From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Thu May 25 03:12:51 2017 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:42:51 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Sustainable Beginnings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: View this email in your browser Like Us On Facebook Visit Our Page *SUM Net Newsletter May 2017* *SUM Net expresses disappointment over inclusion of provisions detrimental to non-motorised transport users in the Road Safety Bill 2016.* The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Transport, Tourism and Culture in its report (Report 243) on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill 2016, which has been tabled in the Parliament to help improve Road Safety, has recommended penalizing pedestrians and cyclists and restricting movement of non-motorised vehicles on highways and main roads of metro cities, labelling them as a hazard and nuisance to others. Earlier a new Section 138(1A) was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act to allow State Governments to make rules for non-motorized vehicles, which have so far not been under the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act. Parisar along with other civil society organisations and SUM Net members and experts have pointed out that this recommendation is totally contrary to the principles outlined in the National Urban Transport Policy 2006 and the recent AMRUT and Smart City guidelines which speak of promoting walking, cycling and exclusive lanes for non-motorised transport and encouragement of their use. Reacting to the proposal, Prof. Geetam Tiwari of IIT Delhi, an expert in urban mobility and road safety, stated that this would take the urban mobility agenda back 50 years. SUM Net member, Rishi Agarwal, who has launched The Walking Project in Mumbai, pointed out that cities can only be safer when adequate provisions are made for pedestrians and cyclists and not by banning or restricting them. Pune for instance has recently created Urban Street Design Guidelines and is revamping streets to make much wider footpaths and cycle tracks. A letter strongly objecting to these recommendations has been sent to Shri Nitin Gadkari, Minister of Road Transport and Highways by SUM Net, a national coalition of civil society organisations promoting sustainable urban mobility. The Ministry is currently in the process of revising the Bill based on the PSC report. The letter urges the Ministry to reject this recommendation of the PSC, to entirely delete Section 138(1A) and make a new Non-Motorized Vehicles Act. To read the letter, please click here . *Workshop in Pune on the topic of Street Vendors Scheme* A one-day workshop was organized in March 2017 to discuss the provisions and implementation of the Street Vendors Scheme announced by the Government of Maharashtra in line with the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The workshop was organized by SUM Net members CEE (Centre for Environment Education) and Parisar with the National Hawkers? Federation, at Yashada, Pune. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to regulate street vendors in public areas and protect their rights. State Governments are required to prepare Rules for implementation of the Act and also the Scheme for the Street Vendors as per section 36 and 38 of the Act. The provisions made by State Governments in the Scheme would determine whether and to what extent the Act is being implemented. The Maharashtra State Government published the Rules under the Act on August 3, 2016.The Scheme was published on 9th January 2017, without following a process for objections and suggestions from the public. This workshop was a continuation of the dialogues and discussions initiated in early 2016 by SUM Net, CEE and Parisar. A workshop had been arranged in March 2016 at YASHADA, Pune, to discuss the provisions of the Street Vendors Act and expectations or desirable provisions for the state level legislation. A follow-up meeting was also held on 5th October 2016 at Indradhanushya, Pune to deliberate on the points emerging out of March workshop. The draft scheme text had been provided by the Urban Development department, Government of Maharashtra in response to an application under the Right to Information in late 2016. A letter sharing concerns about the published scheme had been sent to Nodal Officer of Government of Maharashtra on 10th March 2017 by Parisar. Representatives of Pune, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Sangli, Kolhapur, Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Parbhani and Amravati were present for the workshop. *SUM Net publishes report on condition of non-motorised transport facilities in six Indian cities : Cyclists and pedestrians take the worst hit when it comes to our streets* Six SUM Net members engaged in executing sustainable transport projects in their cities in the year 2016. Walkability studies done in Patna, Guwahati and Ranchi revealed the miserable condition of pedestrians in the three cities, where lack of footpaths, the substandard condition of footpaths and dangerous crossings summed up the situation of pedestrian facilities. In Nagpur, women cyclists working as domestic help who rely heavily on their bicycle for transit and greater access to livelihood were studied to give voice to the issues of women cyclists in the city. A school awareness programme undertaken in Indore highlighted the issues of the dignity of cyclists or the lack of it in our cities. In Shimla, a study of their unique, historic Mall road was undertaken which had been an exclusive pedestrian zone since before Indian independence. These varied studies have been instrumental in highlighting the condition of cyclists and pedestrians in most of the cities. A policy statement based on the outcomes of these studies has been issued by SUM Net. Though limited in scope, these studies may very well be reflective of the situation of pedestrians and cyclists in other cities. Ironically, when the government speaks of promoting green mobility by encouraging public transport and other low carbon emitting modes of transport, little is being done about it. *Policy statement on Walkability and Cycling in our cities* This statement is the outcome of six projects done in six cities in India, namely Patna, Nagpur, Indore, Guwahati, Shimla and Ranchi by SUM Net members which reflect the real situation of urban transport. In most of the cities, such studies were first of its kind. Based on the specific outcomes of these studies, some broad level policy inputs can be extracted as follows: *1.* The existence of a National Urban Transport Policy, have not translated into Walkability or cycling and public transport infrastructure. Even after a decade, awareness among stakeholders such as officials, media, and institutions remains near about absent. The basic tenets of sustainable transport endorsed by the NUTP ? namely good public transport and facilities for non-motorised transport are compromised in varying levels in all our cities. The only way to move ahead of this situation is for states to come up with their own state urban transport policies which can then be used to formulate enforceable rules. *2.* At the city level, authorities need to engage in creating systems for good design of streets through formulating street design guidelines and according to the requirement, come up with dedicated policies for pedestrians and cyclists. *3. *These studies involved public engagement in the form of public discussions, surveys and release events which are lacking from the realm of decision making in urban transport in cities. The revision of the NUTP lacked a robust public consultation process. Other than civil society organizations that organize awareness programs, the Government should think about the same at various levels. To read the report, please click here . *Copyright ? 2017 Parisar, All rights reserved.* Testing this one *Our mailing address is:* Parisar Yamuna, ICS Colony Ganeshkhind Road Pune 411001 India Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- *It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.* - J. Krishnamurti ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- Parisar: www.parisar.org Mudra: www.mudraweb.com Behance Page: https://www.behance.net/mudraweb ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon May 29 13:33:27 2017 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:03:27 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?utf-8?Q?Low-cost_transport_is_vital_to_affordable_hou?= =?utf-8?Q?sing_=E2=80=93_and_a_Bus_Rapid_Transit_System_is_the_bes?= =?utf-8?Q?t_bet?= Message-ID: https://scroll.in/article/837672/low-cost-transport-is-vital-to-affordable-housing-and-a-bus-rapid-transit-system-is-the-best-bet Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best betLocalities with mixed-income groups, residential and commercial units are popular across the world and can work for India too.[image: Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet]Danish Siddiqui/Reuters May 19, 2017 ? 10:30 am Shirish B Patel , Oormi Kapadia & Jasmine Saluja Affordable housing will find no buyers unless it comes with high-speed, low-cost transit connections. Our urban population will expand dramatically, so it should be obvious that city footprints must also expand. ?Going vertical? in a city like Mumbai, already one of the world?s densest, is no solution. All it does is multiply congestion and degrade quality of life without affecting property prices ? those are determined by market demand and, as we have seen, higher floor space index (which determines the buildable area on a plot) automatically means higher land prices. Only new land, opened up with new rapid transit links, can help attenuate land prices. Expanding the city?s footprint should not be confused with urban sprawl. That comes with the automobile and low-density living. Instead, we propose expansion into dense settlements efficiently served by public transport. Besides accommodating new arrivals, such settlements could improve living conditions in existing congested areas by attracting away some residents. Goals for development We want a zero-subsidy framework, to make such projects easily replicable. Development would then have to be mixed-use, with jobs as well as homes, and mixed-income, so that we can have a cross-subsidy (charging higher prices to one group to subsidise lower prices for another) in land cost and, consequently, affordability across all income groups. Housing of different sizes would be for as wide a range of income groups as possible ? on separate plots if need be, but within the same locality. Providing housing for all, including the lowest income groups in proportion to their presence in the population, is the only way to avoid slums. Such mixed-income housing across a locality is mandated in Spain and Ireland, and enabled in many countries, including England, France, the United States and Canada. With shared amenities ? schools, parks, medical facilities ? this makes for a more egalitarian social mix and, very likely, a more peaceful society than one with ghettos for the poor in one location and gated communities for the rich at another. The mixed-income, mixed-use arrangement also reduces commuting, because many lower level service jobs will be in the households or activity centres of the better off within the same locality. We suggest the following principles to guide development: 1. Proportionate representation of every income group across the city in the housing, plus as many jobs as there are resident workers ? although, admittedly, many such local jobs may be filled by non-residents and many residents will work outside. 2. A public transit-oriented development with strict segregation of transit from normal traffic ? to guarantee high-speed transit. 3. Uniform net plot densities for all income groups. 4. A cross-subsidy in land prices across income groups follows automatically with uniform densities of dwelling units per hectare across income groups, but different limits for buildable area, more for higher-income plots, less for lower income, and exactions of payment for land proportionate to income. Going the BRTS way The cheapest and most readily expandable feeder system would be a Bus Rapid Transit System on an exclusive two-lane roadway track, with overtaking lanes at platforms spaced 700 meters apart. For high speed and capacity, it must mimic a railway system ? boarding and alighting on platforms that are flush with the floor of the vehicle, wide vehicle doors that allow quick passenger discharge and boarding, and ticketed access to platforms to minimise en-route delays. Such a system is not a regular bus system. As in a railway, the vehicles and the roadway would be exclusive to the Bus Rapid Transit System, never mixed with other traffic. Assuming such a system serves people residing within 500 meters on either side, a 10-km Bus Rapid Transit System loop would open up about 10 square km (1,000 hectares) of land for new development. To attract ridership, the headway between Bus Rapid Transit System vehicles should never exceed, say, 10 minutes, and two minutes or less at peak hours. Vehicles may be smaller when the settlement is sparsely inhabited, larger as demand builds. Average speed, including stops, should exceed 25 km per hour. To achieve this average speed, the system must have exclusive right-of-way without intersections. All other traffic must be grade separated, crossing below or above the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Keeping it at ground level minimises initial investment in the track and platforms. Only at the railway station would the Bus Rapid Transit System be lifted to discharge passengers directly on the footbridge crossing the railway tracks. This would thus, free up the ground immediately outside the station for other vehicular traffic. A pedestrian underpass at every stop on the Bus Rapid Transit System would provide access to its island platforms. This underpass would be widened at alternate platforms so cars can also cross under the system. Heavier vehicles would use shallow-rise overbridges spaced every few kilometers, just high enough to clear single-decker vehicles below. The road network for cars and other motorised vehicles through the development would thus be completely separated from the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Apart from being fast and reliable, the Bus Rapid Transit System also needs to be cheap. This almost certainly implies a subsidy, whose source should be a carefully considered progressive tariff independent of the ticket cost to travellers. Those who frown at subsidies should know that bus systems around the world are subsidised, and that this is amply justified by their contribution to reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution. Financial viability For replicability, the proposed development must be self-financing, with no call for external subsidies. So we must recover from occupants the cost of land, physical and social infrastructure, and construction of their own homes at a price they can afford. International practice recognises four years? income for a household as an acceptable standard for housing affordability. [image: Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households.]Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households. Based on the income profile of Mumbai, Column 1 in Table 1 shows ranges of monthly household income, and Column 2 the percentage population in each income range (we exclude the 4% that forms the highest income bracket as irrelevant to the scheme). Column 3 is four years? income for each category, that is, Column 1 multiplied by 48 months. Column 4 suggests house sizes for each income category, based on what in Mumbai would be generally acceptable. We assume construction costs vary by income category from Rs 18,000 per square meter to Rs 24,000 per square meter, and Rs 20,000 per square meter as the cost for workers? spaces. Cost of construction is in Column 5. Column 6, the difference between Columns 4 and 5, represents the surplus after construction available per household in each income group to pay for land and infrastructure. We convert fractions in Column 2 to absolute numbers in each income group for every 1,000 households, and multiplying by the surplus per household in Column 6, Column 7 shows the surplus generated by each income category. We do not want a purely residential development. Intermingled jobs would be desirable. The employment ratio in Mumbai is 40%. So we provide for a commensurate number of jobs. The resident population itself will generate many lower-income jobs, ideally taken up by residents to minimise transport costs. We should not inhibit the mixing of residences and zero-nuisance businesses in the same building, or be too rigid about proportions of residential to work space ? let the market decide that, and keep planning flexible enough to accommodate variations. To calculate area requirements and construction costs, we assume a 9 square meter built-up area per job and a floor area ratio (the ratio of a building?s total floor area to the size of the plot) of 1, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-storeyed construction. In Table 1, Rows 1 to 6 are for residential construction. Row 7 concerns construction of work places. Row 7, Column 2 shows the percentage of each household that is employed. Assuming Mumbai?s average household size of 4.5 persons, with an employment floor space requirement of 9 square meters per worker, 40 square meters is required for 4.5 workers (Row 7, Column 3). Since we are calculating per household, we might think of this as ?workers? spaces? for computational purposes, with each accommodating 4.5 workers (as in a household). The affordable value for this (Row 7, Column 4) is based on current business property prices per square meter at sites just north of Greater Mumbai. >From our 1,000 households, each paying four years? household income, after paying for all construction, we have a surplus of Rs 190 crores. The additional 400 workers? spaces also generate a surplus, the difference between market price and construction cost. The total surplus is about Rs 317 crores for every 1,000 households (with their 400 associated workers? spaces), available to pay for land and physical and social infrastructure. Land required We assume a within-plot density of 270 households per hectare. In the successful 30-year-old Charkop housing project in Mumbai, density in low-income areas is 278 households per hectare, which would still be considered acceptable. An important assumption here is that the same density applies across income groups, so wealthier residents consuming more floor area will live in taller buildings. Moreover, each household consumes the same land area. Since we are taking four years? income from every household, the wealthier are paying more per unit of land ? a cross-subsidy ? and land per se is differentially priced across income groups. This can be justified in many ways, including attractiveness of location or building regulations, say, that might limit the volume of permissible construction or deny motor car access or parking to the lower income locations. Or the charge for land could be uniform per unit of built-up floor space, and with uniform densities this would painlessly deliver the desired cross-subsidy. Allowing 30% of the total area for roads and rapid transit, 4% for institutions (schools and hospitals), 13% for parks (based on a minimum of 3 square meters per capita, low but acceptable in Mumbai) we are left with 53% for buildable plots, mainly residential but with shops and offices allowed. Our land area requirement then works out to just over 10 hectares for 1,000 households and 400 workers? spaces. The gross residential density of the development would be about 100 households per hectare. Assuming Mumbai?s family size of 4.5, this is 450 persons per hectare. >From the surplus, we have in hand Rs 317.5 crores (see Table 1). Deducting the cost of the Bus Rapid Transit System (Rs 0.3 crores per hectare), physical infrastructure (Rs 2.4 crores per hectare), social infrastructure (Rs 2 crores per hectare), and fees, taxes and interest (Rs 2 crores per hectare), we are left with Rs 24.9 crores per hectare to pay for land. What is striking is how little the transport system costs in relation to all other infrastructure. Providing this kind of dedicated transit service is not as extravagant as one instinctively imagines. The figures indicate the scheme is financially viable wherever we can find land around Mumbai under about Rs 25 crores per hectare. This sounds eminently within reach at several suburban railway stations around the city. *Shirish B Patel is a civil engineer and urban planner, one of three authors who first suggested the idea of Navi Mumbai and then for five years was in charge of the plan, design and execution of the new city.* *Oormi Kapadia and Jasmine Saluja are both architects and urban designers, and recipients of an awarding-winning proposal for a Community Land Trust Model for the redevelopment of Dharavi in Mumbai.* *This is a curtailed version of a paper that will be published in a forthcoming issue **of **Environment and Urbanization .* From debi at beag.net Mon May 29 15:34:24 2017 From: debi at beag.net (Debi Goenka) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] How commuters in Mumbai are getting short shrift Message-ID: <4123bbb8-da64-d2d2-d3e1-b352d7abe0ac@beag.net> http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/trains-to-nowhere/article18595727.ece Debi Goenka www.cat.org.in debi@cat.org.in From team at trubrain.com Tue May 30 12:20:58 2017 From: team at trubrain.com (Andrea Butler) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:20:58 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 161, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <592ce51a3a770_f7055c12643429507f.paid-jobs-sidekiq-2@email.freshdesk.com> Hi Sustran-discuss, Thanks for finding us! ? Since our team secured top tier VC funding, we have a high volume of inbound supplier diligence requests, so we kindly request you fill out this form so we have the info needed to get started and be introduced. Cheers! Sarah Miller TruBrain P.S. After working here for a while, I can also tell you that management gives stronger consideration to folks that have supported us by buying our products and have an authentic interest and knowledge base in the functional food and beverage category. Ticket: https://trubrain.freshdesk.com/helpdesk/tickets/28471 Best, Andrea TruBrain On Mon, 29 May at 8:00 PM , Sustran-discuss wrote: Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to ????sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ????http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ????sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org You can reach the person managing the list at ????sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." ######################################################################## Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you are responding to. Many thanks. About this mailing list see: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss ######################################################################## Today's Topics: 1. Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet (Vinay Baindur) 2. How commuters in Mumbai are getting short shrift (Debi Goenka) ----- Original message ----- Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:03:27 +0530 From: Vinay Baindur To: the Accomodating City , Hasire Usiru , janaravedike@googlegroups.com, Right to water Delhi , "nationalnetworkforindia1@yahoogroups.com" Message-ID: Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?[sustran]_Low-cost_transport_is_vital_to_affordable?= =?UTF-8?Q?_housing_=E2=80=93_and_a_Bus_Rapid_Transit_System_is_the_best_bet?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 1 https://scroll.in/article/837672/low-cost-transport-is-vital-to-affordable-housing-and-a-bus-rapi... Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best betLocalities with mixed-income groups, residential and commercial units are popular across the world and can work for India too.[image: Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet]Danish Siddiqui/Reuters May 19, 2017 ? 10:30 am Shirish B Patel , Oormi Kapadia & Jasmine Saluja Affordable housing will find no buyers unless it comes with high-speed, low-cost transit connections. Our urban population will expand dramatically, so it should be obvious that city footprints must also expand. ?Going vertical? in a city like Mumbai, already one of the world?s densest, is no solution. All it does is multiply congestion and degrade quality of life without affecting property prices ? those are determined by market demand and, as we have seen, higher floor space index (which determines the buildable area on a plot) automatically means higher land prices. Only new land, opened up with new rapid transit links, can help attenuate land prices. Expanding the city?s footprint should not be confused with urban sprawl. That comes with the automobile and low-density living. Instead, we propose expansion into dense settlements efficiently served by public transport. Besides accommodating new arrivals, such settlements could improve living conditions in existing congested areas by attracting away some residents. Goals for development We want a zero-subsidy framework, to make such projects easily replicable. Development would then have to be mixed-use, with jobs as well as homes, and mixed-income, so that we can have a cross-subsidy (charging higher prices to one group to subsidise lower prices for another) in land cost and, consequently, affordability across all income groups. Housing of different sizes would be for as wide a range of income groups as possible ? on separate plots if need be, but within the same locality. Providing housing for all, including the lowest income groups in proportion to their presence in the population, is the only way to avoid slums. Such mixed-income housing across a locality is mandated in Spain and Ireland, and enabled in many countries, including England, France, the United States and Canada. With shared amenities ? schools, parks, medical facilities ? this makes for a more egalitarian social mix and, very likely, a more peaceful society than one with ghettos for the poor in one location and gated communities for the rich at another. The mixed-income, mixed-use arrangement also reduces commuting, because many lower level service jobs will be in the households or activity centres of the better off within the same locality. We suggest the following principles to guide development: 1. Proportionate representation of every income group across the city in the housing, plus as many jobs as there are resident workers ? although, admittedly, many such local jobs may be filled by non-residents and many residents will work outside. 2. A public transit-oriented development with strict segregation of transit from normal traffic ? to guarantee high-speed transit. 3. Uniform net plot densities for all income groups. 4. A cross-subsidy in land prices across income groups follows automatically with uniform densities of dwelling units per hectare across income groups, but different limits for buildable area, more for higher-income plots, less for lower income, and exactions of payment for land proportionate to income. Going the BRTS way The cheapest and most readily expandable feeder system would be a Bus Rapid Transit System on an exclusive two-lane roadway track, with overtaking lanes at platforms spaced 700 meters apart. For high speed and capacity, it must mimic a railway system ? boarding and alighting on platforms that are flush with the floor of the vehicle, wide vehicle doors that allow quick passenger discharge and boarding, and ticketed access to platforms to minimise en-route delays. Such a system is not a regular bus system. As in a railway, the vehicles and the roadway would be exclusive to the Bus Rapid Transit System, never mixed with other traffic. Assuming such a system serves people residing within 500 meters on either side, a 10-km Bus Rapid Transit System loop would open up about 10 square km (1,000 hectares) of land for new development. To attract ridership, the headway between Bus Rapid Transit System vehicles should never exceed, say, 10 minutes, and two minutes or less at peak hours. Vehicles may be smaller when the settlement is sparsely inhabited, larger as demand builds. Average speed, including stops, should exceed 25 km per hour. To achieve this average speed, the system must have exclusive right-of-way without intersections. All other traffic must be grade separated, crossing below or above the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Keeping it at ground level minimises initial investment in the track and platforms. Only at the railway station would the Bus Rapid Transit System be lifted to discharge passengers directly on the footbridge crossing the railway tracks. This would thus, free up the ground immediately outside the station for other vehicular traffic. A pedestrian underpass at every stop on the Bus Rapid Transit System would provide access to its island platforms. This underpass would be widened at alternate platforms so cars can also cross under the system. Heavier vehicles would use shallow-rise overbridges spaced every few kilometers, just high enough to clear single-decker vehicles below. The road network for cars and other motorised vehicles through the development would thus be completely separated from the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Apart from being fast and reliable, the Bus Rapid Transit System also needs to be cheap. This almost certainly implies a subsidy, whose source should be a carefully considered progressive tariff independent of the ticket cost to travellers. Those who frown at subsidies should know that bus systems around the world are subsidised, and that this is amply justified by their contribution to reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution. Financial viability For replicability, the proposed development must be self-financing, with no call for external subsidies. So we must recover from occupants the cost of land, physical and social infrastructure, and construction of their own homes at a price they can afford. International practice recognises four years? income for a household as an acceptable standard for housing affordability. [image: Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households.]Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households. Based on the income profile of Mumbai, Column 1 in Table 1 shows ranges of monthly household income, and Column 2 the percentage population in each income range (we exclude the 4% that forms the highest income bracket as irrelevant to the scheme). Column 3 is four years? income for each category, that is, Column 1 multiplied by 48 months. Column 4 suggests house sizes for each income category, based on what in Mumbai would be generally acceptable. We assume construction costs vary by income category from Rs 18,000 per square meter to Rs 24,000 per square meter, and Rs 20,000 per square meter as the cost for workers? spaces. Cost of construction is in Column 5. Column 6, the difference between Columns 4 and 5, represents the surplus after construction available per household in each income group to pay for land and infrastructure. We convert fractions in Column 2 to absolute numbers in each income group for every 1,000 households, and multiplying by the surplus per household in Column 6, Column 7 shows the surplus generated by each income category. We do not want a purely residential development. Intermingled jobs would be desirable. The employment ratio in Mumbai is 40%. So we provide for a commensurate number of jobs. The resident population itself will generate many lower-income jobs, ideally taken up by residents to minimise transport costs. We should not inhibit the mixing of residences and zero-nuisance businesses in the same building, or be too rigid about proportions of residential to work space ? let the market decide that, and keep planning flexible enough to accommodate variations. To calculate area requirements and construction costs, we assume a 9 square meter built-up area per job and a floor area ratio (the ratio of a building?s total floor area to the size of the plot) of 1, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-storeyed construction. In Table 1, Rows 1 to 6 are for residential construction. Row 7 concerns construction of work places. Row 7, Column 2 shows the percentage of each household that is employed. Assuming Mumbai?s average household size of 4.5 persons, with an employment floor space requirement of 9 square meters per worker, 40 square meters is required for 4.5 workers (Row 7, Column 3). Since we are calculating per household, we might think of this as ?workers? spaces? for computational purposes, with each accommodating 4.5 workers (as in a household). The affordable value for this (Row 7, Column 4) is based on current business property prices per square meter at sites just north of Greater Mumbai. >From our 1,000 households, each paying four years? household income, after paying for all construction, we have a surplus of Rs 190 crores. The additional 400 workers? spaces also generate a surplus, the difference between market price and construction cost. The total surplus is about Rs 317 crores for every 1,000 households (with their 400 associated workers? spaces), available to pay for land and physical and social infrastructure. Land required We assume a within-plot density of 270 households per hectare. In the successful 30-year-old Charkop housing project in Mumbai, density in low-income areas is 278 households per hectare, which would still be considered acceptable. An important assumption here is that the same density applies across income groups, so wealthier residents consuming more floor area will live in taller buildings. Moreover, each household consumes the same land area. Since we are taking four years? income from every household, the wealthier are paying more per unit of land ? a cross-subsidy ? and land per se is differentially priced across income groups. This can be justified in many ways, including attractiveness of location or building regulations, say, that might limit the volume of permissible construction or deny motor car access or parking to the lower income locations. Or the charge for land could be uniform per unit of built-up floor space, and with uniform densities this would painlessly deliver the desired cross-subsidy. Allowing 30% of the total area for roads and rapid transit, 4% for institutions (schools and hospitals), 13% for parks (based on a minimum of 3 square meters per capita, low but acceptable in Mumbai) we are left with 53% for buildable plots, mainly residential but with shops and offices allowed. Our land area requirement then works out to just over 10 hectares for 1,000 households and 400 workers? spaces. The gross residential density of the development would be about 100 households per hectare. Assuming Mumbai?s family size of 4.5, this is 450 persons per hectare. >From the surplus, we have in hand Rs 317.5 crores (see Table 1). Deducting the cost of the Bus Rapid Transit System (Rs 0.3 crores per hectare), physical infrastructure (Rs 2.4 crores per hectare), social infrastructure (Rs 2 crores per hectare), and fees, taxes and interest (Rs 2 crores per hectare), we are left with Rs 24.9 crores per hectare to pay for land. What is striking is how little the transport system costs in relation to all other infrastructure. Providing this kind of dedicated transit service is not as extravagant as one instinctively imagines. The figures indicate the scheme is financially viable wherever we can find land around Mumbai under about Rs 25 crores per hectare. This sounds eminently within reach at several suburban railway stations around the city. *Shirish B Patel is a civil engineer and urban planner, one of three authors who first suggested the idea of Navi Mumbai and then for five years was in charge of the plan, design and execution of the new city.* *Oormi Kapadia and Jasmine Saluja are both architects and urban designers, and recipients of an awarding-winning proposal for a Community Land Trust Model for the redevelopment of Dharavi in Mumbai.* *This is a curtailed version of a paper that will be published in a forthcoming issue **of **Environment and Urbanization .* ----- Original message ----- Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:24 +0530 From: Debi Goenka To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Message-ID: <4123bbb8-da64-d2d2-d3e1-b352d7abe0ac@beag.net> Subject: [sustran] How commuters in Mumbai are getting short shrift Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/trains-to-nowhere/article18595727.ece Debi Goenka www.cat.org.in debi@cat.org.in ================================================================ 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, please go to http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss From team at trubrain.com Tue May 30 12:20:58 2017 From: team at trubrain.com (Andrea Butler) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:20:58 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 161, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <592ce51a3a770_f7055c12643429507f.paid-jobs-sidekiq-2@email.freshdesk.com> Hi Sustran-discuss, Thanks for finding us! ? Since our team secured top tier VC funding, we have a high volume of inbound supplier diligence requests, so we kindly request you fill out this form so we have the info needed to get started and be introduced. Cheers! Sarah Miller TruBrain P.S. After working here for a while, I can also tell you that management gives stronger consideration to folks that have supported us by buying our products and have an authentic interest and knowledge base in the functional food and beverage category. Ticket: https://trubrain.freshdesk.com/helpdesk/tickets/28471 Best, Andrea TruBrain On Mon, 29 May at 8:00 PM , Sustran-discuss wrote: Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to ????sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ????http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ????sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org You can reach the person managing the list at ????sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." ######################################################################## Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you are responding to. Many thanks. About this mailing list see: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss ######################################################################## Today's Topics: 1. Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet (Vinay Baindur) 2. How commuters in Mumbai are getting short shrift (Debi Goenka) ----- Original message ----- Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:03:27 +0530 From: Vinay Baindur To: the Accomodating City , Hasire Usiru , janaravedike@googlegroups.com, Right to water Delhi , "nationalnetworkforindia1@yahoogroups.com" Message-ID: Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?[sustran]_Low-cost_transport_is_vital_to_affordable?= =?UTF-8?Q?_housing_=E2=80=93_and_a_Bus_Rapid_Transit_System_is_the_best_bet?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 1 https://scroll.in/article/837672/low-cost-transport-is-vital-to-affordable-housing-and-a-bus-rapi... Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best betLocalities with mixed-income groups, residential and commercial units are popular across the world and can work for India too.[image: Low-cost transport is vital to affordable housing ? and a Bus Rapid Transit System is the best bet]Danish Siddiqui/Reuters May 19, 2017 ? 10:30 am Shirish B Patel , Oormi Kapadia & Jasmine Saluja Affordable housing will find no buyers unless it comes with high-speed, low-cost transit connections. Our urban population will expand dramatically, so it should be obvious that city footprints must also expand. ?Going vertical? in a city like Mumbai, already one of the world?s densest, is no solution. All it does is multiply congestion and degrade quality of life without affecting property prices ? those are determined by market demand and, as we have seen, higher floor space index (which determines the buildable area on a plot) automatically means higher land prices. Only new land, opened up with new rapid transit links, can help attenuate land prices. Expanding the city?s footprint should not be confused with urban sprawl. That comes with the automobile and low-density living. Instead, we propose expansion into dense settlements efficiently served by public transport. Besides accommodating new arrivals, such settlements could improve living conditions in existing congested areas by attracting away some residents. Goals for development We want a zero-subsidy framework, to make such projects easily replicable. Development would then have to be mixed-use, with jobs as well as homes, and mixed-income, so that we can have a cross-subsidy (charging higher prices to one group to subsidise lower prices for another) in land cost and, consequently, affordability across all income groups. Housing of different sizes would be for as wide a range of income groups as possible ? on separate plots if need be, but within the same locality. Providing housing for all, including the lowest income groups in proportion to their presence in the population, is the only way to avoid slums. Such mixed-income housing across a locality is mandated in Spain and Ireland, and enabled in many countries, including England, France, the United States and Canada. With shared amenities ? schools, parks, medical facilities ? this makes for a more egalitarian social mix and, very likely, a more peaceful society than one with ghettos for the poor in one location and gated communities for the rich at another. The mixed-income, mixed-use arrangement also reduces commuting, because many lower level service jobs will be in the households or activity centres of the better off within the same locality. We suggest the following principles to guide development: 1. Proportionate representation of every income group across the city in the housing, plus as many jobs as there are resident workers ? although, admittedly, many such local jobs may be filled by non-residents and many residents will work outside. 2. A public transit-oriented development with strict segregation of transit from normal traffic ? to guarantee high-speed transit. 3. Uniform net plot densities for all income groups. 4. A cross-subsidy in land prices across income groups follows automatically with uniform densities of dwelling units per hectare across income groups, but different limits for buildable area, more for higher-income plots, less for lower income, and exactions of payment for land proportionate to income. Going the BRTS way The cheapest and most readily expandable feeder system would be a Bus Rapid Transit System on an exclusive two-lane roadway track, with overtaking lanes at platforms spaced 700 meters apart. For high speed and capacity, it must mimic a railway system ? boarding and alighting on platforms that are flush with the floor of the vehicle, wide vehicle doors that allow quick passenger discharge and boarding, and ticketed access to platforms to minimise en-route delays. Such a system is not a regular bus system. As in a railway, the vehicles and the roadway would be exclusive to the Bus Rapid Transit System, never mixed with other traffic. Assuming such a system serves people residing within 500 meters on either side, a 10-km Bus Rapid Transit System loop would open up about 10 square km (1,000 hectares) of land for new development. To attract ridership, the headway between Bus Rapid Transit System vehicles should never exceed, say, 10 minutes, and two minutes or less at peak hours. Vehicles may be smaller when the settlement is sparsely inhabited, larger as demand builds. Average speed, including stops, should exceed 25 km per hour. To achieve this average speed, the system must have exclusive right-of-way without intersections. All other traffic must be grade separated, crossing below or above the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Keeping it at ground level minimises initial investment in the track and platforms. Only at the railway station would the Bus Rapid Transit System be lifted to discharge passengers directly on the footbridge crossing the railway tracks. This would thus, free up the ground immediately outside the station for other vehicular traffic. A pedestrian underpass at every stop on the Bus Rapid Transit System would provide access to its island platforms. This underpass would be widened at alternate platforms so cars can also cross under the system. Heavier vehicles would use shallow-rise overbridges spaced every few kilometers, just high enough to clear single-decker vehicles below. The road network for cars and other motorised vehicles through the development would thus be completely separated from the ground-level Bus Rapid Transit System. Apart from being fast and reliable, the Bus Rapid Transit System also needs to be cheap. This almost certainly implies a subsidy, whose source should be a carefully considered progressive tariff independent of the ticket cost to travellers. Those who frown at subsidies should know that bus systems around the world are subsidised, and that this is amply justified by their contribution to reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution. Financial viability For replicability, the proposed development must be self-financing, with no call for external subsidies. So we must recover from occupants the cost of land, physical and social infrastructure, and construction of their own homes at a price they can afford. International practice recognises four years? income for a household as an acceptable standard for housing affordability. [image: Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households.]Table 1: Affordable land cost with four years' income from 1,000 households. Based on the income profile of Mumbai, Column 1 in Table 1 shows ranges of monthly household income, and Column 2 the percentage population in each income range (we exclude the 4% that forms the highest income bracket as irrelevant to the scheme). Column 3 is four years? income for each category, that is, Column 1 multiplied by 48 months. Column 4 suggests house sizes for each income category, based on what in Mumbai would be generally acceptable. We assume construction costs vary by income category from Rs 18,000 per square meter to Rs 24,000 per square meter, and Rs 20,000 per square meter as the cost for workers? spaces. Cost of construction is in Column 5. Column 6, the difference between Columns 4 and 5, represents the surplus after construction available per household in each income group to pay for land and infrastructure. We convert fractions in Column 2 to absolute numbers in each income group for every 1,000 households, and multiplying by the surplus per household in Column 6, Column 7 shows the surplus generated by each income category. We do not want a purely residential development. Intermingled jobs would be desirable. The employment ratio in Mumbai is 40%. So we provide for a commensurate number of jobs. The resident population itself will generate many lower-income jobs, ideally taken up by residents to minimise transport costs. We should not inhibit the mixing of residences and zero-nuisance businesses in the same building, or be too rigid about proportions of residential to work space ? let the market decide that, and keep planning flexible enough to accommodate variations. To calculate area requirements and construction costs, we assume a 9 square meter built-up area per job and a floor area ratio (the ratio of a building?s total floor area to the size of the plot) of 1, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-storeyed construction. In Table 1, Rows 1 to 6 are for residential construction. Row 7 concerns construction of work places. Row 7, Column 2 shows the percentage of each household that is employed. Assuming Mumbai?s average household size of 4.5 persons, with an employment floor space requirement of 9 square meters per worker, 40 square meters is required for 4.5 workers (Row 7, Column 3). Since we are calculating per household, we might think of this as ?workers? spaces? for computational purposes, with each accommodating 4.5 workers (as in a household). The affordable value for this (Row 7, Column 4) is based on current business property prices per square meter at sites just north of Greater Mumbai. >From our 1,000 households, each paying four years? household income, after paying for all construction, we have a surplus of Rs 190 crores. The additional 400 workers? spaces also generate a surplus, the difference between market price and construction cost. The total surplus is about Rs 317 crores for every 1,000 households (with their 400 associated workers? spaces), available to pay for land and physical and social infrastructure. Land required We assume a within-plot density of 270 households per hectare. In the successful 30-year-old Charkop housing project in Mumbai, density in low-income areas is 278 households per hectare, which would still be considered acceptable. An important assumption here is that the same density applies across income groups, so wealthier residents consuming more floor area will live in taller buildings. Moreover, each household consumes the same land area. Since we are taking four years? income from every household, the wealthier are paying more per unit of land ? a cross-subsidy ? and land per se is differentially priced across income groups. This can be justified in many ways, including attractiveness of location or building regulations, say, that might limit the volume of permissible construction or deny motor car access or parking to the lower income locations. Or the charge for land could be uniform per unit of built-up floor space, and with uniform densities this would painlessly deliver the desired cross-subsidy. Allowing 30% of the total area for roads and rapid transit, 4% for institutions (schools and hospitals), 13% for parks (based on a minimum of 3 square meters per capita, low but acceptable in Mumbai) we are left with 53% for buildable plots, mainly residential but with shops and offices allowed. Our land area requirement then works out to just over 10 hectares for 1,000 households and 400 workers? spaces. The gross residential density of the development would be about 100 households per hectare. Assuming Mumbai?s family size of 4.5, this is 450 persons per hectare. >From the surplus, we have in hand Rs 317.5 crores (see Table 1). Deducting the cost of the Bus Rapid Transit System (Rs 0.3 crores per hectare), physical infrastructure (Rs 2.4 crores per hectare), social infrastructure (Rs 2 crores per hectare), and fees, taxes and interest (Rs 2 crores per hectare), we are left with Rs 24.9 crores per hectare to pay for land. What is striking is how little the transport system costs in relation to all other infrastructure. Providing this kind of dedicated transit service is not as extravagant as one instinctively imagines. The figures indicate the scheme is financially viable wherever we can find land around Mumbai under about Rs 25 crores per hectare. This sounds eminently within reach at several suburban railway stations around the city. *Shirish B Patel is a civil engineer and urban planner, one of three authors who first suggested the idea of Navi Mumbai and then for five years was in charge of the plan, design and execution of the new city.* *Oormi Kapadia and Jasmine Saluja are both architects and urban designers, and recipients of an awarding-winning proposal for a Community Land Trust Model for the redevelopment of Dharavi in Mumbai.* *This is a curtailed version of a paper that will be published in a forthcoming issue **of **Environment and Urbanization .* ----- Original message ----- Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:04:24 +0530 From: Debi Goenka To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Message-ID: <4123bbb8-da64-d2d2-d3e1-b352d7abe0ac@beag.net> Subject: [sustran] How commuters in Mumbai are getting short shrift Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/trains-to-nowhere/article18595727.ece Debi Goenka www.cat.org.in debi@cat.org.in ================================================================ 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, please go to http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Tue May 30 12:27:55 2017 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 11:27:55 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Support Indian Bicycle Mayor to reach Mayor Summit in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joseph Teja Date: 26 May 2017 at 02:41 Subject: Support Indian Bicycle Mayor to reach Mayor Summit in The Netherlands To: sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org Hi This is Joseph. May i have your favor, one of my friend she is Instrumentation Engineer by profession and cycling advocate by passion and practise. She has been appointed as the first Indian Bicycle Mayor of Baroda as a part of Global Bicycle Mayor Network by CycleSpace. As the first Bicycle Mayor for an Indian city, she has been invited for the Bicycle Mayor Summit happening this June in Amsterdam. Read her story here and support her through your contributions! Also share it with our group members. https://milaap.org/fundraisers/help-nikita-bicyclemayor I have contributed 41 Euros/ Rs 3000, i attached the image. ?The reason i ?have attached it is i can't ask anyone to do unless i had practised it. So, if you like/inspired to contribute to her trip check the link above and do contribute. Further, write your message ending with "May your ways win this Nation." Its a tag line i am promoting for her trip. Thank you. Best Joseph Teja -- *Warm RegardsAJ* *Believes 'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country' ~ JFK* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG-20170525-WA0002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43682 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20170530/88fe83b3/IMG-20170525-WA0002-0001.jpg From team at trubrain.com Tue May 30 12:20:58 2017 From: team at trubrain.com (Andrea Butler) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 03:20:58 +0000 Subject: ***removed*** In-Reply-To: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20170530030050.B8CC02C458@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <592ce51a3a770_f7055c12643429507f.paid-jobs-sidekiq-2@email.freshdesk.com> ***removed*** From operations at velomondial.net Tue May 30 17:12:25 2017 From: operations at velomondial.net (Velo Mondial) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 10:12:25 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Support Indian Bicycle Mayor to reach Mayor Summit in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E7B3D23-FC8A-4C4F-9DD7-259666D8AB61@velomondial.net> Why does CycleSpace not simply send her that money? Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Velo Mondial, A Micro Multi-National operations@velomondial.net +31206270675 landline +31627055688 mobile phone Linkedin Click here for information on urban mobility issues you always wanted to have > On 30 mei 2017, at 05:27, Paul Barter wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Joseph Teja > Date: 26 May 2017 at 02:41 > Subject: Support Indian Bicycle Mayor to reach Mayor Summit in The > Netherlands > To: sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > > Hi > > This is Joseph. May i have your favor, one of my friend she is > Instrumentation Engineer by profession and cycling advocate by passion and > practise. She has been appointed as the first Indian Bicycle Mayor of > Baroda as a part of Global Bicycle Mayor Network by CycleSpace. > > As the first Bicycle Mayor for an Indian city, she has been invited for the > Bicycle Mayor Summit happening this June in Amsterdam. Read her story here > and support her through your contributions! Also share it with our group > members. > > https://milaap.org/fundraisers/help-nikita-bicyclemayor > > I have contributed 41 Euros/ Rs 3000, i attached the image. ?The reason i > ?have attached it is i can't ask anyone to do unless i had practised it. > > So, if you like/inspired to contribute to her trip check the link above and > do contribute. Further, write your message ending with "May your ways win > this Nation." Its a tag line i am promoting for her trip. > > Thank you. > > Best > Joseph Teja > > -- > > *Warm RegardsAJ* > > > > > *Believes 'Ask not what your country can do for you; > ask what you can do for your country' ~ JFK* > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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').