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

[Sudhir]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the mail and please note the  e-bike analysis from Chris Cherry
from China - http://www.baq2008.org/system/files/sp5_Cherry+presentation.pdf...

its interesting to note about e-bus with battery and wires. i have not seen
any research on this. It would be interesting to note the impact of electric
bus in China considering the lifecycle analysis...  I am cc'ing chris if he
can throw some light on the impact of e-buses.

the logic of seeing the transport problem from only emissions perspective is
not good.. but continuing the discussions on emissions...

I would argue that buses and cars emissions are not the same on passenger km
basis in Asia as the calculations depend on occupancies and we should never
compare bad bus scenario with good car scenario.  And we need to take the
scenario of " what-if" seriously..

thanks
Sudhir



2009/6/15 Peter Lutman <lutman at globalnet.co.uk>

>  Dear Sudhir,
>
> I have been following the discussion about Beijing's pro-public transport
> policies and I notice the comments about diesel-powered buses as almost as
> polluting per passenger kilometre as private cars. While the first BRT route
> in Beijing uses diesel buses as do the hundreds of suburban routes, it
> should be remembered that the central areas of the Chinese Capital are
> served by a very frequent and intensive Trolleybus network. Hundreds of new
> Trolleybuses were acquired both before the 2008 Olympics and since - and
> these vehilces produce neither noise nor air pollution at the point of
> operation. For the weird people who do not like overhead wires and feel that
> 'visual pollution' is as damaging to health and happiness as air pollution,
> the Trolleybuses operate on battery power across the main boulevard and
> through the central shopping streets, where there are no wires.
>
> Peter Lutman FCILT
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sudhir <sudhir at cai-asia.org>
> *To:* Simon Bishop <simon.bishop at dimts.in>
> *Cc:* sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 9:55 AM
> *Subject:* [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 70, Issue 12
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss 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.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>
>


-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090615/f10b3094/attachment.html