[sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."

[Alok Jain]

More on Delhi BRT in today's papers.

Arrogant car users opposing BRT: Delhi govt
24 Jul 2012 Hindustan Times (Delhi) Harish V Nair harish.nair at hindustantimes.com
Govt says politics of minority should not ignore interests of majority; alleges CRRI accorded value of time on basis of income

The Delhi government on Monday told the high court that the “arrogance” of car users was
behind the campaign to scrap the 5.8km Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor between Moolchand and
Ambedkar Nagar in south Delhi. Slamming the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) report, which
said the public benefited without the corridor, the government stood by its project aimed at
encouraging more people to use public transport and give up private vehicles.
The govt has said that car users opposing the BRT are anti-poor.
“BRT projects are sanctioned for the entire country. One wrong step in Delhi may jeopardise the
entire policy. The anger and arrogance of car users may not be permitted to wipe out the fragile
protection of the common good,” the state said in an affidavit.
“The CRRI report is full of contradictions. It in fact supports the existence of the BRT by its
conclusion that 70% of its users were moving faster and there was a 32% increase in bus
ridership,” said government counsel KTS Tulsi.
“Aren’t the poor who travel by bus not entitled to travel fast? The BRT is being opposed as
carwallahs are not able to travel faster than a bus,” Tulsi said. The Delhi Government is determined
to reduce the number of cars on the roads, it told the High Court. It also made it clear that the
government stood by BRT projects aimed at encouraging more people to use public transport and
give up private vehicles.
In its affidavit, the government has also accused car users of having an “elitist bias” and being
“anti-poor” by opposing the BRT corridor between Moolchand and Ambedkar Nagar.
“Delhi Government has understood the value of seeking out alternatives to cars and has
recognised buses as the best option. CRRI ignored the fact that congestion will only get worse by
2021 as car ridership will jump by 106 percent if BRT is not implemented,” the affidavit filed in the
court said.

“BRT projects have been sanctioned for the entire country. One wrong step in Delhi may
jeopardise the entire policy. Anger and arrogance of car (users) may not be permitted to wipe out
the fragile protection of the common good. The politics of minority ought not to ignore the interests
of the majority,” the affidavit said
“CRRI (Central Road Research Institute) has accorded value of time on the basis of income.
Aren’t the poor who travel by bus not entitled to travel fast? BRT is being opposed as carwallahs are
not able to travel faster than buses,” senior lawyer KTS Tulsi, who appeared for the government,
told the court hearing a PIL demanding the scrapping of BRT.
Tulsi said, “The report is full of contradictions. It, in fact, goes on to support the existence of
BRT by its conclusion that 70 per cent of its users were moving faster and there was 32 per cent
rise in bus ridership.”
The affidavit extensively quoted from a blog written by Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive
Director at Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on the CRRI report to bolster its argument.
“In her opinion, car users on BRT are terribly upset as they cannot tolerate increased journey time,
fuel loss and inconvenience,” it said
“The author believes there is a shocking elitist bias amongst car passengers and the belief that
they have higher value of time than those in buses,” the affidavit quoted her as saying.


On 23-Jul-2012, at 3:38 PM, Alok Jain wrote:

> Dear Eric,
> 
> I quote below from one of the paper produced by DIMTS (operator of BRT in Delhi) -
> 
> Untrained Drivers: The bus operation is very inefficient. CORRIDOR MANAGER has trained
> more than 200 DTC drivers to drive buses with a view to ensure the greater discipline in Bus
> Lane. However, in DTC, buses, route numbers are not matched with Drivers on a stable basis,
> i.e. drivers are frequently changed on different routes. As a result, it has been observed that
> very often many un-trained drivers are driving buses in the corridor.
> 
> Slow Speed: Currently, all types of buses are allowed to use the Bus lane, including many
> deteriorated buses and RTVs, which cause frequent breakdowns. Only newer buses meeting
> quality and maintenance standards should be allowed. It is also found that blue line buses
> sometimes linger at the bus stops. As a result, sometimes passengers board and alight before
> the bus platform.
> 
> I am also attaching the full document which should give a fairly good idea about the system/operational characteristics.
> 
> Regards
> Alok
> <Delhi_BRT_System_Lessons_Learnt.pdf>
> On 22-Jul-2012, at 7:00 PM, bruun at seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Alok, or someone:
>> 
>> Help us readers out that don't know the corridors. I already had explained to me that the buses don't have priority at the intersections at all.
>> 
>> How can the BRT really be so slow at 12 Km per hour? Even without priority at intersections, if one has laterally separated lanes, speed should be better than this. This doesn't sound like BRT at all to me.
>> 
>> Eric Bruun
>> 
>> 
>> Quoting Alok Jain <alok.priyanka at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Dear Eric,
>>> 
>>> Lately this has been attracting a lot of press. I am attaching a few articles.
>>> 
>>> This quote from one of the persons representing one of the Residents Welfare Association encapsulates the problem.
>>> 
>>> ?While there are not even enough buses and other intermediary
>>> transport like autos that were promised long ago, the government is
>>> trying to push BRT without dependable and safe public transport. How
>>> can they even expect people to shift from private to public vehicles when
>>> they don?t have enough public vehicles? It appears like a money-making
>>> enterprise,?
>>> 
>>> As I had mentioned earlier, I do see a rising support for public transport but it has to be "good". By attaching a fancy acronym to a half-baked idea, is doing injustice to the cause of public transport.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> Alok
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>