Dear Simon and Others could not stop myself from sending this mail in spite of looming project deadline.... :-) 1. On the question of Beijing - I agree with many of your statements. Good public transport is not BRTS or Metro but one with good NMT integration. For me both public transport and non motorized transport are inclusive and exclusive. But I defer on Beijing initiatives. I see a major change in its focus and i am happy with this. I have never been to Beijing, but i believe that what they are doing is to negate their previous ring-road development strategy. If you look at this link (provided by Sujit- <a href="http://www.cctv.com/english/special/excl/20090610/110347_1.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cctv.com/english/special/excl/20090610/110347_1.shtml</a>) it also talks about cycling... More bicycle parking spaces will be established in areas with heavy passenger flow Pedestrian and bicycle service project: special cycle lanes and sidewalk network for pedestrians will be constructed and more bicycle parking spaces will be established in areas with heavy passenger flow. Around 1,000 bicycle rental service stands will be set up, with the number of bicycles available for rent exceeding 50,000 units. I agree that it’s not a major investment and i even don't know as to how many bike lanes they are proposing but yet you can feel the change in the mindset. They have been focusing heavily on TDM from Olympics. We should get more insights from our Chinese colleagues...We have had many sessions of metro vs BRTS in sustran and I am happy with either metro or BRTS as long as they put the money for NMT and public Transport. For me whose master thesis was on flyovers (I made it feasible in 2003 and and i believe it is congested again :-) ) and having worked in infrastructure projects for long, White elephants like metro’s are much better than multi-level interchanges as seen in Delhi. 2. Regarding free public transport - I believe ( my personal opinion) that you don't have to provide free public transport to only attract people but to reward people for traveling in an eco friendly way... ( why should I pay when I am standing, since I did not get any seat, struck in a jam because of the traffic by the people travelling in their own car which was subsidized by government, consuming polluted air while making my effort to clean the air which everyone breaths). It should not be at the risk of providing sub standard services... If people can afford to pay, good... But considering the poor people paying for tickets i would argue for subsidized or free yet comfortable services... It is much better than subsidized fuel. 3. I don't again agree to London example of high emissions buses applicable in any format to Asia. I had good discussions with Mikhail Chester whose analysis is the topic of the month (<a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008/" target="_blank">http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008/</a>). If you look at his paper and the media quotes ( there are several from past week)... you can feel as to how story was modified with… We can calculate the numbers from any Asian city and what you would see is that Cars can never be compared on passenger km basis. With two wheelers – there may be possibilities.. but again i am not sure.. 4. Regarding Todd's comment on 25% share in cities, I think in Asia with high probability of private vehicles being two wheelers, 25% of personal automobile share would be okay ( i would be happy) as long as they get 25% of investments and pay all external costs while people using NMT and PT get majority of investment and priority. thanks Sudhir Gota Transport Specialist CAI-Asia Center Unit 3510, 35th Floor, Robinsons-Equitable Tower, ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Metro Manila, Philippines 1605 Tel: +63-2-395-2843 Fax: +63-2-395-2846 <a href="http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia" target="_blank">http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia</a> Skype : sudhirgota <div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/15 Simon Bishop <<a href="mailto:simon.bishop@dimts.in">simon.bishop@dimts.in</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Like Carlos I am skeptical of this announcement. From where I'm sitting in Delhi there is a tendency to see 'public transport', and by that I mean motorized and electrified, through rose tinted glasses as if it is 'the' solution to growing automobile use. A huge amount of emphasis is put on the Metro and now BRT as ways to solve congestion (never mind about all the other externalities). Bicycles and legs are ignored despite holding a huge modal share. I think it was the Indian economist Dasgupta who showed that you could make public transport free in the UK and still only effect a very small shift to it from the car (6%). The fact is that cars are damn convenient and people will use them unless they are literally prized away from doing so. The vast majority of people use public transport in London and NY because they have to, and parking control is the main mechanism. I hope that Beijing's approach will witness parking restraint and pricing as a lynchpin of its policy, otherwise it will be a funding drain and a white elephant. The rose tinted spectacles also ignore the role of cycling as better and faster than the bus over short to medium distances. Why swap a more convenient form of transport for a less convenient one? The only thing that can compete with the car over these distances is the bicycle (and motorcycle, which should also be deterred for safety reasons). In terms of our greatest challenge, global warming I am perturbed. Where you have quality bus systems (with good timetables in the off peak and feeder services) they consume amounts of per capita energy rivaling that of the car. Quoting London again, the average actual CO2 emissions of a bus is 40% that of a car, PM10 emissions are 3 times and SO2 emissions 25 times greater - that's not much of an improvement. In Taipei, taking account of door to door emissions, the Metro actually consumes more energy than a car! This should not be construed as an argument AGAINST public transport, particularly buses, after all the more of us that use them the better, and there will always be a need for those who cannot cycle or walk, but it IS an argument for Beijing to prioritize Travel Demand Management/Walking/Cycling/Land Use Planning as the key policy to follow. </blockquote></div>