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

Jains alok.priyanka at gmail.com
Fri May 14 13:11:04 JST 2010


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 <krc12353 at gmail.com>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 <alok.priyanka at gmail.com> 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 <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