<HEAD> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Sujit:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several reasons, some of which</DIV> <DIV>might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your perspective. <BR><BR>From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of bus lanes are being built.</DIV> <DIV>I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances involved.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in China.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities facing megacities. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush hours. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Eric Bruun  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Sujit Patwardhan <SUJIT@VSNL.COM><BR>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM <BR>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <SUSTRAN-DISCUSS@LIST.JCA.APC.ORG><BR>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe <BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZBODY>8 February 2006<BR><BR><BR>I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT.<BR>--<BR>Sujit<BR><BR>Sujit Patwardhan<BR>PTTF<BR>Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,<BR>c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", <BR>ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, <BR>Pune 411 007<BR>India<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Zvi,<BR>In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new<BR>applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are<BR>median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when<BR>there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is<BR>usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or<BR>the other. <BR>In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes<BR>of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for<BR>both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.<BR>Karl<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org<BR>[<A href="mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org</A>] On Behalf<BR>Of Zvi Leve<BR>Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM<BR>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport<BR>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe<BR><BR>Hello,<BR><BR>><BR>>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport<BR>for developing countries:<BR>>  <BR>><BR>As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries <BR>mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used <BR>non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more <BR>"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are <BR>steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized <BR>vehicles.<BR><BR>For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated <BR>ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW <BR>often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on <BR>certain roads.<BR><BR>Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even <BR>improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit <BR>accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to <BR>procede?<BR><BR> From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people <BR>per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an <BR>energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve <BR>3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and <BR>no emissions, what is the better use of the space?<BR><BR>Just some food for thought!<BR><BR>Zvi<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><I>Sustainable Urban Transport<BR></I>---------------------------------------------------<BR>Sujit Patwardhan<BR>Member <BR><BR>PTTF<BR>Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,<BR>c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", <BR>ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, <BR>Pune 411 007<BR>India<BR><BR>Tel: +91 20 25537955<BR>Cell: +91 98220 26627<BR>Email: <sujit@vsnl.com>, <sujitjp@gmail.com><BR>-----------------------------------------------------</ZZZBODY> </ZZZHTML></DIV></BODY>