[sustran] Mobility, not metro

[Sujit Patwardhan]

2 October 2010

Mahatma Gandhi's Birthday




<http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/mobility-not-metro/409876/>

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/mobility-not-metro/409876/


  *Mobility, not metro*

  *Himanshu Burte / New Delhi October 2, 2010, 0:07 IST*



The Metro may not be best answer to our urban traffic woes


Mobility is essential to city life. So how can we make getting around
easier, better and more convenient for our cities? What are the options, and
what are their costs and impacts? How equitable is each? And finally, how
sustainable is each option, in terms of economics, public health and the
environment? The answers to such questions offer a rational counterpoint to
the metro mantra being chanted by city after Indian city, and now rising to
a crescendo.


A sensible infrastructure solution is one that solves the problems (and does
not create new ones), costs the least, benefits the largest number of
people, does the least environmental and social damage, is reversible, and
has the flexibility to adjust to changing needs in the future. Of course, no
solution is perfect. There are always trade-offs. But how do we weigh those
trade-offs? First we must thoroughly understand the problem and its context.
Then we must decide on the criteria by which we judge how well the solution
— in this case, a metro system — actually meets all the various
requirements. Here below are some points to address.


**

*
*

*Non-motorised transport*


Non-motorised transportation deserves closer attention. Geetam Tiwari of the
Transport Research and Injury Prevention Programme at IIT Delhi has
estimated that, at peak hour, 30-70 per cent of all trips in our big cities
are by foot or bicycle. (Related fact: most trips in Indian cities are also
under 5 km, which is bicycling distance.)


People making these trips are ‘captive users’ — they cannot afford even
subsidised public transport and are forced to walk or cycle. Therefore, a
sustainable transportation policy would start by making mobility easier and
safer for pedestrians and bicyclists (who together have the largest share of
fatalities in road accidents).


Interestingly, this would benefit all road users. Those who use motorised
transport, whether personal car, suburban train or city bus, also need to
walk. Encouraging walking and bicycling through design and policy makes
ecological and social sense. Both have almost zero energy costs and
emissions, result in very little pollution, and boost public health.


And, in case you hadn’t already guessed, catering to pedestrians and
cyclists will make our cities more beautiful.

*
*

*
*

*Bus kya?*


Buses are perhaps the only public transport system already at work in most
Indian cities. This is not surprising, since buses require much smaller
investments. They are also more flexible in answering demand, and can reach
every corner of a city.

The metro is a First World concept. But the bus rapid transit system (BRTS)
is a concept innovated in a Third World city — Curitiba in Brazil, where it
has worked well.


The essential BRTS idea is dedicated bus lanes to which other vehicles have
no or limited access. Ahmedabad has a ‘closed’ BRTS which has proved to be a
success.


Planning on Ahmedabad’s system began in 2005, and operations started in
October 2009. The system is estimated to cost ' 1,000 crore for the full 88
km. So far it has reached 35 km, with no cost overruns. Today 85,000-90,000
passengers a day use its 41 buses, says Shivanand Swamy of the Centre for
Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad, who helped design the
system.


“BRTS is pertinent for India,” says Vidyadhar Phatak, a former chief planner
of the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, “but you cannot
do it half-heartedly. There is always going to be a conflict between
different conditions in the case of BRTS, but it can be addressed to arrive
at the best resolution.”


Phatak adds that car users in Indian cities with BRTS believe that buses are
taking over their roadspace. When there is no bus in the bus lane, car
drivers feel that roadspace is being wasted. They don’t recognise that a
single bus carries as many people as a jamful of cars. “Unfortunately, in
India people who benefit from a system like BRTS rarely raise their voice in
its favour,” he says.

*
*

*
*

*Clear the road*


The chief attraction of a metro is that it is disengaged from the chaotic
road situation. “Metro projects are often promoted by saying that the roads
are so congested, we have to go over or underground to get fast public
transport,” says Sujit Patwardhan of Parisar, a Pune NGO fighting for
sensible urban policies. “But this makes no sense. If there is a problem on
the road, solve it, don’t run away from it. People don’t cause congestion on
roads, cars do.”


Patwardhan’s argument forces us to consider an awkward possibility: that
even after the huge expense on metros we might still be left with congested
roads. After all, convincing evidence that car users will switch to the
metro is thin (see box). Unless, that is, we solve the road problem by
curbing cars, since it is cars that eat up scarce public space on roads. If
we can do that, we might even find that we never did need the metro!

*
*

*
*

*Metros and urban form*


It is well known that a metro is many times more expensive than other public
transit options. Its other costs are not so widely known, including damage
to urban form and public space.


Urban form is no elite concern. It matters more to the poor pedestrian than
to the rich in their cars. Our sense of comfort in a city depends on its
legibility. Can we make sense of our street networks, orient ourselves,
remember places we are walking through? Do we feel psychologically
comfortable in a space?


In Mumbai, for instance, flyovers built in the late 1990s have chopped up
each of a wonderful sequence of garden roundabouts. Chopped up, these spaces
fail to register fully. The flyovers have mangled our experience of moving
through. The looming concrete masses of the elevated sections of metro lines
will do the same in many parts of cities like Mumbai. Remember, most metro
lines in cities outside Delhi are going to be elevated.



*What is wrong with the metro idea?*

In a report titled ‘Mythologies, Metros & Future Urban Transport’, Dinesh
Mohan of IIT Delhi reviews the national and international literature on the
question of which public transport system is appropriate for Indian cities,
and arrives at a critique of the metro. Here is a summary of his arguments.

*#* Metros do not carry the largest percentage of all trips in any city in
the world. The largest shares are in cities that got public transport
systems in the first half of the 20th century, when other options were not
available. In such cities, like London, New York and Paris, the metro does
not absorb more than 20 per cent of all trips. Tokyo and Hong Kong are
exceptions. In Tokyo, 40 per cent of trips are on the metro; but car
ownership is discouraged by limited parking and roadspace.

*#* Metros only work well in cities that have large concentrations of jobs
in central business districts. London, Paris and New York meet this
condition. Indian cities, which generally have a polynucleated character and
no single business district, do not.

*#* A large population does not guarantee ridership. Shanghai compares with
Mexico City but has just half the latter’s ridership. The Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation claims that any city with over 3 million people needs a metro.
Density and the nature of spread of a city are, however, as relevant as the
population.

*#* It is not easy to wean car users away from their cars. It is difficult
to beat the door-to-door travel time of a car, if you include time taken to
reach the metro station, walk in the station and wait for a train.

*#* A study of 210 transport infrastructure projects worldwide has shown
that costs are significantly underestimated and benefits exaggerated. (This
is generally true of big-ticket projects, because they benefit the officials
who commission them as well as the consultants and contractors who execute
them.) We can take consolation from this: we are not alone in our misery.

*#* A properly designed BRTS does better on many criteria than any
rail-based system.

*The full report is available at www.iitd.ac.in/tripp*

*Whom should we emulate?*

For models, let us look to America. No, not that America. In Curitiba, a
small city in the South American nation of Brazil, was developed a BRT
system that provided multiple benefits. Along with greater access and
economy, and lower environmental impact, came a better quality of public
space.

Bogota, the capital of Colombia, has a BRTS as well as the longest
pedestrian avenue in the world — 18 km long. Quito, capital of Ecuador, also
has a successful bus transit system.



*
*


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cities need mobility, not cars.

*--------------------------------------------------------------------
*
**“..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment
to destroy the city“*

Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel
Munich 1970

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com
sujit at parisar.org <sujitjp at gmail.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parisar: www.parisar.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------