[sustran] Re: [KyotoWorldCities] Equitable Transportation

[Syed Saiful Alam]

Going Underground
Yasmin Chowdhury digs deep into Dhaka’s proposed metro system
The recent decision to build a metro (underground rail) system in Dhaka has met with a range of responses. On one side is the "Hallelujah" response -- at last, the government is taking public transit seriously, with plans to invest serious funds (at least $3.2 billion) into making life easier for the masses.


On the other hand, the project raises practical questions: how feasible is the plan, how much will eventually get built, will it actually function, and might not a different form of public transit -- say, a tram or trolley or rapid bus transit -- achieve similar benefits for about a hundred times less money .

On the bright side, travelling in cities with a metro is a far different experience from travelling in those without one. Where I grew up, there is no developed system for public transit, and it is virtually impossible to get around without a car. Since I let my driver's license expire about a decade ago, I feel like a child when I move around, relying on adults to take me places. But when I visit big modern cities like Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, or any number of European cities, I can easily move around on my own.
However, while the independent mobility is a blessing, it comes with a significant down-side. When travelling underground, we fail to experience the city we are in. Living in Boston and frequently travelling by subway, I had many of the stops memorised, and could easily get around underground -- but I had no idea what was over my head.

When I finally got into the habit of walking through the city following the subway lines, above ground, I realised then that I was gaining a perspective of where buildings, monuments, and important parts of the city were in relation to each other -- not in terms of a subway map, but in terms of an actual physical layout. In the process, I realised how little I understood, after all those years of living there, about the true layout of Boston -- or of what was to be found in various neighbourhoods that I had ever only passed under. The parts of the city I knew best were those I walked in, or where the subway emerged into a street-level trolley, and there was a sense of connection between the passengers and the street life outside our windows.

When travelling underground, we are unaware -- and, thus, often unconcerned -- about the situation at ground level. Passing beneath a slum, we don't pause to reflect on the lives of the people there, and whether something could be done to make it better, or why trash is thrown here and there, or how desolate some of the streets look. But we do notice those things when travelling on the surface, and there is the possibility that from noticing, we will go on to change it.
This has a direct practical side as well for business owners: when travelling at ground level, we can see shops and other amenities. Oh, that's where I can buy that -- or, oh, that looks like a pleasant restaurant! And knowing where it is and how to access it, there is the possibility of going back someday. This is both a far more amusing way to pass the time when travelling than looking at tunnel walls, and also good for the businesses we pass.

Then, of course, there are the practical matters. I remember seeing a map of the subway system in Washington, DC, which showed various "planned" routes. I remember seeing the same map year after year, and being surprised that they were never built. Short on funds? Similarly, I read in the newspaper in Bangkok that the sky-train was supposed to extend far beyond the existing network. That hasn't happened, and the sky-train itself took many years to build, in part, I hear, due to corruption. Meanwhile, the new metro in Bangkok doesn't go much beyond the sky-train. What then are the chances that Dhaka will succeed in building all that it has planned? If the existing plans prove unaffor-dable, as the price of materials continues to rise, how much will a very limited system help to reduce traffic congestion or make travelling easier?

Meanwhile, building a subway system requires building a lot of tunnels. The funny thing about tunnels is, they have to be accessed from the street. This involves a lot of big holes, and while those holes are in place, streets are closed down. So congestion will be significantly worse during the construction of the metro system.
There is also the issue of crowding on the subway. I was in New York City recently, and given the intense street-level congestion, when it was too far to walk, I tried the subway. It was certainly better than being stuck in traffic, but, of course, I had no idea where I was, and I couldn't decipher the thick New York accent of the conductor. On one trip, the train was so packed that I couldn't see out the windows to read the names of the stops. This made arriving at my destination a bit of a challenge, and left me as clueless as ever about the geography of Manhattan.

The sky-train is often packed in Bangkok, with barely room to stand. Thais are polite, and I have never had a man grab me. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about my experience of riding in crowded subways in Boston, and I have heard horror stories about the system in Mexico, which apparently had to provide separate carriages for women to prevent sexual harassment on the packed trains.

Then there are those lovely escalators down to the stations. Where there are hills, or where the system must go under high-rise buildings, stations must be built far below ground. Some of those escalators seem to go on forever. Stepping onto those moving stairs, with the ground so far below as to seem to belong almost to another planet, always makes my head spin. I was relieved, on a recent trip to DC, to discover that a Bangladeshi colleague had the same experience, only worse. He insisted on taking the lift. Of course, the lifts are intended mostly for the disabled, those with small children, or those with luggage, so sometimes one must wait a long time for them. Between the long lines for lifts and the crowded situation on the trains, it sometimes feels as if we have simply shifted a portion of our traffic congestion below ground.

Speaking of traffic congestion, it helps to remember that people need to be able to get to and from the public transit stops. Getting from one stop to another quickly is a great convenience, but the benefits of that convenience are rapidly diminished when it is difficult to get from public transit to one's actual destination. I made a mistake in Bangkok once and got off at the wrong subway stop. As I came up to the street, I realised that where I needed to go was on the other side of a highway, with no provision for crossing. I could either go back underground, pay again, then wait for another train to come along to take me just one more stop, or I could risk my life running across the highway. Needless to say, I ran.

In cities with broken sidewalks, and sidewalks blocked by parked cars, barbed wire and cement medians to prevent people from crossing the street, getting to and from public transit becomes a daunting challenge. Anyone in his right mind would choose to drive instead, if he had the option, thus defeating in large part the point of the public transit in the first place: to woo people away from their cars. Public transit doesn't exist in a vacuum -- it is part of the city, and it is meant to connect places not just along the tracks, but throughout the city. If people can't easily get to the stops on foot, or on rickshaw, then there is little point in building the system in the first place.
Then there is that lovely dream of un-congested streets in Dhaka once our metro system is built. How many large, crowded cities with crowded metros have streets free of traffic jams?

Let's face it, moving through a city underground -- even at a good pace -- just isn't that pleasant an experience. Subway stations are often hot and smelly. Homeless people tend to use them as urinals, and there are always those aggressive people who insist on smoking despite all the signs. If subways freed up the streets, then all the passengers who could afford a car or taxi would go back to riding in one.
I remember being late for the airport in Boston once, and figuring that rather than going all that way below ground, changing trains twice, and moving at the snail's pace the Boston subway often goes at -- it is the oldest subway system in the US and thus the least modern -- I would take a taxi. Oops. Of course it took even longer, thanks to all the traffic, and I missed my plane. Yet Boston's subway system is far more extensive than Dhaka's is ever likely to be, it is easy to walk in Boston, there is a good bus system to complement the subway, and the population is a fraction of Dhaka's. So, why are there still traffic jams, when the metro is supposed to eliminate them?

I'm sure the decision was made in good faith. Perhaps the planners involved have not spent much time in the major cities of the world, and experienced both their subways and the traffic situation above ground. Perhaps they feel that people enjoy being below ground, or that the city is best experienced as little as possible -- that is, either underground or safely insulated in a steel box. No doubt they consider the expenditure of a mere few billion dollars quite reasonable, pocket change really. Perhaps they are too busy to read the Strategic Transport Plan, which was meant to map out the best transport plan for the future, and which found that a metro would offer no significant improvements over surface public transit, and thus there was no justification for building it.

Even allowing that a few billion dollars is a minor sum, which should involve little thought or planning before being spent, I would still suggest that when Dhaka's city planners make their final decision about an efficient, fast, affordable, high quality system of public transit, they should be careful not to miss the boat. It's a lot more expensive and technically more difficult to build and operate an underground system than a surface one.

We would get a far more extensive system, with far lower fares or less government subsidy, if we built a surface rather than an underground system. The system could be built a lot faster than a metro, and with a lot less disruption of traffic during its construction. The issue of fares is important -- around the world, public transit tends to be inexpensive, and yet still highly subsidised by government. The more expensive the system is to build and maintain, the higher the fares and the subsidies, and the less that will eventually get built.

People could see their city out the windows while riding, gaining both a sense of perspective and of knowledge of what was happening around them. A less expensive system could be started quickly, and gradually expanded. Ensuring that people can walk around the city would not only make the public transit system viable, but would also help reduce congestion by shifting some short distance trips to walking. The money to fix our footpaths, and the political will to ban cars parking on them, should not be more difficult to find than the billions planned for the metro.

Public transit is definitely the way to go -- but not all public transit is created equal, and leaping onto the wrong train won't help us reach our final destination.
 
 
Syed Saiful Alam
+8801552442814
shovan1209 at yahoo.com




________________________________
 From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
To: 'Gabriel Roth' <roths at earthlink.net>; 'Eric Bruun' <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 
Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com; KyotoWorldCities at yahoogroups.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:37 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: [KyotoWorldCities] Equitable Transportation
 
It is true that transportation equity can be evaluated in various ways and
that special interest groups often use equity concerns to advance their own
agenda, but it tends to be an important concern in transport policy and
planning decision-making, and there is a good body of literature on
transport equity analysis. There are three major categories of transport
equity:

1.    Horizontal Equity (also called fairness) is concerned with whether
each individual or group is treated equally, assuming that their needs and
abilities are comparable. It suggests that people with comparable incomes
and needs should receive an equal share of public resources and benefits,
and bear an equal burden of public costs. It implies that costs should be
borne by users unless a subsidy is specifically justified (i.e., the “user
pays principle”). 
    
2.    Vertical Equity With Regard to Income considers the allocation of
costs between different income classes, assuming that public policies should
favor people who are economically disadvantaged. Policies that provide a
proportionally greater benefit to lower-income groups are called
progressive, while those that make lower-income people relatively worse off
are called regressive.
  
3.    Vertical Equity With Regard to Mobility Need and Ability considers
whether a transportation system provides adequate service to people who have
special transportation needs (i.e., they are transportation disadvantaged).
It justifies facility design features and special mobility services that
provide access to people with disabilities. It suggests that public
subsidies should be used to provide Basic Access to transportation
disadvantaged people.


Equity analysis is complicated by the fact that there are many types of
impacts to consider and people can be grouped in various ways. A particular
policy may seem equitable and justified when evaluated one way but not in
another. It is therefore important that decision-makers understand these
different perspectives and measurement units. I agree with Gabe that road
pricing is often portrayed as regressive and therefore inequitable, although
it is generally more equitable than other road funding options, particularly
if there are good alternatives to driving. This is why most experts argue
that a portion of road pricing revenues should be used to improve transport
options.


For more information see:

Anvita Arora and Geetam Tiwari (2007), A Handbook for Socio-economic Impact
Assessment (SEIA) of Future Urban Transport (FUT) Projects, Transportation
Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP), Indian Institute of
Technology (http://tripp.iitd.ernet.in); at
http://tripp.iitd.ernet.in/publications/paper/SEIA_handbook.pdf.

Judith Bell and Larry Cohen (2009), The Transportation Prescription: Bold
New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America,
PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute Convergence Partnership
(www.convergencepartnership.org/transportationhealthandequity).

David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing
the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report
456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).

David Forkenbrock and Jason Sheeley (2004), Effective Methods for
Environmental Justice Assessment, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 532, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org);
available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_532.pdf. 

Todd Litman (2002), “Evaluating Transportation Equity,” World Transport
Policy & Practice (http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm), Volume 8, No. 2,
Summer, pp. 50-65; revised version at www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf. 

Todd Litman (2006), You CAN Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation
Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at
www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf; originally published as, “You Can Get There From
Here: Evaluating Transportation Choice,” Transportation Research Record
1756, TRB (www.trb.org), 2001, pp. 32-41

Todd Litman and Marc Brenman (2011), A New Social Equity Agenda For
Sustainable Transportation, Paper 12-3916, Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf.

Karen Lucas (2004), Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and
Environmental Justice, Policy Press
(www.bris.ac.uk/Publications/TPP/tpp.htm).

Caroline Rodier, John E. Abraham, Brenda N. Dix and John D. Hunt (2010),
Equity Analysis of Land Use and Transport Plans Using an Integrated Spatial
Model, Report 09-08, Mineta Transportation Institute
(www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at
www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Equity%20Ana
lysis%20of%20Land%20Use%20(with%20Covers).pdf. 

Thomas W. Sanchez, Richard Stolz and Jacinta S. Ma (2003), Moving to Equity:
Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities, The
Harvard University Civil Rights Project (www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu)
and the Center for Community Change (www.communitychange.org). 

K.H. Schaeffer and Elliot Sclar (1980), Access for All, Columbia University
Press (New York).

Lisa Schweitzer and Brian Taylor (2008), “Just Pricing: The Distributional
Effects Of Congestion Pricing And Sales Taxes,” Transportation, Vol. 35, No.
6, pp. 797–812 (www.springerlink.com/content/l168327363227298); summarized
in “Just Road Pricing,” Access 36 (www.uctc.net/access);  Spring 2010, pp.
2-7; at www.uctc.net/access/36/access36.pdf.

SDC (2011), Fairness in a Car Dependent Society, Sustainable Development
Commission (www.sd-commission.org.uk); at
www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/fairness-in-a-car-dependent-society.html.

Jamie E.L. Spinney, Darren M. Scott, and K. Bruce Newbold (2009), “Transport
Mobility Benefits And Quality Of Life: A Time-Use Perspective Of Elderly
Canadians,” Transport Policy, Vol. 16, Is. 1, January, Pages 1-11.

TRB (2011), Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Special
Report 303, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf.

Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2011), Getting Around When You’re Just Getting By:
The Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of Low-Income Adults,
Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at
www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/2806_10-02.p
df.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Gabriel Roth
Sent: February-22-12 10:33 AM
To: Eric Bruun
Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com;
KyotoWorldCities at yahoogroups.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: [KyotoWorldCities] Equitable Transportation

Eric -

Of course you are right that "equity" is brought into these discussions.
Often by those who do not like markets or the principle of  "user pays"? So,
it may well be "inescapable", but I do my best to escape it as I consider it
a distraction from transport and land use issues.

I wish others would avoid "equity" on transport lists, or at least define it
properly if they feel impelled to discuss it.

Best wishes -

Gabriel



On Feb 22, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Eric Bruun wrote:

> Gabriel
> 
> I see your point that much of the discussion of equity isn't really
transport specific. 
> 
> But I think that the concept of equity is, to some extent, inescapable
when discussing roads and urban development, since it involves public policy
on investment, pricing, taxes, subsidies, potential discrimination against
people whose age or health prevents them from using certain transport modes,
etc. 
> 
> Eric B 2
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Gabriel Roth 
> Sent: Feb 22, 2012 5:34 PM 
> To: Eric Bruun , KyotoWorldCities at yahoogroups.com 
> Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com,
sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
> Subject: Re: [KyotoWorldCities] Equitable Transportation 
> 
> Eric -
> 
> My comment was made in the light of a recent exchange with the esteemed
other Eric, which I reproduce below.
> 
> However, more fundamentally, many concerns about "Equity" in transport
relate to income inequality, and with the reality that those with more money
can get better deals. But this is fundamental to the market system, which
enables some to be richer than others. What I meant was that objections to
the market system (which has been found to be best at raising overall living
standards) are better discussed elsewhere, not on a site dealing with roads
and urban development.
> 
> I suppose I could have written more about "Equity" which, incidentally, is
rarely defined by those who use that word. Do those who write about
transport "equity" consider the equity of forcing low-income taxpayers to
subsidize rail systems used mostly (in the UK and US) by those with higher
incomes? Or the "equity" of requiring all in congested traffic to travel at
the same, low, speed? Or of subsidizing high-cost unionized transit systems,
while prohibiting low-cost, high-frequency, transit provided by shared taxis
and associations of privately-owned minibuses?
> 
> This is why some of us have been focusing on trying to get the most
benefits out of our roads by applying to them the pricing and investment
criteria we use for the allocation of other scarce resources, such as food,
water and telecommunications. Such policies would enable those with urgent
needs to be able pay more to travel more quickly, as in the Singapore and
Stockholm congestion pricing zones. Many know that Singapore and Sweden,
that adopt such policies, are not the poorest countries in the world.
> 
> Best wishes -
> 
> Gabriel 
> 
> ***************************************
> But if the 1% include ambulances, food delivery vans, people trying to
catch planes, police trying to catch law-breakers, is it "equitable" to
restrict their ability to travel faster ?
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:02 AM, eric britton wrote:
> 
>> So right Gabriel. So very right.  My response:
> 
>>  
> 
>> My best response (for now)
> 
>>  
> 
>> This is, if I may say it, an amazingly simple approach to transport
policy and practice, in that once you understand and accept the basic
principle a huge number of other good things follow. And you have only to
look in one place to see if you have it -- and that is on the streets of
your city. If the mayor, all public servants, and the top economic 1% of
your community travel by the same means as the other 99%, you have an
equitable system. Sometimes life is simple
> 
>>  
> 
>> That's my point of departure in the first day of my pondering this new
initiative. But be sure, I shall be working on it, and your note of caution
is extremely appreciated.
> 
>>  
> 
>> All the best/Eric
> 
>>  
> 
>>  
> 
>> _______________
> 
>> EcoPlan International
> 
>>    
> Association loi de 1901
>>  
> 
>> Eric Britton, Managing Director
> 
>> Un projet de l'Association Ecoplan International (Loi de 1901)
> 
>> 8/10, rue Jospeh Bara  •  Paris 75006 France
> 
>> +331 7550 3788
>   •  association at ecoplan.org    •  Skype newmobility
>>                
>     Sustainable Development, Business & Society | World Streets  | New
Mobility Partnerships  
>>                    
> Siret 304555295 00019  Arrêté du ministre de l’intérieur. 19 août 1975
>>  
> 
>> P
>  Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***************************************
> 
> 
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Eric Bruun wrote:
> 
>> Gabriel
>> 
>> Would you care to elaborate on this?
>> 
>> Eric 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Gabriel Roth 
>> Sent: Feb 21, 2012 5:28 PM 
>> To: KyotoWorldCities at yahoogroups.com 
>> Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com,
sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
>> Subject: Re: [KyotoWorldCities] Equitable Transportation 
>> 
>>  
>> Eric -
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, but please count me out of this one. Most concerns about "Equity"
relate to the market system, not to transport.
>> 
>> Best wishes -
>> 
>> Gabriel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:21 AM, eric britton wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:c_bradshaw at rogers.com] 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> This is a big elephant-in-the-room.  Is access to transportation
equitable.  I raise this issue as one that the usual green-transportation
agenda (more efficient cars, intelligent highways, better transit at rush
hours) ignores.  The others that are ignored are: health/obesity;
health/trauma; health/stress, sprawl, congestion, social/community capital.
>>> 
>>> I use the PED-CIVS acronym to identify those who the system ignores in
favour of AAAs (active, affluent adults):  It stands for poor, elderly,
disabled, children, ill/infirm, visitors, and "simplicists" (this last
eschews car-ownership).  Your reference to the unemployed and under-employed
suggests that I should add one: making it PED-CIVUS.  The IVUs are really
those temporarily in the PEDCS classes.
>>> 
>>> The total in this group at any one time must be close to 50% (and will
be higher as the aging occurs).
>>> 
>>> In transit, the engineer-planners use the term "transit captive" to
refer to those without the means to driver whenever the transit service
"displeases" them.  Their patronage, as a result, can be taken for granted.
It is only the AAAs whose patronage they have to compete for.  That is a
distinction that is the opposite of what we need. [See Walker, Jarrett
(2012), Human Transit, p. 44-45; or my essay:
http://hearthhealth.wordpress.com/about/previously-published-works/feet-firs
t-and-car-sharing-recent/transits-two-solitudes-%E2%80%9Cchoice%E2%80%9D-vs-
%E2%80%9Ccaptive%E2%80%9D-riders-2009/]
>>> 
>>> So, count me in as part of your group you are organizing to monitor this
important study.
>>> 
>>> Chris Bradshaw
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __._,_.___
>> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>> Messages in this topic (3)
>> RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> Visit Your Group
>> _________________________________________________________
>> The Kyoto 20/20 Cities Challenge: http://kyotocities.org 
>> A single ambitious environmental objective for your city:
>> *** A 20% improvement in 20 months, and within budget. ***
>> 
>> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
>> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
>> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>> .
>>  
>> __,_._,___
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------- 
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').