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

ashok datar datar.ashok at gmail.com
Fri Jul 27 13:48:22 JST 2012


Thanks Rutul
let us bring out the hidden bicycle numbers out .
this could be the single most important reason to justify BRTS
ashok datar

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Rutul Joshi <joshirutul at yahoo.co.in>wrote:

> 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').
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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.*


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list