[sustran] Re: A very short list of very bad practices

[Morten Lange]

Hi, 

I think you both / all have a point. 

But what Eric said was : "to carry yet more moving motor vehicles".  Yet more.  By this he presumably meant increasing capacity where there are already a great many car trips being carried out. And he is I venture talking of practices which implicitly are doing very little for other modes of transport of people than the private automobile.


Here is a case in point, albeit not from a developing nation. I think the mindset is sadly the same, in much too many countries and settings. 

Some years ago a road connecting two suburbs of Reykjavik (somewhat simplified), was widened from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction along with multilevel crossings.  _Nothing_ was done to use the momentum of the large construction project to improve access for pedestrians, cyclists or users of public transport along the same route.

And the same thing happened again, between to other suburbs. Tips from  the cyclists organisations, were ignored. Now 5 year later, with higher petrol prices and more cycling, authorities are beginning to realise the lack of connections for cyclists (especially) along those two routes.

--
Regards / Kvedja
Morten Lange, Reykjavík


--- On Tue, 19/7/11, Karthik Rao-Cavale <krc12353 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Karthik Rao-Cavale <krc12353 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: A very short list of very bad practices
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Date: Tuesday, 19 July, 2011, 18:59
> Increased capacity may or may not
> improve accessibility, and improved
> accessibility in general may or may not improve the social
> outcomes.
> 
> What I tried to show is that the relationship between road
> capacity and
> accessibility is wholly context-dependent and cannot be
> generalized. The
> difference is not merely between urban and rural settings.
> Cities themselves
> come in various shapes and sizes. For instance almost half
> of the urban
> areas in India do not have a municipal corporation, and
> presumably do not
> benefit from urban services that improve connectivity. It
> is by no means
> clear that the relationship between road capacity and
> accessibility in these
> towns is negatively sloped, i.e. that increasing motor
> vehicle capacity
> decreases the accessibility level of goods and services.
> 
> Perhaps, if we were speaking only of big cities like
> Jakarta and Bangalore,
> Eric's statement might hold true, but even so, I personally
> prefer to be
> very cautious while making generalizations.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Bina C.Balakrishnan <binacb at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > These are 2 entirely different things:
> >
> > What Eric is referring to is increasing the carrying
> capacity of URBAN
> > roads, and thereby encouraging the use of personal
> modes of transport,
> > resulting in greater congestion and delays and all the
> rest of it.
> >
> > What Kartik has referred to is improving ACCESSIBILITY
> in rural areas where
> > this is either not available or is poor, to goods and
> essential services not
> > available in the villages.
> >
> > Two very different issues, and simply not comparable.
> >
> > Bina Balakrishnan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Karthik Rao-Cavale
> <krc12353 at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >> Frankly, I disagree with your basic premise that
> "any project which
> >> extends
> >> the capacity of the infrastructure to carry yet
> more moving motor vehicles
> >> is a definite Worst Practice strategy", and I am
> very uncomfortable with
> >> generalizations such as "worst practice
> strategies" and "best practice
> >> methods". I'd much rather evaluate every program
> in its own context rather
> >> than uprooting it from its context and looking at
> it as a generic program.
> >>
> >> For instance, India's Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak
> Yojana (Prime Minister's
> >> Village Road Scheme) does exactly what you
> consider "a definite worst
> >> practice strategy". It extends the capacity of
> infrastructure to carry
> >> motor
> >> vehicles. And yet, it has several benefits that
> cannot be disregarded.
> >> Allowing easier vehicle access ensures that
> pregnant women can get to
> >> maternity wards quickly (when a motor vehicle is
> available) and thereby
> >> reduces maternal and infant mortality. If travel
> to the village is more
> >> convenient, village teachers and doctors might not
> absent themselves as
> >> frequently, so services may improve. The cost of
> goods bears a direct
> >> relationship with the cost of transporting them,
> so a village road can
> >> reduce the costs of essential commodities like
> foodgrains (which might
> >> have
> >> an impact on nutrition levels). A well-connected
> village finds it easier
> >> to
> >> market its products, so a village may earn more
> income if it has road
> >> connectivity.
> >>
> >> Obviously, this is an extreme example of how road
> capacity might be
> >> extremely beneficial. If one were to be speaking
> only of cities, and
> >> further, only of cities in Europe and North
> America, your statement might
> >> have greater validity. But even so, I prefer to be
> more cautious in
> >> evaluating programs and projects outside of their
> context.
> >>
> >> karthik
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:03 AM, eric britton
> <eric.britton at ecoplan.org
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > I received a fair number of communications
> both on and off-line and I
> >> find
> >> > them interesting, challenging, and generally
> very encouraging.  But at
> >> the
> >> > same time I am made aware of the fact that I
> have most probably not
> >> > communicated the basic goal behind this
> project, so let me see if I can
> >> now
> >> > clarify a bit.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For starters, this is not a witch hunt. 
> It is not my interest to
> >> castigate
> >> > or humiliate any project or group behind
> it.  Life is complex and filled
> >> > with all kinds of internal contradictions,
> and moreover the kinds of
> >> > projects and policies that concern us here
> tend to be in process, in
> >> > constant evolution and adaptation, until that
> is the day comes in which
> >> > they
> >> > close down forever.  That of course is
> the time to do a postmortem. But
> >> in
> >> > our particular case here is my guess that we
> will be sharing information
> >> on
> >> > projects in process, so let us make sure that
> we (that I) do not give up
> >> on
> >> > possible adaptations and improvements that
> may well be in process,
> >> > hopefully.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And if the usual ambitious goal of Best
> Practices surveys and
> >> inventories
> >> > is
> >> > to get out there and capture quite a large
> number of attractive and
> >> > instructive projects, it is not at all the
> case in our own modest Worst
> >> > Practices mini project.  What I am
> looking for is one or two handfuls of
> >> > outstanding from examples which we can
> learn.  Yesterday's article in
> >> World
> >> > Streets on the Los Angeles Interstate 405
> road widening project is a
> >> good
> >> > case in point.  Let us take a minute to
> have a look at it together:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Exemplary Strong points: (Always a good place
> to start since our goal is
> >> to
> >> > see if we can have a balanced understanding
> of what is going on and what
> >> > may
> >> > have gone wrong.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > .     
>    Caltrans and the other players involved in
> this project are
> >> > extremely good at what they do.
> >> >
> >> > .         Not
> only are they world level performers when it comes to
> >> > creating
> >> > the planning and engineering standards to
> make a project like this work,
> >> > but
> >> > they also, in partnership with other players,
> consistently manage to do
> >> a
> >> > fine job of bringing their projects in to
> standard and on time.
> >> >
> >> > .         For
> those of us familiar with driving in LA, we can testify on
> >> an
> >> > almost daily basis the manner in which the
> road crews get their job
> >> done,
> >> > often within minutes of the plan and clean up
> the mess so that the
> >> traffic
> >> > can start to roll.  ("The cones are
> up.")
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Exemplary weak points and commentary:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1.  Oh dear. It is after all 2011 and if
> we have learned one thing about
> >> > sustainable and on sustainable transportation
> over the last decades, it
> >> is
> >> > that any project which extends the capacity
> of the infrastructure to
> >> carry
> >> > yet more moving motor vehicles is a definite
> Worst Practice strategy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2.  The concept of creating HOV lanes in
> the place of what went before
> >> is
> >> > in
> >> > theory an excellent one, but in practice is
> often watered down and
> >> abused
> >> > in
> >> > a number of ways.  (Maybe somebody can
> explain to me in a convincing
> >> manner
> >> > why electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles
> should be allowed with a single
> >> > passenger on to HOV, and while I am ready to
> listen and whether you can
> >> > pull
> >> > a rabbit out of a hat that I have ever seen,
> I most doubtful that you
> >> will
> >> > convince me or any other experienced
> independent observer.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 3.  The articles' authors commentary
> concerning the limitations of
> >> > carpooling as presently practiced in the
> region is, according to my best
> >> > information, right on target.  Does this
> mean, however, that HOV lanes
> >> are
> >> > not part of the solution?  Not at
> all!  But what it does mean is that
> >> the
> >> > old ideas about how to do this need to be
> brought up to date.  So, if we
> >> > were to think about it from this perspective,
> here we have a situation
> >> in
> >> > which there is what looks like a potentially
> excellent hardware solution
> >> > (i.e., converting portions of the existing
> road infrastructure to HOV
> >> > lanes)
> >> > needs to have better complementarity in terms
> of software and
> >> operations.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 4.  So, to summarize, they failed to do
> the whole job.  We have at the
> >> base
> >> > of this project a good idea, well executed on
> the hardware side -- other
> >> > than the fact that the project team made the
> old and now well known
> >> error
> >> > of
> >> > actually increasing infrastructure capacity
> for cars -- while for the
> >> rest
> >> > they simply fail to give attention to the
> most important part of all --
> >> > i.e., how to get more people into fewer cars
> with improved mobility and
> >> > improved quality of life.  Basically
> they were taking an old mobility
> >> > approach to a problem/opportunity that
> required new mobility strategic
> >> > thinking.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That is my take on this as an example of the
> sort of thing that I would
> >> > like
> >> > to see in our modest shared Worst Practices
> inventory and commentary.  I
> >> am
> >> > sure that a number of you will come in and do
> more and better, at least
> >> I
> >> > hope so.  But my reason for sharing this
> with you this morning is that I
> >> > wish to offer this is an example of the kind
> of project analysis and
> >> > commentary that I believe can help us to
> better organize our ideas and
> >> be
> >> > better prepared for future initiatives and
> opportunities.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I look forward to hearing from you either
> personally or here with your
> >> > views, objections, and eventually your ideas
> and suggestions on the
> >> basic
> >> > concept here namely , that of setting out to
> create a collaborative,
> >> open,
> >> > independent Worst Practices inventory and
> commentary.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards/Eric Britton
> >> >
> >> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To search the archives of sustran-discuss
> visit
> >> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> >> >
> >> >
> ================================================================
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> ================================================================
> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
> of people-centred,
> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus
> on developing countries
> >> (the 'Global South').
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Bina C. Balakrishnan*
> > *Consultant -
> > Sustainable Transportation Policy, Planning &
> Management
> > India
> > *
> > *Cell:    +91 99536 94218 (Gurgaon)*
> > *           +91
> 98339 00108  (Mumbai)
> > *
> > *
> > e-mail: binacb at gmail.com
> >            binac at rediffmail.com
> > web : www.binabalakrishnan.com
> > skype: binacb*
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of
> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a
> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). 
>