgive me for raising it again. I have just returned from two weeks in Mumbai, where I am working on a project to improve the performance of the bus company (BEST). While it is not a main focus of our activities, the problem of auto-rickshaws (autos) was highly apparent. I don't have the figures to hand, but IIRC Mumbai has one lakh (1,00,000) autos, and 60,000 taxis. The autos are banned from downtown, so are even more concentrated elsewhere. Taxis and autos together carry about 5% of all person trips, while buses and trains together carry about 88% (split approx 50/50 between the two modes). Both taxis and autos seem to have pretty low overall load factors, and cruise empty a lot of the time - even in peaks. The 3,000+ buses are well loaded, and in the peaks are packed. The autos cause major traffic congestion - they tend to congregate at transport interchanges, where they seriously impede the flow of buses (I have photos if anyone is interested!) It seems obvious to me that in transport terms the autos are a plain nuisance and should be banned outright (many of them are 2-stroke, and the pollution is appalling). BUT, they provide a livelihood for 1,00,000 families - even if the number of buses had to be increased to cater for the extra passengers (which is doubtful), they would not soak up a fraction of the jobs - and BEST already employs more staff per bus than most urban buscos in India. So has anyone got any bright suggestions for squaring this circle? (NB - Mumbai, with a population of 16m, apparently only has 5,00,000 formal jobs - difficult to soak up 1,00,000 guys there. And also NB - those commas in numbers are in the right place - for India.) Regards, Alan -- ** Sent from my home email - please reply to alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk ** with copy to alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan and Partners 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ From lfwright at usa.net Tue Mar 14 06:31:49 2006 From: lfwright at usa.net (Lloyd Wright) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:31:49 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai Message-ID: <794kcmVfx3968S07.1142285509@cmsweb07.cms.usa.net> Well, if the auto-rickshaws become cycle rickshaws the jobs are saved and air quality will benefit. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:09:17 PM EST From: Alan P Howes To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.orgCc: alok.bhardwaj@tcs.com, arun.mokashi@tcs.com Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai BUT, they provide a livelihood for 1,00,000 families - even if the number of buses had to be increased to cater for the extra passengers (which is doubtful), they would not soak up a fraction of the jobs - and BEST already employs more staff per bus than most urban buscos in India. So has anyone got any bright suggestions for squaring this circle? (NB - Mumbai, with a population of 16m, apparently only has 5,00,000 formal jobs - difficult to soak up 1,00,000 guys there. And also NB - those commas in numbers are in the right place - for India.) Regards, Alan From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Mar 14 07:02:57 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:02:57 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai In-Reply-To: <794kcmVfx3968S07.1142285509@cmsweb07.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: <200603132202.k2DM2t4K021822@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> Lloyd Wright's suggestion to replace auto-rickshaws for cycle-rickshaws is a great idea, but implies hard work convincing owners and drivers of the vehicles that they will earn the same amount of money with cycle rickshaws, and that they have a much lower cost of maintenance. I'm in a similar process (motorcycle taxis to cycle-rickshaws) here, but the major obstacle is the one I just mentioned (also, drivers don't like a human-powered vehicle vs a motorized one, since it is they who are pedalling). The other obviously difficult factor is to persuade people (and/or policymakers) into the idea that NMT is not a sign of backwardness or poorness (this also includes changing regulations for rickshaws). If these two things are well managed, you'll have an easier way to replacement. ITDP has a lot of experience in the actual improvement of rickshaws in India and Indonesia with Shreya Gadepalli, generating much more efficient cycle rickshaws at a similar cost. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd Wright Sent: Lunes, 13 de Marzo de 2006 04:32 p.m. To: alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai Well, if the auto-rickshaws become cycle rickshaws the jobs are saved and air quality will benefit. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:09:17 PM EST From: Alan P Howes To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.orgCc: alok.bhardwaj@tcs.com, arun.mokashi@tcs.com Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai BUT, they provide a livelihood for 1,00,000 families - even if the number of buses had to be increased to cater for the extra passengers (which is doubtful), they would not soak up a fraction of the jobs - and BEST already employs more staff per bus than most urban buscos in India. So has anyone got any bright suggestions for squaring this circle? (NB - Mumbai, with a population of 16m, apparently only has 5,00,000 formal jobs - difficult to soak up 1,00,000 guys there. And also NB - those commas in numbers are in the right place - for India.) Regards, Alan ================================================================ 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. From regina at wholechoice.net Tue Mar 14 10:28:02 2006 From: regina at wholechoice.net (Regina Anderson) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:28:02 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai In-Reply-To: <200603132202.k2DM2t4K021822@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> References: <794kcmVfx3968S07.1142285509@cmsweb07.cms.usa.net> <200603132202.k2DM2t4K021822@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> Message-ID: <20060314011217.M1790@wholechoice.net> Just a few thoughts as a planner and former resident of Bombay. The rickshaws serve trip lengths that buses don't cater well too, and because they are cheaper they are a preferred choice for many trips. The same congestion problem would happen with cycle rickshaws, so that issue is one of traffic management, similar to temples and shop stalls being regularly set up on the right of way also being a management issue(temples in particular, are very hard to have removed, therefore are very effective in staking out land). Just for scale note that "the city" or "downtown" in Bombay stretches all the way to Mahim Creek where Bandra begins, so the area where autos are not allowed is really quite large - like being kept out of Manhattan and relegated to the outer burroughs in New York City. The image issue of bicycles being backward is the real hurdle. I don't see how this will be overcome in the near future in Bombay, so can't consider it a realistic possibility to convert autos back to pedal rickshaws. Yes, ITDP has done work in India with rickshaws, including a project in Agra that I believe was to convert autos to cycle rickshaws - the hook there was that the Taj Mahal's buildings were being damaged by the air pollution so there was willingness, and as a small tourist town it was not a big transportation issue. Don't know that any such hook could be found at this time in Bombay. best, Gina -- Regina Manzo Anderson, AICP Whole Choice - Movement for Health, Pedestrian Planning, Sustainability Bras Basah P.O. Box 315 Singapore 180231 Phone +65 9733-1006 Fax +65 6476-7604 ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" , Sent: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:02:57 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai > Lloyd Wright's suggestion to replace auto-rickshaws for cycle- > rickshaws is a great idea, but implies hard work convincing owners > and drivers of the vehicles that they will earn the same amount of > money with cycle rickshaws, and that they have a much lower cost of > maintenance. I'm in a similar process (motorcycle taxis to cycle- > rickshaws) here, but the major obstacle is the one I just mentioned > (also, drivers don't like a human-powered vehicle vs a motorized one, > since it is they who are pedalling). > > The other obviously difficult factor is to persuade people (and/or > policymakers) into the idea that NMT is not a sign of backwardness or > poorness (this also includes changing regulations for rickshaws). If > these two things are well managed, you'll have an easier way to > replacement. ITDP has a lot of experience in the actual improvement > of rickshaws in India and Indonesia with Shreya Gadepalli, > generating much more efficient cycle rickshaws at a similar cost. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss- > bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd Wright > Sent: Lunes, 13 de Marzo de 2006 04:32 p.m. > To: alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai > > Well, if the auto-rickshaws become cycle rickshaws the jobs are > saved and air quality will benefit. > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:09:17 PM EST > From: Alan P Howes > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.orgCc: alok.bhardwaj@tcs.com, > arun.mokashi@tcs.com > Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai > > BUT, they provide a livelihood for 1,00,000 families - even if the > number of buses had to be increased to cater for the extra passengers > (which is doubtful), they would not soak up a fraction of the jobs - > and BEST already employs more staff per bus than most urban buscos in > India. > > So has anyone got any bright suggestions for squaring this circle? > > (NB - Mumbai, with a population of 16m, apparently only has 5,00,000 > formal jobs - difficult to soak up 1,00,000 guys there. And also NB > - those commas in numbers are in the right place - for India.) > > Regards, Alan > > ================================================================ > 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. ------- End of Original Message ------- From sksunny at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 18:05:40 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:05:40 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: <20060314030110.C70402BD63@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060314030110.C70402BD63@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <44168764.6000006@gmail.com> Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is political will and consensus there will always be a success. In Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT would be an apt solution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and more cars. Sunny Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws would be a wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the society Sunny sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > > > ######################################################################## > Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > > About this mailing list see: > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > ######################################################################## > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction > ofmulti-storeyed parking lots (Jain Alok) > 2. Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots (ganant@vsnl.com) > 3. Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots (arul rathinam) > 4. Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction of > multi-storeyed parking lots (Todd Alexander Litman) > 5. Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai (Alan P Howes) > 6. Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai (Lloyd Wright) > 7. Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) > 8. Re: Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai (Regina Anderson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:46:09 +0800 > From: "Jain Alok" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > construction ofmulti-storeyed parking lots > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift > immediately to public transport. This is the loud minority and have > almost always gotten their way (it may be wrong but it's a fact) in > India. But instead of opposing the car-parks, why shouldn't one ask for: > > - high parking charges with all of it going towards improvement of > public transport > - corresponding pedestrianisation, BRT, MRT or whatever is most suitable > (I remember when Singapore launched Area Licensing, they built > multi-story car parks on the periphery of the cordon and it worked quite > well > - removal of grade-level parkings and converting these lots into public > spaces > > Alok > > -----Original Message----- > From: arul rathinam [mailto:arulgreen@yahoo.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:11 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for construction > ofmulti-storeyed parking lots > > NGO criticises proposal for construction of > multi-storeyed parking lots > > > > "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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:18:10 +0500 > From: ganant@vsnl.com > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Message-ID: <31bda731be52.31be5231bda7@vsnl.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060313/11620f55/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:10:17 -0800 (PST) > From: arul rathinam > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Message-ID: <20060313181017.21885.qmail@web51113.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Dear Mr.Anant > > We are planning to organize a small citizen?s > consultation in April 2006 on ?the Role of Railways in > Chennai Transport? to prepare recommendations to for > Railway Ministry. Then we will have a larger meeting > with the Union Minister of State for Railways Mr. Velu > and other high officials. > > We need advice. > > ARUL > > --- ganant@vsnl.com wrote: > > --------------------------------- > > There is a lot of merit in what Jain says. Also, what > Pasumai Thayagam says is not really new. A proposal to > build a car park in or near the park in question was > raised even by the Government in power in the State > between 1996-2001 (the party in power then, the DMK, > is a political ally of Pasumai Thayagam's founding > party now, in the Indian federal government). The > parking lot plan was resisted by some > environmentalists and the media. There was not much > political support for such a stance six years ago, and > it was seen as a fringe demand by elitist > environmentalists who were opposed to development. > > There are many non-controversial sites available to > provide car parking at whatver user fee. As I have > mentioned earlier on this list, the Railway Ministry > of India is sitting on a lot of property, including > the underutilised stations of the Mass Rapid Transit > System between Beach and Thiruvanmiyur and the > suburban lines. > > Pasumai Thayagam (PT) is ideally placed to use its > excellent equation with the Union Minister of State > for Railways, Mr.Velu (who belongs to the party that > founded Pasumai Thayagam), to demonstrate the ideal > use of rail-private vehicle integration through park > and ride. > > PT must first work to reform the way the railway park > and ride system works. It has unclean, unsafe and > antiquated park and ride facilities for motorised two > wheelers and bicycles. Can these be improved? Can > there be tiered, clean, safe and accountable systems > in the railway stations? Will PT campaign to get > existing public buses to at least drive through these > station complexes wherever feasible ? > > Anant > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jain Alok > > Date: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:16 am > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises > proposal for constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots > > >> It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can >> > be made to shift > >> immediately to public transport. This is the loud >> > minority and have > >> almost always gotten their way (it may be wrong but >> > it's a fact) in > >> India. But instead of opposing the car-parks, why >> > shouldn't one > >> ask for: >> >> - high parking charges with all of it going towards >> > improvement of > >> public transport >> - corresponding pedestrianisation, BRT, MRT or >> > whatever is most > >> suitable(I remember when Singapore launched Area >> > Licensing, they built > >> multi-story car parks on the periphery of the cordon >> > and it worked > >> quitewell >> - removal of grade-level parkings and converting >> > these lots into > >> publicspaces >> >> Alok >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arul rathinam [arulgreen@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:11 PM >> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >> Subject: [sustran] Chennai: NGO criticises proposal >> > for construction > >> ofmulti-storeyed parking lots >> >> NGO criticises proposal for construction of >> multi-storeyed parking lots >> >> >> >> "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. >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:59:45 -0800 > From: Todd Alexander Litman > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for > construction of multi-storeyed parking lots > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060313125447.0321c958@mail.islandnet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > See our new report, "Parking Management: > Strategies, Evaluation and Planning" > (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) which > discusses various ways of encouraging more > efficient use of parking facilities. Mutli-story > parking lots are so costly that they seldom > recover their full costs, and so require public > subsidy (often a hidden subsidy in the form of > tax exemptions). It is far better to use mobility > and parking management strategies as much as > possible before any new parking supply is added. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > > > At 02:10 AM 3/12/2006, arul rathinam wrote: > >> NGO criticises proposal for construction of >> multi-storeyed parking lots >> >> The Hindu ? 12-03-2006 >> >> Chennai : Opposing the proposal to construct a >> multi-storeyed parking lot at Panagal Park and T. >> Nagar, Pasumai Thayagam, a non-Governmental >> organisation, on Saturday said only an integrated >> traffic development system should be attempted to find >> a solution to the city's traffic congestion. >> >> The idea to construct a parking lot at the Park would >> amount to ignoring the requirements of a vast >> majority. >> >> More vehicles >> >> The organisation explained that the main reason for >> the congestion was the explosion in vehicle >> population. >> >> Increasing the number of public transport buses and >> frequency of train services, improving footpaths and >> according preference to bicycles would ease the >> situation. >> >> It said construction of parking lots should be >> regulated and suit the needs of the locality. >> >> When countries around the world were trying to find >> progressive solutions, wrong schemes such as >> multi-storeyed parking and monorail system were being >> planned in Chennai, a release from the organisation >> lamented. >> >> http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/12/stories/2006031217390300.htm >> >> >> CMDA to issue orders for multi-storeyed parking lots >> >> The Hindu ? 11-03-2006 >> >> At Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >> Estate >> >> ? High growth of vehicle ownership in the city >> ? Authorised parking space is only 5,100 PCE in 161 >> stretches >> ? Multi-storeyed parking lots are no miracle cure, >> say experts >> ? "Better to adopt different strategies in different >> places" >> >> CHENNAI: After more than a decade of delay, the >> Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is >> finally set to issue orders on setting up >> multi-storeyed parking lots at three locations in the >> city. >> The announcement of elections though has temporarily >> postponed the launch of the projects. >> >> Places identified >> >> According to official sources, the Government agency >> has identified places for setting up the parking lots >> near Broadway bus stand, Panagal Park and Government >> Estate. The mechanised parking lots are aimed at >> decongesting high traffic zones. The on street parking >> at Chennai Corporation-designated parking lots has >> resulted in severe clogging of several commercial >> zones in the city. >> >> Growing vehicle ownership >> >> A study on "Parking requirements of Chennai >> Metropolitan Area" carried out by Wilbur Smith >> Associates in 2003 had pointed at the high growth of >> vehicle ownership in the city - from 4 vehicles per >> 100 persons in 1981 to 14 per 100 persons in 1991 to >> 30 per 100 persons in 2001. >> >> The peak hour parking demand in the city was >> calculated at around 13,000-passenger car equivalent >> (PCE; which is roughly equal to space needed for >> parking 5,000 cars and 15,000 two wheelers). >> >> Authorised parking space maintained by Chennai >> Corporation was only 5,100 PCE spread across 161 >> stretches. >> >> In the commercial zones of T. Nagar and Parrys Corner, >> parking demand far exceeded the on street capacity. >> This also led to an average loss in road capacity of >> over 40 per cent. >> >> The study suggested a comprehensive review of the >> parking policy to address the problem. >> >> Private construction firm Mecon India took up a >> detailed study of the proposals for multi storey >> parking lots in six locations in Chennai. >> >> Three projects at Broadway, Panagal Park and >> Government Estate off Anna Salai are to be taken up >> initially. >> >> A 3.5-acre land near Broadway bus stand will be >> developed as a four-storeyed parking lot. The >> automated facility will be used for parking over 300 >> two wheelers and over 350 cars, besides the buses. >> >> The facility at Panagal Park will come up on half an >> acre plot within the park premises. >> >> It will be used for parking close to 300 two-wheelers, >> 350 cars and around 20 commercial vehicles. >> At the Omandurar Government Estate off Anna Salai, >> parking facility will be created for over 400 cars. >> >> Others places where similar parking facilities are >> being considered include the 4-acre-MUC (Madras United >> Club) grounds in Broadway, and the 0.4-acre MTC depot >> on Pattullous Road. Officials are preparing detailed >> project reports for the proposals. >> >> Holistic approach >> >> Experts have maintained that multi-storeyed parking >> lots are no miracle cure and it would be better to >> adopt different strategies in different places. >> >> The Western countries, especially in Europe, have >> found success in reducing congestion by declaring them >> fully pedestrian zones. Vehicles are parked outside >> the market. >> >> http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/11/stories/2006031117570300.htm >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >> ================================================================ >> 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. >> > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060313/6a642b43/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:51:53 +0000 > From: Alan P Howes > Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Cc: alok.bhardwaj@tcs.com, arun.mokashi@tcs.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I'm sure this topic must have come up before on the list, but please > forgive me for raising it again. > > I have just returned from two weeks in Mumbai, where I am working on a > project to improve the performance of the bus company (BEST). While > it is not a main focus of our activities, the problem of > auto-rickshaws (autos) was highly apparent. > > I don't have the figures to hand, but IIRC Mumbai has one lakh > (1,00,000) autos, and 60,000 taxis. The autos are banned from > downtown, so are even more concentrated elsewhere. Taxis and autos > together carry about 5% of all person trips, while buses and trains > together carry about 88% (split approx 50/50 between the two modes). > > Both taxis and autos seem to have pretty low overall load factors, and > cruise empty a lot of the time - even in peaks. The 3,000+ buses are > well loaded, and in the peaks are packed. > > The autos cause major traffic congestion - they tend to congregate at > transport interchanges, where they seriously impede the flow of buses > (I have photos if anyone is interested!) It seems obvious to me that > in transport terms the autos are a plain nuisance and should be banned > outright (many of them are 2-stroke, and the pollution is appalling). > > BUT, they provide a livelihood for 1,00,000 families - even if the > number of buses had to be increased to cater for the extra passengers > (which is doubtful), they would not soak up a fraction of the jobs - > and BEST already employs more staff per bus than most urban buscos in > India. > > So has anyone got any bright suggestions for squaring this circle? > > (NB - Mumbai, with a population of 16m, apparently only has 5,00,000 > formal jobs - difficult to soak up 1,00,000 guys there. And also NB - > those commas in numbers are in the right place - for India.) > > Regards, Alan > From litman at vtpi.org Wed Mar 15 01:19:19 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:19:19 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Chennai: Automobility or Accessibility In-Reply-To: <44168764.6000006@gmail.com> References: <20060314030110.C70402BD63@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <44168764.6000006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060314080532.0572bb68@mail.islandnet.com> I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility" (http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: >Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > >I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car >users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" >to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is >political will and consensus there will always be a success. In >Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a >Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking >would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car >restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. >Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the >neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the >modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a >city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in >Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT >would be an apt solution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be >very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > >So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my >understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a >safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their >number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I >see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a >good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and >was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but >today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If >chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to >opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and >more cars. > >Sunny > >Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > >As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws would be a >wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide >service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle >trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in >come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should >notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road >serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better >option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the >disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd >and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like >Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian >areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai >increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be >implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for >this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > >Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been >implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a >hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the >other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the >society Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060314/4c9b81ec/attachment.html From vittalkumar_a at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 14:02:33 2006 From: vittalkumar_a at yahoo.com (Vittal Kumar A.) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:02:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060314080532.0572bb68@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <20060315050236.15146.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I agree with Todd, Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the link http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm regards, Vittal Todd Alexander Litman wrote: I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is political will and consensus there will always be a success. In Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT would be an apt solution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and more cars. Sunny Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws would be a wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the society Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? ================================================================ 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. --------------------------------- Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060314/ac468b4d/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Wed Mar 15 14:40:03 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:10:03 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility In-Reply-To: <20060315050236.15146.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060314080532.0572bb68@mail.islandnet.com> <20060315050236.15146.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603142140k32de4f74q71ea73718d4346c2@mail.gmail.com> 15 March 2006 Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Todd, > Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. > Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with > reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the > state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches > for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the > link > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > regards, > Vittal > > *Todd Alexander Litman * wrote: > > > I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation > is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means > motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to > improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs > and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces > public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that > we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term > impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts > (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be > among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are > discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and > Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). > > I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban > roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better > overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite > service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city > provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) > and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land > use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can > really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities > (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these > measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is > difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than > more automobile traffic. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: > > Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > > I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car > users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" > to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is > political will and consensus there will always be a success. In > Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a > Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking > would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car > restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. > Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the > neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the > modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a > city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in > Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT > would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be > very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > > So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my > understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a > safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their > number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I > see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a > good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and > was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but > today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If > chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to > opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and > more cars. > > Sunny > > Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > > As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a > wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide > service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle > trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in > come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should > notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road > serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better > option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the > disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd > and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like > Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian > areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai > increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be > implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for > this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > > Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been > implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a > hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the > other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the > society > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanninghelps detect nasty viruses! > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060315/9ceaec21/attachment.html From mrco at adb.org Wed Mar 15 15:11:54 2006 From: mrco at adb.org (mrco at adb.org) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:11:54 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Better Air Quality (BAQ) 2006 (13-15 September 2006, Yogyakarta, Indonesia) Message-ID: *** UPDATES *** Better Air Quality (BAQ) 2006 13-15 September 2006 Shetaron Mustika Hotel Yogyakarta, Indonesia http://www.baq2006.org The Better Air Quality (BAQ) 2006 workshop will be held on 13-15 September 2006 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Over 1,000 people are expected to participate, making this event the largest workshop in 2006 on air quality management in Asia. BAQ 2006 is hosted by the Ministry of Environment, the Province and City of Yogyakarta, and the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia). BAQ 2006 is supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, Air and Waste Management Association (A&WMA), Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN), GTZ, Hans Seidel Foundation, Health Effects Institute (HEI), Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). ------------------------ 1. REGISTRATION NOW OPEN ------------------------ If you would like to attend BAQ 2006, either as a self-funded or sponsored participant, register now and avail of special early-bird registration fees (US$ 350 on or before June 1, 2006). All participants are required to register, and no requests for sponsorship or hotel booking will be entertained from people who have not registered. To access the online registration form, and know more about associated registration fee rates, go to http://www.baq2006.org/registration --------------------------------------------- 2. HOTEL BOOKING FOR SELF-FUNDED PARTICIPANTS --------------------------------------------- The main workshop hotel for BAQ 2006 is the Sheraton Mustika Hotel. It is 5-10 minutes away from the Yogyakarta airport. Only 100 rooms have been allocated for BAQ 2006 self-funded and sponsored participants. However, the BAQ 2006 organizing committee has blocked off almost 700 rooms in other hotels, which at normal traffic conditions, are a mere 15 to 20 minute ride to Sheraton Mustika. All hotel reservations will be handled by the Yogyakarta Hotel Association (YHA). Please note that rooms for self funded participants will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Only self-funded participants who have registered can use the online hotel booking form: http://www.baq2006.org/hotels Sponsored participants will have hotel accommodations arranged on their behalf by the BAQ 2006 Organizing Committee or one of the supporting organizations. --------------------------------------------- 3. CALL FOR ABSTRACTS EXTENDED UNTIL MARCH 30 --------------------------------------------- Due to public demand, we have extended the deadline for abstract submission to March 30. Abstracts can be technical or policy related, but should have an Asian focus. Abstracts with a focus on Europe, USA, or others parts of the world should clearly state the relevance of the proposed paper for air quality management in Asia. For more information, go to http://www.baq2006.org/abstracts ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4. ART FOR AIR COMPETITIONS: DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES IS ON MARCH 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST PRIZE IS US$500 ... PLUS FREE TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATIONS TO YOGYAKARTA The Art for Air (A4A) competition invites all residents of any Asian country to submit paintings, drawings, and even digital or film photography related to the theme of "Efforts to Clean Up Our Air." No registration fee is required, all you need to do is submit a digital image of the artwork to allow our judges to assess the entry on the basis of originality, artistic merit, and relevance to clean air. Shortlisted contestants will be asked to send original copies for the final round. Aside from the cash prizes, one overall winner will be invited to attend BAQ 2006, with airfare and accommodations provided courtesy of the BAQ organizing committee. For more information, go to http://www.baq2006.org/a4a or contact Michael Co (mrco@adb.org). ------------------------- 5. BEST PRACTICES EXHIBIT ------------------------- The "Best Practices in Air Quality Management Exhibition" (or Best Practices Exhibit, for short) will help cities, non profit organizations as well as private sector highlight efforts to control or prevent urban air pollution. An afternoon session on the first day of BAQ 2006 will be devoted to poster and exhibit presenters and their respective displays. This will allow enough time for question and answer, as well as networking opportunities. Exhibits and Posters will remain on display for the duration of BAQ 2006. The Best Practices Exhibit will be located in the inside special air conditioned tents at the Sheraton Mustika hotel. If your organization would like to be part of the Best Practices Exhibit, go to http://www.cleanairnet.org/baq2006/1757/article-70000.html -------------------- 6. BAQ 2006 SPONSORS -------------------- The BAQ 2006 Organizing Committee would like to thank the following for their support to this event: ---------------- Platinum sponsor ---------------- JOHNSON MATTHEY http://www.matthey.com Johnson Matthey is a specialty chemicals company focused on its core skills in precious metals, catalysts, and specialty chemicals. Johnson Matthey is the world leader in the manufacture of catalysts and catalysed components for fuel cells. ------------- Gold sponsors ------------- SGS - global leader and innovator in verification, testing and certification services (http://www.sgs.com) AVL - world's largest privately owned and independent company for the development of powertrain systems with internal combustion engines as well as instrumentation and test systems (http://www.avl.com) If your organization would like to sponsor BAQ 2006, contact Cornie Huizenga, chuizenga@adb.org For sponsorship packages, go to http://www.cleanairnet.org/baq2006/1757/propertyvalue-26712.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060315/092375b6/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Wed Mar 15 17:46:31 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:46:31 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility Message-ID: I just arrivedin Bangalore and I was appalled at how the number of private vehicles has grown since I first started coming here in 2001.... >>> sujit@vsnl.com 3/15/2006 12:40:03 AM >>> 15 March 2006 Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Todd, > Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. > Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with > reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the > state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches > for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the > link > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > regards, > Vittal > > *Todd Alexander Litman * wrote: > > > I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation > is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means > motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to > improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs > and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces > public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that > we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term > impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts > (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be > among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are > discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and > Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). > > I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban > roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better > overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite > service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city > provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) > and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land > use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can > really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities > (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these > measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is > difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than > more automobile traffic. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: > > Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > > I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car > users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" > to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is > political will and consensus there will always be a success. In > Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a > Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking > would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car > restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. > Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the > neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the > modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a > city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in > Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT > would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be > very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > > So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my > understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a > safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their > number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I > see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a > good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and > was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but > today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If > chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to > opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and > more cars. > > Sunny > > Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > > As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a > wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide > service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle > trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in > come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should > notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road > serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better > option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the > disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd > and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like > Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian > areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai > increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be > implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for > this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > > Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been > implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a > hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the > other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the > society > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanninghelps detect nasty viruses! > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ From ganant at vsnl.com Wed Mar 15 21:42:58 2006 From: ganant at vsnl.com (ganant at vsnl.com) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:42:58 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: Automobility or Accessibility Message-ID: <4aa1e54aa28a.4aa28a4aa1e5@vsnl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060315/1379eb8d/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- ================================================================ 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. From pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Mar 16 07:44:21 2006 From: pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca (V. Setty Pendakur) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:44:21 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility References: Message-ID: <00bb01c64882$01c2f4a0$6400a8c0@RAJINDER> Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! What are you doing in Bangalore? Cheers. setty. Dr. V. Setty Pendakur Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP President Pacific Policy and Planning Associates 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Schipper To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org ; sujit@vsnl.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility I just arrivedin Bangalore and I was appalled at how the number of private vehicles has grown since I first started coming here in 2001.... >>> sujit@vsnl.com 3/15/2006 12:40:03 AM >>> 15 March 2006 Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Todd, > Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. > Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with > reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the > state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches > for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the > link > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > regards, > Vittal > > *Todd Alexander Litman * wrote: > > > I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation > is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means > motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to > improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs > and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces > public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that > we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term > impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts > (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be > among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are > discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and > Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). > > I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban > roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better > overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite > service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city > provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) > and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land > use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can > really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities > (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these > measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is > difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than > more automobile traffic. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: > > Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > > I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car > users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" > to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is > political will and consensus there will always be a success. In > Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a > Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking > would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car > restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. > Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the > neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the > modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a > city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in > Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT > would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be > very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > > So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my > understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a > safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their > number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I > see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a > good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and > was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but > today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If > chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to > opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and > more cars. > > Sunny > > Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > > As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a > wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide > service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle > trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in > come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should > notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road > serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better > option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the > disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd > and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like > Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian > areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai > increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be > implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for > this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > > Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been > implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a > hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the > other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the > society > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanninghelps detect nasty viruses! > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060315/d8592918/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Mar 16 10:46:24 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:46:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility Message-ID: by the time they get where they thought they were going they missed the event. and besides, 10 times more people, all in buses, are also slowed down! Lee Schipper, Ph.D., Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport and Environment World Resources Institute 10 G St NW, Washington DC 20002 USA Phone +1 202 729 7735; Fax +1 202 729 7775 http://www.embarq.wri.org >>> pendakur@interchange.ubc.ca 3/15/2006 5:44:21 PM >>> Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! What are you doing in Bangalore? Cheers. setty. Dr. V. Setty Pendakur Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP President Pacific Policy and Planning Associates 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Schipper To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org ; sujit@vsnl.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility I just arrivedin Bangalore and I was appalled at how the number of private vehicles has grown since I first started coming here in 2001.... >>> sujit@vsnl.com 3/15/2006 12:40:03 AM >>> 15 March 2006 Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Todd, > Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. > Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with > reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the > state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches > for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the > link > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > regards, > Vittal > > *Todd Alexander Litman * wrote: > > > I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation > is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means > motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to > improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs > and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces > public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that > we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term > impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts > (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be > among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are > discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and > Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). > > I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban > roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better > overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite > service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city > provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) > and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land > use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can > really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities > (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these > measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is > difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than > more automobile traffic. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: > > Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > > I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car > users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" > to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is > political will and consensus there will always be a success. In > Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a > Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking > would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car > restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. > Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the > neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the > modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a > city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in > Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT > would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be > very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > > So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my > understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a > safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their > number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I > see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a > good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and > was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but > today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If > chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to > opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and > more cars. > > Sunny > > Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > > As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a > wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide > service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle > trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in > come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should > notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road > serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better > option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the > disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd > and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like > Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian > areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai > increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be > implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for > this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > > Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been > implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a > hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the > other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the > society > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanninghelps detect nasty viruses! > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================ 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. From sksunny at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 15:02:14 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:02:14 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <20060316030110.CB3C42BCB3@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060316030110.CB3C42BCB3@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <441A50E6.1090807@gmail.com> In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". Sincerely, Sunny Santhosh Kumar. K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > Cheers. setty. > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > President > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Fri Mar 17 18:18:12 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:18:12 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E7499@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> You are absolutely right. A lot of cars running on the street does not necessarily equate to prosperity in a particular country. Rather, it is a symptom of larger malaise in which people cannot depend, or will not depend, on public transport to take them to where they want to go. For example, in the Philippines, the dream is to own a car because of the sorry state of public transport and the pollution that go with it. It is not uncommon for a middle class family of, say 5, to own 5 cars or maybe more (to circumvent the so-called color coding where certain plate numbers are banned on certain days)! Owning a car is not a luxury anymore but a necessity...in this case anyway... Cheers, Joselito L. Guevarra Research Engineer -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sunny Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:02 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". Sincerely, Sunny Santhosh Kumar. K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > Cheers. setty. > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > President > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > ================================================================ 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. From dsengupta at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 00:19:35 2006 From: dsengupta at gmail.com (Dibu Sengupta) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:19:35 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E7499@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E7499@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: And this malaise is spreading fast, not just in Bangalore or Pune but in the smaller towns as well. Foreign companies introducing new brands of cars, giving off low interest payments and people making a beeline for a new symbol of social status. That's where transit authorities and the local jurisdictions come to the picture. Utilization charges mentioned by Sunny are probably the best way to tackle this automobile explosion! Regards, Dibu Sengupta Transportation Engineer VHB, Inc. On 3/17/06, Guevarra, Joselito Lomada wrote: > > You are absolutely right. A lot of cars running on the street does not > necessarily equate to prosperity in a particular country. Rather, it is > a symptom of larger malaise in which people cannot depend, or will not > depend, on public transport to take them to where they want to go. For > example, in the Philippines, the dream is to own a car because of the > sorry state of public transport and the pollution that go with it. It is > not uncommon for a middle class family of, say 5, to own 5 cars or maybe > more (to circumvent the so-called color coding where certain plate > numbers are banned on certain days)! Owning a car is not a luxury > anymore but a necessity...in this case anyway... > > Cheers, > > Joselito L. Guevarra > Research Engineer > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf Of Sunny > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:02 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 > > In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of > the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by > full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for > the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the > > emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives > the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or > > the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong > Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very > > less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. > Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of > 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good > facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. > > Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public > transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem > but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy > (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option > for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. > If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and > efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the > transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the > > "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal > inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". > > Sincerely, > Sunny > > Santhosh Kumar. K > Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, > Mahidol University, > Thailand > sksunny@gmail.com > sunnysanthosh@gmail.com > > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money > to spend!! > > > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > > > Cheers. setty. > > > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > > > President > > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060317/8dc4fce5/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Sat Mar 18 01:03:28 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:03:28 -0500 Subject: [sustran] land use control and levels of motorization In-Reply-To: References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E7499@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <441ADDD0.4040806@inro.ca> In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted effort by the government to integrate land use developments together with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support from the population by adding more taxes! Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. Zvi Dibu Sengupta wrote: > And this malaise is spreading fast, not just in Bangalore or Pune but > in the smaller towns as well. Foreign companies introducing new brands > of cars, giving off low interest payments and people making a beeline > for a new symbol of social status. > > That's where transit authorities and the local jurisdictions come to > the picture. Utilization charges mentioned by Sunny are probably the > best way to tackle this automobile explosion! > > Regards, > > Dibu Sengupta > Transportation Engineer > VHB, Inc. > From zvi at inro.ca Sat Mar 18 04:22:37 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:22:37 -0500 Subject: [sustran] 11th HKSTS International Conference -- abstract submission deadline April 15, 2006 Message-ID: <441B0C7D.9040209@inro.ca> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: 11th HKSTS International Conference -- abstract submission deadline April 15, 2006 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:53 +0800 From: S.C. Wong To: (Recipient list suppressed) *** CALL FOR PAPERS *** _The Eleventh International Conference of Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies _Conference Theme: Sustainable Transportation December 9-11, 2006, Hong Kong The web site of the 11th HKSTS International Conference is at http://home.netvigator.com/~hksts/conf.htm Deadline for Submission of Abstracts is _April 15, 2006_. Jointly organized by Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies, Department of Civil Engineering,The University of Hong Kong, School of Economics and Finance, The University of Hong Kong, and Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong Important Dates: Deadline for submission of abstracts: April 15, 2006 Notification of acceptance of abstracts: May 31, 2006 Deadline for submission of full papers: July 31, 2006 Notification of acceptance of full papers: August 31, 2006 Deadline for submission of final papers: September 30, 2006 The 11th HKSTS International Conference: December 9, 2006 Post Conference Workshop on "Integrated Multimodal Transportation": December 11, 2006 The Organizing Committee would be grateful if you would circulate the call to colleagues and other interested parties. We look forward to seeing you at the conference. With best wishes, S.C. Wong Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference Timothy D. Hau Co-Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference James Jixian Wang Co-Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference [Apologies if you receive this announcement more than once!] *************************************************************************** Dr. S.C. Wong Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2859-1964; Fax: (852) 2559-5337; E-mail: hhecwsc@hkucc.hku.hk Personal Web: http://web.hku.hk/~hhecwsc/ CALL FOR PAPERS: Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/15568318.asp Editor, Transportmetrica http://www.transportmetrica.org/ Chair, The Eleventh International Conference of Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies http://home.netvigator.com/~hksts/conf.htm *************************************************************************** From joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 23:02:00 2006 From: joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com (joshua odeleye) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:02:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <20060316030114.6B58C2C302@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20060318140201.14254.qmail@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> But this money ought to be spent for public good, and not for the selfish convenience of the few (i.e the rich),to the detriment of the majority in terms of increasing rate of road accident, in which pedestrians are most vulnerable,air and noise pollution,traffic congestion to mention a few.Public transport is the only solution to the challenges of urban mobility in all countries of the world.As experts, we should help in evoving and developing the culture of sustainability in transport development across the globe. Sincerely, JOSHUA ODELEYE. NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY, P.M.B 1148, ZARIA,NIGERIA. --- sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > > > ######################################################################## > Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > > About this mailing list see: > > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > ######################################################################## > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Automobility or Accessibility (V. Setty > Pendakur) > 2. Re: Automobility or Accessibility (Lee > Schipper) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:44:21 -0800 > From: "V. Setty Pendakur" > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Message-ID: > <00bb01c64882$01c2f4a0$6400a8c0@RAJINDER> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the > people have money to spend!! > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > Cheers. setty. > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of > Sciences > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > President > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lee Schipper > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org ; > sujit@vsnl.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:46 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or > Accessibility > > > I just arrivedin Bangalore and I was appalled at > how the number of private vehicles has grown since I > first started > coming here in 2001.... > > >>> sujit@vsnl.com 3/15/2006 12:40:03 AM >>> > 15 March 2006 > > > Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most > efficient, reliable and > profitable in the whole country but with the > number of auto vehicles growing > at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric > infrastructure carried out by > the administration (road widening, more roads, and > flyovers) in the last few > years it is unlikely that the pubic transport > buses will be able to maintain > their high performance levels for many more years. > > This is because infrastructure policies do not > (yet) recognize that unless > the city gives priority to public transport, all > the expensive investments > in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going > by the needs of the > MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain > facilities, cycle tracks and > public transport infrastructure which means BUS > LANES and NOT flyovers. It > also means TDM measures so that people are > encouraged to shift to public > transport and made to pay more realistic costs if > they want to persist using > personal vehicles. > > As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's > agenda at the moment. Just > buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much > for improving the condition > of public transport. And now that the city has > committed itself to the > hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine > where the money will come > from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian > facilities and cycle tracks). > > On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with Todd, > > Here is an example for initiative to attact such > segment of commuters. > > Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars > for office commuting with > > reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan > Transport Corporation (BMTC) the > > state owned transport corporation introducing > innovative approaches > > for different commuter segments with varied > costs/services. Refer to the > > link > > > > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > > > > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > > > > regards, > > Vittal > > > > *Todd Alexander Litman * wrote: > > > > > > I think that this reflects fundamental > differences in how transportation > > is defined. In many situations people assume > that 'transportation' means > > motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to > improve transportation is to > > improve roads and parking facilities. But that > approach incurs huge costs > > and reduces other forms of mobility and > accessibility, if it displaces > > public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads > to sprawl. The problem that > > we face is that transport planners often only > consider direct, short-term > > impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and > overlook secondary impacts > > (reduced accessibility over the long term), and > public officials tend to be > > among the group that benefits most from > automobile travel. These issues are > > discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: > Traffic, Mobility and > > Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf > ). > > > > I think that the best way to counter this is to > show that expanding urban > > roads and parking facilities is very costly, and > other solutions are better > > overall. I think it is important to show that > public transit can be an elite > > service, that can attract wealthy commuters out > of their cars, if a city > > provides a variety of services, from cheap and > basic to premium and luxury) > > and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel > priority in traffic, land > > use, and pricing. This is the only way that > urban transportation systems can > > really work efficiently, and fortunately some of > the world's greatest cities > > (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) > are now implementing these > > measures, which provides examples that we can > cite. However, I realize it is > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sksunny at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 00:39:34 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:39:34 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: <20060318030121.9B84F2C073@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060318030121.9B84F2C073@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <441C29B6.2070308@gmail.com> When accessibility has to be addressed then the need for high density has also to be satisfied making people use other means such as walking or cycling, but in developing cities and heavily car dependent cities this is not the case. Governments and people (in some cases) mistake mobility for accessibility and in their view as long as it is just a 15 min car journey it is not far. Increasing the Public transit efficiency will encourage people to use bus for a short travel and encouraging walking an cycling and high density living with a mixed land use will be very advantageous. Many Asian cities be it India or a city like Bangkok has a very good urban fabric of mixed land-use, if required people need not travel long for daily needs, but the unwelcoming road infrastructure poses a threat and makes people use car even to cross a road. One such is the pedestrian overpass, in my opinion, it is an incentive for cars so that the cars need not stop for the people who cross the road. These overpasses in many places are not utilised properly and the people still cross the road in the conventional manner resulting in accidents and deaths in many cases. I absolutely agree with Zvi that rail investments are very wise and important for a city but the results of these investments are not immediate, they need time and one backdrop of these investments is the high initial cost and long pay back periods (if fares are to be affordable even by the poor). On the other hand an investment on BRT would be a next wise option as the system is similar to Light rail and can be integrated with regular bus service. On long run the system can be replaced for a light rail. Investing in other mass transit is also good but in many cases due to the over expectation of results the project are termed failed and even due to design and planning flaws these high investments fail. Some good failed examples would be the Delhi Metro this is not entirely due to financial reasons but due to lack of networks with other modes. Though Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making the poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!. Charging car users might not be politically advantageous from the outside but mayors of cities like London, Seoul, Bogota Curitiba, Dar es Salaam *did not* *lose* their election for the second time. People will hesitate to spend money at first if there is no alternative but if they are given a good alternative means of travel then surely I feel they will not be disappointed. Transport planning has to be done keeping poor and middle class in mind. Rich people at any state will not leave their cars unless any means like the "Elite Transit" that Litman was talking a few posts back might bring them to transit. Sincerely, Sunny, Santhosh Kumar. K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which > are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not > necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course > as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can > afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding > regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient > accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - > hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And > unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by > mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > > There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: > concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve > them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted > effort by the government to integrate land use developments together > with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not > necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so > simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > > I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that > they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better > chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail > rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to > expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will > miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? > > As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support > from the population by adding more taxes! > > Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > > Zvi > > Dibu Sengupta wrote: > > >> And this malaise is spreading fast, not just in Bangalore or Pune but >> in the smaller towns as well. Foreign companies introducing new brands >> of cars, giving off low interest payments and people making a beeline >> for a new symbol of social status. >> >> That's where transit authorities and the local jurisdictions come to >> the picture. Utilization charges mentioned by Sunny are probably the >> best way to tackle this automobile explosion! >> >> Regards, >> >> Dibu Sengupta >> Transportation Engineer >> VHB, Inc. >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:22:37 -0500 > From: Zvi Leve > Subject: [sustran] 11th HKSTS International Conference -- abstract > submission deadline April 15, 2006 > To: sustran discussion forum > Message-ID: <441B0C7D.9040209@inro.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: 11th HKSTS International Conference -- abstract submission > deadline April 15, 2006 > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:53 +0800 > From: S.C. Wong > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > > > > > *** CALL FOR PAPERS *** > > _The Eleventh International Conference of Hong Kong Society for > Transportation Studies > _Conference Theme: Sustainable Transportation > December 9-11, 2006, Hong Kong > > The web site of the 11th HKSTS International Conference is at > http://home.netvigator.com/~hksts/conf.htm > Deadline for Submission of > Abstracts is _April 15, 2006_. > > Jointly organized by > Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies, > Department of Civil Engineering,The University of Hong Kong, > School of Economics and Finance, The University of Hong Kong, and > Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong > > Important Dates: > Deadline for submission of abstracts: April 15, 2006 > Notification of acceptance of abstracts: May 31, 2006 > Deadline for submission of full papers: July 31, 2006 > Notification of acceptance of full papers: August 31, 2006 > Deadline for submission of final papers: September 30, 2006 > The 11th HKSTS International Conference: December 9, 2006 > Post Conference Workshop on "Integrated Multimodal Transportation": > December 11, 2006 > > The Organizing Committee would be grateful if you would circulate the > call to colleagues and other interested parties. > > We look forward to seeing you at the conference. > > With best wishes, > > S.C. Wong > Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference > > Timothy D. Hau > Co-Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference > > James Jixian Wang > Co-Chair, 11th HKSTS International Conference > > [Apologies if you receive this announcement more than once!] > > *************************************************************************** > Dr. S.C. Wong > Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam > Road, Hong Kong > Tel: (852) 2859-1964; Fax: (852) 2559-5337; E-mail: hhecwsc@hkucc.hku.hk > Personal Web: http://web.hku.hk/~hhecwsc/ > > CALL FOR PAPERS: > Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation > http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/15568318.asp > Editor, Transportmetrica > http://www.transportmetrica.org/ > Chair, The Eleventh International Conference of Hong Kong Society for > Transportation Studies > http://home.netvigator.com/~hksts/conf.htm > > *************************************************************************** > > > > ------------------------------ > > ================================================================ > 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. > > End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12 > *********************************************** > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Mar 20 19:23:36 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:23:36 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Skytrain as "elite transit" Message-ID: <209201c64c08$5a4be350$6401a8c0@Home> Message from D. Scott TenBrink (via your servant eb) -----Original Message----- From: D. Scott TenBrink [mailto:scott@pedalsong.net] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:49 AM To: sustran-discuss@egroups.com Subject: Skytrain as "elite transit" Sunny brings up an interesting issue in his description of Bangkok public transit: ?Though Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making the poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!? I would disagree that bus service in general should be described as ?appalling? considering the extent and frequency of service, the relative comfort of the A/C buses, and the reasonable fares for all lines. The major problem, as I see it, with Bangkok bus service is the traffic, which impacts private vehicles just as much as public transit and so should not be blamed on PT. While bus service is far from perfect in Bangkok, this term seems a little strong. The Skytrain is certainly a much more comfortable option. It also exclusively services areas of the city dominated by Hi-So shopping malls, FIRE (Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) service buildings, and expat communities. Travel between these areas during most of the day is much faster by Skytrain than by personal vehicle, taxi, or bus. All of these areas- and consequently the Skytrain service- are used by relatively wealthy Bangkokians. Another thing that links the city?s well-to-do is car ownership. While ownership rates are growing rapidly and spreading across lower income levels, rich people still own far more cars per capita. So the Skytrain is a mass transit option targeted directly at those who are most likely to drive (or be driven). Sunny argues that, ?Rich people at any state will not leave their cars unless any means like the ?Elite Transit? that Litman was talking a few posts back might bring them to transit.? Perhaps the Skytrain is already an example of Litman?s Elite Transit? Certainly many of the current Skytrain patrons came from eclusively using private vehicles and taxis, not the bus. Of course the down side is that this costly project was constructed at the expense of other mass transit options that might have benefited a much larger segment of the population who cannot afford or do not benefit from the routing of the Skytrain. As Sunny says, the government should not forget the poor in transit decisions. But at the same time, in a city plagued with traffic problems and rapidly expanding road infrastructure, the Skytrain has proven that car owners can be attracted to mass transit. Efforts to better serve the poor?s transit needs would not have had such success in converting that important demographic, car owners. While the poor continue to opt out of the bus system as soon as they can afford to, the wealthy are actually opting out of car trips in favor of transit. Well, to be fair, many of those Skytrain rides may represent induced trips. People are probably going from their flat at Thong Lor to shop at Chit Lom a lot more frequently now that it is so easy to get there. But that is still the direction that we are advocating, right? > Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:39:34 +0700 > From: Sunny > Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12 > > When accessibility has to be addressed then the need for high density > has also to be satisfied making people use other means such as walking > or cycling, but in developing cities and heavily car dependent cities > this is not the case. Governments and people (in some cases) mistake > mobility for accessibility and in their view as long as it is just a 15 > min car journey it is not far. Increasing the Public transit efficiency > will encourage people to use bus for a short travel and encouraging > walking an cycling and high density living with a mixed land use will be > very advantageous. Many Asian cities be it India or a city like Bangkok > has a very good urban fabric of mixed land-use, if required people need > not travel long for daily needs, but the unwelcoming road infrastructure > poses a threat and makes people use car even to cross a road. One such > is the pedestrian overpass, in my opinion, it is an incentive for cars > so that the cars need not stop for the people who cross the road. These > overpasses in many places are not utilised properly and the people still > cross the road in the conventional manner resulting in accidents and > deaths in many cases. > > I absolutely agree with Zvi that rail investments are very wise and > important for a city but the results of these investments are not > immediate, they need time and one backdrop of these investments is the > high initial cost and long pay back periods (if fares are to be > affordable even by the poor). On the other hand an investment on BRT > would be a next wise option as the system is similar to Light rail and > can be integrated with regular bus service. On long run the system can > be replaced for a light rail. > > Investing in other mass transit is also good but in many cases due to > the over expectation of results the project are termed failed and even > due to design and planning flaws these high investments fail. Some good > failed examples would be the Delhi Metro this is not entirely due to > financial reasons but due to lack of networks with other modes. Though > Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making the > poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the > appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!. > > Charging car users might not be politically advantageous from the > outside but mayors of cities like London, Seoul, Bogota Curitiba, Dar es > Salaam *did not* *lose* their election for the second time. People will > hesitate to spend money at first if there is no alternative but if they > are given a good alternative means of travel then surely I feel they > will not be disappointed. Transport planning has to be done keeping poor > and middle class in mind. Rich people at any state will not leave their > cars unless any means like the "Elite Transit" that Litman was talking a > few posts back might bring them to transit. > > Sincerely, > Sunny, > > Santhosh Kumar. K > Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, > Mahidol University, > Thailand > sksunny@gmail.com > sunnysanthosh@gmail.com > > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: >> In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which >> are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not >> necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course >> as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can >> afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding >> regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient >> accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - >> hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And >> unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by >> mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! >> >> There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: >> concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve >> them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted >> effort by the government to integrate land use developments together >> with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not >> necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so >> simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. >> >> I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that >> they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better >> chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail >> rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to >> expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will >> miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? >> >> As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support >> from the population by adding more taxes! >> >> Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. >> >> Zvi From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Mar 20 19:44:27 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:44:27 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper comments on this) Message-ID: <20a601c64c0b$43bc1a30$6401a8c0@Home> Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/0eafc6a1/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Mon Mar 20 20:05:01 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:35:01 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper comments onthis) In-Reply-To: <4cfd20aa0603200303t638885c1y5d01d519f5951757@mail.gmail.com> References: <20a601c64c0b$43bc1a30$6401a8c0@Home> <4cfd20aa0603200303t638885c1y5d01d519f5951757@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603200305q68d51ac8i3cc29ebcf19bceb0@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan Date: Mar 20, 2006 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper comments onthis) To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport < sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org> Cc: Lee Schipper 20 March 2006 Dear Eric, You are amazing. How did you get this so quick? I was at this meeting. Lee Schipper has been grossly misquoted and has sent a message to the Indian Express, Pune edition accordingly. I don't think the paper has printed his letter and owned up for the error, yet. I have forwarded to you Lee's message saying that he has been grossly misquoted by the paper. With warm regards, -- Sujit On 3/20/06, Eric Britton wrote: > *Experts for more roads in city* *Express News Service* *Pune, March 17:* EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari ? an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [* eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????]* Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 ================================================================ 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/512890f0/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Mon Mar 20 19:58:16 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:58:16 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper commentson this) Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699F@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Lee's comments where? 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of other cities? Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper commentson this) Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/a2dd682e/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Mon Mar 20 19:56:31 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:56:31 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility (bangalore) Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699E@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> In other words, Bangalore is going the way Mumbai already has! Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: 15 March 2006 05:40 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility 15 March 2006 Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: Hi, I agree with Todd, Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the link http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm regards, Vittal Todd Alexander Litman wrote: I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is political will and consensus there will always be a success. In Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and more cars. Sunny Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the society Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( www.vtpi.org ) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ================================================================ 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. ________________________________ Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ================================================================ 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/7ebceffa/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Mar 20 20:13:10 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:13:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city? LEE SCHIPPER DID NOT SAY THIS AT ALL Message-ID: <210201c64c0f$46a95240$6401a8c0@Home> -----Original Message----- From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:34 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@egroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com So it is clear here are the rebuttals to this junk. I posted my reply on that newspaper's web site. I was unable to track down the deaf reporter who wrote this. I can't even pronounce or locate the names of those two intersections he says I mentioned. *------ This is how your message will appear on the comment's page I WAS BLATANTLY MISQUOTED IN THIS STORY I have been BLATLANTLY misquoted in this story. I said that increasing the area of Pune devoted to roads to 18-20% would NOT solve traffic problems. I cited my home city of Los Angeles, point out that taking that much of the area for road space destroyed much of the city. I hope Pune is not so destroyed. I did point out that options like bus Rapid transit would maximize the access of ordinary citizens of Pune without gobbling up huge amounts of land or money. Fortunately I think local political leaders agree. Better buses are a better investment then endless investment in roads and other expensive schemes. Next time I kindly invite your reporter to get his facts straight on what I said by talking directly to me. Lee Schipper, Ph.D. Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport and Environment Pune, 18 March 2006 Posted by: LEE SCHIPPER, United States, 18-03-2006 at 1253 hours IST >>> eric.britton@ecoplan.org 3/19/2006 4:55:58 AM >>> Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=4140 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/fa91c2ed/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Mon Mar 20 21:55:21 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:55:21 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schippercommentson this) Message-ID: I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig out. basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes lots of parking etc.. >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> Lee's comments where? 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of other cities? Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper commentson this) Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 From sksunny at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 22:45:35 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:45:35 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <20060320111130.D7C4B2D99E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060320111130.D7C4B2D99E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <441EB1FF.4070004@gmail.com> I agree to Eric's comment on me using the "appalling" term. The inefficiency of PT in Bangkok is also a cause of the city being infested with cars. But on the other hand I doubt if the Skytrain can be termed as a Elite transit because most of the trips on the Skytrain, according to a recent study, were at the stations of Siam (MBK Shopping), Onunt and Mochit (Terminal stations on both sides and Mochit famous for the Jatuchak Weekend Market), Victory monument (Bus center). I guess most of these destinations were favourable for the tourists and it was also found that the maximum ridership of 537,XXX was on the December 9th, 2005 while the previous record was on the 16th Nov, 2005 (Loy Krathong Festival day). During weekends or long weekends most of the wealth people often not stay in Bangkok while go to the tourist detinations or their suburban farm houses and usually in their own personal cars and during the days traffic jam can be noticed in all the above mentioned major centers where Skytrain operates, the traffic jams constitute mainly the wealthy cars (BMW's, VW, Lexus, SUV's Alfa-Romeos etc etc). I agree with Eric on the ridership shift for Skytrain but i feel that this change in ridership is mainly by the higher middle class people who work in these centres and also the students who visit these areas for their tuition classes and also due to the hike in the fuel prices, which are not exactly a burden for the rich. From my personal observation here in Bangkok the major contributors to the traffic jams are the ones who own a pickup truck followed by the midsized cars, the taxis and motorbikes. I have not seen a large school bus and i presume that the parents first drop their children at school and then head to their office. If public tansport including the BRT and MRT (subway) has good network connections with affordable fares and interlinkage in the fare system, the situation would be better. I guess I can use the word polluting for the buses. On my interview with some car owners I found that they are afraid to walk or use the bus because the climate polluting and hot, making them sit in the cars with raised windows and air conditioning turned on!. This consumes more fuel and more emissions making the temperature more hot. A partial solution i see for Bangkok is giving preference to the mass transit, reducing the replication of routes on the PT and following strict bus only lanes and also implement strict charging systems for car users. I would be glad if experts here could comment on my idea and clarify me. Sunny sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Sunny brings up an interesting issue in his description of Bangkok public > transit: > > ?Though Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making > the poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the > appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!? > > I would disagree that bus service in general should be described as > ?appalling? considering the extent and frequency of service, the relative > comfort of the A/C buses, and the reasonable fares for all lines. The major > problem, as I see it, with Bangkok bus service is the traffic, which impacts > private vehicles just as much as public transit and so should not be blamed > on > PT. While bus service is far from perfect in Bangkok, this term seems > a little > strong. > > The Skytrain is certainly a much more comfortable option. It also > exclusively > services areas of the city dominated by Hi-So shopping malls, FIRE (Finance, > Insurance & Real Estate) service buildings, and expat communities. Travel > between these areas during most of the day is much faster by Skytrain than > by > personal vehicle, taxi, or bus. All of these areas- and consequently the > Skytrain service- are used by relatively wealthy Bangkokians. > > Another thing that links the city?s well-to-do is car ownership. While > ownership rates are growing rapidly and spreading across lower income > levels, > rich people still own far more cars per capita. So the Skytrain is a mass > transit option targeted directly at those who are most likely to drive (or > be > driven). > > Sunny argues that, ?Rich people at any state will not leave their cars > unless > any means like the ?Elite Transit? that Litman was talking a few posts back > might bring them to transit.? Perhaps the Skytrain is already an example of > Litman?s Elite Transit? Certainly many of the current Skytrain patrons came > from eclusively using private vehicles and taxis, not the bus. > > Of course the down side is that this costly project was constructed at the > expense of other mass transit options that might have benefited a much > larger > segment of the population who cannot afford or do not benefit from the > routing > of the Skytrain. As Sunny says, the government should not forget the poor > in > transit decisions. But at the same time, in a city plagued with traffic > problems and rapidly expanding road infrastructure, the Skytrain has proven > that car owners can be attracted to mass transit. Efforts to better serve > the > poor?s transit needs would not have had such success in converting that > important demographic, car owners. > > While the poor continue to opt out of the bus system as soon as they > can afford > to, the wealthy are actually opting out of car trips in favor of > transit. Well, to be fair, many of those Skytrain rides may represent > induced trips. People are probably going from their flat at Thong Lor > to shop at Chit Lom a > lot more frequently now that it is so easy to get there. But that is > still the > direction that we are advocating, right? > > > >> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:39:34 +0700 >> From: Sunny >> Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 12 >> >> When accessibility has to be addressed then the need for high density >> has also to be satisfied making people use other means such as walking >> or cycling, but in developing cities and heavily car dependent cities >> this is not the case. Governments and people (in some cases) mistake >> mobility for accessibility and in their view as long as it is just a 15 >> min car journey it is not far. Increasing the Public transit efficiency >> will encourage people to use bus for a short travel and encouraging >> walking an cycling and high density living with a mixed land use will be >> very advantageous. Many Asian cities be it India or a city like Bangkok >> has a very good urban fabric of mixed land-use, if required people need >> not travel long for daily needs, but the unwelcoming road infrastructure >> poses a threat and makes people use car even to cross a road. One such >> is the pedestrian overpass, in my opinion, it is an incentive for cars >> so that the cars need not stop for the people who cross the road. These >> overpasses in many places are not utilised properly and the people still >> cross the road in the conventional manner resulting in accidents and >> deaths in many cases. >> >> I absolutely agree with Zvi that rail investments are very wise and >> important for a city but the results of these investments are not >> immediate, they need time and one backdrop of these investments is the >> high initial cost and long pay back periods (if fares are to be >> affordable even by the poor). On the other hand an investment on BRT >> would be a next wise option as the system is similar to Light rail and >> can be integrated with regular bus service. On long run the system can >> be replaced for a light rail. >> >> Investing in other mass transit is also good but in many cases due to >> the over expectation of results the project are termed failed and even >> due to design and planning flaws these high investments fail. Some good >> failed examples would be the Delhi Metro this is not entirely due to >> financial reasons but due to lack of networks with other modes. Though >> Bangkok has an impressive Sky train system the fares are high making the >> poor and middle class deprived of the benefits and on the other hand the >> appalling bus service drives people to ride a car or taxi!. >> >> Charging car users might not be politically advantageous from the >> outside but mayors of cities like London, Seoul, Bogota Curitiba, Dar es >> Salaam *did not* *lose* their election for the second time. People will >> hesitate to spend money at first if there is no alternative but if they >> are given a good alternative means of travel then surely I feel they >> will not be disappointed. Transport planning has to be done keeping poor >> and middle class in mind. Rich people at any state will not leave their >> cars unless any means like the "Elite Transit" that Litman was talking a >> few posts back might bring them to transit. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sunny, >> >> Santhosh Kumar. K >> Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, >> Mahidol University, >> Thailand >> sksunny@gmail.com >> sunnysanthosh@gmail.com >> >> sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: >> >>> In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which >>> are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not >>> necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course >>> as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can >>> afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding >>> regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient >>> accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - >>> hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And >>> unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by >>> mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! >>> >>> There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: >>> concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve >>> them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted >>> effort by the government to integrate land use developments together >>> with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not >>> necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so >>> simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. >>> >>> I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that >>> they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better >>> chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail >>> rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to >>> expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will >>> miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? >>> >>> As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support >>> from the population by adding more taxes! >>> >>> Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. >>> >>> Zvi >>> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:44:27 +0100 > From: "Eric Britton" > Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper > comments on this) > To: > Message-ID: <20a601c64c0b$43bc1a30$6401a8c0@Home> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Experts for more roads in city > > > > > > > dia.com> Express News Service > > > > > > Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and > Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of > land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic > problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer > on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that > more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the > project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to > suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in > downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih > the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density > compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around > 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the > city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the > improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended > monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure > transport in the city. > > > > [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway > get this to the group????] > > > > Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/0eafc6a1/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:35:01 +0530 > From: "Sujit Patwardhan" > Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee > Schipper comments onthis) > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Message-ID: > <4cfd20aa0603200305q68d51ac8i3cc29ebcf19bceb0@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sujit Patwardhan > Date: Mar 20, 2006 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper > comments onthis) > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport < > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org> > Cc: Lee Schipper > > 20 March 2006 > > > Dear Eric, > You are amazing. How did you get this so quick? > I was at this meeting. Lee Schipper has been grossly misquoted and has sent > a message to the Indian Express, Pune edition accordingly. I don't think the > paper has printed his letter and owned up for the error, yet. > I have forwarded to you Lee's message saying that he has been grossly > misquoted by the paper. > With warm regards, > -- > Sujit > > > > > > > On 3/20/06, Eric Britton wrote: > > >> *Experts for more roads in city* >> > > > > *Express News Service* > > > > *Pune, March 17:* EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport > and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the > percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to > stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal > Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, > Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the > traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the > project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to > suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in > downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih > the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density > compared to Bhosari ? an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around > 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the > city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the > improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended > monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure > transport in the city. > > > > [* eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can > anyway get this to the group????]* > > > > Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Proprietor: > Mudra > ------------------------------------------------------ > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Proprietor: > Mudra > ------------------------------------------------------ > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > ------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/512890f0/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:58:16 -0000 > From: "Alan Howes" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee > Schipper commentson this) > To: , "Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport" > Message-ID: > <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699F@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Lee's comments where? > > 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% > sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of > other cities? > > Alan > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive > it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to > anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the > sender by replying to this email. > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of > Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any > professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to > our terms and conditions of business. > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > software viruses. > _______________________________ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton > Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper > commentson this) > > > Experts for more roads in city > > > > Express News Service > ssindia.com> > > > > Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport > and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the > percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent > to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal > Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of > research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for > tackling the traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under > the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) > to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads > in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in > comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum > here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density > compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that > around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed > the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate > the improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and > recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend > analysis to ensure transport in the city. > > > > [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can > anyway get this to the group????] > > > > Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/a2dd682e/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:56:31 -0000 > From: "Alan Howes" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility (bangalore) > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Message-ID: > <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699E@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > In other words, Bangalore is going the way Mumbai already has! > > Alan > > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. > _______________________________ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan > Sent: 15 March 2006 05:40 > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility > > > 15 March 2006 > > > Today Bangalore city's bus sytem is the most efficient, reliable and profitable in the whole country but with the number of auto vehicles growing at cancerour rate in the city and auto centric infrastructure carried out by the administration (road widening, more roads, and flyovers) in the last few years it is unlikely that the pubic transport buses will be able to maintain their high performance levels for many more years. > > This is because infrastructure policies do not (yet) recognize that unless the city gives priority to public transport, all the expensive investments in roads and flyovers will come to nought. Going by the needs of the MAJORITY the city needs better pedestrain facilities, cycle tracks and public transport infrastructure which means BUS LANES and NOT flyovers. It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. > > As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment. Just buying a few Volvo buses is not going to do much for improving the condition of public transport. And now that the city has committed itself to the hugely expensive Metro it is difficult to imagine where the money will come from for above measures (bus lanes, pedestrian facilities and cycle tracks). > > > On 3/15/06, Vittal Kumar A. wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Todd, > Here is an example for initiative to attact such segment of commuters. Bangalore increasingly adding personalized cars for office commuting with reduced road space. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) the state owned transport corporation introducing innovative approaches for different commuter segments with varied costs/services. Refer to the link > > http://www.thehindu.com/2006/02/18/stories/2006021822070300.htm > http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/05/stories/2006030520370300.htm > > regards, > Vittal > > Todd Alexander Litman wrote: > > > I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility" ( http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). > > I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: > > > Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, > > I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car > users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" > to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is > political will and consensus there will always be a success. In > Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a > Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking > would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car > restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. > Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the > neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the > modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a > city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in > Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT > would be an apt so lution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be > very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. > > So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my > understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a > safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their > number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I > see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a > good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and > was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but > today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If > chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to > opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and > more cars. > > Sunny > > Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, > > As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws wo uld be a > wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide > service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle > trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in > come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should > notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road > serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better > option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the > disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd > and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like > Bogot? and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian > areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai > increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be > implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for > this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. > > Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been > implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a > hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the > other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the > society > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( www.vtpi.org ) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! > > > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > > > > > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Mar 20 23:07:57 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:07:57 +0100 Subject: [sustran] A little order in our sprawling virtual world of old and new mobility ideas and communications Message-ID: <223701c64c27$b158cc20$6401a8c0@Home> Just in case you have not noticed, we live in a world of egregious information overload. How to manage and still have access to the positive fruits of these valuable tools of information access and sharing is a bit of a challenge to us all? We face this hugely in our New Mobility Agenda work, given the manner in which we try to span and stay abreast of not only developments and events in the (a) full range of transport modes and in (b) the directly related fields involved (bearing in mind that at least half of the answers to the problems that are first identified as accruing to our unsustainable transportation arrangements have in fact their solutions or at least their mitigation in areas which are well outside of the usual transport policy focus), but also (c) the fact that we feel that the only way to go about all this is from a world perspective. Hmm. Sustran-Discuss: Let me start with a current example of an information source that is closely related to our New Mobility Agenda, and which some of you at least should at the very least occasionally check out and others probably to subscribe directly to receive their bulletins and notices -- Sustran-Discuss, a first class forum and information source devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries. Here is how we try to integrate this flow of materials and intelligent into the New Mobility Agenda and this Caf?, with a minimum of needless duplication. If you go to http://www.newmobility.org and click Talking New Mobility of the top menu, you will be taken to a page with that title which identifies several dozen relation fora and discussion groups which at the very least you should be aware of ? and some of which you may do well to participate in and check our regularly. Sustran is one good example -- but as you will see if you take a bit of time with this page far from the only one. Now since we are aware that not all of you have yet to sort your way through this wwwj ? world wide jungle ? we nonetheless from time to time copy to this fine Caf? and Idea Factory some of the ongoing discussions from Sustran and yet others. But more generally we hope that you will take their measure and then make your own arrangements. Page in process: Finally, you note that the Talking NewMob page is still far from complete, so if you have a discussion group, forum or Listserve fro us that relates to our mission, please let us hear from you and we can do the necessary. What would be the PS for this note? Might it be that sustainable transportation is not for the lazy? ;-) . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/ab153558/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Mon Mar 20 23:12:38 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:42:38 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (See LeeSchippercommentson this) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603200612q5f46f1b3l223790f931a8734e@mail.gmail.com> 20 March 2006 I was present at the meeting and after the presentation by CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) expressed clearly and perhaps loudly the fear that several "observations" from CIRT's presentation would be misinterpreted by our friends from the media who as a group are still more familiar with outdated traffic solutions such as building more roads and flyovers. The observations I cited were:- -- the city has very little land area devoted to transport (which can mean space for public transport bus depots, bus workshops, space to enable bus lanes etc BUT the media reporters may wrongly conclude that CIRT is recommending more, more and more roads!!!!). THE ACTUAL FIGURE FOR ROAD AREA IN THE PRESENT PUNE CITY IS AROUND 10% AND WE INSIST THIS IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR AN EFFECTIVE BUS BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTED BY CYCLING AND WALKING FACILITIES. NEWLY ADDED AREA FOR THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE SPACE FOR ROADS PROVIDED THERE IS A BUILT-IN PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT ADDED SURFACE IS NOT USURPED BY PERSONAL AUTOS BUT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. -- there is extreme and growing pressure on parking (this can be seen to be a good thing as it can ultimately and effectively do more than half hearted vehicle restrain measures imposed by spineless administrators or politicians 's not wanting to displease the growing population using personal vehicles due to worsening (through neglect) public transport performance OR it can lead to policies that make available more space for parking usually by grabbing the meagre open spaces, lung areas, river-beds, canals, and hills which ideally should be kept safe from the hungry gaze of the auto vehicles and used for walking or cycling.) -- vehicle ownership per household (many see growing auto vehicle ownership as a sign of advancement.... India is becoming rich and prosperous, so that's a good thing. BUT if we only look at Singapore and European cities like Zurich, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc it becomes clear that less auto vehicles on roads and more space for walking, cycling, car-free zones makes for a far more vibrant and liveable city, offering more scope for parks, gardens, tourist sites, and safe spaces for children and the elderly). We don't have to go through the cycle of .... --growing auto domination - reduction in liveability, mobility and healthy environment - reducing auto domination through expensive measures instead we can leapfrog and try to make our cities more liveable BEFORE they are run over by more and more roads and autos) There were more points but this will get too long. Unfortunately it happened as I had feared. Lee was misquoted by one of the papers and even if they print his clarification it will not fully undo the damage. This is why sometimes measured and cautious presentations by "experts" and "academicians" need to be combined with "loud" and even disruptive interventions from NGOs and activists. But of course this is easier said than done. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/ PTTF Pune On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: > > I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig out. > basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes lots of > parking etc.. > > >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> > Lee's comments where? > > 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% > sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of > other cities? > > Alan > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton > Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper > commentson this) > > > Experts for more roads in city > > > > Express News Service > > ssindia.com> > > > > Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for > Transport > and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the > percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent > to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal > Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of > research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for > tackling the traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam > under > the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia > (PSUTA) > to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow > roads > in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in > comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum > here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density > compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that > around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper > blamed > the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to > calculate > the improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined > fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and > recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend > analysis to ensure transport in the city. > > > > [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can > anyway get this to the group????] > > > > Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/9c5526bd/attachment-0001.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Mon Mar 20 23:44:49 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:44:49 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD6A7C@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> It does seem that there is scope for a lot more education of the "opinion formers" in India on this issue. That was obvious even from my brief 2-week sojourn in Mumbai recently - I can't say too much about my current project without clearance from the lead consultant, but I am hoping the issue will be addressed as one of the outcomes of our study. One of my main impressions in Mumbai is that buses are seen as part of the transport problem, not as part of the solution - how else do you explain all the taxes bus operators (i.e. passengers) have to pay, compared with the "developed world" where there are all sorts of tax breaks, and specific payments for social obligations like seniors' discounts. Re. Pune - do have any modal share info, Sujit? I don't have the exact figures I would like for Mumbai, but there is no doubt that considering the proportion of road passenger trips that are carried by bus (approx two-thirds the total, if the figures we got are right), buses get a very small share of the road space. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: 20 March 2006 14:13 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) 20 March 2006 I was present at the meeting and after the presentation by CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) expressed clearly and perhaps loudly the fear that several "observations" from CIRT's presentation would be misinterpreted by our friends from the media who as a group are still more familiar with outdated traffic solutions such as building more roads and flyovers. The observations I cited were:- -- the city has very little land area devoted to transport (which can mean space for public transport bus depots, bus workshops, space to enable bus lanes etc BUT the media reporters may wrongly conclude that CIRT is recommending more, more and more roads!!!!). THE ACTUAL FIGURE FOR ROAD AREA IN THE PRESENT PUNE CITY IS AROUND 10% AND WE INSIST THIS IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR AN EFFECTIVE BUS BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTED BY CYCLING AND WALKING FACILITIES. NEWLY ADDED AREA FOR THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE SPACE FOR ROADS PROVIDED THERE IS A BUILT-IN PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT ADDED SURFACE IS NOT USURPED BY PERSONAL AUTOS BUT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. -- there is extreme and growing pressure on parking (this can be seen to be a good thing as it can ultimately and effectively do more than half hearted vehicle restrain measures imposed by spineless administrators or politicians 's not wanting to displease the growing population using personal vehicles due to worsening (through neglect) public transport performance OR it can lead to policies that make available more space for parking usually by grabbing the meagre open spaces, lung areas, river-beds, canals, and hills which ideally should be kept safe from the hungry gaze of the auto vehicles and used for walking or cycling.) -- vehicle ownership per household (many see growing auto vehicle ownership as a sign of advancement.... India is becoming rich and prosperous, so that's a good thing. BUT if we only look at Singapore and European cities like Zurich, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc it becomes clear that less auto vehicles on roads and more space for walking, cycling, car-free zones makes for a far more vibrant and liveable city, offering more scope for parks, gardens, tourist sites, and safe spaces for children and the elderly). We don't have to go through the cycle of .... --growing auto domination - reduction in liveability, mobility and healthy environment - reducing auto domination through expensive measures instead we can leapfrog and try to make our cities more liveable BEFORE they are run over by more and more roads and autos) There were more points but this will get too long. Unfortunately it happened as I had feared. Lee was misquoted by one of the papers and even if they print his clarification it will not fully undo the damage. This is why sometimes measured and cautious presentations by "experts" and "academicians" need to be combined with "loud" and even disruptive interventions from NGOs and activists. But of course this is easier said than done. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/ PTTF Pune On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig out. basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes lots of parking etc.. >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> Lee's comments where? 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of other cities? Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes= cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper commentson this) Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 ================================================================ 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/9563e448/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Mar 21 01:31:42 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:31:42 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city(SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) Message-ID: in a few weeks our city reports from the PSUTA referred to in that Indian newspaper article, and our summary report, will appear on the cai-Asia web site. There are good data on modal splits, distances/trip,etc.. >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 9:44:49 AM >>> It does seem that there is scope for a lot more education of the "opinion formers" in India on this issue. That was obvious even from my brief 2-week sojourn in Mumbai recently - I can't say too much about my current project without clearance from the lead consultant, but I am hoping the issue will be addressed as one of the outcomes of our study. One of my main impressions in Mumbai is that buses are seen as part of the transport problem, not as part of the solution - how else do you explain all the taxes bus operators (i.e. passengers) have to pay, compared with the "developed world" where there are all sorts of tax breaks, and specific payments for social obligations like seniors' discounts. Re. Pune - do have any modal share info, Sujit? I don't have the exact figures I would like for Mumbai, but there is no doubt that considering the proportion of road passenger trips that are carried by bus (approx two-thirds the total, if the figures we got are right), buses get a very small share of the road space. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: 20 March 2006 14:13 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) 20 March 2006 I was present at the meeting and after the presentation by CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) expressed clearly and perhaps loudly the fear that several "observations" from CIRT's presentation would be misinterpreted by our friends from the media who as a group are still more familiar with outdated traffic solutions such as building more roads and flyovers. The observations I cited were:- -- the city has very little land area devoted to transport (which can mean space for public transport bus depots, bus workshops, space to enable bus lanes etc BUT the media reporters may wrongly conclude that CIRT is recommending more, more and more roads!!!!). THE ACTUAL FIGURE FOR ROAD AREA IN THE PRESENT PUNE CITY IS AROUND 10% AND WE INSIST THIS IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR AN EFFECTIVE BUS BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTED BY CYCLING AND WALKING FACILITIES. NEWLY ADDED AREA FOR THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE SPACE FOR ROADS PROVIDED THERE IS A BUILT-IN PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT ADDED SURFACE IS NOT USURPED BY PERSONAL AUTOS BUT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. -- there is extreme and growing pressure on parking (this can be seen to be a good thing as it can ultimately and effectively do more than half hearted vehicle restrain measures imposed by spineless administrators or politicians 's not wanting to displease the growing population using personal vehicles due to worsening (through neglect) public transport performance OR it can lead to policies that make available more space for parking usually by grabbing the meagre open spaces, lung areas, river-beds, canals, and hills which ideally should be kept safe from the hungry gaze of the auto vehicles and used for walking or cycling.) -- vehicle ownership per household (many see growing auto vehicle ownership as a sign of advancement.... India is becoming rich and prosperous, so that's a good thing. BUT if we only look at Singapore and European cities like Zurich, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc it becomes clear that less auto vehicles on roads and more space for walking, cycling, car-free zones makes for a far more vibrant and liveable city, offering more scope for parks, gardens, tourist sites, and safe spaces for children and the elderly). We don't have to go through the cycle of .... --growing auto domination - reduction in liveability, mobility and healthy environment - reducing auto domination through expensive measures instead we can leapfrog and try to make our cities more liveable BEFORE they are run over by more and more roads and autos) There were more points but this will get too long. Unfortunately it happened as I had feared. Lee was misquoted by one of the papers and even if they print his clarification it will not fully undo the damage. This is why sometimes measured and cautious presentations by "experts" and "academicians" need to be combined with "loud" and even disruptive interventions from NGOs and activists. But of course this is easier said than done. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/ PTTF Pune On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig out. basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes lots of parking etc.. >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> Lee's comments where? 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of other cities? Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes= cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper commentson this) Experts for more roads in city Express News Service Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for Transport and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for tackling the traffic problems. Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam under the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow roads in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum here.'' He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper blamed the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to calculate the improvements done after implementations of projects. Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined fifty indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend analysis to ensure transport in the city. [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can anyway get this to the group????] Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 ================================================================ 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Mar 21 01:39:45 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:39:45 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) Message-ID: Fortunately Sujit is soft spoken! >>> sujit@vsnl.com 3/20/2006 9:12:38 AM >>> 20 March 2006 I was present at the meeting and after the presentation by CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) expressed clearly and perhaps loudly the fear that several "observations" from CIRT's presentation would be misinterpreted by our friends from the media who as a group are still more familiar with outdated traffic solutions such as building more roads and flyovers. The observations I cited were:- -- the city has very little land area devoted to transport (which can mean space for public transport bus depots, bus workshops, space to enable bus lanes etc BUT the media reporters may wrongly conclude that CIRT is recommending more, more and more roads!!!!). THE ACTUAL FIGURE FOR ROAD AREA IN THE PRESENT PUNE CITY IS AROUND 10% AND WE INSIST THIS IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR AN EFFECTIVE BUS BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTED BY CYCLING AND WALKING FACILITIES. NEWLY ADDED AREA FOR THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE SPACE FOR ROADS PROVIDED THERE IS A BUILT-IN PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT ADDED SURFACE IS NOT USURPED BY PERSONAL AUTOS BUT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. -- there is extreme and growing pressure on parking (this can be seen to be a good thing as it can ultimately and effectively do more than half hearted vehicle restrain measures imposed by spineless administrators or politicians 's not wanting to displease the growing population using personal vehicles due to worsening (through neglect) public transport performance OR it can lead to policies that make available more space for parking usually by grabbing the meagre open spaces, lung areas, river-beds, canals, and hills which ideally should be kept safe from the hungry gaze of the auto vehicles and used for walking or cycling.) -- vehicle ownership per household (many see growing auto vehicle ownership as a sign of advancement.... India is becoming rich and prosperous, so that's a good thing. BUT if we only look at Singapore and European cities like Zurich, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc it becomes clear that less auto vehicles on roads and more space for walking, cycling, car-free zones makes for a far more vibrant and liveable city, offering more scope for parks, gardens, tourist sites, and safe spaces for children and the elderly). We don't have to go through the cycle of .... --growing auto domination - reduction in liveability, mobility and healthy environment - reducing auto domination through expensive measures instead we can leapfrog and try to make our cities more liveable BEFORE they are run over by more and more roads and autos) There were more points but this will get too long. Unfortunately it happened as I had feared. Lee was misquoted by one of the papers and even if they print his clarification it will not fully undo the damage. This is why sometimes measured and cautious presentations by "experts" and "academicians" need to be combined with "loud" and even disruptive interventions from NGOs and activists. But of course this is easier said than done. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/ PTTF Pune On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: > > I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig out. > basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes lots of > parking etc.. > > >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> > Lee's comments where? > > 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but 20-22% > sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a raft of > other cities? > > Alan > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton > Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper > commentson this) > > > Experts for more roads in city > > > > Express News Service > > ssindia.com> > > > > Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for > Transport > and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase the > percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 per cent > to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before Municipal > Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director of > research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary for > tackling the traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ has been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in Vietnam > under > the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia > (PSUTA) > to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on narrow > roads > in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in > comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is minimum > here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic density > compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed that > around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, Schipper > blamed > the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to > calculate > the improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) underlined > fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and > recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent trend > analysis to ensure transport in the city. > > > > [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in it. Can > anyway get this to the group????] > > > > Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Mar 21 03:35:46 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:05:46 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city(SeeLeeSchippercommentsonthis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603201035w53e7a1cbta11819be6e6ae05@mail.gmail.com> 20 March 2006 Alan, Wherever cars dominate transport and city planning, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport are seen as obstructions in smooth flow of traffic (read auto vehicles). The voice of the majority (pedestrians, cyclists and public transport commuters) is not heard. But anyone who cares to dig a little deeper can see how unjust is this perspective. Auto vehicles not only favour the (powerful) minority but make other modes "invisible". Pune which was known as a cycle city still has about 800,000 bicycles though not everyone is brave enough to bike these days. Only those without choice of other modes brave the dangerous traffic and peddle the distance on their bikes. There's an interesting study done by a group working for the cycle rickshaw users of Delhi that shows the importance of this mode in the city's economy and the very adverse nature of rules/laws limiting the movement of cycle rickshaws in the city. If you're interested please send an Email to Mr Rajiv Ravi Email:. As for the role of buses in Mumbai here are some interesting facts presented by Transport Planner Dr P G Patankar who held important positions in the Indian Railways, BEST, Delhi Transport corporation, Director of CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) and after retirement as a consultant at Tata Consultancy Services. In Mumbai:- Buses carry: over 51% of road commuters Intermediate Transport (Auto rickshaws and taxis): 32% Cars: 17% But Buses have to crawl on only 4% of the road space in the city Intermediate Transport gets: 12% of the road space, while Cars hog: 84% of the road space And yet there's ongoing clamouring for more and more roads AND flyovers that mainly benefit the personal auto vehicles. The Trips by Mode in Pune is even more revealing. Walking: 37% Bicycle: 18% Bus: 22% Two Wheelers: 16% Three Wheelers: 5% Cars: 1% Rail: 1% (source: Pune Municipal Corporation 2004) This may have changed in the last few years as there's a steep acceleration in the growth of auto vehicles and a natural decline in the use of Public Transport Buses (the only Public Transport in the city) Over 400 new vehicles are added to the city EACH day. The annual figures of auto vehicles added to the city for the last four years is: 2001-2002: 80,000 2002-2003: 90,000 2003-2004: 120,000 2004-2005: 160,000 (figures, rounded off, from the Regional Tranport Offfice, Pune) Calculations on the basis of parking space requirements according to Pune Municipal Corporation's norms show that to park all the vehicles added to Pune's vehicle population in the year 2004-2005 alone we will need a parking lot of over 200 acres !!!!! The largest open space in the city (or what's left of it is the Pune University Campus which is 450 acres. The situation is so grave that Pune is now one of the most polluted cities in Asia (6th most polluted city in Asia in terms of SPM2, according to a World Bank report published from Manila in 2003 December). And still the major projects in progress in the city are the IRDP roads (Integrated Road Development Project) and the Flyovers. The overloaded and aging fleet of the PMT buses (Total buses about 1,000 out of which over 350 are more than 10 years old and the whole fleet is in extremely poor condition, with high breakdown rates during journeys) is not on high priority list of the local body nor the State Government. Your observation "It does seem that there is scope for a lot more education of the "opinion formers" in India on this issue", is certainly not an exaggeration!!! -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar PTTF(Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) Pune On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: > > in a few weeks our city reports from the PSUTA referred to in that > Indian newspaper article, and our summary report, > will appear on the cai-Asia web site. There are good data on modal > splits, distances/trip,etc.. > > >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 9:44:49 AM >>> > It does seem that there is scope for a lot more education of the > "opinion formers" in India on this issue. That was obvious even from > my > brief 2-week sojourn in Mumbai recently - I can't say too much about > my > current project without clearance from the lead consultant, but I am > hoping the issue will be addressed as one of the outcomes of our > study. > > > One of my main impressions in Mumbai is that buses are seen as part of > the transport problem, not as part of the solution - how else do you > explain all the taxes bus operators (i.e. passengers) have to pay, > compared with the "developed world" where there are all sorts of tax > breaks, and specific payments for social obligations like seniors' > discounts. > > Re. Pune - do have any modal share info, Sujit? I don't have the > exact > figures I would like for Mumbai, but there is no doubt that > considering > the proportion of road passenger trips that are carried by bus (approx > two-thirds the total, if the figures we got are right), buses get a > very > small share of the road space. > > Alan > > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are > addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to > receive > it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to > anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact > the > sender by replying to this email. > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of > Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > Any > professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject > to > our terms and conditions of business. > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting > software > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > software viruses. > _______________________________ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan > Sent: 20 March 2006 14:13 > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city > (SeeLeeSchippercommentson this) > > > 20 March 2006 > > > > I was present at the meeting and after the presentation by CIRT > (Central > Institute of Road Transport) expressed clearly and perhaps loudly the > fear that several "observations" from CIRT's presentation would be > misinterpreted by our friends from the media who as a group are still > more familiar with outdated traffic solutions such as building more > roads and flyovers. The observations I cited were:- > > -- the city has very little land area devoted to transport > (which can mean space for public transport bus depots, bus workshops, > space to enable bus lanes etc BUT the media reporters may wrongly > conclude that CIRT is recommending more, more and more roads!!!!). > > THE ACTUAL FIGURE FOR ROAD AREA IN THE PRESENT PUNE CITY IS AROUND 10% > AND WE INSIST THIS IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR AN EFFECTIVE BUS BASED PUBLIC > TRANSPORT SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTED BY CYCLING AND WALKING FACILITIES. NEWLY > ADDED AREA FOR THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE SPACE FOR ROADS PROVIDED THERE > IS > A BUILT-IN PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT ADDED SURFACE IS NOT USURPED BY > PERSONAL AUTOS BUT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. > > -- there is extreme and growing pressure on parking > (this can be seen to be a good thing as it can ultimately and > effectively do more than half hearted vehicle restrain measures > imposed > by spineless administrators or politicians 's not wanting to displease > the growing population using personal vehicles due to worsening > (through > neglect) public transport performance OR it can lead to policies that > make available more space for parking usually by grabbing the meagre > open spaces, lung areas, river-beds, canals, and hills which ideally > should be kept safe from the hungry gaze of the auto vehicles and used > for walking or cycling.) > > > -- vehicle ownership per household > (many see growing auto vehicle ownership as a sign of advancement.... > India is becoming rich and prosperous, so that's a good thing. BUT if > we > only look at Singapore and European cities like Zurich, Copenhagen, > Amsterdam etc it becomes clear that less auto vehicles on roads and > more > space for walking, cycling, car-free zones makes for a far more > vibrant > and liveable city, offering more scope for parks, gardens, tourist > sites, and safe spaces for children and the elderly). We don't have to > go through the cycle of .... > --growing auto domination > - reduction in liveability, mobility and healthy environment > - reducing auto domination through expensive measures > instead we can leapfrog and try to make our cities more liveable > BEFORE > they are run over by more and more roads and autos) > > There were more points but this will get too long. > > Unfortunately it happened as I had feared. Lee was misquoted by one of > the papers and even if they print his clarification it will not fully > undo the damage. > > This is why sometimes measured and cautious presentations by "experts" > and "academicians" need to be combined with "loud" and even disruptive > interventions from NGOs and activists. > > But of course this is easier said than done. > > -- > Sujit > > Sujit Patwardhan > Parisar/ PTTF > Pune > > > > > > > > > On 3/20/06, Lee Schipper wrote: > > I have a slide submitted with the Xian report I will try to dig > out. > basically the numbers are 15-20%. I think the 20-22 includes > lots of > parking etc.. > > >>> Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk 3/20/2006 5:58:16 AM >>> > Lee's comments where? > > 4% of urban area devoted to transport does indeed seem low, but > 20-22% > sounds excessive. Has anyone got comparative figures for a > raft > of > other cities? > > Alan > > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > > > tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes= > cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton > Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44 > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee > Schipper > commentson this) > > > Experts for more roads in city > > > > Express News Service > > > > > ssindia.com> > > > > Pune, March 17: EMBARQ, a World Research Initiative Centre for > Transport > and Environment, stressed on the need for the city to increase > the > percentage of land use for transport from 4 per cent to 20-22 > per cent > to stem the traffic problems. Presenting the findings before > Municipal > Commissioner Nitin Kareer on Friday before, EMBARQ's director > of > research, Lee Schipper suggested that more roads are necessary > for > tackling the traffic problems. > > Funded by Swedish Institute of Development Authority, EMBARQ > has > been > studying traffic woes of Pune, Xian in China and Hanoi in > Vietnam > under > the project Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia > > (PSUTA) > to suggest ways of coping up with increasing traffic. > > > > > > Schipper said that compared to the other two cities, Pune's > traffic > comprises two-wheelers, autorickshaws, buses all plying on > narrow > roads > in downtown parts. ''Pune has less vehicle speed (12 km/hr) in > comparison wih the two cities and the traffic fatality is > minimum > here.'' > > He said that Nalstop and Swargate chowks have higher traffic > density > compared to Bhosari - an industrial area. EMBARQ study revealed > that > around 60 percent, is directly exposed to air pollution. > > Advocating Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in the city, > Schipper > blamed > the city planners for failing to undertake any impact study to > calculate > the improvements done after implementations of projects. > > Experts from Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) > underlined > fifty > indicators for ascertaining a sustainable transport system and > recommended monitoring the indicators by conducting frequent > trend > analysis to ensure transport in the city. > > > > [eb: We'd like to see (a) that list and (b) how Pune fared in > it. Can > anyway get this to the group????] > > > > Source: > http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174140 > > > > ================================================================ > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > www.parisar.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > ================================================================ > 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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Proprietor: Mudra ------------------------------------------------------ Hon. Secretary: Parisar ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060321/7dfe0475/attachment-0001.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Mar 21 04:12:33 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:12:33 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization In-Reply-To: <441ADDD0.4040806@inro.ca> References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E7499@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> <441ADDD0.4040806@inro.ca> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060320110438.032120b8@mail.islandnet.com> I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain voter support. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? > >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support >from the population by adding more taxes! > >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > >Zvi Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/53ba59ca/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Mar 21 10:13:32 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:13:32 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization Message-ID: I can't say Ive seen any hard before/after evidence on rail developments, Todd. I have seen a lot of work on Transmilineo in Bogota (BRT) showing clear increases in property values and development, in fact some say too much capital is now sucked into development along the corridor. Sam? >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 2:12:33 PM >>> I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain voter support. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? > >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support >from the population by adding more taxes! > >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > >Zvi Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" From anjalim at MIT.EDU Sat Mar 18 06:35:59 2006 From: anjalim at MIT.EDU (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:35:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [sustran-discuss] Digest Number 981 In-Reply-To: <1142613086.281.33926.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004801c64a0a$c8d66520$a0063612@anjalim> {Re: Sujit Patwardhan's email: "It also means TDM measures so that people are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, this is not on the city's agenda at the moment."} On the topic of TDM for Bangalore, here's a recent article from the Hindu: http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/12/stories/2006011222730300.htm This article gets more specific about the Bangalore Traffic Police's plans to introduce some form of congestion pricing by 2010. http://floss.sarai.net/newsrack/DisplayNewsItem.do;jsessionid=aritXJapRYQ6?n i=10.2.2006%2Fnie.crawler%2Fni250.NewsItems.asp_ID%3DIE120060209231023 And in the Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1441861,curpg-1.cms This is of course just the tip of the iceberg and who knows what the full proposal will play out to be. But do people think this is workable in Bangalore, with autorickshaws, bicycles, and two-wheelers forming a much larger proportion of the traffic than cars? -Anjali -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sustran-discuss@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:31 AM To: sustran-discuss@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran-discuss] Digest Number 981 There are 3 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 From: Sunny 2. [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 From: "Guevarra, Joselito Lomada" 3. [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 From: "Dibu Sengupta" ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:02:14 +0700 From: Sunny Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". Sincerely, Sunny Santhosh Kumar. K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > Cheers. setty. > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > President > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > ================================================================ 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. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:18:12 +0800 From: "Guevarra, Joselito Lomada" Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 You are absolutely right. A lot of cars running on the street does not necessarily equate to prosperity in a particular country. Rather, it is a symptom of larger malaise in which people cannot depend, or will not depend, on public transport to take them to where they want to go. For example, in the Philippines, the dream is to own a car because of the sorry state of public transport and the pollution that go with it. It is not uncommon for a middle class family of, say 5, to own 5 cars or maybe more (to circumvent the so-called color coding where certain plate numbers are banned on certain days)! Owning a car is not a luxury anymore but a necessity...in this case anyway... Cheers, Joselito L. Guevarra Research Engineer -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sunny Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:02 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". Sincerely, Sunny Santhosh Kumar. K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money to spend!! > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > Cheers. setty. > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > President > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > ================================================================ 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. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:19:35 -0500 From: "Dibu Sengupta" Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 And this malaise is spreading fast, not just in Bangalore or Pune but in the smaller towns as well. Foreign companies introducing new brands of cars, giving off low interest payments and people making a beeline for a new symbol of social status. That's where transit authorities and the local jurisdictions come to the picture. Utilization charges mentioned by Sunny are probably the best way to tackle this automobile explosion! Regards, Dibu Sengupta Transportation Engineer VHB, Inc. On 3/17/06, Guevarra, Joselito Lomada wrote: > > You are absolutely right. A lot of cars running on the street does not > necessarily equate to prosperity in a particular country. Rather, it is > a symptom of larger malaise in which people cannot depend, or will not > depend, on public transport to take them to where they want to go. For > example, in the Philippines, the dream is to own a car because of the > sorry state of public transport and the pollution that go with it. It is > not uncommon for a middle class family of, say 5, to own 5 cars or maybe > more (to circumvent the so-called color coding where certain plate > numbers are banned on certain days)! Owning a car is not a luxury > anymore but a necessity...in this case anyway... > > Cheers, > > Joselito L. Guevarra > Research Engineer > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf Of Sunny > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:02 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 > > In my opinion spending money on cars will not denote the prosperity of > the city or people. Nowadays a car in India can be owned not only by > full payment but also in instalments which is providing a scope for > the middle class to enjoy the benefits of the car. On the other hand the > > emissions they produce and their paradigm shift in commutation deprives > the poor of their native means of transport i.e. the public transport or > > the non-motorised means. For example in countries like Singapore, Hong > Kong are supposed to be richer than their neighbours in Asia have a very > > less private mobility and the users are charged for their utilisation. > Japan, which makes most of the cars, has the highest walking ratio of > 41%. And even in Germany which is also a big car market has good > facility for walking and excellent and accessible public transport. > > Looking at Public Transportation, I feel that just investing in Public > transport and buying Mercedes or Volvo buses will not solve the problem > but the accessibility to the whole transit system in both terms economy > (ticket prices) and physical and social (nearness, frequency and option > for vulnerable groups) will be the key for a public transport success. > If Bangalore can reduce the speed of cars and make the buses faster and > efficient and accessible, in Litmans words "Efficiency and Equity", the > transit will be a success and Bangalore can retain its fame of being the > > "Garden City" otherwise I am sure if no action is taken, from personal > inspection in BKK, it is going to become a "Garage City". > > Sincerely, > Sunny > > Santhosh Kumar. K > Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, > Mahidol University, > Thailand > sksunny@gmail.com > sunnysanthosh@gmail.com > > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > > Why are you appalled? You should celebrate that the people have money > to spend!! > > > > What are you doing in Bangalore? > > > > Cheers. setty. > > > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur > > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia > > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences > > Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP > > > > President > > Pacific Policy and Planning Associates > > 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent > > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 > > Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 > > > > > > ================================================================ > 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. [This message contained attachments] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: sustran-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Mon Mar 20 23:41:33 2006 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:41:33 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum Message-ID: TRANSPORT CREATES LAND REVENUES Dave Wetzel, Chair of the Professional Land Reform Group [www.LabourLand.org] The Institute of Economic Affairs is not a body whose economic judgements I would normally want to be associated with. However, in publishing Fred Harrison's new book "Wheels of Fortune, Self-funding Infrastructure and the Free Market Case for a Land Tax" [?12.50] they have done us all a favour. At a time when the UK Labour Movement is addressing the role of landowners and the UK Greens are advocating Annual Land Value Taxation it is reassuring that even the followers of Adam Smith are beginning to recognise the unique role that land plays in our economy and how in Harrison's own words "The traditional landed class ......top the list of free riders"! Fred Harrison uses many examples to show how large major infrastructure projects, usually funded by Government (i.e. tax payers) provide massive increases to land values. He demonstrates that major transport schemes give three times the value of the project as an unearned gain to landowners. The Jubilee Line Extension in London cost ?3.4bn to build and it is estimated that land values just close to the eleven new stations have increased by a staggering ?13bn. Of course, the taxpayers lose in two ways. As travellers they have to pay high fares towards the capital cost as well as bearing the opportunity cost of private activities forgone. Harrison estimates that for every ?1 of tax raised by the government, an average of ?2 of wealth is lost to the economy and even the yardstick employed by HM Treasury for the damage taxes cause is 30p in every ?1 raised. Harrison's remedy is to suggest an annual levy on land values to pay for Government infrastructure and services. Taxes on wages could be reduced and many schemes that currently fail to be implemented would see the light of day. He shows how historically, as far back as Roman times their famous roads were paid for from local ground rents and not by some central bureaucracy in Rome, and yet armies could span their empire, post was delivered expeditiously and local farmers enjoyed bigger markets as they could transport their goods more easily and safely over greater distances. Similarly, Hong Kong and Singapore use land rents to finance infrastructure and keep their taxes on incomes and trade very low and yet without any natural resources their populations enjoy higher per capita incomes than the UK. In addition, taxes on wages and savings are regressive tools as they transfer money from people at the bottom end of the income scales, who tend not to own land, to people in the middle and higher brackets who do tend to own land. As land is used as a means of investment, it often pays landowners to hold it out of use while events such as increased productivity, growing population, and neighbouring investments cause their land to increase in value with no effort on their part. Such idle land denies us all homes, jobs and leisure activities in the area. Many have to travel greater distances for their homes or work and the artificial shortage of land raises land prices to unaffordable levels. Whereas, following the Ricardo theory of rent, an annual tax on land values not only reduces land prices but encourages its owners to put it to good use to derive an income. This enables more affordable homes to be built where people most want to live, without ripping up pastures in the green belt and destroying our countryside with all the additional transport and other costs that urban sprawl creates. Harrison has a good track record in his description of the land market. He was uniquely the only economic commentator who in his 1983 book "Power in the Land" predicted the last property crash in 1992. His current prediction in "Boom/Bust" (2005) is that the land market will peak in 2007/08 and crash in 2010. He demonstrates how such helter-skelter booms and depressions are not inevitable. They arise from the mismanagement by governments of their tax policies and an annual Land Value Tax, replacing many harmful taxes, would not only smooth land prices but allow for reductions in interest rates as the Bank of England no longer needed to apply unnecessarily high interest rates to dampen a housing boom. For anyone interested in funding better transport and creating a fairer more efficient and just society - I urge you to read this book available free as a download from the IEA website at http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication307pdf?.pdf Dave Dave Wetzel; *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/87550061/attachment.html From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Tue Mar 21 12:13:46 2006 From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:13:46 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization References: Message-ID: <046601c64c97$3ac50180$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Light rail is indeed more popular with riders, and it has lower negative impacts on adjacent land uses. However, it shares with BRT 1) long distances between stations and 2) the fact that it is not compatible with service-rich, walkable main streets. Street cars are superior at this, using the middle of the road, and allowing for wider sidewalks at corners, and not being at the mercy of auto traffic (but in fact, the reverse). Both light rail and BRT run in corridors that are totally segregated from both cars and street life. They are good at moving people long distances, but poor at maintaining or rebuilding the "fabric" of a city, the system of millions of interconnections that are informal and spontaenous. And they help suburbs survive as still 90% sprawl, where most people might agree to use transit for their working trip, but won't use it for their daily non-commuting trips -- and therefore have to own a car. Once the car-key is in the pocket (and the high payments staring the owner in the face every month), the car will get the nod for most trips. Where density warrants, the subway is the only acceptible alternative to street cars, since it can provide fast, long trips, and not disrupt (in fact, it supports) healthy main streets, vs. the suburb's "activity centres" with their huge fringes of parking . Chris Bradshaw Ottawa From litman at vtpi.org Tue Mar 21 13:57:01 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:57:01 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060320204849.0322f840@mail.islandnet.com> There are, indeed, many studies showing that property values tend to increase near rail transit stations, and some involve before-and-after analysis. See Smith and Gihring's excellent literature review posted on our website (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). Only one published study shows similar effects along BRT (see Rodr?guez and Targa, 2004) but I suspect that reflects a lack of research rather than a lack of effects. I expect that BRT would have some land use impacts, particularly in lower-income countries, but less than rail. I find it difficult to believe that "too much" capital is being invested along BRT corridors, from most economic perspectives that sort of concentration along major transit corridors exactly what is desirable (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 05:13 PM 3/20/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: >I can't say Ive seen any hard before/after evidence on rail >developments, Todd. I have seen a lot of work on Transmilineo in Bogota >(BRT) showing clear increases in property values and development, in >fact some say too much capital is now sucked into development along the >corridor. > >Sam? > > >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 2:12:33 PM >>> > >I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based >transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." >Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible >neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle >ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita >congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, >energy consumption and pollution emissions >(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local >property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly >revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT >appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in >conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are >greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain >voter support. > > >Best wishes, >-Todd Litman > > >At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: > >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those >which > >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not > >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of >course > >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people >can > >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding > >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is >sufficient > >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - > >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And > >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served >by > >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > > > >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: > >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve > >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted > >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together > >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not > >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so > >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > > > >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that > >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better > >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail > >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to > >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they >will > >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location >develops? > > > >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support > >from the population by adding more taxes! > > > >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > > > >Zvi > > >Sincerely, >Todd Alexander Litman >Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) >litman@vtpi.org >Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 >1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > >================================================================ >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. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060320/c40d588f/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Tue Mar 21 18:19:57 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:19:57 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD6B5D@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Some fair points - but the good thing about BRT is that the buses can at any point leave the BRT track and become an ordinary bus which, properly catered for, can have all the advantages Chris claims for streetcars [trams]. OK, perhaps not a mega-200-place-bi-artic BRT bus, but you don't have to go the whole hog. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw Sent: 21 March 2006 03:14 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization Light rail is indeed more popular with riders, and it has lower negative impacts on adjacent land uses. However, it shares with BRT 1) long distances between stations and 2) the fact that it is not compatible with service-rich, walkable main streets. Street cars are superior at this, using the middle of the road, and allowing for wider sidewalks at corners, and not being at the mercy of auto traffic (but in fact, the reverse). Both light rail and BRT run in corridors that are totally segregated from both cars and street life. They are good at moving people long distances, but poor at maintaining or rebuilding the "fabric" of a city, the system of millions of interconnections that are informal and spontaenous. And they help suburbs survive as still 90% sprawl, where most people might agree to use transit for their working trip, but won't use it for their daily non-commuting trips -- and therefore have to own a car. Once the car-key is in the pocket (and the high payments staring the owner in the face every month), the car will get the nod for most trips. Where density warrants, the subway is the only acceptible alternative to street cars, since it can provide fast, long trips, and not disrupt (in fact, it supports) healthy main streets, vs. the suburb's "activity centres" with their huge fringes of parking . Chris Bradshaw Ottawa ================================================================ 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. From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Mar 21 19:16:49 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:16:49 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization Message-ID: The fear is that so much is pouring into the TM lines that other parts of the city are doing without. >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 11:57:01 PM >>> There are, indeed, many studies showing that property values tend to increase near rail transit stations, and some involve before-and-after analysis. See Smith and Gihring's excellent literature review posted on our website (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). Only one published study shows similar effects along BRT (see Rodr?guez and Targa, 2004) but I suspect that reflects a lack of research rather than a lack of effects. I expect that BRT would have some land use impacts, particularly in lower-income countries, but less than rail. I find it difficult to believe that "too much" capital is being invested along BRT corridors, from most economic perspectives that sort of concentration along major transit corridors exactly what is desirable (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 05:13 PM 3/20/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: >I can't say Ive seen any hard before/after evidence on rail >developments, Todd. I have seen a lot of work on Transmilineo in Bogota >(BRT) showing clear increases in property values and development, in >fact some say too much capital is now sucked into development along the >corridor. > >Sam? > > >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 2:12:33 PM >>> > >I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based >transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." >Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible >neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle >ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita >congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, >energy consumption and pollution emissions >(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local >property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly >revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT >appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in >conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are >greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain >voter support. > > >Best wishes, >-Todd Litman > > >At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: > >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those >which > >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not > >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of >course > >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people >can > >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding > >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is >sufficient > >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - > >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And > >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served >by > >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > > > >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: > >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve > >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted > >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together > >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not > >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so > >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > > > >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that > >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better > >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail > >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to > >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they >will > >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location >develops? > > > >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support > >from the population by adding more taxes! > > > >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > > > >Zvi > > >Sincerely, >Todd Alexander Litman >Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) >litman@vtpi.org >Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 >1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > >================================================================ >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. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Mar 21 21:12:16 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:12:16 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603211212.k2LCCGvW003538@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> I guess that's what they mean by Transit Oriented Development, but the question is if it's desirable in Bogot?. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is developing a research project to see how TM has influenced land use and urban form. They haven't published anything but should have something by the end of this month... I will send the link or document once I get my hands on it. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: ?+57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Martes, 21 de Marzo de 2006 05:17 a.m. To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; litman@vtpi.org Cc: szimmerman@worldbank.org Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization The fear is that so much is pouring into the TM lines that other parts of the city are doing without. >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 11:57:01 PM >>> There are, indeed, many studies showing that property values tend to increase near rail transit stations, and some involve before-and-after analysis. See Smith and Gihring's excellent literature review posted on our website (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). Only one published study shows similar effects along BRT (see Rodr?guez and Targa, 2004) but I suspect that reflects a lack of research rather than a lack of effects. I expect that BRT would have some land use impacts, particularly in lower-income countries, but less than rail. I find it difficult to believe that "too much" capital is being invested along BRT corridors, from most economic perspectives that sort of concentration along major transit corridors exactly what is desirable (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 05:13 PM 3/20/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: >I can't say Ive seen any hard before/after evidence on rail >developments, Todd. I have seen a lot of work on Transmilineo in Bogota >(BRT) showing clear increases in property values and development, in >fact some say too much capital is now sucked into development along the >corridor. > >Sam? > > >>> litman@vtpi.org 3/20/2006 2:12:33 PM >>> > >I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based >transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." >Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible >neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle >ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita >congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, >energy consumption and pollution emissions >(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ). It also results in higher local >property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly >revised literature review at http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf ). BRT >appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in >conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are >greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain >voter support. > > >Best wishes, >-Todd Litman > > >At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: > >In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those >which > >are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not > >necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of >course > >as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people >can > >afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding > >regions are often not structured in such a way that there is >sufficient > >accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - > >hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And > >unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served >by > >mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! > > > >There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: > >concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve > >them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted > >effort by the government to integrate land use developments together > >with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not > >necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so > >simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. > > > >I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that > >they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better > >chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail > >rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to > >expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they >will > >miraculously now be able to control the way a given location >develops? > > > >As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support > >from the population by adding more taxes! > > > >Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. > > > >Zvi > > >Sincerely, >Todd Alexander Litman >Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) >litman@vtpi.org >Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 >1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > >================================================================ >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. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ================================================================ 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. From sksunny at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 21:59:04 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:59:04 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Anjali's Mail In-Reply-To: <20060321121423.68B1B2DA1A@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060321121423.68B1B2DA1A@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <441FF898.8020506@gmail.com> A very interesting thing that Anjali has put focus on is the traffic plan in B'lore. If seen from the site (Hindu) there is not much explicit TDM being implemented but rather dividing the city into zones and building "small flyovers" which I feel is not a way to relieve congestion. From my understanding of the article from "Hindu" I see that effort is being made in increasing the personnel controlling the traffic but no effort is done in TDM terms like reducing the lanes for cars, and increasing the other modes which can trigger a modal shift and robust funding model was specified but the source of funds was not. From my observation in Bangkok, which obviously is more congested than Bangalore at least at the moment, I feel that any measure taken to make the car journey easy will only result in a worsened state for cars. On the other hand if the PT and NMT are encouraged it will result in a small and high density living with less car usage. I could suggest Bangalore to focus more on car restraint policies rather than car safety policies. The other link (Times of India) that Anjali directed in her earlier mail talks about pricing. It is true that London and Singapore have advantaged out of such schemes but the strategy was implemented in the city centres, but implementing it in NH might not result in a ease of traffic in the city unless the working people travel on the national highway to work. Such pricing schemes could be implemented on the congested roads or roads with high car volumes during the peak hours, I guess MG and Brigade road are quite high in traffic. This will discourage riders to drive but shift to public transport, should it be of quality and comfortable both economically and in appeal. On the whole I would suggest that more preference for the Mass Transit, making car driving harder, strict enforcing of speed limits, increasing greenery on main roads, and keeping the vulnerable groups in mind while planning by not taxing them with pedestrian overpasses will surely ease B'lore's malaise. Sunny Santhosh Kumar K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand sksunny@gmail.com sunnysanthosh@gmail.com sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > {Re: Sujit Patwardhan's email: "It also means TDM measures so that people > are encouraged to shift to public transport and made to pay more realistic > costs if they want to persist using personal vehicles. As far as I'm aware, > this is not on the city's agenda at the moment."} > > On the topic of TDM for Bangalore, here's a recent article from the Hindu: > http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/12/stories/2006011222730300.htm > > This article gets more specific about the Bangalore Traffic Police's plans > to introduce some form of congestion pricing by 2010. > http://floss.sarai.net/newsrack/DisplayNewsItem.do;jsessionid=aritXJapRYQ6?n > i=10.2.2006%2Fnie.crawler%2Fni250.NewsItems.asp_ID%3DIE120060209231023 > > And in the Times of India: > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1441861,curpg-1.cms > > This is of course just the tip of the iceberg and who knows what the full > proposal will play out to be. But do people think this is workable in > Bangalore, with autorickshaws, bicycles, and two-wheelers forming a much > larger proportion of the traffic than cars? > > -Anjali > > From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Wed Mar 22 11:05:15 2006 From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:05:15 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization References: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD6B5D@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Message-ID: <011d01c64d55$4738c6e0$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Alan Howes: > Some fair points - but the good thing about BRT is that the buses can at > any point leave the BRT track and become an ordinary bus which, properly > catered for, can have all the advantages Chris claims for streetcars > [trams]. OK, perhaps not a mega-200-place-bi-artic BRT bus, but you > don't have to go the whole hog. The ability for BRT vehicles to "become" a regular bus is appealing, but in a limited sense. As you point out, the type of buses that are best for the "spine" of the bus system are often not that suitable for the "legs". Second, the design of a station to allow for such movements both increases construction costs and expand the site requirements. Ottawa developed the first BRT in North America (starting in 1980). We are now implementing a light rail system that will partially duplicate the former. BRT route has not been very successful stimulating development at transit stations, and the three-yearold O-train trial is too young to see its land-use impacts. Both systems are located far from main streets and the services they offer. Only in the system set up in Curitiba, Brazil, does the system use existing streets. That increases the population living close to each station, and reduces the need for extra structures to get riders across freeways and rivers, that comes with BRTs running in separate (greenways or brown industrial corridors) rights-of-way. Another point about BRT is that the right-of-way is widers, since the vehicles need to pass each other. In Ottawa, that is compounded by the need to store snow in winters. The concern that riders of transit don't want to transfer (thus the value of buses being able to leave the transitway) is, I believe, overemphasized. If transferring occurs at enclosed stations which have public amenities and convenience shopping, there can be advantages for the riders. One of these is that a person without a seat on the first leg of a journey often gets one for the second leg. Chris Bradshaw Ottawa From hfabian at adb.org Wed Mar 22 11:47:00 2006 From: hfabian at adb.org (hfabian at adb.org) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:47:00 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Updating vehicle fleet and fuel - related information Message-ID: Dear all, The CAI-Asia Secretariat was requested by ADB to coordinate its work on developing a paper that contributes towards an overall investment framework to serve as a guide to address energy efficiency and climate change in the transport sector. This initiative forms part of the Group of Eight (G8) Gleneagles? Action Plan on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development agreed in July 2005. An initial draft of the paper will be presented in an IMF/WB meeting in Washington in April. We would like to request the assistance of the CAI-Asia community in looking for relevant and up-to-date information, especially those related to vehicle and fuel related information. A Word document, available at , specifies the kind of tables that we require for each of the non-OECD countries in Asia. In each table we mention the sources that we are currently considering, and we would appreciate it if you can send us any new or better references. Please send your suggestions by 29 March 2006. Thank you all very much for your help. Best regards, Bert Herbert G. Fabian Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Asian Development Bank, Manila tel: + 63 2 632 4444 loc. 7666 fax: + 63 2 636 2381 e-mail: hfabian@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia--- You are currently subscribed to cai-asia as: hfabian@adb.org. To view archived messages, go to http://vx.worldbank.org/read/?forum=cai-asia. Important note: This is a moderated listserv. If you encounter problems, email Mike Co (mrco@adb.org). Please do not email your complaints directly to the listserv. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Mar 23 03:32:41 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:32:41 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Invitation to submit proposals for research and education projects Message-ID: <083801c64ddf$0171d180$6401a8c0@Home> -----Original Message----- From: Guenter.Hoermandinger@cec.eu.int [mailto:Guenter.Hoermandinger@cec.eu.int] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:09 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: FW: Invitation to submit proposals for research and education projects Guenter -----Original Message----- From: Niklasson Fabienne (fn) [mailto:fabienne.fn.niklasson@consultant.volvo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:45 AM To: info@volvoresearchfoundations.com Subject: Invitation to submit proposals for research and education projects Dear Sir/Madame, The Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF) provide funding of a programme entitled "Future Urban Transport" (FUT), with the subtitle "How to cope with the complexity of urban transport development". The programme activities are: 1. Funding of a relatively small number of larger scientific projects with the aim to support / create Centres of Excellence (CoE) within the FUT area. The annual funding of a CoE in full operation is normally in the range of SEK 4,000,000-6,000,000 (about EUR 450,000-650,000 or USD 500,000-800,000) with an expected duration for a successful centre of 5 years. 2. Funding of a number of Smaller Projects for research/education or well-structured surveys of knowledge in the FUT area. The duration is one or two years, engaging typically one person (part or full time) addressing a central problem within the FUT programme. The annual project budget for a Smaller Project is normally SEK 300,000-800,000 (about USD 38,000-100,000 or EUR 32,000-85,000). 3. Organisation of a series of high level Conferences (every 2nd or 3rd year). The initiative to organise the conferences will be taken by VREF. The next FUT-conference will take place in April 2006 in G?teborg, Sweden. For details, please visit www.fut.se . More information about the Foundations, the FUT programme and how apply for funding, is found at the VREF web-site: http://www.volvoresearchfoundations.com We look very much forward to your response to this programme. Best regards, V?nliga h?lsningar, ____________________________________________ Fabienne Niklasson Volvo Research & Educational Foundations Dept 1512, ERIK 5 SE-405 08 G?teborg Sweden Telephone: +46 (0)31 6 62272 Fax: +46 (0)31 661661 Monday-Thursday, 08.00-12.00 CET E-mail 1: info@volvoresearchfoundations.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060322/4e0e6028/attachment.html From joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com Thu Mar 23 03:37:37 2006 From: joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com (joshua odeleye) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] BRT IN LAGOS Message-ID: <20060322183737.51385.qmail@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear All, The city of Lagos,Nigeria seems to be tending towards sustainable urban transport with the recent marking of the inner lane of one of the major highways in the city specifically for the operation of the proposed BRT.However, my worries is that could this be truly regarded as BRT,since there are no provision for BRT bus stops enroute,prepaid fare facilities,integrated commuters walkways etc?Please find attached a call for paper by a scientific journal of transportation and logistics. Best regards, JOSHUA ODELEYE. NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY, P.M.B 1148,ZARIA,NIGERIA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JLT Flyer.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33280 bytes Desc: 4275436715-JLT Flyer.doc Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060322/7f30a428/JLTFlyer.doc From gigi_goreng at hotmail.com Thu Mar 23 15:25:09 2006 From: gigi_goreng at hotmail.com (ria hutabarat) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:25:09 +0000 Subject: [sustran] berkeley planning journal sustainable transportation edition In-Reply-To: <083801c64ddf$0171d180$6401a8c0@Home> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/b2e81b67/attachment.html From jcasello at fes.uwaterloo.ca Thu Mar 23 22:59:37 2006 From: jcasello at fes.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Casello) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:59:37 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport Textbooks Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/ef9471d7/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Thu Mar 23 23:53:15 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:15 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: <002701c64e89$84622b30$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Jeff, Please go to our sourcebook on sustainable transport for policymakers in developing cities, which is currently composed of 23 modules in the topic. See www.sutp.org/download/ . Any feedback would be appreciated. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Project Coordinator GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 2576 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 1 - 772 4727 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Casello Sent: Jueves, 23 de Marzo de 2006 09:00 a.m. To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport Textbooks Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/d1ef032b/attachment.html From goyotech at yahoo.es Fri Mar 24 00:46:54 2006 From: goyotech at yahoo.es (Gregorio Villacorta Alegria) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:46:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Help, Bycicle Organization in Dar es Salaam Message-ID: <20060323154654.61841.qmail@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hallo grupo,I have received this email, I would like somebody can help them This email is to inform you that a group of cyclists in Dar es Salaam have recently set up UWABA - Umma wa Wapanda Baisikeli Dar es Salaam. We also recently registered as an NGO with the Government. Our aims are to make cycling a safer and and more pleasant form of transport in Dar es Salaam and to promote cycling as a sustainable means of transport for the city. Among our immediate activities are establishing contacts with the relevant Government authorities so we can participate in road planning, promoting workplaces to become bicycle friendly by installing washing facilities and taking part in events such as the Tanzania Social Forum. I am from Ireland originally although I have lived (and cycled) in Dar es Salaam for many years, while our chairperson and the majority of members are Tanzanians who use bicycles, tricycles and disabled-hand-cycles as their common means of transport in the city. So far we have 45 members and we meet regulary every Saturday. We hope you are interested in this initiative and can support us in our efforts by putting us in contact with relevant people and giving us advice. For further details see our website www.geocities.com/uwabadar or feel free to contact us. Best wishes Elaine Baker uwabadar@yahoo.co.uk Saludos Regards ------------------------------------------------------------ Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a, B.Sc Research Assistant for Schorrell Analysis www.schorrell-analysis.de ------------------------------------------------------------ M?vil : 0051429670008 Skype: goyotech Email : goyotech@yahoo.es Jr. Libertad 263 - Tarapoto Per?. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y m?viles desde 1 c?ntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/1b9c3438/attachment.html From zvi.leve at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 01:04:21 2006 From: zvi.leve at gmail.com (Zvi Leve) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:04:21 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks Message-ID: If you are interested in more 'text-book' style sources, then depending on how technical your course is, *Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence *by Newman and Kenworthy or *The Geography of Urban Transportation, *Eds. Hanson and Giuliano might be good general references. Newman & Kenworthy is definitely oriented towards sustainability issues, whereas the Hanson & Giuliano textbook is an excellent overview of the vast topic of 'urban transportation' - the most recent edition includes numerous references to sustainability issues. Have you worked out a syllabus yet? I would be interested in knowing what you plan to cover. Cheers, Zvi * *Jeff Casello wrote: Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/f6b3b550/attachment.html From goyotech at yahoo.es Fri Mar 24 01:24:07 2006 From: goyotech at yahoo.es (Gregorio Villacorta Alegria) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:24:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060323162407.12580.qmail@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hallo Jeffrey. You can take contact with the Urban Transport Research Group in Cape Town. They have a program of studies in Urban Transport, You can consult with them about a syllabus too, like Zvi have write you in a anterior mail. This is the link of the Group: http://www.utrg.uct.ac.za/ Zvi Leve escribi?: If you are interested in more 'text-book' style sources, then depending on how technical your course is, Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence by Newman and Kenworthy or The Geography of Urban Transportation, Eds. Hanson and Giuliano might be good general references. Newman & Kenworthy is definitely oriented towards sustainability issues, whereas the Hanson & Giuliano textbook is an excellent overview of the vast topic of 'urban transportation' - the most recent edition includes numerous references to sustainability issues. Have you worked out a syllabus yet? I would be interested in knowing what you plan to cover. Cheers, Zvi Jeff Casello wrote: Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 ================================================================ 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. Saludos Regards ------------------------------------------------------------ Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a, B.Sc Research Assistant for Schorrell Analysis www.schorrell-analysis.de ------------------------------------------------------------ M?vil : 0051429670008 Skype: goyotech Email : goyotech@yahoo.es Jr. Libertad 263 - Tarapoto Per?. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y m?viles desde 1 c?ntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/46cbb364/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Fri Mar 24 01:28:37 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:58:37 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603230828t7097e4c7m3f21b24a73ac9dc1@mail.gmail.com> 23 March 2006 Dear Jeff, The recommended books are excellent no doubt, but I'd suggest another, much closer to home:- * TAKING STEPS: * * A Community Action Guide to People-Centred, Equitable and Sustainable Transport* *Written and compiled by Paul Barter and Tamim Raad for the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network). ISBN 983-40313-0-0. March 2000. * http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ On 3/23/06, Jeff Casello wrote: > > Hi all: > > I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second > year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this > area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. > > Jeff Casello > > Jeffrey Casello > Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering > University of Waterloo ES1 -316 > 200 University Avenue West > Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 > jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca > 519 888 4567 x7538 > > > > ================================================================ > 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. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/9ffd569f/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Fri Mar 24 02:06:17 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:06:17 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085904.053affd8@mail.islandnet.com> Here are some resources that may be useful: "Sustainable Transportation" chapter of the VTPI Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.htm ) has numerous references. "Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf ) "Sustainable Transportation Planning Course Syllabus," by Professor Carlos Balsas (http://www.vtpi.org/sustain/balsas_syllabus.pdf ) "Issues in Sustainable Transportation" (http://www.vtpi.org/sus_iss.pdf ) "Reinventing Transportation: Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives" (http://www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf ) We are in the process of developing a subdirectory on sustainable transportation: http://www.vtpi.org/sustain Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 05:59 AM 3/23/2006, Jeff Casello wrote: >Hi all: > >I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to >second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent >textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. > >Jeff Casello > >Jeffrey Casello >Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering >University of Waterloo ES1 -316 >200 University Avenue West >Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 >jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca >519 888 4567 x7538 > >================================================================ >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. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060323/3196bb91/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Mar 24 03:47:29 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:47:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: <002701c64e89$84622b30$0200a8c0@archibaldo> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> <002701c64e89$84622b30$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Message-ID: <1208.62.245.95.24.1143139649.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi Jeff, A suggestion by me, and joined by Carlos as we both wear our "World Carfree Network Member hats" is to see whats on offer at: www.worldcarfree.net/resources and www.worldcarfree.net/resources/free.php I personally recommend: "Carfree Cities", which among other things has detailed concepts complete carfree cities with neighborhoods with an connected by a subsurface transport system with enough capacity for everyone... No "But, but, but"... just carfree. Many of the ideas are previewed at www.carfree.com and "Street Reclaiming" (out of stock now but check to see when it is coming or go to Amazon, etc)... gets five stars for promoting thinking out of the box, and beyond "traffic calming". and from the Freesources page: "Energy and Equity". - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Mar 24 04:00:18 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:00:18 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085753.02aa2a30@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: There really isn't one book that does it all, but I do recommend the one by Vasconcellos: Vasconcellos, Eduardo A. (2001). Urban Transport, Environment, and Equity, the Case for Developing Countries. London: Earthscan. It is one of the only works by a developing country native and it covers many of the key issues --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From SCHIPPER at wri.org Fri Mar 24 04:15:22 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:15:22 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks Message-ID: I second, third, and fourth that nomination! >>> richmond@alum.mit.edu 3/23/2006 2:00:18 PM >>> There really isn't one book that does it all, but I do recommend the one by Vasconcellos: Vasconcellos, Eduardo A. (2001). Urban Transport, Environment, and Equity, the Case for Developing Countries. London: Earthscan. It is one of the only works by a developing country native and it covers many of the key issues --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ ================================================================ 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. From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Fri Mar 24 18:01:10 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:01:10 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E749B@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Hi Jeff, May I suggest Unsustainable Transport (City Transport in the New Century) by David Banister? It's an excellent backgrounder on the issue as it covers a whole range of issues on transport, development and sustainability. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Casello Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:00 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport Textbooks Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060324/98e9d477/attachment.html From jcasello at fes.uwaterloo.ca Fri Mar 24 23:14:33 2006 From: jcasello at fes.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Casello) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:14:33 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport Textbooks Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060324091015.02b0cb50@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Hi all: Many thanks to all of you for the excellent suggestions: links, attachments, and references. I am very grateful. I (obviously) haven't had much time to pore over the information I received, but I do have one outstanding concern. Second year students are accustomed to a course format where each week a topic is introduced, quantitative methods for addressing the problem are described, and an assignment is given. I wonder how much is available in terms of "technical methods" for assessing "sustainability" in terms of, say, air quality, water quality, land consumption, etc. This weekend, I intend to spend a great deal of time processing your suggestions and developing both a set of reference materials and a detailed course syllabus. I imagine that there will be some sufficiently large holes to fill, so I may be seeking more ideas. Thanks again to all. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060324/1f913984/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Mar 24 23:58:43 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:58:43 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport - Open curriculum/syllabus Message-ID: <071701c64f53$76fcb2b0$6401a8c0@Home> Might this be an opporunity for sustainable to get together to develop an Open Syllabus for a couirse in sustainable transportation? It would bseem to me (a) important and neceessary and (b) really quie easy for this group to get together to make happen. There are several people in this dilaigue who are well placed to do this, and other who are lurking who can also pitch in to get this good work done. Who will take the lead in organising this? Jeff? Zvi? Chris? You? On 3/23/06, Jeff Casello < jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: Hi all: I have been asked to teach a course on "sustainable transport" to second year university students. Is anyone aware of a decent textbook in this area? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jeff Casello Jeffrey Casello Assistant Professor of Planning and Civil Engineering University of Waterloo ES1 -316 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 jcasello@fes.uwaterloo.ca 519 888 4567 x7538 Here are some resources that may be useful: "Sustainable Transportation" chapter of the VTPI Online TDM Encyclopedia ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.htm ) has numerous references. "Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning" ( http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf ) "Sustainable Transportation Planning Course Syllabus," by Professor Carlos Balsas ( http://www.vtpi.org/sustain/balsas_syllabus.pdf ) "Issues in Sustainable Transportation" ( http://www.vtpi.org/sus_iss.pdf ) "Reinventing Transportation: Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives" ( http://www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf ) We are in the process of developing a subdirectory on sustainable transportation: http://www.vtpi.org/sustain Best wishes, -Todd Litman Dear Jeff, The recommended books are excellent no doubt, but I'd suggest another, much closer to home:- TAKING STEPS: A Community Action Guide to People-Centred, Equitable and Sustainable Transport Written and compiled by Paul Barter and Tamim Raad for the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network). ISBN 983-40313-0-0. March 2000. http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Gregorio Villacorta Alegria Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:24 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport Textbooks Hallo Jeffrey. You can take contact with the Urban Transport Research Group in Cape Town. They have a program of studies in Urban Transport, You can consult with them about a syllabus too, like Zvi have write you in a anterior mail. This is the link of the Group: http://www.utrg.uct.ac.za/ Zvi Leve escribi?: If you are interested in more 'text-book' style sources, then depending on how technical your course is, Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence by Newman and Kenworthy or The Geography of Urban Transportation, Eds. Hanson and Giuliano might be good general references. Newman & Kenworthy is definitely oriented towards sustainability issues, whereas the Hanson & Giuliano textbook is an excellent overview of the vast topic of 'urban transportation' - the most recent edition includes numerous references to sustainability issues. Have you worked out a syllabus yet? I would be interested in knowing what you plan to cover. Cheers, Zvi -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Casello Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:15 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport Textbooks Hi all: Many thanks to all of you for the excellent suggestions: links, attachments, and references. I am very grateful. I (obviously) haven't had much time to pore over the information I received, but I do have one outstanding concern. Second year students are accustomed to a course format where each week a topic is introduced, quantitative methods for addressing the problem are described, and an assignment is given. I wonder how much is available in terms of "technical methods" for assessing "sustainability" in terms of, say, air quality, water quality, land consumption, etc. This weekend, I intend to spend a great deal of time processing your suggestions and developing both a set of reference materials and a detailed course syllabus. I imagine that there will be some sufficiently large holes to fill, so I may be seeking more ideas. Thanks again to all. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060324/148e4e65/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Mar 25 03:19:12 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:19:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Transport - Open curriculum/syllabus In-Reply-To: <071701c64f53$76fcb2b0$6401a8c0@Home> References: <071701c64f53$76fcb2b0$6401a8c0@Home> Message-ID: Eric, I have in fact spent much time working on such a syllabus while I was in Thailand and recently finished writing a paper on the subject of course development for teaching transport development and management in developing countries. I will certainly be pleased to be part of the discussion --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Mar 27 12:24:28 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:24:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] German ultracapacitor hybrid bus In-Reply-To: <071701c64f53$76fcb2b0$6401a8c0@Home> References: <071701c64f53$76fcb2b0$6401a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <1074.62.245.95.24.1143429868.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, A couple of weeks ago I posted some info about a ultracapacitor hybrid bus pilot project for VAG in Nuremburg, Germany and I received a request or two for more information. I would love to send it BUT I cant find the original emails... if you could resend your requests I would appreciate it. Please do so OFFLIST. Thanks, T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Mar 27 12:30:17 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:30:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060324091015.02b0cb50@fes.uwaterloo.ca> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060324091015.02b0cb50@fes.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: <1076.62.245.95.24.1143430217.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, If anyone knows of any metro to metro or similar transfer stations where high capacity lifts/elevators are used, even exclusively (i.e. not just for those with reduced mobility) perhaps in China (where of course a seemingly unknown(!) amount of public transport construction is going on) or anywhere else please let me know. Thanks! - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From jmcusset at freesurf.fr Mon Mar 27 16:31:25 2006 From: jmcusset at freesurf.fr (jmcusset at freesurf.fr) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:31:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Urban transport in Phnom Penh and Vientiane In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085904.053affd8@mail.islandnet.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060323085904.053affd8@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <2225.84.101.53.55.1143444685.squirrel@jose.freesurf.fr> > Dear all, I am looking for people concerned with urban transport in Phnom Penh and Vientiane. Please, can you give me names and mail address of * people in charge of transport inside the Transport Department of the Municipality * foreign or local consultants working in these two cities, for the Urban Transport Masterplan, for example. Thank you for your help. Regards Jean Michel CUSSET Senior researcher Laboratoire d'Economie des Transports CNRS-Lyon 2 University France From operations at velomondial.net Mon Mar 27 23:09:11 2006 From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:09:11 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Help, Bycicle Organization in Dar es Salaam In-Reply-To: <20060323154654.61841.qmail@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c651a8$0afa9df0$9700000a@PASCAL> Dear Gregorio, Thanks for this message. I will forward this to a number of people who might be interested in your group. Greetings, Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Operations Velo Mondial Executive Board Velo.Info +31 (20)6270 675 +31 (0) 6270 556 88 www.velomondial.net www.velo.info mailto:operations@velomondial.net Velo Mondial: Winner of the Energy Globe 2005 -----Original Message----- From: Gregorio Villacorta Alegria [mailto:goyotech@yahoo.es] Sent: donderdag 23 maart 2006 16:47 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com; carfree_network@lists.riseup.net; uwabadar@yahoo.co.uk Subject: [carfree_network] Help, Bycicle Organization in Dar es Salaam Hallo grupo,I have received this email, I would like somebody can help them This email is to inform you that a group of cyclists in Dar es Salaam have recently set up UWABA - Umma wa Wapanda Baisikeli Dar es Salaam. We also recently registered as an NGO with the Government. Our aims are to make cycling a safer and and more pleasant form of transport in Dar es Salaam and to promote cycling as a sustainable means of transport for the city. Among our immediate activities are establishing contacts with the relevant Government authorities so we can participate in road planning, promoting workplaces to become bicycle friendly by installing washing facilities and taking part in events such as the Tanzania Social Forum. I am from Ireland originally although I have lived (and cycled) in Dar es Salaam for many years, while our chairperson and the majority of members are Tanzanians who use bicycles, tricycles and disabled-hand-cycles as their common means of transport in the city. So far we have 45 members and we meet regulary every Saturday. We hope you are interested in this initiative and can support us in our efforts by putting us in contact with relevant people and giving us advice. For further details see our website www.geocities.com/uwabadar or feel free to contact us. Best wishes Elaine Baker uwabadar@yahoo.co.uk Saludos Regards ------------------------------------------------------------ Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a, B.Sc Research Assistant for Schorrell Analysis www.schorrell-analysis.de ------------------------------------------------------------ M?vil : 0051429670008 Skype: goyotech Email : goyotech@yahoo.es Jr. Libertad 263 - Tarapoto Per?. ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y m?viles desde 1 c?ntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060327/95e88e87/attachment.html From schipper at wri.org Tue Mar 28 09:52:48 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:52:48 -0500 Subject: [sustran] The Latest in Intelligent Transport systems? Message-ID: I know sometimes the systems, whether road pricing, smart cars, bus guidance, transit read outs telling you when the next bus comes, etc.....are smarter than the travelers. Neverhtless, recommendations on the most recent good reviews, state-of-the art papers? Thanks Lee Schipper From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Mar 28 09:52:07 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:52:07 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: The Latest in Intelligent Transport systems? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003701c65201$daee19c0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Lee, We've published the module on ITS written by Phil Sayeg and Phil Charles, which is available from our website (www.sutp.org/download/ ). I also talked to Phil Sayeg last year and he told me he had just finished writing (in March 2005) a very extensive book on the topic, but I'm not sure if it's published yet. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: ?+57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Lunes, 27 de Marzo de 2006 07:53 p.m. To: sustran-discuss@egroups.com; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org Subject: [sustran] The Latest in Intelligent Transport systems? I know sometimes the systems, whether road pricing, smart cars, bus guidance, transit read outs telling you when the next bus comes, etc.....are smarter than the travelers. Neverhtless, recommendations on the most recent good reviews, state-of-the art papers? Thanks Lee Schipper ================================================================ 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. From yo_susilo at yahoo.com Tue Mar 28 10:13:08 2006 From: yo_susilo at yahoo.com (Yusak Susilo) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:13:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: The Latest in Intelligent Transport systems? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060328011308.21021.qmail@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sir, If you are interested in a brief description about ITS and its advance technology (and specially in Japan), you can check to Japanese Road Bureau ITS Homepage: http://www.mlit.go.jp/road/ITS/ (The downloadable ITS Handbook is quite informative) Sincerely, Yusak --- Lee Schipper wrote: > I know sometimes the systems, whether road pricing, > smart cars, bus > guidance, transit read outs telling you when the > next bus comes, > etc.....are smarter than the travelers. > > Neverhtless, recommendations on the most recent good > reviews, > state-of-the art papers? > > Thanks > > Lee Schipper > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Wed Mar 29 00:51:24 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:51:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Behavior change in sustainable transport Message-ID: <006601c6527f$7bf9cad0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Dear all, I?m looking for information on specific case studies of (succesful) public awareness campaigns and behavior change strategies that have been implemented (in developing countries, if possible). I would appreciate any information (documents, photos, contacts, links, etc) off-list. This will be used in the future Training Course on Public Awareness and Behavior Change on Sustainable Transport for GTZ. Thanks in advance, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060328/d9d4398e/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Thu Mar 30 00:18:44 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:18:44 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: <00bd01c65344$122935d0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9?20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060329/c1cd257d/attachment.html From itdpasia at adelphia.net Wed Mar 29 11:49:03 2006 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:49:03 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? In-Reply-To: <1076.62.245.95.24.1143430217.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060324091015.02b0cb50@fes.uwaterloo.ca> <1076.62.245.95.24.1143430217.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060327092809.01a36210@adelphia.net> I believe the Hong Kong subway (MTA) uses some high-capacity lifts. ... and Hong Kong is a good place in general to study lifts as intra-building transport modes. best, John At 08:30 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote: >Hi, > >If anyone knows of any metro to metro or similar transfer stations where >high capacity lifts/elevators are used, even exclusively (i.e. not just >for those with reduced mobility) perhaps in China (where of course a >seemingly unknown(!) amount of public transport construction is going on) >or anywhere else please let me know. > >Thanks! >- T > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Todd Edelman >International Coordinator >On the Train Towards the Future! > >Green Idea Factory >Laubova 5 >CZ-13000 Praha 3 > >++420 605 915 970 > >edelman@greenidea.info >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > >Green Idea Factory, >a member of World Carfree Network - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Mar 30 00:50:47 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060327092809.01a36210@adelphia.net> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060324091015.02b0cb50@fes.uwaterloo.ca> <1076.62.245.95.24.1143430217.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> <7.0.0.16.0.20060327092809.01a36210@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <1590.62.245.95.24.1143647447.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> > I believe the Hong Kong subway (MTA) uses some high-capacity > lifts. ... and Hong Kong is a good place in general to study lifts > as intra-building transport modes. > > best, > John THANKS, John. I also got some info offlist which led me to more about one of the stations in the Portland, Oregon, USA light rail system: "...Washington Park Station is the only stop in the 3-mile-long light rail tunnels through Portland's West Hills. At 260 feet underground, it is the deepest transit station in North America, and the second-deepest in the world. Passengers travel from the underground platform to the surface in four high-speed elevators. Each elevator can comfortably carry up to 39 people from platform to street level in about 20 seconds..." If anyone has details on MTA systems, including photos, please let me know. Best of course is the engineers themselves who figured out how many and how big and how fast the lifts had or have to be. Getting a big lift or lifts designed and installed is not the problem, making sure you dont have lots of people waiting around is. For the suburban train-metro link I am talking about, metro intervals would be from 1 to 8 or 9 minutes, so missing one is not a big problem. But the trains themselves would run every 15-30 minutes (during daytime), so if the lifts are not designed properly from the beginning it will be a failure if they move too slow or there are not enough them to get people down to the tracks on time. Since this topic is not about Asia nor most public transport systems, I suggest that people write me OFFLIST. - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From jsnelson at MIT.EDU Thu Mar 30 00:56:44 2006 From: jsnelson at MIT.EDU (Joshua Nelson) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:56:44 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Private Sector Involvement in Public Transport Infrastructure? Message-ID: <20060329105644.xjcwa4vo0dycskw4@webmail.mit.edu> All, I'm a graduate student at MIT working with Professor Chris Zegras. We're updating a module from GTZ about private participation in urban transport infrastructure. In the update we would like to include examples of privately funded public transport infrastructure projects in Asia, especially China. We are aware of the BTS SkyTrain in Bangkok, but would like to broaden our scope. If anyone has knowledge of any additional private sector public transport infrastructure projects in Asia or could point us toward colleagues who may have information to share, it would be much appreciated. As an aside, we are also looking for specific information to update a section in the module on private road infrastructure projects in Bangkok. This section is current up to the year 2000; developments since then are of much interest. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Joshua Nelson Candidate, Master in City Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Mar 30 01:05:23 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:05:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars In-Reply-To: <00bd01c65344$122935d0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> References: <00bd01c65344$122935d0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Message-ID: <1596.62.245.95.24.1143648323.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> >Carlos F. Pardo wrote: > Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help� I DONT know. Seems like quite a mixed-bag: Taxes on vehicles over four litres go up, so manufacturers will figure out ways to get just below four litres, then add other things to boost power. And the result will be the same number of smaller cars. But then more space available, so more small cars, and you are back to square one, or further back. Disposable cutlery should be illegal or be recycled by law. Or the price should be so high that people think twice about using it. I realise that means more energy for washing. How about if companies just make nice permanent chopsticks with ads on them, etc, if it is too expensive for restaurants, etc? Assuming the rates arent completely unacceptable now, taxing cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles at lower rates is insane... that is the only word for it. (Looks like some lobbyists are doing their job, I hope they used non-disposable chopsticks when they took the politicians out to lunch). - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Mar 30 01:16:54 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:16:54 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: For a vbit of history, japan removed its luxury tax on the largest engines in 1990, and their numbers (as shares of new cars sold) nearly doubled. Italy, it is rumored, audits tax returns of those who buy engines above a certain size * certainly a great incentive. Denmark taxes new cars according to their tested fuel economy, the better the fuel economy, the (slightly) lower the tax. When you are taxing cars at roughly 200% its easy to give or take a few percentages. The original tax was on the yearly reg fee, but some now appears on new vehicles. >>> edelman@greenidea.info 3/29/2006 11:05:23 AM >>> >Carlos F. Pardo wrote: > Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help� I DONT know. Seems like quite a mixed-bag: Taxes on vehicles over four litres go up, so manufacturers will figure out ways to get just below four litres, then add other things to boost power. And the result will be the same number of smaller cars. But then more space available, so more small cars, and you are back to square one, or further back. Disposable cutlery should be illegal or be recycled by law. Or the price should be so high that people think twice about using it. I realise that means more energy for washing. How about if companies just make nice permanent chopsticks with ads on them, etc, if it is too expensive for restaurants, etc? Assuming the rates arent completely unacceptable now, taxing cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles at lower rates is insane... that is the only word for it. (Looks like some lobbyists are doing their job, I hope they used non-disposable chopsticks when they took the politicians out to lunch). - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ 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. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Mar 30 03:47:59 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:47:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Private Sector Involvement in Public Transport Infrastructure? Message-ID: <4079158.1143658080337.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Joshuya Have you been to www.tcrponline.org? There is "Research Results Digest" in the list of publications specifically about infrastructure in Asia. If nothing else, it will have the names of contacts at various agences. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Joshua Nelson >Sent: Mar 29, 2006 10:56 AM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Private Sector Involvement in Public Transport Infrastructure? > >All, > >I'm a graduate student at MIT working with Professor Chris Zegras. We're >updating a module from GTZ about private participation in urban transport >infrastructure. In the update we would like to include examples of privately >funded public transport infrastructure projects in Asia, especially China. We >are aware of the BTS SkyTrain in Bangkok, but would like to broaden our scope. >If anyone has knowledge of any additional private sector public transport >infrastructure projects in Asia or could point us toward colleagues who may >have information to share, it would be much appreciated. > >As an aside, we are also looking for specific information to update a section in >the module on private road infrastructure projects in Bangkok. This section is >current up to the year 2000; developments since then are of much interest. > >Thank you for your assistance. > >Sincerely, >Joshua Nelson >Candidate, Master in City Planning >Massachusetts Institute of Technology > > >================================================================ >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. From itdpasia at adelphia.net Thu Mar 30 07:07:07 2006 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:07:07 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Private Sector Involvement in Public Transport Infrastructure? In-Reply-To: <20060329105644.xjcwa4vo0dycskw4@webmail.mit.edu> References: <20060329105644.xjcwa4vo0dycskw4@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060329112024.01a193a0@adelphia.net> Dear Joshua, An interesting item to look at in Asia at the moment are the proliferation of monorail proposals from the private sector. These are usually made by consortiums of European (e.g., UK, Switzerland) and Asian (e.g., Japan, Malaysia) companies. The Delhi Metro Rail Company is also worth looking at. Other persons on this list could provide more details about the private/government nature of this company. They have taken to promoting rail projects in cities throughout India. (Proposals for private sector investment in both rail and monorail systems were a primary factor in Hyderabad's decision to postpone building a BRT system.) Most of the above are in proposal stages only. The Jakarta monorail is an interesting case in that it has entered construction stage. As is typical for these projects, the financial analysis is highly questionable, with demand overstated and costs understated. The project has been technically under construction for almost 2-years now (there are some half constructed pillars on parts of the route). Despite initial promises the companies involved have repeatedly come back to the city asking for financial subsidies of various kinds. You can get an overview of the players and events by searching the archives of the Jakarta Post www.thejakartapost.com . But to find the real story would take more digging. ITDP has a reasonable public transport demand model for Jakarta based on 40,000 on-board O-D surveys conducted with the University of Indonesia Center for Transportation Studies. This would be available if you wanted to run your own demand projections for the project. I hope this is useful. Please give my regards to your advisor. Best, John At 08:56 AM 3/29/2006, Joshua Nelson wrote: >All, > >I'm a graduate student at MIT working with Professor Chris Zegras. We're >updating a module from GTZ about private participation in urban transport >infrastructure. In the update we would like to include examples of privately >funded public transport infrastructure projects in Asia, especially China. We >are aware of the BTS SkyTrain in Bangkok, but would like to broaden >our scope. >If anyone has knowledge of any additional private sector public transport >infrastructure projects in Asia or could point us toward colleagues who may >have information to share, it would be much appreciated. > >As an aside, we are also looking for specific information to update >a section in >the module on private road infrastructure projects in Bangkok. This >section is >current up to the year 2000; developments since then are of much interest. > >Thank you for your assistance. > >Sincerely, >Joshua Nelson >Candidate, Master in City Planning >Massachusetts Institute of Technology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From sujit at vsnl.com Thu Mar 30 13:03:54 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:33:54 +0530 Subject: [sustran] "Time" hails environmentalist Sunita Narain, Bhure Lal as "Climate Crusaders" Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0603292003y7d4ead41udd993e4043b2e2e6@mail.gmail.com> Monday March 27, 2006 "Time" hails environmentalist Sunita Narain, Bhure Lal as "Climate Crusaders" New York, Mar 27 (ANI): International magazine Time has praised environmentalists Sunita Narain and Bhure Lal for their consistent effort to reduce the amount of air pollution in Delhi in their latest edition. In a report titled" The Climate Crusaders",Times wrote: "Sunita Narain and Bhure Lal led to build the world's cleanest public-transport network", and then adds; "Narain and Lal don't claim to have slowed global warming. But their efforts have attracted requests for advice from as far away as Kenya and Indonesia". Sunita Narain, Director of Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and Bhure Lal, former bureaucrat and Chairman of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) have been credited with removing the highly polluting diesel buses from Delhi's public transport system and replacing them with clean CNG buses. Times in their latest cover story on global warming have also referred the duo as "pollution fighters" and has highlighted the trials and tribulations faced by them in order to relieve "Delhi from choking". The magazine in its report writes about the July 1998 order of Supreme Court on a lawsuit filed by Sunita Narain that was objected to by the bus owners and oil companies, most of them getting support from ministers. It then adds that the Committee formed on the Court's order and headed by Lal along with Narain "fought back and by December 2002 the last diesel bus had left Delhi, and 10,000 taxis, 12,000 buses and 80,000 rickshaws were powered by CNG". "Although air pollution in Delhi has stabilized, the fight for clean air is far from won", Times write and quotes Narain as saying "Delhi leapfrogged". Narain, a recipient of many national and international awards, was awarded with Stockholm Water Prize and Padma Shri by the Government of India last year. Narain and Lal share spaces with Fred Krupp the noted environmentalist whose effort to have a trading system to control carbon dioxide emission, along with China's Li Zheng, 35 years old writer and supporter of the Keep Winter Cool campaign Auden Schendler and Rev. Jim Ball of U.S. who led the unique "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign in 2002 against gas-guzzling cars. (ANI) -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060330/b2c27d30/attachment.html From ajain at kcrc.com Thu Mar 30 15:21:23 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:21:23 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? Message-ID: Lifts are primarily used for secondary access (disabled, elderly, people with luggage etc.) in metro stations in Hong Kong. Having said that there are many places in HK where lifts/escalators are used almost as "public transport". Let me know if this is relevant and I can provide more details. Regards Alok -----Original Message----- From: John Ernst [mailto:itdpasia@adelphia.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:49 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? I believe the Hong Kong subway (MTA) uses some high-capacity lifts. ... and Hong Kong is a good place in general to study lifts as intra-building transport modes. best, John At 08:30 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote: >Hi, > >If anyone knows of any metro to metro or similar transfer stations where >high capacity lifts/elevators are used, even exclusively (i.e. not just >for those with reduced mobility) perhaps in China (where of course a >seemingly unknown(!) amount of public transport construction is going on) >or anywhere else please let me know. > >Thanks! >- T > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Todd Edelman >International Coordinator >On the Train Towards the Future! > >Green Idea Factory >Laubova 5 >CZ-13000 Praha 3 > >++420 605 915 970 > >edelman@greenidea.info >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > >Green Idea Factory, >a member of World Carfree Network - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "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. From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Thu Mar 30 18:56:27 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:56:27 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A3@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Hi Carlos, I think this will not make a big difference. It's a one time tax and if I have money to even begin considering of buying a 4.0liter car then a 20% tax means nothing to me. A better way would be complement it with a yearly renewal tax and then have increasingly graduated renewal or road taxes every year. For example, 30% on the 1st year, then 32% on the 2nd, 35% on the third and so on...So that by the time the car reaches a certain age, the owner has to pay more taxes in order to keep it on the road. And they should keep a cap on ownership to 10 years. Otherwise, one-off taxes hardly seem a hurdle if I really want that car. Because a car is more than just personal transport, it tells something about the owner. And the nouveau riche almost always wants the toys for the big boys. Talking about environmentally-unsound goods...they should be taxing heavily shark's fin soup and shark's fin dumpling! In any case, people who eat the real thing are putting themselves at risk by ingesting these mercury-laden goodies. Yumyum. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Carlos F. Pardo SUTP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:19 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060330/fc735cd0/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Mar 30 19:24:10 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:24:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1074.62.245.95.24.1143714250.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi Alok! I realise that HK is in many ways a "vertical city" BUT what I am specifically talking about is transfer stations which use lifts. So, this means metro to metro, rail to metro, metro to BRT, etc. Anything that needs high capacity in two vertical directions simultaneously, and is also fast enough to keep people happy. Also, where vertical transfer is the exclusive means of transfer. The capacity needed is high, but of course this figure is location-specific and I cannot speculate on what it would be here. The Portland example was good to a point, but I dont think it served as the means of transfer between two high-capacity means of PT. The... other thing is that, for example in the evening, the metro would be producing more humans than the suburban/commuter train could eat, so to speak. The trains in two directions would probably be coming at 7,5 to 10 minute intervals, but the metro would be have one to two minute headways at the same time. The metros are at their minimum interval, but I am not sure how close the trains could be spaced, and in case not all of the train stations would need such closely spaced trains, and then there is the rolling stock issue. There are trams involved, too! This discussion has treaded into serious transport engineering discussion territory, and I dont expect anyone to consult for free... but I dont want to erase the above. So, just the facts and photos on any relevant lift systems would be great. - T p.s. I wanted to find something cute to finish this email and accidentally found something with a partly Asian theme, I suppose: http://members.tripod.com/Tiny_Dancer/elephant.html (from Sesame Street) > Lifts are primarily used for secondary access (disabled, elderly, people > with luggage etc.) in metro stations in Hong Kong. Having said that > there are many places in HK where lifts/escalators are used almost as > "public transport". Let me know if this is relevant and I can provide > more details. > > Regards > Alok > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Ernst [mailto:itdpasia@adelphia.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:49 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro/rail transfer by lift/elevator in China or > ? > > I believe the Hong Kong subway (MTA) uses some high-capacity > lifts. ... and Hong Kong is a good place in general to study lifts > as intra-building transport modes. > > best, > John > > At 08:30 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote: >>Hi, >> >>If anyone knows of any metro to metro or similar transfer stations > where >>high capacity lifts/elevators are used, even exclusively (i.e. not just >>for those with reduced mobility) perhaps in China (where of course a >>seemingly unknown(!) amount of public transport construction is going > on) >>or anywhere else please let me know. >> >>Thanks! >>- T >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Todd Edelman >>International Coordinator >>On the Train Towards the Future! >> >>Green Idea Factory >>Laubova 5 >>CZ-13000 Praha 3 >> >>++420 605 915 970 >> >>edelman@greenidea.info >>http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain >> >>Green Idea Factory, >>a member of World Carfree Network > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation > worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > > "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. > ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From schipper at wri.org Thu Mar 30 20:36:55 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:36:55 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: Again the evidence from Japan and other countries is these taxes do make a difference -- as I said, when the Japanese removed the luxury tax, sales of the largest cars boomed.. >>> cvegjl@nus.edu.sg 3/30/2006 4:56:27 AM >>> Hi Carlos, I think this will not make a big difference. It's a one time tax and if I have money to even begin considering of buying a 4.0liter car then a 20% tax means nothing to me. A better way would be complement it with a yearly renewal tax and then have increasingly graduated renewal or road taxes every year. For example, 30% on the 1st year, then 32% on the 2nd, 35% on the third and so on...So that by the time the car reaches a certain age, the owner has to pay more taxes in order to keep it on the road. And they should keep a cap on ownership to 10 years. Otherwise, one-off taxes hardly seem a hurdle if I really want that car. Because a car is more than just personal transport, it tells something about the owner. And the nouveau riche almost always wants the toys for the big boys. Talking about environmentally-unsound goods...they should be taxing heavily shark's fin soup and shark's fin dumpling! In any case, people who eat the real thing are putting themselves at risk by ingesting these mercury-laden goodies. Yumyum. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Carlos F. Pardo SUTP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:19 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Thu Mar 30 21:19:22 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:19:22 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A5@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Hi Lee, That's true. The luxury car market in Japan is the fastest growing segment. That's why Toyota finally brought home its Lexus brand! But still the luxury segment is only about 8-10% of the total market. I think there are a number of factors that conspired in this (not just the removal of the tax): the socio-demographic shift in Japan with its "old" population growing more and more each year and its economic recovery helped in this boom. These post-war baby boomers control much of the wealth and guess what they want to drive? So there's a larger picture than the tax itself... Jojo -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:37 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; Guevarra, Joselito Lomada Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Again the evidence from Japan and other countries is these taxes do make a difference -- as I said, when the Japanese removed the luxury tax, sales of the largest cars boomed.. >>> cvegjl@nus.edu.sg 3/30/2006 4:56:27 AM >>> Hi Carlos, I think this will not make a big difference. It's a one time tax and if I have money to even begin considering of buying a 4.0liter car then a 20% tax means nothing to me. A better way would be complement it with a yearly renewal tax and then have increasingly graduated renewal or road taxes every year. For example, 30% on the 1st year, then 32% on the 2nd, 35% on the third and so on...So that by the time the car reaches a certain age, the owner has to pay more taxes in order to keep it on the road. And they should keep a cap on ownership to 10 years. Otherwise, one-off taxes hardly seem a hurdle if I really want that car. Because a car is more than just personal transport, it tells something about the owner. And the nouveau riche almost always wants the toys for the big boys. Talking about environmentally-unsound goods...they should be taxing heavily shark's fin soup and shark's fin dumpling! In any case, people who eat the real thing are putting themselves at risk by ingesting these mercury-laden goodies. Yumyum. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Carlos F. Pardo SUTP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:19 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com From schipper at wri.org Thu Mar 30 21:37:09 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:37:09 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: My point is the explosion in sales of luxuring cars over just one year, 1990 to 1991, when the tax was softened, is pretty strong evidence that such taxes have impacts. >>> "Guevarra, Joselito Lomada" 3/30/2006 7:19:22 AM >>> Hi Lee, That's true. The luxury car market in Japan is the fastest growing segment. That's why Toyota finally brought home its Lexus brand! But still the luxury segment is only about 8-10% of the total market. I think there are a number of factors that conspired in this (not just the removal of the tax): the socio-demographic shift in Japan with its "old" population growing more and more each year and its economic recovery helped in this boom. These post-war baby boomers control much of the wealth and guess what they want to drive? So there's a larger picture than the tax itself... Jojo -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:37 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; Guevarra, Joselito Lomada Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Again the evidence from Japan and other countries is these taxes do make a difference -- as I said, when the Japanese removed the luxury tax, sales of the largest cars boomed.. >>> cvegjl@nus.edu.sg 3/30/2006 4:56:27 AM >>> Hi Carlos, I think this will not make a big difference. It's a one time tax and if I have money to even begin considering of buying a 4.0liter car then a 20% tax means nothing to me. A better way would be complement it with a yearly renewal tax and then have increasingly graduated renewal or road taxes every year. For example, 30% on the 1st year, then 32% on the 2nd, 35% on the third and so on...So that by the time the car reaches a certain age, the owner has to pay more taxes in order to keep it on the road. And they should keep a cap on ownership to 10 years. Otherwise, one-off taxes hardly seem a hurdle if I really want that car. Because a car is more than just personal transport, it tells something about the owner. And the nouveau riche almost always wants the toys for the big boys. Talking about environmentally-unsound goods...they should be taxing heavily shark's fin soup and shark's fin dumpling! In any case, people who eat the real thing are putting themselves at risk by ingesting these mercury-laden goodies. Yumyum. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Carlos F. Pardo SUTP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:19 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Thu Mar 30 21:44:31 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:44:31 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A6@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Well, it could be. But 1990s Japan and 21st century China are worlds apart...culturally, economically, politically, socially...I guess we'll just have to wait and see... Cheers, Jojo -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:37 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; Guevarra, Joselito Lomada Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars My point is the explosion in sales of luxuring cars over just one year, 1990 to 1991, when the tax was softened, is pretty strong evidence that such taxes have impacts. >>> "Guevarra, Joselito Lomada" 3/30/2006 7:19:22 AM >>> Hi Lee, That's true. The luxury car market in Japan is the fastest growing segment. That's why Toyota finally brought home its Lexus brand! But still the luxury segment is only about 8-10% of the total market. I think there are a number of factors that conspired in this (not just the removal of the tax): the socio-demographic shift in Japan with its "old" population growing more and more each year and its economic recovery helped in this boom. These post-war baby boomers control much of the wealth and guess what they want to drive? So there's a larger picture than the tax itself... Jojo -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:37 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; Guevarra, Joselito Lomada Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Again the evidence from Japan and other countries is these taxes do make a difference -- as I said, when the Japanese removed the luxury tax, sales of the largest cars boomed.. >>> cvegjl@nus.edu.sg 3/30/2006 4:56:27 AM >>> Hi Carlos, I think this will not make a big difference. It's a one time tax and if I have money to even begin considering of buying a 4.0liter car then a 20% tax means nothing to me. A better way would be complement it with a yearly renewal tax and then have increasingly graduated renewal or road taxes every year. For example, 30% on the 1st year, then 32% on the 2nd, 35% on the third and so on...So that by the time the car reaches a certain age, the owner has to pay more taxes in order to keep it on the road. And they should keep a cap on ownership to 10 years. Otherwise, one-off taxes hardly seem a hurdle if I really want that car. Because a car is more than just personal transport, it tells something about the owner. And the nouveau riche almost always wants the toys for the big boys. Talking about environmentally-unsound goods...they should be taxing heavily shark's fin soup and shark's fin dumpling! In any case, people who eat the real thing are putting themselves at risk by ingesting these mercury-laden goodies. Yumyum. Cheers, Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Carlos F. Pardo SUTP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:19 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Chinese tax for big cars Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com From litman at vtpi.org Fri Mar 31 01:39:07 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:39:07 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars In-Reply-To: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A5@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.s g> References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A5@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060330082313.057a2670@mail.islandnet.com> Help what? Taxes on luxury cars may be justified on equity grounds (to "soak the rich"), but a strategy that simply increases average fuel economy will reduce the per-mile cost of driving, which tends to increase annual mileage per vehicle, offsetting some of the energy savings and increasing most other transportation problems including congestion, accidents, risk to non-drivers, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and many types of pollution. See "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation" (http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf ). I've seen environmentalists devote excessive effort to one or two energy conservation strategies, such as CAFE standards and Feebates, while overlooking far more effective and beneficial strategies such as road and parking pricing reforms, converting fixed vehicle fees to pay-as-you-drive pricing, and increasing investment in alternative modes. Focusing on just one planning objective at a time, such as increased fuel economy, often results in planning decisions that solve one problem but exacerbate others, making society worse off overall. True sustainability requires more comprehensive decision-making, which finds true "Win-Win" solutions, that is, solutions to one problem that also help solve other economic, social and environmental problems, or at least avoid making them worse (http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 04:19 AM 3/30/2006Carlos F. Pardo wrote: >Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... > >Original source: >http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 > > > >China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods >March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li > >Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine >capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a >consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice > issued by the >Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on >March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, >energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent >embrace of a "small car policy." > >Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a >capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two >percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will >continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of >more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. > >To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a >so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also >covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including >disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, >levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News > , China >produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, >most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the >country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion >disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, >consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. > >As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic >development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old >consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. >Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, >have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 >percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday >essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from >the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, >alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. > >China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial >ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, >alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, >firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. >In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural >taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, >increasing 20 percent from 2004. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060330/49fb041b/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Fri Mar 31 02:05:36 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:05:36 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060330082313.057a2670@mail.islandnet.com> References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74A5@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> <6.2.3.4.2.20060330082313.057a2670@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <442C0FE0.6070409@inro.ca> If I am not mistaken, Shanghai is the only city in China which /prohibits vehicles with engine sizes smaller than 1.6 litres/. This policy may have been conceived in order to favour locally produced cars (VW makes a Jetta type model with mid-sized engines in Shanghai), but it has also led to another perhaps unintended consequence: there are no small cars in Shanghai, hence there are also far fewer vehicles than one would expect for a city of this size! Of course the number of scooters and motorcycles is still growing rapidly, as it is everywhere else, but things could be worse! Zvi Todd Alexander Litman wrote: > > Help what? Taxes on luxury cars may be justified on equity grounds (to > "soak the rich"), but a strategy that simply increases average fuel > economy will reduce the per-mile cost of driving, which tends to > increase annual mileage per vehicle, offsetting some of the energy > savings and increasing most other transportation problems including > congestion, accidents, risk to non-drivers, road and parking facility > costs, sprawl, and many types of pollution. See "Efficient Vehicles > Versus Efficient Transportation" ( http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf ). > > I've seen environmentalists devote excessive effort to one or two > energy conservation strategies, such as CAFE standards and Feebates, > while overlooking far more effective and beneficial strategies such as > road and parking pricing reforms, converting fixed vehicle fees to > pay-as-you-drive pricing, and increasing investment in alternative > modes. Focusing on just one planning objective at a time, such as > increased fuel economy, often results in planning decisions that solve > one problem but exacerbate others, making society worse off overall. > True sustainability requires more comprehensive decision-making, which > finds true "Win-Win" solutions, that is, solutions to one problem that > also help solve other economic, social and environmental problems, or > at least avoid making them worse ( http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf > ). > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman From sksunny at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 12:32:25 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:32:25 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars In-Reply-To: <20060331030120.4873B2C1E7@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060331030120.4873B2C1E7@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <442CA2C9.5080603@gmail.com> > Of course the number of scooters and motorcycles is still growing > rapidly, as it is everywhere else, but things could be worse! > > Zvi > The increase in scooters and motorcycles is the initial stage for becoming automobile dependent with a fast growing country like China the future prices of the cars would be far more cheaper (locally produced) and with its increasing infrastructural development China would be in a place that it thinks it can accommodate the new vehicles but on the long run it might change the whole scene...."higher you rise the greater the thud"...The same thing even goes for the alternative fuels. As per my understanding the alternative fuels like CNG or biodiesel can help to reduce the environmental pollution but i don't think they can reduce the car ridership I presume that they actually increase the ridership and the other technologies like hydrogen and fuel cell are way too far for the developing countries to afford. Sunny From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Fri Mar 31 14:58:58 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:58:58 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74AC@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Hi Todd, Seems like a social trap in the making isn't it? Jojo ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:39 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Chinese tax for big cars Help what? Taxes on luxury cars may be justified on equity grounds (to "soak the rich"), but a strategy that simply increases average fuel economy will reduce the per-mile cost of driving, which tends to increase annual mileage per vehicle, offsetting some of the energy savings and increasing most other transportation problems including congestion, accidents, risk to non-drivers, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and many types of pollution. See "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation" ( http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf ). I've seen environmentalists devote excessive effort to one or two energy conservation strategies, such as CAFE standards and Feebates, while overlooking far more effective and beneficial strategies such as road and parking pricing reforms, converting fixed vehicle fees to pay-as-you-drive pricing, and increasing investment in alternative modes. Focusing on just one planning objective at a time, such as increased fuel economy, often results in planning decisions that solve one problem but exacerbate others, making society worse off overall. True sustainability requires more comprehensive decision-making, which finds true "Win-Win" solutions, that is, solutions to one problem that also help solve other economic, social and environmental problems, or at least avoid making them worse ( http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 04:19 AM 3/30/2006Carlos F. Pardo wrote: Only for cars with engines over four liters, but it could help... Original source: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 < http://www.worldwatch.org/features/chinawatch/stories/20060323-2 > China Imposes Consumption Tax on Large Cars, Environmentally Un-sound Goods March 23, 2006 By Zijun Li Starting April 1, Chinese consumers who buy cars with engine capacities of more than four liters will be required to pay a consumption tax of 20 percent, according to a joint notice < http://news.sohu.com/20060322/n242403990.shtml> issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on March 21. The measure puts a higher tax burden on larger, energy-inefficient vehicles and reflects the government's recent embrace of a "small car policy." Under the revised tax policy, the rate for small cars with a capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 liters will decrease to 3 percent, two percentage points lower than before. Cars of 1.5 to 2.0 liters will continue to enjoy a tax rate of 5 percent, and rates for cars of more than two liters will range from 9-20 percent. To encourage more-efficient resource use and the development of a so-called "circular" economy, the revised consumption tax also covers certain items made of exhaustible resources including disposable chopsticks, wood flooring, and other solid wood products, levying a 5 percent tax on them. According to Xinjin News < http://gb.chinabroadcast.cn/8606/2006/03/22/106@956917.htm > , China produced 85 million square meters of solid wood flooring in 2004, most of which was made by individual manufacturers. And the country's northern provinces produce an estimated 15 billion disposable chopsticks for export to Japan and Korea every year, consuming some 13 million cubic meters of timber. As Chinese consumption levels have changed with rapid economic development and a rise in personal incomes, the country's decade-old consumption tax had failed to keep pace with these changes. Therefore, a new range of items, such as golf equipment and yachts, have been added to the revised policy, levied at the rate of 10 percent. Meanwhile, commodities that have become everyday essentials, such as shampoo and moisturizers, have been removed from the list. Other items now taxed at lower rates include cigarettes, alcohol, jet fuel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. China first levied a tax on consumer goods in 1994. The initial ruling covered 11 categories of goods, including cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetics, skin- and hair-care products, jewelry, firecrackers, gasoline, diesel, automobile tires, and motorcycles. In total, China's tax revenue, exclusive of tariffs and agricultural taxes, reached 3.09 trillion yuan (US $380.6 billion) in 2005, increasing 20 percent from 2004. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060331/7d0a2cec/attachment.html