<html> <body> I think that this reflects fundamental differences in how transportation is defined. In many situations people assume that 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and so the best way to improve transportation is to improve roads and parking facilities. But that approach incurs huge costs and reduces other forms of mobility and accessibility, if it displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel, or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is that transport planners often only consider direct, short-term impacts (improved motor vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts (reduced accessibility over the long term), and public officials tend to be among the group that benefits most from automobile travel. These issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility" (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf</a> ). I think that the best way to counter this is to show that expanding urban roads and parking facilities is very costly, and other solutions are better overall. I think it is important to show that public transit can be an elite service, that can attract wealthy commuters out of their cars, if a city provides a variety of services, from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and gives public transit and nonmotorized travel priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This is the only way that urban transportation systems can really work efficiently, and fortunately some of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now implementing these measures, which provides examples that we can cite. However, I realize it is difficult to persuade people that the future consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Alok, Anant, Arul and others, I feel that the statement Alok posed "It is highly unlikely that car users in Chennai can be made to shift immediately to public transport" to some extent is valid but as I said in my earlier mail if there is political will and consensus there will always be a success. In Singapore, there is multi storey parking but as mentioned it serves as a Park-and-Ride for their BRT and MRT facility and a multi-storey parking would be apt for a small country like Singapore. But still having car restrictive policies and measures make Singapore a pioneer in Asia. Restricting car might not hurt the rich but the change comes in the neo-owners of the cars or the prospective owners. Then there is the modal shift going to other means which also include para transit. If a city can develop good bus and train interactions like some places in Chennai there can be a very less development of para transit. A BRT would be an apt solution for Chennai and interactions with BRT would be very helpful like there can be a BRT, Bus, Train. So investing on parking provision will not be a good idea. As from my understanding of Todd Litmans publications, as long as a city provides a safe way and room for cars there will always be an increase in their number and in the future this might lead to an utter traffic chaos. I see it everyday here in Bangkok. Bangkok first in the early days had a good and waterway network, followed by a good bus and tram network and was the second city in Asia after Japan (sometime in the 1887)...but today it is utter chaos and many of us here will agree to that....If chennai does not hope to become a Bangkok of India it would be wise to opt for a Transit and Non-motorised options and not for the flyovers and more cars. Sunny Dear Alan, Regina, Carlos and Lloyd, As Lloyd and Carlos suggested shifting to cycle rickshaws would be a wise option but it has to be noted that cycle rickshaws can provide service for short trips which can also be done by a walk and a bicycle trip. Encouraging more NMT and introducing the idea of shared space in come junctions of Mumbai would be a very nice option, car drivers should notice that they are not the only users of the road but also the road serves for several other modes. Implementing BRT would be a better option as it takes the space from the car users and gives it to the disadvantaged. BRT has a proven record of reducing crime rates and Lloyd and Carlos are the best persons who can talk more on this. Cities like Bogotá and Curitiba have experienced this and encouraging pedestrian areas also is a strategy for reducing car dependency. Even in Mumbai increasing parking space will not be an option. At first it can be implemented area-wise and then extended. Glasgow is a good example for this, a city that changed from a notorious state to a pleasant. Changing the look of rickshaws will be a very good idea. This has been implemented in many places of Europe and in Japan there has been a hybrid rickshaw which can run both on a battery and pedal power. On the other hand they can even generate income among the lower class of the society</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>