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

[Lee Schipper]

in Bangalore, the earliest BRT plans were discussed in the late 1990s,
with support from SIDA... Today is 2007!

>>> ericbruun at earthlink.net 1/3/2007 4:10:43 PM >>>


Sujit:
 
That is a big "if" about buses getting priority. You won't get any
argument from me that bus lanes and signal priority would be a very good
thing. But how long does one have to wait? It is my understanding that
the pollution problems were urgent in Delhi. This alone might have
justified the Metro, especially if a less corruption prone model could
be used to finance and build the system, and efforts were made to build
up industrial and management skills usable elsewhere in India.
 
Thus, I also clearly don't agree that it is "obvious" that Metro is
favored ONLY because it is more expensive, has more opportunities for
kickbacks, etc. In addition to not requiring street space, it also has a
higher travel speed than any BRT system -- this could be very important
in very large cities with long travel distances. 
 
I didn't claim that building on separate rights-of-way automatically
reduces congestion. I claimed that if efforts are not taken to reduce
congestion and the liberated bus space from former auto and bus users
fills back up, we are still left with the benefit that a higher level of
activity can be supported within a given area. This is a good thing from
a sustainable development standpoint. If anyone doubts that this is
true, then I would recommend reading Yong-Eun Shin's 1997 disseratation
from the City and Regional Planning program at the University of
Pennsylvania. He made a mathematical model that shows the level of
development intensity that can be supported as a function of passenger
transport infrastructure.
 
Finally, I don't fully agree with the analysis in Lloyd Wright's
NMT/BRT book, but that is a subject for another forum.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message----- 
From: Sujit Patwardhan 
Sent: Jan 3, 2007 1:03 AM 
To: Eric Bruun , Global 'South' Sustainable Transport ,
NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? 

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 
------------------------------------------------------ 


__._,_.___ Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a
new topic 
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar 
Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org   
To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com 
Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)




 
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
format to Traditional 
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 

Recent Activity
 1
New Members
Visit Your Group 
Yahoo! Movies

Up for a movie?
Check out showtimes
and buy tickets
Yahoo! Music

Choose your radio
Rock, pop, indie,
country, and more.
Yahoo! Mail

Next gen email?
Try the all-new
Yahoo! Mail Beta.


.

 
__,_._,___