From kanthikannan at gmail.com Sat May 1 14:26:36 2010 From: kanthikannan at gmail.com (Kanthi Kannan) Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 10:56:36 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: maha bharat - Yanking the ground from under our feet Message-ID: <4bdbbb94.107d8d0a.1ea8.364e@mx.google.com> Dear all Greetings!! Saw the article in HT April 29, 2010. Makes interesting reading Regards Kanthi Kannan The Right to Walk Foundation THOSE WHO WALK CANNOT DECIDE AND THOSE WHO DECIDE DO NOT WALK saw this article on HindustanTimes ePaper , and thought you would find it interesting. You can find it at: 'maha bharat - Yanking the ground from under our feet' also sent the following message: Read this HindustanTimes ePaper - Digital replica of Print Edition. _____ ePaper Solution by Pressmart From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon May 3 17:09:25 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:39:25 +0530 Subject: [sustran] from BMTC ---- Bus Day - Tues, 4th May, 2010 Message-ID: FYI BMTC still dying to make a profit on Vayu Vajra will that stop the cross subsidisation which other buses and routes have done for Vayu Vajra? and does it lose focus on proper services on other routes ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bus Day BMTC Date: Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM Subject: Tomorrow Bangalore Bus Day - Tues, 4th May, 2010 *Dear Citizens of Bangalore* ** *Bangalore Bus Day is here again, tomorrow - Tues, 4th May, 2010* Please circulate the email to friends, colleagues, and relatives and convince them to take the bus! *No new routes are being added - we are going to be focusing on addressing feedback from the public regarding Traffic and Lane discipline this time* ** ** *How do you get to your destination?* http://www.yulopindia.com/bmtc//index.php/bus/redirect_to_route_search *For more information on Bus Day pls visit:* https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/april-bus-day/may-bus-day ** *Vayu Vajra services:* General & Downloadable Map: https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/vayu-vajra-airport-services Route Timings & Schedules: https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/vayu-vajra-airport-services/vayu-vajra-service-information ** *Vajra services:* General & Downloadable Map: https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/vajra-a-c-services Route Timings & Schedules: https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/vajra-a-c-services/vajra-service-info ** *Big10 Services:* https://sites.google.com/site/bmtcbusdayhome/big10-ordinary-services *15 vajra passes are being announced for May Bus day Competition: Tune into Radio One 94.30 or get Mid Day (distributed on Vajra buses) for more details * ** ** *Thankyou for taking the Bus!* ** *Chief Traffic Manager (Operations) & * *BMTC Bus Day Team* From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon May 3 23:02:01 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 16:02:01 +0200 Subject: [sustran] World Streets/Monthly Report - April 2010 Message-ID: <018301caeac9$4159a300$c40ce900$@britton@ecoplan.org> World Streets/Monthly Report - April 2010 We are aware that most of our busy readers do not have the time to check into World Streets on a daily basis. For that reason we make available to our subscribers and sponsors in addition to the daily edition, a monthly summary which brings together in one place all postings and comments in a manner in which the busy reader can scan the month's titles in a few lines and make a decision as to whether or not to call up and read the full article. Time-efficient communication in an overload world. April 2010, the month that was: Another busy month on World Streets: 26 original articles coming in from colleagues and collaborators from Australia (several this month), Britain Canada, China, France, India, Japan, South Korea, and the US -- all of which are summarized briefly and then with a single click our available to you in the following pages. New project: World Streets on Facebook: We are not Facebook experts, but nonetheless it seems that this is a communications tool that might be put to work in support of the sustainable transportation agenda. So with the help of our colleague Anzir Boodoo, we have set up a first stage site/interface which you can access today via http://tinyurl.com/ws-facebook1. We invite you to have a look, use as your interest and skill level permit, and, better yet, lend a hand and help us to do better. Latest reader map: And here you can see where the last eighty visitors came from. Generally representative of overall pattern, but from day to day with considerable variations. Our goal for 2010: bring in all those great white swaths. How to obtain a copy of the April report: The monthly editions are available through the World Streets Forum to registered subscribers, collaborators, sponsors and others whom they invite to share these findings. The Forum provides a handy way to sign in and to make sure that you are efficiently informed in a concise manner concerning all articles and postings that appear in the pages of the journal. * Click here to check out the Forum. (Access to contents is available to members.) To sign up - a quick e-mail to subscribe@WorldStreets.org identifying yourself by name, institutional affiliation 1f any, city, country, and preferred e-mail or other contact information will do the trick. Freely available in May - thanks to the Swedish Transportation Administration To celebrate the generous support of our program by the Swedish Transportation Administration , the full April report is being made available exceptionally to anyone who comes to the site asks for it. Don't be shy. Just say thanks to the Swedes. | editor@worldstreets.org | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Eric Britton | World Streets | The New Mobility Agenda | Paris | +331 7550 3788| Skype newmobility . __,_._,___ From sutp at sutp.org Tue May 4 16:39:49 2010 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 13:09:49 +0530 Subject: [sustran] SUTP Newsletter March April 2010 Message-ID: <4BDFCF45.3090809@sutp.org> ****** SUTP Newsletter ****** ****** Issue 02/10 March - April 2010 ****** A PDF version of the newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.sutp.org/documents/newsletters/NL-MAR-APR-2010.pdf An online version is also available at http://www.sutp.org/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-10.html -------------- The Future of Mobility- Shanghai Expo 2010 The City of Bremen and GTZ are proud to present three workshops on ?The Future of Mobility? at the Bremen Stand in the Urban Best Practice Area at the Shanghai Expo from May 24th to 26th, 2010. Events are scheduled from 2 to 5 pm and are focusing on the following three key topics of sustainable urban transport: Day 1 - Mon, 24th: Transport and Urban Development Day 2 - Tue, 25th: Low Carbon Mobility for Cities Day 3 - Wed, 26th: The Role of Electric Vehicles Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1976 --------------- Ukrainian version of the module "Transport and Climate Change" is now available GTZ announces the release of the Ukrainian version of the module "Transport and Climate Change". The module summarises the challenges that climate change mitigation has to face in the transport sector and presents the major options and instruments to deal with them. The module is a comprehensive summary of sustainable transport policy options and sketches out their potential for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The module draws on the existing GTZ-sourcebook on sustainable urban transport and thus offers both a comprehensive overview and a thematic entry point to the whole world of sustainable transport. To ease access to more detailed information, the module includes many references to the other sourcebook modules. The authors, Holger Dalkmann and Charlotte Brannigan, work at the Centre for Sustainability (C4S) at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), UK. The module has been translated to Ukrainian Language in the context of the project ?Climate-friendly Mobility in Ukrainian Cities?. The project is financed by the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in the context of the International Climate Protection Initiative. Link: http://www.sutp.org/suteca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72%3A2010-04-23-10-08-52&catid=1%3Aproject-news&Itemid=56&lang=ua --------------- GTZ MD shares his vision on sustainable transportation The internet platform Comment: Vision - a joint website of the TV station ?Euronews?, the Newspaper ?European Voice? and SHELL - discussed in March this year the subject ?As well as seeking alternative fuels, should we be changing our entire transportation culture??. A variety of experts gave statements to this key question of transport policy, among them was also GTZ?s managing director Hans-Joachim Preu?. He concluded that ?we need a paradigm shift!. . . changing the transportation culture is key for sustainable development and prevention of dangerous climate change?. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955 --------------- Sustainable transport pioneers to speak at Velo-City Global, 2010 Velo-City Global, 2010, to be held from 22-25 June at Copenhagen in Denmark, aims to bring together cycling experts, city planners, decision makers, NGOs and researchers from all over the world to discuss the potential and challenges of cycling. This year this event will exhibit an exciting line-up of speakers which includes Enrique Pe?alosa, Jan Gehl, Janette Sadik-Khan and John Whitelegg. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1995 --------------- GTZ Workshop at the Deutsche Welle Media Forum 2010 The Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum will take place from June 21-23 in Bonn, Germany. The forum is to develop strategies within an interdisciplinary framework regarding the challenges of climate change. GTZ is attending the Forum and organizing the Workshop ?Beyond clean congestion? ? Pathways for Sustainable Mobility? on Tuesday June 22nd at 11:30. In this workshop the contribution of transport to global carbon emissions is highlighted and the problem of oil dependency of the transport sector for the next 20 years is pointed out. Smart urban planning and investments in low carbon modes will be presented as a strategy towards sustainable development, and solutions offering potential to reduce green house emissions and foster economic development will be discussed. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1996 --------------- Further Signatories to the Kyoto Declaration on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) On March 16, 2010, 10 further Asian cities signed the Kyoto Declaration on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) in Seoul, Korea. One of the cities to sign the Declaration was Solo, which is a partner in the GTZ implemented Project ?Sustainable Urban Transport Improvements Project (SUTIP) in Indonesia?, financed by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1934 --------------- New Project Flyer of the Bridging the Gap Initiative The Initiative "Bridging the Gap: Pathways for Transport in a Post 2012 Process" has updated its project flyer. The flyer is available in English and in Chinese. The Bridging the Gap Initiative works actively towards integrating transport into the current climate negotiations through five organizations with strong international expertise in sustainable transport and climate change, namely - GTZ, TRL, Veolia Transport, ITDP, and UITP. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1956 --------------- GTZ participates in the UN forum on Urban Transport in Seoul, S.Korea The UN Forum on Climate Change Mitigation, Fuel Efficiency and Sustainable Development of Urban Transport met from 16-17 March 2010, in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in preparation for the 18th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The Forum included discussions on topic like enhancing public transport to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, public private partnerships, financing public transport in developing countries, etc. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1933 --------------- Launch of Public Urban Transport Project in Danang, Vietnam The "Developing Danang - Environmental City" project was launched jointly by GTZ and the Danang city government on 3rd March 2010 in Danang city. Within this project there is a component to support the introduction of a bus based public transport system in the city. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1920 --------------- ****** Publications ***** Sustainable Urban Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in South Asian Cities Volume 3 GTZ has released the print version of its flagship publication "Sourcebook on Sustainable Transport" adapted for the South Asian audience. This version of the publication is third in series of the volumes on "A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in South Asian Cites", and has 5 modules. The previously released two volumes have 12 modules, thus totalling to now 17 modules (of 27 modules) in print form. The foreword for the 250 page Volume 3 has been written by Dr. M. Ramachandran, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, and the preface is contributed by Prof. H.M. Shivanand Swamy, CEPT University, Ahmedabad. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1987 --------------- Overview of public transport in Sub-Saharan Africa ?Overview of public transport in Sub-Saharan Africa?, is a study that has been carried out for the Directorate-General for Research in the European Commission with support of UITP and UATP. The study provides an overview of public transport in Sub-Saharan African countries, including historical background information, an overview of public transport regulations at federal and local level as well as a snapshot on public transport operators and different modes of public transport. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1924 --------------- Are vehicle reduction targets justified? Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) has released a report on Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets. This report investigates whether transportation policies should include targets to reduce vehicle travel and encourage use of alternative modes, better known as mobility management objectives. Mr. Litman is also the author of the GTZ Sourcebook module "2b: Mobility Management". Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1922 --------------- U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies ITDP?s recent publication titled ?U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies?, identifies core sustainable parking principles and illustrates how smarter parking management can benefit consumers and businesses in terms of time and money savings, while also leading to more livable and attractive communities. Link: http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP_US_Parking_Report.pdf --------------- Vietnamese-German Transport Research Centre Symposium 2010 The Vietnamese-German University (VGU) is a joint project between Vietnam and Germany with the goal to set up a research-orientated university in Vietnam. It had its official opening celebrations in September 2008 in Ho Chi Minh City. Under the framework of VGU the Technische Universit?t Darmstadt (TUD), Germany, and the University of Transport and Communications (UTC), Vietnam, decided to continue and to strengthen their existing cooperation and to establish a Transport Research Centre in Vietnam. Link: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1977 --------------- Outline schedule of the 18th CSD published The "organisation of work" of the two-week long 18th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), to be held in New York in May, has now been published. Link: http://www.transport2012.org/ --------------- UITP released a new CD on IT solutions for public transport from the Proceedings of IT-TRANS 2010 Link: http://www.uitp.org/publications/index2.cfm?id=3 --------------- *** New addition to the SUTP India team *** SUTP welcomes its newest team member, Chhavi Dhingra Deb. A civil and transportation engineer, Chhavi has almost 5 years of research experience on issues like transport access, energy and emissions, policy, institutions and public transport improvement. She can be reached at Chhavi.Dhingra@gtz.de --------------- --------------- ****** Upcoming Events ****** 03.05.2010 New York, USA: Committee on Sustainable Development http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=406&lang=en 05.05.2010 Graz, AT: European Conference on Mobility Management http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=441&lang=en 25.05.2010 Lisbon, PT: 16th IRF World Road Meeting http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=361&lang=en 26.05.2010 Leipzig, DE: International Transport Forum 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=404&lang=en 28.05.2010 Bonn, DE: Resilient Cities 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=443&lang=en 30.05.2010 Jerusalem, IL :Conference o Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Users http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=427&lang=en 02.06.2010 Hong Kong, CN: TRANSED 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=380&lang=en 04.06.2010 Bonn, DE: UNFCCC Side Event Bridging the Gap http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=443&lang=en 07.06.2010 Brussels, BE: Transport Research Arena 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=391&lang=en 08.06.2010 Bonn, DE: Bridging the Gap Workshop http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=444&lang=en 14.06.2010 Boston, USA: Bus Rapid Transit World USA http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=428&lang=en 22.06.2010 Copenhagen, DE: Velo-City 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=421&lang=en 28.06.2010 York, U.K: Towards Car-free Cities http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=432&lang=en 28.06.2010 Singapore: World Cities Summit 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=438&lang=en 30.06.2010 Singapore, World Urban Transport Leaders? Summit http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=439&lang=en 04.07.2010 Stuttgart,DE:, Cities for Mobility World Congress 2010 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=401&lang=en --------------- A PDF version of this newsletter can be downloaded at http://www.sutp.org/documents/newsletters/NL-MAR-APR-2010.pdf An online version is also available at http://www.sutp.org/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-10.html --------------- Contact us: Any further queries regarding this document can be addressed to sutp@sutp.org. All the documents mentioned here are available for download from the SUTP website: http://www.sutp.org For registration please visit http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers&lang=uk --------------- SUTP Disclaimer The information in this newsletter has been carefully researched and diligently compiled. Nevertheless, GTZ does not accept any liability or give any guarantee for the validity, accuracy and completeness of the information provided. GTZ assumes no legal liabilities for damages, material or immaterial in kind, caused by the use or non-use of provided information or the use of erroneous or incomplete information, with the exception of proven intentional or grossly negligent conduct on the side of GTZ. GTZ reserves the right to modify, append, delete parts or the complete online content without prior notice, or to cancel any publication temporarily or permanently. The third party links are not under the control of GTZ and GTZ is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Links to the GTZ SUTP homepage are admissible if the GTZ SUTP website retrieved becomes the sole content of the browser window. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 4 18:38:01 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 11:38:01 +0200 Subject: [sustran] World Streets and the Global South Message-ID: <00f301caeb6d$7f3346f0$7d99d4d0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Sustran friends , I am (as usual) trying to see what we can do from this end to generate more attention to and eventually more relevant entries to enhance the broader circulation of the ideas that appear in our wonderful Sustran Global South forum. Here are three small steps to which I would like to draw your attention and invite your comments and suggestions. 1. Direct World Streets link: First, we have just created on World Streets, placed in the upper left-hand column, a one click link which will take the interested reader right into the Sustran home page, 2. Latest from Sustran: Second, under the rubric "Latest from the World's Streets" (a bit further down on the left hand column) our readers will see the title of the latest posting to Sustran. 3. World Streets on Facebook: This may seem like a bit of a stretch,. But after all it is 2010 and after all (again) we are losing and losing big the war of sustainable transport, sustainable cities and sustainable lives. But we have some important messages to get out, and here is where we really have to make use of every tool out there which might be put to work for our good cause. Hence in this case -- and why not? -- Facebook. So just yesterday we set up our best first cut of a Facebook page for World Streets (and the Global South of course), which you can now see, comment and use at www.facebook.WorldStreets.org Now let me be the first to indicate that I do not at all have a clear picture of how this is going to work to further our interests here at Sustran. But I would be a poor friend of sustainable development and social justice if I did not at least give it my best shot. Do we have anything we can work with here? Your views? Eric Britton Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From simon.bishop at dimts.in Tue May 4 19:09:26 2010 From: simon.bishop at dimts.in (Simon Bishop) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:39:26 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: A concise cycle strategy relevant for Asian megacities In-Reply-To: <05ab01ca5bee$97d911d0$c78b3570$@britton@ecoplan.org> References: <787c82f10910311514ge900cf8j772e7253501dd892@mail.gmail.com> <3b991b440911020728o3c02b14dvfca7fb777101ad8a@mail.gmail.com> <05ab01ca5bee$97d911d0$c78b3570$@britton@ecoplan.org> Message-ID: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B0948E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Dear Colleagues, Does anyone know of any concise cycle strategy documents written (in English translation) for large cities, preferably in the Asian world? Kind regards, Simon From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue May 4 23:11:56 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 22:11:56 +0800 Subject: [sustran] BAQ 2010 abstracts deadline approaching Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B847@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> [I don't see any announcement for this in the archives. Abstracts are due soon!] Better Air Quality 2010 will be held in Singapore from 9 to 11 November. Deadline for submission of abstracts is 15 May 2010. "CAI-Asia encourages you to submit abstracts on 1. Sustainable Cities and Urban Development 2. Air Quality and GHG Monitoring and Impacts (covering all sources) 3. Air Quality Management & Climate Change Mitigation (covering all sources) 4. Transport Systems and Modes 5. Clean Fuels and Vehicles Abstracts can cover academic, technical- or policy-related studies, projects and programs, and technologies, and should indicate to which topic relevant to the BAQ theme. An Asian focus is required and abstracts can relate to the city, national or regional levels. Abstracts with a focus on Europe, USA, or others parts of the world should clearly state the relevance of the proposed paper to Asia. Priority will be given to abstracts which focus on new research and innovative policies and solutions and that are relevant to the theme. Please submit your abstracts with maximum 300 words, reference to one of the five topics above and at least 3 keywords to gianina.panopio(at)cai-asia.org, with a copy to baq2010(at)cai-asia.org" See http://www.baq2010.org/ Paul Barter http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed May 5 00:34:25 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 17:34:25 +0200 Subject: [sustran] A concise cycle strategy relevant for Asian megacities Message-ID: <021a01caeb9f$49d39190$dd7ab4b0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Simon, While it is perhaps not quite as concise as you may be looking for, nonetheless I am sure you may find some good value in the attached by Roelof Wittink of the I-CE which will shortly appear as a World Streets article. Here it is in advance (in simple text form). Hope it serves you well. Roelof's coordinates. Roelof Wittink, Director I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384 email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl website: www.i-ce.info NGO registration KvK41265203 By the way, I am sure that he will appreciate comments and suggestions. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility --- Cycling as the catalyst for more human and sustainable transport Roelof Wittink, director I-CE, April 2010 Introduction The interest for a human and sustainable transport is growing in the public and private sector, at local, national and global level. Our cities and our planet cannot rely on cars for our transport needs, even if they become more energy efficient or even carbon neutral. We have to create accessibility for people. With current planning and design, roads are isolating people from important destinations. The public domain should be designed with priority for people over motorised traffic. Apart from emission reduction, mobility with zero emission should get value. It is the combination of a human-rights-based orientation with eco-efficiency, that will direct us to a real sustainable transport system. A people oriented transport system requires out-of-the-box thinking, away from paving more asphalt and building fly over?s to cater for more and more cars. The fact that cycling as a mode of transport has gained interest at all levels in the last years, is an expression of the will to make a fundamental change. It seems that cycling represents in the best way a vision for change. The promotion of cycling was mentioned by the mayors from New York, Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, London, Copenhagen, Mexico at the mayoral conference during the climate summit COP15. Cycling was the positive reverse of the negative connotation of our current system dominated by cars. Looking at these mayors, it was as if a choir was assembled, that shared: 1. There is an urgent need to do something completely different 2. We have a vision and we can make it concrete 3. We are acting now The recognition that cycling has a key role to play in the transformation of our transport system, is very new. E.g. in India until only 5 years ago, the governments did not want to take cycling on board of transport policies. Now the policy is to demand that transport interventions include cycling facilities. So cycling policies emerge in the context of new approaches for a human and sustainable transport system. As a consequence there is a huge demand for innovation, to showcase practices, to transfer expertise, for capacity building, for international exchange. At COP15, the mayor of Amsterdam announced to set up a global network of mayors for cycling and the climate. Amsterdam is still the cycling capital city of the world with more cyclists than cars, with people from 6 to 90 years riding in traffic. It is obvious that cycling on itself cannot deliver the accessibility people need, although all over the world between 40 and 60% of all trips people make are within a cycling distance. The combination of public transport with walking and cycling is the only strong alternative for car transport. This combination serves short and long trips in a easy way, from door to door. Both cycling as a stand-alone policy and public transport as a stand-alone policy cannot become an attractive alternative for cars. If cities accommodate a smooth and safe flow of walking, cycling and public transport and pay special attention to an efficient combined use of these moods, they will become most accessible, It is a long way to mainstream new planning and design There is still a huge challenge to develop and implement cycling inclusive policies. The first need is to analyse the interest for cycling promotion. There are different agenda?s to influence transport policies. Interesting to note that cycling contributes to all agenda?s in a positive way. The second thing to do is to analyse the bearer of current policies and planning & design practices. We have to find the right match between commitment and instruments for policy implementation. It turns out that brave policies receive a lot of attention and rewards: the network of BRT, cycling and walking facilities in Bogota, the Velib in Paris, the terraces on Broadway Manhattan, the congestion pricing in London, the removal of a fly over in Seoul. These enlightening examples have to be transferred into a new structure of urban planning and design and this is the long term approach that needs as much courage as the new examples. We cannot realise sustainable transport without sustainable policies, new guidelines and regulations, cycling inclusive investments, cycling inclusive planning and design. This transformation process can be supported by impact assessments: what does planning and designing for public transport, cycling and walking do for accessibility, participation in society, road safety, social inclusion, the local economy, air quality, health and well being? The current indicators for impact of transport interventions have to be reviewed since they are biased in favour of car transport. Agenda?s The interest for cycling comes from different directions, such as : - Disfunctioning of the current transport system, resulting in e.g. congestion - The concern about road safety, which will become globally the third cause of death if the current trend continues - The concern about health, which goes far beyond the road safety problems and includes air pollution and lack of physical exercise. - Climate policies, which cannot do without a paradigm shift of transport policies that should incorporate avoidance of the need to travel and a shift to sustainable modes - The enormous costs for transport interventions if the bias for cars continues Interesting to note that all these directions are motivations arising from problems. When an interest is growing as much as is the case with cycling, there must be other, positively stated reasons too and this is the case: - People want to ride a bicycle and enjoy independence, fresh air, the ease way to go and the more direct social contact (read just as a case the book by musician David Byrne (2010) about his trips in e.g. New York, London, Istanbul, with references to the vision by Penalosa and others) - People experience e.g. through public bikes and the showcase of city bicycles and of carry bicycles, that there is much more than cycling for leisure and recreation; that cycling is a great way to get around quickly and to use the bicycle for different motives, such as social visits and commuting - The interest to make cities attractive, liveable, in which people instead of traffic have priority and the public space is designed for social activities: mayors are proud to present their cycling policies, taking Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Bogota as good practices, highlighting the change in appearance it makes to their city and the different social, economic and ecological co benefits - The huge cost benefit ratio for investments in cycling facilities (ranging from 1:3 till 1:12, ref. Promising, EU project coordinated by the Dutch Road Safety Research Institute SWOV ) Moreover, the bicycle increases opportunities for people to participate, to find or create jobs, to make use of services and follow education, to recreate etc. If we take ?Accessibility for all? serious, we need a substantial share of cycling. What we need to do is combining the different agenda?s and make the strongest case for cycling inclusive sustainable transport policies. Planning principles Most cities that start with planning for cycling tend to create only some km?s of marginal tracks on roads where there is no obvious need to claim more space for cars. There is still no coherence in facilities from origin to destination and the citizens react according to the state of mind of the institutions: ?We have no idea if this will ever work, we do not want to do any harm to the needs of cars, we hope you want to give it a try?. Car drivers and cyclists tend to do what they did and the new facilities are to a large extent ignored. This is not very rewarding for the professionals that introduce cycling facilities. We have to notice that this approach is not yet professional. How different has been the approach on the pilot corridor for Bus Rapid Transit in New Delhi, supervised by TRIPP/IIT Delhi. The planning and design started in a time when it was not allowed to explicitly facilitate cycling. Prof. Geetam Tiwari decided to purse for an all inclusive planning and design for BRT, cars, cyclists, pedestrians and even street vendors, convinced that this would support the traffic flow in the best way. The corridor was a busy one and very dangerous one, with on average 8 traffic fatalities per year over about 10 km?s !! After the implementation an evaluation pointed at a number of weak design details which were adapted. One year after, the number of cyclists on this corridor has been doubled and there was no single fatal accident with a cyclist. In fact there are two approaches that work to promote cycling and the best is to combine them: ? Create a network of main cycling routes with safe crossings and build additional facilities such as for parking ? Make every (re)construction of roads cycling inclusive. The first approach asks for substantial investments but with a high cost benefit ratio. A long term plan for a metro pole city could demand 50-100 million dollar per year. Most cities depend heavily on funds from national governments to invest in transport facilities. And many developing countries ask for loans by banks to invest in transport. The donors start to get an interest in projects when a substantial amount of money is involved. A strategic long term program to make a city cycling friendly cannot do without that. So cycling becomes a feasible subject for donor money if this is needed. If cycling is valued as a zero emission mode of transport these investments allow also for an appeal on carbon funding. UNEP has set up a campaign in Africa to allocate 10% of road investments for safe mobility by cycling and walking. The second approach demands that investments for transport accommodate safe cycling. The rule should be that all transport investments should take into account the requirements for cycling and walking. A right approach for integration is very cost beneficial: the performance of mobility will improve with the same volume of investments. For metro pole cities, the combination of public transport and cycling is a strong asset for donor and carbon funding for sustainable transport policies. Safe feeder routes and easy and safe bicycle parking facilities at bus and rail stations, make bus and rail systems much stronger. Bicycle rent facilities are as important to facilitate an efficient door-to-door transport. The Velib in Paris became famous worldwide. The Dutch public bike system is oriented on chain mobility and organised by the Dutch railways. 40% of all train passengers arrive at railway stations on their bike and they together make 1 million rides per year on a public bike from their next train station to arrive at their final destination. Benefits Cities in Western Europe that are cycling friendly show that congestion and safety problems vanish. TRIPP/IIT Delhi found confirmation in India through simulation studies. If car use is restricted in favour of other modes, the whole traffic system is better off. The Netherlands faces a lot of congestion on their roads but this is only the case outside urban areas. When the Netherlands started to invest in cycling facilities, the downward trend in cycling changed into an upward trend. The absolute number of cycling fatalities reduced notwithstanding the growth of traffic. But on the whole, road safety standards improved. A study in Denmark comparing cities showed a perfect correlation between the share of cycling and road safety of cycling. Better planning, higher use and more safety interact. The social benefits of cycling have not been studied very well. There is a paradox inherent in cycling promotion regarding the social benefits. Cycling supports very significantly the livelihood of poor people. Just an example: home care workers in Cape Town and housekeeping woman in Delhi doubled their income when they could go by bike to deliver their services. But to make cycling a full- fledged mode of transport, the bicycle should not be linked only to the poor. On the contrary, it should get rid of the status as a vehicle only for the poor as is the case in developing countries. When middle and higher income people ride a bicycle too they create another status of cycling. Still, the social and economic benefits can be highlighted much more than nowadays. People are stuck, imprisoned, to their neighbourhoods said minister of transport in the Western Cape Tasneem Essop in 2003. Children are deprived from many development and growth opportunities when they are not allowed to go somewhere independently and to play in the public domain. Social participation is so much easier with a bicycle. And a critical mass of cycling make areas much more safe. Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogota said: ?We have to make the public space dangerous for criminals to operate?. Traffic related air pollution causes an equal volume of premature deaths as road safety does and the lack of physical exercise due to the use of motorized vehicles instead of walking and cycling has an impact on health which is even greater than the impact of road safety or pollution. The global financial crises, energy crises and the protection of the climate, all direct to an important role of cycling in our transport system. Investing in sustainable modes of transport saves lots of investments and enables spatial planning that avoids a substantial amount of mobility needs. The climate agenda cannot do without a fundamental transformation in transport policy and the partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport claims that AVOIDance of km?s travel and a SHIFT to sustainable transport are as important as technical IMPROVEments. Indicator development for impact assessments Traditionally the benefits of improving transport infrastructure has been measured by performance criteria for vehicles, like improved connection, travel time, speeds and fuel savings. The cost specifications are limited to construction, ongoing operations and maintenance. This provides only a limited picture on real impacts. The performance criteria are to a great extent based on and applied to motorized traffic. I-CE uses the travel, transport and traffic market model, to better understand travel behaviour and analyze policy options to optimize the benefits for people and society. The challenge for transport and spatial planners is to affect travel behaviour to optimize social and economic well being and control negative aspects like accidents, liveability, air quality and emissions that induce climate change. I-CE developed in two projects, for UNEP and the Global Road Safety Facility at the World Bank, directions to find alternative indicators for accessibility, safety and sustainability. For accessibility, the common indicators are defined in terms of speed of motorised vehicles and vehicles flow per hour resp. delays. We propose number of destinations within reach for persons given the access to transport modes based on travel times. For road safety, most common indicators regard fatalities and injuries per km. We propose per 100.000 people. For the environment, common indicators are pollutants per vehicle or passenger km whereas we propose pollutants by 100.000 people or percentage of trips for which people have the option to choose for a sustainable mode of transport. Interfacing cycling expertise Road users, decision makers and professionals do have a different perspective on traffic and mobility and a different framework to assess the quality of provisions. Looking for the pioneers in cycling policies we find advocates, politicians and experts as well. To know what quality is needed for cycling, how to integrate this in planning and design and how to ensure consistency in the implementation of planning and design principles, we have to involve advocates, professionals, donors, politicians, experts and bring their strengths together. The I in I-CE stands for Interface and I-CE interfaces between cycling expertise and policies and between cycling and development. I-CE involves the public and private sector with civil society, to develop local cycling policies and to bring the expertise and experiences gained with these local actors to a global audience. There is a huge eagerness to learn how to transport current planning and design standards. In our view, to fully exploit the potential of cycling and cycling promotion, we need to strengthen the local, national and international networks to learn from each other and cooperate with each other. An important framework at global level is the partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport which demands a global coalition on cycling to deliver inputs for programming. We need to built up expertise centres on cycling policies and cycling inclusive planning and design. The Dutch model for cycling and for road safety We know that thinking in terms of the requirements by pedestrians and cyclists, is the best way to learn about transformation of transport policies and bring about a paradigm shift towards safe, clean and affordable transport. This happened in the Netherlands with the design of a new road safety policy, based on the prevention of the chance that serious accidents can occur. The majority of urban roads have a speed limit of 30 km per hour, cycling and walking with public transport have received lots of priority over cars, and against 3200 traffic deaths in 1972, we suffered 720 traffic deaths in 2009. The aim is to bring this down to less than 500 in the coming years, which is again a challenge. The Netherlands keeps on investing and learning, on road safety and on cycling in particular as well. On cycling it is still investing 200 ? 300 million euro per year in facilities on or alongside the road, apart from the integrated measures which in fact have more impact. Expertise still has to grow Expertise on cycling inclusive planning and design has been built up substantially in only a few countries. The Netherlands has not only the highest share of cycling in transport (and at the same time the highest density of cars per km2) and the highest level in road safety of cycling. It has also the best record in developing cycling policies, in documenting experiences and lessons learnt, in implementation of lessons into manuals, in the share of cycling in transport and. I-CE built on this expertise to deliver support and applications in a wide different context all over the globe, in particular in developing countries. Institutional settings I-CE has not only expertise in cycling policies and cycling inclusive planning and design, it also has built up expertise and experiences for institutional settings to promote cycling. I-CE took notice of the important role by civil society organisations and set up networks of these organisations in India and in Brasil, and supports Sustran LAC and Locomotives Africa as networks for a whole continent. On advise of I-CE, Cape Town, Pune and Delhi set up structures for consultation with civil society and other stakeholders. Structure for capacity building For capacity building, I-CE developed a structure for capacity building and assessments for both civil society organisations and local governments. To learn more about the significance of cycling and it?s potential in a different context, I-CE initiated a network for academic research, the Cycling Academic Network which started with universities from the Netherlands, Brasil, India and South Africa. Since planning and designing for cycling is new for professionals, support by capacity building can make the difference in policy development. Sometimes we are surprised what people notice: ?One of the important points which has struck the traffic planners and city planners is that the development of the road should be done on the basis of the purpose it serves? said Pravinshi Pardeshi, municipal commissioner of Pune, India. I-CE has 9 resident representatives in 6 countries who assess with local authorities the needs for inputs. Two of them summarised the results of the Bicycle Partnership Program as follows: ?If I-CE was not involved in planning, things would have went on as usual. The infra would have been built without anyone using it. We gained confidence in our decisions to reintroduce the concept of cycle-inclusive planning for the city. The capacity building helped in clarifying many doubts about cycling-inclusive planning and its benefits. This also helped in convincing stakeholders about the use of bicycling in the city and in reducing the resistance of those who were not in favor of promoting cycling. In Delhi it is an obligation now that all new transport policies include cycling and pedestrian facilities?, according to Anvita Arora, Resident Representative I-CE, Delhi. ?Cycling has become stronger, strategic and fundamental. It is for Rio de Janeiro one of 38 strategic plans for 2012. Moreover, all new roads and parks we have to build to prepare for the World Cup Soccer will have cycling facilities. Cycling is now in the mind of decision makers and they are looking at it as one of the important contributions to provide for accessibility during both the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016?, says Ze Lobo, director of the CSO Transporte Ativo and Resident Representative of I-CE. ?I think we are strong enough now to survive any political changes because we always rely on technicians who have become like partners. In the next years I think we are going to develop in the same way, improving our knowledge to exchange with the municipality and also with companies. I-CE is responsible for this in many ways. The financial support has allowed us to move forward and focus on our priorities. The technical support has made us more respected by official departments and gave us the opportunity to learn from cycling cities and other CSOs from all over the world. This provided us an excellent knowledge base. Without that, TA would not be what it is now.? The Approach The mid-term evaluation of our Bicycle Partnership program has clearly shown that a 3 pronged approach is necessary to comprehensively bring change on ground with regard to inclusion of cycling: * The users and civil society need to be empowered so that they can create a critical mass for demand for inclusion of cycling according to quality standards * The critical mass and awareness raising needs to lead to a political momentum on the cycling policies. The policy-makers, both political and administrative need to have a buy-in on the need for cycling inclusion and its social, economic and environmental benefits * The planners and engineers need to have capacity to implement cycle-inclusive infrastructure in the cities. The I-CE network in India, Latin America and Africa has the capacity and the partnerships to make this comprehensive intervention approach with these three categories of stakeholders and create the process that would lead to change on ground. It is feasible A main result of our programs so far has been that decision makers, professionals and experts learnt that cycling in a high motorised context is feasible. ?A Dutch solution that amazed me in particular was to reduce a lane for motorised traffic on an avenue with congestion. The result is that this avenue has a better traffic flow now. Learning from cycling in the Netherlands gave me a lot of positive energy: If developed countries are doing it, it is even more important that a developing country does it. And we c?n do it. Dutch cities are a living laboratory for us. I learned also a lot about campaigning to create a favourable political environment. This gave me the reason to always work in partnership with CSO?s.? Vera Lucia Goncalves da Silva, City of Florianopolis, Brasil. In a period when there was more hesitation about cycling, we heard people saying that the Netherlands is different. Nowadays the eagerness to learn is dominant. As long as solutions are not being copied but principles are being learnt for application in a local context, and good examples are taken from the whole world, we can offer partners what they ask for. One of our partners sais, he does not fee like a lonesome crusade anymore. Another said she appreciated how I-CE led her by the hand to integrate cycling in urban transport policies. Most common evaluation by our partners was that they gained trust to involve their colleagues in cycling planning. And Donald Cupido and Elias Tukushe of Cape Town were telling us: ?If it took the Dutch 30 years to develop their system, we can avoid lots of their mistakes and do it in 15 years?. An important consequence would be that the development of road safety problems, does not necessarily have to follow the same path as in highly motorised countries. If the prevention policy for serious accidents will be implemented in developing countries, the curve will be flattened and road safety will not become globally the third cause of death. Cycling coalition within the Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport The Partnership for sustainable low carbon transport has a multi-stakeholder membership representing development organizations, intergovernmental organizations, governmental organizations, NGOs, private sector, and academic organizations, hosted by UN-DESA. I-CE has been asked and offered to establish s cycling coalition to provide inputs for the programming. The workplan of the SLOCAT partnership consists of four components: - Transport and ghg data and indicators - Climate instruments - Financing - Outreach The partnership notices an absence of comprehensive and reliable datasets on the composition or the transport sector and activity patterns. When we analyze the potential contribution of cycling to mobility and accessibility, we notice a great unfulfilled need of mobility in developing countries. Poor people are not able to reach important destinations, since motorized transport is expensive and cycling is not safe. When we exchange activity patterns in cities, we notice a strong bias by planners for corridors, as if cycling facilities are only of importance alongside corridors. Further we notice that zero emission transport does not count in policies to bring down ghg emissions. Above we presented comments on the current indicators which measure the performance of the transport system and directions for an alternative approach which will measure progress in terms of people orientation. As a result of COP15 in Copenhagen, NAMA?s have gained further importance as an instrument for carbon funding of transport interventions. Cycling programs and cycling inclusive projects and programs are feasible. A big step forward would be if Brasil or India would adopt a cycling NAMA, which enables a substantial program for cycling with assessments of the emission reduction and co-benefits. The Netherlands, Denmark and the USA should provide funds for the program development, transfer of expertise and co-fund the implementation of the interventions. A broad coalition on cycling within the partnership can be composed of: * International non-profit bodies such as I-CE, EMBARQ, the Danish Embassy and ITDP, to organize international exchange and cooperation * City networks, e.g. the network of mayors headed by Amsterdam, to support urban strategies * Regional networks of civil society organizations, such as ECF, the American League of Bicyclists, Sustran LAC, Locomotives Africa, Locomotives India, to promote the interests of citizens/road users * Research institutions, such as the Cycling Academic Network and consultancies, to collect data, study conditions for cycling, assess impacts etc. From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Wed May 5 00:52:10 2010 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 10:52:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: A concise cycle strategy relevant for Asian megacities In-Reply-To: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B0948E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> References: <787c82f10910311514ge900cf8j772e7253501dd892@mail.gmail.com> <3b991b440911020728o3c02b14dvfca7fb777101ad8a@mail.gmail.com> <05ab01ca5bee$97d911d0$c78b3570$@britton@ecoplan.org> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B0948E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Message-ID: <4BE042AA.8020508@gmail.com> Simon, The Handbook of Cycling Inclusive Policy Development has a chapter on strategy which may be useful. You can google by title and you'll be able to download. The full doc is pretty long but the chapters were edited in such a way that you can read them on their own. Best regards, Carlos. On 04/05/2010 05:09 a.m., Simon Bishop wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Does anyone know of any concise cycle strategy documents written (in English translation) for large cities, preferably in the Asian world? > > Kind regards, > > Simon > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From operations at velomondial.net Wed May 5 01:02:46 2010 From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:02:46 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: A concise cycle strategy relevant for Asian megacities In-Reply-To: <4BE042AA.8020508@gmail.com> References: <787c82f10910311514ge900cf8j772e7253501dd892@mail.gmail.com> <3b991b440911020728o3c02b14dvfca7fb777101ad8a@mail.gmail.com> <05ab01ca5bee$97d911d0$c78b3570$@britton@ecoplan.org> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B0948E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> <4BE042AA.8020508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F5FA584-B4C4-42BE-A93C-E0FEAE5FE512@velomondial.net> and we have obviously Cycling in The Netherlands :-) Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Velo Mondial operations@velomondial.net +31206270675 landline +31627055688 mobile phone This word cloud represents the content of Velo Mondial's blog On May 4, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > Simon, > > The Handbook of Cycling Inclusive Policy Development has a chapter on > strategy which may be useful. You can google by title and you'll be > able to download. The full doc is pretty long but the chapters were > edited in such a way that you can read them on their own. > > Best regards, > > Carlos. > > On 04/05/2010 05:09 a.m., Simon Bishop wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Does anyone know of any concise cycle strategy documents written (in English translation) for large cities, preferably in the Asian world? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Simon >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). From operations at velomondial.net Wed May 5 17:03:14 2010 From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:03:14 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: A concise cycle strategy relevant for Asian megacities In-Reply-To: <4F5FA584-B4C4-42BE-A93C-E0FEAE5FE512@velomondial.net> References: <787c82f10910311514ge900cf8j772e7253501dd892@mail.gmail.com> <3b991b440911020728o3c02b14dvfca7fb777101ad8a@mail.gmail.com> <05ab01ca5bee$97d911d0$c78b3570$@britton@ecoplan.org> <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B0948E@dimts-exch.dimts.org> <4BE042AA.8020508@gmail.com> <4F5FA584-B4C4-42BE-A93C-E0FEAE5FE512@velomondial.net> Message-ID: <908C3871-B8D3-4AA7-BED5-8EDFABF8BD19@velomondial.net> Here is where you can find Cycling in The Netherlands: http://velomondial.blogspot.com/2009/07/information-about-organisation-and.html Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Velo Mondial operations@velomondial.net +31206270675 landline +31627055688 mobile phone This word cloud represents the content of Velo Mondial's blog -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen shot 2010-04-02 at 5.00.58 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 202986 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100505/91fd2f56/Screenshot2010-04-02at5.00.58PM.png -------------- next part -------------- On May 4, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Pascal van den Noort wrote: > and we have obviously Cycling in The Netherlands :-) > > > Pascal J.W. van den Noort > Executive Director Velo Mondial > > > operations@velomondial.net > +31206270675 landline > +31627055688 mobile phone > > This word cloud represents the content of Velo Mondial's blog > > On May 4, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > >> Simon, >> >> The Handbook of Cycling Inclusive Policy Development has a chapter on >> strategy which may be useful. You can google by title and you'll be >> able to download. The full doc is pretty long but the chapters were >> edited in such a way that you can read them on their own. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Carlos. >> >> On 04/05/2010 05:09 a.m., Simon Bishop wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Does anyone know of any concise cycle strategy documents written (in English translation) for large cities, preferably in the Asian world? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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'). > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Thu May 6 14:52:39 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:52:39 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Alternatives to conventional parking requirements? Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB95193@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> In response to an item at PT's Parking Blog I wrote the following (in his comments and at http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/) I think it may be of interest to sustran-discussers. Paul --------------------------- Are parking requirements the solution in Asian cities? ... I have been looking into parking policy around Asia. A report on it should be out next month (with luck). It is true that Mumbai and Delhi have parking chaos and are now trying to follow the conventional suburban parking policy approach of minimum parking requirements with buildings. Dhaka, with car ownership below 50 per 1000 people, is doing the same. In a situation like that, is it really a good idea to force building managers and all of their customers to subsidize the parking of the tiny elite? So far, it is not working very well (see http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/04/parking-dramas-in-south-asian-cities.html). Off-street parking does not magically suck cars off the streets if the streets are easy and cheap to park in. By contrast, Japanese cities mostly have rather low parking requirements (typically one parking space per 150 to 400 square metres of floor space). And Japanese parking requirements ONLY apply to large buildings. Modest-sized buildings (below about 1500 to 2000 square metres of floor space) usually have no parking required. The full requirements only apply above 6000 sq.m. (they phase in between 2000 and 6000 sq.m). Yet Japanese cities don't have parking chaos. In fact, they have very little on-street parking. And since 2006 on-street parking rules are quite strictly enforced. Where do people park then? (they are not ALL using the trains or bicycles). Answer: spillover parking goes mostly into commercial off-street parking, which seems to be ubiquitous (and some city-owned parking lots, usually underground). The Japanese parking arrangements are not perfect but maybe they point towards a workable solution that is akin to John's (and Donald Shoup's) market-oriented one. At least it suggests that high parking standards are not necessary to avoid parking chaos. Paul A. Barter http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 6 15:15:42 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 08:15:42 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Alternatives to conventional parking requirements? In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB95193@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB95193@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <011501caece3$990d08a0$cb2719e0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Paul, This is excellent news. We are making a major push on parking in World Streets in the coming months and would certainly welcome an article from you and any others of our colleagues working in this area. Our firm position is that if the policy makers can get control of parking, the city will be on its way to sustainable transport arrangements. And if not, not. So we are wide open to proposals and look forward to publishing Barter on parking. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 6 23:02:22 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 16:02:22 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Promoting road safety and clean air in Kathmandu Message-ID: <026601caed24$c59544a0$50bfcde0$@britton@ecoplan.org> This is the second article in a series coming in from Nepal, showing how the combination of traffic restraint and the push toward the creation of pedestrian- friendly areas is giving results in their capital city. The reader should bear in mind that the traffic situation on most of the city streets is extremely chaotic and dangerous, above all as a result of the explosion of fast-moving two wheelers. The city also suffers from major air quality problems due to a noxious combination of heavy traffic, dirty engines, thin air, natural meteorological factors and its location in the high Kathmandu Valley. Pedestrianisation promotes road safety and clean air in Kathmandu - Charina Cabrido, Clean Air Initiatives for Asian Cities. Kathmandu, Nepal. Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com From litman at vtpi.org Tue May 11 00:26:10 2010 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:26:10 -0700 Subject: [sustran] VTPI NEWS - Spring 2010 Message-ID: <20100510152802.BDEED2DE50@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> ----------------- VTPI NEWS ----------------- Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ------------------------------------- Spring 2010 Vol. 13, No. 2 ----------------------------------- The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW VTPI DOCUMENTS ==================== "Affordable-Accessible Housing In A Dynamic City: Why and How To Increase Affordable Housing Development In Accessible Locations" (http://www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf ) This report describes how to create more affordable-accessible housing, which refers to lower priced homes located in areas where common services and activities are easy to access without requiring an automobile. This helps achieve numerous economic, social and environmental objectives. Demand for affordable-accessible housing is growing, but many current policies discourage such development, leading to a growing shortage in many communities, particularly in growing cities. More than two dozen policy and planning reforms described in this report can increase affordable-accessible housing development. * * * * * UPDATED DOCUMENTS =================== "Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes" (http://www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf ) This report investigates whether transportation policies should include mobility management objectives, such as targets to reduce vehicle travel and encourage use of alternative modes. It evaluates the justificatons and criticisms of such targets. Mobility management can provide many benefits, and specific policy objectives provide guidance for strategic planning. * * * * * PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE ===================== "The Role of Integrated Planning in Developing Sustainable Transportation Strategies" (http://cte.ncsu.edu/CTE/Education/TRB-Workshop-Lane-2010.asp), TRB Annual Meeting, Workshop, 14 January 2010 This workshop presented information on best practices for developing more integrated transportation planning. Recent Planetizen Blogs (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/2394 ): "New USDOT Report Identifies Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies" "Healthy Community Planning - What's It Worth?" "Way-To-Go Vancouver Olympics - Lessons For Transport Planners" "Parking Policy Reform More Important Than LEED Certification" * * * * * BEEN THERE, DONE THAT ====================== Todd Litman participated in a two-day conference sponsored by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, GA to help guide development of a North American version of the HEAT Model (http://euro.who.int/transport/policy/20081219_1 ). This will provide science-based estimates of the lives saved and monetized benefits of increased walking and cycling activity. Several leading researchers on this subject from around the world attended. VTPI Executive Director Todd Litman was appointed to the US Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org ) Location & Planning Technical Advisory Group (LP TAG) which develops specific requirements for LEED requirements and credits related to location, accessibility, walkability, parking and transport management. CONSULTING =========== The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is financially supported by consulting and speaking engagements (http://www.vtpi.org/documents/consulting.php ). Please consider us is you ever need assistance with innovative transportation policy research, analysis, program development or public presentations. UPCOMING EVENTS ================= "Benefit/Cost Analysis for Transportation Infrastructure: A Practitioners Workshop" (http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/benefit_cost10 ). Monday 17 May 2010, US DOT, Washington, DC. The workshop will be broadcast live via the internet and presentations will be available after the workshop. This workshop provides an overview of benefit/cost analysis and explores ways to incorporate a broader range of impacts and objectives, including economic development, safety, livable communities, and environmental sustainability. Todd Litman will present information on evaluating social objectives. "ADB Transport Forum: Changing Course - Pathways to Sustainable Transport" (http://www.adb.org/documents/events/2010/transport-forum/default.asp ) Manila, Philippines, 25-27 May 2010 The three day Asia Development Bank (ADB) Transport Forum, featuring the world's leading transport experts, will provide a unique forum for discussing and debating some of the most crucial issues facing transport in Asia. Todd Litman will give a presentation, 'New Integrated Approach to Evaluation of Transport Projects' based on his report, "Comprehensive Transport Planning Framework" (http://www.vtpi.org/comprehensive.pdf ) "TRB Environment and Energy Research Conference: Better Delivery of Better Transportation Solutions" (http://cte.ncsu.edu/CTE/EEConference/index.asp ) 6-10 June 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina This conference will discuss ways to improve transportation planning through better integration of environmental (human and natural) impacts and objectives. It brings together more than a dozen Transportation Research Board (TRB) Energy and Environmental committees and the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment. Todd Litman will give presentations on 'Livability: What Is It and How Do You Measure It?' and 'Comprehensive Transportation Planning: Practical Tools for Considering All Impacts' * * * * * USEFUL RESOURCES ================= "Mobility and Transport For Our Tomorrow Roads" by Pasquale Colonna, Europeanroads Review 14, Spring, pp. 44-53; at www.vtpi.org/colonna.pdf. "Google Maps Adding Bike Directions" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10466313-265.html ) Google Maps is starting to provide biking directions. Google Maps users looking for directions between two points will have the option of selecting "bicycling" in addition to walking, driving, and public transportation options when customizing their trip guidance. "Updating the 'Granny Cart'" (http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2010/04/16/updating-the-granny-cart ), by Alan Durning This charming blog discusses the growing utility of handcarts and wheeled luggage for urban transportation, and features to consider when selecting a cart for personal use. "GreenTRIP" (www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP ) GreenTRIP is a Traffic Reduction + Innovative Parking certification program for new residential and mixed use developments. It expands the definition of green building to include accessibility impacts (how people travel to and from the building, and park their vehicles there) and rewards projects that reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. This typically includes features such as an accessible and multi-modal location (near shops and other services, good neighborhood walkability, near public transit), unbundled parking (parking spaces rented separately from building space), carshare services, discounted public transit passes, and affordable housing. Certified projects receive a Project Evaluation Report which describes the project location, details and inventories how the project meets GreenTRIP standards. "Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context-Sensitive Approach, An ITE Recommended Practice " (http://www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf ) This report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Congress for New Urbanism provides detailed guidance for applying Context Sensitive Design principles to create more walkable urban roadways. It includes discussion of context oriented design, walkability and multi-modalism, and specific information on pedestrian and bicycle facility design, optimal lane width and geometry, bicycle lanes, accommodating transit, stormwater management, traffic calming, crosswalks, "Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Development Action Guide" (http://www.mitod.org ), by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, is a comprehensive website providing information on ways to create mixed-income housing in transit-oriented development, in order to create more affordable-accessible housing. "U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy" (http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP_US_Parking_Report.pdf ) This report by Rachel Weinberger, John Kaehny and Matthew Rufo identifies core sustainable parking principles and illustrates how smarter parking management can benefit consumers and businesses in time and money savings, while also leading to more livable, attractive communities. "New York Sustainable Streets Index" (www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/ssi.shtml ) The New York City Department of Transportation's Sustainable Streets Index allows the agency to implement more performance-driven transportation policy, geared toward achieving the sustainability, mobility, infrastructure and quality of life goals. It includes a section on "project indicators", which evaluates various types of impacts. The 2009 report includes case studies of street redesigns and bus improvements across the city: "Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health Through Design" (http://ddcftp.nyc.gov/adg/downloads/adguidelines.pdf ). This publication by the New York City Department of Design + Construction provides information for planners and designers about opportunities to increase daily physical activity. Implemented over a broad range of urban and architectural projects these measures can contribute significantly toward bringing about healthier lifestyles in our communities. A number of the strategies in these guidelines can also reduce energy use in buildings and transportation, thereby benefiting the environment. "Cycling in New York: Innovative Policies at the Urban Frontier," World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 16, summer 2010, forthcoming. (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/CyclingNY.pdf ) This paper by John Pucher, Lewis Thorwaldson, Ralph Buehler, and Nick Klein evaluates recent improvements in cycling conditions, increases in cycling activity, and reductions in cycling crash rates; and discusses additional actions cities can take to better support urban cycling. "New York City's Green Dividend" (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_greendividend_april2010.pdf ). This study by economist Joe Cortright evaluates New York City's Green Dividend, the economic benefits that result from more efficient transportation. It estimates that City residents save $19 billion annually in auto-related expenses. These savings leave residents with more purchasing power, which stimulates the city's economy. "New York City's Congestion Pricing Experience and Implications for Road Pricing Acceptance in the United States" (www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/schaller_paper_2010trb.pdf ) This paper by Bruce Schaller analyzes how the 2007 congestion pricing proposal gained widespread public support but was ultimately blocked in the State Legislature. It assesses the implications of New York's experience for pursuing congestion pricing and mileage-based taxes in the United States. "Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions" (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf ) This USDOT study, mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act, evaluates potentially viable strategies to reduce transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It examines strategies' potential impacts on air quality, petroleum savings, transportation goals, costs, and various co-benefits. Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) vehicle insurance fares particularly well in both total emission reductions and cost effectiveness. Also see the Secretary of Transportation's blog: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/04/on-earth-day-reminders-of-dots-role-in-reducing-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#more and Todd Litman's Planetizen blog, "New USDOT Report Identifies Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/44048 ) "Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America's Crumbling Roads and Bridges" (http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/road-work-ahead-holding-government-accountable-for-fixing-americas-crumbling-roads-and-bridges ) This report by Travis Madsen, Benjamin Davis and Phineas Baxandall, investigates current and future roadway maintenance and repair conditions based on various statistics. It investigates planning biases that favor highway capacity expansion at the expense of repair and maintenance. It recommends 'fix-it first' policy reforms. "Effects of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform" (http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/economic-social-and-environmental-effects ), by Jennifer Ellis. This paper summarizes modeling studies that analyzed economic and environmental impacts of fuel subsidies. It describes research needs but concludes there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate significant environmental and economic benefits of phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies. "EIA Energy Subsidy Estimates: A Review of Assumptions and Omissions" (http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/EIA%20subsidy%20review%20final_17Mar10.pdf ) This study investigates U.S. federal tracking of energy subsidies. In addition to evaluating the research approach used by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), it assesses how key assumptions and omissions in EIA's work resulted in a substantial undercounting of federal energy subsidies and an inaccurate portrayal of subsidy distribution across fuels. "IMF Note - Petroleum Product Subsidies: Costly, Inequitable, and Rising" (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1005.pdf ) Petroleum product subsidies have again started to rise with the rebound in international prices. This note reviews recent developments in subsidy levels and argues that it is necessary to reform the policy framework for setting petroleum product prices in order to reduce the fiscal burden of these subsidies and to address climate change. In 2003, global consumer subsidies for petroleum products totaled nearly $60 billion. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 11 03:53:36 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 20:53:36 +0200 Subject: [sustran] =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Lessons_in_Leadership_/_Profiles_in_Cou?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rage_=3Cbr/=3E_=22Bogot=E1_Cha=2E=2E=2E?= Message-ID: <023b01caf072$252489d0$6f6d9d70$@britton@ecoplan.org> Lessons in Leadership / Profiles in Courage : "Bogot? Change The Colombian presidential elections will be held in less than three weeks on May 30. The campaign is all about ideas, leadership, and courage. And what could be more critical for a country or a city event to have these lined up together with a proven capacity to innovate, administrate, and to ensure that good policies and measures are continuously being scrutinized for performance and adapted to ensure that they are making the fullest possible contribution, year after year after year? Grab a cup of coffee and check out "Bogot? Change" Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 13 04:04:58 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 21:04:58 +0200 Subject: [sustran] When English is not enough. Well then let's do it in Italian, ... Message-ID: <01d801caf206$0a537e50$1efa7af0$@britton@ecoplan.org> World Streets When English is not enough. Well then let's do it in Italian. (Or Swedish, Finnish, Portuguese, Chinese, French or . . .) Start here: Italy, Italian and New Mobility. In June 2009, after four months of successful publication and an enthusiastic public reception in many parts of the world, the World Streets team found ourselves talking with an Italian colleague, the environmental activist Enrico Bonfatti who had been scanning the readership maps of World Streets and in the process noted that there were only one or two regular readers of the publication in Italy. Why? Good question. Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Thu May 13 12:51:21 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:51:21 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> My latest blog post asks this question: Is park-and-ride a bad idea? - especially for dense parts of Asian cities Is parking really the best use of space near high-capacity, high-frequency mass transit systems in high-density urban areas? Is this the best use of precious public funds? (especially public transport funds!) See more at http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html I think planners and transport policy-makers should be much more sceptical of park-and-ride investments. This seems especially important in dense neighbourhoods. I know this is not a new debate. But our recent parking study encountered so much enthusiasm for park-and-ride in so many cities that I think the issue needs to be revisited. What do you think? [Please respond to sustran-discuss or the comments on the blog, not just my private email. Let's have some public discussion on this.] Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ From simon.bishop at dimts.in Thu May 13 14:21:24 2010 From: simon.bishop at dimts.in (Simon Bishop) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 10:51:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B6E53C@dimts-exch.dimts.org> In my view park and ride is a bit like 'closing the stable door after the horse has bolted'. In Asian cities where '70% of urban infrastructure that will be present by 2050 has not yet been built', the paradigm seems to be on re-creating a version of the American Dream where suburban gated communities situated close to inter-urban expressways promise the kind of calm, tranquil environment for lives to unwind from the chaos, dangers and pollution (mainly caused by traffic) of the anarchic city. It is a heady cocktail that marks one out as having 'made it' in this part of the world. In this context, a Metro based system with huge parking lots makes sense. Feeder buses are fine, but as we know, unless routes are direct people will much more easily zip in their cars to the parking lot, or better still cut out the middle man and go direct to the office. As a teenager I remember wondering why it took nearly two hours to travel 14 miles from Bristol to where my parents lived in Gloucestershire. The windy, convoluted trips round cul-de-sacs served the needs of those too poor, old or young to own a car and no one else. Asian cities are blindly headed in the same direction, or are they? Did you, as part of the study Paul look at the emerging typologies of suburban residential development in Asian cities and how this is affecting demand for park and ride? If suburban dreams are being replicated can anything be done to confront powerful aspirations? Only now people in Western countries are starting to enjoy city living again and perhaps not even then those with young families who, in the city environment remain corralled by busy urban arterials and parental fears of road accidents and abductions. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:21 AM To: Sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? My latest blog post asks this question: Is park-and-ride a bad idea? - especially for dense parts of Asian cities Is parking really the best use of space near high-capacity, high-frequency mass transit systems in high-density urban areas? Is this the best use of precious public funds? (especially public transport funds!) See more at http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html I think planners and transport policy-makers should be much more sceptical of park-and-ride investments. This seems especially important in dense neighbourhoods. I know this is not a new debate. But our recent parking study encountered so much enthusiasm for park-and-ride in so many cities that I think the issue needs to be revisited. What do you think? [Please respond to sustran-discuss or the comments on the blog, not just my private email. Let's have some public discussion on this.] Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From whook at itdp.org Thu May 13 14:48:07 2010 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 01:48:07 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: I agree with Dr. Barter. Bike and Ride and transit oriented development is what we should support in most instances. park and ride may be compatible with TOD depending on the design but too often is not. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Paul Barter wrote: > My latest blog post asks this question: Is park-and-ride a bad idea< > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html>? > - especially for dense parts of Asian cities > > Is parking really the best use of space near high-capacity, high-frequency > mass transit systems in high-density urban areas? Is this the best use of > precious public funds? (especially public transport funds!) > > See more at > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > > I think planners and transport policy-makers should be much more sceptical > of park-and-ride investments. This seems especially important in dense > neighbourhoods. > > I know this is not a new debate. But our recent parking study encountered > so much enthusiasm for park-and-ride in so many cities that I think the > issue needs to be revisited. > > What do you think? [Please respond to sustran-discuss or the comments on > the blog, not just my private email. Let's have some public discussion on > this.] > > > Paul > > Paul A. Barter > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- Walter Hook Executive Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 127 W 26 St, Ste 1002 New York, NY 10001 1-212-629-8001 www.itdp.org Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Thu May 13 18:55:09 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:25:09 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Paul, >From a greenfield planning perspective, what you say is absolutely correct but we are talking about providing reasonable solutions to cities already mired with car ownership problems. For a drowning (wo)man, a lifeline is important.. discussing quality of this lifeline for him/her is irrelevant. I am living in Mumbai right now and been guilty (if one likes to put it that way) of recommending provisions for park-and-ride to many developments close to future metro stations. If I was God (hope I am not committing blasphemy!!), I would make all cars disappear and replace it with a swank public transport system but unfortunately my powers are far from it. Shouldn't planner take present as a given and plan for a better future? I do have a utopian dream but can't see better immediate solution. BTW, I am soon going to commit another crime - buy a car!!! So many times, I got out of railway station and can't find any connection to my last 10-15 minute of journey (the last mile problem). Taxis/Autos (who are great at the place where I live.. I guess they recognise me now) just flatly refuse to take my patronage (may be I am too ugly!!). I have explored walk/bicycle as options but in Mumbai heat and unruly traffic, its suicidal at best. Does anybody know how many pedestrians get killed every day in Mumbai? We discussed this in Hong Kong and I am looking forward to your report. I have been involved with many a parking demand study in Mumbai lately and found many interesting characteristics. Perhaps you have already captured those in your report. Regards Alok On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Walter Hook wrote: > I agree with Dr. Barter. Bike and Ride and transit oriented development is > what we should support in most instances. park and ride may be compatible > with TOD depending on the design but too often is not. > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Paul Barter > wrote: > > > My latest blog post asks this question: Is park-and-ride a bad idea< > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > >? > > - especially for dense parts of Asian cities > > > > Is parking really the best use of space near high-capacity, > high-frequency > > mass transit systems in high-density urban areas? Is this the best use of > > precious public funds? (especially public transport funds!) > > > > See more at > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > > > > I think planners and transport policy-makers should be much more > sceptical > > of park-and-ride investments. This seems especially important in dense > > neighbourhoods. > > > > I know this is not a new debate. But our recent parking study encountered > > so much enthusiasm for park-and-ride in so many cities that I think the > > issue needs to be revisited. > > > > What do you think? [Please respond to sustran-discuss or the comments on > > the blog, not just my private email. Let's have some public discussion on > > this.] > > > > > > Paul > > > > Paul A. Barter > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > > > > > > -- > > Walter Hook > Executive Director > Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > 127 W 26 St, Ste 1002 > New York, NY 10001 > 1-212-629-8001 > www.itdp.org > > Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From yanivbin at gmail.com Thu May 13 18:55:15 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:25:15 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Singapore's Transportation Secrets : Some ideas to examine? Message-ID: Singapore's Transportation Secrets 11 March 2010 - 3:00pm | by * http://citiscope.org/2010/singapores-transportation-secrets* Author Christopher Tan The Straits Times Subhead: *More vehicles, more trips, more people -- but gridlock remain a rarity. What gives? * Singapore Singapore is a city on the move. Literally. Furiously. In cars. In buses. On rail lines. At rates of expansion that would make most transport executives blanch. [image: Workers celebrate the final tunnel breakthrough for Singapore's Circle Line, a 33km orbital MRT line slated for completion in 2011] Workers celebrate the final tunnel breakthrough for Singapore's Circle Line, a 33km orbital MRT line slated for completion in 2011 More and more people are moving - all the time. Three decades ago, they made 2.7 million daily trips. Now it's more than 11 million - in cars, buses and trains. Yet Singapore has little of the congestion that almost paralyzes so many cities around the world. *What's the secret? It's simple. Early planning. Timely action. Massive investment across many modes of transport. * *Density without gridlock* Not that Singapore's situation is simple. This sovereign state is just 710 square kilometers -- a bit bigger than New York City. It has 5 million people -- more than double its population 30 years ago. Now, close to 1 million vehicles (of which 40,000 are from across the Malaysian border) zip around in a network of well-paved roads spanning 3,400 kilometers. And in contrast to neighboring cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur - and indeed, farther flung examples such as London, Paris and Los Angeles -- gridlock is a rarity in Singapore. This is despite growing car ownership. Back in 1981, there were 163,355 passenger cars here. Today, there are 570,000. Yet Singapore's average car speed on arterial (main) roads during peak hours is 27 kmh (17 miles per hour), compared to as low as 16 kmh in London, 11 kmh in Tokyo and 5 kmh in Jakarta. Clues to the formula So, how has Singapore managed this seemingly text book success story on urban mobility? Mr. Lew Yii Der, group director for policy and planning of the country's Land Transport Authority (LTA), says the the recipe "boils down to two important ingredients: a convenient and well-connected public transport network, and an effective set of demand management measures to regulate traffic flow and keep road congestion in check." As a relatively young nation (gaining independence in 1965), Singapore's bureaucracy of scholars and technocrats had the advantage of learning from older, more established cities. Urban planning soon became the government's forte, and transport infrastructure a cornerstone of development. [image: Singapore's Kim Chuan Depot, world's largest underground train depot] Singapore's Kim Chuan Depot, world's largest underground train depot Expanding on a blueprint drawn by the country's British colonial masters, policy makers began to build new roads -- lots of them. Starting in the early 1970s, Singapore opened the first of what today is a network of nine expressways crisscrossing the island, including such technological marvels as a 12-km long, largely underground expressway opened two years ago, and an upcoming (in 2013) link that not only goes underground but undersea. But like all other modern cities, roads are rarely sufficient to move the masses. Singapore opened its first rail transit line -- 6 kilometers, five stations - in 1987. Today, the rail network spans over 150 km (94 miles), with 106 stations serving four mass rapid transit lines (one partially opened) and three light rail transit lines. Major added investment -- $40 billion in Singapore dollars (U.S. $28.4 billion) -- is committed to expanding rail lines to 280 km by 2020. With this ambitious expansion, the current balance in Singapore's average daily trips of 11 million (6 million by private transport, 3 million by bus and 2 million by rail) is likely to shift significantly toward public transit (even with some additional roads). [image: Kim Chuan Depot's Control Room] Kim Chuan Depot's Control Room LTA Rail Group Director Mr. Chua Chong Kheng recalls: "Since the first steps were taken... on Oct 22, 1983, the government has invested heavily to ensure that the rail network form the backbone of an efficient public transport system." *Key ingredient: congestion pricing* Policymakers recognized early, in fact, that that a country as small and dense as Singapore cannot rely solely on road expansion. Demand for road space must be held in check. And the best way to do that, they discovered, are user charges. Literally decades ahead of European cities,* Singapore in 1977 instituted an "Area Licensing System"* featuring stiff fees for any car entering downtown Singapore during business hours. In 1998, this congestion pricing system went high-tech with an electronic road-pricing system that requires any vehicle in Singapore (as well as those coming in from Malaysia) be fitted with a stored-value card reader. As a car passes any of the city's 69 gantries (electronic checkpoints), the card reader charges a fee, which varies significantly depending on time of day. For someone driving into the city during the morning rush hour, tolls across multiple gantries often add up to S$10 a day. Following Singapore's lead, congestion pricing for traffic-clogged cities has since been adopted by London, Oslo, Stockholm, and Milan. Mayor Michael Bloomberg also proposed the idea in New York City, but was overruled by the New York State Legislature. Also key: paying for the right to use a vehicle Singapore in 1990 inaugurated a second method for keeping auto use in check. Anyone who wants to buy a vehicle must first secure a "Certificate of Entitlement," valid for 10 years. Certificates are auctioned off twice a month. The price today hovers around S$20,000 in Singapore dollars, but it has been as high as S$110,000. On top of that, Singapore motorists pay 44 cents in duty for every liter of fuel they use (roughly $1.75 a gallon in the U.S.). Pulling it off But how has Singapore managed to implement controversial policies such as congestion pricing and the expensive auto "certificates of entitlement" when several other cities have tried launching similar systems but failed? A unified local government with strong leadership has surely been a major factor. But there have also been persuasive politics. The LTA, for example, softened the blow of the auto certificates of entitlement by lowering car registration taxes which had previously been a stunning 200 percent of the value of new vehicle. And trains and buses have relieved the crush on the roads -- "an effective public transport system that is a viable alternative" to driving, in the words of LTA Director of Road Operations Dr. Chin Kian Keong (who was also one of the authors of the road pricing system). Observers do not disagree that the public transport system is on the whole effective. But they point out that commuter complaints about packed trains and long bus arrivals have grown louder in recent years, largely because of Singapore's population growth. Not only that, road traffic has grown noticeably heavier in the past five years. [image: The city's electronic road-pricing gantries help control congestion] The city's electronic road-pricing gantries help control congestion The city has initiated a slew of responses, including higher driving charges, more frequent train service, more bus lanes -- plus the S$50 billion worth of rail and road projects scheduled for completion by 2020. Transport Minister Raymond Lim has an ambitious goal: to increase the percentage of public transit trips during morning rush hours from 59 percent in 2008 to 70 percent in the next 10 years. To do this, he acknowledges that public transport has to be as convenient and nearly as speedy as driving. Analysts applaud the efforts, but some say more needs to be done immediately. Transport researcher Dr. Lee Der Horng, an associate at the National University of Singapore, says: "I am concerned by the peak-hour capacity on our public transport system, and the increased congestion levels on our roads." Member of Parliament Lim Wee Kiak, who also heads a policy-monitoring committee, believes Singapore may face a serious transport crunch if not more is done between now and 2020. "We have an acute problem now that needs fast solutions in the short and medium term," he notes. Despite the complaints, a Gallup world pollof 20 cities in 2008 found that Singaporeans were the most satisfied with their public transport system. Whether they will still be so in the next few years remains to be seen. Comments transport and public health - the missing link *Chu Wa (not verified)* | 15 April 2010 - 8:59am I am a cyclist commuter in Singapore. Cycling is considered as a low-class transport here. I use a folding bike and sometimes combine with public transport (MRT, Taxi). I cycle to work everyday because it is healthy, fun, convenient, non-polluting and low cost. If public health and environment health is part of the responsibility of traffic planning, I am confident that bicycle and walking will receive much higher priority. Unfortunately the current transportation focus is only speed mode share for motorize transport. Singapore not an exception. A few minutes faster to work is not as important as keeping myself fit, happy and younger. In my opinion, public health and environmental well-being should be considered as part of the responsibility of sustainable traffic planning. - reply The Way Forward *Tim Campbell (not verified)* | 9 April 2010 - 11:25am Singapore is another of many examples in Asia showing the technical and political elements of control over the automobile. Tan's piece shows how political leadership, and not just control, helped Singapore move forward, for instance in the fine tuning of road pricing. Rail investments in Singapore, and especially the heavy investment in high speed rail in China, are additional markers that measures the increasing distance separating U.S. public transit from world leaders. - reply Why Singapore public transport ridership down *Christopher Tan (not verified)* | 1 April 2010 - 7:00am The main reasons for Singapore's public transport ridership falling in PERCENTAGE terms: - A fast-growing human population (from around 4.0 million in 2000 to almost 5.0 million last year, or +25%) - A fast-growing passenger car population (from 392,961 in 2000 to 576,988 last year, or +47%) In ABSOLUTE terms, public transport ridership (trains + buses, excl taxis) hit a record 5.04 million/day last year. From zvi.leve at gmail.com Thu May 13 22:46:06 2010 From: zvi.leve at gmail.com (Zvi Leve) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:46:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" - it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful parking lot to get to the equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the day these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This is just not sustainable. Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two residential, two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a vibrant activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. I appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries is away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I have my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be sustainable..... There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal Mobilities by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic of traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians in the Modern City . Good luck selling that argument.... Zvi From yanivbin at gmail.com Fri May 14 01:46:02 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:02 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Pune's 55% walkers have minimum facilities on road Message-ID: Pune's 55% walkers have minimum facilities on road Radheshyam Jadhav, TNN, May 10, 2010, 05.58am IST PUNE: Senior citizen H M Harlankar has developed a fear for crossing roads. "Busy chowks like Appa Balwant chowk in Budhwar Peth have footpaths overrun with hawkers. The roads are so busy with speeding vehicles that I am afraid for my life," Harlankar said. Sameer Dighe waited for 15 minutes on Fergusson College Road watching two children trying to cross. "They would walk half the distance, then retreat because of the speeding vehicles. They had to dodge not only the oncoming vehicles, but also those that zoomed in the wrong direction," he said. Pune is increasingly becoming a pedestrian-unfriendly city even though 37 per cent of the people walk to their destinations while 18 per cent use the cycle. But this 55 per cent non-motorised transport is among the most ignored in traffic planning and at risk because they have to share the same right of way with the motorised modes. This grim picture, reflecting callousness for pedestrians and cyclists, has been put forth in the concept note for a Comprehensive Transport Policy (CTP) for the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC). "Pedestrians are the most important component in traffic and transportation and one that is, sadly, the most ignored," the concept note said. "Today, roads are laid out, designed and built, all with an automobile (or two-wheeler) in mind. Not enough consideration is given to other users like pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Heritage sites and open spaces are increasingly being sacrificed to accommodate the needs of private auto-vehicles," it added. The hazards of walking in Pune is a direct impact of the growth of the vehicular population that has outdone Delhi's. "The city may have lesser number of vehicles, but the vehicular growth rate has exceeded Delhi's, an ugly sign of growing congestion. As cars and two-wheelers begin to jostle for more road space and use up public space for parking, the city will become less walkable. In fact, studies show that in Pune more than 55 per cent of the roads are being utilised for on-street parking. Much of the pavements have been encroached upon making walking even more difficult," said Anumita Roychowdhury of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). According to her, Pune has enormous opportunity to become more walkable and increase the share of daily walk trips. "Pune will have to protect and build on short trip lengths since the average trip distance is still about six km. The shorter trips can be converted to walk and bicycle trips that will require a well-designed and integrated pedestrian infrastructure. It will need a change in policy. Only a walkable city with good public transport can combat growing pollution and congestion and make the city liveable," Roychowdhury said. The CTP note says that 40 per cent of all major roads in the city have no footpaths and where they are present there is low use. "Footpaths must give pedestrians a continuos, convenient and comfortable walkway. They must be adequately wide, continually navigable with no or minimal breaks and free of obstructions. In their absence, pedestrians tend to use the carriageways, endangering themselves and impeding the flow of traffic," the note added. The CSE's findings on how walkable are our cities do not tilt the balance in the pedestrians' favour. The centre found that in most Indian cities, walkers outnumber those using vehicles. "Yet, walkers remain invisible in the maze of motorised traffic that chokes our roads. Pedestrians walk in extremely unsafe and hostile conditions, in constant conflict with motorised traffic and are easy victims to crashes and accidents. Countless people trip over potholes, slip on sludge, or are grievously hurt by bumping into numerous obstacles strewn along the footpaths. There is continuous erosion of space for walkers even though every journey begins and ends with a walking trip. Our civic authorities have little respect for them." the findings said. This applies to Pune as well. Pedestrians often face obstacles on footpaths. Reading kiosks, party offices and halls have come up at public places like gardens, footpaths and even inside housing societies, with backing from political outfits. On the other hand, the PMC is investing crores of rupees in elevated roads, road widening and flyovers disrupting the most direct route for walking, and pushing people to use foot overbridges, skywalks or to underground passes. "Pune lacks proper footpaths, zebra markings, pedestrian railings and signals. In fact, pedestrians are not in the picture when the civic body and the police plan traffic and transportation," said Vijay Kumbhar of Surajya Sangharsh Samiti. How to make walking viable Walkability reflects the quality of walking facilities and conditions that make walking safe, comfortable and convenient. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, stairways, curb cuts, ramps and transit stops. They should be well-designed and connected to help pedestrians to take the shortest direct route to destinations safely. However, walkers are ignored as is evident from the state of footpaths being narrowed to provide more space for carriageways. Huge investments made in roads, and elevated roadways have not helped to solve the congestion problem. Delhi has more than 20 per cent of land under roads which are being widened and flyovers are being built. Yet the city is gridlocked. ( Source-- Centre for Science and Environment) Think fast, act quick It is imperative to ensure that the road design does not increase dependence on and usage of personal vehicles. The policy focus must shift to public transport, walking and cycling. The government should mandate pedestrian plans and make it conditional to infrastructure funding. City development plans under JNNURM should have pedestrianisation' and funding linked with it. Immediately reform engineering and environmental guidelines for walkways and make their implementation mandatory. Ensure these guidelines are incorporated by all road building agencies. Harmonise existing laws for effective implementation. While relevant laws will have to be harmonised it will have to be combined with more direct legal protection of pedestrian space and rights. A road users' act for pedestrianisation that will have segregation of space, penalty for encroachment on pedestrian space, prevent usurping of pedestrian space for motorised traffic without justification. Urban local bodies must implement walkability audits of pedestrian ways, public transport plans must include pedestrians' plan for multimodal integration and zero tolerance policy for accidents The programme for small and medium towns under the aegis of the Union ministry of urban development should make the pedestrian plan mandatory. (Source -- Centre for Science and Environment) =================================== Story -2 Zagade to check encroachment drive Radheshyam Jadhav Pune: A tour of the city from May 17 to ensure action against encroachments is what municipal commissioner Mahesh Zagade has in mind. Zagade, in his order signed December 30, 2009 and issued to all civic departments the next day, had slammed officials for their "unfortunate mentality" towards illegal works. He had warned them of "stringent punishment and legal action for anti-social activity". He had directed strict action against encroachment on roads, footpaths, cycle tracks, service roads, illegal banners, dumping of rubble and waste into rivers and illegal construction. "The municipal commissioner has decided to visit parts of the city to ensure that his orders are followed. The PMC has launched an anti-encroachment drive and we will ensure that all the footpaths are free of encroachment," additional city engineer ( roads) Vivek Kharwadkar said. "Pedestrian facilities in Pune are better now compared to the last few years. It is walkable city, but there is scope for improvement," he added. head: WB team in city next month A World Bank (WB) team will be in Pune next month to discuss the Rs 227-crore loan for the civic body. If sanctioned, the funds will be used to develop infrastructure for non-motorised transport on the Bus Rapid Transit System route from Katraj to Hadapsar. The WB had agreed to the loan in-principle as per the detailed project report (DPR) presented by the PMC. The project proposal comprises construction of a 41-km cycle track and footpaths on 33 feeder routes of the pilot BRTS at a cost of Rs 67.37 crore, eight pedestrian subways and cycle tracks for Rs 28.90 crore, public awareness campaigns amounting to Rs 6.4 crore and cycle stands on the routes at a cost of Rs 3 crore. From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Fri May 14 01:58:20 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:28:20 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Sorry Karthik. I did not elaborate too much on my arguments. The park-and-ride that I have been proposing are more of what Zvi has mentioned (where is the space in Mumbai to have US / Europe style PnR??). You may have noticed that I proposed their incorporation in developments which are more like regional transport hubs with all-weather bus pick-up/drop-off, bicycle park, pedestrian throughfares, PnR and associated amenities. These are intended to promote use of public transport. There are generally residential components associated with these developments so the space utilisation can be maximised. Car ownership may be low in Mumbai, number of cars aren't. In 2009 there were 530,000 cars registered in Mumbai. Between 2001-05 growth in registered cars in Mumbai was 19% which jumped to 30% between 2005-09. We can argue endlessly on this but these numbers are not going to disappear overnight. The idea is to get these cars off the road as much as possible which then increases space for public transport. I work in Andheri which is the heart of metro construction. Karthik, you are welcome to join me in the morning anyday and I can show that a journey that is walkable in 20 minutes (Andheri station to Link Road) takes 30 to 45 minutes by bus. I have made a bold assumption when I say "walkable". One can walk, yes, but even by the worst standards this journey is not "walkable". Instead if stations are planned as TODs (which I am afraid is not happening anywhere in Mumbai), which is what I am proposing, walking environment improves, all-weather public transport interchanges are provided adjacent to metro stations with amenities. I was part of designing metro systems for a large part of my career in Hong Kong and am appalled on how stations are being planned in Mumbai. If there were enough transport activists who can look beyond the word "metro", there would be PILs for wasting public funds. Yes, it would work well, will have a high ridership in this mobility starved city but is that the best that can be offered? Unfortunately, mulit-modal integration, integrated development or any similar concept are not even understood here. Karthik, I agree there's lot that can be done but the question is whether it is being done? I said earlier that if I were almighty it is not how I will do things but I know I am not. I take present as a constraint and plan within a foreseeable framework. Its not about being right or wrong. I do not know what is "aam aadmi" (I presume you generalise them to low-income group) but have spoken to enough of them to realise that most of them hold the wrong dream. For them "owning a car/motorcycle" signifies an achievement in life. We need to address this mentality because this is the latent demand for private vehicles. By putting existing car owners on public transport, I think we can at least abate this mentality (works very well in HK/Singapore). End of the day, I have no problem with car ownership but with car usage. Best wishes, Alok On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > Mr. Jain, > > You have not elaborated on your argument for park & ride facilities in > Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain: > > a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the shoes > of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on *your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad planning, > especially when you are very far removed from the common man. > > Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city > given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large > majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode > of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park > and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just > outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people > walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and > the nearest development - which means more walking. > > Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who may > or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of > bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. > > b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people > start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park > at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs - > which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It > will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who > have no choice but to walk or cycle. > > c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be > changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your > support for park-and-ride facilities. > > But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we need > to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and we > need to enforce laws, but it can be done. > > d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons in > the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even > worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the > common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the > city. > > What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and > two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access > for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the > not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a > park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some > service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private > transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so > much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the > process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by > forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more > inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the > middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using > their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, > women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and > the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make > their lives even more difficult. > > I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and > places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the > metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that > a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: > >> In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of >> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser >> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive >> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" - >> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful >> parking lot to get to >> the >> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the >> day >> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This >> is >> just not sustainable. >> >> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close >> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two >> residential, >> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a vibrant >> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. >> I >> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries >> is >> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I >> have >> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be >> sustainable..... >> >> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal >> Mobilities >> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic of >> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very >> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and >> Pedestrians >> in the Modern City< >> http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 >> > >> . >> >> Good luck selling that argument.... >> >> Zvi >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). >> > > From krc12353 at gmail.com Fri May 14 00:58:41 2010 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao Cavale) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:58:41 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Mr. Jain, You have not elaborated on your argument for park & ride facilities in Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain: a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the shoes of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on *your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad planning, especially when you are very far removed from the common man. Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and the nearest development - which means more walking. Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who may or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs - which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who have no choice but to walk or cycle. c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your support for park-and-ride facilities. But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we need to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and we need to enforce laws, but it can be done. d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons in the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the city. What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make their lives even more difficult. I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: > In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of > development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser > development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive > parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" - > it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful > parking lot to get to > the > equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the > day > these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This is > just not sustainable. > > Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close > proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two > residential, > two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a vibrant > activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. I > appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries is > away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I have > my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be > sustainable..... > > There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal Mobilities > by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic of > traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very > appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians > in the Modern City< > http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 > > > . > > Good luck selling that argument.... > > Zvi > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From krc12353 at gmail.com Fri May 14 03:09:38 2010 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao Cavale) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:09:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Mr. Jain, You seem to be approaching this problem exclusively from the perspective of the architect designing the metro station. You lament the fact that streets are not walkable, and yet your design interventions remain focussed on the station itself. But the appropriate solution for a place could include improvements on residential streets or collector roads in the suburbs, new bus routes etc. also. Now a PnR does make the station more accessible for people, but the collector streets (say Mahakali Road in Chakala) may get choked because people who might have walked or taken a bus despite the inconveniences will now drive a two wheeler and park it at the station. We don't want that, do we? Instead, if we concentrated on making ped, bike and PT improvements on the smaller roads, ALL trips can be carried out by ped/bike or public transport. This option should not be dismissed beforehand, and there is nothing utopian about the option being proposed here. I have no quarrel with integrated development and intermodalism, but a PnR in the current policy environment will only choke collector streets and take us even further from walkable streets and neighbourhoods. And then there is the fact that multi-storey PnRs cost money - money that won't be easy to recover. If we expect people to park cars and take the metro, the parking rates will have to be very low, to keep the generalized cost of a metro trip competitive in comparison to the low cost of a trip carried out entirely by personal transport. If the PnR has to be subsidized, the public will pay the price for bribing car-owners to not destroy the city. Surely there are better ways of spending public money! In a city where there is more control over the number of personal vehicles, it might be valuable, but that is not the reality in Mumbai. That battle cannot be fought at a neighbourhood level. karthik On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Jains wrote: > Sorry Karthik. I did not elaborate too much on my arguments. > > The park-and-ride that I have been proposing are more of what Zvi has > mentioned (where is the space in Mumbai to have US / Europe style PnR??). > You may have noticed that I proposed their incorporation in developments > which are more like regional transport hubs with all-weather bus > pick-up/drop-off, bicycle park, pedestrian throughfares, PnR and associated > amenities. These are intended to promote use of public transport. There are > generally residential components associated with these developments so the > space utilisation can be maximised. > > Car ownership may be low in Mumbai, number of cars aren't. In 2009 there > were 530,000 cars registered in Mumbai. Between 2001-05 growth in registered > cars in Mumbai was 19% which jumped to 30% between 2005-09. We can argue > endlessly on this but these numbers are not going to disappear overnight. > The idea is to get these cars off the road as much as possible which then > increases space for public transport. I work in Andheri which is the heart > of metro construction. Karthik, you are welcome to join me in the morning > anyday and I can show that a journey that is walkable in 20 minutes (Andheri > station to Link Road) takes 30 to 45 minutes by bus. I have made a bold > assumption when I say "walkable". One can walk, yes, but even by the worst > standards this journey is not "walkable". > > Instead if stations are planned as TODs (which I am afraid is not happening > anywhere in Mumbai), which is what I am proposing, walking environment > improves, all-weather public transport interchanges are provided adjacent to > metro stations with amenities. I was part of designing metro systems for a > large part of my career in Hong Kong and am appalled on how stations are > being planned in Mumbai. If there were enough transport activists who can > look beyond the word "metro", there would be PILs for wasting public funds. > Yes, it would work well, will have a high ridership in this mobility starved > city but is that the best that can be offered? Unfortunately, mulit-modal > integration, integrated development or any similar concept are not even > understood here. > > Karthik, I agree there's lot that can be done but the question is whether > it is being done? I said earlier that if I were almighty it is not how I > will do things but I know I am not. I take present as a constraint and plan > within a foreseeable framework. Its not about being right or wrong. I do not > know what is "aam aadmi" (I presume you generalise them to low-income group) > but have spoken to enough of them to realise that most of them hold the > wrong dream. For them "owning a car/motorcycle" signifies an achievement in > life. We need to address this mentality because this is the latent demand > for private vehicles. By putting existing car owners on public transport, I > think we can at least abate this mentality (works very well in > HK/Singapore). End of the day, I have no problem with car ownership but with > car usage. > > Best wishes, > Alok > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > >> Mr. Jain, >> >> You have not elaborated on your argument for park & ride facilities in >> Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain: >> >> a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the >> shoes of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on * >> your* experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad planning, >> especially when you are very far removed from the common man. >> >> Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city >> given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large >> majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode >> of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park >> and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just >> outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people >> walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and >> the nearest development - which means more walking. >> >> Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who may >> or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of >> bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. >> >> b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people >> start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park >> at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs - >> which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It >> will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who >> have no choice but to walk or cycle. >> >> c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be >> changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your >> support for park-and-ride facilities. >> >> But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we >> need to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes >> and we need to enforce laws, but it can be done. >> >> d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons >> in the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even >> worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the >> common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the >> city. >> >> What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and >> two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access >> for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the >> not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a >> park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some >> service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private >> transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so >> much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the >> process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by >> forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more >> inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the >> middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using >> their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, >> women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and >> the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make >> their lives even more difficult. >> >> I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and >> places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the >> metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that >> a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. >> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: >> >>> In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of >>> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser >>> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive >>> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" >>> - >>> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful >>> parking lot to get to >>> the >>> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the >>> day >>> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This >>> is >>> just not sustainable. >>> >>> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close >>> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two >>> residential, >>> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a vibrant >>> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. >>> I >>> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries >>> is >>> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I >>> have >>> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be >>> sustainable..... >>> >>> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal >>> Mobilities >>> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic >>> of >>> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very >>> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and >>> Pedestrians >>> in the Modern City< >>> http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 >>> > >>> . >>> >>> Good luck selling that argument.... >>> >>> Zvi >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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'). >>> >> >> > From edelman at greenidea.eu Fri May 14 08:53:53 2010 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 01:53:53 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> Hi, Just to add one thing: It seems clear that parking should be restricted or impossible (except for residents) within a few hundred metres of any new stations, or drivers will just create their own informal park & ride, or of create incentive for some clever, private landowner to build a lot themselves... - T On 05/13/2010 05:58 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > Mr. Jain, > > You have not elaborated on your argument for park& ride facilities in > Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain: > > a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the shoes > of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on > *your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad > planning, > especially when you are very far removed from the common man. > > Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city > given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large > majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode > of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park > and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just > outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people > walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and > the nearest development - which means more walking. > > Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who may > or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of > bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. > > b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people > start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park > at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs - > which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It > will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who > have no choice but to walk or cycle. > > c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be > changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your > support for park-and-ride facilities. > > But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we need > to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and we > need to enforce laws, but it can be done. > > d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons in > the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even > worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the > common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the > city. > > What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and > two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access > for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the > not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a > park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some > service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private > transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so > much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the > process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by > forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more > inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the > middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using > their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, > women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and > the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make > their lives even more difficult. > > I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and > places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the > metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that > a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: > > >> In my opinion, Park& Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of >> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser >> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive >> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" - >> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful >> parking lot to get to >> the >> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the >> day >> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This is >> just not sustainable. >> >> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close >> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two >> residential, >> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a vibrant >> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. I >> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries is >> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I have >> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be >> sustainable..... >> >> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal Mobilities >> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic of >> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very >> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians >> in the Modern City< >> http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 >> >>> >> . >> >> Good luck selling that argument.... >> >> Zvi >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). > > -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 Immobile: ++49(0)30 7554 0001 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Fri May 14 13:11:04 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:41:04 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Dear Karthik, Normally, a 500m periphery around the station is walk-in catchment and beyond that is ride-in. I have done many surveys on ground to make that assertion. We need to make the stations accessible for all. At the local level a proper land-use control can address the problem. Higher density at or around stations work very well (a classic TOD). There are two choices- - Not provide any parking facility (or PnR) near the stations: Either what Todd stated would happen or the car owners are going to drive all the way to their destination. - Provide PnR at the stations - Car owners park at the station and use public transport. This makes Public Transport for all - the rich and the poor. It then takes out the stigma associated with it and reduces the aspirational ambitions for future car growth. (in HK, Singapore - one is considered to be a nutcase if he/she drove and is late for a meeting irrespective of position and stature. Even CEOs travel on public transport, even though they might have cars). You may consider the former to be lesser evil while I pick the latter. Obvious is not always the solution, facts, howsoever uncomfortable or improbable they are, cannot be ignored. I am with everybody who is leading the fight against car-led growth model but not ready to do nothing until that happens. I also think we are becoming repetitive on this public forum. I would be happy to discuss this further off-line. Who knows we might end up with something constructive for Paul's report. Have a nice day. Alok On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > Mr. Jain, > > You seem to be approaching this problem exclusively from the perspective of > the architect designing the metro station. You lament the fact that streets > are not walkable, and yet your design interventions remain focussed on the > station itself. > > But the appropriate solution for a place could include improvements on > residential streets or collector roads in the suburbs, new bus routes etc. > also. Now a PnR does make the station more accessible for people, but the > collector streets (say Mahakali Road in Chakala) may get choked because > people who might have walked or taken a bus despite the inconveniences will > now drive a two wheeler and park it at the station. We don't want that, do > we? > > Instead, if we concentrated on making ped, bike and PT improvements on the > smaller roads, ALL trips can be carried out by ped/bike or public transport. > This option should not be dismissed beforehand, and there is nothing utopian > about the option being proposed here. > > I have no quarrel with integrated development and intermodalism, but a PnR > in the current policy environment will only choke collector streets and take > us even further from walkable streets and neighbourhoods. > > And then there is the fact that multi-storey PnRs cost money - money that > won't be easy to recover. If we expect people to park cars and take the > metro, the parking rates will have to be very low, to keep the generalized > cost of a metro trip competitive in comparison to the low cost of a trip > carried out entirely by personal transport. If the PnR has to be subsidized, > the public will pay the price for bribing car-owners to not destroy the > city. Surely there are better ways of spending public money! > > In a city where there is more control over the number of personal vehicles, > it might be valuable, but that is not the reality in Mumbai. That battle > cannot be fought at a neighbourhood level. > > karthik > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Jains wrote: > >> Sorry Karthik. I did not elaborate too much on my arguments. >> >> The park-and-ride that I have been proposing are more of what Zvi has >> mentioned (where is the space in Mumbai to have US / Europe style PnR??). >> You may have noticed that I proposed their incorporation in developments >> which are more like regional transport hubs with all-weather bus >> pick-up/drop-off, bicycle park, pedestrian throughfares, PnR and associated >> amenities. These are intended to promote use of public transport. There are >> generally residential components associated with these developments so the >> space utilisation can be maximised. >> >> Car ownership may be low in Mumbai, number of cars aren't. In 2009 there >> were 530,000 cars registered in Mumbai. Between 2001-05 growth in registered >> cars in Mumbai was 19% which jumped to 30% between 2005-09. We can argue >> endlessly on this but these numbers are not going to disappear overnight. >> The idea is to get these cars off the road as much as possible which then >> increases space for public transport. I work in Andheri which is the heart >> of metro construction. Karthik, you are welcome to join me in the morning >> anyday and I can show that a journey that is walkable in 20 minutes (Andheri >> station to Link Road) takes 30 to 45 minutes by bus. I have made a bold >> assumption when I say "walkable". One can walk, yes, but even by the worst >> standards this journey is not "walkable". >> >> Instead if stations are planned as TODs (which I am afraid is not >> happening anywhere in Mumbai), which is what I am proposing, walking >> environment improves, all-weather public transport interchanges are provided >> adjacent to metro stations with amenities. I was part of designing metro >> systems for a large part of my career in Hong Kong and am appalled on how >> stations are being planned in Mumbai. If there were enough transport >> activists who can look beyond the word "metro", there would be PILs for >> wasting public funds. Yes, it would work well, will have a high ridership in >> this mobility starved city but is that the best that can be offered? >> Unfortunately, mulit-modal integration, integrated development or any >> similar concept are not even understood here. >> >> Karthik, I agree there's lot that can be done but the question is whether >> it is being done? I said earlier that if I were almighty it is not how I >> will do things but I know I am not. I take present as a constraint and plan >> within a foreseeable framework. Its not about being right or wrong. I do not >> know what is "aam aadmi" (I presume you generalise them to low-income group) >> but have spoken to enough of them to realise that most of them hold the >> wrong dream. For them "owning a car/motorcycle" signifies an achievement in >> life. We need to address this mentality because this is the latent demand >> for private vehicles. By putting existing car owners on public transport, I >> think we can at least abate this mentality (works very well in >> HK/Singapore). End of the day, I have no problem with car ownership but with >> car usage. >> >> Best wishes, >> Alok >> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: >> >>> Mr. Jain, >>> >>> You have not elaborated on your argument for park & ride facilities in >>> Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain: >>> >>> a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the >>> shoes of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on * >>> your* experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad >>> planning, especially when you are very far removed from the common man. >>> >>> Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city >>> given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large >>> majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode >>> of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park >>> and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just >>> outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people >>> walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and >>> the nearest development - which means more walking. >>> >>> Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who >>> may or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of >>> bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. >>> >>> b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people >>> start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park >>> at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs - >>> which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It >>> will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who >>> have no choice but to walk or cycle. >>> >>> c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be >>> changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your >>> support for park-and-ride facilities. >>> >>> But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we >>> need to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes >>> and we need to enforce laws, but it can be done. >>> >>> d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons >>> in the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even >>> worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the >>> common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the >>> city. >>> >>> What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and >>> two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access >>> for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the >>> not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a >>> park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some >>> service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private >>> transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so >>> much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the >>> process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by >>> forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more >>> inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the >>> middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using >>> their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, >>> women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and >>> the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make >>> their lives even more difficult. >>> >>> I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and >>> places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the >>> metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that >>> a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. >>> >>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: >>> >>>> In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage >>>> of >>>> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser >>>> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). >>>> Massive >>>> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" >>>> - >>>> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful >>>> parking lot to get >>>> to the >>>> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the >>>> day >>>> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This >>>> is >>>> just not sustainable. >>>> >>>> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close >>>> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two >>>> residential, >>>> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a >>>> vibrant >>>> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the >>>> day. I >>>> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries >>>> is >>>> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I >>>> have >>>> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be >>>> sustainable..... >>>> >>>> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal >>>> Mobilities >>>> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic >>>> of >>>> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very >>>> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and >>>> Pedestrians >>>> in the Modern City< >>>> http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 >>>> > >>>> . >>>> >>>> Good luck selling that argument.... >>>> >>>> Zvi >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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'). >>>> >>> >>> >> > From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Fri May 14 13:27:32 2010 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 12:27:32 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> Message-ID: Dear All, I am trying to get my head around this. If we make parking impossible around stations would the implication not be that people use their car for all of their travel into the city? Is that what we want? Cornie On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Todd Edelman wrote: > Hi, > > Just to add one thing: It seems clear that parking should be restricted > or impossible (except for residents) within a few hundred metres of any > new stations, or drivers will just create their own informal park & > ride, or of create incentive for some clever, private landowner to build > a lot themselves... > > - T > > On 05/13/2010 05:58 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > > Mr. Jain, > > > > You have not elaborated on your argument for park& ride facilities in > > Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me > explain: > > > > a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the > shoes > > of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on > > *your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad > > planning, > > especially when you are very far removed from the common man. > > > > Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city > > given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large > > majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another > mode > > of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a > park > > and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers > just > > outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For > people > > walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station > and > > the nearest development - which means more walking. > > > > Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who > may > > or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of > > bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. > > > > b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people > > start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to > park > > at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs > - > > which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! > It > > will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those > who > > have no choice but to walk or cycle. > > > > c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be > > changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your > > support for park-and-ride facilities. > > > > But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we > need > > to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and > we > > need to enforce laws, but it can be done. > > > > d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons > in > > the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even > > worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the > > common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in > the > > city. > > > > What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and > > two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and > access > > for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the > > not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a > > park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some > > service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private > > transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be > so > > much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the > > process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, > by > > forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more > > inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving > the > > middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using > > their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, > > women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, > and > > the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make > > their lives even more difficult. > > > > I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and > > places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and > the > > metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty > that > > a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: > > > > > >> In my opinion, Park& Ride should only be considered a temporary stage > of > >> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser > >> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). > Massive > >> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" > - > >> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful > >> parking lot to get > to > >> the > >> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the > >> day > >> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This > is > >> just not sustainable. > >> > >> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close > >> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two > >> residential, > >> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a > vibrant > >> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the > day. I > >> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries > is > >> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I > have > >> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be > >> sustainable..... > >> > >> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal > Mobilities > >> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic > of > >> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very > >> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and > Pedestrians > >> in the Modern City< > >> > http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 > >> > >>> > >> . > >> > >> Good luck selling that argument.... > >> > >> Zvi > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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'). > > > > > > > -- > > Todd Edelman > Green Idea Factory, > a member of the OPENbike team > > Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 > Immobile: ++49(0)30 7554 0001 > > edelman@greenidea.eu > www.greenidea.eu > todd@openbike.se > www.openbike.se > > Skype: toddedelman > > Urbanstr. 45 > 10967 Berlin > Germany > > *** > > OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From whook at itdp.org Fri May 14 17:01:29 2010 From: whook at itdp.org (whook at itdp.org) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:01:29 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg><4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> Message-ID: <1210169092-1273824091-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1679527132-@bda2922.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Its a bit context specific Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Cornie Huizenga Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 12:27:32 To: Cc: Sustran List Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? Dear All, I am trying to get my head around this. If we make parking impossible around stations would the implication not be that people use their car for all of their travel into the city? Is that what we want? Cornie On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Todd Edelman wrote: > Hi, > > Just to add one thing: It seems clear that parking should be restricted > or impossible (except for residents) within a few hundred metres of any > new stations, or drivers will just create their own informal park & > ride, or of create incentive for some clever, private landowner to build > a lot themselves... > > - T > > On 05/13/2010 05:58 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale wrote: > > Mr. Jain, > > > > You have not elaborated on your argument for park& ride facilities in > > Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me > explain: > > > > a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the > shoes > > of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on > > *your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad > > planning, > > especially when you are very far removed from the common man. > > > > Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city > > given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large > > majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another > mode > > of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a > park > > and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers > just > > outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For > people > > walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station > and > > the nearest development - which means more walking. > > > > Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who > may > > or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of > > bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time. > > > > b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people > > start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to > park > > at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs > - > > which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! > It > > will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those > who > > have no choice but to walk or cycle. > > > > c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be > > changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your > > support for park-and-ride facilities. > > > > But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we > need > > to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and > we > > need to enforce laws, but it can be done. > > > > d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons > in > > the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even > > worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the > > common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in > the > > city. > > > > What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and > > two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and > access > > for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the > > not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a > > park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some > > service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private > > transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be > so > > much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the > > process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, > by > > forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more > > inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving > the > > middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using > > their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people, > > women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, > and > > the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make > > their lives even more difficult. > > > > I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and > > places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and > the > > metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty > that > > a park-and-ride will only result in disaster. > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve wrote: > > > > > >> In my opinion, Park& Ride should only be considered a temporary stage > of > >> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser > >> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). > Massive > >> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" > - > >> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful > >> parking lot to get > to > >> the > >> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the > >> day > >> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This > is > >> just not sustainable. > >> > >> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close > >> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two > >> residential, > >> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors' and create a > vibrant > >> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the > day. I > >> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries > is > >> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I > have > >> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be > >> sustainable..... > >> > >> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal > Mobilities > >> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic > of > >> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very > >> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and > Pedestrians > >> in the Modern City< > >> > http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928 > >> > >>> > >> . > >> > >> Good luck selling that argument.... > >> > >> Zvi > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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'). > > > > > > > -- > > Todd Edelman > Green Idea Factory, > a member of the OPENbike team > > Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 > Immobile: ++49(0)30 7554 0001 > > edelman@greenidea.eu > www.greenidea.eu > todd@openbike.se > www.openbike.se > > Skype: toddedelman > > Urbanstr. 45 > 10967 Berlin > Germany > > *** > > OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri May 14 17:09:57 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:09:57 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The Hundred Faces behind World Streets Message-ID: <00b101caf33c$d96cbd50$8c4637f0$@britton@ecoplan.org> The Hundred Faces behind World Streets We firmly believe that the move to sustainable lives is a very personal matter. For that reason, every article that appears in World Streets is accompanied by a short bio note and photo identifying the author. We want you to know who they are and what they look like.. These are not autonomous or institutional pieces; every thing that appears here has a name and face behind it. Today we have assembled for your viewing pleasure small photos of 160 of our authors and collaborators. There are more and of course we really do need to have each identified by name and country. In time. Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Eric Britton | World Streets | The New Mobility Agenda | Paris | +331 7550 3788| Skype newmobility From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Fri May 14 17:20:47 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 16:20:47 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog (http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html). 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build public transport ridership than P&R. Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia. The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density suburban context. 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns the land). [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian cities. That's another issue!] These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to the stations of the Delhi Metro? 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more effectively by other means. This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that too.] Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them. For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there will not be any parking near mass transit stations. As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is rather low or possibly zero. By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it would be very expensive. A final thought: If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are still pretty attractive without P&R. I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri May 14 20:31:01 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:31:01 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? Message-ID: <014c01caf358$f055b1e0$d10115a0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Subject: Good questions, the importance of Friends, This is a great discussion and one of the things I enjoy most about it are the considerable differences of opinion. That is, I believe, as it should be in this case. I have always felt that asking good questions on complex and important topics is in almost in all cases a more creative contribution than coming up with what are proposed as "good answers". In fact one of the outstanding characteristics of the old mobility thinking and practice that we must now really leave behind us once and for all, was that invariably policymakers and others proposed their "great answers", before asking all of the necessary fundamental questions. I think we have seen that happen sufficiently often and at such high cost, that we must be extremely wary of repeating that mind-lite pattern in the future. Just make sure I am quite clear on this. it is my experience that a good question opens up the debate, while an "answer", good or less good, has a tendency to close, or at least to try to close, the debate. If only the issues and choices that we must deal with here were more simple, we might be satisfied with our best early answers. But in almost all cases the world or history is written a few years would not. So here is my proposal: I would like to invite one or more of you to write up an article on this -- it does not have to be long -- in which you state the question, the array of answers (which in the first instance could possibly be organized as pro and con), and then see if you can come up with some kind of synthesis and final policy recommendations for this kind of approach in Asian cities. To my mind the pattern and most penetrating and mature response is already pretty clear. But I am sure others of you will not share my views, and that is of course exactly as it should be. I think this could be an excellent contribution by Sustran (and by Worldstreets). Any volunteers? Best/Eric PS. And oh yes, my humble answer to Paul's good question. For starters, if one new parking slot is created or allowed to continue, FULL COST PRICING for parking must be the name of the game. And that possibly in addition enhanced by some kind of rigorous tax on a rolling scale , which guarantees that the cost of parking will steadily increase. In any event, strategic parking policy is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal for creating the mobility systems that the great majority of people need and deserve. Let us use it wisely. And often Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat May 15 02:18:23 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 19:18:23 +0200 Subject: [sustran] No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians in the Modern City Message-ID: <01f301caf389$80c0f980$8242ec80$@britton@ecoplan.org> No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians in the Modern City As most of our regular readers are well aware World Streets is no friend of speed in cities. To the contrary, it is our firm position that a considerable number of the basic objectives associated with sustainable mobility and sustainable cities can be achieved if we do no more than to reduce top speeds in and around our cities in a strategic and carefully thought-out way. The great technological virtuosity of traffic engineers and technical planners permit us to do this while at the same time retaining a well working transportation system, a healthier city, and a viable local economy. Listen to what John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralta have to tell us on the subject. Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Eric Britton | World Streets | The New Mobility Agenda | Paris | +331 7550 3788| Skype newmobility __,_._,___ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 18 04:20:59 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:20:59 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Partnernships - What's going on this summer? Message-ID: <158b01caf5f6$1c5123c0$54f36b40$@britton@ecoplan.org> New Mobility Partnerships - What's going on this summer? Two or three times a year your editor sits down and does his best to compile a readable synopsis of some of the more important things going on in World Streets, then to be communicated in one magical shot to the close to four thousand friends and colleagues around the world who have been involved in some way in these dialogues and projects over the last several decades. Here you have today's best seasonal effort, to which as always, comments, criticism and suggestions are warmly welcome. Judged from a planetary or Kyoto perspective, or from an individual or public health perspective, or an economic perspective, or ... or ... our present arrangements for transport in cities are seriously damaged. As things stand today in city after city around the world, they threaten health in the city and on the planet. They are dangerous. They are costly. They are disruptive. They are thoroughly dysfunctional. And they are howlingly unfair. It does not have to be like that. We can do something about it, and we should. But we need to join forces to get the job done. Article freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org Discussion in New Mobility Forum. Post to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Eric Britton | World Streets | The New Mobility Agenda | Paris | +331 7550 3788| Skype newmobility From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Tue May 18 10:45:09 2010 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 20:45:09 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> This is a nice discussion. I reiterate the priority that was mentioned for bike-and-ride integration because the catchment area is much higher and the cost of building the parking spaces, operating them and maintaining them is very (incredibly!) low when compared to other alternatives. This Friday TransMilenio will inaugurate its fifth bicycle parking station (covered, guarded, etc), which is integrated into the (flat) fare. This one and the others are located at the terminal stations or key interchange stations, and they've reduced the use of feeder buses (which is very good because those are pretty expensive and are also integrated into the fare). We tried to talk them into doing more of these in other stations, but for various reasons we couldn't get through to them... pity. Ah, Guangzhou's BRT has very nice integration both for regular bikes and public bike stations. They have bike parking in every station. It's also useful when you're thinking about cities in the South (which is what Sustran is all about) because car ownership is low (and that's good!) so you don't want to give people additional reasons to go into debt to buy a car or motorcycle and some years later go live in a suburb. I think someone already pointed this out in another email. I think that is a very important issue: it's not about getting everyone into public transport at any cost, but about thinking what you really want (access, etc) and then planning for it. Having park and ride everywhere may end up generating longer trips for many people because they feel they can live farther away. I guess it's very difficult to prove this but it's important to reflect upon it. Further, the cost of land for park-and-ride that Paul mentioned is most important because that will generate a very high capital cost for a system, especially in dense areas and moreso in CBDs! However, in Guatemala they have been able to get private developers to pay for (underground) park-n-ride plus the entire station of the BRT system. But I think they charge for parking additionally. So if you'll do park-n-ride, charge it. If not charging, then forget it and put your money into bike-and-ride. Best regards, Carlosfelipe Pardo On 14/05/2010 03:20 a.m., Paul Barter wrote: > I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > > > > The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > > > > I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog (http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html). > > > > 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > > > > It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build public transport ridership than P&R. > > > > Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia. > > > > The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density suburban context. > > > > 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. > > > > P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns the land). > > > > [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian cities. That's another issue!] > > > > These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to the stations of the Delhi Metro? > > > > 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more effectively by other means. > > > > This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > > > > Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that too.] > > > > Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them. For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? > > > > 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > > > > As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is rather low or possibly zero. > > > > By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it would be very expensive. > > > > > > A final thought: > > > > If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are still pretty attractive without P&R. > > > > I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > > > > Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul A. Barter > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From mreplogle at me.com Tue May 18 11:29:04 2010 From: mreplogle at me.com (Michael Replogle) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:29:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> As the author of a 1983 book, "Bicycles and Public Transportation: New Links to Suburban Transit Markets," which looked at 100 years of evolution of access to public transport in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and coauthor of a follow-up 1991 study, "Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit," published by the US Federal Highway Administration, and various related articles (see for example: http://www.edf.org/documents/2294_BikesJournal.pdf or http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5483 or http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.html or http://www.environmentaldefence.org/article.cfm?contentID=2407) I want to support Carlos Felipe Pardo's comments on this subject in their entirety, as well as Paul Barter's comments. Building park-and-ride lots at public transport stops is justified at times. But parking spaces should always be priced to recover at least their full capital and operating costs. Time-of-day market pricing to ensure 85% average occupancy, as Donald Shoup advocates for parking management, should be encouraged. Parking should be a lower priority use for space in locations with high public transport accessibility. There may be occasions and places when park-and-ride lots serve as land banks awaiting conversion to higher value uses. But in general, high quality pedestrian and bicycle access should be given first priority for access to public transport, as these are the least cost access modes. Park-and-ride spaces should be in higher cost structured parking (above or below ground), so that high access land area near public transport stations can be developed as soon as possible to their highest and best use, as high density housing, commercial uses, and employment centers. If there are transit access subsidies to be offered, they should go to bike access and pedestrian access, encouraging low carbon travel. Subsidies should not be targeted to higher income motorized travelers for transit access. But that said, it can be valuable to offer motor vehicle dependent travelers an option to drive to transit and park for a reasonable fee, to expand their travel choices. Lack of appropriately priced car parking near public transport will reinforce the car dependence of those who might be willing and able to pay for a park-and-ride trip, but for whom walking or biking to transit may be impractical or inconvenient, given the value they place on their time. Michael Replogle Global Policy Director and Founder Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 1225 Eye Street NW, Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20005 USA +1.202.534.1604 +1.301.529.0351 mobile mreplogle@itdp.org On May 17, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > This is a nice discussion. I reiterate the priority that was mentioned > for bike-and-ride integration because the catchment area is much higher > and the cost of building the parking spaces, operating them and > maintaining them is very (incredibly!) low when compared to other > alternatives. This Friday TransMilenio will inaugurate its fifth bicycle > parking station (covered, guarded, etc), which is integrated into the > (flat) fare. This one and the others are located at the terminal > stations or key interchange stations, and they've reduced the use of > feeder buses (which is very good because those are pretty expensive and > are also integrated into the fare). We tried to talk them into doing > more of these in other stations, but for various reasons we couldn't get > through to them... pity. Ah, Guangzhou's BRT has very nice integration > both for regular bikes and public bike stations. They have bike parking > in every station. > > It's also useful when you're thinking about cities in the South (which > is what Sustran is all about) because car ownership is low (and that's > good!) so you don't want to give people additional reasons to go into > debt to buy a car or motorcycle and some years later go live in a > suburb. I think someone already pointed this out in another email. I > think that is a very important issue: it's not about getting everyone > into public transport at any cost, but about thinking what you really > want (access, etc) and then planning for it. Having park and ride > everywhere may end up generating longer trips for many people because > they feel they can live farther away. I guess it's very difficult to > prove this but it's important to reflect upon it. > > Further, the cost of land for park-and-ride that Paul mentioned is most > important because that will generate a very high capital cost for a > system, especially in dense areas and moreso in CBDs! However, in > Guatemala they have been able to get private developers to pay for > (underground) park-n-ride plus the entire station of the BRT system. But > I think they charge for parking additionally. > > So if you'll do park-n-ride, charge it. If not charging, then forget it > and put your money into bike-and-ride. > > Best regards, > > Carlosfelipe Pardo > > > On 14/05/2010 03:20 a.m., Paul Barter wrote: >> I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. >> >> >> >> The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). >> >> >> >> I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog (http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html). >> >> >> >> 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). >> >> >> >> It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build public transport ridership than P&R. >> >> >> >> Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia. >> >> >> >> The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density suburban context. >> >> >> >> 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. >> >> >> >> P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns the land). >> >> >> >> [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian cities. That's another issue!] >> >> >> >> These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to the stations of the Delhi Metro? >> >> >> >> 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more effectively by other means. >> >> >> >> This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] >> >> >> >> Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that too.] >> >> >> >> Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them. For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? >> >> >> >> 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there will not be any parking near mass transit stations. >> >> >> >> As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is rather low or possibly zero. >> >> >> >> By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it would be very expensive. >> >> >> >> >> >> A final thought: >> >> >> >> If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are still pretty attractive without P&R. >> >> >> >> I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. >> >> >> >> Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> Paul A. Barter >> >> http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx >> >> http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). From sudhir at cai-asia.org Tue May 18 13:25:23 2010 From: sudhir at cai-asia.org (Sudhir) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:25:23 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Better Air Quality 2010 -- Call for Abstracts: Extended to 31 May In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The call for abstract has been extended. Please do note the change and submit one if you have missed it earlier. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Co Date: 18 May 2010 11:34 Subject: [cai-asia] Better Air Quality 2010 -- Call for Abstracts: Extended to 31 May To: Clean Air Initiative -- Asia Better Air Quality 2010 will be held in Singapore from 9 to 11 November at the Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre. BAQ 2010 is organized by the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities . Call for Abstracts: Extended to 31 May CAI-Asia encourages you to submit abstracts on 1. Sustainable Cities and Urban Development 2. Air Quality and GHG Monitoring and Impacts (covering all sources) 3. Air Quality Management & Climate Change Mitigation (covering all sources) 4. Transport Systems and Modes 5. Clean Fuels and Vehicles 6. Industry and other sources Abstracts can cover academic, technical- or policy-related studies, projects and programs, and technologies, and should indicate to which topic relevant to the BAQ theme. An Asian focus is required and abstracts can relate to the city, national or regional levels. Abstracts with a focus on Europe, USA, or others parts of the world should clearly state the relevance of the proposed paper to Asia. Priority will be given to abstracts which focus on new research and innovative policies and solutions and that are relevant to the theme. Please submit your abstracts with maximum 300 words, reference to one of the five topics above and at least 3 keywords to gianina.panopio(at)cai-asia.org, with a copy to baq2010(at)cai-asia.org. See sample abstract . Deadline for submission has been extended to *31 May 2010.* --- You are currently subscribed to cai-asia as: sudhir@cai-asia.org. To view archived messages, go to http://groups.google.com/group/cai-asia. Important note: This is a moderated listserv. If you encounter problems, or if you would like to remove your name from our listserv, email Mike Co [mike.co(at)cai-asia(dot)org] AND Gianina Panopio [gianina.panopio(at)cai-asia(dot)org] Please do not email your complaints directly to the listserv. -- 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 Visit our new portal: www.cleanairinitiative.org Skype : sudhirgota From sudhir at cai-asia.org Tue May 18 14:29:45 2010 From: sudhir at cai-asia.org (Sudhir) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:29:45 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> Message-ID: I agree with Michael. My problem with the issue is with the pricing. How much is the optimal number for the MRT stations and what is the optimal number for the city? see Bangalore Parking policy @ http://www.bmlta.org/sites/default/files/Draft%20Parking%20Policy%20for%20BMR.pdf the City plan is to charge 25 rs ( approx 0.6 USD) for two hours for two wheelers and 1 USD for 2 hours with Car. Do you think this is enough? Currently the parking is free in majority of the areas due to mixed use or people pay 0.05-0.2 USD /hour if they don't know the tricks to find free parking. New Mayor seems entirely against "Pay and Park" system. I personally would not like to see subsidized parking anywhere in the city.. not in my home and not near the MRT/Bus station. See http://www.colliers.com/content/globalcolliersparkingratesurvey2009.pdf for 2009 parking rates.. Sudhir On 18 May 2010 10:29, Michael Replogle wrote: > As the author of a 1983 book, "Bicycles and Public Transportation: New > Links to Suburban Transit Markets," which looked at 100 years of evolution > of access to public transport in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and coauthor > of a follow-up 1991 study, "Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit," > published by the US Federal Highway Administration, and various related > articles (see for example: > http://www.edf.org/documents/2294_BikesJournal.pdf or > http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5483 or > http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.htmlor > http://www.environmentaldefence.org/article.cfm?contentID=2407) I want to > support Carlos Felipe Pardo's comments on this subject in their entirety, as > well as Paul Barter's comments. Building park-and-ride lots at public > transport stops is justified at times. But parking spaces should always be > priced to recover at least their full capital and operating costs. > Time-of-day market pricing to ensure 85% average occupan > cy, as Donald Shoup advocates for parking management, should be > encouraged. > > Parking should be a lower priority use for space in locations with high > public transport accessibility. There may be occasions and places when > park-and-ride lots serve as land banks awaiting conversion to higher value > uses. But in general, high quality pedestrian and bicycle access should be > given first priority for access to public transport, as these are the least > cost access modes. Park-and-ride spaces should be in higher cost structured > parking (above or below ground), so that high access land area near public > transport stations can be developed as soon as possible to their highest and > best use, as high density housing, commercial uses, and employment centers. > If there are transit access subsidies to be offered, they should go to bike > access and pedestrian access, encouraging low carbon travel. Subsidies > should not be targeted to higher income motorized travelers for transit > access. But that said, it can be valuable to offer motor vehicle dependent > travelers an option to > drive to transit and park for a reasonable fee, to expand their travel > choices. Lack of appropriately priced car parking near public transport will > reinforce the car dependence of those who might be willing and able to pay > for a park-and-ride trip, but for whom walking or biking to transit may be > impractical or inconvenient, given the value they place on their time. > > Michael Replogle > Global Policy Director and Founder > Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > 1225 Eye Street NW, Ninth Floor > Washington, DC 20005 USA > +1.202.534.1604 > +1.301.529.0351 mobile > mreplogle@itdp.org > > > > > On May 17, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > > > This is a nice discussion. I reiterate the priority that was mentioned > > for bike-and-ride integration because the catchment area is much higher > > and the cost of building the parking spaces, operating them and > > maintaining them is very (incredibly!) low when compared to other > > alternatives. This Friday TransMilenio will inaugurate its fifth bicycle > > parking station (covered, guarded, etc), which is integrated into the > > (flat) fare. This one and the others are located at the terminal > > stations or key interchange stations, and they've reduced the use of > > feeder buses (which is very good because those are pretty expensive and > > are also integrated into the fare). We tried to talk them into doing > > more of these in other stations, but for various reasons we couldn't get > > through to them... pity. Ah, Guangzhou's BRT has very nice integration > > both for regular bikes and public bike stations. They have bike parking > > in every station. > > > > It's also useful when you're thinking about cities in the South (which > > is what Sustran is all about) because car ownership is low (and that's > > good!) so you don't want to give people additional reasons to go into > > debt to buy a car or motorcycle and some years later go live in a > > suburb. I think someone already pointed this out in another email. I > > think that is a very important issue: it's not about getting everyone > > into public transport at any cost, but about thinking what you really > > want (access, etc) and then planning for it. Having park and ride > > everywhere may end up generating longer trips for many people because > > they feel they can live farther away. I guess it's very difficult to > > prove this but it's important to reflect upon it. > > > > Further, the cost of land for park-and-ride that Paul mentioned is most > > important because that will generate a very high capital cost for a > > system, especially in dense areas and moreso in CBDs! However, in > > Guatemala they have been able to get private developers to pay for > > (underground) park-n-ride plus the entire station of the BRT system. But > > I think they charge for parking additionally. > > > > So if you'll do park-n-ride, charge it. If not charging, then forget it > > and put your money into bike-and-ride. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Carlosfelipe Pardo > > > > > > On 14/05/2010 03:20 a.m., Paul Barter wrote: > >> I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > >> > >> > >> > >> The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, > Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > >> > >> > >> > >> I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in > my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog ( > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > ). > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are > within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > >> > >> > >> > >> It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is > highest. Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more > to build public transport ridership than P&R. > >> > >> > >> > >> Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to > these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into > the newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these > high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being > implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia. > >> > >> > >> > >> The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in > locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a > low-density suburban context. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large > subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. > >> > >> > >> > >> P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large > subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government > already owns the land). > >> > >> > >> > >> [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not > just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian > cities. That's another issue!] > >> > >> > >> > >> These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car > ownership rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority > of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive > to the stations of the Delhi Metro? > >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more > effectively by other means. > >> > >> > >> > >> This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public > transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to > reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists > into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic > reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R > subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > >> > >> > >> > >> Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we > can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based > transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service > (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian > environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that > too.] > >> > >> > >> > >> Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But > I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help > everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever > achieving them. For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine > small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices > perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it > opens? > >> > >> > >> > >> 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying > there will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > >> > >> > >> > >> As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located > within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day > when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened > to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's > P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised > during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is > rather low or possibly zero. > >> > >> > >> > >> By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is > usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the > area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use > these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it > would be very expensive. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> A final thought: > >> > >> > >> > >> If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just > drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very > expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for > commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are > still pretty attractive without P&R. > >> > >> > >> > >> I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if > regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail > stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, > the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking > businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and > such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but > beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > >> > >> > >> > >> Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > >> > >> > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> > >> > >> Paul A. Barter > >> > >> http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > >> > >> http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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'). > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Visit our new portal: www.cleanairinitiative.org Skype : sudhirgota From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 18 16:14:33 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:14:33 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> Message-ID: <00ac01caf659$c63206d0$52961470$@britton@ecoplan.org> Re: well intentioned sub-optimization Hmm. All this is well and good, and I applaud the overall direction in which this appears to be going. But I don't see enough of this (if I may) . . . The discussion is highly particularistic. It would appear, from what I am seeing here, that the car/transit parking/pricing conundrum can be isolated to the immediate area around the transit facility, as if one could make calculations about this or that "optimality", without sufficient consideration to the greater whole -- that is the entire mobility fabric of the city and its surrounding areas. This is one of the old old traps of old mobility, i.e., well intentioned sub-optimization. Without a firm global strategy, what one accomplishes well or otherwise in or around this or that transit facility re cars and parking will not be much of a deal. Our goal, is it not?, is to facilitate fair and efficient transport in and around and to our cities -- and private car-based mobility solutions for cities in peak hours at least are just not fair (nor are they efficient, sustainable nor even decent economics, but let's deal with that another day).. This suggests -- to me -- that we don't try to get fancy and try to find pricing arrangements that car owner-drivers are going to find "acceptable" or a "good enough deal" to leave their car at home or next to the station during peak travel hours. Our goal is the greater whole, and for that we need to offer the car drivers (a) at least FULL cost pricing in any P&R we put in here or there and of course (b) the possibility of taking their car into the center but (c) with the onus of strategic congestion (i.e., a slower that PT trip) plus (d) hard hammer full cost plus cross-subsidizing (for PT) pricing for the privilege leaving their BMW for the day once they reach the center. Then within this broader context, and only then, can we really be useful for providing guidelines for P&R? Or, do I have this wrong? Eric Britton PS. And of course doing it this way takes guts, leadership and extraordinary communication and negotiation skills. All of which helped by discussions and groups like this. PPS. For the record, I am an average car owner/driver and really like my car. And if I get about 100% during the day on foot, bike and public transport, it is not because I hate my car. It's just that the leadership in Paris has figured the above out and put it into action -- with the result that I would have to be quite mad (or terribly rich) to take my car, at least from 07:00 to 20:00 on any week day. WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Tue May 18 16:38:11 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:08:11 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: I did not realise that my emails had stored an outdated email address for Sustran. This bounced back and hence sending it again. Regards Alok ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jains Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM Subject: Fwd: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? To: Sustran Posting this on Sustran list on Paul's request. Paul, you may wish to add your comments too. Regards Alok ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jains Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? To: Paul Barter Paul, No further arguments, just additional information. In context of subsidy, Mumbai has following scheme. "To relieve the parking scarcity in the city and to improve the public amenities BMC introduced a scheme whereby landowners who construct public parking lots on any stretch found suitable for the Corporation will be given an additional incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) equivalent to 50 percent of the built up parking area. In addition, under this scheme, when a landowner constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost, he may be granted a further DR in the form of FSI equal to the area of the construction / development done by him." The inner city parking lots are built by developers to avail extra FSI anyway. So the parking lots are on private land and built out of private funds (obviously they get more than compensated by the extra saleable FSI). Regards Alok On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Barter wrote: > I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > > > > The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, > Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > > > > I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my > message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog ( > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > ). > > > > 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are > within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > > > > It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. > Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build > public transport ridership than P&R. > > > > Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these > dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the > newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these high-density > locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in > various dense urban localities in Asia. > > > > The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations > that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density > suburban context. > > > > 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large > subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. > > > > P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy > (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns > the land). > > > > [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not > just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian > cities. That's another issue!] > > > > These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership > rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of > passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to > the stations of the Delhi Metro? > > > > 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more > effectively by other means. > > > > This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport > budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce > Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into > public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic > reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R > subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > > > > Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we > can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based > transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service > (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian > environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that > too.] > > > > Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I > agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. > The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them. > For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses > (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing > middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? > > > > 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there > will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > > > > As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located > within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day > when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened > to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's > P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised > during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is > rather low or possibly zero. > > > > By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is > usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the > area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use > these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it > would be very expensive. > > > > > > A final thought: > > > > If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive > to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very > expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for > commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are > still pretty attractive without P&R. > > > > I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if > regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail > stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, > the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking > businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and > such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but > beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > > > > Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul A. Barter > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From simon.bishop at dimts.in Tue May 18 17:05:41 2010 From: simon.bishop at dimts.in (Simon Bishop) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:35:41 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BF1F125.2040301@gmail.com> <63CC4AF9-977B-4A83-977A-F668115369C0@me.com> Message-ID: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125B6ED48@dimts-exch.dimts.org> I'm leaning quite heavily towards Eric's point, starting to draft something on this earlier. I found myself pretty much agreeing with everything that Michael said until I got to the last two sentences which, in the wrong hands can very quickly be the loophole needed to justify the creation of 'ample' MV parking around metro stations never mind whether or not high quality ped, cycle and public transit access is available. The right question to ask I think is not 'what is the optimal price to pay for parking around a transit hub?', but 'Is there an integrated transport strategy for the city?' Without it we are always doomed to fail. I would say it as strongly as that. Downtown parking fees, workplace pool cars, priority to disabled drivers, and tight planning controls combined with high public transport accessibility should be such as to deter home to office commuter travel by car. This would leave those living on outer fringes of the city unable to use a car to commute whether they wanted to or not. Now, with tight downtown controls the next most desirable thing to do for a driver might be to park at an out of town metro stop and take a train to their workplace, especially if congestion is on the rise in city centre roads. But why get sweaty on a cycle or jostle with people on a bus? In policy terms however it is clearly preferable for people not to drive to the metro but use a bus, walk or cycle. Make it so difficult for everyone except the disabled to use a car to get to the Metro and you'll soon see how transit, walk and cycle options get to be good. It echoes Paul's point that you don't wait around until public transport gets to be so perfect before putting in place deterrent measures like congestion charging. Do what Singapore did and congestion charge as that will create demand from those with greater influence to get good public transit. I can speak from my own experience of a transport planner in London. In Camden, a London Borough about 20km sq we installed 23 different residents parking zones in the Borough over the space of 10 years gradually removing 'free' space given over for unmetered parking. Maximum dwell times were set at four hours to make 'park and ride' virtually impossible. Based on the self interest of residents to park in their neighborhood, the measure was very effective, reducing vehicle movements in the Borough by over 20% from the start until the end of implementation. Part of the reason for this reduction was that residents could also not use their vehicles to make short distance trips from one part of the Borough to the other as they would be entering a different parking zone and there they would need to find very expensive metered parking just like any other member of the public. The increasing roll out of residents parking zones in London has made it similarly difficult to park in neighboring boroughs. A lot of people think that the congestion charge is the main reason why vehicular movements have been reined in in London, but I believe that the gradual approach to resident's parking has also had a big impact. It's based on self interest too. Could a similar approach be applied to Asian cities? The key point is that you need a holistic, integrated strategy to come out with the right result. Without the Mayor's planning controls, parking policy, congestion charge in the centre of London, plus all the integration of public transport, walking and cycling, Camden's abolition of commuter parking options could encourage longer trips into the centre of town entirely by car. As it is, more people are using public transport for the whole duration of their journey thanks to joined up thinking and action. Without it, we are playing 'Hit the Clown' where you wait for 'Coco' to pop up in one place. You hit him on the head with your hammer to score a point but he pops up very quickly elsewhere. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Michael Replogle Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:59 AM To: Sustran List Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? As the author of a 1983 book, "Bicycles and Public Transportation: New Links to Suburban Transit Markets," which looked at 100 years of evolution of access to public transport in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and coauthor of a follow-up 1991 study, "Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit," published by the US Federal Highway Administration, and various related articles (see for example: http://www.edf.org/documents/2294_BikesJournal.pdf or http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5483 or http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.html or http://www.environmentaldefence.org/article.cfm?contentID=2407) I want to support Carlos Felipe Pardo's comments on this subject in their entirety, as well as Paul Barter's comments. Building park-and-ride lots at public transport stops is justified at times. But parking spaces should always be priced to recover at least their full capital and operating costs. Time-of-day market pricing to ensure 85% average occupan cy, as Donald Shoup advocates for parking management, should be encouraged. Parking should be a lower priority use for space in locations with high public transport accessibility. There may be occasions and places when park-and-ride lots serve as land banks awaiting conversion to higher value uses. But in general, high quality pedestrian and bicycle access should be given first priority for access to public transport, as these are the least cost access modes. Park-and-ride spaces should be in higher cost structured parking (above or below ground), so that high access land area near public transport stations can be developed as soon as possible to their highest and best use, as high density housing, commercial uses, and employment centers. If there are transit access subsidies to be offered, they should go to bike access and pedestrian access, encouraging low carbon travel. Subsidies should not be targeted to higher income motorized travelers for transit access. But that said, it can be valuable to offer motor vehicle dependent travelers an option to drive to transit and park for a reasonable fee, to expand their travel choices. Lack of appropriately priced car parking near public transport will reinforce the car dependence of those who might be willing and able to pay for a park-and-ride trip, but for whom walking or biking to transit may be impractical or inconvenient, given the value they place on their time. Michael Replogle Global Policy Director and Founder Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 1225 Eye Street NW, Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20005 USA +1.202.534.1604 +1.301.529.0351 mobile mreplogle@itdp.org On May 17, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > This is a nice discussion. I reiterate the priority that was mentioned > for bike-and-ride integration because the catchment area is much higher > and the cost of building the parking spaces, operating them and > maintaining them is very (incredibly!) low when compared to other > alternatives. This Friday TransMilenio will inaugurate its fifth bicycle > parking station (covered, guarded, etc), which is integrated into the > (flat) fare. This one and the others are located at the terminal > stations or key interchange stations, and they've reduced the use of > feeder buses (which is very good because those are pretty expensive and > are also integrated into the fare). We tried to talk them into doing > more of these in other stations, but for various reasons we couldn't get > through to them... pity. Ah, Guangzhou's BRT has very nice integration > both for regular bikes and public bike stations. They have bike parking > in every station. > > It's also useful when you're thinking about cities in the South (which > is what Sustran is all about) because car ownership is low (and that's > good!) so you don't want to give people additional reasons to go into > debt to buy a car or motorcycle and some years later go live in a > suburb. I think someone already pointed this out in another email. I > think that is a very important issue: it's not about getting everyone > into public transport at any cost, but about thinking what you really > want (access, etc) and then planning for it. Having park and ride > everywhere may end up generating longer trips for many people because > they feel they can live farther away. I guess it's very difficult to > prove this but it's important to reflect upon it. > > Further, the cost of land for park-and-ride that Paul mentioned is most > important because that will generate a very high capital cost for a > system, especially in dense areas and moreso in CBDs! However, in > Guatemala they have been able to get private developers to pay for > (underground) park-n-ride plus the entire station of the BRT system. But > I think they charge for parking additionally. > > So if you'll do park-n-ride, charge it. If not charging, then forget it > and put your money into bike-and-ride. > > Best regards, > > Carlosfelipe Pardo > > > On 14/05/2010 03:20 a.m., Paul Barter wrote: >> I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. >> >> >> >> The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, Karthik, Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). >> >> >> >> I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in my message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog (http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html). >> >> >> >> 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). >> >> >> >> It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to build public transport ridership than P&R. >> >> >> >> Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to these dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these high-density locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in various dense urban localities in Asia. >> >> >> >> The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in locations that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density suburban context. >> >> >> >> 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. >> >> >> >> P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large subsidy (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already owns the land). >> >> >> >> [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian cities. That's another issue!] >> >> >> >> These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive to the stations of the Delhi Metro? >> >> >> >> 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more effectively by other means. >> >> >> >> This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public transport budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] >> >> >> >> Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect that too.] >> >> >> >> Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help everyone. The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving them. For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium buses (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? >> >> >> >> 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying there will not be any parking near mass transit stations. >> >> >> >> As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be opened to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of Singapore's P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case is rather low or possibly zero. >> >> >> >> By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may use these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since it would be very expensive. >> >> >> >> >> >> A final thought: >> >> >> >> If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just drive to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations are still pretty attractive without P&R. >> >> >> >> I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some cities, the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts and such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. >> >> >> >> Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> Paul A. Barter >> >> http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx >> >> http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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'). -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Tue May 18 17:36:24 2010 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:06:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Yes, FSI and TDR (transfer of development rights - where you're given rights to develop land elsewhere in return for doing something with it here) are commonly used tools in Maharashtra (including Pune, where I'm based). Though the FSI route means that parking has now moved to private land, I find it still has the following problems: a) As stated, the additional FSI more than compensates the developer for the land lost to parking. Hence he has no incentive to charge a fair price for parking in his premises and is likely to only charge enough to recover his * operational* expenses in terms of parking attendants etc. This defeats the purpose of using fair parking prices as a TDM mechanism. b) Perhaps an even bigger problem is that often the additional FSI is used to build up commercial space which acts as a traffic attractor by itself and therefore consumes all or most of the parking provided by the developer, leaving little or nothing for park-and-ride. This, of course, defeats the purpose of encouraging the car users to use transit. So, at the end, you've just developed a new commercial space with ample parking for its visitors next to the railway station with very little benefit for the transit service itself. And the chuckling sound you hear is the developer laughing all the way to the bank. Ashok On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jains wrote: > I did not realise that my emails had stored an outdated email address for > Sustran. This bounced back and hence sending it again. > > Regards > Alok > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jains > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM > Subject: Fwd: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? > To: Sustran > > > Posting this on Sustran list on Paul's request. > > Paul, you may wish to add your comments too. > > Regards > Alok > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jains > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM > Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? > To: Paul Barter > > > Paul, > > No further arguments, just additional information. > > In context of subsidy, Mumbai has following scheme. > > "To relieve the parking scarcity in the city and to improve the public > amenities BMC introduced a scheme whereby landowners who construct public > parking lots on any stretch found suitable for the Corporation will be > given > an additional incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) equivalent to 50 percent of > the built up parking area. In addition, under this scheme, when a landowner > constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost, he may be > granted a further DR in the form of FSI equal to the area of the > construction / development done by him." > > The inner city parking lots are built by developers to avail extra FSI > anyway. So the parking lots are on private land and built out of private > funds (obviously they get more than compensated by the extra saleable FSI). > > Regards > Alok > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Barter > wrote: > > > I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > > > > > > > > The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, > Karthik, > > Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > > > > > > > > I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say in > my > > message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog ( > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > > ). > > > > > > > > 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities are > > within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > > > > > > > > It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is highest. > > Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to > build > > public transport ridership than P&R. > > > > > > > > Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to > these > > dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into the > > newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these > high-density > > locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented in > > various dense urban localities in Asia. > > > > > > > > The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in > locations > > that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a low-density > > suburban context. > > > > > > > > 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large > > subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. > > > > > > > > P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large > subsidy > > (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already > owns > > the land). > > > > > > > > [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not > > just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian > > cities. That's another issue!] > > > > > > > > These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car ownership > > rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of > > passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who drive > to > > the stations of the Delhi Metro? > > > > > > > > 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more > > effectively by other means. > > > > > > > > This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public > transport > > budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce > > Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists into > > public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic > > reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R > > subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > > > > > > > > Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas we > > can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based > > transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service > > (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian > > environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect > that > > too.] > > > > > > > > Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But I > > agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help > everyone. > > The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving > them. > > For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium > buses > > (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing > > middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? > > > > > > > > 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying > there > > will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > > > > > > > > As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located > > within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the day > > when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be > opened > > to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of > Singapore's > > P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be under-utilised > > during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case > is > > rather low or possibly zero. > > > > > > > > By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is > > usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within the > > area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may > use > > these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since > it > > would be very expensive. > > > > > > > > > > > > A final thought: > > > > > > > > If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just > drive > > to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very > > expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster for > > commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations > are > > still pretty attractive without P&R. > > > > > > > > I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if > > regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve rail > > stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some > cities, > > the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking > > businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant districts > and > > such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby but > > beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > > > > > > > > Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > Paul A. Barter > > > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Tue May 18 17:52:34 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:22:34 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Ashok, Probably an additional piece of information - the developers in Mumbai have to handover the public parking to Municipal Corporation (MCGM/BMC) and has no say in its operation. So technically, if the Govt. wishes, they could still charge "full-cost" fee and use the surplus for other improvements. Whether that will actually be done is the big question but certainly the opportunity exists. Cheers Alok On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Ashok Sreenivas wrote: > Yes, FSI and TDR (transfer of development rights - where you're given > rights > to develop land elsewhere in return for doing something with it here) are > commonly used tools in Maharashtra (including Pune, where I'm based). > Though > the FSI route means that parking has now moved to private land, I find it > still has the following problems: > > a) As stated, the additional FSI more than compensates the developer for > the > land lost to parking. Hence he has no incentive to charge a fair price for > parking in his premises and is likely to only charge enough to recover his > * > operational* expenses in terms of parking attendants etc. This defeats the > purpose of using fair parking prices as a TDM mechanism. > > b) Perhaps an even bigger problem is that often the additional FSI is used > to build up commercial space which acts as a traffic attractor by itself > and > therefore consumes all or most of the parking provided by the developer, > leaving little or nothing for park-and-ride. This, of course, defeats the > purpose of encouraging the car users to use transit. So, at the end, you've > just developed a new commercial space with ample parking for its visitors > next to the railway station with very little benefit for the transit > service > itself. And the chuckling sound you hear is the developer laughing all the > way to the bank. > > Ashok > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jains wrote: > > > I did not realise that my emails had stored an outdated email address for > > Sustran. This bounced back and hence sending it again. > > > > Regards > > Alok > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jains > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM > > Subject: Fwd: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? > > To: Sustran > > > > > > Posting this on Sustran list on Paul's request. > > > > Paul, you may wish to add your comments too. > > > > Regards > > Alok > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jains > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? > > To: Paul Barter > > > > > > Paul, > > > > No further arguments, just additional information. > > > > In context of subsidy, Mumbai has following scheme. > > > > "To relieve the parking scarcity in the city and to improve the public > > amenities BMC introduced a scheme whereby landowners who construct public > > parking lots on any stretch found suitable for the Corporation will be > > given > > an additional incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) equivalent to 50 percent > of > > the built up parking area. In addition, under this scheme, when a > landowner > > constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost, he may be > > granted a further DR in the form of FSI equal to the area of the > > construction / development done by him." > > > > The inner city parking lots are built by developers to avail extra FSI > > anyway. So the parking lots are on private land and built out of private > > funds (obviously they get more than compensated by the extra saleable > FSI). > > > > Regards > > Alok > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Barter > > wrote: > > > > > I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, > > Karthik, > > > Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say > in > > my > > > message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog ( > > > > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities > are > > > within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is > highest. > > > Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more to > > build > > > public transport ridership than P&R. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to > > these > > > dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into > the > > > newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these > > high-density > > > locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being implemented > in > > > various dense urban localities in Asia. > > > > > > > > > > > > The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in > > locations > > > that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a > low-density > > > suburban context. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a large > > > subsidy from government or from the public transport company's budget. > > > > > > > > > > > > P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large > > subsidy > > > (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government already > > owns > > > the land). > > > > > > > > > > > > [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking (not > > > just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in Asian > > > cities. That's another issue!] > > > > > > > > > > > > These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car > ownership > > > rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of > > > passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who > drive > > to > > > the stations of the Delhi Metro? > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more > > > effectively by other means. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public > > transport > > > budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce > > > Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists > into > > > public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic > > > reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with P&R > > > subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas > we > > > can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good bus-based > > > transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service > > > (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian > > > environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do expect > > that > > > too.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. But > I > > > agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help > > everyone. > > > The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever achieving > > them. > > > For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium > > buses > > > (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) bringing > > > middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying > > there > > > will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is located > > > within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the > day > > > when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be > > opened > > > to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of > > Singapore's > > > P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be > under-utilised > > > during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that case > > is > > > rather low or possibly zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there is > > > usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within > the > > > area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people may > > use > > > these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, since > > it > > > would be very expensive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A final thought: > > > > > > > > > > > > If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just > > drive > > > to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very > > > expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster > for > > > commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit stations > > are > > > still pretty attractive without P&R. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if > > > regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve > rail > > > stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some > > cities, > > > the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if valet-parking > > > businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant > districts > > and > > > such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby > but > > > beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul A. Barter > > > > > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > > > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 18 18:36:41 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 11:36:41 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Avoiding World Streets email overload - A strategy Message-ID: <014c01caf66d$a10359e0$e30a0da0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Sustraners, There has been too much mail coming in here concerning World Streets 5/7 daily articles, and for that I must apologize since I am, the guilty party. Sorry! Here's a proposed strategy to do way with this inconvenience: 1. We will no longer post any notices about articles from W/S to this forum, except under exceptional of circumstances. a. The only regular exception to this will be notice of the monthly summary report. 2. If you wish to follow the daily postings, here are three possible options: a. Sign into the World Streets Forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldStreetsForum. To do that a blank email to WorldStreetsForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com will do quite nicely. . Now if once there, you still do not wish to receive the daily articles, but prefer just to receive the monthly summary report (you can see an example of the latest at http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2010/05/world-streetsmonthly-report-ap ril-2010.html) - all you need to do is to go into your Edit Membership section, and switch your membership Message Delivery to " Special Notices - Receive only important email notices from the group moderator". b. Sign into the Facebook World Streets program site at www.facebook.worldstreets.org c. Or whatever RSS setup you prefer. In the event, not to fear, World Streets is not about to go away. You will find the daily postings at www.WorldStreets.org as always. But perhaps in this way we can be a better neighbor. Finally, if you have any further thoughts on this, it would be good to have them, perhaps in private via eric.britton@worldstreets.org so as to hold down the noise level. Eric Britton Join in World Streets: It's a collaborative enterprise. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 135269 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100518/e950768a/attachment.png From krc12353 at gmail.com Tue May 18 23:44:51 2010 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao Cavale) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:44:51 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A5@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <4BEC9111.6030709@greenidea.eu> <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CB951A8@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: I think one key point of disagreement is the reason for building new Public Transport in the third world. One way of looking at it is that we want to get people using personal vehicles to use public transport. The other is that we want to improve the lives of those already dependent on public transport. At times, these two goals take us in opposite directions. Here, if one were to be motivated by the first goal, one would go for PnRs. If motivated by the second, one would not see much value in it. For Indian cities, I am convinced that the second goal is way more important than the first. In many of the Mumbai suburbs (which are denser than the "central city" of Bombay), the roads in the vicinity of the train station tend to be really congested because the local market typically situates itself around the station. Andheri, Mulund and Thane are all classic examples of this type of urban arrangement. In such places, PnRs will increase traffic on the streets, thereby having a definite negative impact on the lives of those who are transit-dependent. http://mumbai.thecityfix.com/creating-streets-for-walkers-and-hawkers/ In this blog, writing about Mulund, I proposed a network of NMT-only streets around the station so as to reduce vehicle traffic and making walking/biking a pleasant and safe experience. Along the main roads, two lanes were to allow PT and autorickshaws access to the station, but otherwise the entire area surrounding the station would be closed for traffic. Parking will have to be built on the perimeter of the market area, but it was to intended for shopkeepers and residents of the vehicle-free area, not for commuters of the suburban rail. For Indian cities, looking from the POV of improving the lives of transit-dependent people, I think such solutions could offer a lot more than PnRs. karthik On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Jains wrote: > Ashok, > > Probably an additional piece of information - the developers in Mumbai have > to handover the public parking to Municipal Corporation (MCGM/BMC) and has > no say in its operation. So technically, if the Govt. wishes, they could > still charge "full-cost" fee and use the surplus for other improvements. > Whether that will actually be done is the big question but certainly the > opportunity exists. > > Cheers > Alok > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Ashok Sreenivas > wrote: > > > Yes, FSI and TDR (transfer of development rights - where you're given > > rights > > to develop land elsewhere in return for doing something with it here) are > > commonly used tools in Maharashtra (including Pune, where I'm based). > > Though > > the FSI route means that parking has now moved to private land, I find it > > still has the following problems: > > > > a) As stated, the additional FSI more than compensates the developer for > > the > > land lost to parking. Hence he has no incentive to charge a fair price > for > > parking in his premises and is likely to only charge enough to recover > his > > * > > operational* expenses in terms of parking attendants etc. This defeats > the > > purpose of using fair parking prices as a TDM mechanism. > > > > b) Perhaps an even bigger problem is that often the additional FSI is > used > > to build up commercial space which acts as a traffic attractor by itself > > and > > therefore consumes all or most of the parking provided by the developer, > > leaving little or nothing for park-and-ride. This, of course, defeats the > > purpose of encouraging the car users to use transit. So, at the end, > you've > > just developed a new commercial space with ample parking for its visitors > > next to the railway station with very little benefit for the transit > > service > > itself. And the chuckling sound you hear is the developer laughing all > the > > way to the bank. > > > > Ashok > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jains wrote: > > > > > I did not realise that my emails had stored an outdated email address > for > > > Sustran. This bounced back and hence sending it again. > > > > > > Regards > > > Alok > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Jains > > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM > > > Subject: Fwd: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian > cities? > > > To: Sustran > > > > > > > > > Posting this on Sustran list on Paul's request. > > > > > > Paul, you may wish to add your comments too. > > > > > > Regards > > > Alok > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Jains > > > Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM > > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian > cities? > > > To: Paul Barter > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > No further arguments, just additional information. > > > > > > In context of subsidy, Mumbai has following scheme. > > > > > > "To relieve the parking scarcity in the city and to improve the public > > > amenities BMC introduced a scheme whereby landowners who construct > public > > > parking lots on any stretch found suitable for the Corporation will be > > > given > > > an additional incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) equivalent to 50 > percent > > of > > > the built up parking area. In addition, under this scheme, when a > > landowner > > > constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost, he may > be > > > granted a further DR in the form of FSI equal to the area of the > > > construction / development done by him." > > > > > > The inner city parking lots are built by developers to avail extra FSI > > > anyway. So the parking lots are on private land and built out of > private > > > funds (obviously they get more than compensated by the extra saleable > > FSI). > > > > > > Regards > > > Alok > > > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Barter > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I should be marking exam papers and not writing this. Oh well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion on this issue is very interesting. Thanks to Simon, > > > Karthik, > > > > Walter, Alok, Todd, Zvi and Cornie (so far). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few small clarifications on what I was trying to say > > in > > > my > > > > message yesterday and in the longer item on my blog ( > > > > > > > > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-park-and-ride-bad-idea.html > > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when such facilities > > are > > > > within the dense urban fabric (such as 'inner city' areas). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in these dense areas that the opportunity cost of space is > > highest. > > > > Most of the other uses of station-vicinity space will do much more > to > > > build > > > > public transport ridership than P&R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many mass transit systems in developing Asia are, for now, limited to > > > these > > > > dense/mixed-use areas. In most cases, they don't yet extend out into > > the > > > > newest 'suburban areas'. P&R seems least defensible in these > > > high-density > > > > locations with high property prices. Yet it is still being > implemented > > in > > > > various dense urban localities in Asia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The photos of Bangkok in the blog post are examples. These are in > > > locations > > > > that are now considered to be inner-urban. They are not in a > > low-density > > > > suburban context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. My objection to park-and-ride is strongest when it involves a > large > > > > subsidy from government or from the public transport company's > budget. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P&R in dense areas with high property prices involves a very large > > > subsidy > > > > (even if this subsidy might be hidden in cases where government > already > > > owns > > > > the land). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [BTW, This objection actually applies to almost all of the parking > (not > > > > just P&R parking) that local governments are trying to provide in > Asian > > > > cities. That's another issue!] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are extremely regressive subsidies in cities with low car > > ownership > > > > rates. For example, why should general taxpayers and the majority of > > > > passengers cross-subsidise the parking of the wealthy minority who > > drive > > > to > > > > the stations of the Delhi Metro? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Park-and-ride is aimed at objectives which could be achieved more > > > > effectively by other means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is about making the best use of the TDM budget or the public > > > transport > > > > budget (which need to be used wisely). It is certainly good to reduce > > > > Central Business District traffic and to get middle-class motorists > > into > > > > public transport. But it seems obvious that we could get more traffic > > > > reduction per dollar spent with various other initiatives than with > P&R > > > > subsidies. [Has anyone seen serious analysis of this?] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, I am still talking about dense areas for now. In such areas > > we > > > > can expect any (well-governed) city to be able to foster good > bus-based > > > > transport to complement mass transit, to have plentiful taxi service > > > > (2-wheel, 3-wheel, or 4-wheel), and to have high-quality pedestrian > > > > environments. [Safe bicycle space seems harder but most of us do > expect > > > that > > > > too.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course Mumbai is a case where these conditions do not yet exist. > But > > I > > > > agree with Karthik that these should be the priorities. They help > > > everyone. > > > > The P&R strategy accepts defeat on these and undermines ever > achieving > > > them. > > > > For example, in Mumbai is it really so hard to imagine small premium > > > buses > > > > (with premium fares comparable to autorickshaw prices perhaps) > bringing > > > > middle-class people to stations of the Metro when it opens? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Objecting to subsidised park-and-ride is not the same as saying > > > there > > > > will not be any parking near mass transit stations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned in the blog post, when a mass transit station is > located > > > > within a residential area, there may be a parking surplus during the > > day > > > > when many of the residents' vehicles are gone. Such parking could be > > > opened > > > > to the public during the day and used for P&R parking. Most of > > > Singapore's > > > > P&R seems to involve parking areas that would otherwise be > > under-utilised > > > > during the day, so why not allow P&R. The opportunity cost in that > case > > > is > > > > rather low or possibly zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, Tokyo seems to have little or no park-and-ride but there > is > > > > usually much commercial parking in buildings and parking lots within > > the > > > > area. But they are charging market prices. I guess that some people > may > > > use > > > > these as park and ride sometimes but not for their daily commute, > since > > > it > > > > would be very expensive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A final thought: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we stop subsidising parking at stations would drivers really just > > > drive > > > > to their city centre jobs? City centre parking is (or should be) very > > > > expensive [again that is another story!]. And mass transit is faster > > for > > > > commutes to CBD jobs in large congested cities. Mass transit > stations > > > are > > > > still pretty attractive without P&R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that Asian entrepreneurship can handle this challenge (if > > > > regulations allow). Taxis, auto-rickshaws and pedicabs already serve > > rail > > > > stations of course (even if imperfectly as Alok complains). In some > > > cities, > > > > the minibus businesses serve stations well. I wonder if > valet-parking > > > > businesses might even arise just as they do in busy restaurant > > districts > > > and > > > > such like. They might store the vehicles at lower-cost parking nearby > > but > > > > beyond the expensive station-vicinity itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now back to those exam papers. Sigh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul A. Barter > > > > > > > > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > > > > > > > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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'). > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > From kanthikannan at gmail.com Wed May 19 13:01:54 2010 From: kanthikannan at gmail.com (Kanthi Kannan) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:31:54 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4bf362bc.2a05e70a.7c27.2fc0@mx.google.com> Dear all Greetings!! The discussion on the issue is very useful and lots of pros and cons. Though I have followed the details regularly, I am not really sure, whether this point has been addressed. In Hyderabad, many retail outlets in the neighbourhood of railway stations (Local Trains Stations) do not any parking and hence use the spacious parking facilities of the station to park their cars and also get their customers cars parked. In Hyderabad, there is a strange system of valet parking of cars. No one has a clue as to whether this system is approved by the municipal authorities or not. When asked, the authorities feign ignorance about such a thing as valet parking. Regards Kanthi Kannan THOSE WHO WALK CANNOT DECIDE AND THOSE WHO DECIDE DO NOT WALK From jcmota at ua.pt Wed May 19 22:45:43 2010 From: jcmota at ua.pt (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Carlos_Mota?=) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:45:43 +0100 Subject: [sustran] survey of people affected by the air crisis Message-ID: <9B22EFB6A84049C5B6481A2A36AAABAB@clients.ua.pt> [sorry for crossposting] Stranded away? Trip Delayed, Cancelled? We would like to hear your story and views. A survey of people affected by the air crisis was launched by the Institute of Transport and Tourism (University of Central Lancashire) on April 19th. The survey can be found on http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AirCrisisSurveyITT and the Institute is urging people to send the link to anyone they know who has been affected and to send it out through their networks. "It is important to get as much systematic data as we can," said Jo Guiver, the researcher initiating the survey. "Once the dust has settled, literally, the story about what happened and how people felt about it will change. We are hoping our findings will be useful for airlines, government and others involved and mean we are better prepared should a similar emergency, caused by terrorism, fuel shortages, health scares or whatever, arise in the future." Dr Jo Guiver Lecturer and Researcher Institute of Transport and Tourism http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/lbs/research/institutes_and_centres/transport/index.htm School of Sport, Tourism and the Outdoor University of Central Lancashire Room 60 Greenbank Building Preston PR1 2HE 01772 894923 From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 20 17:04:47 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:04:47 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Posting your comments to World Streets - and to discussion fora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f601caf7f3$2bcfc230$836f4690$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Colleagues, Simon Norton has done well to bring this point to my attention in our never-ending struggle for efficient communications (see his note below). 1. To post a comment to World Streets on any given item, the procedure is straight-forward. Go to the article, click the COMMENTS link that appears at the end of the piece, and off you go. Please do sign your messages with your name, city, and country if you will. 2. To post to any of the New Mobility discussion fora (see www.talking.newmobility.org to see how they are organized by main topic, etc.) all you need is to pop in the respective address: a. African Streets ? - AfricanStreets@yahoogroups.com b. China Streets ? - China-Streets@yahoogroups.com c. Gatnet: Gender/transport Forum (www.gatnet.net) ? gatnet@dgroups.org d. Global South/Sustran Forum ? sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org e. Land Caf?/ Value Capture/Tax reform ? LandCafe@yahoogroups.com f. Lots Less Cars in Cities (www.lotslesscars.org) ? LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com g. New Mobility Caf? (www.newmobility.org) ? NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com h. Share/Transport (sharetransport@yahoogroups.com) ? sharetransport@yahoogroups.com i. World Car Free Days (www.worldcarfreedays.com) ? www.lotslesscars.org j. World Carshare Consortium (www.worldcarshare.com) ? WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com k. World City Bike (www.worldcitybike.org) ? WorldCityBike@yahoogroups.com l. World Streets Forum (www.WorldStreets.org) - WorldStreetsForum@yahoogroups.com m. World Transport (www.worldtransportjournal.org) ? WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com n. xTransit (Third way transport ? to merge with Share/Transport) -- xTransit@yahoogroups.com If that looks like a lot, well it is ? sustainable transport and sustainable cities is a puzzle of many disparate parts. Hard work, eh? What we would ask you to do, however is to make sure that when you address something to the group(s) you try to stay within the spirit of the forum's focus, and that out of respect to the others you do not address mails to the group which are better channeled toone person or some sub-group. It's that simple, Simon. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility - -----Original Message----- From: Simon Norton [mailto:S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 20:29 To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: World Streets Forum Thanks for at last taking the step we need to avoid duplicate postings for World Streets items. But perhaps you can tell me and others what the recommended procedure is when we want to comment on a World Streets Forum item in such a way that both subscribers to the group and people who visit the website will see the comment. Simon From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 20 23:48:08 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:48:08 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Jakarta proposes more car free days Message-ID: <027401caf82b$78766e30$69634a90$@britton@ecoplan.org> Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/05/20/city-proposes-more-car-free-da ys.html City proposes more car free days The Jakarta Post | Thu, 05/20/2010 7:07 PM | Jakarta Jakarta administration has proposed another car free day in addition to the existing one every month, citing the public's positive response to the emissions reduction policy. Head of the city environmental agency Peni Susanti said Thursday her office was arranging a new schedule for the car free day to be implemented on Jakarta's thoroughfares Jl. Sudirman and Jl. MH Thamrin. "We are drafting a new schedule to implement the car free day twice a month. Hopefully we can realize the plan in June," Peni said as quoted by Antara. Currently the car free day is held on the last Sunday of the month. Governor Fauzi Bowo had previously asked the environmental agency to increase the frequency of the car free day. Peni said many people had benefited from the policy and requested for more days with better quality air. "Many families make full use of the car free day to improve harmony by doing sports together in the car free zone, rather than shopping at malls," Peni said. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Fri May 21 10:49:07 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:49:07 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Parking prices - more food for thought Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> I still want to respond to some of our parking discussions. Thanks everyone for the fascinating views. But for now, here is a link to some more food for thought on parking prices. http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/parking-prices-from-different-angle.html Feedback welcome, here or in the comments at the blog. All the best Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Fri May 21 11:54:16 2010 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Jains) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 08:24:16 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Parking prices - more food for thought In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: You might find the attached relevant. Alok On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Paul Barter wrote: > I still want to respond to some of our parking discussions. Thanks everyone > for the fascinating views. > > But for now, here is a link to some more food for thought on parking > prices. > > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/parking-prices-from-different-angle.html > > Feedback welcome, here or in the comments at the blog. > > All the best > Paul > > Paul A. Barter > http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx > http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 100521-Delhi Parking.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 213063 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100521/24bca7c1/100521-DelhiParking-0001.pdf From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Fri May 21 15:23:14 2010 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:14 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Parking prices - more food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg>, Message-ID: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85C@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Thanks very much for that item Alok. Delhi's parking scene is indeed dire. The low prices mean that investment in parking is low and (more importantly) demand is unconstrained. Perennial parking shortage is the unsurprising result. This crunch can only get worse in the short run. The slow-motion supply side responses just dig the hole deeper. Indian cities have an especially urgent need for parking reform. But what will be the catalyst for change? All the best Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________ From: Jains [alok.priyanka@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 10:54 AM To: Paul Barter Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Parking prices - more food for thought You might find the attached relevant. Alok On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Paul Barter > wrote: I still want to respond to some of our parking discussions. Thanks everyone for the fascinating views. But for now, here is a link to some more food for thought on parking prices. http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/parking-prices-from-different-angle.html Feedback welcome, here or in the comments at the blog. All the best Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From Armin.Wagner at gtz.de Sat May 22 00:28:33 2010 From: Armin.Wagner at gtz.de (Wagner Armin GTZ 7021) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:28:33 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Parking prices - more food for thought In-Reply-To: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <487F0963D58E1C498E62FF52EFDADA04057B8B04BF@CLUEXCCR2.gtz.de> Dear Paul, dear all, different context, different challenges and surely not always on the forefront of sustainability: Some figures from Europe. In 2008 we surveyed parking fees and bus fares in European capitals. Our graph depicts the highest on-street parking fee in the given city (per hour) and compares to a single bus fare. Looks ok for one ticket, but if you start to take the return trip in account... (see attachment, data as of 2008, no data for the four cities on the right available) Best regards Armin Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Best regards, Armin Wagner ***************************** Transport Policy Advisor Deutsche Gesellschaft f?r Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH (German Technical Cooperation) Division 44 - Water, Energy, Transport Transport and Mobility P.O. Box 5180 65726 Eschborn, Germany Tel.: + 49 6196 79- 6467 Fax: + 49 6196 79-80 6467 E-Mail: Armin.Wagner@gtz.de Skype: wagnerarmin http://www.gtz.de/transport -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+armin.wagner=gtz.de@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+armin.wagner=gtz.de@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:49 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Parking prices - more food for thought I still want to respond to some of our parking discussions. Thanks everyone for the fascinating views. But for now, here is a link to some more food for thought on parking prices. http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/2010/05/parking-prices-from-different-angle.html Feedback welcome, here or in the comments at the blog. All the best Paul Paul A. Barter http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx http://reinventingtransport.blogspot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH; Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office Eschborn/Taunus, Germany; Registergericht/Registered at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Eintragungs-Nr./Registration no. HRB 12394; USt-IdNr./VAT ID no. DE 113891176; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Hans-Juergen Beerfeltz, Staatssekretaer/State Secretary; Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Directors: Dr. Bernd Eisenblaetter (Sprecher/Chairman), Dr. Christoph Beier, Dr. Hans-Joachim Preuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Parking_Fee_Survey_2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61733 bytes Desc: Parking_Fee_Survey_2008.pdf Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100521/35cc96cd/Parking_Fee_Survey_2008.pdf From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat May 22 00:54:20 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:54:20 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Parking prices - more food for thought In-Reply-To: <487F0963D58E1C498E62FF52EFDADA04057B8B04BF@CLUEXCCR2.gtz.de> References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> <487F0963D58E1C498E62FF52EFDADA04057B8B04BF@CLUEXCCR2.gtz.de> Message-ID: <019d01caf8fd$e26f9be0$a74ed3a0$@britton@ecoplan.org> This is a very nice table Armin, Thank you. But for the record, I am not sure about the other cities but NO ONE who uses transit in Paris other than tourists buys a single ticket. This changes everything on the table. The majority of those who do use the Navigo, for which the cost of that trip is zero. That is the key comparison then. FYI, the cost of off street parking in a public parking facility is currently also ? 3 hour. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon May 24 00:25:11 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 20:55:11 +0530 Subject: [sustran] EPW article on BRT for Mumbai? Message-ID: while Bangalore and Pune are still facing stealthy opposition to BRT routes this article considers the need for BRT in Mumbai! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Will Mumbai Prioritise the BRT.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 174723 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100523/e463e2a1/WillMumbaiPrioritisetheBRT.pdf From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon May 24 04:35:32 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 01:05:32 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Things Pune can learn from Ahmedabad BRTS Message-ID: Things Pune can learn from Ahmedabad BRTS Sakaal Times http://www.sakaaltimes.com/SakaalTimesBeta/20100518/5570006729933282533.htm <../SearchNews.aspx?tag=CEPT> *Abhijit Lokre is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Planning and Public Policy at CEPT University. He is involved in R&D work at the newly opened ?Centre for Excellence in Urban Transport? and coordinates all design related work for the BRT systems in Ahmedabad and Surat. Born and brought up in Maharashtra, Lokre studied in Pune. Sak?l Times talked to him to understand the much talked about BRTS in Ahmedabad.* The first phase of BRTS Ahmedabad has reached a break even point (on running cost) in less than nine months. What is the secret behind this success considering the similar projects have not been as successful in other cities of the country. The Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Ahmedabad never confined itself to being a consultancy engaged in preparing the Detailed Project Report for the BRTS. We were in the thick of the implementation, working with experts from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the state government and the central committee of the JNNURM. We were available every time things needed to be reworked, modified or adjusted. But the biggest force behind the whole project has been our chief minister, Narendra Modi. He conducted frequent reviews, motivated us and saw that all our needs be met. *Give us an idea of how big this project is?* The whole project stretches along 88.8 km. Of this 25 km is currently in operational mode. There are 38 buses plying on this route. We have adopted the closed and segregated route for BRTS, so that the route is a dedicated route. No other vehicles are allowed on it. Right now we run 38 buses, and the peak frequency is three minutes. At other times frequency is maintained at a minimum of 8 minutes. *How will it progress from here?* This is a Rs 1,000 crore project under the JNNURM. In all 58 km will be covered in the first phase and the remaining 30 km will be covered in the second one. *How did you go about the project?* The bird?s eye view plan was ready before we began work. We figured that we would have to run the BRTS along roads of different widths ranging from 40 metres to 18 metres. Smaller roads will have a one way BRT. The BRT along the 18 metres roads, will run on a soon to be constructed elevated road. *How can you maintain such good frequency?* We have a control room that monitors each and every bus through a GPRS systems and alerts the drivers on how slow or fast they need to keep. Each bus needs to wait for no more than a minute at each bus stop. This is because the bus stop platforms (900 mm high) are perfectly aligned with the floor of the bus. It takes just a few seconds for passenger to get in or out of the bus. The other part is taken care of by an efficient signalling system which does not allow the buses much of stoppages along the way. *What's the role of the existing local public transporter?* We have completely detached it from Ahmedabad Municipal transport. The buses are privately owned. The AMC did give it a seed capital of Rs 5 cr. The bus design was prepared at CEPT. *What kind of outreach programme did you implement to encourage public participation?* We ran the service free of cost initially. High mobility periods like Navratri's were picked up for free rides. Stalls were put up at various exhibitions. And the municipal commissioner briefed the media every Tuesday on the progress of the project. *Do private vehicle owners not try to get into the dedicated lanes?* Chief minister Modi, himself set an example when he reprimanded his drivers publicly when they brief to get his convoy into the BRTS lane. But people are so happy with the BRTS service that they have sense of ownership of the system and feel the need to protect and strengthen it. *AHMEDABAD BRTS SETS AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER CITIES* - Political parties need to have a strong belief in the ability of a BRTS system to solve urban public transport problems. - Ruling party leaders should decide what they want to do with the project. Do they wish to deliver an efficient public transport through it or nourish it as a continuously cost escalating project. - Tough decisions on maintaining its character as a closed BRT. Say no to encroachment. - Put experts to supervise and control project. Current officials clearly lack appreciation of the nuisances of a BRT project. - Detach it from the PMPML and let it have an independent unique identity. - Review the current DPR to address ground realities. - Transparency. Let people know what's happening. - BRT cannot work in bits and pieces. We need to go beyond pilot projects to have an integrated system for the whole city. From yanivbin at gmail.com Tue May 25 02:02:47 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 22:32:47 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Delhi govt has introduced congestion tax Message-ID: NDTV News Ticker says today The G o Delhi has introduced congestion tax which maybe linked with a High Court judgement (i presume) and also cars and 2-wheelers will now cost more. A 3rd time elected govt like in Dli shd be confident enough to take this decision but will others ? From yanivbin at gmail.com Tue May 25 13:53:50 2010 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:23:50 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikes Message-ID: Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikesIANS, May 24, 2010, 05.25pm IST http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-hikes-road-tax-for-luxury-cars-high-end-bikes/articleshow/5969117.cms NEW DELHI: Driving a car, especially a luxury car or a high-end motorcycle, is set to get costlier in the capital. The Delhi cabinet on Monday decided to raise the vehicles' road tax rates in a bid to generate additional revenue for the city government. According to the revised road tax rates the cabinet cleared with Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit in the chair, two-wheelers costing up to Rs.25,000 will be charged the existing two percent, while two-wheelers costing between Rs.25,000 and Rs.40,000 will now attract four percent road tax and those above Rs.40,000 will be charged six percent. The rate for cars, priced up to Rs.6 lakh, has been doubled to four percent, while it has gone up to seven percent on those costing between Rs.6 lakh and Rs.10 lakh. Those owning motor vehicles costing Rs.10 lakh would have to pay a road tax of 10 percent. The new rate will come into force after the issue of a notification. This will go a long way in restricting purchase of luxury cars and discouraging use of private vehicles in the city, Dikshit told reporters after the meeting. "The rates have been rationalised to also enhance revenue generation," she said, adding rationalisation of road tax was needed to replace the rates existing for decades. Dikshit noted that the new rates were rationalised in such a way that there will be marginal effect on purchase of two-wheelers and non-luxury cars. However, the chief minister said the cabinet decided to retain prevalent rates on public utility vehicles such as public goods careers as it would have adverse impact on common man. A Delhi government official said the rates prevalent in the neighbouring states were also considered before taking a decision. The official said about 1,000 new vehicles are registered in the city every day and add to the traffic chaos on roads. There are around 6 million vehicles in Delhi, which has an estimated population of 12 million. The state cabinet recently also approved a proposal to revise registration fee of properties to generate an additional revenue of Rs.100 crore. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 25 15:30:19 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:30:19 +0200 Subject: [sustran] we are looking for an important, a city-shaping number Message-ID: <008401cafbd3$c1e91670$45bb4350$@britton@ecoplan.org> Dear Sustraners, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kbTo-M_pSuw/S_qemPwvIuI/AAAAAAAADE8/3NlXKVNUw7M/s2 00/one-less-car.jpg We have something going on over at World Streets to which I would like to call your attention this morning. To make a long story short, we are looking for an important, a city-shaping number, or perhaps a way for calculating that number or magnitude. You can see it over at www.WorldStreets.org, with an introductory essay that has been kindly contributed by Todd Litman. Here for better or worse is my introduction: I have long maintained that the cost of driving one more car in a city is far greater than normally understood, with the result that the benefits to the city of getting one car off the street are very very considerable. My own working rule of thumb, admittedly crude and entirely unscientific, is that every time a mayor or her team figure out how to remove one car from the traffic stream -- without decreasing the quality of the overall mobility system - brings about a benefit for all equal to at least one dollar a car/km. But let's hear what Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute has to say about it. I hope you will read, comment, and help us all to come up with some credible indicators that can then be put to work for policy purposes. I truly believe that this is going to be important for us and for our cites. Best/Eric Eric Britton | WorldStreets.org | NewMobility.org | Paris | +331 7550 3788 | Skype: newmobility -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 9824 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20100525/dbea99ef/attachment.jpe From simon.bishop at dimts.in Tue May 25 16:30:12 2010 From: simon.bishop at dimts.in (Simon Bishop) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:00:12 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125BD189D@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Hi, It's good news that cars are becoming more expensive. I wonder why they didn't consider a yearly tax, or, better still a mileage-based tax that would deter usage? Under the existing set up, once you have bought the car/motorcycle you have every incentive to use it as much as possible since the fixed cost of tax gets lower the more you drive. The zero per cent increase in low price motorcycles I fear will not deter purchase amongst those currently using public transit and will continue to encourage a shift away from this mode - down 19% from 60% of mode share to 41.5% of mode share in a little less than 7 years. Would be good to know the appraisal impacts of their new hike if anyone can share with Sustrans. Just what is the 'marginal effect' Dixit is referring to? -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Vinay Baindur Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:24 AM To: Hasire Usiru; CAF2 Subject: [sustran] Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikes Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikesIANS, May 24, 2010, 05.25pm IST http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-hikes-road-tax-for-luxury-cars-high-end-bikes/articleshow/5969117.cms NEW DELHI: Driving a car, especially a luxury car or a high-end motorcycle, is set to get costlier in the capital. The Delhi cabinet on Monday decided to raise the vehicles' road tax rates in a bid to generate additional revenue for the city government. According to the revised road tax rates the cabinet cleared with Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit in the chair, two-wheelers costing up to Rs.25,000 will be charged the existing two percent, while two-wheelers costing between Rs.25,000 and Rs.40,000 will now attract four percent road tax and those above Rs.40,000 will be charged six percent. The rate for cars, priced up to Rs.6 lakh, has been doubled to four percent, while it has gone up to seven percent on those costing between Rs.6 lakh and Rs.10 lakh. Those owning motor vehicles costing Rs.10 lakh would have to pay a road tax of 10 percent. The new rate will come into force after the issue of a notification. This will go a long way in restricting purchase of luxury cars and discouraging use of private vehicles in the city, Dikshit told reporters after the meeting. "The rates have been rationalised to also enhance revenue generation," she said, adding rationalisation of road tax was needed to replace the rates existing for decades. Dikshit noted that the new rates were rationalised in such a way that there will be marginal effect on purchase of two-wheelers and non-luxury cars. However, the chief minister said the cabinet decided to retain prevalent rates on public utility vehicles such as public goods careers as it would have adverse impact on common man. A Delhi government official said the rates prevalent in the neighbouring states were also considered before taking a decision. The official said about 1,000 new vehicles are registered in the city every day and add to the traffic chaos on roads. There are around 6 million vehicles in Delhi, which has an estimated population of 12 million. The state cabinet recently also approved a proposal to revise registration fee of properties to generate an additional revenue of Rs.100 crore. -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Tue May 25 21:36:44 2010 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:06:44 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikes In-Reply-To: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125BD189D@dimts-exch.dimts.org> References: <247EE4DD2AD33940B402771AC8C2CDFE4125BD189D@dimts-exch.dimts.org> Message-ID: <4BFBC45C.8050301@gmail.com> Simon When Dixit says 'marginal effect', she means 'negligible effect' - i.e. she doesn't expect sales of two-wheelers and small cars to drop and so the automobile industry need not worry. Interestingly, the road taxes in other states of India are considerably higher (e.g. the Kharola-Tiwari paper says that in Karnataka, it was 8% for two-wheelers costing less than Rs 50,000 and 10% for small cars) and still doesn't prove much of a deterrent to purchasing vehicles. So, I doubt if this is going to change the Delhi-ite's behaviour much. Perhaps, it would, at best, reduce the practice of people registering their vehicles in Delhi and using them in Gurgaon or Noida (as I'm sure must have been the practice earlier since Delhi's taxes would have been lower than Haryana or UP). Ashok On 25/05/2010 1:00 PM, Simon Bishop wrote: > Hi, > > It's good news that cars are becoming more expensive. I wonder why they didn't consider a yearly tax, or, better still a mileage-based tax that would deter usage? > > Under the existing set up, once you have bought the car/motorcycle you have every incentive to use it as much as possible since the fixed cost of tax gets lower the more you drive. > > The zero per cent increase in low price motorcycles I fear will not deter purchase amongst those currently using public transit and will continue to encourage a shift away from this mode - down 19% from 60% of mode share to 41.5% of mode share in a little less than 7 years. > > Would be good to know the appraisal impacts of their new hike if anyone can share with Sustrans. Just what is the 'marginal effect' Dixit is referring to? > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+simon.bishop=dimts.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Vinay Baindur > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:24 AM > To: Hasire Usiru; CAF2 > Subject: [sustran] Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikes > > Delhi hikes road tax for luxury cars, high-end bikesIANS, May 24, 2010, > 05.25pm IST > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-hikes-road-tax-for-luxury-cars-high-end-bikes/articleshow/5969117.cms > > NEW DELHI: Driving a car, especially a luxury car or a high-end motorcycle, > is set to get costlier in the capital. The Delhi cabinet on Monday decided > to raise the vehicles' road tax rates in a bid to generate additional > revenue for the city government. > > According to the revised road tax rates the cabinet cleared with Chief > Minister Sheila Dikshit in the chair, two-wheelers costing up to Rs.25,000 > will be charged the existing two percent, while two-wheelers costing between > Rs.25,000 and Rs.40,000 will now attract four percent road tax and those > above Rs.40,000 will be charged six percent. > > The rate for cars, priced up to Rs.6 lakh, has been doubled to four percent, > while it has gone up to seven percent on those costing between Rs.6 lakh and > Rs.10 lakh. Those owning motor vehicles costing Rs.10 lakh would have to pay > a road tax of 10 percent. > > The new rate will come into force after the issue of a notification. > > This will go a long way in restricting purchase of luxury cars and > discouraging use of private vehicles in the city, Dikshit told reporters > after the meeting. > > "The rates have been rationalised to also enhance revenue generation," she > said, adding rationalisation of road tax was needed to replace the rates > existing for decades. > > Dikshit noted that the new rates were rationalised in such a way that there > will be marginal effect on purchase of two-wheelers and non-luxury cars. > > However, the chief minister said the cabinet decided to retain prevalent > rates on public utility vehicles such as public goods careers as it would > have adverse impact on common man. > > A Delhi government official said the rates prevalent in the neighbouring > states were also considered before taking a decision. > > The official said about 1,000 new vehicles are registered in the city every > day and add to the traffic chaos on roads. There are around 6 million > vehicles in Delhi, which has an estimated population of 12 million. > > The state cabinet recently also approved a proposal to revise registration > fee of properties to generate an additional revenue of Rs.100 crore. > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed May 26 14:16:20 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 07:16:20 +0200 Subject: [sustran] [World Streets] Brazilians observe how Germans are creating Low Emission Zone... Message-ID: <00fb01cafc92$968e3f90$c3aabeb0$@britton@ecoplan.org> From: Todd Edelman [mailto:edelman@greenidea.eu] Sent: Wednesday, 26 May, 2010 03:02 Hi, I live on a very busy street in Berlin. I generally agree with what Martin Lutz is saying but still there is a huge difference in noticeable air quality between a weekday evening rush hour and a Sunday morning (with all other things being equal: The notorious overcast sky in the German capital definitely seems to keep pollutants around). Why is this? The famous filters aren't working, their efficacy is over-promised? Too many exemptions? Cheating? Mr. Paiva, as Mr. Lutz says, this has no effect on traffic volumes, and thus little on noise (unless new vehicles are a bit quieter). And all the new vehicle manufacturing created a lot of pollution. So fear, injuries and death caused by collisions are not reduced at all. Furthermore, there is a huge negative knock-on effect as non-permitted cars are sold outside the country, such as in Poland, Czech Republic and further east and south. In other words there are a lot of junky, stinking used formerly German-owed cars in countries with no low emission restrictions (The LEZs apply to several German cities, but if your car is registered elsewhere you still cannot drive into another one --- but then perhaps peripheral park and ride is a better option than buying a new car or retrofitting an old one!). EU law prevents the Czech or Polish governments from preventing these imports (if they wanted to -- not sure.) If I am permitted to get a bit more sociological with my analysis, I would say that LEZs are another product of the (not just) German have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too mentality about automotive mobility, which is that everything can be handled with technology. Some Greens in southern automobile-producing regions of Germany probably love their cars more than some more right-wing or right liberal thinking people here, in the Netherlands and possibly Denmark and so on.). LEZs then work best when complementing other forms of congestion charging, individual motorized mobility rationing, bans, parking removal, free urban public transport and so on. They should be not implemented on their own. - Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory On 05/25/2010 03:17 PM, Eric Britton wrote: When it comes to the performance and quality of our streets in cities around the world, the simple truth is that for now at least we are stuck with far more losers than winners. But that is only part of the story; and one of the tasks of World is to keep a weather eye out for projects and programs, tools and policies which open up the possibility of creating better streets and better cities. Here for example you have a conversation between a Brazilian environmentalist and a German scientist running a pioneering program for a low emisssions zone which has been up and working since 2006. Interview with Martin Lutz, Director, Low Emission program of the Berlin Senate - By Lincoln Paiva , Green Mobility Brazil (With kind thanks to the author for translating from the Portuguese original text which first appeared this week in http://mobilidadesustentavel.blog.uol.com.br/.) This week I talked with Mr. Martin Lutz, Responsible for the Department of Health, environment and quality of Air Berlin's Senate. He told me how Berlin instituted the LEZ (Low Emission Zone) in 2005, with the goal of reducing the emission of toxic gases emitted by vehicles, also spoke about the difficulties in convincing companies of logistics, small businessmen and the population which used highly polluting vehicles in areas of high concentration of toxic gas vehicle. Mr Lutz was directly responsible for the Deployment of Low Emission Zones in Berlin. Germany has implemented the most stringent policies regarding the vehicular emissions of harmful gases in Germany, he tells us how the LEZ has been reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the population's health. Lincoln Paiva: What were the main barriers to the successful deployment of an LEZ (Low Emission Zones) in Berlin? Martin Lutz: A number of preparatory steps had to be taken before putting the low emission zone (LEZ) into practice. As the LEZ is a selective traffic ban for the most polluting vehicles, a vehicle identification scheme was needed as a precondition for practical enforcement. According to our legislative framework, the Federal Government was in charge to come up with a respective regulation for a nationwide concept, which paved the way for implementing LEZ also in other German cities, if necessary. Contrary to the technically sophisticated approach in London and Stockholm with a CCTV--based automatic number recognition system, the German scheme is based on a simple sticker system for the window screen, which illustrates the emission category of each vehicle willing to enter the LEZ. In addition, a market for retrofit kits for diesel particulate filter (DPF) needed to be built up, so that most of the diesel vehicles affected by the traffic ban could be upgraded by retrofitting them with a particle trap. In order to allow vehicle owners to adapt to the emission criteria of the LEZ, for example by retrofitting or replacing their vehicle stock, a 2 1/2 year transition period was granted between the adoption of the scheme in August 2005 and its launch in January 2008. In addition, a more stringent stage 2 came into force in January 2010 with the Euro 4 emission standard as the basic criterion for all diesel vehicles, including light and heavy goods vehicles. Older diesel vehicles can be upgraded to that standards by a retrofit with a DPF. More information on Berlin's LEZ and the vehicle labelling scheme can be found on our website http://www.berlin.de/sen/umwelt/luftqualitaet/en/luftreinhalteplan/umweltzone_allgemeines.shtml. The site www.lowemissionzones.eu provides an overview on all LEZ planned or in force in Europe. LP: Public attitudes toward the program? Martin Lutz: While drawing up Berlin's clean air plan, which stipulates several measures including the LEZ, the concept went through a public consultation process, in order to gain support of the Berlin's citizens for the plan and for the LEZ in particular. Due to the long transition period and additional funding granted by the national government to those retrofitting their diesel car with a DPF the low emission zones was generally accepted by the urban population. However, resistance by truckers and business associations was also voiced, pointing to the economic burden because of the investment in new vehicles or in retrofitting emerging from the introduction of the LEZ. These concerns were accommodated by drawing up a set of rules under which individual temporary exemptions from the traffic ban could be granted to vehicle operators who can prove that they would run into severe economic problems because of the LEZ. LP: What were the results? Was there a reduction of traffic? Martin Lutz: After two years since the start of the Low Emission Zone in Berlin its success can be clearly seen in terms of an accelerated shift towards cleaner vehicles, reduced pollutant emissions and better air quality. While traffic flows have not changed due to the LEZ, the turnover of the vehicle fleet towards more cleaner vehicles has speeded up considerably, resulting in the first year of its introduction in 21% less exhaust particle emissions and 15% lower NOx emission from Berlin?s motor traffic. Measured concentrations of black carbon at kerbside spots decreased in 2008 by around 15%. Despite an increasing share of direct NO2-emissions, NO2 concentrations in Berlin have also decreased by 7-10%, after several years without a visible downward trend. With the recent launch of stage 2 of the LEZ its mitigation effect on the air pollution is expected to eventually reduce total particulate matter concentrations (PM10) by up to 10%. LP: What are the health benefits accruing to a decrease in vehicle emissions and implementation of the LEZ? Martin Lutz: Given the high toxicity of diesel particle emissions it can be expected that the LEZ-related drop in black carbon levels is also resulting in a fall of respiratory diseases and eventually in a reduction of premature mortality especially among the poorer population living along heavily trafficked roads. Concrete investigations have not yet been launched but are planned for the coming years, when more data on the effects on pollution levels and on public health will be available. LP: You say that Berlin has simplified monitoring in relation to London. How does that work? Martin Lutz: As mentioned above a simpler sticker system has come into force, which allows to clearly identify the vehicles allowed to enter the zone, which cover 88 km2 with almost one third of Berlin's 3.6 Mio inhabitants living in the LEZ. Police and staff of the local municipal public order offices have enforced penalties, resulting in about 60.000 fines since the launch of the LEZ. LP: How are you engaging the public? Martin Lutz: An extensive information campaign was launched after the adoption of the scheme, with flyers, newspaper articles and advertisements in TV and radio. LP: Are there penalties for infringement? Martin Lutz: Driving within the zone without a sticker or with a non-compliant vehicle is penalised with 40? and with one point in the national road penalty register. LP:: Finally...What is the cost of monitoring the program in Berlin? Berlin's spends a lot of effort in monitoring air quality in the city, with a network of 16 automatic stations, which continuously record the pollution concentration within the city area. Extra monitoring of black carbon and nitrogen oxide is being done at additional 20 kerbside spots. In addition with dispersion models and traffic detectors a good data base is available to assess the impact of the LEZ and other measures on the air quality. The costs of these extra monitoring and assessment activities alone are well above 100.000 ? per year. Originally published in Portuguese : http://mobilidadesustentavel.blog.uol.com.br/ # # # About the authors: Lincoln Paiva is director of Green Mobility Brazil. How to ensure people?s transportation and at the same time be sustainable? The Green Mobility Project arose from the need to develop a culture concerned with managing the demand for mobility in a sustainable manner in order to reduce the use of individual transportation, responsible for 70% of the occupation of the earth and for the problems arising from this option such as pollution and investments in modal infrastructure, as well as to discuss alternative, more sustainable means for cities. Martin Lutz has a university degree in meteorology and air chemistry. More than 2 decades ago he started dealing with winter smog alarm management in Berlin. During a four year detachment to the EU Commission he was drafting an European ozone strategy and a new ozone Directive. Back in Berlin he led investigations in the sources of PM10 pollution and an impact analysis of control measures on PM10 and NO2 pollution. He was developing Berlin?s air quality strategy. Mr. Lutz is now head of the sector on air pollution -- Posted By Eric Britton to World Streets at 5/25/2010 03:17:00 PM From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Thu May 27 10:59:19 2010 From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:59:19 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Parking prices - more food for thought References: <6F850E42E4589F45AE2799F34B645C36014CA2B85B@MBX06.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <030901cafd40$3ce252c0$0202a8c0@acer56fb35423d> Paul, Wagner's tie-in to transit fares should also be considered. For city-centre jobs, the decision whether to drive a car already owned, or to take the bus, relies on the transit fare, which for most of the western world is paid for with a monthly pass. In Ottawa, the monthly pass is at least $80, with higher prices for other passes allowing access to suburban express routes and to rural express routes. Thus, parking costs have to be lower (I wonder how many drivers add the price of the marginal extra gas to the total out-of-pocket costs), at least for those who pay for parking themselves. As far as the comparison to the price of burgers in suburbia, another problem with that is that there are no parking lots (zoned as such) there. Thus, the city charges nothing to park on the streets (where it is allowed at all, and where it is allowed for a whole workday), and the rest is off-street ancillary parking (used by those who are visiting the specific business who owns the lot), and is an amenity the landowner includes for free. But downtown, parking is a separate business. Therefore, as Donald Shoup (05, _The High Cost of Free Parking_) has pointed out, with more free parking than there is demand, means there is no market at all. Demand requires some price. To him, price for parking is whatever will ensure 15% of spaces to be empty at any one time. The demand downtown depends on factors that private parking-lot owners have to project into the future. . . . . but not too far, at least for surface lots, since these lands can easily be converted to other uses. The problem remains for those building parking structures, which cannot. If there were a trend to begin towards lower rates of car-ownership, prices in these garages might drop, hurting the parties who built them. In 2009, with high gas prices and the recession, such a trend appeared. Or what if a city introduced congestion fees and reduced transit fares with the proceeds? That, too would rock the parking 'boat.' (see note, below, with just such a scenario). What alternative use(s) could be made of surplus parking garages? Chris = = = = = = Friends and Colleagues -- The June issue of Wired, now on-line and in print, has a terrific article by noted financial writer Felix Salmon reporting on my work with Ted Kheel on traffic pricing and free transit for New York City. The tag on the cover reads Gridlock Science: The End of Traffic Jams, and the article itself is titled The Traffic Cop: Charles Komanoff says he can end Manhattan's gridlock. And he's got the spreadsheet to prove it. The article is exciting in many ways. It traces the intersection of Ted's lifetime of urban transit advocacy with mine. It places traffic jams in the context of "negative externalities, costs that accrue when the self-interested actions of one person leave bystanders worse off." And it conveys the near-musical intricacies of the traffic-analysis spreadsheet, the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (BTA), that I've created under the aegis of Ted's Nurture Nature Foundation. The climax, if you will, is Felix's arrival at the analytical heart of the matter (and the ethical basis of congestion pricing): the BTA's quantification of the social delay costs caused by the proverbial one additional car trip to the Manhattan Central Business District. It's a great read and a big boost to the cause of rational urban policy. Please click here: Note that the link to the BTA in the article is a little circuitous. The direct link is (always): Best, Charles PS: Needless to say, what will "end Manhattan's gridlock" (and preserve and enhance the city's public transit) is concerted political action. Please stay tuned for developing news on that front. From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Thu May 27 19:47:13 2010 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:17:13 +0530 Subject: [sustran] A Manifesto for Sustainable Transport Message-ID: You might like this piece posted on the U-Penn site on "India in Transition". Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine. http://casi.ssc.upenn.edu/iit/rajan A Manifesto for Sustainable Transport Sudhir Chella Rajan 05/24/2010 A specter is haunting India; a specter of clean, safe, and affordable access to goods and services for all. Policy makers find themselves at a cusp, not quite sure whether to follow the model of automobile-dominated urban development that characterizes twentieth century North America, or to look at contemporary cities in Northern Europe instead, where pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transit are given far greater priority than car drivers. The former approach, while familiar and congruent with the popular notion that modern human progress is equivalent to increasing levels of car ownership, is patently unsustainable. The latter, on the other hand, seems strange and out of sync with middle class aspirations, although evidence of its superiority in terms of economic, social, and environmental benefits remains very compelling. For established interests, including motor vehicle manufacturers, petrol and diesel suppliers, road contractors, traditional transport engineers, urban planners, and the urban elite, the favored approach is motorization, suburbanization, and highway development ? with expensive metro systems thrown in for good measure. Yet, on the street, a movement is already gathering steam to shift the transport paradigm from *mobility* per se to * access* to goods and services. That, in turn, implies the continuation of mixed land-uses but with the additional improvement of infrastructure for walking, bicycling, and public transit ? especially buses ? for their flexibility and affordability. Which argument will gain salience remains to be seen; while recent considerations such as climate change and oil security seem likely to tilt the balance toward improving access against personal mobility, in the short-term, pressures to lock in commitments for motorization continue to be very strong. The access movement in transport is the result of an epiphany that what people need most of all is painless access to workplaces, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, entertainment and so on, and that personal transport is only one among many ways to achieve this goal. With severe air pollution, crowded streets and appalling rates of fatal and debilitating accidents, it is no surprise that keeping jobs, goods, and services within easy proximity is what matters most to ordinary people. Even among the middle classes, there is widespread awareness of the unsuitability of widespread car use in Indian contexts. Our cities have developed over decades and centuries in such a fashion that shops, homes, and many workplaces are still largely within walkable distances of one other, except that walkability itself has recently come under threat by the ?automobilization? of urban space. More than half of passenger trips in most Indian cities, including large ones like Mumbai, are for distances of less than five kilometers, which can ideally be traversed on bicycles and on foot, but which is now possible only at great risk of collision with faster moving vehicles. Urbanites are frequently displaced from sidewalks and the narrow sides of the road for cycling as a result of a frenzy of activity to create more room for the car, or are forced to rely on buses that are polluted, dangerous, and overcrowded. The response to these challenges appears in many forms and across social classes. It is evident in the protests of poor cycle rickshaw drivers in Delhi who are seeking the right to earn livelihoods on the streets, as well as the activism of celebrities such as the actor Salman Khan promoting ?Car Free? days in Mumbai. It appears as the recovery of road space for public transport in the form of Bus Rapid Transit experiments in Ahmedabad, Delhi, and Pune, with many more cities in the offing, to great effect and at extraordinarily low costs. It can be detected in the newfound interest even among mayors and administrators in cities such as Chennai and Pune to revive bicycling. It is also evident in urban protests all over the country around issues of land-use, access to water, sanitation, and habitat, where it is clear that urban policies favoring the elites, such as road building and slum evictions, reduces access to existing services and also shifts resources for improving them as a result of distorted government priorities. On the other side, lobbyists continue to peddle the notion that the ever-increasing use of personal vehicles, and the associated ?freedom? for auto-mobility, is a basic human right, one that is only impeded by poverty. They do not like to be reminded that Europeans ? particularly the Dutch and the Danes ? are quite happy to abandon the car and find their freedom on bicycles, on foot, and on public transport, in spite of their inclement climate compared to most Indian cities. Most significantly, what remains unstated is that private vehicles serve only a small fraction of the population that do not pay the full costs of occupying the road, polluting the air, draining precious foreign exchange by guzzling imported oil, causing accidents, and destroying ecosystems. It is the poor who engage sustainably with urban space and subsidize others by walking or cycling for short trips and taking public transport to cover longer distances, and utilizing every opportunity available to consume locally available goods and services. In fact, it is also increasingly clear that the transport and access challenge affects not just the poor but most citizens, as well as policy-makers. Indeed the solutions offered by the access movement can address concerns as varied as asthma and other respiratory diseases, childhood obesity, climate change, community blight, diabetes, fiscal deficits for local and state governments, hearing loss, loss of life and limb due to accidents, petroleum dependence, rising land prices and transport costs, road rage, and sprawl. For instance, a recent study in the *Lancet* co-authored by Geetam Tiwari from IIT Delhi and Stephen Woolcock from the London School of Economics, suggests that even modest improvements in pedestrian accessibility and the provision safe bicycling routes in Delhi can generate significantly higher carbon reductions and greater health benefits from cleaner air and the reduced likelihood of accidents than technological improvements for motor vehicles. Similarly, obesity and diabetes are on the rise in cities as a result of sedentary lifestyles, a phenomenon that can surely be put under control if urban areas were friendlier to walking and bicycling for children and adults. Dense, mixed-use, walkable urban spaces are recognized the world over as the most creative and dynamic environments. The mall-like recreations of these spaces are already perceived as being *pass?* and gaudy and a poor substitute for the real thing. From Curitiba to Copenhagen to Istanbul, the notion of livable streets ? an old Indian concept that once characterized cities as different as Benares and Tanjavur ? is now the new mantra of smart urban design. Policy makers may want to take note of the dark side of developers? interests to create gated communities in exurbs and flyovers in order to connect them to exclusive commercial and industrial centers, so that the wealthy never have to come into contact with the old city centers and the poor who live in them. The scenario that would then unfold would be more stark than that portrayed in dystopian films like *Blade Runner* or *District 9*, generating the expansion of apartheid urban spaces that are already in existence, in which a small segment of society traverses freeways in air-conditioned vehicles and remains completely isolated from the parallel world of an underpaid workforce that provides them their services, who are in turn forced to navigate large spatial distances at great difficulty and personal risk. The choice is clear: if sustainability and the preservation of community life are important, then the voices of the access movement must be heeded. *Sudhir Chella Rajan is a Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Coordinator of the Indo-German Centre for Sustainability at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.* From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri May 28 23:17:57 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:17:57 +0200 Subject: [sustran] PhD studentships in Transport & Society (UK) Message-ID: <016d01cafe70$94902f70$bdb08e50$@britton@ecoplan.org> From: Erel Avineri [mailto:Erel.Avineri@uwe.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, 28 May, 2010 15:12 Dear Eric, Please find information on PhD Studentships in the Centre for Transport & Society (CTS), University of the West of England, Bristol. Could you please bring this to the attention of friends and colleagues at WorldTransport, KyotoWorldCities and other relevant groups? Thanks, Erel Two 3-year PhD Studentships are available in the Centre for Transport & Society starting in October 2010. Closing date for applications: Friday 25 June 2010. -------------------------------------------------------------- The University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE) is now inviting applications from highly capable and enthusiastic individuals who wish to study for a PhD in the area of 'transport and society'. UWE's Centre for Transport & Society (CTS) has a strong focus across its research on understanding and influencing travel behaviour. We expect this new PhD research to further support the Centre's aim to improve and promote understanding of the inherent links between lifestyles and personal travel in the context of continuing social and technological change. The available studentships are not attached to pre-defined topics though the following are illustrative of areas of interest to the Centre: - Ageing, older people and transport behaviour - Barriers and enablers to greater uptake of cycling - Car ownership decisions and car-free or 'low-car' living - Changing notions of ownership and use in the transport sector - Decision making and the role of information - Information age implications for social practices and travel - Interactions between transport and spatial planning - Reasons for the recent levelling off in car travel - Road user attitudes and behaviour in relation to safety - The lifestyles and travel characteristics of emerging generations of adults - Travel time use and value - Understanding and influencing attitudes As a strong candidate you will be attracted to this opportunity to shape your own topic as part of the application you submit. For further information and to apply please visit > >www.transport.uwe.ac.uk. Dr Erel Avineri Reader in Travel Behaviour Centre for Transport & Society Faculty of Environment and Technology University of the West of England Frenchay Campus Coldharbour Lane Bristol BS16 1QY, UK Telephone: 0117 32 83197 Fax: 0117 32 83899 Email: Erel.Avineri@uwe.ac.uk Web: http://www.transport.uwe.ac.uk/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat May 29 19:40:14 2010 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:40:14 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "In the slums of Nairobi" Message-ID: <011501caff1b$5d417050$17c450f0$@britton@ecoplan.org> "In the slums of Nairobi" What do you do when you are losing a war? If it is your assumption that we are at present losing the war for sustainable transport and sustainable lives -- and that is very definitely our position here at World Streets -- and if it is your firm intention not to lose it -- as it is ours! -- then what do you do when the going gets tough? Well you look around and put to work every potentially promising tool you can lay your hands on. Now we make a pretty consistent effort in these pages to bring creative media that supports our noble cause to your attention, but what about doing more along these lines taken from today's edition of the International Herald Tribune? __,_._,___ Freely available in World Streets today at www.WorldStreets.org and www.facebook.worldstreets.org From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Sun May 30 04:35:37 2010 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:37 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: A Manifesto for Sustainable Transport In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100529153537.817459umrzfysiw4@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Very good except for what I consider to be a cheap shot: "...... ? with expensive metro systems thrown in for good measure." > The author goes on to make the statement: "Dense, mixed-use, > walkable urban spaces are recognized the world over as the most > creative and dynamic environments." Metros facilitate this kind of > environment and don't belong in the same sentence as the auto mode. Eric Bruun Quoting Ashok Sreenivas : > You might like this piece posted on the U-Penn site on "India in > Transition". > Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine. > > http://casi.ssc.upenn.edu/iit/rajan > A Manifesto for Sustainable Transport > Sudhir Chella Rajan > 05/24/2010 > > A specter is haunting India; a specter of clean, safe, and affordable access > to goods and services for all. Policy makers find themselves at a cusp, not > quite sure whether to follow the model of automobile-dominated urban > development that characterizes twentieth century North America, or to look > at contemporary cities in Northern Europe instead, where pedestrians, > bicyclists, and users of public transit are given far greater priority than > car drivers. The former approach, while familiar and congruent with the > popular notion that modern human progress is equivalent to increasing levels > of car ownership, is patently unsustainable. The latter, on the other hand, > seems strange and out of sync with middle class aspirations, although > evidence of its superiority in terms of economic, social, and environmental > benefits remains very compelling. > > For established interests, including motor vehicle manufacturers, petrol and > diesel suppliers, road contractors, traditional transport engineers, urban > planners, and the urban elite, the favored approach is motorization, > suburbanization, and highway development ? with expensive metro systems > thrown in for good measure. Yet, on the street, a movement is already > gathering steam to shift the transport paradigm from *mobility* per se to * > access* to goods and services. That, in turn, implies the continuation of > mixed land-uses but with the additional improvement of infrastructure for > walking, bicycling, and public transit ? especially buses ? for their > flexibility and affordability. Which argument will gain salience remains to > be seen; while recent considerations such as climate change and oil security > seem likely to tilt the balance toward improving access against personal > mobility, in the short-term, pressures to lock in commitments for > motorization continue to be very strong. > > The access movement in transport is the result of an epiphany that what > people need most of all is painless access to workplaces, schools, > hospitals, grocery stores, entertainment and so on, and that personal > transport is only one among many ways to achieve this goal. With severe air > pollution, crowded streets and appalling rates of fatal and debilitating > accidents, it is no surprise that keeping jobs, goods, and services within > easy proximity is what matters most to ordinary people. Even among the > middle classes, there is widespread awareness of the unsuitability of > widespread car use in Indian contexts. Our cities have developed over > decades and centuries in such a fashion that shops, homes, and many > workplaces are still largely within walkable distances of one other, except > that walkability itself has recently come under threat by the > ?automobilization? of urban space. More than half of passenger trips in most > Indian cities, including large ones like Mumbai, are for distances of less > than five kilometers, which can ideally be traversed on bicycles and on > foot, but which is now possible only at great risk of collision with faster > moving vehicles. Urbanites are frequently displaced from sidewalks and the > narrow sides of the road for cycling as a result of a frenzy of activity to > create more room for the car, or are forced to rely on buses that are > polluted, dangerous, and overcrowded. > > The response to these challenges appears in many forms and across social > classes. It is evident in the protests of poor cycle rickshaw drivers in > Delhi who are seeking the right to earn livelihoods on the streets, as well > as the activism of celebrities such as the actor Salman Khan promoting ?Car > Free? days in Mumbai. It appears as the recovery of road space for public > transport in the form of Bus Rapid Transit experiments in Ahmedabad, Delhi, > and Pune, with many more cities in the offing, to great effect and at > extraordinarily low costs. It can be detected in the newfound interest even > among mayors and administrators in cities such as Chennai and Pune to revive > bicycling. It is also evident in urban protests all over the country around > issues of land-use, access to water, sanitation, and habitat, where it is > clear that urban policies favoring the elites, such as road building and > slum evictions, reduces access to existing services and also shifts > resources for improving them as a result of distorted government priorities. > > > On the other side, lobbyists continue to peddle the notion that the > ever-increasing use of personal vehicles, and the associated ?freedom? for > auto-mobility, is a basic human right, one that is only impeded by poverty. > They do not like to be reminded that Europeans ? particularly the Dutch and > the Danes ? are quite happy to abandon the car and find their freedom on > bicycles, on foot, and on public transport, in spite of their inclement > climate compared to most Indian cities. Most significantly, what remains > unstated is that private vehicles serve only a small fraction of the > population that do not pay the full costs of occupying the road, polluting > the air, draining precious foreign exchange by guzzling imported oil, > causing accidents, and destroying ecosystems. It is the poor who engage > sustainably with urban space and subsidize others by walking or cycling for > short trips and taking public transport to cover longer distances, and > utilizing every opportunity available to consume locally available goods and > services. > > In fact, it is also increasingly clear that the transport and access > challenge affects not just the poor but most citizens, as well as > policy-makers. Indeed the solutions offered by the access movement can > address concerns as varied as asthma and other respiratory diseases, > childhood obesity, climate change, community blight, diabetes, fiscal > deficits for local and state governments, hearing loss, loss of life and > limb due to accidents, petroleum dependence, rising land prices and > transport costs, road rage, and sprawl. For instance, a recent study in the > *Lancet* co-authored by Geetam Tiwari from IIT Delhi and Stephen Woolcock > from the London School of Economics, suggests that even modest improvements > in pedestrian accessibility and the provision safe bicycling routes in Delhi > can generate significantly higher carbon reductions and greater health > benefits from cleaner air and the reduced likelihood of accidents than > technological improvements for motor vehicles. Similarly, obesity and > diabetes are on the rise in cities as a result of sedentary lifestyles, a > phenomenon that can surely be put under control if urban areas were > friendlier to walking and bicycling for children and adults. > > Dense, mixed-use, walkable urban spaces are recognized the world over as the > most creative and dynamic environments. The mall-like recreations of these > spaces are already perceived as being *pass?* and gaudy and a poor > substitute for the real thing. From Curitiba to Copenhagen to Istanbul, the > notion of livable streets ? an old Indian concept that once characterized > cities as different as Benares and Tanjavur ? is now the new mantra of smart > urban design. Policy makers may want to take note of the dark side of > developers? > interests to create gated communities in exurbs and flyovers in order to > connect them to exclusive commercial and industrial centers, so that the > wealthy never have to come into contact with the old city centers and the > poor who live in them. The scenario that would then unfold would be more > stark than that portrayed in dystopian films like *Blade Runner* or *District > 9*, generating the expansion of apartheid urban spaces that are already in > existence, in which a small segment of society traverses freeways in > air-conditioned vehicles and remains completely isolated from the parallel > world of an underpaid workforce that provides them their services, who are > in turn forced to navigate large spatial distances at great difficulty and > personal risk. The choice is clear: if sustainability and the preservation > of community life are important, then the voices of the access movement must > be heeded. > > *Sudhir Chella Rajan is a Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, and > the Coordinator of the Indo-German Centre for Sustainability at the Indian > Institute of Technology, Madras.* > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > >