[sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 70, Issue 12

[Sudhir]

Dear Simon and Others

could not stop myself from sending this mail in spite of looming project
deadline.... :-)

1.    On the question of Beijing - I agree with many of your statements.
Good public transport is not BRTS or Metro but one with good NMT
integration. For me both public transport and non motorized transport are
inclusive and exclusive. But I defer on Beijing initiatives. I see a major
change in its focus and i am happy with this. I have never been to Beijing,
but i believe that what they are doing is to negate their previous ring-road
development strategy. If you look at this link (provided by Sujit-
http://www.cctv.com/english/special/excl/20090610/110347_1.shtml) it also
talks about cycling...

*More bicycle parking spaces will be established in areas with heavy
passenger flow*
*Pedestrian and bicycle service project: special cycle lanes and sidewalk
network for pedestrians will be constructed and more bicycle parking spaces
will be established in areas with heavy passenger flow. Around 1,000 bicycle
rental service stands will be set up, with the number of bicycles available
for rent exceeding 50,000 units.  *

I agree that it’s not a major investment and i even don't know as to how
many bike lanes they are proposing but yet you can feel the change in the
mindset. They have been focusing heavily on TDM from Olympics. We should get
more insights from our Chinese colleagues...We have had many sessions of
metro vs BRTS in sustran and I am  happy with either metro or BRTS as long
as they put the money for NMT and public Transport. For me whose master
thesis was on flyovers (I made it feasible in 2003 and and i believe it is
congested again :-) ) and having worked in infrastructure projects for long,
White elephants like metro’s are much better than multi-level interchanges
as seen in Delhi.

2.    Regarding free public transport - I believe ( my personal opinion)
that you don't have to provide free public transport to only attract people
but to reward people for traveling in an eco friendly way... ( why should I
pay when I am standing, since I did not get any seat, struck in a jam
because of the traffic by the people travelling in their own car which was
subsidized by government, consuming polluted air while making my effort to
clean the air which everyone breaths).  It should not be at the risk of
providing sub standard services... If people can afford to pay, good... But
considering the poor people paying for tickets i would argue for subsidized
or free yet comfortable services... It is much better than subsidized fuel.

3.    I don't again agree to London example of high emissions buses
applicable in any format to Asia. I had good discussions with Mikhail
Chester whose analysis is the topic of the month (
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008/). If you look at his
paper and the media quotes ( there are several from past week)... you can
feel as to how story was modified with… We can calculate the numbers from
any Asian city and what you would see is that Cars can never be compared on
passenger km basis. With two wheelers – there may be possibilities.. but
again i am not sure..

4.    Regarding Todd's comment on 25% share in cities, I think in Asia with
high probability of private vehicles being two wheelers, 25% of personal
automobile share would be okay ( i would be happy) as long as they get 25%
of investments and pay all external costs while people using NMT and PT get
majority of investment and priority.

thanks
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
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia
Skype : sudhirgota

2009/6/15 Simon Bishop <simon.bishop at dimts.in>

> Like Carlos I am skeptical of this announcement.  From where I'm sitting in
> Delhi there is a tendency to see 'public transport', and by that I mean
> motorized and electrified, through rose tinted glasses as if it is 'the'
> solution to growing automobile use.  A huge amount of emphasis is put on the
> Metro and now BRT as ways to solve congestion (never mind about all the
> other externalities).  Bicycles and legs are ignored despite holding a huge
> modal share.
>
> I think it was the Indian economist Dasgupta who showed that you could make
> public transport free in the UK and still only effect a very small shift to
> it from the car (6%).  The fact is that cars are damn convenient and people
> will use them unless they are literally prized away from doing so.  The vast
> majority of people use public transport in London and NY because they have
> to, and parking control is the main mechanism.  I hope that Beijing's
> approach will witness parking restraint and pricing as a lynchpin of its
> policy, otherwise it will be a funding drain and a white elephant.
>
> The rose tinted spectacles also ignore the role of cycling as better and
> faster than the bus over short to medium distances.  Why swap a more
> convenient form of transport for a less convenient one?  The only thing that
> can compete with the car over these distances is the bicycle (and
> motorcycle, which should also be deterred for safety reasons).
>
> In terms of our greatest challenge, global warming I am perturbed.  Where
> you have quality bus systems (with good timetables in the off peak and
> feeder services) they consume amounts of per capita energy rivaling that of
> the car.  Quoting London again, the average actual CO2 emissions of a bus is
> 40% that of a car, PM10 emissions are 3 times and SO2 emissions 25 times
> greater - that's not much of an improvement.  In Taipei, taking account of
> door to door emissions, the Metro actually consumes more energy than a car!
>  This should not be construed as an argument AGAINST public transport,
> particularly buses, after all the more of us that use them the better, and
> there will always be a need for those who cannot cycle or walk, but it IS an
> argument for Beijing to prioritize Travel Demand
> Management/Walking/Cycling/Land Use Planning as the key policy to follow.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090615/f4a268e7/attachment.html