[sustran] Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14

[Sunny]

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 at 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 <sksunny at gmail.com>
>> 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 at gmail.com
>> sunnysanthosh at gmail.com
>>
>> sustran-discuss-request at 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" <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
> Subject: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper
> 	comments	on this)
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID: <20a601c64c0b$43bc1a30$6401a8c0 at Home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Experts for more roads in city
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
> <http://www.expressindia.com/about/feedback.html?mailto=vvdeshmukh@expressin
> 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" <sujit at vsnl.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee
> 	Schipper	comments onthis)
> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<4cfd20aa0603200305q68d51ac8i3cc29ebcf19bceb0 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 20, 2006 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [sustran] Experts for more roads in city (See Lee Schipper
> comments onthis)
> To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <
> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Cc: Lee Schipper <schipper at wri.org>
>
> 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 <eric.britton at ecoplan.org > wrote:
>
>   
>>    *Experts for more roads in city*
>>     
>
>
>
> *Express News Service*<http://www.expressindia.com/about/feedback.html?mailto=vvdeshmukh@expressindia.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 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)
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> -------------- 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" <Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Experts for more roads in city (See Lee
> 	Schipper	commentson this)
> To: <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>, "Asia and the Pacific sustainable
> 	transport"	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699F at 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 at cbuchanan.co.uk <mailto:alan.howes at 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 at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk at list.jca.apc.
> org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton
> Sent: 20 March 2006 10:44
> To: sustran-discuss at 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
> <http://www.expressindia.com/about/feedback.html?mailto=vvdeshmukh@expre
> 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" <Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Automobility or Accessibility (bangalore)
> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
> 	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101DD699E at 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 at cbuchanan.co.uk <mailto:alan.howes at 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 at list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk at 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. <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 
> 			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 <http://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. 
> 	
> 	
> 	
>
>
>
>
>