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

[jane.]

On the subject, TIME ran an article today about e-bikes in China:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

Probably won't shed much light on these particular matters, but it was an interesting read nonetheless and as an added bonus links to a slideshow of bicycle photos. Unfortunately its conclusion is still very much car-centric, presuming that e-cars will be the way of the future.

Jane

--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Sudhir <sudhir at cai-asia.org> wrote:

From: Sudhir <sudhir at cai-asia.org>
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 70, Issue 12
To: "Peter Lutman" <lutman at globalnet.co.uk>
Cc: "Simon Bishop" <simon.bishop at dimts.in>, "Cherry,  Christopher Robin" <cherry at utk.edu>, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 9:36 PM

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 
  
  To: Simon Bishop 

  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


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

-------------------------------------------------------- 
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'). 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20090616/5e4a2a74/attachment.html