[sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility

[Lee Schipper]

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 at 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. <vittalkumar_a at yahoo.com> 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 <litman at vtpi.org>* 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
> 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
>
>
> 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"
>
>
>
> ================================================================
> 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<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virusall/*http://communications.yahoo.com/features.php?page=221>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 at vsnl.com 
sujitjp at gmail.com 

"Yamuna",
ICS Colony,
Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
Tel: 25537955
-----------------------------------------------------
Proprietor:
Mudra
------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Secretary:
Parisar
------------------------------------------------------
Founder Member:
PTTF
(Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum)
------------------------------------------------------