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

Rutul Joshi joshirutul at yahoo.co.in
Fri Jul 27 13:37:33 JST 2012


Hi all, 


While we wait for the CRRI report, I would like to point out something that is ignored in such reports. The cycle tracks have been pretty succesful on the Delhi BRT corridor. Last year in July, I was counting the number of cyclists on the corridor (using the cycle tracks) in morning peak hours on three different days - the number of cyclists came above 1000 per hour. In some places, the cycle tracks were congested and the motorized two-wheelers would use (read encroach) the cycle tracks only to be slowed down. Such 'critical mass' of cyclists would make many around the world jealous! But I am not sure if such 'benefits' will be quantified in typical CBAs. 


Rutul







________________________________
 From: Anjali Mahendra <anjali.mahendra at gmail.com>
To: bruun at seas.upenn.edu 
Cc: worldtransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south <sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org> 
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012 2:41 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."
 
For those interested, here is the updated version of the US DOT guidance on
value of time for which I sent a link earlier.  The earlier one was from
2003, while this version was updated in 2011
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

>
> Anjali
>
> Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each
> individual commuter
> their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would like
> to do.
>
> But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average income.
> There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average income
> along it will still have higher total monetized time savings  benefits than
> a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time reduction
> on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both
> highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor.
>
> In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break
> it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the distribution
> of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as
> our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.)
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
>
> Quoting Anjali Mahendra <anjali.mahendra at gmail.com>:
>
>  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<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<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<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<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<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'). 


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list