[sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities?

Jains alok.priyanka at gmail.com
Fri May 14 01:58:20 JST 2010


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 <krc12353 at gmail.com>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 <zvi.leve at gmail.com> 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 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/zvileve/4600137869/> 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').
>>
>
>


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list