From yanivbin at gmail.com Sun Apr 3 15:38:13 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:08:13 +0530 Subject: [sustran] NO to flyovers, yes to more buses, suburban rail Message-ID: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/538280/no-flyovers-yes-more-buses.html *No to flyovers, yes to more buses, suburban rail* Rasheed Kappan, Apr 03, 2016, DHNS *Is there an alternative to spending thousands of crores on expensive, inefficient elevated corridor projects? Are there other means to decongest Bengaluru?s roads? Yes, there are, plenty of them. Here?s a list compiled by the city?s mobility thinktanks, road-users and ordinary citizens.* *Add more buses*The first priority, as articulated by seasoned campaigners for sustainable transport, should be to reduce the private, personal transport vehicles. Take off a few lakh such vehicles and replace them with BMTC buses. Today, 6,500 BMTC buses carry half the city traffic. The other half of Bengaluru?s population, 56 lakh to be precise, manages with 50 lakh private cars and two-wheelers! Why not replace them with a public transport mix of BMTC buses, Metro, Commuter Rail, BRTS and aggregated cab / mini bus services? Less cars, SUVs and two-wheelers will free up road space for more buses and might even accommodate dedicated bus lanes. But make those buses punctual and reliable, integrate their schedules and bus stop locations with other public transport modes, and do better route planning. Government officials say elevated roads are required even for public transport. But you cannot have bus stops on flyovers. So, what is the answer? *Barricade bus lanes *Once private vehicles are reduced, build barricaded bus lanes on existing carriage way; increase frequency to 3 minutes on East West and North South corridors so that maximum traffic can move on them. Use articulated buses or trams to boost carrying capacity per trip, all on the surface. These barricaded lanes could start with the wider roads such as the Ring Roads and highways such as Bellari, Tumakuru and Airport roads that already have the bandwidth and carry regular commuters. *Suburban rail*A suburban train network is another definite way out to substantially reduce traffic congestion. It costs only a fraction of the Namma Metro and flyover costs and could be operated mostly on the existing rail infrastructure with a few station modifications. Suburban trains could also be commissioned to the Airport from Electronic City, and between the IT corridors and the City that currently see huge traffic pile-ups. Sathya Sankaran, a founding member with Citizens for Sustainability (CiFoS), points out that all Indian metros except Bengaluru has this system running.Unless public transport is upgraded, reducing private transport could prove extremely tough. Hefty parking fees and heavy congestion tax to enter inner city areas have proven to be natural disincentives to private transport the world over. *Re-engineer roads*Vehicular flow could be greatly enhanced if the existing roads are re-engineered to have uniform carriage ways and traffic bottlenecks are removed with proper merging distances. TenderSURE roads have shown a way out. A network of such roads could provide a viable alternative. Commuters say they prefer to walk than get stuck in traffic jams if the pavements are in good shape. Better, seamless sidewalks on all roads and cycle tracks on arterial corridors hold the potential to shift huge numbers of vehicles onto footpaths. Elevated corridors will then take the backseat. From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 02:47:43 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:17:43 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Elevation won't take us far Message-ID: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/538275/elevation-wont-take-us-far.html You are here: Home ? City ? *Elevation won't take us far* Rasheed Kappan, Apr 03, 2016, DHNS Low build quality, lower utility value, guaranteed delays and cost over-runs of mammoth proportions. Bengaluru?s road infrastructure projects should have taught lessons galore in mismanagement to the government. But, in its rush to build more elevated corridors of questionable utility, has the State cold-shouldered long-term sustainable transport solutions to decongest Bengaluru? Urban mobility analysts and a few government insiders themselves are convinced that the high cost flyovers cannot solve the city?s acute traffic congestion. Flyovers might offer temporary relief for a few years, but only after trapping commuters in a twister of construction-linked traffic chaos for long. Eventually, every new lane gets filled up with cars and SUVs. That just doesn?t seem logical! *Costly projects* Yet, six new corridors with long stretches of them elevated, are in the pipeline. Besides, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is all set to invite tenders for a 6.7-km elevated corridor connecting Basaveshwara Circle and Hebbal Junction. The estimated cost of this project is a whopping Rs. 1,350 crore, ready for completion only in two years. When it was first announced in the State budget, the estimated cost was only Rs 1,000 crore. The objective is clear: Create more road space for motorised private vehicles, whose numbers have been unrelentingly explosive. An estimated 56 lakh vehicles are packed into the city?s estimated 10,200 km of road length. Creating more corridors for them would simply mean incentivizing more cars, more private transport. Seeking a shift from this policy skewed heavily in favour of motorized transport, an online petition on Change.org has urged the Chief Minister to stop the project. The petitioner, Sathya Sankaran reasons, with particular reference to the Hebbal junction project, ?This elevated road will be full the day it is finished building and will not alleviate any traffic jams.? The corridor, says Sankaran, will, in fact, move the jams to Hebbal as seen by the elevated highway on the NHAI side. ?You have to come to the surface somewhere and you know it is not a cakewalk at that point.? *Reservations within govt* It is learnt that the Directorate of Urban Land Transport (DULT) attached to the State Urban Development Department is itself against building more elevated corridors. DULT, sources say, wants the government to push for sustainable options such as more public transport buses and bus priority lanes. Corridors cannot be a solution, augmenting mass transit systems is. Three years ago, a government-appointed committee had shot down the proposal for another elevated corridor project passing through Koramangala. It was based on a study by the IISc Centre for infrastructure Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP) that cited high costs, traffic management problems and ?division of communities? in the vicinity. Existing flyovers are clear proof that elevation does not necessarily decongest traffic. A flyover merely transfers traffic load from the entry point to the exit point, triggering chaos elsewhere. For instance, the poorly designed and executed Richmond Circle flyover bears testimony to this fact. Speeding vehicles alight the Electronic City elevated corridor only to face the congestion at the Silk Board junction. This scenario recurs at the Esteem Mall junction. Underneath most elevated monsters, the roads are left to rot as though people down there are not worth any good infrastructure. The petition draws attention to a recent statement by Union Minister for Road Transport that building 55 flyovers in Mumbai has not solved any problem there. *No transparency* Lack of transparency is another issue. Public consultation is not part of the process, although commuters are subjected to tremendous inconveniences during and after the construction. Projects are decided and pushed through despite experts clearly advising the government against the massive pillar-laying projects. Why the fixation with unsustainable projects? A Sadashivanagar resident and a cyclist for 15 years, Dasarathi G V, puts the blame squarely on the greed for kickbacks. ?Flyovers and such massive projects are a constant source of bribery. It is a very big income, when the kickbacks could go up to 40 per cent.? As a citizen, Dasarathi terms the corridor proposal a ?very bad idea.? He explains, ?We should be reducing the number of vehicles rather than catering to them. In the last two decades, we have been building these elevated corrirdors. There will come a time soon when all of these will be choked.? 8 Comments Deccan Herald Login 1 vadakkus ? 10 hours ago The issue is the government consists of ex-poor and middle class people from rural backgrounds who are fascinated with cars and road vehicles, just like the neo-middle class. They think and consider public transport fit only for those who have ended up as non-achievers in life, because successful people drive cars! And hence, do not push for comprehensive public transport systems. This elevated road nonsense is dumb. We cannot build ourselves out of traffic jams, as it has been shown repeatedly across the world. No city can survive with only car-based transit. Bangaloreans should have realized that long ago, but alas! The love for the car overshadows everything. 1 ? Reply ? Share ? Asha Chacko vadakkus ? 8 hours ago You are right 100 pc. many people are bambozzled by cars and flyovers. The fact of the matter is that the CAR IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. The solution is buses and not gizmos like the Metro. The Metro will be a failure in Indian cities as the masses cannot afford it. So the only way out is the plain, ordinary bus. They must be introduced in sufficient number in cities all over India. The RTCs like the BMTC has failed completely as they exist only for their employees. All taxes on buses must be removed and shifted to cars and two wheelers. The cost of the bus ticket must be brought down to maximum extent possible to make it affordable to the masses. That will solve India's urban transport problem. ? Reply ? Share ? JKPKJ Chang ? 5 hours ago Instead of elevated expressways for cars, elevated foot-paths (foot-bridges, sky-walks) for pedestrians, and cycle-paths for cyclists, will go a long way in solving Bangalore's traffic problems. Such elevated foot-paths for pedestrians will provide last mile connectivity, and needs to be integrated with public transportation (bus, metro) stops. This proposal will cost much less money, and be much of much more benefit. The project implementation cost, as well as, the ongoing maintenance cost, will be comparatively much, much less. Will this idea interest the decision makers (politicians in power) and the business-contract people associated with them? ? Reply ? Share ? Ravindra Reddy ? 13 hours ago Do Internet Baghya, free wifi Internet 512K for everybody in Bangalore. No need to commute, work from anywhere you want. The govt has to look at using technology, some work (not labor intesive work) can be done from home and from remote locations. Govt should develop really fast 10 GB multi-story buildings in different parts of the city at strategic locations, or every house must have 10GB fast internet connections for a very low price. Using Virtual Conferencing anybody can be anywhere, you don't need to physically travel on the road. Govt should also think of reducing the traffic on the roads and the only way this can be done is using the information highway, using optic fiber connections to every house and at least 25% of the traffic can be reduced, in the future more and more people will take the information highway. Only goods have to be transported on the roads, people can be anywhere it does not matter. For banking, Govt office works and many place where only documents are used it can all be done via the internet staying anywhere you want there is really no need to travel. Siddaramihya give Internet baghya for everyone, you are taxing the people so much and giving all the baghyas to everybody give some baghya the Internet baghya for all people. Make 512Kb free wifi for everybody, you have to pay only for 10GB fiber connection. This will reduce the traffic by at least 25% eventually, build information highways. ? Reply ? Share ? Show 1 new reply Dave Lawson Ravindra Reddy ? 12 hours ago ppl still prefer to live in one corner and travel across city to work in another part of city. So your solution will not work. The Real solution is to convert railways to commuter /suburban train cost 20 crore /km, instead of pushing overpriced Metro that cost 280 crore / km. Plus more Buses Plus lower cost last mile transport. Bike taxi would have addressed this perfectly , but as usual the demented govt has no rule to License so what do they do ban them. Most ppl using car / 2 wheeler use it bcoz autos / taxis are too costly for short distances where Buses do not go. If Bike taxi or even E-rikshaw are allowed with Rs 10 minimum + Rs 5 per km more ppl will use it and quit using vehicles. And once the last mile has been addressed then govt can start charging congestion tax on each car users based on cost of car . Plus random pollution check on 4 wheelers and pollution penalty if they are polluting more than allowed limit. It will reduce pollution and congestion. Govt has made E-bikes tax free , and govt should do it for hybrid E-bikes too. This is how you solve the problem by taking multi pronged approach. ? Reply ? Share ? ? ravindra kumar Dave Lawson ? 4 hours ago How can you say Internet Bhagya will not work without even trying, information highway will partly reduce traffic at the cheapest cost, it is most coat effectively. I talking about virtual holographic teleportation, it uses virtual reality. Microsoft will add this to Skype within this year. Internet Bhagya will defiantly reduce at least 20% of the traffic on the roads. Metro will reduce traffic by 5% Your ideas amay also work ? Reply ? Share ? Dave Lawson ravindra kumar ? 4 hours ago There is no shortage of internet in city , has it reduced traffic ? Unless you are working and residing in same building or within walking distance it does not solve any traffic problem. Less than 5% ppl work in IT /ITES company ? Reply ? Share ? From yanivbin at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 02:29:24 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:59:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Stop building elevated corridors in the city! Message-ID: http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/bangalore-sustainable-transport-solutions Stop building elevated corridors in the city! Building elevated roads is a case of needing bigger pants because one continues to eat unhealthy food. How big can the pant be? What's the implication of big bodies and bigger pants in the long run? asks Sathya Sankaran. Sathya Sankaran , 07 Apr 2016 , Citizen Matters 8 SHARE inShare [image: Email_pngg] Elevated road on Hosur road. Pic. source : skyscrapercity.com *What's the problem?* Work commute is taking a hit with traffic congestion on the roads increasing. Since the problem is on the road, the solution has been to increase it and remove perceived obstructions like signals, pedestrians etc from the line of sight of the car to increase speed. One can draw an analogy to an obese person taking on too much comfort food because it feels good and now he/she needs bigger pants. He/she fails to notice that this is potentially fatal in the long run with illness and diseases in the medium term. *What are the implications?* The implications of this road capacity journey is dire. All capacity leads to a net addition to congestions, pollution and carbon footprint. The capacity addition is finite and we are crossing the limits every time. Microclimate changes including heat from motors and loss of green cover make the surface miserable for everyone, making them get into the comfort of closed air-conditioned places, thereby increasing the heat and polluting compounds transferred into the atmosphere. It a vicious cycle. Bengaluru is among the top two cities in the country affected by this. *Call to action* Internalise this solution. Stand for supporting it in your daily interactions with other people,Sign the petition so we can tell this to the powers that be. *Experts have spoken* *What are the potential solutions?* *Short term:* - Build barricaded bus lanes on existing carriage way and increase frequency to three minutes headway on east west north south corridors so maximum traffic can move on them. Buy articulated buses or replace with Trams trains to increase carrying capacity per trip all on the surface. Barricaded lanes need to start with wider roads like ring roads and highways like Bellary, Tumkur and Airport roads which already have the bandwidth and carry regular commuters. *Medium term:* - Commission suburban trains to the Airport from electronic city, along the IT corridor and segments like Ramanagara/Tumkur to whitefield. This can catalyze heavy traffic movement on tracks which have uninterrupted right of way and can be done on existing train tracks so the expenses and speed of rollout can be very less. The challenges are for the state to sit with Indian railways and make this happen. It requires dedication and commitment. All metros in India have it and are benefitting from it. Only Bangalore does not. Why? - Private transport disincentive Implement paid parking and let congestion be a natural disincentive for switch to public transport. Private transport disincentive is extremely critical to public transport adoption. There is no other alternative as proven world over. *Long term:* - Reengineer the current at grade to have uniform carriage way and remove chicken necks with proper merging distances and traffic channelization strategies. There will be a need to address obstructions at chicken necks alone which may be troublesome to acquire. But if the plan is presented, eminent domain on smaller properties is better than spoiling the entire city with projects which don't solve problems. - Build sidewalks and cycle tracks on arterial corridors. It's a much neglected but highly beneficial infrastructure which makes everything work better. There is a huge population in IT cities who are young, fancy cycle commute and public transport but we are deliberately underinvesting in these and not steering it in the right direction - Buses and tram trains to areas *not* covered by commuter rail *My city, Portland, Oregon in the United States, stopped building freeways over 40 years ago because they are the most expensive, damaging and least effective solution to the problems posed by growth. Portland's focus on good transit along with inexpensive improvements for cyclists and pedestrians has worked to reduce pollution and traffic deaths as well as supporting a booming economy despite doubling in population during that time.* - Rex Burkholder, former Councillor in Portland's Metro Regional Government, now an author and a strategic advisor for urban affairs *What are the incentives?* There is no incentive for long term thinking right now within the citizenry, business and political class. Most people end up trying to solve the pressing problem without realizing the long term impact. How do we get to deferred rewards which are more beneficial in the long run? Who is responsible for thinking about it and making everyone go towards it? Where is that leadership? Politicians give in to pressure for immediate solutions to mitigate backlash and remain popular. Most medium and long term solutions like public transport, pedestrian and cyclist friendly streets have taken a back seat due to the need to fix road bandwidth issue. It has always been a catch up. *Why do a series of short term stop gaps end up getting done?* Because it does feel comfortable in larger pants for a while. You will get relief for a few years but Induced demand is a well proven concept in transportation. The more road capacity you build the more it attracts vehicles, new ones. It has been shown that the added lanes get full in as little as 5 years. Is it worth building all that for just a 5 year relief? In fact even in the Mecca of cars, California?s Department of Transportation (aka Caltrans) has admitted to the futility of increasing lanes in a brief called ?Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion,? compiled by UC-Davis scholar Susan Handy.2 US Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx ?...we now have the clarity of many decades of hindsight,? he said on a call today. ?Unfortunately instead of connecting us to each other, highway planners separated us.?3 *What does this lead to?* - A better city with a better quality of life and sustainable transport. - Predictable and reliable commute - No road rage, swearing, stress etc. - Better health - Increased business - Better air to breathe - Walkable public spaces and active communities - Lesser dependence on fossil fuels and lower fuel import bill *Frequently made arguments:* *?Bangalore isn?t Amsterdam, ok??* - *Not yet, and it's not like Amsterdam is from Venus or Mars, they are also people from planet earth like you and me. It's not just Amsterdam, now almost all countries are making the switch to sustainable modes and tearing down elevated highways* - *Not long ago, we wanted to make Bangalore another Singapore remember. We also want to mimic other countries by building fancy interchanges for cars like trumpet, clover leaf etc, large elevated highways, metro, bullet train etc, why not walking and cycling like Amsterdam?* *?Long-term solutions take time. We need to alleviate issues now.?* - There have been no investments in long term solutions like bus lanes and commuter rail. There haven't even been any positive moves in that regard. Bus lanes and commuter rail can be deployed faster than the pillars can come up. Also the elevated highways aren't really solutions that can be considered temporary that can be used to alleviate sufferings. It takes a huge toll on the cityscape and environment, we are better off biting the bullet and making the long term and medium term solutions work. The construction itself will be so painful that the alleviation at the end of it will be useless. *?India has tried stuff like bicycle lanes and BRT. All these projects have failed.?* - *They take time and need to be given the proper time to mature. Also they have been done in small measures, these don?t work unless there is scale and full commitment. Also, it's not like the current road building is actually working. It?s failing everywhere all across the world.* - *No public transport incentive has worked anywhere without a commensurate private transport disincentive. Across the world, parking is prohibitively expensive and congestion charges are levied to get people to give up the car addiction. Compared to here where parking is free and you are being pampered with road space again and again, why would you even bother with public transport?* *I get it, but I just need the jam on my way to work to clear up now* - *Sorry, it's only going to get worse if you actually try to build your way out of it. And the relief after the pain is going to be short-lived. If you don't buy that bigger pant today, you will stop eating that junk tomorrow. The politicians will be long gone, it's you and your kids who will be left holding the mess. You need to get on the public transport diet, the car comfort food will only get you killed the longer you stick to it. Why do you think cities are tearing down elevated freeways, it's not because they have nothing else to do.* *Further reading:* - http://gizmodo.com/look-how-much-better-a-city-can-be-when-it-designs-for-176085971 - http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-23466-feb-4-1974-portland-kills-the-mount-hood-freeway.html - http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937 *References* 1 http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/others/Bengaluru-and-Hyd-are-the-worst-for-commuters/articleshow/51591411.cms 2 http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/11/californias-dot-admits-that-more-roads-mean-more-traffic/415245/ 3 http://gizmodo.com/building-highways-through-cities-was-a-huge-mistake-but-176805007 Write to Author ? Write to Editor Sathya Sankaran Sathya Sankaran, is a founding member with Citizens for Sustainability (CiFoS) an NGO working towards sustainable neighbourhoods, and a civic public problem solver for the past 10 years. From yanivbin at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 13:11:18 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:41:18 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?utf-8?Q?Odd-even_scheme=3A_What_Delhi_can_learn_from_?= =?utf-8?Q?London=E2=80=99s_flawed_congestion_charge?= Message-ID: http://scroll.in/article/806195/odd-even-scheme-what-delhi-can-learn-from-londons-flawed-congestion-charge Odd-even scheme: What Delhi can learn from London?s flawed congestion chargeSouth Asian cities are struggling to restrict car use to alleviate traffic snarl-ups. Maybe they can draw from the experiences of London.[image: Odd-even scheme: What Delhi can learn from London?s flawed congestion charge] Updated Yesterday ? 09:10 pm David Hil l - - *Delhi?s odd-even policy , which makes a reappearance for a fortnight from April 15, is not the only experiment in restricting the use of cars. London chose to impose a ?congestion charge? on vehicles entering the central parts of the city.* When London mayor Ken Livingstone introduced congestion charging to the British capital in February 2003, his arguments for it were economic. ?Red Ken?, as he?d become known for his left-wing politics, was concerned that traffic jams were bad for capitalism. His aims were to reduce valuable time lost as a result of traffic jams and create a more hospitable atmosphere for pedestrians ? shoppers, workers and visitors ? by relieving motorists of ?5 each time they entered a central charging zone covering the Square Mile financial district and the West End shopping and tourist areas. Despite dire predictions, in terms of reducing traffic, the system worked in the early years of its operation. Livingstone joked that he?d got the idea from Milton Friedman, the?Chicago School? free market economist admired by Margaret Thatcher. In 2007 he doubled the size of the charging zone by adding a western extension to it (called the WEZ). But when he went into his third election campaign the following year, his congestion charge case had also become environmental. Livingstone had plans to slap an extra high charge on ?gas guzzlers? ? high-powered private vehicles with high fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, cars with the lowest CO2 output might be exempt from the charge completely. Alas, for Livingstone, he lost the 2008 mayoral election . His successor, Boris Johnson dumped the gas-guzzler plan, abolished the WEZ and, alas for London, will leave both the capital?s air quality and its congestion levels in an unhealthy state when he steps down as mayor in May. Pollution deaths Last year, a study conducted for him and the capital?s transport body Transport for London by King?s College researchers suggested that nearly 9,500 Londoners a year now die early from air pollution, mainly due to a rise in victims of nitrogen dioxide belched out by diesel vehicles. Meanwhile, road congestion is hitting record levels. Critics of Johnson?s environmental record have tied the issues of pollution and congestion together and point the finger of blame squarely at the London mayor, who is expected to bid for leadership of the Conservative Party before the next general election in 2020. They may have a point. Yet London?s experience shows that the relationship between congestion charging and environmental ills is not straightforward. Johnson had argued that Livingstone?s anti-gas-guzzler plan would have made only a marginal difference to carbon emissions, for example. Idiosyncratically, he compared the additional CO2 produced by what he called ?family cars? to be equivalent to that blown out by a herd of cows tramping through the West End. Meanwhile, Transport for London?s annual assessments of the charge?s effects have taken a cautious view of the charge?s effects on air quality In 2003, Transport for London?s first annual assessment of its impacts as a whole anticipated only ?minimal? effects on visual, noise or atmospheric pollution within the charging zone and noted some concern that pollution might increase around its boundaries. The sixth and final annual report , published in July 2008, said that a reduced volume of traffic circulating more efficiently in the charging zone had directly produced an estimated 8% reduction in oxides of nitrogen, a 7% fall in fine particulate matter and a 16% drop in CO2 emissions. However, the reductions were said to have diminished because congestion levels had begun to rise again. Rise in pollution The report also said that overall air quality trends had ?continued to primarily reflect the diversity and dominance of external factors? and as such ?did not allow the identification of a clear ?congestion charging effect.?? Later studies found that congestion charging had probably been beneficial to health but concluded, in the words of an academic from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, that its impact on air pollution and life expectancy had been ?modest?. In fact, transport-related air pollution, blamed for about half the total amount, were already addressed more directly through other initiatives aimed at road-users. In February 2008, Livingstone had introduced the Low Emission Zone which covered almost the whole of Greater London, an area of around 600 square miles, rather than just the centre of the city and unlike the congestion charge, operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It sought to cut the amount of particulates ? tiny particles of soot harmful to the lungs ? churned out from the exhausts of heavy commercial diesel vehicles, and to help the mayor meet European Union air quality targets, for which London was falling short. Aimed initially at lorries, coaches, minibuses and large vans, it charged registered vehicles that didn?t meet the required standard ?200 a day, and fined drivers of unregistered ones ?1,000. The LEZ was retained by Johnson and he tightened the regulations soon after his election to include more types of vehicle. He exasperated campaigners and opponents by initially delaying a third phase on the grounds that it would hit small business people using small vans at a time of economic recession, but then took a U-turn to avoid an EU fine. Pollution spikes And yet, despite the LEZ, London?s air quality continues to cause grave concern. Levels in some hotspots are double or treble permitted EU levels in recent years. According to measurements made in some of London?s monitoring points, NO2 limits for the whole of 2016 were exceeded within the year?s first eight days. At the risk of hyperbole, Simon Birkett of the Clean Air in London campaign has called diesel exhaust ?the biggest public health catastrophe since the Black Death.? Johnson has defended his record on air quality, describing London as a trailblazer on the issue. He has increased the number of low emission buses in London?s 8,600-strong fleet to around 1,500 and points to a new Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) currently scheduled to come into force in September 2020. This will require all vehicles travelling in the congestion charge zone to conform to new, higher EU standards. Johnson?s plan also includes financial encouragement for more drivers of London?s famous black taxi cabs to undergo a green upgrade and get away from diesel. Mayoral candidates Too little, too late, say Johnson?s critics, who include the Labour Party?s Sadiq Khan, the frontrunner to become mayor after May?s election . Khan?s manifesto promises to consult on bringing the ULEZ forward and expanding it. His main rival, Johnson?s fellow Conservative Zac Goldsmith, a noted fan of electric vehicles, has promised only to ?back? the ULEZ. Goldsmith, a former editor of the Ecologist Magazine , has also stated his support for ?tougher rules for heavy goods vehicles and vans.? But these are not yet specified in his manifesto. Significantly, neither is pledging to either increase the congestion charge ? which is now roughly double what it was initially ? or enlarge the charging zone. That is an indication of how politicians continue to fear the displeasure of motorists, even though car ownership in London has been falling. That concern also informs steps to penalise or restrict dirty vehicles. It?s a prickly problem that London?s politicians will have to grasp. Political will At an air quality conference held by the capital?s 33 local authorities in 2014, two basic remedies were underlined: switching from diesel to clean fuel, which included petrol; and reducing vehicle weights and speeds to lessen particulates caused by road surface friction. A map was produced showing the difference in air quality in two of London?s most famous shopping streets on the same day. In Oxford Street, it was filthy. In neighbouring Regent Street it was strikingly cleaner. The reason was that Regent Street had been closed to traffic for the day. The lesson from London appears to be that radically lessening air pollution requires motorised road traffic to be slower, lighter, smoother and cleaner. Congestion charging can help with that, but really serious progress requires a great deal more ? and the political will to supply it. *This article first appeared on The Third Pole .* *We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in. * From pardo at despacio.org Thu Apr 21 21:49:36 2016 From: pardo at despacio.org (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:49:36 -0500 Subject: [sustran] =?utf-8?Q?Publication=3A_1=2E5=C2=BA_scenario_for_Trans?= =?utf-8?Q?port_in_Latin_America?= Message-ID: WHAT DOES THE 1.5 DEGREE TARGET MEAN FOR LATIN AMERICA? Full details: http://despacio.org/en/2016/04/20/what-does-the-1-5-degree-target-mean-for-latin-america/ The 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21 ) was held in Paris at the end of last year. There, delegates set a new climate goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5?C compared to pre-industrial levels. They agreed upon this goal because the previous goal of a 2?C increase by 2100 was insufficient for reducing climate change risks. Vulnerable countries were particularly concerned about the 2 degree target, including many countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. Given this new goal, we wanted to analyze its significance for the transport sector in Latin America, particularly Colombia and Mexico. We are therefore very excited to present our latest publication: *The Paris Challenge for transport: Implications of the change in target at COP 21 for the transport sector, the cases of Colombia and Mexico. *Click here for *the full document *, in Spanish with an executive summary in English. WHAT DOES THE PUBLICATION CONTAIN? This report aims to answer several questions. First, it examines whether Latin America has been sufficiently ambitious and accurate in developing transport policies that significantly reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) in the sector. It also questions whether these policies are, in fact, reducing emissions. In addition, it assesses whether the implemented measures in the sector are being considered within climate change plans or if this linkage still needs to be developed. At the same time, this report describes the sectoral implications of the new target of a 1.5? C temperature increase. The general focus of climate change action may need to be more ambitious to meet this goal, implying a major change in the region?s mobility paradigm. From this conclusion, the report analyzes Latin America?s preparedness and examines whether the region has taken the necessary steps to reach the 1.5? C goal. In doing so, it outlines what still needs to be done, specifically in the case of Colombia and Mexico. Finally, the report provides conclusions and recommendations on the topic. WHAT DOES IT CONCLUDE? The report arrives at four conclusions: 1. There are a number of transport policies in Latin America, particularly in Colombia and Mexico, that are either already reducing emissions or have the potential to do so, despite the fact that they are not integrated with the emissions reduction Action Plans or national INDCs. 2. There are also transport policies in the region (particularly in the two countries studied here) that do not reduce (and in some cases increase) transport emissions. Sectoral estimations for climate change action have not considered these adequately. 3. There has been progress and specific plans from the climate change sector to promote sustainable transport use. Although there is mention of policies and programs that involve avoiding, reducing and shifting (Dalkmann and Braningan, 2007), the vast majority of measures are technology-focused and fall into the *improve *Unfortunately, these measures alone will not create a significant impact on emissions reductions in the sector. 4. The region should be more ambitious in its policies, programs and projects. It should also integrate these better to generate a larger impact in the short and medium term. WHAT CAN BE DONE? >From these conclusions, we make five key recommendations. 1. Integrate transport policies more coherently with emission reduction policies and ambitions in the transport sector. 2. Evaluate the relevance of continuing to implement transport policies that clearly increase GHG emissions and consider ending or reducing them. 3. Clearly assess the mitigation potential of all transport policies and their potential co-benefits. Analyze barriers and challenges to implementation. 4. Align sectoral policies to avoid discrepancies and decisively restrict policies that increase transport sector emissions. 5. Promote necessary measures through regulation, financing, technical consulting and implementation. This will generate a high-impact shift in transport policies towards a low-carbon emission scenario. -- Carlosfelipe Pardo | Director Ejecutivo | despacio pardo@despacio.org Tel: (+571) 2484420 / Cel (+573) 21 343 3727 despacio.org From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 15:27:25 2016 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:57:25 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98Your_foot_overbridges_are_of_no_use?= =?utf-8?Q?=2C_why_invest_more=E2=80=99?= Message-ID: HC TO GMADA Bench says since the development authority had constructed these bridges, it won?t it ask for dismantling, but there was no need for escalators CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) not to invest in the installation of escalators/elevators on foot overbridges (FOBs) as it was of no use. HT FILEThe FOBs were built without any scientific study, a study by Punjab traffic adviser said. With no pedestrians using it, advertisements on it act as a distraction for commuters, the HC was informed. Beginning 2011, GMADA has spent more than `2 crore on constructing four FOBs. ?We could have asked you to dismantle it (the FOBs). But you have spent so much of money. But let?s not invest more as it is of no use,? the high court bench observed during a hearing on the issue, where it had sought a response from GMADA on a report submitted to it by Punjab traffic adviser Navdeep Asija. GMADA chief administrator AK Sinha had argued that footfall on the FOBs would increase in due course of time as escalators were installed and traffic increased. Punjab traffic adviser, Navdeep Asija had told the HC that the volume of traffic was not very high and there was no need of such an infrastructure. ?If escalators are not installed, at least we would save on the electricity usage on this,? Asija said, adding that these were acting as traffic hazards as there were hoardings on these. Following this, the HC bench directed GMADA to remove these hoardings. ?FOBs APPROVED BY CM, BADAL? GMADA told the HC that the decision to construct the FOBs was taken in meeting chaired by chief minister Parkash Singh Badal, who is chairman Punjab Urban Planning and Urban Development Authority (PUDA). The decision was taken for better development and upgrade of basic amenities in SAS Nagar. However, the court observed that GMADA could not escape responsibility. ?Some officer should have examined all these aspects. You cannot expect the CM to look into all these things. He is not an expert,? the HC said. GMADA added that FOBs were constructed in view of future vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. Not even a single death has been reported in these places, the authority claimed. On ads, GMADA said that the FOBs were handed over to SAS Nagar administration. The court later asked GMADA to file a compliance report and not to make any future investment. BACKGROUND GMADA was asked to submit a report after Asija claimed that three of the FOBs had been constructed at places where pedestrians were not prone to accidents. ?The FOBs were built without any scientific study,? Asija?s report added. From yanivbin at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:10:05 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:40:05 +0530 Subject: [sustran] 'Metro Will Not Reduce Traffic Congestion' Message-ID: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Metro-Will-Not-Reduce-Traffic-Congestion/2016/04/26/article3399941.ece 'Metro Will Not Reduce Traffic Congestion' By Express News Service Published: 26th April 2016 07:29 AM Last Updated: 26th April 2016 07:33 AM Email 0 - [image: Vidhana Soudha Metro station | pushkar v] Vidhana Soudha Metro station | pushkar v The new Metro line, which the public hopes will reduce their travel time and stress induced by travel, is unlikely to make much of a difference to the traffic on the road at this point, according to a traffic personnel. While a large number of commuters are definitely going to benefit from the service, at this point, it would be too early to expect the road traffic to be reduced, a traffic police official who spoke to Express said. A senior official said there is a flaw in the basic design of the route. ?The Metro route passes only through selective points. It does not cover all the roads used by the commuters. For instance, the Okalipuram junction is choked with traffic. However, the line does not pass this area. Hence, the traffic is unlikely to change on this route.? ?My personal opinion is that the railway line should serve the purpose of regular commuters on the heavily crowded routes. I think as of now, the new line will also become a tourist show piece. I have tried travelling by Metro several times and it has been my observation that not many regular commuters use it. The attraction is more for children and tourists,? he added. However, one of the traffic constables in Bengaluru South was more optimistic about it. ?The Nayandahalli junction has always been a challenge for traffic management always. With the Metro, not just regular commuters, even school children will find it helpful as there are many schools in the locality. It is also a safe option for them to travel by Metro,? he said. From yanivbin at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 14:57:04 2016 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:27:04 +0530 Subject: [sustran] there is a revised National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) 2014 Message-ID: apologies for cross posting Dear Friends, This is the so-called Updated and revised NUTP apparently in March 2014 by MoUD and IUTP Many of you might have already got it the link http://www.itdp.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NUTP-2014.pdf regards Vinay