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

[Madhav Badami, Prof.]

Greetings all,

It is a tragic irony that, while in cities like Montreal, where I work, in which the overwhelming majority own cars, there is a conscious effort to expand the cycling network, including dedicated cycle lanes, and one cannot make a free right turn on red out of concern for pedestrian safety, we are dismantling cycling -- and worse -- pedestrian infrastructure, in India, where a significant proportion of the population, even if not the majority, are (despite our illusions of being an "emerged power") poor and cannot not own motor vehicles, and whose access to livelihoods and essential services are increasingly compromised thanks to an unthinking (and grotesque) privileging, in urban planning, of the minority who own and use them.

As for the press -- it needs to take a good hard look at itself, in India as much as in the West.

Madhav

************************************************************************

"As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Madhav G. Badami, PhD
School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment
McGill University

Macdonald-Harrington Building
815 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada

Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work)
Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning
www.mcgill.ca/mse
e-mail: madhav.badami at mcgill.ca
________________________________________
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper [schipper at wri.org]
Sent: 10 December 2010 21:31
To: Romi Roy
Cc: sumana.ramanan at hindustantimes.com; madhukishwar at csds.in; subhendu.ray at hindustantimes.com; subhendu.ray at gmail.com; moushumi.gupta at hindustantimes.com; ud-spa-09 at googlegroups.com; geetamt at gmail.com; Dinesh Mohan; Nippo; asthanaprabhakar at gmail.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org; Ashok Bhattacharjee; info at irfnet.org; Bharat Singh; shivaniss62 at gmail.com; splcommtpt at nic.in; wcn-media at googlegroups.com; info at irfnet.eu; qadeeroy at gmail.com; info at irfnews.org; shivani.singh at hindustantimes.com; ipsita at berkeley.edu; feedback at hindustantimes.com; Reena Tiwari
Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Shocking - IRF Lobbying against removing cycle      tracksin Delhi

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