From sunny.enie at gmail.com Thu May 1 19:22:59 2008 From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:22:59 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Urban Transport Project - Newsletter - Feb - Apr 2008 Message-ID: <27b8dced0805010322x74532665j1cb9694aa42ba5d9@mail.gmail.com> /*Sustainable Urban Transport Project (GTZ SUTP) Update*/ *_February - April, 2008_* This newsletter gives updates on the SUTP resources, news and events related to our topic of interest. For more information or feedback, please contact sutp@sutp.org , or visit our website at www.sutp.org (China users go to www.sutp.cn ). /*****_Project related News_*****/ /(For greater detail of the news below, please click the link below each item)/ */Two-day and six day training courses Mass Transit training held by GTZ SUTP under SUMA-Project/* 26 April 2008 GTZ, CAI-Asia, Energy Foundation China and Shandong University have jointly organised a 2-day training course on Mass Transit and BRT Planning in Jinan on April 24-25, 2008. The event was hosted by Shandong University of Jinan and was a part of the SUMA project developed together with CAI-Asia and other partners. The training covered the planning steps of a Mass Transit / Bus Rapid Transit project from its conception to its final implementation and inauguration. Resource persons for the course were Mr Paulo Custodio (Brazil), Prof Jason Chang (China) and Mr Carlosfelipe Pardo (Colombia). This course was part of a larger 6-day specialized course on the same topic for future trainers from China, part of the SUMA program. For more information please contact sutp[at]sutp.org . Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1113&Itemid=1&lang=uk */Specialised BRT course in Guatemala /*23 April 2008 GTZ SUTP, along with Nestlac and other partners in Latin America, will hold a training course on Bus Rapid Transit Planning during May 8-9, 2008 in Guatemala City, Guatemala. The course will be led by Ang?lica Castro (former Manager of TransMilenio) and supported by Carlosfelipe Pardo (GTZ). Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1111&Itemid=1&lang=uk */ Training course on NMT Planning held in New Delhi under SUMA /*16 April 2008 As a part of the SUMA training activities, GTZ-SUTP conducted a training course on Non-motorised Planning from 10th -16th April 2008 at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi, India. The course was targeted towards a group of pre-selected future trainers as a part of the "Training-of-Trainers" SUMA capacity building activity. Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-Ce), also a SUMA partner, took part in the course. The course focussed on the various aspects of Non-motorised transport planning and integration with other transport modes. The participants of the course also had a chance to participate in a cycle rally organised jointly by the Transport Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP) of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi and the Local government. The rally took place on April 13, 2008. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1109&Itemid=1&lang=uk */GTZ-SUTP supports the promotion of cycle rickshaws in Udon Thani/* 08 April 2008 Dr. Thirayoot Limanond, GTZ-SUTP, took part in a two day activity focussing on increasing the number of cycle rickshaws in Udon Thani, Thailand. Dr. Limanond gave a presentation demonstrating how developed countries do not consider rickshaws as a low-quality means of transport, but an environmentally friendly alternative to car usage. Dr. Limanond, on behalf of GTZ-SUTP, supported the project being undertaken by the Udon Thani municipality in promoting rickshaw taxis. During this event, he also highlighted the various approaches in promoting tricycle taxis. More information on this event can be received by emailing sutp[at]sutp.org Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1101&Itemid=1 *//* */GTZ-SUTP delivers one day session on NMT in Bangkok/* 28 March 2007 Carlos F. Pardo from GTZ SUTP delivered a one day session on non motorised policies in Bangkok on March 28 2008, oriented towards medium and high level municipal transport officials from Thailand. The activity was supported by Thailand's Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (OTP), and was held in a venue provided by this organization. The meeting focussed on discussing why Non motorised transport (cycling and pedestrians) should be an integral part of a transport policy, and gave certain level of detail on how this has been achieved in other cities of the world, and how it could be achieved in Bangkok and other Thai cities. Participants to the course came from various cities and provinces from Thailand, as well as from Bangkok. A more detailed report can be requested from sutp[at]sutp.org . Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1098&Itemid=1&lang=uk */TDM Training Course held in Singapore/* 22 March 2008*/ /* *//*Following the 3rd Regional EST Forum held in Singapore during March 17-19 2008, GTZ, CAI-Asia and LTA Academy (supported by UNCRD, and as part of the SUMA project) jointly organized a 2-day training course on Travel Demand Management (TDM) and related measures in Singapore on 19-20 March, 2008. The event was hosted by LTA Academy of Singapore (www.LTAacademy.gov.sg ), and covered various TDM measures such as congestion pricing, parking schemes, fuel pricing, taxes and charges (vehicle ownership and registration management), repricing mobility services, physical restraint measures, land use measures and public transport complementary measures. Main trainers for the course were Mr Michael Replogle and Professors Gopinath Menon and Paul Barter. This was also part of a larger 6-day specialised course on the topic for SUMA Chinese future trainers. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1095&Itemid=1&lang=uk */SUTP contributes towards 3rd Regional Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Forum, Singapore/* 19 March 2008 The United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Land Transport Authority (LTA) of the Ministry of Transport of Singapore, National Environment Agency (NEA) of the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources of Singapore, and the Ministry of the Environment - Government of Japan, jointly organized the Third Regional Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Forum on 17-19 March 2008 in Singapore. The Forum was supported by various international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO), Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP), and the ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cites (AWGESC). The Forum was attended by approximately 120 participants, comprised of governmental representatives from 22 Asian countries (including the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mongolia, China, Republic of Korea and Japan, and for the first time, SACEP member countries from South Asia), international experts, and representatives from various international organizations. (MoE-Japan). SUTP Project Director Manfred Breithaupt, as one of the expert members of EST, moderated break out sessions during the forum and held a speech at the luncheon session on 17.3.3008 about TDM together with Michael Replogle, Transportation Director of Environmental Defense. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1097&Itemid=40&lang=uk */GTZ SUTP signs an MoU with LTA Academy, Singapore/* 19 March 2008 GTZ SUTP and Land Transport Authority Academy (LTA Academy), Singapore, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on March 19, 2008. The Memorandum of Cooperation has been developed looking forward to the following: A mutual desire to coordinate, where practicable, developments by the Parties in the field of land transport capacity building, consultancy, research and knowledge transfer and exchange; a recognition of the strong friendship and cooperation amongst the administrations and peoples of Germany, the international land transport community, and Singapore; a mutual interest in the exchange of information concerning land transportation policy, planning, development, management and operations; and a recognition of advantages in undertaking certain new programmes jointly or in coordinating work on programmes already in progress. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1096&Itemid=1&lang=uk */GTZ-SUTP, I-Ce and Suranaree University train local government officials in Bangkok /*08 March 2008 GTZ-SUTP, in cooperation with Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-Ce ) and Suranaree Technical University, gave a two-day training course during 6-7th March, 2008 on Bicycle Planning for Thai cities. The course was conducted at the premises of Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) and was attended by 38 provincial government officials working in the planning and engineering divisions. Mr. Jeroen Buis was the trainer from I-Ce and Dr. Thirayoot Limanond, SUTP, assisted Mr. Buis. The course focussed on a technical audience and discussed the technical details of planning for bicycles. Topics such as Bicycle inclusive planning, intergation on bicycle with various modes, were included in the discussion. For more information please email sutp[at]sutp. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1099&Itemid=1&lang=uk */GTZ presentation at "New Energy Indicators for Transport: The Way Forward" Workshop /*08 February 2008 On January 29, Sascha Thielmann, Technical Advisor in GTZ's Transport and Energy Section, gave a presentation on GTZ's survey "International Fuel Prices" at the workshop "New Energy Indicators for Transport:The Way Forward". The workshop was organised by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in collaboration with the International Transport Forum (ITF). The workshop brought together statisticians, analysts and policy-makers to share information about different approaches to transport data collection and indicators development and use. It was held in the Framework of the G8 Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057&Itemid=1 */Reading List: "Increasing and Volatile Oil Prices - Impact ? Subsidies and Market Mechanisms ? Policy Responses"/* The world market prices for crude oil are climbing to ever higher levels. A growing debate focuses on the question how to adjust to these price levels as well as how to mitigate the impact on vulnerable groups. In order to facilitate the dialogue, GTZ compiled a reading list with documents on "Impact", "Subsidies and Market Mechanisms" and "Policy Responses"*. * **Read more: www.gtz.de/fuelprices (or) http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=69&lang=uk */Chinese translation of module 5d: The CDM in the transport sector /*05 February 2008 GTZ SUTP has published the Chinese translation of Module 5d: The CDM in the Transport Sector. The module was released in 2007 and written by Dr J?rg Gr?tter from gr?tter consulting. It discusses the relevance of the CDM in transport projects, and provides a case study of Bogot?'s TransMilenio CDM methodology, the first approved CDM methodology for the transport sector. The module will also be translated to Spanish this year. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1056&Itemid=1 */"Module 1e: Raising Public Awareness about Sustainable Urban Transport" translated to Indonesian /* 04 February 2008 GTZ-SUTP released an Indonesian version of the "Module 1e: Raising Public Awareness about Sustainable Urban Transport" the Indonesian version is titled "Modul 1e: Meningkatkan Kesadaran Masyarakat akan Transportasi Perkotaan Berkelanjutaan". The module was originally authored by Carlos F. Pardo. Registered SUTP users can download the document from SUTP downloads section. Unregistered users can register (free of charge) on the SUTP home page and then proceed to download. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1045&Itemid=1 */Bahasa Indonesia translation of "Module 1a: Role of Transport in Urban Development Policy" published/* 30January 2008 GTZ-SUTP released an Indonesian version of the "Module 1a: Role of Transport in Urban Development Policy" the Indonesian version is titled "Modul 1a: Peran Transportasi Dalam Kebijakan Perkembangan Perkotaan". The module was originally authored by Enrique Pe?alosa. Registered SUTP users can download the document from SUTP downloads section. Unregistered users can register (free of charge) on the SUTP home page and then proceed to download. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1044&Itemid=1&lang=uk /*****_Upcoming Events about Sustainable Urban Transport_***** //*segregated chronologically// / *Cities for Mobility ? World Congress 2008* The City of Stuttgart will hold the World Congress 2008 of the global network /Cities for Mobility/ titled *"Towards environmentally friendly mobility in our cities"* on June 1 - 4, 2008. The main objective of the event is to provide a dynamic platform for the promotion of direct cooperation between local governments, as well as other partners from the fields of business, science and the civil society that are active in the field of urban mobility. In the various sessions and workshops participants will have the opportunity to learn from projects that have already been successfully implemented. The congress provides an excellent opportunity to exchange experiences and best practices with the objective of jointly initiating innovative project proposals and cooperation initiatives. Several interesting project proposals launched during the last World Congress are on their way to implementation and will be presented at this year's congress. Moreover the City of Stuttgart offers a special programme which includes a tour through the city on electric bicycles and visits to the Mercedes-Benz-Museum, the Daimler plant in Sindelfingen and the Porsche plant in Stuttgart. On the website www.cities-for-mobility.org you can find all relevant information on the World Congress. The *_deadline for registration is May 9, 2008_*. Date : 28.05.2008 Venue : Leipzig, DE Title : International Transport Forum 2008 Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=217 Date : 28.05.2008 Venue : Volgograd, RU Title : Eurasian Division Conference Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=203 Date : 01.06.2008 Venue : Stuttgart, DE Title : Cities for Mobility: World Congress 2008 Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=241&lang=uk Date : 10.06.2008 Venue : Paris, FR Title : Transports Publics 2008 Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=230 Date : 04.06.2008 Venue : London, UK Title : 12th ECOMM 4-6 June 2008 in London Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=233 Date : 12.06.2008 Venue : Istanbul, TR Title : 9th Light Rail Conference Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=204 Date : 16.06.2008 Venue : Portland, US Title : Towards Carfree Cities VIII Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=211 Date : 19.06.2008 Venue : Paris, FR Title : 3rd Third International Conference on Funding Transport Infrastructure Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=212 Date : 23.06.2008 Venue : Singapore, SG Title : World cities Summit 2008 Read more : http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=237 *More events can be viewed from the link below * http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&lang=uk */IMPORTANT NOTE/* /If you haven't registered to our site or were only registered to the previous website, we would be pleased if you can validate your email and account info just by going to /http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers&lang=en / //and registering on-line. / / /*/Thank you very much for your consideration./ * */SUTP TEAM/* From sudhirgota at gmail.com Wed May 7 21:23:52 2008 From: sudhirgota at gmail.com (sudhir gota) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 17:53:52 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) News Digest - Vol-5 (Issue-7) Message-ID: Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) News Digest Vol. 5 Issue 7 7 May 2008 SUMA News Digest is a free weekly e-mail publication that features news, information, and events related to sustainable urban transportation in Asia. *** VISIT THE SUMA PAGES: http://www.cleanairnet.org/suma *** SUMA Partners on the Move! Two-day and six day training courses Mass Transit training held by GTZ SUTP under SUMA-Project, 26 April 2008 GTZ, CAI-Asia, Energy Foundation China and Shandong University have jointly organised a 2-day training course on Mass Transit and BRT Planning in Jinan on April 24-25, 2008. The event was hosted by Shandong University of Jinan and was a part of the SUMA project developed together with CAI-Asia and other partners. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1113&Itemid=1&lang=uk Training course on NMT Planning held in New Delhi under SUMA, 16 April 2008 GTZ-SUTP conducted a training course on Non-motorised Planning from 10th -16th April 2008 at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi, India. The course was targeted towards a group of pre-selected future trainers as a part of the SUMA capacity building activity. Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-Ce), also a SUMA partner, took part in the course. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1109&Itemid=1&lang=uk * * * * * HEADLINES A busload of money for city transit 30 April 2008 Bus Rapid Transit is catching the imagination of whole world with many cities pledging support to the scheme. Latest to join the bandwagon is the city of wheels I.e. Chicago. Exponential growth in congestion has forced the government to pool in $153 million to create a bus-rapid-transit program in the city on four designated corridors. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72619.html Mass transit the answer to North Texas traffic problems 30 April 2008 Urban Land Institute a Washington based research organization has asked United States to "wake up" and fix up the ailing infrastructure. The institute studied America's 23 largest urban areas, which the report said plan to spend nearly $2 trillion on transportation alone in the next 25 years. The report suggests proper land use planning with transit oriented development would provide some relief. ** http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72620.html VIET NAM: Ha Noi acts to return city pavements to pedestrians 29 April 2008 Ho Noi city in Vietnam has proposed to crack whip on roadside parking and footside vendors to protect the right of way of pedestrians. Pedestrians for long have faced blocks with road side parking and vendors who illegally block the pedestrian movements. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72621.html USA: Highlights from the 7th EcoCity World Summit 28 April 2008 "*In order to transform our cities, we need to move from ego-culture to eco-culture*." The above statement by Rusong Wang, President, Ecological Society of China sums up the highlights of 7th ecocity world summit. The summit had many experts interchanging ideas and accessing the impacts of various measures unleashed in various eco cities of world. The link provides some of the summit key discussions http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72622.html 18% of Employees Leave Cars at Home and Take Mass Transit after Enrolling in Commuter Benefits Programs at Work, Finds New Study from TransitCenter, 28 April 2008 A study conducted by Business Week Research Services has estimated that nearly one in five employees signing up for tax-free commuter benefits switches from driving a car to commuting by mass transit to get to work in New York. Many researchers for long have campaigned for the increase in Transport Demand Strategies such as Cummuter Benefit Program for achieving sustainable transportation. The other intersting find by the study was that nearly 53 percent of employees whose companies donot currently offer tax-free commuter benefits would participate in a program if it was offered indicating its far-reaching potential. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72623.html Massport sets goals for carbon footprint reduction, 22 April 2008 The Massachusetts Port Authority said Tuesday it has planned a series of environmental initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint of its operations. The initiatives would also enhance its environmental stewardship and give customers options that can reduce their impact on the environment. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72591.html India: Roads to Perdition, 21 April 2008 The Congestion and Pollution are not the only terms associated with roads but also accidents and safety. A new Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) study reveals some chilling figures on the causes for death in accident cases on roads. Only 19 per cent victims get the help of an ambulance, 48 per cent have to make it to hospital on their own. The police are conspicuous by their absence. In fact, it is fear of harassment by the police that stops passersby from helping victims.** http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72624.html INDIA: Metro to zoom into 4 cities soon, 18 April 2008 Metro has found favors with the Indian Government with proposals being made to expedite the metro works in four cities of India namely Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai and Kochi. The government plans to tackle rapid increase in congestion and pollution by improving the public transport systems with metro in these cities.** http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72625.html More air quality and sustainable mobility news at http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/propertyvalue-14783.html * * * * * INTERESTING FINDS What will it Cost to Protect Ourselves from Global Warming? By Nathaniel Keohane, Ph.D. and Peter Goldmark This paper examines the potential impact of a cap on greenhouse gases on the U.S. economy as a whole and on American families. What will it cost to protect ourselves against the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming? Advocates of action anticipate minimal costs. Those who want to do nothing sometimes assert that carbon cuts will bankrupt the economy. Who is right? This paper conducts the broadest assessment to date of the impacts on the U.S. economy of capping greenhouse gases. This report synthesizes the findings of several state-of-the-art economic models, and arrives at a strong conclusion: The United States can enjoy robust economic growth over the next several decades while making ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If we put a cap-and-trade policy in place soon, we can achieve substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions without significant adverse consequences to the economy. And in the long run, the coming low-carbon economy can provide the foundation for sustained American economic growth and prosperity. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72589.html Pedestrians at Crossroads: A Case Study of Bangalore By Sudhir, CAI Asia and Sameera Kumar, Secon Pvt. Ltd. Walking is the most ancient mode of transport but in this automobile age, walking is often the most neglected mode. There is a tendency to underestimate the pedestrian infrastructure needs when compared to the needs of the motorists. The situation has come to such a state that daily at least one pedestrian is killed on Bangalore roads. In this paper, the authors have tried to investigate the design-safety-economic and policy issues concerning existing pedestrian infrastructure in Bangalore. Also an attempt has been made to access the public perception on pedestrian issues. http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72580.html Deciding on Human Plunder By Curtis A. Moore, Editor, Spring 2008 Newsletter on Health and Clean Air The Earth is, in the words of one prominent climatologist, "perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control". Confronted now with arguably the gravest threat to its survival in recorded history, humanity is, on the one hand, allowing sheer inertia to dictate the outcome, while on the other deciding affirmatively, but wrongly. Curtis A. Moore, the editor of newsletter on Health and Clean Air reviews the worldwide research on pollution and lists down the classic case of pollution paradox ruling the roost. Read more http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72626.html * * * * * MARK YOUR CALENDARS The European Sustainability Summit Berlin 6 May 2008, http://www.eurohypo.com/media/ehlisten/englisch/sonstiges/Programme_The_European_Sustainability_Summit_F.pdf A Lighter Footprint': Sustainability Conference 16-17 May ? 2008, http://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=4567 ECOMM 2008 - The 11th Annual European Conference On Mobility Management, Travel Demand Management - Tackling Climate Change 4-6 June-2008, London http://www.ecomm2008.eu/ Towards Carfree Cities VIII, Rethinking Mobility, Rediscovering Proximity 16-20 June 2008, Portland, Oregon, USA, http://www.carfreeportland.org/ World Cities Summit 2008, Livable and Vibrant Cities, 23-25 June 2008, Singapore, http://www.worldcities.com.sg/ PODCAR City Sustainable Transport Conference, 14-16 September 2008, Ithaca, New York, http://www.podcar.org/ithacaconference/ UITP 2nd Sustainable Development Conference Making tomorrow today 22-24 October 2008, Milan, Italy http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72425.html Better Air Quality (BAQ) Workshop 2008 12-14 November 2008 Bangkok, Thailand Call for Abstracts ongoing; First Call for Pre-events http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72312.html See more SUT events http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/propertyvalue-27089.html See CAI-Asia's events calendar http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/propertyvalue-13577.html * * * CONTRIBUTE * * * To contribute articles, news items, or event announcements for the next issue, send an email with the complete details and URL source to suma-news-owner@googlegroups.com with subject "FOR SUMA NEWS". mailto: suma-news-owner@googlegroups.com?subject=FOR_SUMA_NEWS< suma-news-owner@googlegroups.com?subject=FOR_SUMA_NEWS>. Past issues from March and April 2008 are found at http://groups.google.com/group/suma-news * * * ABOUT SUMA * * * The Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) program of the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities ( www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia), Asian Development Bank ( www.adb.org), EMBARQ-the World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport ( http://embarq.wri.org ), GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project ( www.sutp.org), Interface for Cycling Expertise ( www.cycling.nl), Institute for Transportation and Development Policy ( www.itdp.org), and United Nations Center for Regional Development ( www.uncrd.or.jp/est) is made possible through the generous support of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ( www.sida.se). SUMA works with Asian countries and cities to strengthen then formulation and implementation of sustainable urban transportation policies, specifically in (i) Improving urban air quality by adopting AQM planning in sustainable transport policies and promoting public transportation, (ii)Improving road safety by encouraging non-motorized transport and public transport, and (iii)Reducing transport's contribution to climate change by adopting a co-benefits approach with urban air quality management. -- Sudhir Gota Transport Specialist CAI-Asia Center Unit 3510, 35th Floor, Robinsons-Equitable Tower, ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Metro Manila, Philippines 1605 Tel: +63-2-395-2843 Fax: +63-2-395-2846 sudhir(at)cai-asia.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia From yanivbin at gmail.com Wed May 7 22:29:54 2008 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:59:54 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Now, the debate is on how 5.5 km elevated road will be funded Message-ID: <86b8a7050805070629p3fd18b09xccfad0003984f9b8@mail.gmail.com> In Bangalore a 30 km elevated reoad will be tendered for the umpteenth time internationally and it cost 1600 crs for a four lane . IT IS UNVIABLE IT WILL NEVER see the light of day. But the Pune idea is TERRIBLE and many times costlier Do we really need flyovers in COPY CAT style of BANGKOK city? ** *Now, the debate is on how 5.5 km elevated road will be funded* *Dar Consultants put cost at Rs 1,075 cr; PMC looks to IL&FS for funding solution * NitinPatil / AJAY KHAPE *Posted online: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 2308 hrs IST * Pune, May 6 Ten years ago, the construction of Mumbai-Pune six-lane Expressway comprising six tunnels and a few bridges cost around Rs 24 crore per km. As per a proposal submitted by the Indian arm of the UK-based Dar Consultants it will cost the Pune Municipal Corporation over Rs 195 crore per km for a 5.5-km-long elevated road from Sangam bridge to Mhatre bridge. As per the proposal, the elevated stretch, with dual three-lane for traffic plus nine metres for bus carriage, will cost Rs 1,075 crore. But now the PMC is saying that it is looking beyond Dar Consultants, at Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Service ( IL&FS) to find funding options for the project. Municipal Commissioner Praveensinh Pardeshi told The Indian Express on Tuesday, "The planning of the project should also include identifying a source for raising money for the construction of the road from Kharadi to Shivne. The report, that Dar Consultants submitted, does not mention the funding source as the idea was that the project would be funded under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). But, this project cannot be executed under JNNURM and the PMC cannot raise this money." Now, the PMC has appointed IL&FS for giving a feasibility report and planning of the project, Pardeshi said. The consultant would also have to suggest ways for raising the money for implementation of the project, he said. When contacted, a Dar Consultant officer said the company was unable to comment on the appointment of a new consultant by PMC for the Kharadi-Shivne project as it has received no such intimation till date. "We were told that the project was to be implemented with JNNURM funds, so there was no question of giving suggestions for raising funds for the project," he said. "The PMC has not been responding to us despite repeated follow up for starting the project," he added. Talk to officers at the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC), that has done many such projects in the past including many flyovers in Pune and was even the nodal agency for implementing the Mumbai-Pune Expressway, and the verdict is clear ? that the budget for the elevated road will easily overshoot Rs 1,075 crore. "If the elevated road project is planned in the riverbed, the expenses will rise automatically as laying a solid foundation is necessary. Besides, the cost for the project is bound to go beyond the estimates, as the prices of the steel and cement have skyrocketed," executive engineer of MSRDC, Vidyadhar Sardeshmukh, said. The gigantic Mumbai-Pune Expressway project, spanning 95 km between the two cities, was completed at a cost of Rs 2,250 crore, but that was in 2002, he said. According to Pardeshi, a road along the riverbank would obstruct the flow of water during the monsoon and the elevated road is a better solution. "The elevated road is necessary for environmental reasons as it will not be possible for road construction on the riverbank without damaging the environment," he said. From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu May 8 08:23:56 2008 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:23:56 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Mass transit modes "competition" Message-ID: <48223A0C.2060105@gmail.com> Hi, I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter). The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and into cars... Best regards, Carlos. bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > Brendan > > Did I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history of who > sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame consultants > or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt around for > someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate should > never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some cases the > fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, important > destinations get deleted, etc. > > As I have said before, I am not opposing BRT. But my main point still > holds, I think. It is pretty unfair to say that a 65 km system > carrying 600,000 per day is "abysmal" by comparing it to the > hypothetical performance of BRT that is currently carrying about 0 > passengers, 10 years after both projects were initiated. > > I also think it is short-sighted to not take into account the > long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also justify higher > initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting densification of > land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. This would make a > good topic for future discussion. > > Eric Bruun > > I > > Quoting Brendan Finn : > > >> Dear Eric, >> >> When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned based on a >> projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the actual >> out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just with the >> math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based systems >> are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling us >> that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and are >> incapable of revising their methodologies? >> >> A lot of metro and rail projects around the world get approved on >> dodgy math and wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to >> pass. It is systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful >> deception, aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as >> professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse >> such practices. >> >> With best wishes, >> >> >> Brendan. >> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" >> Cc: "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 PM >> Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi >> >> >> >>> Sujit >>> >>> 3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That doesn't make >>> Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad predictions. >>> >>> But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT would be >>> better value for money, but how much has been built? Both BRT and the >>> Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and making a valuable >>> contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing that BRT >>> can be done quickly and Metros take forever. >>> >>> Eric Bruun >>> >>> Quoting Sujit Patwardhan : >>> >>> >>>> Dear Eric, >>>> >>>> 65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 *is* "abysmal" when >>>> compared to the project projection of over 3.1 million. When projects >>>> involving huge sums (of people's money) are invested in a project meant to >>>> produce specific result it is highly objectionable when the actual figures >>>> fall short not by 5% or 10% but by over 80%. >>>> >>>> This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up whether they be Mega >>>> Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure projects. If the ridership of >>>> 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did the Govt sanction the project, >>>> particularly when much cheaper options were available? >>>> >>>> I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington Metro are quite >>>> relevant to Asian countries with much higher population densities. Pune >>>> Municipal Transport buses of very poor quality, for instance carry over >>>> 600,000 commuters each day. They do this with about 650 buses which are of >>>> old technology, and in poor condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about >>>> 2000 modern semi low floor and efficient buses would be able to provide >>>> excellent quality public transport with a citywide network. If the >>>> city were >>>> to provide the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make >>>> it functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone >>>> knows that >>>> Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the Washington Metro at >>>> a much lower cost . >>>> >>>> So there are serious problems with Metro but politicians love expensive >>>> projects and this is supported by the elites who want to keep up with the >>>> Jones's. They say if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the >>>> juvenile boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . >>>> I think we need to move beyond that and face the hard reality of a choice >>>> between car dominated "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New >>>> Mobility" vision that honours walking, cycling and affordable public >>>> transport system -- best of which today appears to be the BRT. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sujit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:18 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Aashish >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out of date. It >>>>> was 66 kms 3 years ago.) >>>>> >>>>> The reason I was asking is that Sujit said the ridership was >>>>> "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 kms is actually pretty crowded. >>>>> The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over 160 kms) and several of the >>>>> lines are genuinely crush loaded during the rush hours with only >>>>> 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, people in the U.S. tend to be >>>>> larger than in India, which also aggravates the crowding. >>>>> >>>>> As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems ridiculous. Of course, >>>>> it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare was assumed to be very >>>>> low and crowding standards were extreme...... >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Sujit Patwardhan : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Sujit Patwardhan >>>>>> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi >>>>>> To: pttfgen@googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 25 April 2008 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BRT in Delhi >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes problems galore and I've been following the reports in the media >>>>>> including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar was to appear on, but didn't for >>>>>> >>>>> some >>>>> >>>>>> reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> My take on all this is as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Deterioration in traffic has been an ongoing process in many Asian >>>>>> >>>>> cities >>>>> >>>>>> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker of >>>>>> >>>>> water >>>>> >>>>>> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro was >>>>>> >>>>> taken >>>>> >>>>>> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to the >>>>>> minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" from >>>>>> politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of budgets as >>>>>> >>>>> well >>>>> >>>>>> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was >>>>>> >>>>> pardoned >>>>> >>>>>> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made >>>>>> >>>>> available >>>>> >>>>>> without delay and cloaked in secrecy. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Delhi Metro project is a marketing triumph that fills every Indian's >>>>>> >>>>> chest >>>>> >>>>>> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public Transport) the >>>>>> very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big question mark. >>>>>> >>>>> There >>>>> >>>>>> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro >>>>>> >>>>> represents >>>>> >>>>>> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and cultural >>>>>> centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities needed by the city. >>>>>> >>>>> *But >>>>> >>>>>> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic transport >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers, >>>>>> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely provided >>>>>> >>>>> by >>>>> >>>>>> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler owners >>>>>> >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>>> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.* >>>>>> >>>>>> BRT unlike the Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our >>>>>> >>>>> roads. >>>>> >>>>>> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor >>>>>> >>>>> engineering, >>>>> >>>>>> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and non >>>>>> personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is blamed, if >>>>>> drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV lane >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the BRT. If >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus carries >>>>>> many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive resource -- >>>>>> >>>>> although >>>>> >>>>>> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the >>>>>> >>>>> *wasteful >>>>> >>>>>> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very roads* - >>>>>> >>>>> well >>>>> >>>>>> before BRT appeared on the scene. >>>>>> >>>>>> So it is clear that BRT planning should have been rooted in outreach and >>>>>> marketing it as a concept that will improve mobility (of people as >>>>>> >>>>> against >>>>> >>>>>> just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access for >>>>>> >>>>> people >>>>> >>>>>> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated >>>>>> >>>>> buses, it >>>>> >>>>>> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal >>>>>> >>>>> transport, >>>>> >>>>>> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a >>>>>> >>>>> growing >>>>> >>>>>> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even A/C >>>>>> >>>>> buses >>>>> >>>>>> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even the >>>>>> >>>>> rich >>>>> >>>>>> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational reasons >>>>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode of >>>>>> >>>>> travel. >>>>> >>>>>> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we have >>>>>> >>>>> no >>>>> >>>>>> qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education, >>>>>> >>>>> wearing >>>>> >>>>>> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather, >>>>>> >>>>> listening to >>>>> >>>>>> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing >>>>>> >>>>> Cheerleaders >>>>> >>>>>> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start protesting >>>>>> when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin American idea of >>>>>> excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign concept?????? >>>>>> >>>>>> The need is to publicise wider benefits of public transport and to reach >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based >>>>>> >>>>> public >>>>> >>>>>> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will >>>>>> >>>>> benefit >>>>> >>>>>> most from a good BRT) >>>>>> >>>>>> It is this huge majority of commuters who will have the opportunity of >>>>>> breaking free from the shackles of our present horrendous conditions of >>>>>> urban traffic. >>>>>> >>>>>> So let's not worry too much about the high pitched screams coming from >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers) >>>>>> >>>>> protesting >>>>> >>>>>> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and let's >>>>>> >>>>> reach >>>>> >>>>>> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick ever >>>>>> since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring them on >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their place. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene arrogant >>>>>> >>>>> rant >>>>> >>>>>> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car >>>>>> >>>>> lobby/media/politician >>>>> >>>>>> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying the >>>>>> >>>>> BRT >>>>> >>>>>> trials in Delhi. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sujit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay Patil >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the visuals >>>>>>> >>>>> (CNN >>>>> >>>>>>> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better than >>>>>>> Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and so >>>>>>> >>>>> on. I >>>>> >>>>>>> don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has promised >>>>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>>> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few weeks. >>>>>>> Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to drop the >>>>>>> project if they are unable to get their act together right away. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a negative >>>>>>> >>>>> note >>>>> >>>>>>> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly >>>>>>> >>>>> traffic >>>>> >>>>>>> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - it >>>>>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>>> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water! >>>>>>> >>>>> And, >>>>> >>>>>>> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I can >>>>>>> >>>>> not >>>>> >>>>>>> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Abhay >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Thu May 8 10:22:50 2008 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:22:50 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Mass transit modes "competition" In-Reply-To: <48220441.70808@gmail.com> References: <4cfd20aa0804250038k343da7cama026aaa2bfe99972@mail.gmail.com><4cfd20aa0804250041n56b7aca1td97093e8cd486d3c@mail.gmail.com><20080426214839.ww8ircdfacso84cc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu><4cfd20aa0804270328q3215c523ga08c49270a095ea6@mail.gmail.com> <20080428175902.3z54of00040c8o80@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20080428211854.2flsgmnuw0gowowo@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <48220441.70808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080507212250.5gdomdcqw9w4wso8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Carlos I have read most of the chapter to which you refer and much of the BRT Planning Guide. I just don't happen to agree that your comparisons are as "real and objective" as you think that they are. By making a guide that pretty much recommends BRT for every situation, no matter how big the city, no matter what the priorities or weightings of the various project goals might be, no matter how dense the development of the city or its geography, what rights-of-way are available (or not), or how bad the traffic is, maybe your consortium is not completely objective either. Eric Bruun Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > Hi, > > I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, > and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms > of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts > and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the > city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator > involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been > reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative > sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, > Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite > everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter). > > The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is > that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and > into cars... > > Best regards, > > Carlos. > > bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > > BrendanDid I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history > of who sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame > consultants or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt > around for someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate > should never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some cases > the fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, > important destinations get deleted, etc.As I have said before, I am > not opposing BRT. But my main point still holds, I think. It is pretty > unfair to say that a 65 km system carrying 600,000 per day is > "abysmal" by comparing it to the hypothetical performance of BRT that > is currently carrying about 0 passengers, 10 years after both projects > were initiated.I also think it is short-sighted to not take into > account the long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also justify > higher initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting > densification of land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. This > would make a good topic for future discussion.Eric BruunIQuoting > Brendan Finn : > > Dear Eric,When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned > based on a projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the > actual out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just > with the math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based > systems are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling > us that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and > are incapable of revising their methodologies?A lot of metro and rail > projects around the world get approved on dodgy math and > wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to pass. It is > systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful deception, > aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as > professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse such > practices.With best wishes,Brendan. > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286----- Original Message ----- From: > To: "Sujit Patwardhan" Cc: > "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 > PM Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi > > Sujit3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That > doesn't make Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad > predictions.But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT > would be better value for money, but how much has been built? Both > BRT and the Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and making a > valuable contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing > that BRT can be done quickly and Metros take forever.Eric BruunQuoting > Sujit Patwardhan : > > Dear Eric,65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 > *is* "abysmal" when compared to the project projection of over 3.1 > million. When projects involving huge sums (of people's money) are > invested in a project meant to produce specific result it is highly > objectionable when the actual figures fall short not by 5% or 10% but > by over 80%.This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up > whether they be Mega Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure > projects. If the ridership of 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did > the Govt sanction the project, particularly when much cheaper options > were available?I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington > Metro are quite relevant to Asian countries with much higher > population densities. Pune Municipal Transport buses of very poor > quality, for instance carry over 600,000 commuters each day. They do > this with about 650 buses which are of old technology, and in poor > condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about 2000 modern semi low > floor and efficient buses would be able to provide excellent quality > public transport with a citywide network. If the city were to provide > the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make it > functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone knows > that Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the > Washington Metro at a much lower cost .So there are serious problems > with Metro but politicians love expensive projects and this is > supported by the elites who want to keep up with the Jones's. They say > if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the juvenile > boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . I think we need to move beyond > that and face the hard reality of a choice between car dominated > "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New Mobility" vision > that honours walking, cycling and affordable public transport system > -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.-- SujitOn Sun, Apr 27, > 2008 at 7:18 AM, wrote: > > AashishThanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out > of date. It was 66 kms 3 years ago.)The reason I was asking is that > Sujit said the ridership was "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 kms > is actually pretty crowded. The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over > 160 kms) and several of the lines are genuinely crush loaded during > the rush hours with only 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, > people in the U.S. tend to be larger than in India, which also > aggravates the crowding.As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems > ridiculous. Of course, it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare > was assumed to be very low and crowding standards were > extreme......EricQuoting Sujit Patwardhan : > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan > Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM Subject: Re: > [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi To: pttfgen@googlegroups.com25 April > 2008BRT in Delhi =========Yes problems galore and I've been following > the reports in the media including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar was to > appear on, but didn't for > > some > > reason.My take on all this is as follows:Deterioration in traffic > has been an ongoing process in many Asian > > cities > > for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker > of > > water > > being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro > was > > taken > > up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to > the minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" > from politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of > budgets as > > well > > as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was > > > pardoned > > by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made > > available > > without delay and cloaked in secrecy.*Delhi Metro project is a > marketing triumph that fills every Indian's > > chest > > with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public > Transport) the very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big > question mark. > > There > > is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro > > represents > > lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and > cultural centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities needed by > the city. > > *But > > in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic > transport > > and > > hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers, > multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely > provided > > by > > the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler > owners > > at > > the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*BRT unlike the > Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our > > roads. > > Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor > > engineering, > > lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and > non personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is blamed, > if drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV > lane > > and > > clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the > BRT. If > > the > > BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus > carries many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive > resource -- > > although > > not many of these critics complained much all these years about the > > > *wasteful > > use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very > roads* - > > well > > before BRT appeared on the scene.So it is clear that BRT planning > should have been rooted in outreach and marketing it as a concept that > will improve mobility (of people as > > against > > just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access > for > > people > > who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated > > > buses, it > > will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal > > transport, > > not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a > > > growing > > BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even > A/C > > buses > > start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even > the > > rich > > will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational > reasons > > of > > getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode > of > > travel. > > This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we > have > > no > > qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education, > > > wearing > > suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather, > > listening to > > western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing > > Cheerleaders > > for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start > protesting when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin > American idea of excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign > concept??????The need is to publicise wider benefits of public > transport and to reach > > the > > *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based > > > public > > transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will > > > benefit > > most from a good BRT)It is this huge majority of commuters who will > have the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of our present > horrendous conditions of urban traffic.So let's not worry too much > about the high pitched screams coming from > > the > > pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers) > > protesting > > against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and > let's > > reach > > the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick > ever since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring > them on > > the > > roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their > place.*Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene > arrogant > > rant > > coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car > > lobby/media/politician > > clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying > the > > BRT > > trials in Delhi.-- SujitOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay > Patil > > wrote: > > Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the > visuals > > (CNN > > IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better > than Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and > so > > on. I > > don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has > promised > > that > > she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few > weeks. Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to > drop the project if they are unable to get their act together right > away.On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a > negative > > note > > - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly > > > traffic > > jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - > it > > is > > quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water! > > > And, > > that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I > can > > not > > imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...-Abhay > > > -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT > NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS.Please go to > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the > real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). Apologies for the confusing > arrangement.================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu May 8 13:30:26 2008 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 23:30:26 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Mass transit modes "competition" In-Reply-To: <20080507212250.5gdomdcqw9w4wso8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <4cfd20aa0804250038k343da7cama026aaa2bfe99972@mail.gmail.com><4cfd20aa0804250041n56b7aca1td97093e8cd486d3c@mail.gmail.com><20080426214839.ww8ircdfacso84cc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu><4cfd20aa0804270328q3215c523ga08c49270a095ea6@mail.gmail.com> <20080428175902.3z54of00040c8o80@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20080428211854.2flsgmnuw0gowowo@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <48220441.70808@gmail.com> <20080507212250.5gdomdcqw9w4wso8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <482281E2.1090400@gmail.com> Eric, Thanks for your point of view. The excerpts below from the planning guide itself may be useful to see if it is truly objective or not. I invite everyone else to give their opinion. ?Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is thus just one of the many public transport technology options. Additionally, there are a range of rail-based public transport systems that are possible, including underground metros, elevated rail systems, Light Rail Transit (LRT), and trams (Figures 2.1 through 2.6). No one of these options is inherently correct or incorrect. Local conditions and local preferences play a significant role in determining the preferred system type? The decision to select a particular technology depends upon many factors. Costs, performance characteristics, local conditions, and personal preferences have historically all played a role in the decision-making process? In recent years, significant debate amongst transport professionals has occurred on whether BRT or rail-based solutions are the most appropriate. Such competition between systems can actually be healthy as it implies an environment in which all technologies must strive to improve. A rigorous evaluation process will help ensure that a city makes the most appropriate choice? In reality, a top-down approach that begins with a technology focus is perhaps not the ideal. It is much preferred to define desired public transport characteristics prior to selecting a particular technology. By understanding customer needs with respect to fare levels, routing and location, travel time, comfort, safety, security, frequency of service, quality of infrastructure, and ease of access, system developers can define the preferred type of service without bias toward any particular technology (Figure 2.15). Thus, much of the planning noted in this Planning Guide can actually be conducted without committing to one type of technology over another. In this scenario, the public transport technology is one of the last issues to be introduced in the decision-making process. Such a customer-orientated approach will likely have the best chance of producing a public transport service that can effectively compete with the private automobile? The choice of public transport technology should be based on a range of considerations with performance and cost being amongst the most important. As suggested, these requirements are ideally derived from an objective analysis of the existing and projected situation. Table 2.1 outlines categories of the characteristics that can help shape a city?s decision towards the most appropriate type of public transport technology. *Table 2.1 Factors in choosing a type of public transport technology* Category Factor *Cost* *Capital costs (infrastructure and property costs)* * * *Operating costs* * * *Planning costs* *Planning and management* *Planning and implementation time* * * *Management and administration* *Design* *Scalability* * * *Flexibility* * * *Diversity versus homogeneity* *Performance* *Capacity* * * *Travel time / speed* * * *Service frequency* * * *Reliability* * * *Comfort* * * *Safety* * * *Customer service* * * *Image and perception* *Impacts* *Economic impacts * * * *Social impacts * * * *Environmental impacts * * * *Urban impacts* Again, no one public transport solution is the right solution for all cities. The local circumstances and public policy objectives play a significant role in selecting the most appropriate public transport solution for any city.? bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > Carlos > > I have read most of the chapter to which you refer and much of the BRT > Planning Guide. I just don't happen to agree that your comparisons are > as "real and objective" as you think that they are. By making a guide > that pretty much recommends BRT for every situation, no matter how big > the city, no matter what the priorities or weightings of the various > project goals might be, no matter how dense the development of the > city or its geography, what rights-of-way are available (or not), or > how bad the traffic is, maybe your consortium is not completely > objective either. > > Eric Bruun > > > Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > >> Hi, >> >> I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, >> and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms >> of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts >> and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the >> city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator >> involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been >> reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative >> sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, >> Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite >> everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter). >> >> The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is >> that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and >> into cars... >> >> Best regards, >> >> Carlos. >> >> bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >> >> BrendanDid I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history >> of who sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame >> consultants or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt >> around for someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate >> should never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some cases >> the fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, >> important destinations get deleted, etc.As I have said before, I am >> not opposing BRT. But my main point still holds, I think. It is pretty >> unfair to say that a 65 km system carrying 600,000 per day is >> "abysmal" by comparing it to the hypothetical performance of BRT that >> is currently carrying about 0 passengers, 10 years after both projects >> were initiated.I also think it is short-sighted to not take into >> account the long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also justify >> higher initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting >> densification of land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. This >> would make a good topic for future discussion.Eric BruunIQuoting >> Brendan Finn : >> >> Dear Eric,When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned >> based on a projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the >> actual out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just >> with the math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based >> systems are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling >> us that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and >> are incapable of revising their methodologies?A lot of metro and rail >> projects around the world get approved on dodgy math and >> wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to pass. It is >> systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful deception, >> aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as >> professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse such >> practices.With best wishes,Brendan. >> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286----- Original Message ----- From: >> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" Cc: >> "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 >> PM Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi >> >> Sujit3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That >> doesn't make Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad >> predictions.But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT >> would be better value for money, but how much has been built? Both >> BRT and the Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and making a >> valuable contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing >> that BRT can be done quickly and Metros take forever.Eric BruunQuoting >> Sujit Patwardhan : >> >> Dear Eric,65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 >> *is* "abysmal" when compared to the project projection of over 3.1 >> million. When projects involving huge sums (of people's money) are >> invested in a project meant to produce specific result it is highly >> objectionable when the actual figures fall short not by 5% or 10% but >> by over 80%.This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up >> whether they be Mega Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure >> projects. If the ridership of 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did >> the Govt sanction the project, particularly when much cheaper options >> were available?I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington >> Metro are quite relevant to Asian countries with much higher >> population densities. Pune Municipal Transport buses of very poor >> quality, for instance carry over 600,000 commuters each day. They do >> this with about 650 buses which are of old technology, and in poor >> condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about 2000 modern semi low >> floor and efficient buses would be able to provide excellent quality >> public transport with a citywide network. If the city were to provide >> the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make it >> functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone knows >> that Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the >> Washington Metro at a much lower cost .So there are serious problems >> with Metro but politicians love expensive projects and this is >> supported by the elites who want to keep up with the Jones's. They say >> if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the juvenile >> boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . I think we need to move beyond >> that and face the hard reality of a choice between car dominated >> "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New Mobility" vision >> that honours walking, cycling and affordable public transport system >> -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.-- SujitOn Sun, Apr 27, >> 2008 at 7:18 AM, wrote: >> >> AashishThanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out >> of date. It was 66 kms 3 years ago.)The reason I was asking is that >> Sujit said the ridership was "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 kms >> is actually pretty crowded. The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over >> 160 kms) and several of the lines are genuinely crush loaded during >> the rush hours with only 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, >> people in the U.S. tend to be larger than in India, which also >> aggravates the crowding.As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems >> ridiculous. Of course, it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare >> was assumed to be very low and crowding standards were >> extreme......EricQuoting Sujit Patwardhan : >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan >> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM Subject: Re: >> [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi To: pttfgen@googlegroups.com25 April >> 2008BRT in Delhi =========Yes problems galore and I've been following >> the reports in the media including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar was to >> appear on, but didn't for >> >> some >> >> reason.My take on all this is as follows:Deterioration in traffic >> has been an ongoing process in many Asian >> >> cities >> >> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker >> of >> >> water >> >> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro >> was >> >> taken >> >> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to >> the minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" >> from politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of >> budgets as >> >> well >> >> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was >> >> >> pardoned >> >> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made >> >> available >> >> without delay and cloaked in secrecy.*Delhi Metro project is a >> marketing triumph that fills every Indian's >> >> chest >> >> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public >> Transport) the very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big >> question mark. >> >> There >> >> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro >> >> represents >> >> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and >> cultural centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities needed by >> the city. >> >> *But >> >> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic >> transport >> >> and >> >> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers, >> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely >> provided >> >> by >> >> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler >> owners >> >> at >> >> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*BRT unlike the >> Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our >> >> roads. >> >> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor >> >> engineering, >> >> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and >> non personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is blamed, >> if drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV >> lane >> >> and >> >> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the >> BRT. If >> >> the >> >> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus >> carries many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive >> resource -- >> >> although >> >> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the >> >> >> *wasteful >> >> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very >> roads* - >> >> well >> >> before BRT appeared on the scene.So it is clear that BRT planning >> should have been rooted in outreach and marketing it as a concept that >> will improve mobility (of people as >> >> against >> >> just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access >> for >> >> people >> >> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated >> >> >> buses, it >> >> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal >> >> transport, >> >> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a >> >> >> growing >> >> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even >> A/C >> >> buses >> >> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even >> the >> >> rich >> >> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational >> reasons >> >> of >> >> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode >> of >> >> travel. >> >> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we >> have >> >> no >> >> qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education, >> >> >> wearing >> >> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather, >> >> listening to >> >> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing >> >> Cheerleaders >> >> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start >> protesting when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin >> American idea of excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign >> concept??????The need is to publicise wider benefits of public >> transport and to reach >> >> the >> >> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based >> >> >> public >> >> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will >> >> >> benefit >> >> most from a good BRT)It is this huge majority of commuters who will >> have the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of our present >> horrendous conditions of urban traffic.So let's not worry too much >> about the high pitched screams coming from >> >> the >> >> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers) >> >> protesting >> >> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and >> let's >> >> reach >> >> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick >> ever since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring >> them on >> >> the >> >> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their >> place.*Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene >> arrogant >> >> rant >> >> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car >> >> lobby/media/politician >> >> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying >> the >> >> BRT >> >> trials in Delhi.-- SujitOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay >> Patil >> >> wrote: >> >> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the >> visuals >> >> (CNN >> >> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better >> than Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and >> so >> >> on. I >> >> don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has >> promised >> >> that >> >> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few >> weeks. Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to >> drop the project if they are unable to get their act together right >> away.On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a >> negative >> >> note >> >> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly >> >> >> traffic >> >> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - >> it >> >> is >> >> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water! >> >> >> And, >> >> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I >> can >> >> not >> >> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...-Abhay >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT >> NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via >> YAHOOGROUPS.Please go to >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the >> real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups >> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real >> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you >> can). Apologies for the confusing >> arrangement.================================================================ >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). > > > From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu May 8 13:30:26 2008 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 23:30:26 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Mass transit modes "competition" Message-ID: <44C70B79-7BF5-447A-90C3-9374074FFB61@gmail.com> FYI--------------- Eric, Thanks for your point of view. The excerpts below from the planning guide itself may be useful to see if it is truly objective or not. I invite everyone else to give their opinion. ?Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is thus just one of the many public transport technology options. Additionally, there are a range of rail-based public transport systems that are possible, including underground metros, elevated rail systems, Light Rail Transit (LRT), and trams (Figures 2.1 through 2.6). No one of these options is inherently correct or incorrect. Local conditions and local preferences play a significant role in determining the preferred system type? The decision to select a particular technology depends upon many factors. Costs, performance characteristics, local conditions, and personal preferences have historically all played a role in the decision-making process? In recent years, significant debate amongst transport professionals has occurred on whether BRT or rail-based solutions are the most appropriate. Such competition between systems can actually be healthy as it implies an environment in which all technologies must strive to improve. A rigorous evaluation process will help ensure that a city makes the most appropriate choice? In reality, a top-down approach that begins with a technology focus is perhaps not the ideal. It is much preferred to define desired public transport characteristics prior to selecting a particular technology. By understanding customer needs with respect to fare levels, routing and location, travel time, comfort, safety, security, frequency of service, quality of infrastructure, and ease of access, system developers can define the preferred type of service without bias toward any particular technology (Figure 2.15). Thus, much of the planning noted in this Planning Guide can actually be conducted without committing to one type of technology over another. In this scenario, the public transport technology is one of the last issues to be introduced in the decision-making process. Such a customer-orientated approach will likely have the best chance of producing a public transport service that can effectively compete with the private automobile? The choice of public transport technology should be based on a range of considerations with performance and cost being amongst the most important. As suggested, these requirements are ideally derived from an objective analysis of the existing and projected situation. Table 2.1 outlines categories of the characteristics that can help shape a city?s decision towards the most appropriate type of public transport technology. *Table 2.1 Factors in choosing a type of public transport technology* Category Factor *Cost* *Capital costs (infrastructure and property costs)* * * *Operating costs* * * *Planning costs* *Planning and management* *Planning and implementation time* * * *Management and administration* *Design* *Scalability* * * *Flexibility* * * *Diversity versus homogeneity* *Performance* *Capacity* * * *Travel time / speed* * * *Service frequency* * * *Reliability* * * *Comfort* * * *Safety* * * *Customer service* * * *Image and perception* *Impacts* *Economic impacts * * * *Social impacts * * * *Environmental impacts * * * *Urban impacts* Again, no one public transport solution is the right solution for all cities. The local circumstances and public policy objectives play a significant role in selecting the most appropriate public transport solution for any city.? bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > Carlos > > I have read most of the chapter to which you refer and much of the BRT > Planning Guide. I just don't happen to agree that your comparisons are > as "real and objective" as you think that they are. By making a guide > that pretty much recommends BRT for every situation, no matter how big > the city, no matter what the priorities or weightings of the various > project goals might be, no matter how dense the development of the > city or its geography, what rights-of-way are available (or not), or > how bad the traffic is, maybe your consortium is not completely > objective either. > > Eric Bruun > > > Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > >> Hi, >> >> I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, >> and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms >> of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts >> and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the >> city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator >> involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been >> reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative >> sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, >> Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite >> everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter). >> >> The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is >> that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and >> into cars... >> >> Best regards, >> >> Carlos. >> >> bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >> >> BrendanDid I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history >> of who sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame >> consultants or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt >> around for someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate >> should never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some >> cases >> the fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, >> important destinations get deleted, etc.As I have said before, I am >> not opposing BRT. But my main point still holds, I think. It is >> pretty >> unfair to say that a 65 km system carrying 600,000 per day is >> "abysmal" by comparing it to the hypothetical performance of BRT that >> is currently carrying about 0 passengers, 10 years after both >> projects >> were initiated.I also think it is short-sighted to not take into >> account the long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also >> justify >> higher initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting >> densification of land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. >> This >> would make a good topic for future discussion.Eric BruunIQuoting >> Brendan Finn : >> >> Dear Eric,When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned >> based on a projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the >> actual out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just >> with the math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based >> systems are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling >> us that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and >> are incapable of revising their methodologies?A lot of metro and rail >> projects around the world get approved on dodgy math and >> wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to pass. It is >> systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful deception, >> aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as >> professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse such >> practices.With best wishes,Brendan. >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> __________________________________________ >> >> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286----- Original Message ----- From: >> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" Cc: >> "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 >> PM Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi >> >> Sujit3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That >> doesn't make Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad >> predictions.But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT >> would be better value for money, but how much has been built? Both >> BRT and the Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and >> making a >> valuable contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing >> that BRT can be done quickly and Metros take forever.Eric >> BruunQuoting >> Sujit Patwardhan : >> >> Dear Eric,65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 >> *is* "abysmal" when compared to the project projection of over 3.1 >> million. When projects involving huge sums (of people's money) are >> invested in a project meant to produce specific result it is highly >> objectionable when the actual figures fall short not by 5% or 10% but >> by over 80%.This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up >> whether they be Mega Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure >> projects. If the ridership of 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did >> the Govt sanction the project, particularly when much cheaper options >> were available?I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington >> Metro are quite relevant to Asian countries with much higher >> population densities. Pune Municipal Transport buses of very poor >> quality, for instance carry over 600,000 commuters each day. They do >> this with about 650 buses which are of old technology, and in poor >> condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about 2000 modern semi low >> floor and efficient buses would be able to provide excellent quality >> public transport with a citywide network. If the city were to provide >> the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make it >> functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone knows >> that Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the >> Washington Metro at a much lower cost .So there are serious problems >> with Metro but politicians love expensive projects and this is >> supported by the elites who want to keep up with the Jones's. They >> say >> if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the juvenile >> boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . I think we need to move beyond >> that and face the hard reality of a choice between car dominated >> "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New Mobility" >> vision >> that honours walking, cycling and affordable public transport system >> -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.-- SujitOn Sun, Apr 27, >> 2008 at 7:18 AM, wrote: >> >> AashishThanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out >> of date. It was 66 kms 3 years ago.)The reason I was asking is that >> Sujit said the ridership was "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 >> kms >> is actually pretty crowded. The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over >> 160 kms) and several of the lines are genuinely crush loaded during >> the rush hours with only 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, >> people in the U.S. tend to be larger than in India, which also >> aggravates the crowding.As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems >> ridiculous. Of course, it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare >> was assumed to be very low and crowding standards were >> extreme......EricQuoting Sujit Patwardhan : >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan >> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM Subject: Re: >> [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi To: pttfgen@googlegroups.com25 April >> 2008BRT in Delhi =========Yes problems galore and I've been following >> the reports in the media including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar >> was to >> appear on, but didn't for >> >> some >> >> reason.My take on all this is as follows:Deterioration in traffic >> has been an ongoing process in many Asian >> >> cities >> >> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker >> of >> >> water >> >> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro >> was >> >> taken >> >> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to >> the minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" >> from politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of >> budgets as >> >> well >> >> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was >> >> >> pardoned >> >> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made >> >> available >> >> without delay and cloaked in secrecy.*Delhi Metro project is a >> marketing triumph that fills every Indian's >> >> chest >> >> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public >> Transport) the very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big >> question mark. >> >> There >> >> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro >> >> represents >> >> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and >> cultural centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities >> needed by >> the city. >> >> *But >> >> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic >> transport >> >> and >> >> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers, >> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely >> provided >> >> by >> >> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler >> owners >> >> at >> >> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*BRT unlike the >> Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our >> >> roads. >> >> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor >> >> engineering, >> >> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and >> non personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is >> blamed, >> if drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV >> lane >> >> and >> >> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the >> BRT. If >> >> the >> >> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus >> carries many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive >> resource -- >> >> although >> >> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the >> >> >> *wasteful >> >> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very >> roads* - >> >> well >> >> before BRT appeared on the scene.So it is clear that BRT planning >> should have been rooted in outreach and marketing it as a concept >> that >> will improve mobility (of people as >> >> against >> >> just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access >> for >> >> people >> >> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated >> >> >> buses, it >> >> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal >> >> transport, >> >> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a >> >> >> growing >> >> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even >> A/C >> >> buses >> >> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even >> the >> >> rich >> >> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational >> reasons >> >> of >> >> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode >> of >> >> travel. >> >> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we >> have >> >> no >> >> qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education, >> >> >> wearing >> >> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather, >> >> listening to >> >> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing >> >> Cheerleaders >> >> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start >> protesting when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin >> American idea of excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign >> concept??????The need is to publicise wider benefits of public >> transport and to reach >> >> the >> >> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based >> >> >> public >> >> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will >> >> >> benefit >> >> most from a good BRT)It is this huge majority of commuters who will >> have the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of our >> present >> horrendous conditions of urban traffic.So let's not worry too much >> about the high pitched screams coming from >> >> the >> >> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers) >> >> protesting >> >> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and >> let's >> >> reach >> >> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick >> ever since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring >> them on >> >> the >> >> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their >> place.*Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene >> arrogant >> >> rant >> >> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car >> >> lobby/media/politician >> >> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying >> the >> >> BRT >> >> trials in Delhi.-- SujitOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay >> Patil >> >> wrote: >> >> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the >> visuals >> >> (CNN >> >> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better >> than Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and >> so >> >> on. I >> >> don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has >> promised >> >> that >> >> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few >> weeks. Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to >> drop the project if they are unable to get their act together right >> away.On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a >> negative >> >> note >> >> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly >> >> >> traffic >> >> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - >> it >> >> is >> >> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water! >> >> >> And, >> >> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I >> can >> >> not >> >> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...-Abhay >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT >> NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via >> YAHOOGROUPS.Please go to >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the >> real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups >> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real >> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you >> can). Apologies for the confusing >> arrangement.========================================================= >> ======= >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri May 9 07:32:42 2008 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:32:42 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Quoted text about Mass transit modes "competition" In-Reply-To: <482281E2.1090400@gmail.com> References: <4cfd20aa0804250038k343da7cama026aaa2bfe99972@mail.gmail.com><4cfd20aa0804250041n56b7aca1td97093e8cd486d3c@mail.gmail.com><20080426214839.ww8ircdfacso84cc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu><4cfd20aa0804270328q3215c523ga08c49270a095ea6@mail.gmail.com> <20080428175902.3z54of00040c8o80@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20080428211854.2flsgmnuw0gowowo@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <48220441.70808@gmail.com> <20080507212250.5gdomdcqw9w4wso8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <482281E2.1090400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080508183242.cckaohppss00k44c@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Carlos Of course, it all sounds good, and who can disagree? We should look at all modes. And we shouldn't start by assuming a mode, but by reviewing a particular situation on its merits. I have no quarrel with this part of your book. I quarrel with your analyis and comparison methodologies and your assumptions about performance of various modes. In point of fact, your ultimate outcome is virtually always in favor of BRT, regardless of the city. I hold as an exmaple the one we started with: Delhi. This is a city of approximately 13 million people with extreme population densities in some places, long distances requiring high speeds to cover long distances, and serious opposition to dedicated use of roads for public transport -- a fact that is all too evident right now. Yet even here you speak harshly of rapid transit. So can you blame me for suspecting that you are not objective? Eric Bruun Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : > Eric, > > Thanks for your point of view. The excerpts below from the planning > guide itself may be useful to see if it is truly objective or not. I > invite everyone else to give their opinion. > > ?Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is thus just one of the many public > transport technology options. Additionally, there are a range of > rail-based public transport systems that are possible, including > underground metros, elevated rail systems, Light Rail Transit (LRT), > and trams (Figures 2.1 through 2.6). No one of these options is > inherently correct or incorrect. Local conditions and local > preferences play a significant role in determining the preferred > system type? > > The decision to select a particular technology depends upon many > factors. Costs, performance characteristics, local conditions, and > personal preferences have historically all played a role in the > decision-making process? > > In recent years, significant debate amongst transport professionals > has occurred on whether BRT or rail-based solutions are the most > appropriate. Such competition between systems can actually be > healthy as it implies an environment in which all technologies must > strive to improve. A rigorous evaluation process will help ensure > that a city makes the most appropriate choice? > > In reality, a top-down approach that begins with a technology focus > is perhaps not the ideal. It is much preferred to define desired > public transport characteristics prior to selecting a particular > technology. By understanding customer needs with respect to fare > levels, routing and location, travel time, comfort, safety, > security, frequency of service, quality of infrastructure, and ease > of access, system developers can define the preferred type of > service without bias toward any particular technology (Figure 2.15). > Thus, much of the planning noted in this Planning Guide can > actually be conducted without committing to one type of technology > over another. In this scenario, the public transport technology is > one of the last issues to be introduced in the decision-making > process. Such a customer-orientated approach will likely have the > best chance of producing a public transport service that can > effectively compete with the private automobile? > > The choice of public transport technology should be based on a range > of considerations with performance and cost being amongst the most > important. As suggested, these requirements are ideally derived from > an objective analysis of the existing and projected situation. > Table 2.1 outlines categories of the characteristics that can help > shape a city?s decision towards the most appropriate type of public > transport technology. > > *Table 2.1 Factors in choosing a type of public transport technology* > > Category > > > > Factor > > *Cost* > > > > *Capital costs (infrastructure and property costs)* > > * * > > > > *Operating costs* > > * * > > > > *Planning costs* > > *Planning and management* > > > > *Planning and implementation time* > > * * > > > > *Management and administration* > > *Design* > > > > *Scalability* > > * * > > > > *Flexibility* > > * * > > > > *Diversity versus homogeneity* > > *Performance* > > > > *Capacity* > > * * > > > > *Travel time / speed* > > * * > > > > *Service frequency* > > * * > > > > *Reliability* > > * * > > > > *Comfort* > > * * > > > > *Safety* > > * * > > > > *Customer service* > > * * > > > > *Image and perception* > > *Impacts* > > > > *Economic impacts * > > * * > > > > *Social impacts * > > * * > > > > *Environmental impacts * > > * * > > > > *Urban impacts* > > Again, no one public transport solution is the right solution for > all cities. The local circumstances and public policy objectives > play a significant role in selecting the most appropriate public > transport solution for any city.? > > > > bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >> Carlos >> >> I have read most of the chapter to which you refer and much of the >> BRT Planning Guide. I just don't happen to agree that your >> comparisons are as "real and objective" as you think that they are. >> By making a guide that pretty much recommends BRT for every >> situation, no matter how big the city, no matter what the >> priorities or weightings of the various project goals might be, no >> matter how dense the development of the city or its geography, what >> rights-of-way are available (or not), or how bad the traffic is, >> maybe your consortium is not completely objective either. >> >> Eric Bruun >> >> >> Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, >>> and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms >>> of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts >>> and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the >>> city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator >>> involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been >>> reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative >>> sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF, >>> Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite >>> everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter). >>> >>> The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is >>> that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and >>> into cars... >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Carlos. >>> >>> bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: >>> >>> BrendanDid I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history >>> of who sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame >>> consultants or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt >>> around for someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate >>> should never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some cases >>> the fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions, >>> important destinations get deleted, etc.As I have said before, I am >>> not opposing BRT. But my main point still holds, I think. It is pretty >>> unfair to say that a 65 km system carrying 600,000 per day is >>> "abysmal" by comparing it to the hypothetical performance of BRT that >>> is currently carrying about 0 passengers, 10 years after both projects >>> were initiated.I also think it is short-sighted to not take into >>> account the long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also justify >>> higher initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting >>> densification of land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity. This >>> would make a good topic for future discussion.Eric BruunIQuoting >>> Brendan Finn : >>> >>> Dear Eric,When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned >>> based on a projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the >>> actual out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just >>> with the math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based >>> systems are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling >>> us that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and >>> are incapable of revising their methodologies?A lot of metro and rail >>> projects around the world get approved on dodgy math and >>> wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to pass. It is >>> systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful deception, >>> aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as >>> professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse such >>> practices.With best wishes,Brendan. >>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel >>> : >>> +353.87.2530286----- Original Message ----- From: >>> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" Cc: >>> "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" >>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59 >>> PM Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi >>> >>> Sujit3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That >>> doesn't make Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad >>> predictions.But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT >>> would be better value for money, but how much has been built? Both >>> BRT and the Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and making a >>> valuable contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing >>> that BRT can be done quickly and Metros take forever.Eric BruunQuoting >>> Sujit Patwardhan : >>> >>> Dear Eric,65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000 >>> *is* "abysmal" when compared to the project projection of over 3.1 >>> million. When projects involving huge sums (of people's money) are >>> invested in a project meant to produce specific result it is highly >>> objectionable when the actual figures fall short not by 5% or 10% but >>> by over 80%.This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up >>> whether they be Mega Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure >>> projects. If the ridership of 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did >>> the Govt sanction the project, particularly when much cheaper options >>> were available?I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington >>> Metro are quite relevant to Asian countries with much higher >>> population densities. Pune Municipal Transport buses of very poor >>> quality, for instance carry over 600,000 commuters each day. They do >>> this with about 650 buses which are of old technology, and in poor >>> condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about 2000 modern semi low >>> floor and efficient buses would be able to provide excellent quality >>> public transport with a citywide network. If the city were to provide >>> the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make it >>> functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone knows >>> that Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the >>> Washington Metro at a much lower cost .So there are serious problems >>> with Metro but politicians love expensive projects and this is >>> supported by the elites who want to keep up with the Jones's. They say >>> if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the juvenile >>> boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . I think we need to move beyond >>> that and face the hard reality of a choice between car dominated >>> "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New Mobility" vision >>> that honours walking, cycling and affordable public transport system >>> -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.-- SujitOn Sun, Apr 27, >>> 2008 at 7:18 AM, wrote: >>> >>> AashishThanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out >>> of date. It was 66 kms 3 years ago.)The reason I was asking is that >>> Sujit said the ridership was "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66 kms >>> is actually pretty crowded. The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over >>> 160 kms) and several of the lines are genuinely crush loaded during >>> the rush hours with only 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly, >>> people in the U.S. tend to be larger than in India, which also >>> aggravates the crowding.As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems >>> ridiculous. Of course, it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare >>> was assumed to be very low and crowding standards were >>> extreme......EricQuoting Sujit Patwardhan : >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan >>> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM Subject: Re: >>> [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi To: pttfgen@googlegroups.com25 April >>> 2008BRT in Delhi =========Yes problems galore and I've been following >>> the reports in the media including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar was to >>> appear on, but didn't for >>> >>> some >>> >>> reason.My take on all this is as follows:Deterioration in traffic >>> has been an ongoing process in many Asian >>> >>> cities >>> >>> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker >>> of >>> >>> water >>> >>> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro >>> was >>> >>> taken >>> >>> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to >>> the minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference" >>> from politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of >>> budgets as >>> >>> well >>> >>> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was >>> >>> >>> pardoned >>> >>> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made >>> >>> available >>> >>> without delay and cloaked in secrecy.*Delhi Metro project is a >>> marketing triumph that fills every Indian's >>> >>> chest >>> >>> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public >>> Transport) the very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big >>> question mark. >>> >>> There >>> >>> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro >>> >>> represents >>> >>> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and >>> cultural centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities needed by >>> the city. >>> >>> *But >>> >>> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic >>> transport >>> >>> and >>> >>> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers, >>> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely >>> provided >>> >>> by >>> >>> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler >>> owners >>> >>> at >>> >>> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*BRT unlike the >>> Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our >>> >>> roads. >>> >>> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor >>> >>> engineering, >>> >>> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and >>> non personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is blamed, >>> if drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV >>> lane >>> >>> and >>> >>> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the >>> BRT. If >>> >>> the >>> >>> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus >>> carries many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive >>> resource -- >>> >>> although >>> >>> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the >>> >>> >>> *wasteful >>> >>> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very >>> roads* - >>> >>> well >>> >>> before BRT appeared on the scene.So it is clear that BRT planning >>> should have been rooted in outreach and marketing it as a concept that >>> will improve mobility (of people as >>> >>> against >>> >>> just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access >>> for >>> >>> people >>> >>> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated >>> >>> >>> buses, it >>> >>> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal >>> >>> transport, >>> >>> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a >>> >>> >>> growing >>> >>> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even >>> A/C >>> >>> buses >>> >>> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even >>> the >>> >>> rich >>> >>> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational >>> reasons >>> >>> of >>> >>> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode >>> of >>> >>> travel. >>> >>> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we >>> have >>> >>> no >>> >>> qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education, >>> >>> >>> wearing >>> >>> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather, >>> >>> listening to >>> >>> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing >>> >>> Cheerleaders >>> >>> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start >>> protesting when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin >>> American idea of excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign >>> concept??????The need is to publicise wider benefits of public >>> transport and to reach >>> >>> the >>> >>> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based >>> >>> >>> public >>> >>> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will >>> >>> >>> benefit >>> >>> most from a good BRT)It is this huge majority of commuters who will >>> have the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of our present >>> horrendous conditions of urban traffic.So let's not worry too much >>> about the high pitched screams coming from >>> >>> the >>> >>> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers) >>> >>> protesting >>> >>> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and >>> let's >>> >>> reach >>> >>> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick >>> ever since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring >>> them on >>> >>> the >>> >>> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their >>> place.*Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene >>> arrogant >>> >>> rant >>> >>> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car >>> >>> lobby/media/politician >>> >>> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying >>> the >>> >>> BRT >>> >>> trials in Delhi.-- SujitOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay >>> Patil >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the >>> visuals >>> >>> (CNN >>> >>> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better >>> than Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and >>> so >>> >>> on. I >>> >>> don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has >>> promised >>> >>> that >>> >>> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few >>> weeks. Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to >>> drop the project if they are unable to get their act together right >>> away.On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a >>> negative >>> >>> note >>> >>> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly >>> >>> >>> traffic >>> >>> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra - >>> it >>> >>> is >>> >>> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water! >>> >>> >>> And, >>> >>> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I >>> can >>> >>> not >>> >>> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...-Abhay >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT >>> NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via >>> YAHOOGROUPS.Please go to >>> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the >>> real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups >>> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real >>> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you >>> can). Apologies for the confusing >>> arrangement.================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of >>> people-centred, >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >>> countries (the 'Global South'). >> >> >> From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri May 9 08:27:34 2008 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:27:34 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Quoted text about Mass transit modes "competition" In-Reply-To: <20080508183242.cckaohppss00k44c@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <4cfd20aa0804250038k343da7cama026aaa2bfe99972@mail.gmail.com><4cfd20aa0804250041n56b7aca1td97093e8cd486d3c@mail.gmail.com><20080426214839.ww8ircdfacso84cc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu><4cfd20aa0804270328q3215c523ga08c49270a095ea6@mail.gmail.com> <20080428175902.3z54of00040c8o80@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20080428211854.2flsgmnuw0gowowo@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <48220441.70808@gmail.com> <20080507212250.5gdomdcqw9w4wso8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <482281E2.1090400@gmail.com> <20080508183242.cckaohppss00k44c@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <48238C66.50004@gmail.com> Eric, Thanks for your feedback. So we agree on my initial remark: > I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based, > and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms > of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts > and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the > city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator > involvement, etc). Any suggestions on other documents or research that provides an objective point of view would be great. From my point of view, the BRT planning guide (which is not "mine", as you imply) is a good resource. I look forward to your suggestions about recent publications that can also provide greater information to this discussion. (sorry to everyone els