[sustran] Re: Guardian article

Sunny sksunny at gmail.com
Wed May 3 02:14:58 JST 2006


Thank You very much Eric and Simon for allowing us to see this news. On 
the whole, the edition was very interesting. Coming to the "Transport 
Revolution" I would not call this a revolution or an evolution but 
rather a degradation. The article cites the experience of a rich person 
who could afford a Rolls Royce and stay 180 kms away from Bombay/Mumbai, 
a home for more than a 12 million people. The rich gentleman complains 
of the cows and the people on the roads but forgets that they are the 
basic components for his industry to run. I understand from this article 
that my country, India, plans to focus more on building express ways to 
connect major cities of the country but at the same time forgetting 
about the access for the poor and needy. Many people living in the 
villages do not have proper access to many health care facilities and 
improper transportation is also a cause for many deaths on the other 
hand express ways are also causes for many fatalities personally 
experiencing losing a friend in a car accident on the National Highway 9 
while he along with 3 other friends were driving their car at a very 
high speed.

In India what we need are not fast express ways which provoke the people 
to drive on road at a high speed and also cause many people to shift 
from rail to road travel. All we need is a safe and affordable travel 
like we have on the trains, not all of them though. I would like to 
mention even the Bus accident news in the same link mentioned, and also 
the news on the high speed train to Taj Mahal (Good news for tourists 
here) this clearly shows the efficiency of road travel in my country.
 
I have learnt from Sujit, Lee and some others in this list that effort 
is going on in Pune in creating a Sustainable Transport and I appreciate 
it but the same initiative is required in many metropolitan cities where 
there is an indication of high motor vehicle growth like bangalore and 
chennai.

In my opinion as i understand from WB, poverty is not just lack of money 
but it is the social exclusion, untreated diseases, hunger, the lack of 
access to basic utilities and service, and inability to send children to 
school and make them work, it can also mean as a fear of an uncertain 
future. Hence,
I feel that India should first think of trying to feed its people first 
and bring the poverty levels down and then worry about China. More car 
industries might not mean more jobs if the industries are robotised.

I will be very happy if anyone comment on the above and correct my idea.

Sunny



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list