[sustran] Fwd: Shocking - IRF Lobbying against removing cycle tracks in Delhi

[Romi Roy]

To,
The Metro Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi.

Dear Ms. Shivani Singh:
The emails below are for your kind information regarding the blatant
mis-reporting regarding UTTIPEC policies/ statements regarding cycle-tracks
in Delhi, in the concerned HT-Article.
Warm regards,
Paromita (Romi) Roy

Sr. Consultant, UTTIPEC DDA Delhi
Member, High Court Special Task Force on Transportation
Spl. Invitee, LAP Monitoring Committee, MCD Delhi
Member, Sub-Committee on Sustainable Habitat, MoUD
Honorary Advisor, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
http://www.linkedin.com/in/romiroy

"*Sustainable Urban Design can be the foundation for Social Justice*" -
Enrique Peñalosa

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Romi Roy <romionly at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Geetam Ma'am:
> The concerned reporter has already been informed by us about the inaccuracy
> of the UTTIPEC Quote and the general misrepresentation of issues in the
> article.
> The Reporter is copied on this email.
> Follow up action is being taken about this mis-reporting and
> mis-representation of *UTTIPEC policies *which are clearly accessible even
> on the UTTIPEC website, fully accessible to the public.
>
*No one in UTTIPEC can possibly ever give a quote which is contrary to its
> published and approved policies! *
> It is highly embarrassing and depressing for us.
> Warm regards,
> Romi
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geetam Tiwari <geetamt at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM
> Subject: Fwd: [sustran] IRF Lobbying against removing cycle tracks in
> Delhi- Shocking
> To: Romi Roy <romionly at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Romi,
> This is very disturbing that UTTIPEC is reported (I hope mis reported) to
> be in favour of removing cycle tracks.!
>
> Pls send a clarification to Hindustan times and traffic police. Constructed
> cycle tracks should not be removed from anywhere in Delhi!! Moreover roads
> without tracks (small roads) should have traffic calmimg devices ensuring
> low speed of cars,
>
> Geetam
>
> Geetam
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sujit Patwardhan <patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM
> Subject: Fwd: [sustran] IRF Lobbying against removing cycle tracks in
> Delhi- Shocking
> To: Rajendra Ravi <rajendra_ravi at idsindia.net>, Anvita Arora <
> anvitaa at gmail.com>, Geetam Tiwari <geetamt at gmail.com>, Dinesh Mohan <
> dmohan at cbme.iitd.ernet.in>, Dunu Roy <qadeeroy at gmail.com>
>
>
> Should take a morcha to Ms Sheila Dixit.
> --
> Sujit
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Asija, Navdeep <navdeep.asija at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:37 PM
> Subject: [sustran] IRF Lobbying against removing cycle tracks in Delhi-
> Shocking
> To: info at irfnet.org, info at irfnet.eu, info at irfnews.org
> Cc: wcn-media at googlegroups.com, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>
>
> Dear IRF People,
>
> Today, we were shocked to read this news related to cycle tracks in Delhi.
> After CW games, Delhi got many cycle tracks, which is anyways facilitating
> 12% of the cycle users of Delhi. Delhi Car population is just 14% but seems
> International Road Federation is also lobbying against removing cycle
> tracks. In 2007, 2008, more than 80% people who died on Delhi's road were
> cyclist and pedestrian. Whole world is talking about pedestrian and cyclist
> safety. IRF Chairperson move towards removing cycle track and supporting
> the
> same with non-fact based information is really shocking for all of us.
> Looking forward your justification on the same and *how such big
> organisation
> can give such irresponsible statement.*
>
> KK Kapila, chairman, International Road Federation, a non-governmental
> > organisation said: “Removal of cycle tracks from busy roads will actually
> > reduce road accidents. Separating cyclists from other motorised commuters
> on
> > such roads is dangerous.”
> *
>
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Cycle-tracks-may-be-on-the-way-out/Article1-636148.aspx
>
> <
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Cycle-tracks-may-be-on-the-way-out/Article1-636148.aspx
> >*
> ====
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> *“..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment
> to destroy the city“*
>
> Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel
> Munich 1970
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sujit Patwardhan
> patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com
> sujit at parisar.org <sujitjp at gmail.com>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
> Tel: +91 20 25537955
> Cell: +91 98220 26627
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Parisar: www.parisar.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Bharat Singh <bharat.singh at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Ray
>>
>> I am perplexed and frustrated by the report you published in the Hindustan
>> Times on December 9th. Despite your references to expert's statements, they
>> don't seem to be coherent, and i would like to know if you questioned them
>> about it. You mention in your report that a Mr. KK Kapila stated that* "Removal
>> of cycle tracks from busy roads will actually reduce road accidents.
>> Separating cyclists from other motorised commuters on such roads is
>> dangerous"*. That sentence begs an explanation by the most commonsense
>> standards. How does one increase the risk of accidents by separating the two
>> modes of transportation, instead of mixing them together? Is Mr Kapila
>> suggesting that the smaller roads be banned to cyclists?? And
>> your reference to UTTIPEC official that there is no need for cycle track on
>> roads 30 meters wide also is a statement that begs more explanation..does
>> he/she mean roads above or below that thresholds should have or not have
>> cycle tracks??
>>
>> That said, I would also like to draw your attention to the issue of why
>> providing for different modes of travel is more important than making sure
>> all cars get through. Besides the obvious environmental benefit, it is about
>> social equity. The fact that only 20% of commutes <http://www.slideshare.net/jaaaspal/smart-and-connected-transport-a-case-study-of-delhi>in
>> Delhi are made by automobiles, makes it clear that there is a need for
>> bicycle and pedestrian tracks in the city. Secondly a large portion of urban
>> living costs is commuting. If one puts together the cost of housing and
>> travel cost, i bet it will be more than 2/3rd of lower middle class incomes.
>> So providing the masses of Delhi with other options to travel is morally,
>> ethically, environmentally, physically and  socially the right thing to do.
>> The fact the cycle tracks installed during the commonwealth games are being
>> underutilized should be factually proved. a hundred bicycles on a km stretch
>> of bike tracks is sparse when compared to hundred cars on the same
>> km stretch of road adjacent to it, but they carry the same number of
>> commuters. And how long have the 'experts' given the bike lanes usage time
>> for users to discover and adopt it? Any such evaluation should be given at
>> least a year to be fully utilized. What I do understand is that certain
>> roads may not require bicycle tracks cause there aren't commuters that use
>> them, but to have a blanket removal of bike tracks on roads below/above 30
>> meters wide, clearly shows that these experts are being shortsighted and
>> have no understanding of context sensitive solutions.
>>
>> It behooves you as a journalist to dig beyond the statements and probe the
>> so called experts on their reasoning. Publishing such reports do grave
>> damage to effort to help Delhi's urban quality of life efforts, like your
>> papers efforts to sabotage the BRT program in Delhi. I certainly hope you
>> follow up your article with counter points for other experts and provide a
>> complete picture of the issue.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bharat Singh
>>
>> --
>> Bharat Singh
>> Urban Planning & Design Professional
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bartsingh
>> 510.842.7005
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nippo <nipesh.ar at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:33 AM
> Subject: Cycle
> To: Romi <romionly at gmail.com>, ud-spa-09 at googlegroups.com
>
>
> *Cycle tracks may be on the way out*
> HT December 09, 2010<http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/newdelhi/Cycle-tracks-may-be-on-the-way-out/Article1-636148.aspx>
>  First Published: 01:28 IST(9/12/2010)
> Last Updated: 01:29 IST(9/12/2010)
>
>
>
> *Commuting on Delhi’s traffic-laden roads may soon become easier, with
> newly-built cycle tracks on stretches such as Bhishma Pitamah Road, Shyama
> Prasad Mukherjee Marg and Chandni Chowk, among others, expected to be on
> the way out*. The move comes after constant pressure from the Delhi
> traffic police and thousands of road users *(who are the road users, only
> 14% of Delhi have cars)* that made the Unified Traffic and Transportation
> Infrastructure (Planning and Engineering) Centre (UTTIPEC) decide on a
> lasting solution to the problem.
>
> “*We felt (how can u run a city with your FEELINGS, does this senior
> officer have any statistical data, if so please share) that there is no
> need for cycle tracks on roads that are 30 metres wide. On narrow roads, the
> volume of traffic is heavy and its speed slow. Separate cycle tracks on
> these stretches actually increase the chance of accidents (does the
> accident record show it, is it compared with the fatal accidents ) and
> lead to traffic congestion (congestion for whom)*,” said a *senior officer
> of UTTIPEC*.
>
> According to Paromita Roy, senior consultant, UTTIPEC, “We will place our
> proposal before the governing body meeting on January 7; it will be
> implemented after taking the consent of all stakeholders.”
>
> KK Kapila, chairman, International Road Federation, a non-governmental
> organisation said: “*Removal of cycle tracks from busy roads will actually
> reduce road accidents. **Separating cyclists from other motorised
> commuters on such roads is dangerous*. *(on what basis are these clams
> made, are there any scientific studies or at least statistical data to
> support such a lame statement)* ”
>
> A number of cycle tracks (CTs) were built in Delhi before the Commonwealth
> Games.
>
> However, *many of them have remained unused and according to traffic
> police officials (Who did the survey on cycle track usage?, please share)*,
> they have only made the task of traffic cops tougher.
>
> “*Many cycle tracks have actually reduced road space and resulted in
> severe traffic hazards (how on earth can reduced road space result in
> traffic hazards, studies show that narrower the road lower the hazard).
> The reduced road width causes congestions**(congestion for whom)*” said
> Ajay Chadha, special commissioner of police (administration and traffic)
> said.
>
> CTs were built on several roads, including the stretch between Vikas Marg
> and Karkardooma, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, the existing BRT corridor
> from Ambedkar Nagar to Delhi Gate, Geeta Colony Flyover, Bhishma Pitamah
> Marg, Ring Road, Netaji Subhash Marg, Mall Road and Chandni Chowk.
>
> “*It takes around 30 minutes to travel a kilometre due to CTs at Netaji
> Subhash  Marg and SP Mukherjee Marg **(it takes 30 minutes for the
> resource eating cars to move a km, a pedestrian moving at 0.8 m/s(lowest
> for a pedestrian) will take only 25 minutes)*,” said Sanjay Bhargava,
> president, Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal.
> .........................................
>