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

[Sujit Patwardhan]

3 January 2007



Dear Eric,

1) Neither have they constructed cycle tracks or pedestrian sidewalks
(costing peanuts) on 40-60 meter plus(ie 130 feet/196 feet) WIDE roads in
many places. Whether one blames the "rail" or the "highway" lobby, I thought
the real point was to show how much quicker BRT and NMT infrastructure can
be put in place if it is given priority -- and not to state the obvious,
that political support is often strongest when more expensive (and even
unviable) projects are proposed because there's  greater scope for kickbacks
and also because such projects are assumed to be better simply because they
cost more.

We feel our task as NGOs is to expose  these myths and to demand as loudly
and incessantly as possible that we want cheaper, simpler and quicker
solutions for a problem that is literally threatening to bulldoze our cities
into a "monoculture" of cement and concrete wedded to an auto dominated
vision. A vision that has not worked (for solving the pollution, congestion
and livability problem) in even ONE city in the whole world !!!!!

If we keep showing this reality to our citizens and politicians who ARE
indeed privileged car users, people do understand and start asking
questions. Questions such as why doesn't the city have better public
transport or why aren't there citywide safe cycle tracks (particularly for
the school children) or why senior citizens don't have adequate wide and
obstruction-free footpaths?
Hopefully such focused pressure will create the much needed "political will"
to drive and adopt sensible solutions.

2) In contrast the "alternative" solutions albeit adopted rather late in the
day for most western cities, are showing wonderful results in more than a
dozen cites around the globe (both in the first as well as the third world).
As Lloyd Wright's book on NMT/BRT points out can we in Asian cities avoid
the auto dominated path and leapfrog directly to the more sustainable
alternatives?

And the last point before I close my rather long winded response, I
question the image of underground metros carrying hundreds of thousands
commuters and thus easing the pressure on roads. To my knowledge, other than
high rise cities like Hongkong,  underground Metros in Asian cities only
have high capacity potential. In reality they carry far less people and
hence don't really make much of an impact on the extreme congestion on the
roads. I also remember someone showing the figures to prove that for the
cost of the Metro, Delhi could have had a citywide-FREE BRT system.


--
Sujit




On 1/3/07, Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
sujit at vsnl.com
sujitjp at gmail.com

"Yamuna",
ICS Colony,
Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India
Tel: 25537955
-----------------------------------------------------
Hon. Secretary:
Parisar
www.parisar.org
------------------------------------------------------
Founder Member:
PTTF
(Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum)
www.pttf.net
------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070103/6f47ebaf/attachment.html