[sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 8

[Sunny]

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 
Bogotá 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 at list.jca.apc.org wrote:
> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	sustran-discuss at 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 at list.jca.apc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	sustran-discuss-owner at 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 at 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" <ajain at kcrc.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for
> 	construction	ofmulti-storeyed parking lots
> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<AD2B8FA93EDD4E4A9EC87CCD5162AC1A3C9344 at CLUEXCH1P2K3.corp.kcrc.com>
> 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 at 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 at vsnl.com
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for
> 	constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots
> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <31bda731be52.31be5231bda7 at 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 <arulgreen at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for
> 	constructionofmulti-storeyed parking lots
> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <20060313181017.21885.qmail at 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 at 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 <ajain at kcrc.com>
>
> 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 at 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 <litman at vtpi.org>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai: NGO criticises proposal for
> 	construction of	multi-storeyed parking lots
> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060313125447.0321c958 at 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 at 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 <alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk>
> Subject: [sustran] Auto-rickshaws in Mumbai
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Cc: alok.bhardwaj at tcs.com, arun.mokashi at tcs.com
> Message-ID: <r8lb12lhgtqmktvtub1cikb3u3tua8h5hr at 4ax.com>
> 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
>