[sustran] Re: Delhi Metro - A Transport Planner's Perspective

[Dr Adhiraj Joglekar]

I have erad this thread with some interest. Couple of comments. As a medic
perhaps to me it is very obvious and hence find the need for evidence to
make a case where the REAL choice is between better healthcare, food, or
education instead of better transport strange.

Having thought about it though, anyone who Google's (or is willing to) and
indeed any one who understands ground realities of a country like India will
not need much of an evidence. Indian Public Health expenditure is 1-2% of
its GDP (7-8 % for most Western Nations). Oddly when we include ou-of-pocket
spend on health, India spends 6% of its GDP (less than 5% have medical
insurance) - telling figures for a country where 40% are under BPL!!

Compare National Health / Education budgets with those touted for half dozen
metro systems, the difference is stark when one thinks the former is meant
to be for 1.2 Billion and latter for 10th of that number.

Systematically spending over years has been localised to urban metor cities
- no wonder every villager runs to these cities in hope of a decent wager
(only to live in shanties though it does become possible to survive than
starve).

I have to admit I was perturbed by what is a realistic statement / question
- could the money have been more wisely spent? probably.  was or is it
likely?  not very. The answer is probably highly likely. But does that make
it good enough to to not steer the ship differently or should it become an
excuse, rather convinient one to be used to build one industry at cost of
many others that are far more vital for masses (many times over than the
masses that will use the metro) of what is still a poor country (when
thinking per capita incomes).

PT does not exist in a bubble, though much of debate seems to suggest this
to be the case.

Cheers

Adhiraj

> > agree that the PT should be postponed.


On 10 January 2011 11:12, eric britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org> wrote:

> I wonder about this Walter.
>
>
>
> What if the idea of a Metro/BRT link is used as a tactic, fool's bait to
> get
> the metro built? Makes sense as a business strategy for the winners, since
> the money coming to the metro project will way outweigh the BRT share. So
> in
> such a case we would be getting ourselves used for a greater bad.
>
>
>
> For now in most parts of the world, at least in places where there is
> hyper-limited  money around to fund mobility improvements, don't we have to
> wave the red flag for every metro project that raises its ugly head?
>
>
>
> Or do I have this wrong?
>
>
>
> Once again and as we have been reminded recently. Gandhi's: "Doing more,
> for
> less, for more." Is the only way to go.
>
>
>
> Eric Britton
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Walter Hook
> Sent: Sunday, 09 January, 2011 17:27
> To: ashok datar
> Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro - A Transport Planner's Perspective
>
>
>
> interesting discussion.  could the money have been more wisely spent?
>
> probably.  was or is it likely?  not very.  we've had recent good
>
> experiences w/ some of the metro corps around India being quite open to
>
> developing integrated metro/BRT systems and I think this approach is
> showing
>
> some promise.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM, ashok datar <datar.ashok at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, Delhi is best compared with Beijing. Besides, in Indian context, it
> is
>
> > important that we must identify cost /benefit in a more comprehensive
>
> > manner
>
> > for alternative mass transportation projects and such an analysis should
>
> > consider the external economies such as effects on environment, low
> carbon
>
> > life style, affordability to a majority of population and whether it
> leads
>
> > to a switch from cars to public transportation.
>
> > from these angles, BRTS will come far superior than metro in  most cases
>
> > ashok datar
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:39 AM, V. Setty Pendakur <
>
> > pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > A realistic comparison would be Shanghai and Beijing.  Washington, DC
>
> > does
>
> > > not have the same catchment area population and neither are car
> ownership
>
> > > rates comparable.
>
> > >
>
> > > Delhi Metro, like several other places, is an empire unto itself and
> they
>
> > > can afford to get concerned about major issues such as land use or
>
> > > solvency.
>
> > > --
>
> > >
>
> > > Best wishes; Setty
>
> > >
>
> > > Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
>
> > > Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia
>
> > > Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences
>
> > > Senior Counselor, The State Council of the PRC
>
> > > President, Pacific Policy & Planning Associates
>
> > > 1099 Marinaside Crescent, Vancouver, BC
>
> > > Canada V6Z 2Z3
>
> > > T: 1-604-263-3576; M:1-604-374-3575
>
> > > Fax: 1-604-263-6493
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > From: <bruun at seas.upenn.edu>
>
> > > Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:48:20 -0500
>
> > > To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>, <
> NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
>
> > >
>
> > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro - A Transport Planner's Perspective
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > If a 180 km long network is carrying 1.6 million per day, this can
>
> > > hardly be called a failure. This is over double what the Washington DC
>
> > > regional metro network of the same length carries, and it is crush
>
> > > loaded in parts of the network at rush hours.
>
> > >
>
> > > I am not surprised that the DMRC doesn't cooperate with other
>
> > > organizations. This is always potentially a problem when one creates a
>
> > > new private corporation. But keep in mind that without creating a new
>
> > > corporation it would never have been built. The existing government
>
> > > bureaucracies were incapable of building anything in a timely fashion.
>
> > > So the solution is to restructure the organizational relationships and
>
> > > build different contractual and organizational structures, not throw
>
> > > out the concept of building high capacity systems.
>
> > >
>
> > > Yes, the overhead rights-of-way can be intrusive, but would it be
>
> > > better to build motorways in the sky instead? This is the real choice,
>
> > > not feeding starving Indians. If we were to wait in the US until all
>
> > > poverty was gone before we built decent PT, we would still be waiting.
>
> > > If you can show me a case where the REAL choice is between better
>
> > > healthcare, food, or education instead of better transport, I will
>
> > > agree that the PT should be postponed.
>
> > >
>
> > > Eric Bruun
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>