<BODY>Thanks Todd for input. Lest my earlier post be misunderstood with reference to a call for parking facilities at suburban train stations, I would like to briefly clarify that the following thoughts have guided coverage decisions at my newspaper. Accessibility is indeed the final measure of success. This is unfortunately under serious threat in India for a variety of reasons, including a vocal middle class demand to privilege motorised vehicles over all other forms of travel. The same middle class often does not see that many members of the family will always be "car-less" and that the paradox is that even if all members had cars and they could afford the fuel and direct costs, they could never be used. There has been insufficient articulation of this particular thought, which newspapers and television will not acknowledge readily in any case, because car manufacturers are among the big budget advertisers. The World Bank has been lending to State Governments, but has not evaluated the outcome of its "urban development" schemes. Some of them have led to rampant automobilisation and loss of mobility for various classes as in Chennai (sidewalks have been simply been ripped out on some roads and the carriageway for vehicles expanded.) During the last 10 years (the period of increasing economic growth that the Indian Government celebrates), very little investment went into pedestrian or cycling facilities. In Chennai, a city of 6 million people, motorists think of pedestrian crossings as a nuisance. The Police also thinks vehicles must have right of way, and when newspapers print images of vehicles clogged on roads to demonstrate "failure of policing" (without exploring the reasons for the clogging), there is greater pressure on the Police to ensure vehicular flow, as opposed to movement of people in all modes. On many busy roads, it is impossible to cross without risk of injury or death. This is a fit case for politically-oriented NGOs to stage public campaigns, but we have seen none. The bus system is underfunded because the monopoly operator in Chennai with a fleet of about 2,700 vehicles (and an operating efficiency of only about 60 or 70 per cent taking into account breakdowns and "no show" crews) fears further economic losses if more efficient, privately funded supply comes in. This is similar to the scenario that was faced by the telecommunications sector in India before it was opened up to investment and breakup of monopoly, leading to better supply and lower operating costs (though poor regulation has created issues with billing transparency and anti-competitive behaviour among private players). No one is clear, though, about private provision reducing costs. Quite the exact happened in 2001 when a strike by the monopoly publicly-funded service took place - private strike-breaking buses were allowed without any norms and they charged arbitrary flat fares within the city. The limited point about park and ride that I was trying to make was that the facilities designed originally to accommodate private vehicles and commuter buses have been abandoned to other uses, including cargo movement, which has not helped attract commuters to rail. I am shortly putting up a photo-essay on the state of the suburban and Mass Rapid Transit Rail in Chennai on the Internet, which will explain the problems. Cars can never be the answer and their proliferation can logically only negate their purpose. More fuel price hikes are in the offing in India after state elections due in the next couple of months. That will raise demand for alternatives. But we have no national advocacy of sane policies. Some are advancing solutions with an eye on politics, but that does not seem to add up to a comprehensive approach. Anant  </BODY> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_260044156==.ALT" --=====================_260044156==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that this reflects fundamental=20 differences in how transportation is defined. In=20 many situations people assume that=20 'transportation' means motor vehicle travel, and=20 so the best way to improve transportation is to=20 improve roads and parking facilities. But that=20 approach incurs huge costs and reduces other=20 forms of mobility and accessibility, if it=20 displaces public transit and nonmotorized travel,=20 or leads to sprawl. The problem that we face is=20 that transport planners often only consider=20 direct, short-term impacts (improved motor=20 vehicle travel) and overlook secondary impacts=20 (reduced accessibility over the long term), and=20 public officials tend to be among the group that=20 benefits most from automobile travel. These=20 issues are discussed in my paper "Measuring=20 Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and=20 Accessibility" (http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). I think that the best way to counter this is to=20 show that expanding urban roads and parking=20 facilities is very costly, and other solutions=20 are better overall. I think it is important to=20 show that public transit can be an elite service,=20 that can attract wealthy commuters out of their=20 cars, if a city provides a variety of services,=20 from cheap and basic to premium and luxury) and=20 gives public transit and nonmotorized travel=20 priority in traffic, land use, and pricing. This=20 is the only way that urban transportation systems=20 can really work efficiently, and fortunately some=20 of the world's greatest cities (London, Hong=20 Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, Rome) are now=20 implementing these measures, which provides=20 examples that we can cite. However, I realize it=20 is difficult to persuade people that the future=20 consists of less rather than more automobile traffic. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:05 AM 3/14/2006, you wrote: >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 >Bogot=E1 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 Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA =93Efficiency - Equity - Clarity=94 --=====================_260044156==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <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=3D"http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf" eudora=3D"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=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">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 Bogot=E1 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=3D"http://www.vtpi.org" eudora=3D"autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA =93Efficiency - Equity - Clarity=94   </body> </html> --=====================_260044156==.ALT--