From litman at vtpi.org Fri Jun 1 13:42:13 2012
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:42:13 -0700
Subject: [sustran] VTPI NEWS - Spring 2012
Message-ID: <082701cd3fc2$7b37eb40$71a7c1c0$@org>
-----------
VTPI NEWS
-----------
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
-------------------------------------
Spring 2012 Vol. 12, No. 2
-----------------------------------
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research
organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation
problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources
addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also
provides consulting services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW VTPI DOCUMENTS
====================
"Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists' and Pedestrians' Right to Use Public
Roadways" (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf )
Many people believe that non-motorized modes (walking, cycling, and their
variants) have less right to use public roads than motorists, based on
assumptions that motor vehicle travel is more important than non-motorized
travel and motor vehicle user fees finance roads. This report investigates
these assumptions. It finds that non-motorized modes have clear legal rights
to use public roads, that non-motorized travel is important for an efficient
transport system and provides significant benefits to users and society,
that less than half of roadway expenses are financed by motor vehicle user
fees, and pedestrians and cyclists pay more than their share of roadway
costs. Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized
modes, people who rely on non-motorized modes tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.
"Changing Vehicle Travel Price Sensitivities: The Rebounding Rebound Effect"
(http://www.vtpi.org/VMT_Elasticities.pdf )
There is growing interest in transportation pricing reforms to help achieve
various planning objectives such as congestion, accident and emission
reductions. Their effectiveness is affected by the price sensitivity of
transport, that is, the degree that prices affect travel activity, measured
as elasticities (percentage change in travel caused by a one-percent price
change). Lower elasticities imply that price reforms are relatively
ineffective at achieving planning objectives, burdensome to consumers, and
that rebound effects (additional vehicle travel caused by increased fuel
economy) are small so strategies that increase vehicle fuel economy are
effective at conserving fuel. Higher elasticities imply that price reforms
are relatively effective and bearable to consumers, and rebound effects are
large. Some studies found very low transport elasticities during the last
quarter of the Twentieth Century but recent evidence suggests that price
sensitivities have since increased. This report discusses the concepts of
price elasticities and rebound effects, reviews vehicle travel and fuel
price elasticity estimates, examines evidence of changing price
sensitivities, and discusses policy implications.
"Comprehensive Evaluation of Transport Energy Conservation and Emission
Reduction Policies" (http://www.vtpi.org/comp_em_eval.pdf), submitted for
publication in 'Transportation Research A.'
There is debate concerning the best strategies for reducing transport energy
consumption and pollution emissions. Some studies favor 'clean vehicle'
strategies that reduce motor vehicle emission rates. Others favor 'mobility
management' strategies that reduce total vehicle travel. These different
conclusions tend to reflect different analysis scope. Analyses that favor
clean vehicle strategies tend to overlook or undervalue some significant
impacts, including cleaner vehicle lifecycle analysis and rebound effects,
and mobility management co-benefits. More comprehensive analysis tends to
favor mobility management. This article investigates these issues and
provides specific recommendations for comprehensive evaluation of emission
reduction options.
"Transportation Prescription For Healthy Cities "
(http://www.vtpi.org/Lockwood_HealthyCities_2004.pdf ).
This report, written in 2004 by transportation engineer Ian Lockwood for the
Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, discusses design concepts for healthier
communities and suggests specific ways to incorporate them into transport
policy and planning practices. Posted with permission (thanks Ian!).
* * * * *
UPDATED DOCUMENTS
=================
Below are a few recently updated VTPI documents:
"Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities: How Prices and Other
Factors Affect Travel Behavior" (www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf )
Transport demand refers to the amount and type of travel that people would
choose under specific conditions. This report describes concepts related to
transport demand, investigates the influence that factors such as prices and
service quality have on travel activity, and how these impacts can be
measured using elasticity values. It summarizes research on various types of
transport elasticities and describes how to use this information to predict
the impacts of specific transport price and service quality changes.
"Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs"
(www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf )
This report describes methods for evaluating non-motorized transport
(walking, cycling, and their variants) benefits and costs, including direct
benefits to users from improved walking and cycling conditions, and various
benefits to society from increased non-motorized travel activity, reduced
automobile travel, and support for more compact land use development. It
identifies various types of benefits and costs, and describes methods for
measuring them. It discusses non-motorized transport demand and ways to
increase non-motorized travel activity. This analysis indicates that
non-motorized travel provides significant benefits, many of which are
overlooked or undervalued in conventional transport economic evaluation.
"Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impacts"
(www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf )
This report investigates the safety impacts of mobility management
strategies that change how and the amount people travel. It evaluates the
safety impacts of various types of strategies including improvements to
alternative modes, pricing reforms and smart growth land use policies.
Evidence summarized in this report indicates that per capita traffic crash
rates tend to increase with per capita vehicle travel, and mobility
management strategies can provide significant safety benefits. This analysis
indicates that mobility management is a cost effective traffic safety
strategy, and increased safety is one of the largest benefits of mobility
management.
* * * * *
PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE
===================
"Sustainable Transportation Indicators for TDM Planning"
(https://asct.memberclicks.net/assets/tdm_review_winter_2012.pdf )
This issue of 'TDM Review' focuses on program evaluation methods. This
article discusses a practical set of sustainable transport goals, objectives
and performance indicators that can be used for evaluating transportation
demand management programs.
"Sustainable Transport Evaluation: Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation
in the Context of the CSD Process"
(http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background%20Paper%2010
%20-%20transport.pdf ).
This report published by the United Nation's Commission on Sustainable
Development identifies practical methods for evaluating the sustainable
development impacts of transport policies and programs. It proposes the
establishment of a working group coordinated by an international
professional organization or agency to develop a recommended set of
sustainable transport evaluation methods, performance indicators, and data
standards.
'Adjusting Data Collection Methods: Making the Case for Policy Changes to
Build Healthy Communities,' in "From Inspiration to Action: Implementing
Projects to Support Active Living"
(www.walklive.org/project/implementation-guide ).
This comprehensive report includes a section by Todd Litman that discusses
transport planning biases that undervalue walking and cycling improvements,
and specific ways to better incorporate active transport in transport
planning analysis.
"Transformando La Movilidad Urbana En M?xico" ("Transforming Urban Mobility
In Mexico),
(http://mexico.itdp.org/documentos/transformando-la-movilidad-urbana-en-mexi
co ).
This study by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
analyzes mobility problems and innovative management solutions for creating
more efficient and sustainable transport in Mexican cities.
Recent Planetizen Blogs (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/2394 ):
"Choosing Ignorance is Stupid" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/56685 )
"Avoiding Undesirable Self-Fulfilling Prophecies"
(http://www.planetizen.com/node/56017 )
"Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Planning"
(http://www.planetizen.com/node/55540 )
Let's be friends. Todd Litman regularly posts on his Facebook page
(http://www.facebook.com/todd.litman). Befriend him now!
* * * * *
UPCOMING EVENTS
=====================
"Non-motorized Transport For Healthy and Sustainable Communities," Velo
Village (http://www.velovillage.ca), 21-23 June, Salt Spring Island, British
Columbia, Canada
Todd Litman will give this keynote presentation at what will surely be a fun
event.
"What's It Worth? Comprehensive Evaluation of Bicycling Benefits" at
Velo-City Global 2012 (http://www.velo-city2012.com ), Thursday, 28 June
2012, Vancouver, BC.
This presentation will discuss the economic, social and environmental
benefits of non-motorized transportation and how to incorporate them into
transport policy and project evaluation.
USEFUL RESOURCES
=================
"Understanding How to Develop and Apply Economic Analyses: Guidance for
Transportation Planners
(http://statewideplanning.org/resource_list/understanding-how-to-develop-and
-apply-economic-analyses-guidance-for-transportation-planners ). This report
provides guidance for developing, implementing, evaluating and communicating
transportation investment economic analysis. It describes various categories
of economic impacts and analytical techniques that can be applied to
planning and project analysis.
Saga City (http://www.sagacitymovie.org ). This entertaining animated video
explains how past transport and land use policies contribute to sprawl and
automobile dependency, the problems that result, and how smart growth policy
reforms can create better communities. It is a good introduction to urban
planning issues for a general audience.
"Land Use and Traffic Congestion"
(http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ618.pdf ).
This study by J. Richard Kuzmyak for the Arizona Department of
Transportation found that roads in more compact urban neighborhoods had
considerably less traffic congestion despite many times higher densities,
than in suburban neighborhoods. This appears to result from more mixed land
use which reduces travel distances, more transit and nonmotorized travel,
fewer vehicle miles of travel (VMT), and more connected streets which allows
for better channeling of traffic and enables walking.
"Across Latitudes and Cultures - New Global Database on Bus Rapid Transit"
(http://www.brt.cl ). This new website provides comprehensive data on more
than one hundred bus rapid transit systems to help planners and researcher
evaluate BRT systems.
"The End of a Life Cycle: Urban Highways Offer Cities New Opportunities for
Revitalization" (http://www.itdp.org/urbanhighways ). This attractive report
describes projects in many cities to convert urban highways into multi-modal
roadways, with slower speed, wider sidewalks, bike and bus lanes, and
attractive streetscaping to integrate them into the urban environment. Also
see, "The Life and Death of Urban Highways"
(www.itdp.org/documents/LifeandDeathofUrbanHighways_031312.pdf ).
"The Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Transportation"
(http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1002-Center-City-Economic-Cultur
al-Vibrancy-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Transportation.pdf ). This study by the
Mineta Transportation Institute found that residents of urban regions with
more vibrant downtowns tend to drive less, rely more on walking and public
transport, and consume less fuel than in urban regions with less vibrant
downtowns.
"Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from
Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation: A Low Cost, Low Technology
Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas" (www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/3/835
). This study estimates the savings and benefits that could be achieved by
implementing mobility management strategies in Brazilian cities, including
walking and cycling improvements, Bus Rapid Transit systems, and efficient
pricing reforms.
"Interview: John Norquist and Our Congestion Obsession"
(http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410 ). This interview in the Next
American City discusses how overemphasis on motor vehicle congestion
problems can bias transport planning at the expense of other planning
objectives. Also see, "Smart Congestion Relief"
(http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf )
"American Journal of Preventive Medicine" Vol. 42, No. 5
(http://www.ajpmonline.org ). This issue focuses on use of geographic
information systems to quantify the relationships between community design
and physical activity. 'Obesogenic' refers to conditions that encourage
obesity. See "Objective Assessment of Obesogenic Environments in Youth "
(http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3371[3]-st
amped.pdf ); "Obesogenic Neighborhood Environments, Child and Parent
Obesity: The Neighborhood Impact on Kids Study"
(http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3373[3]-st
amped.pdf ); and "Patterns of Obesogenic Neighborhood Features and
Adolescent Weight: A Comparison of Statistical Approaches"
(http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3374[3]-st
amped.pdf )
"The Crisis In American Walking: How We Got Off The Pedestrian Path"
(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/walking/2012/04/why_don_t_americans_walk
_more_the_crisis_of_pedestrianism_.html ). These Slate Magazine columns by
author Tom Vanderbilt discuss how biased attitudes and planning practices
have reduced community walkability, and ways to correct them.
The Global Green Growth Institute (http://www.gggi.org) is an international
institute dedicated to pioneering and diffusing the "green growth"
development model that integrates economic objectives such as poverty
reduction, job creation and social inclusion, with environmental objectives
such as protecting air, water and biodiversity.
"Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers: Walking and Bicycling in Small
Towns and Rural America"
(http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/reports/BeyondUrba
nCentersReport.pdf ). This attractive report by the Rails To Trails
Conservancy and Bikes Belong describes why and how to support walking and
cycling in small towns and rural areas.
"From Inspiration to Action: Implementing Projects to Support Active Living"
(http://www.walklive.org/project/implementation-guide ). This free guidebook
by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the Walkable and
Livable Communities (WALC) Institute describes practical ways to create more
walkable and bikable communities. It includes case studies and advice from
experts.
"Going the Distance Together: A Citizen's Guide to Context Sensitive
Solutions for Better Transportation"
(http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_W184.pdf ). This
comprehensive but easy-to-read report by the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program describes how citizens can become involved in transport
planning, from setting strategic goals to project design and operations. It
provides an introduction to key transport planning concepts and issues,
guidance for citizen involvement, and comprehensive reference information.
"The Surprising Story of Travel Behavior in Bellingham, Washington"
(https://www.whatcomsmarttrips.org/news/2012report.aspx ). This describes
the impacts of the Neighborhood Smart Trips program on travel behavior based
on comprehensive travel surveys. The results indicate that the program
resulted in significant shifts from driving to walking, cycling and public
transit travel, resulting in a 15% reduction in per capita vehicle travel
(from 11.4 to 9.7 average daily miles) by program participants.
"Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less
and What It Means for Transportation Policy"
(www.frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Transportation%20&%20the%
20New%20Generation%20vUS.pdf )
This report describes the decline in per capita vehicle travel occurring in
North America, particularly among young people, and its implications for
transport policy and planning.
"Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users"
(http://files.meetup.com/1468133/Evidence%20on%20Why%20Bike-Friendly.pdf )
This study by Wesley E. Marshall and Norman W. Garrick, published in
'Environmental Practice' found that U.S. cities with higher per capita
bicycling rates tend to have much lower than average traffic fatality rates
for all road users.
Travel Behavior and Built Environment: Exploring the Importance of Urban
Design at the Non-Residential End of the Trip
(www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2057_1379_Kuzmyak%20WP12RK1.pdf ). This Lincoln
Institute study indicates that employment density, job/population balance,
street network grain and connectivity, transit service quality, and regional
accessibility all have a significant effect on vehicle trip and vehicle
travel.
"Smart Parking Revisited: Lessons from the Pioneers"
(http://www.planning.org/planning/default.htm). This article by Jeremy
Nelson and Jason Schrieber describes examples of successful parking
management programs.
Pando (http://www.pando.sc ) is a new online network designed to help
researchers and practitioners share information on community-level
sustainability initiatives.
"City Cycling"
(http://www.amazon.com/City-Cycling-Urban-Industrial-Environments/dp/0262517
817 ). This comprehensive book edited by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler will
be available in October. Prepurchases from Amazon.com receive a $10 discount
($18 instead of $28).
"Commuting Distance, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Metabolic Risk"
(www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3386[4]-stamped.p
df ). This study of 4,297 adults in 12 Texas metropolitan counties found
that after adjusting for other demographic and behavioral factors, commuting
distance was negatively associated with physical activity and
cardiorespiratory f?tness (CRF), and positively associated with body mass
index (BMI), waist circumference, and blood pressure.
* * * * *
Please let us know if you have comments or questions about any information
in this newsletter, or if you would like to be removed from our email list.
And please pass this newsletter on to others who may find it useful.
Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Sat Jun 2 10:23:11 2012
From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:23:11 +0800
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
In-Reply-To: <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
References:
<030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org>
<4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
Message-ID:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/.
I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick
Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about
the jitney issue today].
The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely
infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very
different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed
an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with
lauding these initiatives.
But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these
two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport,
even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served.
*Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. *
In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or
'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people
disagree with this but it is an important debate.
Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit (
http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings (and
many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue
that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a
wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density
contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and
rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues
that it applies especially to low density places.
Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some
threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could
probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities
that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse
network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same
trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have
a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range
of people.
Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit
network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn
more about 'connective networks' in public transport:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html
But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in
the case of Delhi's Metro for example)
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html
I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It
focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and
hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss.
Paul
From kfjellstrom at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 18:31:56 2012
From: kfjellstrom at gmail.com (Karl Fjellstrom)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:31:56 +0800
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
In-Reply-To:
References:
<030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org>
<4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
Message-ID:
Hi Paul,
To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing
books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers'
as if they are something actually good. Some people making this argument
presumably come from a fixed-rail network background, and/or are promoting
fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps explain why they try to impose this
fixed rail network thinking on buses.
We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou
doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so
we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more
transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to
the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually
thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.
The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
not the only disadvantage of transfers. The analysis is wrong, for several
reason, and I'm surprised that you are promoting this material. When
looking at frequencies and hence waiting times, it assumes no overlap
between the direct-service routes. The reality is with direct service
routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap at key, high demand
points. This provides many passengers - especially at the high demand areas
where they are most useful - with multiple route options, at high
frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute transfer cost, which
is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation you should probably
assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best situation, e.g. where you
just need to cross a platform. In other transfer situations you may e.g.
need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another bus stop or platform,
which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes transfer time that the
analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and you are uncertain about
the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is full, or there is no seat on
the next bus, etc. Plus, in order to access some transfer facility,
vehicles typically have to do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to
trip time and hence fleet requirements and system costs. Plus there's the
cost of building and operating the transfer facilities. It's why you almost
always see when looking at fare levels that what you misleadingly call
'connective' networks have higher fare levels than the 'direct-service'
networks.
It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
other costs of transfers. And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of
describing proposals to cut bus routes and connect them with other routes
at hubs is one of the reasons the term 'integration' now has so little
actual meaning. Similarly, calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high
transfer costs 'connective' is just another piece of doublespeak.
Of course, these are just some very general, high level observations. The
situation is different in every city and corridor and in some situations
you may have to put up with more transfers than others. Some transfers of
course are unavoidable, but an important initial objective should always be
to minimize them.
best, Karl
On 2 June 2012 09:23, Paul Barter wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/.
>
> I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick
> Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about
> the jitney issue today].
>
> The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely
> infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very
> different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed
> an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with
> lauding these initiatives.
>
> But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these
> two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport,
> even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served.
>
> *Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. *
>
> In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or
> 'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people
> disagree with this but it is an important debate.
>
> Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit (
> http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings
> (and
> many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue
> that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a
> wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density
> contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and
> rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues
> that it applies especially to low density places.
>
> Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some
> threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could
> probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities
> that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse
> network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same
> trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have
> a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range
> of people.
>
> Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit
> network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn
> more about 'connective networks' in public transport:
>
> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html
> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html
>
> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html
> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html
>
> But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in
> the case of Delhi's Metro for example)
> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html
>
> I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It
> focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and
> hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss.
>
> Paul
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 19:38:04 2012
From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 05:38:04 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
In-Reply-To:
References:
<030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org>
<4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
Message-ID: <-893731520417615628@unknownmsgid>
Just to weigh on another side of the discussion, having lots of
services at one stop makes it difficul for users to know what bus they
should take unless there is an excellent information system (sometimes
only a digital version is useful, and there are cannot be enough of
these in stations - via smartphones is a solution). I once took part
in a project where I had to evaluate users' level of understanding of
the TransMilenio information systems, and we found that people were
often confused with the wide range of services and hatee looking at
maps, ended up riding the wrong buses and lost time trying to
understand where to take their service (granted, this is not the case
for everyday users). Of course, the report we gave to the municipality
is not available to the public (!) and the solutions we proposed were
not implemented (and we haven't received feedback from government
regarding if/when they will).
I think you can develop complex and multiple services to the point
that users are able to understand them properly and with little
effort, or to the point that technology and good graphic design can
reduce the need for users to engage in a complex cartographic research
project every time they change their trip/destination.
(I can't comment on this aspect for the Guangzhou BRT because all
signage and information systems were in Chinese when I was there).
Pardo
Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos.
On 4/06/2012, at 4:32, Karl Fjellstrom wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing
> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers'
> as if they are something actually good. Some people making this argument
> presumably come from a fixed-rail network background, and/or are promoting
> fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps explain why they try to impose this
> fixed rail network thinking on buses.
>
> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou
> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so
> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more
> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to
> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually
> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
>
> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.
> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
> not the only disadvantage of transfers. The analysis is wrong, for several
> reason, and I'm surprised that you are promoting this material. When
> looking at frequencies and hence waiting times, it assumes no overlap
> between the direct-service routes. The reality is with direct service
> routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap at key, high demand
> points. This provides many passengers - especially at the high demand areas
> where they are most useful - with multiple route options, at high
> frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute transfer cost, which
> is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation you should probably
> assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best situation, e.g. where you
> just need to cross a platform. In other transfer situations you may e.g.
> need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another bus stop or platform,
> which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes transfer time that the
> analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and you are uncertain about
> the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is full, or there is no seat on
> the next bus, etc. Plus, in order to access some transfer facility,
> vehicles typically have to do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to
> trip time and hence fleet requirements and system costs. Plus there's the
> cost of building and operating the transfer facilities. It's why you almost
> always see when looking at fare levels that what you misleadingly call
> 'connective' networks have higher fare levels than the 'direct-service'
> networks.
>
> It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
> other costs of transfers. And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of
> describing proposals to cut bus routes and connect them with other routes
> at hubs is one of the reasons the term 'integration' now has so little
> actual meaning. Similarly, calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high
> transfer costs 'connective' is just another piece of doublespeak.
>
> Of course, these are just some very general, high level observations. The
> situation is different in every city and corridor and in some situations
> you may have to put up with more transfers than others. Some transfers of
> course are unavoidable, but an important initial objective should always be
> to minimize them.
>
> best, Karl
>
>
> On 2 June 2012 09:23, Paul Barter wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/.
>>
>> I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick
>> Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about
>> the jitney issue today].
>>
>> The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely
>> infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very
>> different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed
>> an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with
>> lauding these initiatives.
>>
>> But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these
>> two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport,
>> even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served.
>>
>> *Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. *
>>
>> In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or
>> 'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people
>> disagree with this but it is an important debate.
>>
>> Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit (
>> http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings
>> (and
>> many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue
>> that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a
>> wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density
>> contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and
>> rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues
>> that it applies especially to low density places.
>>
>> Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some
>> threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could
>> probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities
>> that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse
>> network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same
>> trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have
>> a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range
>> of people.
>>
>> Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit
>> network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn
>> more about 'connective networks' in public transport:
>>
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html
>>
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html
>>
>> But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in
>> the case of Delhi's Metro for example)
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html
>>
>> I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It
>> focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and
>> hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss.
>>
>> Paul
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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').
From hghazali at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:12:04 2012
From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:12:04 +0500
Subject: [sustran] Poor planning in bus transit system causing hardships to
people
Message-ID:
Just when you thought the government should be preparing itself for
election year, they bring along another ill-planned benefaction.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/06/04/city/lahore/poor-planning-in-bus-transit-system-causing-hardships-to-people/
LAHORE - Poor planning to execute the so-called Bus Rapid Transit System
(BRTS) project has turned the international standard dual carriageway,
Ferozepur Road, into a dirt road, especially from Quainchi to Rohi drain,
causing grave hardships for commuters in the scorching heat.
The dual carriageway, which connects Lahore with Kasur, was initiated by
former Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi to cater to fast increasing
traffic needs and was completed in six years about two years back.
The road was rightly termed by people of the area from Model Town to Kahna
and beyond a gift by the then chief minister as it was completed not only
as per international standards and had service lanes on both sides but also
a greenbelt in the middle from Chungi Amar Sadhu to Kasur.
As there is no public park in the area from Chungi to Kasur, the greenbelt
had not only made the road one of most beautiful thoroughfares of the city,
but had well started serving people as a recreation spot as people were
seen sitting in it and walking along the road in the evening to enjoy this
park-like facility.
About four months back, the provincial government came up with a plan to
initiate the bus rapid transit system by removing the greenbelt and
encroaching on the road from both sides, turning the road into a dirt road
where traffic move sat snail?s pace to the torment of commuters.
While thousands of trees have been uprooted for the project, there is no
possibility of planting new ones as there is no space for the same and it
presents a look of a jungle of electric poles from Quainchi to Nishter Town.
As the main focus is on the BRTS, the quality of work at various sections
of the dual carriageway where it has been expanded, especially from Ghazi
road to Nishter Town, is extremely poor and there are hundreds of manholes
near General Hospital and Mian Bazaar which are right in the middle of the
road, uneven and improperly covered making it impossible for the traffic to
move smoothly.
A number of persons talking to APP expressed concern over the way the work
is being carried out on the project. Tariq, a businessman who daily goes to
Gulberg from Glaxo Town, said there was no need for spending a huge amount
on the project as an international level bus service could be run on the
already existing dual carriageway just by developing international standard
bus stops.
He said if the provincial government had decided to carryout the project at
all cost, it should have expanded the road first so that there was no
hurdle to the flow of the traffic. But, unfortunately exactly the reverse
had been done as work on BRTS was started first and then expansion of the
dual carriageway which played havoc with the traffic which usually remains
clogged for hours, he added.
Nasreen, a citizen, talking to APP at Main Bazaar said,? I had come early
morning to purchase clothes of my children to avoid the blazing sun but it
took me three hours to reach the bazaar from Nishter Town. Now I am
standing at the stop but traffic has not moved even an inch for the last
two hours.?
She expressed resentment over the way the dual carriageway had been damaged
and said, ?It took only 20 to 30 minutes to reach Mian Bazaar from Nishter
Town, but now the whole day is wasted.?
She said if the provincial rulers were so eager to implement BRTS, they
should have first completed the expansion work of the dual carriageway and
then initiated the project so that traffic could continue to flow normally
and people had not to spend hours on the road in the roasting temperatures
of summer. A number of other people talking to APP at Quainchi, General
Hospital, Chungi, Bank Stop, Kahna, Nishter Town and Dulo Khurd expressed
similar views.
When contacted, Commissioner Lahore Division Jawad Rafiq Malik said plants
and trees removed from the greenbelt had been planted at various other
places along the canal road and Jallo Park. He said, ?After the completion
of the project by August14, plantation along the Ferozepur road would be
carried out wherever possible.?
BRTS Project Director Col (R) Younis Bharola said as work was in progress
on both BRTS and expansion of the dual carriageway and heavy machinery was
being used, sometimes traffic problems arose.
He claimed that additional traffic police had been deployed along the road
and their number would be further increased to ensure better flow of
traffic.
Cell: 0333 4231 666
*When conditions are right, things go wrong*
From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Mon Jun 4 21:42:13 2012
From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:42:13 +0800
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
In-Reply-To:
References:
<030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org>
<4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
Message-ID:
Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a
chance to clarify a little.
I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better
understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here
goes.
I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key
points:
- Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I
am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying
that every city must make its network more connective no matter what.
- The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more lines
to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service
frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of
overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective network"
(with fewer route kms) can usually help.
- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency
service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks tend
to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to
the attractiveness of public transport.
On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote:
> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing
> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers'
> as if they are something actually good.
>
PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end.
I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to
get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short
headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and
which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections).
But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of
transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies.
Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of
service on each line.
> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail network
> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps
> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on buses.
>
PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are
a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses around
the rail spines.
But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks is
die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often
accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail.
> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou
> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so
> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more
> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to
> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually
> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
>
PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but:
- If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then
there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already
the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating
more connections or a simpler network for their own sake.
- On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are
served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may
have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case,
there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective
network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of
course).
- In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common
argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the other
day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes.
I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this
problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift
to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like
that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you
mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on prior
experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience?
> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.
> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
> not the only disadvantage of transfers.
>
PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not
really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if
the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the same
input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times,
despite the need for the connections.
> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you are
> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting
> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The reality
> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap
> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially at
> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route
> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute
> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation
> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best
> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other transfer
> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another
> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes
> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and
> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is
> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc.
>
PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key point
via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a connection
can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the
payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms
can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems with
connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough.
We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in
cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical
question for specific cases.
For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming
your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be
pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a
situation.
Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have to
> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet
> requirements and system costs.
>
PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also
become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have reached
this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it.
But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple
grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a
grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the
intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or
more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of
trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning
is easy.
> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer
> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels that
> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels
> than the 'direct-service' networks.
>
PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They
should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or
not worthwhile.
It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
> other costs of transfers.
>
PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my
experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely
aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They
genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are
generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that
transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as
possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky
trade-off to be faced here.
The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and
connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent
service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it
will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy.
In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the
frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for
more people.
> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to
> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the
> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. Similarly,
> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs 'connective'
> is just another piece of doublespeak.
>
PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which
causes confusion.
Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation
that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a
proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of
headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then,
yes, it would probably be a bad idea.
I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't
it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the
network?
Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for
benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about
"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get
better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high
frequencies)
Hope this helps.
Paul
--
Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm
us all less.
paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org
http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.org
From etts at indigo.ie Tue Jun 5 17:55:13 2012
From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:55:13 +0100
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus - local transit
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Dear Paul, Karl, Chris and others,
I think we have jumped across a few concepts from where this discussion
started. As often happens, we are discussing loosely connected things from
different perspectives and for different contexts.
I respectfully suggest to decouple the discussion into three strands:
1) Solutions for mass movement of people through connected networks with
priority to the primary axes
2) Solutions for diffuse movement of people in large urban areas and their
hinterlands, a lot of which is not served well by the network designed for
the mass movements
3) Solutions for the smaller scale where mass transit is less appropriate
and/or cannot be sustained
The original article deals with toolbox items for (2) and (3), which is my
interest for this particular thread.
The article referred to 'conventional wisdom' and 'investing billions to
engineer rails, trains and buses'. I did not think the author criticised
such expenditure, but rather tried to point out that it is not the only
wisdom. If this is what she meant, I find I am in complete agreement with
her.
We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while
ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get
'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are
very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited to
local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see
local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new
investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated
network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility
services.
In my opinion, whether we are talking about Brunswick, Brisbane, Bangalore
or Beijing, there is a need for local and peripheral transit in addition
to the mass transit. What I loosely call 'local and peripheral transit' is
not some minor residual travel. Over the 24/7, it is the dominant travel
in any society, it just doesn't bundle itself nice and neat for mass
transit to serve. Travel demand, forecasting and network models have
serious difficulty with it, and the vast majority of our transit networks
continue to be designed around the peak work and education commute.
Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed,
regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and
form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and
those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with low
car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway,
because otherwise society cannot function.
With best wishes,
Brendan.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel :
+353.87.2530286
On 04/06/2012 13:42, "Paul Barter"
wrote:
>Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a
>chance to clarify a little.
>
>I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better
>understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here
>goes.
>
>I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key
>points:
>
>- Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I
>am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying
>that every city must make its network more connective no matter what.
>
>- The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more
>lines
>to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service
>frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of
>overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective
>network"
>(with fewer route kms) can usually help.
>
>- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency
>service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks
>tend
>to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to
>the attractiveness of public transport.
>
>On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote:
>
>> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
>> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people
>>writing
>> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud
>>'transfers'
>> as if they are something actually good.
>>
>
>PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end.
>I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to
>get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short
>headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and
>which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections).
>
>But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of
>transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies.
>Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of
>service on each line.
>
>
>> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail
>>network
>> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps
>> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on
>>buses.
>>
>
>PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are
>a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses
>around
>the rail spines.
>
>But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks
>is
>die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often
>accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail.
>
>
>> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying
>>Guangzhou
>> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes,
>>so
>> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have
>>more
>> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
>> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer
>>to
>> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
>> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
>> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are
>>usually
>> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
>> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
>> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
>> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
>>
>
>PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but:
>
>- If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then
>there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already
>the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating
>more connections or a simpler network for their own sake.
>
>- On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are
>served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may
>have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case,
>there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective
>network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of
>course).
>
>- In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common
>argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the
>other
>day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes.
> I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this
>problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift
>to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like
>that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you
>mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on
>prior
>experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience?
>
>
>> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
>>
>>http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-
>>good-for-your-city.html.
>> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
>> not the only disadvantage of transfers.
>>
>
>PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not
>really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if
>the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the
>same
>input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times,
>despite the need for the connections.
>
>
>> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you
>>are
>> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting
>> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The
>>reality
>> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route
>>overlap
>> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially
>>at
>> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route
>> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute
>> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation
>> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best
>> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other
>>transfer
>> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to
>>another
>> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes
>> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again,
>>and
>> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is
>> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc.
>>
>
>PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key
>point
>via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a
>connection
>can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the
>payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms
>can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems
>with
>connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough.
>
>We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in
>cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical
>question for specific cases.
>
>For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming
>your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be
>pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a
>situation.
>
>Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have
>to
>> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet
>> requirements and system costs.
>>
>
>PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also
>become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have
>reached
>this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it.
>
>But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple
>grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a
>grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the
>intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or
>more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of
>trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning
>is easy.
>
>
>> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer
>> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels
>>that
>> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels
>> than the 'direct-service' networks.
>>
>
>PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They
>should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or
>not worthwhile.
>
>It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
>> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
>> other costs of transfers.
>>
>
>PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my
>experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely
>aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They
>genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are
>generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that
>transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as
>possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky
>trade-off to be faced here.
>
>The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and
>connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent
>service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it
>will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy.
>In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the
>frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for
>more people.
>
>
>> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to
>> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the
>> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning.
>>Similarly,
>> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs
>>'connective'
>> is just another piece of doublespeak.
>>
>
>PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which
>causes confusion.
>
>Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation
>that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a
>proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of
>headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then,
>yes, it would probably be a bad idea.
>
>I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't
>it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the
>network?
>
>Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for
>benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about
>"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get
>better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high
>frequencies)
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Paul
>--
>Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm
>us all less.
>paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org
>http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.org
>--------------------------------------------------------
>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').
From dguruswamy at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 18:50:28 2012
From: dguruswamy at hotmail.com (Dharm Guruswamy)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:50:28 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus - local transit
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <1338889828.2909.140661085144617.41809955@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Brendan,
I think you bring up some interesting issues. However, I would like to
take objection to the paragraph below:
We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while
> ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get
> 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are
> very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited
> to
> local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see
> local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new
> investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated
> network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility
> services.
What I think you ignore is that major transit infrastructure comes about
because of a failiure of the market to provide service without large
negative externalities. In Latin America in particular people prefer the
BRT lines which replaced the largely unregulated or very corrputly
regulated transit it replaces.
I also think you are overgeneralizing when you closed your e-mail:
> Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed,
> regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and
> form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and
> those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with
> low
> car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway,
> because otherwise society cannot function.
I am in Hong Kong right now on vacation and just came from Tokyo. These
are both every deveoped cities which have a diverse and incredibly
diverse systems of public transit. I actually prefer Tokyo because the
air pollution here in Hong Kong is terrible largely because there are
too many lightly regulated minibuses and taxis plying the street. In
Tokyo all surface transport is heavily regulated and of very high
quality albeit also very expensive . My wife and I split our stay
between two hotels. We used a taxi to transfer. The taxi was new,
spotless and equipped with the latest GPS and the driver wore a suit and
tie and white gloves. In a sense you get what you pay for. No one
complains about the air pollution or congestion caused by Tokyo taxis..
they only complain about the price (about US $9 once the meter starts).
Here in Hong KOng the MTR operates a high quality rail system but the
bus system is of every unequal quality with the fixed route buses
offering high quality services and the minibuses operating very poor
quality service. The government is trying to regulate the irregular
buses which don't even run regular routes.
The key thing in developed countries is that we stop investing in new
fixed guideway transit so indeed there are gaps in service. However, the
solution is to keep investing and not necasserily to allow new services.
Unregulated sevices are often polluting, provide poor quality service
and don't provide accessibility to the disabled. Find me a city with
extensive paratransit that doesn't have large negative externalities and
I will be on board, otherwise I'm for regulation and more regulation
because well regulated systems simply work better.
Dharm Gurusamy, AICP CTP
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 09:55 AM, Brendan Finn wrote:
> Dear Paul, Karl, Chris and others,
>
> I think we have jumped across a few concepts from where this discussion
> started. As often happens, we are discussing loosely connected things
> from
> different perspectives and for different contexts.
>
> I respectfully suggest to decouple the discussion into three strands:
>
> 1) Solutions for mass movement of people through connected networks with
> priority to the primary axes
> 2) Solutions for diffuse movement of people in large urban areas and
> their
> hinterlands, a lot of which is not served well by the network designed
> for
> the mass movements
> 3) Solutions for the smaller scale where mass transit is less appropriate
> and/or cannot be sustained
>
> The original article deals with toolbox items for (2) and (3), which is
> my
> interest for this particular thread.
>
> The article referred to 'conventional wisdom' and 'investing billions to
> engineer rails, trains and buses'. I did not think the author criticised
> such expenditure, but rather tried to point out that it is not the only
> wisdom. If this is what she meant, I find I am in complete agreement with
> her.
>
> We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while
> ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get
> 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are
> very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited
> to
> local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see
> local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new
> investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated
> network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility
> services.
>
> In my opinion, whether we are talking about Brunswick, Brisbane,
> Bangalore
> or Beijing, there is a need for local and peripheral transit in addition
> to the mass transit. What I loosely call 'local and peripheral transit'
> is
> not some minor residual travel. Over the 24/7, it is the dominant travel
> in any society, it just doesn't bundle itself nice and neat for mass
> transit to serve. Travel demand, forecasting and network models have
> serious difficulty with it, and the vast majority of our transit networks
> continue to be designed around the peak work and education commute.
>
> Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed,
> regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and
> form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and
> those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with
> low
> car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway,
> because otherwise society cannot function.
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Brendan.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________
> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel :
> +353.87.2530286
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04/06/2012 13:42, "Paul Barter"
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a
> >chance to clarify a little.
> >
> >I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better
> >understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here
> >goes.
> >
> >I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key
> >points:
> >
> >- Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I
> >am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying
> >that every city must make its network more connective no matter what.
> >
> >- The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more
> >lines
> >to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service
> >frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of
> >overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective
> >network"
> >(with fewer route kms) can usually help.
> >
> >- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency
> >service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks
> >tend
> >to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to
> >the attractiveness of public transport.
> >
> >On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote:
> >
> >> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
> >> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people
> >>writing
> >> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud
> >>'transfers'
> >> as if they are something actually good.
> >>
> >
> >PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end.
> >I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to
> >get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short
> >headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and
> >which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections).
> >
> >But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of
> >transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies.
> >Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of
> >service on each line.
> >
> >
> >> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail
> >>network
> >> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps
> >> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on
> >>buses.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are
> >a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses
> >around
> >the rail spines.
> >
> >But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks
> >is
> >die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often
> >accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail.
> >
> >
> >> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying
> >>Guangzhou
> >> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes,
> >>so
> >> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have
> >>more
> >> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
> >> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer
> >>to
> >> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
> >> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
> >> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are
> >>usually
> >> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
> >> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
> >> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
> >> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
> >>
> >
> >PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but:
> >
> >- If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then
> >there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already
> >the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating
> >more connections or a simpler network for their own sake.
> >
> >- On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are
> >served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may
> >have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case,
> >there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective
> >network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of
> >course).
> >
> >- In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common
> >argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the
> >other
> >day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes.
> > I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this
> >problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift
> >to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like
> >that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you
> >mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on
> >prior
> >experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience?
> >
> >
> >> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
> >>
> >>http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-
> >>good-for-your-city.html.
> >> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
> >> not the only disadvantage of transfers.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not
> >really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if
> >the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the
> >same
> >input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times,
> >despite the need for the connections.
> >
> >
> >> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you
> >>are
> >> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting
> >> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The
> >>reality
> >> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route
> >>overlap
> >> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially
> >>at
> >> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route
> >> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute
> >> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation
> >> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best
> >> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other
> >>transfer
> >> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to
> >>another
> >> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes
> >> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again,
> >>and
> >> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is
> >> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key
> >point
> >via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a
> >connection
> >can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the
> >payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms
> >can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems
> >with
> >connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough.
> >
> >We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in
> >cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical
> >question for specific cases.
> >
> >For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming
> >your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be
> >pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a
> >situation.
> >
> >Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have
> >to
> >> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet
> >> requirements and system costs.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also
> >become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have
> >reached
> >this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it.
> >
> >But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple
> >grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a
> >grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the
> >intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or
> >more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of
> >trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning
> >is easy.
> >
> >
> >> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer
> >> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels
> >>that
> >> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels
> >> than the 'direct-service' networks.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They
> >should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or
> >not worthwhile.
> >
> >It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
> >> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
> >> other costs of transfers.
> >>
> >
> >PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my
> >experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely
> >aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They
> >genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are
> >generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that
> >transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as
> >possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky
> >trade-off to be faced here.
> >
> >The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and
> >connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent
> >service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it
> >will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy.
> >In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the
> >frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for
> >more people.
> >
> >
> >> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to
> >> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the
> >> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning.
> >>Similarly,
> >> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs
> >>'connective'
> >> is just another piece of doublespeak.
> >>
> >
> >PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which
> >causes confusion.
> >
> >Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation
> >that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a
> >proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of
> >headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then,
> >yes, it would probably be a bad idea.
> >
> >I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't
> >it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the
> >network?
> >
> >Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for
> >benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about
> >"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get
> >better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high
> >frequencies)
> >
> >Hope this helps.
> >
> >Paul
> >--
> >Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm
> >us all less.
> >paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org
> >http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.org
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >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').
--
Dharm Guruswamy
dguruswamy@hotmail.com
From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Tue Jun 5 21:02:35 2012
From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:02:35 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Network issue Thinking Outside the Bus
Message-ID: <20120605080235.14255kbzuteyk95n@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Hello again everyone:
Pleas+e see the second half of the attached chapter Route and Network
Analysis. It is entitled "Interaction between Route and Network
Design". In it, I summarize Young-Jae Lee's 1998 dissertation. It
takes into account three basic types of input:
Demand -- high or low
Travel speed -- high or low
Transfer Penalty -- high or low
Then, it creates three possible different types of network, depending
upon social cost, which includes a combination of operating cost and
user time cost:
Transfer-oriented
Transfer-avoidance
Directly - connected
I consider it to really be quite helpful in understanding the route
planning dilemma. A lot of the arguments that people have are really
just a result of unstated assumptions. One person visualizes
Burlington, Vermont (a city of 100,000 people in the US) others
visualize Kolkata. The answer is different for both.
Eric
Quoting Paul Barter :
> Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a
> chance to clarify a little.
>
> I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better
> understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here
> goes.
>
> I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key
> points:
>
> - Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I
> am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying
> that every city must make its network more connective no matter what.
>
> - The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more lines
> to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service
> frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of
> overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective network"
> (with fewer route kms) can usually help.
>
> - A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency
> service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks tend
> to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to
> the attractiveness of public transport.
>
> On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote:
>
>> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing
>> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing
>> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers'
>> as if they are something actually good.
>>
>
> PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end.
> I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to
> get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short
> headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and
> which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections).
>
> But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of
> transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies.
> Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of
> service on each line.
>
>
>> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail network
>> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps
>> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on buses.
>>
>
> PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are
> a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses around
> the rail spines.
>
> But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks is
> die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often
> accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail.
>
>
>> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou
>> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so
>> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more
>> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too
>> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to
>> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a
>> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending
>> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually
>> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT
>> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise.
>> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and
>> maximize ridership and passenger time savings.
>>
>
> PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but:
>
> - If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then
> there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already
> the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating
> more connections or a simpler network for their own sake.
>
> - On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are
> served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may
> have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case,
> there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective
> network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of
> course).
>
> - In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common
> argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the other
> day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes.
> I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this
> problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift
> to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like
> that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you
> mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on prior
> experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience?
>
>
>> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below.
>> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.
>> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly
>> not the only disadvantage of transfers.
>>
>
> PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not
> really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if
> the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the same
> input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times,
> despite the need for the connections.
>
>
>> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you are
>> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting
>> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The reality
>> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap
>> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially at
>> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route
>> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute
>> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation
>> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best
>> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other transfer
>> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another
>> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes
>> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and
>> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is
>> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc.
>>
>
> PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key point
> via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a connection
> can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the
> payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms
> can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems with
> connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough.
>
> We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in
> cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical
> question for specific cases.
>
> For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming
> your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be
> pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a
> situation.
>
> Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have to
>> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet
>> requirements and system costs.
>>
>
> PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also
> become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have reached
> this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it.
>
> But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple
> grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a
> grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the
> intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or
> more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of
> trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning
> is easy.
>
>
>> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer
>> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels that
>> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels
>> than the 'direct-service' networks.
>>
>
> PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They
> should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or
> not worthwhile.
>
> It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over
>> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and
>> other costs of transfers.
>>
>
> PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my
> experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely
> aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They
> genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are
> generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that
> transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as
> possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky
> trade-off to be faced here.
>
> The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and
> connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent
> service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it
> will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy.
> In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the
> frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for
> more people.
>
>
>> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to
>> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the
>> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. Similarly,
>> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs 'connective'
>> is just another piece of doublespeak.
>>
>
> PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which
> causes confusion.
>
> Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation
> that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a
> proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of
> headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then,
> yes, it would probably be a bad idea.
>
> I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't
> it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the
> network?
>
> Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for
> benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about
> "high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get
> better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high
> frequencies)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Paul
> --
> Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm
> us all less.
> paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org
> http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.org
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transit book chapter 3.pdf
Type: application/x-download
Size: 861655 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120605/19ff7007/Transitbookchapter3-0001.bin
From yanivbin at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 22:20:05 2012
From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:50:05 +0530
Subject: [sustran] JNNURM buses pose problems; Centre steps in
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
JNNURM buses pose problems; Centre steps in Staff Reporter
The Union Government has decided to formulate guidelines for maintenance of
buses funded through the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).
The decision comes in the wake of complaints pouring in from various States
about the buses' performance, as well as the anomalies that have surfaced.
On Thursday, officials of the Union Ministry of Urban Development said a
standardisation of the maintenance procedures is in progress.
A senior official of the Ministry said there have been complaints about the
buses, and efforts are on to address the concerns. ?There have been
complaints from Faridabad. In Kolkata, there was no special purpose vehicle
and buses were given to individual drivers; also there were no depots or
system for servicing. Consequently buses were parked along the road and
repaired by local mechanics,? said Sudhir Krishan, Secretary, Urban
Development Ministry.
Other complaints that were received by the Ministry were from Delhi, where
a problem of ventilation has been more predominant and from Mumbai, where
the complaints were about design issues.
Ministry sources said meetings have been held to iron out the problems that
have surfaced and efforts are being made streamline the maintenance
procedure through standardisation.
Printable version | Jun 10, 2012 6:44:33 PM |
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/article3503321.ece
From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 03:54:30 2012
From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:24:30 +0530
Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover epidemic
continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport Policy"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID:
11 June 2012
*Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes? *
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11
*Will it end traffic woes? Of course not but who cares?*
Blatantly violating the recommendations of our "National Urban Transport
Policy (NUTP)" that asks cities to focus on people not vehicles, all our
cities in a hurry to grow into urban giants of tomorrow are trying to outdo
each other in building more and more flyovers.
These useless monoliths of the inglorious phase of urban planning that is
also called "car-dominated" phase of city planning did nothing to solve the
problem of road congestion but ironically made it worse by attracting even
more private vehicles on these corridors.
But like coining new popular slogans we love to make new policies that no
one in the Govt bothers to enforce. NUTP supports Public Transport,
Non-motorised Transport (NMT) and warns against profligate use of personal
auto vehicles that hog road space, guzzle fuel (that's getting dearer and
scarcer) and belch deadly auto effluents that are deadly for our health.
But our cities don't seem to care a fig and continue building expensive
infrastructure for the auto vehicle while starving public transport buses
from even meagre financial help needed for survival. Our city leaders feel
cycle tracks are a waste of public money and ask "who uses the cycle these
days?"
Obviously something is seriously wrong with our city governance and its not
going to be put right by those who have slept all these years. People need
to wake up and demand a change.
Do read this article:- ,
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11
the text version of this appears below:-
--
Sujit
*Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes?*
*
*
Niyati Rana & Ashwini Ramesh
Bahadur Soratiya ? Sells Maskabun
I have been doing business here for the last 14 years. I am disappointed
with the proposal. It will be difficult for us to find a new place if the
civic body moves us from here once the work begins. Shifting my business to
the market will be costly as I will have to pay more rent than what we
earn. The flyover will harm our business.
We have not been notified about shifting to another place. And when we do,
the govt won?t help us by providing us a facility at some other place to
continue out trade. This will affect our business which gives me
Rs2000-2500 a day. I suggest that a food court be built under the proposed
flyover. It will help the vendors and the rent would add to the
government?s earnings.?
Experts say traffic will shift to the already congested lane towards
Vastrapur lake
Ahmedabad already has over a dozen flyovers and it plans to build more when
countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have come to the
realisation that flyovers cannot decongest traffic on roads.
The latest flyover to be sanctioned by the city authorities would come up
over the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA) crossroads. It has
been argued that the flyover would solve the problem of chronic traffic
congestion that plagues this point but the proposal has drawn criticism
from city planners and architects in Ahmedabad.
Experts say flyovers do not provide a solution to the problem of traffic
congestion; they just shift the congestion to a different place. In this
case too, traffic congestion would be shifted to a different area once the
IIMA flyover is ready, the experts say.
Academicians, architects and city planners are one in saying that vehicular
traffic using the flyover would get off near the new IIMA campus and drive
to the lane going to the Vastrapur lake. This narrow lane is already
congested with all kinds of traffic, right from Alpha One Mall.
A member of faculty at Centre for Environment Planning and Technology
(CEPT) University said that the IIMA flyover would merely shift the traffic
congestion to a different point.
?It seems that the flyover was sanctioned without conducting a study to
understand the flow of traffic. The authorities here seem to like launching
big projects without understanding what is really needed,? he said.
Director (transport) at the Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (ITDP), Anuj Malhotra, also believes that flyovers don?t really
provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion.
"At the current rate of increase in the number of private vehicles, the
city?s roads get saturated by the time a flyover is ready. The city of
Ahmedabad adds 600 vehicles to its roads daily," he said.
Ahmedabad-based architect Yatin Pandya holds similar views. He said that
the IIMA flyover would let the traffic flow straight in one direction.
?When we build a flyover, the idea is to remove the conflict between
vehicles crossing each other at the crossroads. Ideally, to remove
congestion, flyovers should also have branches to direct the flow of
vehicles to the right or left,? he said. He further said that building a
split flyover would not serve the purpose. Some aspects such as direction
of the flyover, nature of the traffic and alignment of the flyover should
be kept in mind while building flyovers, he added. Malhotra also said that
channelising traffic over a junction with a flyover results in increasing
the speed of vehicles.
?This increases the chances of fatalities during accidents. Also,
channelizing never helps because the vehicles bypassing this junction will
collect at the next. Hence, no matter how many flyovers we build, they will
never be sufficient to end the traffic congestion,? he said.
A study conducted by ITDP with EMBARQ (a centre for sustainable transport
solutions), states that most advanced cities of the world have recognized
that flyovers are of little help in decongesting traffic. Instead, they are
moving towards a policy of discouraging the use of private vehicles. This
is being done by re-allocating finances for investment in better traffic
management systems and improving and maintaining high quality public
transport systems.
*DNA Ahmedabad, dated 11June 2012*
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[image: Inline image 1]
*Parisar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com
sujit@parisar.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/
Parisar: www.parisar.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17934 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120612/beed733a/attachment.jpe
From joshirutul at yahoo.co.in Tue Jun 12 14:42:02 2012
From: joshirutul at yahoo.co.in (Rutul Joshi)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:42:02 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: [sustran] Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover
epidemic continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport
Policy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <1339479722.31523.YahooMailNeo@web192204.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
Hi Sujit and others,
The figures available on the urban renewal mission website (http://jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Approved-projects-sectorwise.pdf) says that -
* Out of the total central funding of about 171 billion INR, whooping 17,040
millions INR are spent on "Roads/Flyovers" with another 843 millions on
stand-alone parking structures. This makes it about 10.42 percent of
total central funding. This means the urban mission places 'Roads/Flyovers' as the most important priority after sectors such as
water supply, sewerage and drainage.
* Compared
to that, only about 16,114 millions INR are spent under the title of
'Mass rapid transport systems'. Some of the mass rapid transit plans
included their own flyovers/bridges as part of this cost. And we also
know that some cities like Pune is believed to have taken this money and widened roads instead of attempting to build any mass transit system.?
Well, this is the state of affairs after six years of existence of the
'National Urban Transport Policy' which vouched for the 'streets for
people' and 'not roads for vehicles'. We seems to be spending much more
on Roads/Flyovers with the central funding then on the mass rapid
transit systems. Why should the national government fund the
roads/flyovers? In any case, lots of cities spend on roads/flyovers on their own.
Rutul
_________________________________________
Rutul Joshi,
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Planning and Public Policy,
CEPT University, Ahmedabad - 380009. ?
_________________________________________
________________________________
From: Sujit Patwardhan
To: PTTF General
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:24 AM
Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover epidemic continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport Policy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11 June 2012
*Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes? *
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11
*Will it end traffic woes? Of course not but who cares?*
Blatantly violating the recommendations of our "National Urban Transport
Policy (NUTP)" that asks cities to focus on people not vehicles, all our
cities in a hurry to grow into urban giants of tomorrow are trying to outdo
each other in building more and more flyovers.
These useless monoliths of the inglorious phase of urban planning that is
also called "car-dominated" phase of city planning did nothing to solve the
problem of road congestion but ironically made it worse by attracting even
more private vehicles on these corridors.
But like coining new popular slogans we love to make new policies that no
one in the Govt bothers to enforce. NUTP supports Public Transport,
Non-motorised Transport (NMT) and warns against profligate use of personal
auto vehicles that hog road space, guzzle fuel (that's getting dearer and
scarcer) and belch deadly auto effluents that are deadly for our health.
But our cities don't seem to care a fig and continue building expensive
infrastructure for the auto vehicle while starving public transport buses
from even meagre financial help needed for survival. Our city leaders feel
cycle tracks are a waste of public money and ask "who uses the cycle these
days?"
Obviously something is seriously wrong with our city governance and its not
going to be put right by those who have slept all these years. People need
to wake up and demand a change.
Do read this article:- ,
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11
the text version of this appears below:-
--
Sujit
*Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes?*
*
*
Niyati Rana & Ashwini Ramesh
Bahadur Soratiya? ? Sells Maskabun
I have been doing business here for the last 14 years. I am disappointed
with the proposal. It will be difficult for us to find a new place if the
civic body moves us from here once the work begins. Shifting my business to
the market will be costly as I will have to pay more rent than what we
earn. The flyover will harm our business.
We have not been notified about shifting to another place. And when we do,
the govt won?t help us by providing us a facility at some other place to
continue out trade. This will affect our business which gives me
Rs2000-2500 a day. I suggest that a food court be built under the proposed
flyover. It will help the vendors and the rent would add to the
government?s earnings.?
Experts say traffic will shift to the already congested lane towards
Vastrapur lake
Ahmedabad already has over a dozen flyovers and it plans to build more when
countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have come to the
realisation that flyovers cannot decongest traffic on roads.
The latest flyover to be sanctioned by the city authorities would come up
over the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA) crossroads. It has
been argued that the flyover would solve the problem of chronic traffic
congestion that plagues this point but the proposal has drawn criticism
from city planners and architects in Ahmedabad.
Experts say flyovers do not provide a solution to the problem of traffic
congestion; they just shift the congestion to a different place. In this
case too, traffic congestion would be shifted to a different area once the
IIMA flyover is ready, the experts say.
Academicians, architects and city planners are one in saying that vehicular
traffic using the flyover would get off near the new IIMA campus and drive
to the lane going to the Vastrapur lake. This narrow lane is already
congested with all kinds of traffic, right from Alpha One Mall.
A member of faculty at Centre for Environment Planning and Technology
(CEPT) University said that the IIMA flyover would merely shift the traffic
congestion to a different point.
?It seems that the flyover was sanctioned without conducting a study to
understand the flow of traffic. The authorities here seem to like launching
big projects without understanding what is really needed,? he said.
Director (transport) at the Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (ITDP), Anuj Malhotra, also believes that flyovers don?t really
provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion.
"At the current rate of increase in the number of private vehicles, the
city?s roads get saturated by the time a flyover is ready. The city of
Ahmedabad adds 600 vehicles to its roads daily," he said.
Ahmedabad-based architect Yatin Pandya holds similar views. He said that
the IIMA flyover would let the traffic flow straight in one direction.
?When we build a flyover, the idea is to remove the conflict between
vehicles crossing each other at the crossroads. Ideally, to remove
congestion, flyovers should also have branches to direct the flow of
vehicles to the right or left,? he said. He further said that building a
split flyover would not serve the purpose. Some aspects such as direction
of the flyover, nature of the traffic and alignment of the flyover should
be kept in mind while building flyovers, he added. Malhotra also said that
channelising traffic over a junction with a flyover results in increasing
the speed of vehicles.
?This increases the chances of fatalities during accidents. Also,
channelizing never helps because the vehicles bypassing this junction will
collect at the next. Hence, no matter how many flyovers we build, they will
never be sufficient to end the traffic congestion,? he said.
A study conducted by ITDP with EMBARQ (a centre for sustainable transport
solutions), states that most advanced cities of the world have recognized
that flyovers are of little help in decongesting traffic. Instead, they are
moving towards a policy of discouraging the use of private vehicles. This
is being done by re-allocating finances for investment in better traffic
management systems and improving and maintaining high quality public
transport systems.
*DNA Ahmedabad, dated 11June 2012*
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[image: Inline image 1]
*Parisar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com
sujit@parisar.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/
Parisar: www.parisar.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
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').
From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 23:57:02 2012
From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:57:02 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Transport Survey
Message-ID: <4FD9FBBE.10501@gmail.com>
Dear all,
I am forwarding this email from Carlos Cadena, I hope you can help him
out (he is cc'd here):
"I am a PhD fellow at the United Nations University in Maastricht. My
project deals with political determinants of transport sustainability in
Latin American cities.
As part of my project, I have a short survey that I am running through
key experts. Would you be able to give me 10 minutes to fill it in?
You can find it online via this link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFpiUVF2NVRTVmtvU1plTzE1OWJGT1E6MQ
Thank you,
Carlos (cadena (at) merit.unu.edu )
From yanivbin at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 14:58:50 2012
From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:28:50 +0530
Subject: [sustran] Cities with More Walkers, Bike Commuters are Less Obese
Message-ID:
http://www.governing.com/news/state/gov-biking-walking-cities-obesity-study.html
Cities with More Walkers, Bike Commuters are Less Obese
BY: Mike Maciag | June
14, 2012
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
affirms an alarming trend: we?re fat and not getting any slimmer. An
estimated 35 percent of U.S. adults are obese, and another third still
maintain weights exceeding those deemed healthy. This doesn?t bode well for
governments and individuals paying insurance premiums, especially with the
country?s aging population.
But there are antidotes to the problem, and among the best could be
sidewalks and bike lanes. The infrastructure not only facilitates outdoor
recreation and an alternative to congested roadways, but data shows it
delivers slimmer waistlines in some of the nation?s largest metropolitan
regions.
A *Governing* reviewof
census and CDC data finds communities where more residents walk or
bike
to work boast significantly healthier weights. The analysis of 2010
statistics for 126 metropolitan areas finds these communities are strongly
correlatedwith
higher numbers of residents who are neither obese nor overweight.
Historically, studies have linked trails, sidewalks and bike lanes with an
increase in walking or cycling. As medical costs continue to rise and
evidence mounts that such infrastructure also improves well-being, more
officials might look to give health consideration greater standing in
transportation planning.
?The more access that people have to these kinds of places, the more likely
they are to be healthy,? said Susan Polan, associate executive director for
public affairs and advocacy with the American Public Health Association.
Metropolitan regions with the healthiest weights are home to high counts of
walkers and bike commuters.
The CDC considers those with sizable weights for their height (body mass
index of 30 or greater) to be obese, and others who are not quite obese,
but exceeding healthy weights, to be ?overweight.?
Approximately half of Fort Collins-Loveland, Colo., metro area residents
are neither overweight nor obese. That might not sound like a lot, but it?s
the highest percentage of healthy residents of all metro areas surveyed for
the CDC?s 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual
telephone survey measuring a range of health issues. Accordingly, census
figures indicate 5.3 percent of Fort Collins-Loveland area commuters walk
or bike as their primary form of transportation to work, one of the highest
rates in the country.
Five of the top 10 healthiest metro
areasin
terms of weight were among the 10 regions with highest percentages of
residents walking or biking to work in the *Governing* analysis. Although
tallies of walkers and bikers are small compared to all commuters, many who
walk or bike to public transit stations aren?t counted in the Census
Bureau?s American Community Survey data, and significantly more exercise
outdoors outside of their daily commutes.
While only a fraction of workers in an area may opt to bike or walk to
work, having the necessary infrastructure in place compels others to use it
more regularly.
Spending hours a day in a car or living a sedentary lifestyle makes it
difficult to shed pounds. Exercising helps, and eating habits, medical
conditions and other factors understandably drive obesity rates as well.
Along with commuting habits, other measures showed statistically
significant relationships with healthy weights in the analysis. Healthier
metro areaswere
most closely correlated with the portion of a region?s population
holding at least a bachelor?s degree. The Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,
Conn. metro area, a wealthy region ranking near the top in education
attainment,
recorded the lowest obesity rate in the CDC's 2010 survey.
Still, the correlation between commuting and residents not considered obese
nor overweight was strong--16 percent greater than the relationship with
median household income. An area?s average commute time was slightly
correlated with weight, but was not statistically significant.
*Scatter plot of metro areas' walkers/bike commuters correlated with
healthy weights:*
The CDC recommends a
range of infrastructure for communities to rein in obesity. Bike lanes,
shared-use paths and bike racks promote cycling. Urban design with adequate
sidewalks, lighting, street crossings and similar features supports walking
and other physical activity. The agency also suggests localities work to
cut miles driven on roadways.
American Public Health Association's Polan cited public transit projects
and converting old rail lines into trails as two of the more popular
initiatives localities pursue. It?s particularly important, she said, to
encourage kids to walk to school and educate them about pedestrian safety
at a young age.
Last year, Los Angeles County, Calif., earmarked nearly $16 million in
funding for an initiativeaimed
at curbing obesity, part of which included expanding bike networks
and promoting open spaces.
?There are a lot of smaller initiatives that can engage and energize people
and make them realize what a difference they can make at the local level,?
Polan said.
When cutting expenses, health costs are an easy target. A recent
studyby two Lehigh University
researchers reported obesity-related costs
accounted for $190 billion annually in U.S. health expenditures, nearly 21
percent of the country?s total bill.
Advocates often push for related projects in transportation planning, but
the amount of weight officials actually give to health concerns varies.
While it may be a major consideration in some communities, others focus
strictly on economic concerns, Polan said.
John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, said many
American cities have taken steps in recent years to promote walking and
biking.
To improve walkability, connected street grids ? with slower speed limits
and no more than two lanes in each direction ? are a key component, he
said.
Those looking to move can use the popular
walkscore.comwebsite to measure how
accessible an apartment or home?s various
neighborhood amenities are on foot. Norquist, whose group advocates
mixed-use and transit-oriented development, cited New York City, San
Francisco, Denver and Albuquerque, N.M., as cities making strides in
developing walkable communities.
Biking has also accelerated, Norquist said, particularly in Seattle and
other older urban environments. ?The old downtowns are in great shape for
biking,? he said.
Young people?s attitudes toward biking and public transit have shifted,
with more seeking alternatives to long car rides, Norquist said. Bicycle
manufacturers have joined in the push to remake communities, hiring
lobbyists to pressure Washington and support more bike-friendly
transportation planning policies.
The emphasis on healthy lifestyles in urban design isn?t new, though.
Richard Jackson, a former head of the CDC?s National Center for
Environmental Health who has since become one the movement?s most vocal
proponents, published an article linking built environments to adverse
health effects back in 2001.
Norquist said that the benefits of walking and biking have now become one
of the central themes of urbanists? arguments for urban revival as
recreation represents an increasingly key aspect of living downtown.
?It?s really going to be a big factor, because people want to be
healthier,? he said. "It's a very personal thing."
*View a summary of the methodology and
results*
*Data*
The CDC?s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System measures obesity and
other health factors. The table below shows 2010 estimates for each
geographic region surveyed, most of which are metro areas. Click
herefor
a complete list of communities included in the 2010 survey, along with
specific counties comprising each area.
The following definitions describe the data:
-- *Healthy weight*: Neither overweight nor obese
-- *Overweight*: Body mass index of 25-29.9
-- *Obese*: Body mass index of 30-99.8
-- *No physical activity*: Respondents reporting doing no physical activity
or exercise in the past 30 days
From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 08:42:51 2012
From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:42:51 +0100
Subject: [sustran] (no subject)
Message-ID:
http://rockvillemarylandchiropractor.com/wp-content/themes/twentyten/yahoolinksus.html
From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 08:42:51 2012
From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:42:51 +0100
Subject: ***removed***
Message-ID:
***removed***
From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Sun Jun 17 14:44:02 2012
From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:44:02 +0800
Subject: [sustran] Don't click on suspicious link from hacked "Jeff Turner"
email
Message-ID:
I hope it is obvious that you should not click the link in the recent email
from Jeff Turner. His hotmail has obviously been hacked. I have deleted
the message from the sustran-discuss archives.
Paul
On 17 June 2012 07:42, jeff turner wrote:
>
> http://
> ...
>
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Jun 17 19:57:40 2012
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:57:40 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Hacking Sustainability: Part 1
In-Reply-To:
References: <20120616.050211.1110.0@webmail-beta03.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID:
Where can we find this app?
The idea is familiar: i.e., making use of the smart phone with GPS in our pocket, and putting it to work to help us calibrate and understand a range of interconnected variables related to our mobility choices. Both (a) as the now more familiar on-line information system that can help us make better travel choices, and, less well known, (b) as a feedback system which will permit us to understand the key implications of those specific choices. Including where we travel, when and how -- and as a result the health, economics and environmental impacts of our choices, and if possible both personal and collective. Think of such an app as a healthy mobility feedback kit in our pocket.
There are of course literally thousands of transport apps out there today of various intentions and quality, a number of them really excellent. But where are the ones that also provide user feedback and decision criteria on (a) those specific mobility choices and (b) their impacts on health, environment, economics? Does such an app exist, and if so please share your information with us so that we all can have a look and learn from good examples?
For starters and to do the full job, these apps would have to provide the more usual functions of the full range of mobility choices open to each of us, in that place and at that time: both the phone and database know who you are, your location, and to a certain extent your historic transport preferences. On that base you then tap in your desired destination, desired time or conditions of transit (either right now or scheduled at some future time as you prefer). Your app will then present what it guesses are your likely preferences stacked and presented to you in the order that the database knows you usually prefer -- as well as the by now pretty usual range of information on likely time in transit, CO2 impacts, etc., etc. Handy stuff and pretty well served by many apps already out there doing the job in different places.
Again we open up this kind of tool and use it not because we HAVE to -- but because we figure it is in our interest to do so. And of course once we get the habit, we just do it without really thinking about it. And in the process we have moved up the effectiveness scale from active to passive reactions, the latter being far more powerful. Just the kind of thing that is needed to get on the path to sustainability.
But that's just the first layer. However before we get to the second layer, a few quick words about the challenge of sustainability on our benighted wheezing planet.
At the heart of the move to sustainability, in all senses, is the idea that we, one by one, are going to have to modify our behavior and replace many old habits, some bad, with ones that may benefit us, both personally and collectively Now we are not taking about "behavior modification" at the hands of some dark government agency or merciless Soviet doctor/scientist sitting at a threatening console controlling electrodes attached to our who-knows-where parts. But rather a personal willingness of our part to change, if only a bit, simply we understand that this or that decision and action will be to our personal benefit. And perhaps, why not?, beneficial in some small way to society as a whole. Changing because we want to, not because we are forced to.
Now back to that app. What I want it to tell me is, for example, if I walk or bike on my next trip, or hop into my car, what will be the personal health impacts of my choice. And if possible not simply in the frame of calories burned, but also against the backdrop of a more personalized health database/app.
Ditto for the financial impacts (on my purse and that of the community as a whole), the effect on traffic, the environmental impacts, etc. And so on down the mobility choice chain.
Our good app might at the end of each week/month present us with a summary of the various key implications of our aggregate mobility choices over that period.
Finally, our good app will have to be open and programmable so that it can be easily and legally adapted to work in different places.
Now where is that app we should be looking at here?
/Eric Britton
From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 01:35:43 2012
From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:05:43 +0530
Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! America's love
affair with the motor car is running on empty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID:
14 June 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/12/america-motor-car-transport?CMP=EMCENVEML1631
America's love affair with the motor car is running on empty
- David Burwell
- guardian.co.uk , Tuesday 12 June 2012
11.53 BST
The country once wedded to driving is having its eye turned by other forms
of transport ? but policymakers are oblivious
[image: Inline image 2]
The number of miles driven by the average American has fallen since 2000.
Photograph: Joe Baraban/Alamy
America's love of driving is iconic. The open road is a central
manifestation of America the free. During the 20th century, the total
movement of cars and trucks on our national roads and highways grew as fast
as our economy, or faster. Movement ? measured by total vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) ? was considered an unqualified blessing. In the 1960s each
American drove about 5,000 miles a year in a car, van, or truck. By 2000
that number was 10,000 miles. Which means we are twice as well off ? right?
Wrong. In the early years of the 21st century, something very interesting
happened. Individual vehicle travel in America lost its glamour ? and its
connection to economic growth. In 2003 when VMT was 2.9 trillion miles, US
gross domestic product was just under $11tr. In 2011 GDP passed $15tr while
total vehicle travel was still about 2.9 trillion miles. In 2011 alone GDP
went up 1.5% while VMT went down 1.5%. VMT per capita is receding as well,
with each American now travelling less than 9,500 miles annually.
America is not alone. The UK has experienced similar trends, with a 13%
drop in annual trips by cars and vans since 1996, and a 4% reduction in
annual distance travelled over the same time period. The ratio of vehicle
miles travelled to GDP in the core EU 15 states has dropped by more than
10% since 2000.
There are a number of explanations for why VMT is no longer growing at the
same rate as GDP. Demand for shopping and business trips has slowed as
these activities are increasingly conducted electronically. Internet-based
social networks are fast replacing hanging out at the mall as a teenage
pastime. Then there is the cost: fewer young people can afford car
ownership ? the cost of insurance, fuel, and maintenance on even a used car
is simply too high.
Transportation policy has been slow to respond to this change in the way we
prefer to travel and, at times, actively resists the shift in customer
demand for cheaper, cleaner, on-demand travel choices. Forecasters continue
to predict 1.6% annual increases in vehicular travel demand as far as the
eye can see ? and are designing road and highway expansions to match. The
Congressional Budget Office still links travel demand (and thus fuel tax
revenues) directly to GDP growth. Earlier this year House leaders in
Congress tried to strip funding for transit, bicycling, and pedestrian
travel from the Highway Trust Fund, causing a backlash within their own
ranks that forced them to drop a floor debate on the measure.
In the absence of policy leadership, Americans are taking matters into
their own hands. Baby boomers are giving up the suburbs for communities
with more travel choices. Younger adults are delaying getting a driver's
licence and, when they do, they are not buying cars or using them as much.
Instead, they are embracing new forms of "collaborative consumption" ?
sharing vehicles through car-share and bike-share programmes. New "smart
apps" allow users to identify travel options to places they want to go on a
real-time basis, then guide them to the nearest available vehicle ? whether
bus, car, bicycle or train ? to get them there.
All age groups appear to be moving toward mixed communities where schools,
businesses, residences, and shops are in close proximity ? even walking
distance.
Failure to recognise this sea-change in travel behaviour leads to massive
misallocation of scarce infrastructure capital. If vehicular travel is, as
it seems, decoupling from GDP growth, then transportation investments
should respond by supporting a much broader array of travel behaviour than
driving, including bus, bus rapid transit, shared ride services, cycling
and safe pedestrian travel.
America still stands for freedom ? but it is no longer just the freedom of
the open road. Freedom to multitask while we travel. Freedom to access
social networks, buy goods and services, and conduct business without
sitting in traffic. Freedom to live in clean, healthy environments. In such
a world, planning to accommodate more and more driving when the customer is
signalling a desire for new transportation services makes no sense.
The stagnation in VMT growth is an important indicator of how lifestyles
are changing in America. It's about time our legislators designed
transportation policies that suit our needs in the 21st century.
? David Burwell is the director of the energy and climate programme at
the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace .
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*[image: Inline image 3]
*
*
*
*Parisar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com
sujit@parisar.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/
Parisar: www.parisar.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17934 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120617/2adcf839/attachment-0002.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25221 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120617/2adcf839/attachment-0003.jpe
From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Mon Jun 18 04:04:06 2012
From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:04:06 +0100
Subject: [sustran] Unintended Message
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Dear Colleagues
You may have received an e-mail from me earlier today. Unfortunately my e-mail has been hijacked and I did not send this message. Please disregard the earlier message, delete it and do not open the link enclosed within it. I apologise for any inconvenience my earlier message may have caused and steps are being taken to make sure this doesn't happen again. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Best regards Jeff TurnerIndependent Consultant&Visiting LecturerInstitute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsUK
From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Tue Jun 19 07:27:46 2012
From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (Craig Townsend)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:27:46 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Postdoc starting in September 2012
Message-ID: <201206182227.q5IMRa89008415@dillinger.concordia.ca>
>Hello All,
>
>I am pasting below a call for a postdoc starting September 2012. If
>interested please do not hesitate to contact me at
>govind@encs.concordia.ca.
>
>Regards
>Govind Gopakumar Ph.D.
>Asst. Professor and Associate Chair, Centre for Engineering in Society
>Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Concordia University
>1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd West, EV002.251
>Montreal, Quebec, Canada
>H3G 1M8
>Ph: (514)-848-2424 x 4068 (work)
> (514)-951-9216 (cell)
>Email: govind@encs.concordia.ca
>Website: http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~govind/
>
>Author of Transforming Urban Water Supplies in India
>(http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415670678/)
>
>
>
>Postdoctoral Position in Politics of Urban Infrastructure in India
>
>We are a novel interdisciplinary academic centre seeking to hire a
>postdoctoral researcher to work with Dr. Govind Gopakumar on his SSHRC
>(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) funded research
>project, Assembling Infrastructure Decongestion: a pilot investigation
>of the topology of urban infrastructure transformation. This project
>will try to comprehend the dynamics of contemporary efforts to
>decongest clogged and choked infrastructures in Bengaluru, India.
>
>This one-year position (with the possibility of renewal for another
>year) beginning in September 2012 will be hosted in the Centre for
>Engineering in Society in the Faculty of Engineering and Computer
>Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. The project will
>provide the researcher with at least four opportunities to strengthen
>their research expertise. First, the researcher will develop the
>capacity to draw upon recent developments in fields such as technology
>studies, geography, sociology, planning and public policy to
>conceptualize this project. Second, the researcher will assist in
>developing a methodologically sound strategy to study processes of
>decongesting infrastructures. Third, the researcher will implement the
>methodology through an extended period of fieldwork in India
>(especially in Bengaluru). Finally, the researcher will co-author
>conference papers and journal articles to document research findings.
>
>To meet these goals, we seek a candidate who has recently completed
>(or will complete by August 2012) their Ph.D. in science and
>technology studies, geography, sociology, planning or public policy
>with a demonstrated research experience in the social and political
>aspects of contemporary transformation in urban infrastructures in
>India. Those interested are encouraged to send a letter of
>introduction, a statement of research, three letters of recommendation
>(by email), two writing samples (including a dissertation chapter),
>and a recently updated resume to Govind Gopakumar
>(govind@encs.concordia.ca) by 10th July 2012. Only electronic
>applications will be considered. Shortlisted candidates will be
>interviewed. To facilitate seamless relocation, preference will be
>given to candidates from Canadian universities who are citizens or
>permanent residents.
From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 13:51:10 2012
From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:21:10 +0530
Subject: [sustran] Time to push the reverse gear - GoI Monitor
Message-ID:
Time to push the reverse gear
Mon, 18/06/2012 - 17:53
NAVDEEP ASIJA
*India is widening roads and building flyovers to pamper car owners while
the world is going for traffic-free ways and public transport
*
[image: Delhi traffic jam]
Our roads cater to all kinds of vehicles unlike the homogeneous traffic of
Western countries. Image: Wikicommons
INDIA'S NATIONAL transport policy says there should be socially equitable
distribution of space on roads but as is quite evident, we are biased
towards motor vehicles. For a country like us, number of people transported
is much more important than number of vehicles transported. By that
standard, most of our highways are unconstitutional. We have only 18 four
wheelers per 1,000 persons, which is much less when compared with US (809)
and Germany (554). However, that does not stop us from importing their
designs for our roads, thus, inviting disaster. Since the western road
designs are for homogeneous traffic (because almost everyone there is on a
car), they don't cater to our local traffic which include pedestrians,
cyclists, animal-driven carts and a large number of two wheelers using the
same road as heavy motor vehicles.
Also, expanding and building flyovers on our urban roads without a firm
policy related to land use pattern along these roads is an illogical
exercise. Practically, one urban road should not be expanded more than four
lanes because according to the rule of traffic equilibrium, people shift to
alternate, under-utilised routes whenever there is congestion. More than
four lane makes it difficult for a pedestrian to cross the road in the
available 15 to 20 second time.
Let's have a look at a scenario when there is a normal road with residences
alongside. The traffic starts increasing with time, so the road is widened.
Now, due to this extra lane, the route attracts more people and besides
meeting its own demand, it has to cater to additional 10 per cent traffic.
Due to the increased vehicle movement, the house owners residing along the
road find it lucrative to turn their dwellings into commercial spaces. This
change in activity will attract 20 per cent more traffic and during the day
time, one lane will be occupied for parking again causing congestion. Now,
the next 'logical' step for our planners is to further expand the road or
build a flyover. The problem is we keep on digging the road while the
solution lies on its side. If there had been a freeze on change of land
use, there would not have been any commercial activity and the traffic
would have been manageable. In many European cities, the planners are doing
just that: freezing the land use change and returning to narrower roads
with lesser traffic.
*Stress on public transport*
The urban highways are being dismantled in several cities across the world.
Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a pioneer of this concept. In 2003,
an expressway in the city's Central Business District (CBD) was demolished
to reclaim a natural creek Cheonggyecheon. It was found that though the
expressway served the mobility needs of the burgeoning car owners, it
severely diminished the attractiveness of CBD which lost around 40,000
residents and 80,000 jobs in 10 years after the expressway was completed.
[image: Seoul greenway]
The revitalised Cheonggyecheon Greenway By: lensfodder via Flickr
Besides the demolition of expressway, Seoul also implemented a car
restriction policy and established designated several kilometers of median
lanes for buses resulting in increased accessibility to public transport.
According to the traffic surveys by Seoul Metropolitan Government, the
number of vehicles entering or leaving 24 entry/exist points along the
Cheonggyecheon in 2006 decreased by 43 per cent and 47 per cent,
respectively, as compared to their 2002 baselines. The commercial area
started attracting investors and property prices in the area increased.
Improvement in air quality and reduction of noise pollution were additional
advantages. Now, more than 50,000 people daily visit the creek for
recreational activities. Similar success stories also exist in Paris,
Berlin and US cities of New York, Portland, San Francisco and Milwaukee.
Sadly, we are blindly borrowing from the infrastructure model of the US and
other developed countries while they are junking it. Our cities need to lay
more stress on public transport. A car's average household trip occupancy
rate is 1.1 but it takes around 23 sq m, the same area which can host
several cyclists. This will also help save the foreign reserve, one third
of which is currently being spent on oil import.
In Delhi, the bus rapid transport (BRT) corridor has democratised the
public space which had earlier been occupied by private vehicles. Besides
offering faster service to bus users, it has brought around 1,200 new
cyclists to the main road by offering them a separate lane. Scared of
bigger motor vehicles, these cyclists were earlier taking internal, longer
routes. The same BRT has been dubbed a failure by car users just because
they are facing congestion. Owning a car is a luxury in our country and it
should not automatically guarantee a right to freeway. The real benefits of
BRT will be visible only if it's further expanded. People will switch to
buses easing congestion and leading to improvement in air and noise
pollution.
Example of Bogota in Colombia can be quoted here for better understanding.
The city was facing heavy traffic congestion for which six urban highways
(with toll plazas) and a metro system were proposed. However, Bagota's
mayor decided to go for BRT and within six years of its implementation,
traffic fatalities in the city reduced by 89 per cent while cycle use
increased by five times because of traffic-free ways. The whole system was
developed much faster and at a fraction of the cost of highways and metro
system. A BRT corridor costs Rs 3-5 crore per km as compared to Rs 200
crore per km for a metro and can carry 30 per cent more passengers if
designed properly. It's high time we understand these simple calculations
and avoid falling into the trap of highly expensive expressways and
flyovers just to ensure smooth ride to a small fraction of our population.
*
Navdeep Asija is a civil engineering research scholar working in the field
of road safety.*
*http://www.goimonitor.com/story/time-push-reverse-gear *
From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 13:49:21 2012
From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:19:21 +0530
Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_Development_Banks_Announce_=93G?=
=?windows-1252?Q?ame_Changer=94_for_Sustainable_Transport_at_Rio+2?=
=?windows-1252?Q?0?=
In-Reply-To: <9b8e796db3-sujit=parisar.org@mail.vresp.com>
References: <9b8e796db3-sujit=parisar.org@mail.vresp.com>
Message-ID:
21 June 2012
*"This is a game changer for sustainable transport. It will ensure that
hundreds of millions of people will have cleaner air, less congested roads,
and safer transportation.*
*?Ten years ago transportation wasn?t even in the discussion; now it?s a
major outcome from the world?s preeminent conference on sustainable
development.*
While we wait for our decision makers to become "game changers" (instead of
being stumbling blocks for sustainable development - not just
transportation), it's good to see the intentions of development bankers at
Rio+ conference.
Do read.
--
Sujit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EMBARQ
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Subject: Development Banks Announce ?Game Changer? for Sustainable
Transport at Rio+20
To: sujit@parisar.org
**
[image: EMBARQ]
Mexico
Brasil
Turkiye
India
Andino
[image: Transoeste
BRT]
Development Banks Announce "Game Changer" for Sustainable Transport at
Rio+20
The world?s largest multi-lateral development banks ? led by the Asian
Development Bank, the World Bank, and others ? committed to provide more
than *$175 billion* over 10 years to support sustainable transport in
developing countries.
The announcement was made at the UN Sustainable Development Conference in
Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20) by the African Development Bank, Asian Development
Bank, CAF- Development Bank of Latin America, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and the World Bank.
*Following is a statement from our director, Holger
Dalkmann
:*
"This is a game changer for sustainable transport. It will ensure that
hundreds of millions of people will have cleaner air, less congested roads,
and safer transportation.
?Ten years ago transportation wasn?t even in the discussion; now it?s a
major outcome from the world?s preeminent conference on sustainable
development.
?Banks are putting their money where it matters ? on streets built for
people, not just cars. The world?s population is expected to surpass 9
billion by 2050, with more than half living in Asia, mostly in urban areas.
At the same time, the rate of vehicle ownership is predicted to skyrocket
from around 800 million cars a decade ago to around 2 billion in 2030.
These two mega-trends are coming together to create an environment where
people must compete for financial, institutional, and physical resources.
In response, we need better urban designs; more sustainable transportation
modes, like walking, biking and mass transit; and improvements in existing
vehicle and fuel technology.
?This investment is not just about improving the way people move from point
A to point B; it?s also about providing access and mobility for the poor
and improving road safety, not to mention reducing transport-related
greenhouse gas emissions. Transport is no small piece of the climate change
pie: the sector represents approximately one-quarter of global CO2
emissions.
?Today?s announcement will no doubt encourage other decision-makers,
especially national governments, to consider financing transport projects
based on social and environmental benefits. It will push sustainability
into the core of urban development.
?At the same time, we need to make sure that the money gets invested into
the right kind of projects, and that there are sound mechanisms to measure
its impact. This will require full transparency and independent monitoring.
?Countries often invest in transportation and infrastructure, but much of
that goes into highways. We need to be smarter about where money flows,
whether that means creating vibrant public spaces, providing safer
infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, or building high-tech,
low-cost transit systems. Doing this would be a paradigm shift in the way
we finance the growth of sustainable cities, similar to what the Asian
Development Bank has done with its Sustainable Transport Initiative, a
lending and technical assistance program for transport projects in Asia and
the Pacific that emphasizes inclusive economic and environmentally
sustainable growth.
?EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute?s center for sustainable transport,
is a founding member of the Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon
Transport, which helped to catalyze this new financial commitment by the
banks.
?Years from now, we may look back at Rio+20 as the moment when transport
was pushed to the top of the sustainability agenda.?
EMBARQ.org
Careers
Events
Staff
News
------------------------------
Click to view this email in a
browser
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message
with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following
link: Unsubscribe
------------------------------
EMBARQ - The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
10 G St NE
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20002
USA
Read the
VerticalResponse marketing policy.
[image: Non-Profits Email Free with VerticalResponse!]
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*[image: Inline image 1]
*
*
*
*Parisar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com
sujit@parisar.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/
Parisar: www.parisar.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17934 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120621/c2dabc66/attachment.jpe
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Jun 23 17:37:55 2012
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:55 +0200
Subject: [sustran] local businesses suffer financially when a zone is
pedestrianized
Message-ID: <002d01cd511b$80966840$81c338c0$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local
businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike
accessible?
Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to
me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these
local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the
work..
Kind thanks/Eric Britton
PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
_____________________________________________________________
Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor
New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets
| The Equity/Transport Project
9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org |
S. newmobility
9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 |
eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton
P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement
From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 21:20:21 2012
From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:20:21 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is
pedestrianized
In-Reply-To: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid>
Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main
road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce
representatives have said that their sales went down since then but
they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report.
Pardo
Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos.
On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote:
> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local
> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike
> accessible?
>
>
>
> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
>
>
>
> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to
> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these
> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the
> work..
>
>
>
> Kind thanks/Eric Britton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor
>
> New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets
> | The Equity/Transport Project
>
>
> 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
> 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org |
> S. newmobility
>
> 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 |
> eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton
>
>
>
> P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
From operations at velomondial.net Sat Jun 23 21:22:40 2012
From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:22:40 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is
pedestrianized
In-Reply-To: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid>
References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
<-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <83722BED-4A88-4338-9AE8-F6DCCC8DF969@velomondial.net>
We have no knowledge of such reports and we have been looking for them.
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director
Velo Mondial, A Micro Multi-National
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
Velo Mondial's Blog
Search Button Booklet
Click here for information on urban mobility issues you always wanted to have
On 23 jun. 2012, at 14:20, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote:
> Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main
> road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce
> representatives have said that their sales went down since then but
> they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report.
>
> Pardo
>
> Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos.
>
> On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote:
>
>> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local
>> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike
>> accessible?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to
>> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these
>> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the
>> work..
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind thanks/Eric Britton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>>
>> Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor
>>
>> New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets
>> | The Equity/Transport Project
>>
>>
>> 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
>> 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org |
>> S. newmobility
>>
>> 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 |
>> eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton
>>
>>
>>
>> P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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').
From litman at vtpi.org Mon Jun 25 08:23:20 2012
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:23:20 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Local Economic Development Impacts of Pedestrian and
Cycling Improvements
In-Reply-To: <1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <002d01cd511b$80966840$81c338c0$@britton@ecoplan.org>
<1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org>
Here is information on walkability impacts local economic development impacts from the "Walkability" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm92.htm )
Pedestrian Malls and Districts
==============================
Pedestrianized commercial districts can support urban revitalization and economic development by creating a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors, although they must be carefully implemented to be effective (Rodriguez 2010). Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic altogether, at least during certain time periods such as evenings or weekends, while others allow automobile traffic but use traffic calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes. Success varies depending on specific conditions. Many pedestrian-only commercial streets created in North American towns and cities during the 1970s failed to attract customers, and many were subsequently reopened to automobile travel, but others thrived, particularly in resort communities or as part of overall downtown redevelopment. Below are guidelines for creating successful pedestrianized streets and districts:
? It is generally better to calm vehicle traffic and improve non-motorized conditions throughout an area, than to let high speed and volume motor vehicle traffic dominate except on a token pedestrian street.
? Pedestrian areas require a critical mass of users. They should be both a destination and a thoroughfare that connects diverse attractions (housing, shops, offices, etc.). Encourage development that attracts a broad range of customers and clients, including retail, housing, education and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops.
? Develop a pleasant environment, with greenery, shade and amenities. Building features and street furniture should be pedestrian scale and attractive. Maintain high standards for security, cleanliness and physical maintenance. Minimize blank building walls.
? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit vehicles, resident and hotel pickup, service and emergency vehicles, or other appropriate categories.
? Pedestrian streets should be located in pedestrian-friendly areas with good access to public transit and parking. Slow and restrict vehicle traffic on cross-streets.
? Develop a variety of artistic, cultural and recreational amenities (statues, fountains, playgrounds) and activities (concerts, fairs, markets). Highlight historical features.
Mark Byrnes (2012), ?The Uncertain Legacy of America's Pedestrian Malls,? Atlantic Cities (www.theatlanticcities.com); at www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/05/uncertain-legacy-americas-pedestrian-malls/1929
Luis Rodriguez (2011), Pedestrian-Only Shopping Streets Make Communities More Livable, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com); at www.planetizen.com/node/47517.
======================================================================================
Here is information on car-free streets impacts local economic development impacts from the "Car-Free Planning" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm6.htm )
Pedestrian-Oriented Commercial Areas
---------------------------------------
Pedestrianized commercial districts can support urban revitalization and economic development, although they must be carefully implemented to be effective (West 1990; Robertson 1990; ?Pedestrian Malls,? Wikipedia). They can help create a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors (Rodriguez 2010). Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic altogether, at least during certain time periods such as evenings or weekends, while others allow automobile traffic but use Traffic Calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes (Boyd 1998). Success varies depending on specific conditions. Many pedestrian-only commercial streets created during the 1970s in North American towns and cities failed to attract customers, and many were subsequently reopened to automobile travel. However, some pedestrian-only streets succeeded, particularly in Resort communities or as part of appropriate downtown redevelopment (Rodriguez 2010).
Retail areas often subsidize vehicle parking on the assumption that customers need to drive to make large purchases. This may sometimes be true, but not always. Many cities find that a significant portion of shoppers arrive without a car and those who arrive by alternative modes are good shoppers. A study of Prince Street (Schaller Consulting 2006), a commercial street in SoHo, New York City found that:
? 89% of Prince Street users arrive by subway, bus, walking or bicycle. Only 9% arrive by car.
? By a ratio of 5:1 shoppers said they would come to Prince Street more often if they had more space to walk, even if it meant eliminating parking spaces. This ratio was nearly identical for visitors and those who live and work in the area.
? Most shoppers would rather see space taken away from parked cars rather than street vendors.
? The shoppers who value wider sidewalks over parking spent about five times as much money, in aggregate, as those who value parking over sidewalks.
Similarly, a study of downtown San Francisco shoppers that found less than one-fifth drive to shop, and that they spend less money in aggregate than shoppers using other transportation modes (Bent 2006). The study indicates drivers spend more each trip than transit riders, but visit less often and account for far fewer total visits and therefore spend less in total. Walkers average eight downtown shopping trips a month, spending $36 per trip and $291 per month. Motorists average four downtown shopping trips a month, spending $88 per trip and $259 per month. Transit riders average seven shopping trips per month, spending $40 per trip and $274 per month. Overall, 60% of shoppers arrive by public transit, 20% arrive by walking, 19% by automobile and 1% by bicycle, yet downtown merchants surveyed in the study estimated that 90% of their customers arrive by car.
A study of consumer expenditures in British towns found that customers who walk actually spend more than those who drive, and transit and car travelers spend about the same amounts.
Business and residents should be involved in planning and managing pedestrian commercial streets. Often, a downtown business organization or Transportation Management Association will oversee Streetscape development, as well as parking management and promotion activities. Below are recommended guidelines for creating a successful pedestrian commercial street or district:
? Pedestrian streets are only successful in areas that are attractive and lively. They require a critical mass of users. They should serve as both a destination and a thoroughfare by forming a natural connection route between diverse attractions (housing, shops, offices, etc.).
? Develop a pleasant environment, with greenery, shade and rain covers. Use brick, block pavement or textured cement instead of asphalt, if possible. Street-level building features and street furniture should be pedestrian scale and attractive. Minimize blank building walls.
? Encourage the development of diverse pedestrian-oriented activities that attract a broad range of customers and clients, including retail and commercial services, housing and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops.
? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit and HOV vehicles, pickup and drop-off for residents and hotels, service and emergency vehicles, or other categories deemed appropriate.
? Pedestrian streets should have good access to public transit and parking. They should be located in pedestrian-friendly areas. Mid-block walkways and buildings open to through public traffic should be developed and enhanced as much as possible.
? Develop a variety of artistic, cultural and recreational amenities (statues, fountains, playgrounds) and activities (concerts, fairs, markets). Highlight historical features.
? Pedestrian streets should generally be small and short, typically just a few blocks in length, although this may increase over time if appropriate.
? Security, cleanliness and physical maintenance standards must be high.
? Vehicle traffic on cross-streets should be slowed or restricted.
======================================================
Here is information on bicycle facility impacts local economic development impacts from the "Cycling Improvements" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm93.htm )
"In a survey of business owners in an urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their area."
Emily Drennen (2003), "Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses," Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University (www.emilydrennen.org); at www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf.
"Merchants on a particular street often object to parking-to-bike-lane conversions out of fear that they will lose customers who use on-street parking. This is often untrue or inappropriate. In many cases, on-street parking serves only a small portion of their total customers, alternative parking is available nearby, and some of their customers who currently drive will shift to cycling if suitable facilities are available (Sztabinski 2009). This is actually a debate between very local costs (the merchants who lose a few parking spaces) versus widely distributed benefits (businesses throughout the area who will benefit from reduced automobile parking demand, travelers who benefit from financial savings and health benefits, and all residents who benefit from reduced traffic congestion, accident risk and pollution emissions)."
Fred Sztabinski (2009), "Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business A Study of Bloor Street in Toronto?s Annex Neighbourhood," The Clean Air Partnership (www.cleanairpartnership.org); at www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-lanes-parking.pdf.
=============================================================
>From my report, "Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts" (www.vtpi.org/econ_dev.pdf )
"Walkability can affect retail area attractiveness and therefore economic success (Hass-Klau 1993). Retailers sometimes favor automobile access (traffic and parking lanes) over non-motorized access (such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes and traffic calming) because they assume motorists spend more than customers who travel by other modes, but in many urban areas a majority of customers arrive by alternative modes, and although motorists tend to spent more per trip, pedestrians and cyclists shop more frequently and spend more per capita over a month or year (Transportation Alternatives & Schaller Consulting 2006; Sztabinski 2009; Malatest & Associates 2010). Because bicycle parking is space efficient it generates about five times as much spending per square meter as automobile parking (Lee and March 2010).
Although tourism requires transport, excessive emphasis on motor vehicle access (for example, expanding highways, parking facilities and airports) can spoil the attributes that attract visitors. Unique transport activities, such as walking, cycling and train travel, can help attract tourists (Tourism Vermont 2007)."
European Commission (1999), "Cycling: The Way Ahead For Towns And Cities: A Handbook for Local Authorities," Environment DG, European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/images/language/lang_en3.gif).
C. Hass-Klau (1993), ?Impact Of Pedestrianisation And Traffic Calming On Retailing, A Review Of The Evidence From Germany And The UK,? Transport Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Alison Lee and Alan March (2010), ?Recognising The Economic Role Of Bikes: Sharing Parking In Lygon Street, Carlton,? Australian Planner, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 85 - 93; at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293681003767785; also see http://colabradio.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Value_of_Bike_Parking_Alison_Lee.pdf.
Malatest & Associates (2010), "Victoria Regional Rapid Transit: Survey Of Businesses, Property Owners, And Customers," BC Transit (www.transitbc.com); at www.transitbc.com/vrrt/displaypdf/Business_Survey_Results.pdf.
TA (2006), "Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo," Transportation Alternatives & Schaller Consulting (www.transalt.org); at www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/soho_curbing_cars.pdf.
Tourism Vermont (2007), "Travel and Tourism Industry in Vermont: A Benchmark Study of the Economic Impact of Visitor Expenditures on the Vermont Economy," Vermont Department of Tourism & Marketing, Vermont Partners (www.vermontpartners.org); at www.vermontpartners.org/pdf/Research_Brochure_2007.pdf; methodology at www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/publications/implan_method.pdf.
Also see:
CPF (2008), "Economic Benefits of Cycling for Australia," Cycling Promotion Fund (www.cyclingpromotion.com.au); at www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPF_CyclingBenefits.pdf.
Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org )
litman@vtpi.org
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
Sent: June-23-12 6:34 AM
To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; UTSG Mailing List (Z UTSG Mailing List -)
Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized
1. Well, in the US, there were a number of pedestrianized malls created in the 1960s and 1970s. With a couple of exceptions, most have been removed. They weren't successful for multiple reasons: (1) cities were depopulating; (2) locally-owned stores in downtowns were decamping to the suburbs; (3) community mental health facilities weren't created as a part of the deinstitutionalization movement and so center cities became a kind of holding place for "street people" (people with health and substance abuse issues that made it difficult for them to live "normally"); (4) locally owned department stores failed, further reducing the impact of downtown as a commercial destination.
So basically, streets were pedestrianized simultaneously with a severe decrease in the number of pedestrians, and an increase in other problems. As someone said on a now defunct Project for Public Spaces e-list on public space (maybe it's another list topic to pick up and run with as part of the New Mobility Agenda), plants don't animate places, people do. And so having motorized traffic has been considered to be an important albeit not lovingly component of place activation.
The places in the US where pedestrian malls continue to be successful are limited, but are in places where there are great numbers of pedestrians, either as college students (Boulder, CO; Burlington, VT; to some extent Charlottesville, VA--there are vacancies there) or in tourist areas (Santa Monica, CA; Miami Beach, FL [I think]). I wrote a blog entry about Boulder's pedestrian mall a few years ago, which is cited within this entry: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/04/todays-trends-with-pedestrian-malls.html
Boulder's mall in fact is highly managed to be active, which is key to its success.
2. David Feehan, formerly director of the Intl. Downtown Assn., co-authored a journal article on the topic (I don't know if it was accepted), and I can ask him if I can forward it to the list. He also distinguishes between "transit malls" like Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis and 16th St. in Denver, where transit is part of the mall, just not motor vehicles. (There is also the bus mall in Portland, OR, although cars do go on it too. It has been recently redesigned. When I was there in 2005, I thought it was grim.)
A professor, Kent Robertson, wrote a bunch of articles on the topic in the 1990s. E.g., http://uar.sagepub.com/content/26/2/250.abstract
3. As far as one way streets go, interestingly, I read an article in the Ann Arbor Observer more than 20 years ago about the impact of making Glen St. one way in the late 1960s. The gas station located on the street had a 50% drop in business. In fact, the IRS audited them because they didn't believe it.
4. When I was in Montreal for vacation in July 2010, some merchants on St. Catherine Street had a campaign against the Art Festival on the street, which banned cars for many blocks (from the Rue Berri-UQAM station pretty far down but not all the way (I think) to the Papineau Station.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=bc8e730d-3ee8-46bd-8e7f-2073b0102417
And Montreal has a number of other pedestrian street initiatives--near McGill U, and in the Old City. I bet Zvi Leve could offer some insights as to what merchants think today.
Richard Layman
_____
From: eric britton
To: Sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; UTSG Mailing List (Z UTSG Mailing List -)
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:37 AM
Subject: WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized
Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike accessible?
Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the work..
Kind thanks/Eric Britton
PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
_____________________________________________________________
Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor
New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport Project
9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility
9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton
P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement
__._,_.___
The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda
Consult at: http://NewMobility.org
To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
From sunny.iclei at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 17:13:47 2012
From: sunny.iclei at gmail.com (Sunny Kodukula)
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:13:47 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is
pedestrianized
In-Reply-To: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid>
References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
<-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <10B45ED5-8B43-4860-B644-90A2BC9A9051@gmail.com>
There is always a perception from the businesses in the area of their sales being down, this is to corroborate their earlier perception that such a project harms the business. But a research will show the opposite. I dont think there is document proof of sales going down. It will be great to see such a report.
cheers
sunny
On 23.06.2012, at 14:20, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote:
> Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main
> road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce
> representatives have said that their sales went down since then but
> they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report.
>
> Pardo
>
> Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos.
>
> On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote:
>
>> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local
>> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike
>> accessible?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to
>> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these
>> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the
>> work..
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind thanks/Eric Britton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>>
>> Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor
>>
>> New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets
>> | The Equity/Transport Project
>>
>>
>> 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
>> 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org |
>> S. newmobility
>>
>> 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 |
>> eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton
>>
>>
>>
>> P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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').
From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 04:34:27 2012
From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:04:27 +0530
Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Five Years of Velib -- How
Cycling Became Chic in Paris !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID:
25 June 2012
06/25/2012
Five Years of VelibHow Cycling Became Chic in Paris
By Stefan Simons in Paris
*Once upon a time, only a small number of Parisians rode bikes, but the
French capital city's Velib bike rental system has shaken up the way locals
move from Point A to Point B. Five years after their debut, cycling has
become cool in Paris -- and there are fewer cars clogging up the city
center.*
*
*
*Read the full article here: *
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/paris-bike-hire-scheme-is-five-years-old-a-840775.html
Or see the attachment.
--
Sujit
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*[image: Inline image 1]
*
*
*
*Parisar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com
sujit@parisar.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India
Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/
Parisar: www.parisar.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17934 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/attachment-0001.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: How Cycling Became Chic in Paris_25_6_2012.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 48510 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/HowCyclingBecameChicinParis_25_6_2012-0001.bin
From yanivbin at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 14:56:25 2012
From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:26:25 +0530
Subject: [sustran] Centre sanctions 60 more buses,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation refuses
Message-ID:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Centre-sanctions-60-more-buses-Nagpur-Municipal-Corporation-refuses/articleshow/14378777.cms
*Centre sanctions 60 more buses, Nagpur Municipal Corporation refuses*
Anjaya Anparthi, TNN | Jun 25, 2012, 12.21AM IST
Article
Comments (1)
inShare
Read more:Vilas Muttemwar|Vansh Nimay Infra Projects Pvt Ltd|Jawaharlal
Nehru|additional deputy
1
NAGPUR: In 2009, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) had applied for 800
buses for the city, citing the population of over 24 lakh. Today, the
central government's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JNNURM) unit, which functions under the Union ministry of urban
development (UD), is giving NMC another 60 buses, but NMC is not ready to
take them, since it is finding it difficult to maintain the existing buses.
The JNNURM's central sanctioning and monitoring committee (CSMC) took a
review of buses sanctioned for the city on May 30 at New Delhi. According
to the minutes of the meeting approved on June 8, the Centre had sanctioned
300 buses for the city, including 240 standard and 60 minibuses on February
21, 2009. In the meeting on January 3, 2012, the CSMC sanctioned 60
standard buses instead of 60 minibuses. But, sources told TOI, NMC had
expressed its inability to procure and run 60 more buses.
Actually, the NMC had procured just 240 standard-size buses and expressed
inability to buy the 60 minibuses. Later, NMC planned to procure two
air-conditioned buses to run between the airport and the city or in the
proposed 'Nagpur Darshan' tours. However, NMC none of these plans
materialized. Now, NMC does not want the 60 more standard buses despite 70%
funding coming from the centre and state government.
NMC's decision is a big blow for the city as the number of buses is falling
short in catering to the requirements of the city. Besides 240 buses
sanctioned by the government, Starbus operator Vansh Nimay Infra Projects
Pvt Ltd had purchased 230 buses since 2007. Around 110-120 buses of total
470 are non-functional today, leaving 350-360 buses on the roads.
Buses are often overcrowded. Besides, buses are run on very few routes and
yet to start services in many parts of the city. The worst part of
Starbuses is that the existing buses are very badly maintained.
A senior official from Vansh Nimay told TOI that running more buses is not
at all possible. "Bus stand, depot and workshop is must to operate city bus
service. None of these is available in the city. The maintenance of
existing buses is not possible due to lack of infrastructure," he said.
Additional deputy municipal commissioner Sanjay Nipane was not available to
comment despite repeated attempts.
In fact, JNNURM unit is upset with NMC's performance. According to the
minutes of the meeting, secretary (UD) Dr Sudhir Krishna was concerned with
the way the bus funding project is being implemented in the city. "Krishna
also cited complaints being received every now and then by the ministry.
Krishna suggested the state government should review the issues sincerely
and minutely, and take necessary action to sort out these issues."
It is further mentioned that NMC is yet to initiate steps to provide proper
service to citizens. "No details of coordination between Starbuse and
Nagpur Mahanagar Parivahan Limited (NMPL), a special purpose vehicle formed
by NMC to operate service have been provided to JNNURM. Payment to the bus
manufacturers should be done without waiting for the instalments from the
ministry. The state government was asked to submit a reply within 30 days
from December 22, 2011, after an enquiry. The reply is yet to be submitted.
Enquiry was done following allegations made by MP Vilas Muttemwar," the
minutes say.
From barbara at rideyourcity.co.za Tue Jun 26 16:36:31 2012
From: barbara at rideyourcity.co.za (Barbara Jennings)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:36:31 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Southern African Transport Conference 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za>
References: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za>
Message-ID: <4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za>
Dear Colleagues,
For the past 30 years more than 700 leading transport experts and
professionals have gathered together during the Southern African
Transport Conference (SATC) to discuss and debate Southern Africa's
transport challenges and trends based on in-depth research papers and
presentations.
This year will be no different as the SATC kicks off from *Monday 9 July
to Thursday 12 July 2012* at the CSIR International Convention Centre in
Pretoria.
In-depth research papers on topical transport issues have been reviewed
by the Technical Committee to ensure the content is relevant,
interesting and informative for all delegates from the transport
industry or related industries.
The SATC's theme for this year is /"Getting Southern Africa to Work."/
Hot topics such as urban transport, infrastructure and rural transport,
traffic management, BRTs road management and access and many more will
be explored through a series of information sessions, plenary addresses
and workshops.
Please find three very relevant articles attached for publication in the
run up to the conference:
1. Can variable speed limits in South Africa work?
/ By Christo Bester and MS Marais
/2. Giving infrastructure projects a green rating: How to design
'green' from the inside out.
3. Living the public transport lifestyle: is it possible in South Africa?
/ By Gail Jennings/
Please let me know if you need more information about the conference.
Best wishes,
Barbara
*Barbara Jennings*
/Distribution Manager//,
Ride Your City/
Tel: (021) 782 7480
www.capetownbicyclemap.co.za
Facebook
Twitter
WordPress
Want a signature like mine?
Click here.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SATC 2012 Speed limits.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 88745 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012Speedlimits-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SATC 2012 Green rating system-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012Greenratingsystem-1-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SATC 2012 - public transport_ lifestyle.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67511 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012-publictransport_lifestyle-0001.pdf
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jun 26 17:40:42 2012
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:42 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Parking vs. ped/bike. What if the other guy actually has a
point?
Message-ID: <006901cd5377$627d87e0$277897a0$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Last Saturday morning, the 23rd of June, I thought to ask an open question
to several of our New Mobility Agenda fora as follows:
Has anyone out there ever run across a solid report or study showing that
local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made
bike accessible? Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such
improvements are made? Most of us here are familiar with the other side of
this coin, but it occurred to me that this such critical references might be
useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time
and time again in cities around the world.
My reason for doing this was that this matter of ubiquitous business and
political resistance to pedestrian and cycling improvements, if they come at
the expense of convenient parking and easy car access -- is a battle which
comes up time and again with almost the same arguments advanced on the two
sides, and which results far more often than not in an impasse. City after
city, country after country, you can count on it.
So faced with this I had decided to write a thinkpiece setting out a range
of strategies for local government, activists and others who favor softer
transport means. And since what I know of the literature is by and large
supportive of the out-car in-bike/ped approach, I thought that before
leaping into the fray to see if I might do well to get a better grasp on the
downside when it comes to real world applications and debates. Or in other
words, maybe the other guy just may have a point.
Today, only four days later, we have received more than two dozen
communications from academics, consultants, activists and people involved in
local government in more than a dozen different countries who set out some
very thoughtful perspectives and background, which makes it clear to me
that this is an area of transport policy and practice that requires a
careful and balanced approach. But let's think about handling this in two
stages, starting with the open dialogue without editorial or analysis on my
part.
Let me today invite you to see the responses that have come in thus far
which are all summaries on our World Streets Facebook site at
http://www.facebook.com/worldstreets. You will see the original question and
the responses to date if you simply scroll down the page.
For the rest, once the flow is stemmed, we can get down to the strategy
piece and recommendations.
Kind thanks to all who have generously joined in. And if you have not yet
shared your references or ideas, this forum is still wide open.
Eric Britton
From zvi.leve at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 01:22:49 2012
From: zvi.leve at gmail.com (Zvi Leve)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:22:49 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Local Economic Development Impacts of Pedestrian and
Cycling Improvements
In-Reply-To: <09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org>
References: <1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
<09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org>
Message-ID:
I would like to expand a bit on a few points which Todd has already made:
On 24 June 2012 19:23, Todd Alexander Litman wrote:
>
>
>
> ? Pedestrian areas require a critical mass of users. They should be
> both a destination and a thoroughfare that connects diverse attractions
> (housing, shops, offices, etc.). Encourage development that attracts a
> broad range of customers and clients, including retail, housing, education
> and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops.
>
>
>
I think that there are two fundamentally different types of development
here: specific places such as a square or even and individual street, or
along entire corridors which are crucial for providing continuity (car
drivers do not like stop and go traffic, why should this be the norm for
pedestrians?). Many European cities have entire networks of contiguous
pedestrian areas which permit people to move about the city without being
exposed to vehicular traffic at every intersection. These are truly
separate networks, not just individual streets....
Concerning mixed uses, it is hugely important to bring more than just
commercial and housing to the area! Office space, services (health and even
educational), and cultural uses can all animate the area at different times
of day.
> ? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate
> restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include
> unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit vehicles,
> resident and hotel pickup, service and emergency vehicles, or other
> appropriate categories.
>
It is very important to provide some flexibility in access and to recognize
that there are different needs at different times of day.
> "Merchants on a particular street often object to parking-to-bike-lane
> conversions out of fear that they will lose customers who use on-street
> parking. This is often untrue or inappropriate. In many cases, on-street
> parking serves only a small portion of their total customers, alternative
> parking is available nearby, and some of their customers who currently
> drive will shift to cycling if suitable facilities are available
> (Sztabinski 2009). This is actually a debate between very local costs (the
> merchants who lose a few parking spaces) versus widely distributed benefits
> (businesses throughout the area who will benefit from reduced automobile
> parking demand, travelers who benefit from financial savings and health
> benefits, and all residents who benefit from reduced traffic congestion,
> accident risk and pollution emissions)."
>
In Montreal, most of the pedestrian projects are in central areas which
have quite high property values. The small commerce owners often cannot
afford to live in such areas, and have moved to more distant car-oriented
suburbs. Thus, the owners arrive at their commerces by car and naturally
assume that most of their clientele arrive in a similar manner. Access to
parking spaces is a very important concern for these people.... But in my
opinion, the larger issue is the fact that small business owners cannot
afford to live in the area where their businesses are located.
Richard has also made a number of excellent points. The link between
pedestrian and cycling improvements (or any transportation project) and
economic "development" is far from direct. There are many other factors at
work, and many perverse incentives which
encourage or discourage certain development outcomes.....
>
>
> 1. Well, in the US, there were a number of pedestrianized malls created
> in the 1960s and 1970s. With a couple of exceptions, most have been
> removed. They weren't successful for multiple reasons: (1) cities were
> depopulating; (2) locally-owned stores in downtowns were decamping to the
> suburbs; (3) community mental health facilities weren't created as a part
> of the deinstitutionalization movement and so center cities became a kind
> of holding place for "street people" (people with health and substance
> abuse issues that made it difficult for them to live "normally"); (4)
> locally owned department stores failed, further reducing the impact of
> downtown as a commercial destination.
>
>
>
> So basically, streets were pedestrianized simultaneously with a severe
> decrease in the number of pedestrians, and an increase in other problems.
> As someone said on a now defunct Project for Public Spaces e-list on
> public space (maybe it's another list topic to pick up and run with as part
> of the New Mobility Agenda), plants don't animate places, people do. And
> so having motorized traffic has been considered to be an important albeit
> not lovingly component of place activation.
>
>
>
> 4. When I was in Montreal for vacation in July 2010, some merchants on
> St. Catherine Street had a campaign against the Art Festival on the street,
> which banned cars for many blocks (from the Rue Berri-UQAM station pretty
> far down but not all the way (I think) to the Papineau Station.
>
>
> And Montreal has a number of other pedestrian street initiatives--near
> McGill U, and in the Old City. I bet Zvi Leve could offer some insights as
> to what merchants think today.
>
>
>
Pedestrian and cyclist development in Montreal has become a *highly*
contentious topic. Projet
Montr?alwhich
won all of the seats in the central Plateau Mont-Royal borough has
been pushing non-stop to get as many progressive transportation things done
while they can, but they are encountering significant push-back from many
directions (from merchants on one of the pedestrian
streetsfor
example). On the other hand, Jimmy Zoubris who is a small commerce
owner on Parc Ave (a long-struggling commercial artery) recognizes that we
are in for a "rough ride" but he has thrown his support fully behind the
Projet Montreal team.
Best,
Zvi
From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Thu Jun 28 12:43:04 2012
From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:43:04 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Safety on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Roads
In-Reply-To: <4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za>
References: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za>
<4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za>
Message-ID: <4FEBD2C8.3000004@ties.ottawa.on.ca>
Our BRT system in Ottawa is just passed its 30th birthday. Just a
couple months ago, two of the buses collided. Although the low-speed
collision (at turn within one of the stations) resulted in no deaths or
serious injuries, there was a furore of the slow reaction of the
authority to report the accident and inform users of the reasons for
near gridlock for hours. Obviously, the authority had not considered
such an occurrence possible.
Given that passengers do not have seat belts, that many do not have
seats, that speeds of buses are quite high (compared to regular-street
service) and that these roadways (called "transitway" locally) are
undivided, so that buses from opposing directions have no physical
barrier (such as a Jersey barrier) providing separation and a deflector
if one bus moved toward the centreline), this situation seems to be a
huge catastrophe just waiting to happen. The lack of restraints on
transit vehicles reflects the expectation that collisions would occur
primarily with much smaller vehicles, in which case the brunt of the
impact would be experienced by the other vehicle. But collisions
between two loades buses at high speeds (60-80 kms are common, and
patrons have reported higher speeds). Rail technology, which is often
much faster, is at least "guided" and operator error less consequential.
Does anyone know of any industry or state recognition of this risk -- or
of actual collisions between two or more transit vehicles -- that might
shed some light on just how dangerous this situation is and what
measures might be taken to reduce that danger?
Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa, Canada
From yanivbin at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 15:07:59 2012
From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:37:59 +0530
Subject: [sustran] Japan agency seeks to build Rs. 4,
800 crore tunnel in Western Ghats
Message-ID:
http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/27231114/Japan-agency-seeks-to-build-Rs.html
Japan agency seeks to build Rs. 4,800 crore tunnel in Western Ghats
Under the JICA proposal, the proposed 18.5km stretch will include five
tunnels, and four overbridges
Shamsheer Yousaf
Bangalore: The Karnataka government is looking to solve the recurring
problem of unmotorable roads on the national highway between Bangalore and
the port city of Mangalore by constructing an 18.5 kilometre, multi-stage
tunnel through the Western Ghats at a cost of Rs. 4,800 crore.
An expert group from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has
submitted a report to the Karnataka government on the construction of a
four-lane expressway between Sakleshpur in Hassan district and Gundia in
Dakshina Kannada district along National Highway 48 connecting Bangalore
and Mangalore.
Under the JICA proposal, the proposed 18.5km stretch will include five
tunnels, and four overbridges. A 2km arch bridge will also be constructed
to provide connectivity across a valley.
The current 30km road from Sakleshpur to Mangalore climbs over the Shirdi
ghat section of the Western Ghats.
The condition of this section of the highway deteriorates every year
because of heavy rainfall?around 400 centimetre annually?and accidents are
frequent.
In 2011, the state government spent nearly Rs. 22 crore on repairing the
stretch.
The proposed expressway, to be built over six years, is expected to reduce
the commuting time from 3 hours to less than half-an-hour. The proposed
road will also improve connectivity to the New Mangalore Port.
?Currently, consignments from several parts of Karnataka prefer to go
either to Chennai or to Goa despite Mangalore port being closer,? said
Karnataka?s large and medium industries minister Murugesh Nirani. ?We need
to close the gap in the connectivity infrastructure.?
JICA also submitted that the project will be financially viable if traffic
density is around 10,000 vehicles per day. According to the figures
furnished by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), the traffic
density is estimated at around 8,000 vehicles daily.
Nirani added that the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) had
expressed interest in providing technical assistance to build the tunnel
with private firms in a public-private partnership.
Public works minister C.M. Udasi said the state government had already
submitted the proposal to the union ministry of road transport and highways
and is awaiting a reply.
?We had a long discussion with the Japanese delegation during the Global
Investors Meet earlier this month and some firms have expressed interest in
taking up the project,? he said.
The state government took the tunnel approach after it failed to receive
environment clearances for converting the the ghat section into a four-lane
highway.
Several projects in the Western Ghats have been held up due to lack of
environmental clearances. These include the Hubli-Ankola railway line and a
hydel power project in Gundia.
*shamsheer.y@livemint.com*
From czegras at MIT.EDU Fri Jun 29 03:26:26 2012
From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:26:26 +0000
Subject: [sustran] Workshop summary: Transantiago and Metrobus: How to Achieve
Social Sustainability?
Message-ID: <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C10613566@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu>
A summary of a recent workshop on implementing Bus Rapid Transit in Santiago de Chile and Mexico City has recently been added to the website of the BRT Centre of Excellence:
http://www.brt.cl/event-wrap-up-transantiago-and-metrobus-how-to-achieve-social-sustainability/
--
P. Christopher Zegras
Ford Career Development Associate Professor, Transportation & Urban Planning
Dept. of Urban Studies & Planning and Engineering Systems Division
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 10-403 | Cambridge, MA 02139
Tel: 617 452 2433 | Fax: 617 258 8081 | czegras@mit.edu
http://czegras.scripts.mit.edu/web/ | http://dusp.mit.edu/transportation
Office Hours (Spring '12): Tue/Th, 2:00-3:30 (MIT Certificates needed for on-line sign up)
Now available on ebooks: Urban Transport in the Developing World
From hghazali at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 14:06:32 2012
From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:06:32 +0500
Subject: [sustran] Hasty infrastructure development leads to unhappy surprises
Message-ID:
Folks,
The news item below urges us to think twice about how much we value
efficiency and expeditiousness in infrastructure development. I'm wondering
if there are any more tragic stories from other jurisdictions and what we
can do to curb low quality infrastructure.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/400658/public-safety-truck-driver-dies-under-collapsed-bridge/
*A truck driver from Sargodha was killed inside his vehicle by a pedestrian
bridge in an accident on the Ring Road in North Cantonment on Thursday.*
Officials said that Rana Sajjad, 25, a resident of Chak 43, Sargodha, was
driving with the ?bucket? of his truck up and it struck the overhead bridge
on the Ring Road near the Harbanspura grid station. The bridge collapsed on
the truck and crushed the vehicle.
Hundreds of bystanders gathered at the scene and sought to pull out the
driver, but heavy machinery was needed to remove the debris. Rescue 1122
later called cranes to remove the collapsed section of the concrete bridge.
Rescue officials said that the driver had been crushed under the weight.
They said an autopsy was being conducted.
Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif arrived at the scene and ordered an inquiry.
District Coordination Officer Noorul Amin Mengal and Commissioner Jawad
Raffique Malik also visited the accident site.
Officials of the National Engineering Service of Pakistan (NESPAK) who had
visited the scene of the accident said that the driver had likely raised
the truck bucket to clean it, which was a common but illegal practice by
truckers. They said that oil from the hydraulic pump that raises the bucket
in the truck was leaked all over the road, indicating that the bucket was
up.
They said that the raised bucket struck the beam, which rested on the
pillar via a projection that fit inside a recess in the column. The impact
of the bucket on the beam broke the wall of the recess and the beam came
crashing down on the truck. They said that there was no other attachment
between the beam and column.
Ring Road Authority Deputy Director Najam Waheed told *The Express
Tribune* that
there were 20 overhead pedestrian bridges on the Northern Loop of the Ring
Road of which at least 16 were concrete constructions of the same design as
the bridge that collapsed.
Col (retired) Asim, the director for enforcement as well as operations and
maintenance in the Lahore Ring Road Authority, said that the Chief
Minister?s Inspection Team had been tasked with conducting an inquiry. He
said that veteran civil engineers would be involved in the inquiry. He said
that only physical impact could have brought the bridge down.
He said that under agreements with the Ring Road Authority, the
construction companies that had built pedestrian bridges were to maintain
the bridges for a year or two before the authority took responsibility.
He said the bridge that collapsed had been built in June 2009, while the
railing had been installed in September that year, by Khalid Rauf and
Company.
*Published in The Express Tribune, June 29th, 2012.*
Cell: 0333 4231 666
*When conditions are right, things go wrong*
From edelman at greenidea.eu Fri Jun 29 23:02:47 2012
From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:02:47 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Is the ECF the Elite Cyclists' Federation?
Message-ID: <4FEDB587.6090408@greenidea.eu>
Is the ECF the Elite Cyclists' Federation?
As ECF's annual conference event (Velo-city Global) enters its last day,
it seems a good time to ask how "Global" the conference is every other
year (the first Velo-city Global was in Copenhagen in 2010 and the next
will be Adelaide in 2014), and very much related to that, how inclusive
it is.
To continue reading see this link:
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.de/2012/06/is-ecf-elite-cyclists-federation.html
(note to readers: All the images are meant to be sarcastic or silly)
--
Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory / SLOWFactory
Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081
edelman@greenidea.eu
www.greenidea.eu
Skype: toddedelman
https://www.facebook.com/Iamtoddedelman
http://twitter.com/toddedelman
http://de.linkedin.com/in/toddedelman
Urbanstr. 45
10967 Berlin
Germany