[sustran] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper?

[Eric Bruun]

Two quick comments:

1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize
the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby."  Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds
of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely
more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city. 

Eric Bruun

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" <Carlos.Pardo at sutp.org>
>Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
>To: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Cc: WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com, sujitjp at gmail.com
>Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities	- Better, faster, cheaper?
>
>Eric,
>
> 
>
>I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a
>feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for
>the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old
>fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and
>beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups
>and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way.
>
> 
>
>Best regards,
>
> 
>
>Carlos F. Pardo 
>
>
>
>From: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
>[mailto:NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>eric.britton at ecoplan.org
>Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM
>To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
>Cc: sudhir at secon.in; sujitjp at gmail.com; NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com;
>WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better,
>faster, cheaper?
>
> 
>
>Dear Sudhir and Sujit,
>
> 
>
>"High cost underground metros"?  Why not?  Sounds great to me.  Eh?
>
> 
>
>But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and
>necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in
>and is finally ready to do those good works.  We refer to this necessary
>step in the planning and policy process as . . . 
>
> 
>
>BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! 
>
> 
>
>That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible
>policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers.
>
> 
>
>So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend
>it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now.
>As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good
>metro is going to take.
>
> 
>
>This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs
>to be asked each time.  For starters you have to make that long list of the
>real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put
>quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the
>ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting
>at the problems NOW!
>
> 
>
>Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get
>them right, hugely gratifying and effective.  That is if you can bear in
>mind what the whole thing is indeed all about.
>
> 
>
>Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions,
>along with those who are urging them on?  And perhaps, do they have
>something else in mind?
>
> 
>
>It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and
>brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media
>and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in
>the state of Denmark (or wherever).
>
> 
>
>I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave
>it to him and to all of you on this.
>
> 
>
>Eric Britton
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
>On Behalf Of Sudhir
>Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM
>To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
>Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities
>
> 
>
>Dear Sujit,
>
> 
>
>On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that
>high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion.
>
>Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which
>has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users.
>
> 
>
>It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced
>traffic.
>
> 
>
>Regards
>
>Sudhir
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
>On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan
>Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM
>To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
>Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton at free.fr;
>WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org
>Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities
>
> 
>
>25 December 2006
>Christmas
>
>
>
>Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in
>my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros)
>transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on
>the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. 
>
>Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty
>of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded
>streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that
>we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so
>let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto
>vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their
>promise of high (overkill levels) capacity,  which may de-congest the
>streets. 
>
>This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve
>congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at
>huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two
>wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at
>the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership
>projected in the concocted project reports. 
>
>But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the
>infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left
>high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised
>underground metro. 
>
>If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed
>sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles
>have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW
>faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels,  we can certainly pursue but
>let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced.
>Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling)
>and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures
>appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the
>technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the
>most obvious. 
>--
>Sujit
>