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

[Anjali Mahendra]

" we need to disincentivize the private transport simultaneously while allowing
public transport to offer superior experience."

With this, I completely agree, Ashok.  This two-pronged approach has been
my mantra for a long time, but it's interesting, at least in India that the
push for disincentivizing private transport has been coming from the cities
(Bangalore, Delhi, Mumbai off and on...remember Mr. R.  Ramana's study on
congestion pricing at MMRDA?), not from the universities or think tanks,
which put all their effort into helping improve public transport. It's
important work but its effectiveness remains limited because of the sheer
growth in cars.

"just because BRT in Delhi can do with some improvements does not mean
we should abandon it and invite anarchy as the traffic keeps on growing..."

Of course.  Anarchy indeed.

A good, defensible analysis needs to account for all these aspects you
mention below.  BTW, does anyone have numbers on what proportion, if any,
of travelers on the pilot BRT corridor switched from cars to the BRT in
Delhi?  Given the nature of the corridor and its linkages at either end, I
imagine it would be very small but please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Anjali



On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM, ashok datar <datar.ashok at gmail.com> wrote:

> madhav and anjail and others
> I am shocked at the poor basis chosen for valuing the time savings based on
> the income
> dont we value
> the fuel saving per person km thru BRT
> its encouraging shift from private cars to public cars
> public transport cant succeed unless it gets  space & users away from the
> private cars
> buses have no chance to be superior to cars unless they get the above
> we need to disincentivize the private transport simultaneously while
> allowing public transport to offer superior experience
> after all which mode uses public road space more efficiently to carry
> persons
> why cant we value the public space ?
>
> just because BRT in Delhi can do with some improvements doesnt mean we
> should abandon it and invite anarchy as the traffic keeps on growing and if
> the increase in trin traffic will be by cars what overall disastrous
> effects it will have on pollution, c ongestion and parking spaces
> so , if the BRT is not good enough , let us make it better . There is
> simply no alternative
>
> ashok datar
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Madhav Badami, Prof. <
> madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > I absolutely agree.
> >
> > They -- and indeed, many high income Indians in cities -- have an (almost
> > exclusively) "windshield view" of the world, because they are pretty much
> > driven door to door everywhere. What makes things even worse is that,
> > because they do not have to bother with wrestling with congestion on a
> > daily basis or finding parking spots (their drivers, who are pretty much
> at
> > their beck and call 24/7, do that for them as they sit in the back seat),
> > they bear not the slightest bit of the costs that their going around in
> > cars imposes, which of course means that they have no incentive
> whatsoever
> > not to continue to be driven around endlessly in cars. That this is now
> > causing India to become the diabetes capital of the world is a whole
> > different story.
> >
> > Madhav
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> >
> > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." --
> > George Orwell
> >
> > Madhav G. Badami, PhD
> > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment
> > McGill University
> >
> > Macdonald-Harrington Building
> > 815 Sherbrooke Street West
> > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada
> >
> > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work)
> > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
> > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning
> > www.mcgill.ca/mse
> > e-mail: madhav.badami at mcgill.ca
> > ________________________________________
> > From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu [bruun at seas.upenn.edu]
> > Sent: 26 July 2012 11:11
> > To: Madhav Badami, Prof.
> > Cc: Anjali Mahendra; worldtransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustainable
> > Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."
> >
> > Madhav
> >
> > While we are on the subject, lets be blunt about another reality too.
> > The decision makers
> > often have a conflict of interest. They are amongst the minority who
> > own cars and might
> > themselves want to use the bus lane.
> >
> > Eric Bruun
> >
> >
> > Quoting "Madhav Badami, Prof." <madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca>:
> >
> > > I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today),
> > > prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much
> > > if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise.
> > >
> > > The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in
> > > ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them,
> > > and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other,
> > > ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose.
> > > Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology,
> > > but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics.
> > >
> > > Madhav
> > >
> > >
> ************************************************************************
> > >
> > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
> > > -- George Orwell
> > >
> > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD
> > > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment
> > > McGill University
> > >
> > > Macdonald-Harrington Building
> > > 815 Sherbrooke Street West
> > > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada
> > >
> > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work)
> > > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
> > > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning
> > > www.mcgill.ca/mse
> > > e-mail: madhav.badami at mcgill.ca
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From:
> > > sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org
> > > [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org]
> > > on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50
> > > To: bruun at seas.upenn.edu
> > > Cc: worldtransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the
> > > south; NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."
> > >
> > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why
> neoclassical
> > > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation
> > policy
> > > issues.  However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the
> U.S.
> > > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car
> > > drivers and transit passengers:
> > > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf
> > >
> > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose.  Values of time for a poor
> > person
> > > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar.
> >  I
> > > wonder if CRRI accounts for that.
> > >
> > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of
> the
> > > developing world that anyone could direct me to?
> > > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting
> > exactly
> > > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on
> > an
> > > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback:
> > > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf
> > >
> > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's
> not
> > a
> > > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor,
> and
> > > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver
> > training.
> > >  But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues
> > that
> > > must be tackled as more corridors are considered.
> > >
> > > -Anjali
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alok
> > >>
> > >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical
> > >> cost-benefit analysis. We may
> > >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common.
> > >>
> > >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage
> > >> it can be is to
> > >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with
> > >> saving a full hour
> > >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then
> > >> according to this technique
> > >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the
> > >> poor person a full hour.
> > >>
> > >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes
> > >> sprawl. All evidence shows
> > >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance
> instead.
> > >>
> > >> Eric Bruun
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Quoting Alok Jain <alok.priyanka at gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on
> > >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users
> > >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously
> > >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car
> > >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going
> > >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes  BRT or not. That
> > >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in
> > >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the
> > >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these
> weights.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain <
> alok.priyanka at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT,
> > >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no
> > >> >>
> > >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works
> > >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST
> > >> >> Article
> > >> >> Comments
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> inShare
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT
> > >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly
> > >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the
> > >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the
> > >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing
> > >> >> attack on the institute itself.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it
> > >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the
> > >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport
> > >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as
> > >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the
> > >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told
> > >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for
> > >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the
> > >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used
> > >> >> international norms employed in such studies."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting
> > >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has
> > >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to
> > >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the
> > >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport
> > >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES
> > >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34
> > >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not
> > >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of
> > >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The
> > >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015
> > >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the
> > >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease
> > >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on
> > >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT,
> > >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in
> > >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception,
> > >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and
> > >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its
> > >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is
> > >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the
> > >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes
> > >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad
> > >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the
> > >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width
> > >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of
> > >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each
> > >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the
> > >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is
> > >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed
> > >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT
> > >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS -
> > >> >> 13-15kmph)."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi
> > >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT
> > >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> 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').
> > >>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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').
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ashok R.Datar
> Mumbai Environmental Social Network
> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016
> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org
>
> * I hear, then I forget.  I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.*
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>