[sustran] Re: Fwd: Shocking - IRF Lobbying against removing cycle tracksin Delhi

[Lee Schipper]

With Sujit present in Pune in 2006 I said for the Commissioner and other leaders 
"Los Angeles built 25% of its area as road and that didn't solve their congestion problems"
HT reported that I recommended that  Pune should build 25% of it's area as roads
So much for press in India 

Lee Schipper
Global Met Studies  UC Berkeley
Precourt En Eff Center Stanford



On Dec 10, 2010, at 17:40, "Romi Roy" <romionly at gmail.com> wrote:

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