From johnernst at compuserve.com Wed Nov 3 00:54:36 1999 From: johnernst at compuserve.com (John Ernst) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 22:54:36 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Public opinion about Bangkok's elevated rail In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19991026233418.007eddf0@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: <199911021555.KAA13727@spamraaa.compuserve.com> Bangkok's "skytrain" elevated rails system is to start operation on December 5. The system is limited in coverage and requires a lot of stair-climbing -- Most stations are 3-4 stories above ground with only a few esclators included. Does anyone have an update on the status of elevators for providing wheelchair access? Regardless, the system is Bangkok's first purpose-built public transport right-of-way, and it's generating a lot of discussion. Fare has been the biggest issue, though it appears it will be a distance based fare of between 10 and 45 baht. The public was hoping for a 15-baht flat fare (note: currently about 38 baht / US dollar). Yesterday's (1 Nov) issue of the Bangkok Post interviewed a few residents and produced some typical responses. Some from clearly seasoned Bangkokians -- like the college student who doesn't mind having to leave home at 5:45am to avoid traffic. I've quoted some of these below for those who are interested. The full article available at A 25 year old employee- "I definitely can't use it for everyday commuting. An air-con bus from my house to my office is only eight baht. In a rush, I would rather use a taxi, it's faster and more convenient. And I don't have to climb those steep stairs." 36 year old DJ: "I would definitely use the skytrain because I will know exactly when I will arrive at my destination. ... Motorcycle taxis are fast but dangerous." 19-year old university student: "So why take the skytrain when a single bus will be easier? Speed? I don't think so. I don't have to rush that much. Now, I go to college in the morning by van which picks me up at home and takes only 45 minutes to Chula. Though I have to leave home at 5:45 a.m. to avoid bad traffic, it's 30 baht, takes 45 minutes and I get a comfy seat! A fair deal I think!" 44-year old managing director: "The skytrain doesn't suit my daily routine; I leave home with a lot of bags-my exercise bag, my personal belongings, work which I take home and props for my job. Then I have to get to the top of the soi from my house, then along another road to the office. Also, the network doesn't cover all the places I have to go for work. ...I would like to see lifts at every station; it's quite a climb for people my age. My husband won't use if it there aren't lifts." 26-year old employee: "Fine, you may save 60 minutes to travel the (24-kilometre) distance, but it costs 40 baht! It's nearly half the minimum wage (at 165 baht for eight hour day). ... The route does not go directly from my house to the office, and I would have to pay for other transport too. Simply put, I don't think I can afford it." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst, Urban Transport Ecologist SUSTRAN - Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific ITDP - Institute for Transport and Development Policy 8 Sukhumvit Soi 49/9 Bangkok 10110 THAILAND tel: +66(1) 813-1819 fax: +1(801) 365-5914 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA Thu Nov 4 02:57:32 1999 From: negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA (Paula Negron Poblete) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:57:32 -0500 Subject: [sustran] integrated transport Message-ID: <01BF25FB.060875E0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Hello everyone, i'm looking for information about integrated transport policies. Does anyone have some information about that subject? I'm particulary interested to know if the policies include integration between transport planning and land use planning. Thanks in advance. _________________ Paula Negron Poblete Universite de Montreal Faculte d'Amenagement From litman at islandnet.com Fri Nov 5 22:19:54 1999 From: litman at islandnet.com (Todd Litman) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 05:19:54 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: integrated transport Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991105051954.01194840@mail.IslandNet.com> At 12:57 PM 11/03/1999 -0500, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: >Hello everyone, i'm looking for information about integrated transport >policies. Does anyone have some information about that subject? I'm >particulary interested to know if the policies include integration between >transport planning and land use planning. Thanks in advance. > There is a lot of talk about the need to integrate transportation and land use planning, but acutal application various considerably. For discussion of the theory I recommend Terry Moore and Paul Thorsnes, "The Transportation Land Use Connection," Planning Advisory Service Report 448/449, American Planning Association, http://www.planning.org, 1994, US$32, and Reid Ewing, "Transportation & Land Use Innovations, American Planning Association, http://www.planning.org, US$48. The best actual application I'm aware of is current work by the U.K. Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, United Kingdom, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork) which is implementing a number of policies to integrate transportation and land use planning. For a discussion of the issues see Goodwin, "Transformation of Transport Policy in Great Britin," Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, pp. 655-670. Portland, Oregon is often cited as a good example of integrated planning in North America. See 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org), which is an independent organization that has lead much of the thinking in this area. The city of Vancouver, British Columbia has just established on agency to manage both transportation and land use planning, called "TransLink" (http://www.translink.bc.ca) which is still doing its strategic planning. There are a number of initiatives to integrate transportation and land use planning at the local scale to create more "livable" communities, which often falls under the term "new urbanism." For information contact the Center for Livable Communities (http://www.lgc.org/clc) and Congress for New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org), and other similar websites posted at our website. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 E-mail: litman@islandnet.com Website: http://www.islandnet.com/~litman From sustran at po.jaring.my Mon Nov 8 15:49:10 1999 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Resource Centre) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:49:10 +0800 Subject: [sustran] fwd CSE - Indian air pollution updates Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991108144910.007de210@relay101.jaring.my> From: "webadmin" Organization: Center For Science and Environment To: Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:01:11 +0530 Subject: What's new at CSE What's new at the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India .... POLLUTED AND IGNORED Talk about air pollution in India and everybody thinks of the four metropolitan cities. But the ambient air quality in even smaller cities and towns is deteriorating alarmingly and in some cases it is much worse. In Lucknow, for example, the maximum level of suspended particulate matter (SPM) in 1997 matched the highest levels recorded in Delhi. And if one person dies prematurely every hour in Delhi due to high SPM levels, the death count in Lucknow can well be imagined. The main reason for this is a sharp rise in polluting motor vehicles and mismanagement of public transport. Rogue industrial units also play a hand. Although data on rising levels of air pollution is available, there are no programmes in any of these cities to counter the emerging public health disaster. How many will die before India has an effective national air quality management plan? http://www.oneworld.org/cse/html/dte/dte991031/dte_analy.htm ------------------------------------------------- ..... A message from our Director, Anil Agarwal: Breathing in WTO's world With the world becoming a global village, there are several problems that will require a sound understanding of the ever-changing dynamics of global trade and its impact on the environment. One such issue is the dumping of old, rejected cars from the developed world into the markets of developing countries, where the growing middle class is all willing to snap them up. The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) has warned that the import of second-hand cars will pose a threat to domestic industry and has asked the government to levy a 100 per cent tax on these imports. It reports that in countries such as Japan, government regulations like high annual car registration charges and depreciation norms make it almost impossible to own cars more than six years old. As a result, prices of second-hands are low and these cars flood other countries, destroying their domestic car industry. For once, I agree with SIAM. Second-hand car import could be deadly. But I do not agree with SIAM's single-minded perspective that the answer lies in raising import duties. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulations, which India has accepted, provide that countries cannot discriminate against foreign goods. This could be seen as 'arbitrary' and 'unfair'. The government might not be able to impose higher custom duties, but it can ensure that this "flooding" of the Indian market with cheaper, more polluting cars will not have serious repercussions on the growing problem of air pollution in cities. This can be done through domestic norms and regulations. WTO allows governments to adopt domestic regulations, standards and emission norms for the protection of the environment and the health and safety of its people, as long as these norms are used to regulate both domestic and foreign producers without discrimination. The import of old cars could seriously impact the environment. Firstly, it is important to note that under current emission norms, only Delhi is to implement EURO I norms and will move to EURO II in April 2000. Recently, the Mumbai High Court also ordered similar norms. These states can refuse to register cars that do not meet these norms. But the rest of urban India - also reeling under smog and disease - is still scheduled to go in for EURO I norms in 2000 and EURO II in 2005. This means that as of today, India cannot stop imports of non-EURO I compliant technology, which became obsolete in Europe in 1996, and it cannot stop non-EURO II compliant technology till 2005, which will become obsolete in Europe in 2000. Unless India upgrades its emission norms urgently and makes all of India EURO II compliant by 2000, India can become the world's biggest dumpyard of obsolete and polluting technology. Even Delhi and Mumbai, with their slight advantage, could be taken for a ride. We do not have a system of ensuring that vehicles meet emission norms after they have passed the emissions check at the factory gate. Manufacturers do not provide a warranty for the emissions over the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the imported cars - even if they once technologically matched EURO I or EURO II norms - have not deteriorated substantially over the years, as do most cars. Given India's past record in pollution under control certificates, I would not suggest that any government agency waste money and the public's time and patience to check the tailpipes of foreign cars. It would be more important to put into place a domestic emissions warranty system so that buyers of second-hand foreign cars can also insist on such a warranty. And the government should be able to prevent the import of vehicles without such warranties. Thirdly, India does not have a taxation system that would ensure that old cars are phased out. This lacuna could easily make the deadly import of second-hand cars even more persistent as it basically means that once such a vehicle enters an Indian city, it will stay and pollute for life. SIAM's report itself points out that the reason second-hand cars are cheaper in Japan and have no market there is because of its taxation policy, which makes driving an old car prohibitively expensive. Many other countries, concerned about the deterioration factor in older vehicles, which makes them more polluting, have similar policies. But our system is built on a one-time road tax that has no relationship with the worthiness of the vehicle. In the post-WTO world, the old ways of state protection are gone. In this new situation, we will need excellent policies of regulation and stringent standards to protect Indian citizens. Indian car exporters know only too well how they are forced to deal with the standards of the industrialised world set for the health and safety needs of their people, otherwise they cannot hope to even think of their markets. Now, Indian car manufacturers may have to protect their own life and limb here in India - that is, their profits and investments - by working with the interests of their consumers and the environment. But it seems that SIAM is yet to receive the message. It is indeed ironic that the only thing that can save India's automobile industry is high environmental standards - something it has been fighting hard till now. - Anil Agarwal Visit our website at www.cseindia.org or www.oneworld.org/cse and check out what's new. Our website carries our science and environment fortnightly Down To Earth, a weekly Feature Service of articles on environment and a daily environment newsflash by subject categories. We also give regular updates on all of our campaigns on topics like vehicular pollution, climate change, biodiversity, water resources, wildlife, forests etc. Our online library of books, journals, images and videos is searchable through a thesaurus of environmental keywords at http://data.cseindia.org We are also looking for reciprocal linking to other websites in this area. Let us know your website address and we would be happy to link to you. Please feel free to forward this message to other interested individuals. ************************************************* Usha Sekhar Website Unit Centre for Science and Environment **************************************************************** * NOTE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS: PLEASE NOTE IT AS FOLLOWS * **************************************************************** CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT ( CSE ) 41, TUGHLAKABAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI- 110 062 TELE: 698 1110, 698 1124 698 3394, 698 6399 FAX : 91-11-698 5879 VISIT US AT: http://www.cseindia.org Email: webadmin@cseindia.org **************************************************************** From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Nov 10 01:50:18 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:50:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: fwd CSE - Indian air pollution updates In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991108144910.007de210@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote: > From: "webadmin" > Organization: Center For Science and Environment > To: > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:01:11 +0530 > Subject: What's new at CSE > > > What's new at the Centre for Science and Environment, New > Delhi, India > > .... > [snip]> ------------------------------------------------- > ..... > > A message from our Director, Anil Agarwal: > [snip] > WTO allows governments to adopt domestic regulations, standards and > emission norms for the protection of the environment and > the health and safety of its people, as long as these norms > are used to regulate both domestic and foreign producers > without discrimination. > This remains to be seen. The WTO can be used as well to drive down the standards of the richer countries. We have already seen the Canadian government successfully sued for trying to ban the additive MMT from gasoline. And how do we know that auto manufacturers won't sue to let in their dirty vehicles? I could certainly see how US manufacturers would like it if an Indian company sued to have their vehicles let in, as it would give them an excuse not to comply with more stringent standards. I can also see how our current reactionary Congress in the US and environment-indifferent Executive branch would be sympathetic to such arguments. Eric Bruun > > > > > > From aldizon at pacific.net.sg Wed Nov 10 07:02:24 1999 From: aldizon at pacific.net.sg (Al R Dizon) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 06:02:24 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Singapore's LRT system In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991108144910.007de210@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991110060224.007c2830@pacific.net.sg> Singapore's LRT system (sort of a rail system within a satellite town) was inaugurated on November 6. Following are some facts and figures about that system, known as the Bukit Panjang (BP) LRT System. Genesis of LRT The idea to adopt the LRT system in Singapore was first conceived some fouryears ago. In February 1995, a government delegation led by Mr Mah Bow Tan, then-Minister for Communications, and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, then Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications, went on a study mission to visit some of the best rail systems in the world. The delegation saw the LRT system as a possible transport mode for some of the HDB towns in Singapore. Lighter and cheaper than MRT systems, the LRT offers a practical alternative for lighter traffic corridors. When the Land Transport Authority or LTA was formed in September 95, one of its first major undertaking was to plan and build the first LRT system in Singapore. The 1996 White Paper on Land Transport set out the strategies and plans of the new Authority to meet the challenge of building a world class land transport system in Singapore. The promise to Singaporeans was a bold one *) to deliver a world class land transport system within the next 10 to 15 years. To meet this challenge, one of LTA's most immediate tasks was to start expanding the rapid transit network. A good rapid transit network is essential to promote fast and easy travel in a compact city like Singapore. It is also environmentally friendly. A comprehensive, rail-based public transport infrastructure is thus a cornerstone of LTA*,s strategy to provide an efficient land transport system. World Class Transport System *) Expanding RTS Network The decision to build the first LRT system in Bukit Panjang was announced by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on 10 February 1996, on the occasion of the opening of the Woodlands Line. This was followed in March 1996 with the announcement to proceed with the North East MRT line. In November 1996, DPM Lee announced the extension of the existing East-West MRT line to Changi Airport. During the same year, it was also announced that two LRT systems will be planned as an integrated part of the new towns of Sengkang and Punggol. These two LRT systems will be connected to the North East line and from there to the entire MRT network, seamlessly connecting the two towns to the other parts of the island. All these new lines will be ready over the next few years - the Changi Airport Line in 2001, the North East Line in 2002, the Sengkang LRT, also in 2002, and the Punggol LRT in 2004. With the completion of these projects, the Rapid Transit System (RTS) network will increase by more than 60% to about 140 km by the year 2004. Community Consultation As a pilot project, the Bukit Panjang (BP) LRT system has brought about much excitement. There has been close consultation with grassroots leaders and residents along the way; and valuable feedback has been received on various features of the system. This includes the names of the stations, the choice of the colour of the trains, and architectural designs like the shape of the station roofs. There was a public exhibition on the system in Raffles City and in Bukit Panjang Community Club in 1996 before construction began. Throughout the three-year construction period, LTA officers were frequently in touch with the grassroots leaders and residents to help them cope with the inevitable construction dust, noise and night work. I commend the LTA officers for forging a proactive and consultative partnership with the people they serve, and for going out of their way to understand and meet the needs of their customers - the residents of Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang and Yew Tee towns. Linking Communities The LRT system will not only link the residents of Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang and Yew Tee towns to one another, but it will also link them to the rest of Singapore, by seamless connection to the MRT and the bus system. Breaking of New Ground In many ways, the BP LRT system has brought a number of firsts to the community here. Firstly, the system will be run as a fully-automated operation, following the trend in the rapid transit industry throughout the world. In this respect, passengers will be very important sources of feedback to allow the operator to make improvements to the system and service levels. Another first is that the integration of the depot of the BP LRT system with a commercial building, the Ten Mile Junction. This building comprises two storeys of retail shops, restaurants, a supermarket and a foodcourt. There is also a LRT station in this building and there are plans to have residential development on top of the Ten Mile Junction in the future. These residents will be able to shop, live and travel, all under one roof. Their homes will only be an elevator ride away from the air-conditioned comfort of our rapid transport system, which will connect them to the rest of Singapore. Integrated Transport Infrastructure Further down the road, there will be more challenging and exciting opportunities to integrate transport infrastructure with town planning to allow more efficient land use and to develop better links to enhance the accessibility and convenience of public transport. LTA should continue to be bold and imaginative in its approach to building up a comprehensive integrated transport network that will be fast, reliable and comfortable. The BP LRT was built by the consortium of Daimler Chrysler Rail Systems, Keppel Engineering Ltd and Gammon Pte Ltd. Al R Dizon -------------------------------------- GOD IS MY WITNESS. TRUTH IS MY BEACON.. -------------------------------------- From lpist at indo.net.id Wed Nov 10 15:18:29 1999 From: lpist at indo.net.id (LPIST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:18:29 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: sustran-discuss V1 #500 Message-ID: <199911100607.NAA10405@smtp.indo.net.id> HASIL AKSI TUKANG BECAK KE DPRD DKI JAKARTA Selasa 9 Nopember 1999, sekitar 3000 penarik becak dari berbagai pangkalan di Jakarta mendatangi DPRD DKI. Mereka datang dengan membawa becak masing-masing, juga nasi bungkus dan air dari uang sendiri sebagai bekal. Mereka sudah bergerak secara bergelombang sejak pukul 02.00 dinihari mendatangi gedung DPRD DKI, hingga memenuhi sepanjang jalur hijau jalan Kebon Sirih. Diantara mereka ada yang membawa istri dan anaknya. Mereka datang untuk membebaskan diri dari belenggu Perda 11 tahun 1988 sebagai produk hukum yang dibuat secara sewenang-wenang, tanpa mengindahkan hak-hak rakyat. Dan menggunakan peraturan tersebut untuk memusuhi dan menghancurkan kehendak rakyat. Dari tempat pemukiman hingga kebebasan dan keberagaman berusaha di sektor informal, termasuk becak, terus dikejar-kejar dan digusur berdasarkan peraturan tersebut. Peraturan yang jelas-jelas anti rakyat kecil. Melalui negosiasi yang alot dan panas akhirnya pada pukul 10.00 anggota dewan menerima 27 perwakilan ditemani oleh wardah hafidz dari UPC dan Sri Wiyanti dari LBH APIK, dan seluruh penarik becak diperkenankan masuk ke dalam halaman gedung DPRD. Mereka membuat berbagai acara sambil menunggu negosiasi berlangsung. Anggota dewan yang menerima 27 perwakilan tukang becak adalah Tarmiji Suharjo (wakil ketua DPRD DKI),Suwardi (wakil ketua), Beny (komisi A), Suharto (komisi C), Surahmat (komisi A), Gatot Setiabudi (komisi E) Beberapa kesepakatan yang lahir dari perundingan tersebut adalah: 1. DPRD setuju perda 11/tahun 1988 dicabut 2. DPRD akan mengundang Gubernur dan staf pada Rabu, 10 Nopember 1999 untuk membahas usulan pencabutan Perda tersebut. Tembusan akan dikirimkan ke UPC untuk disebarluaskan ke para tukang becak 3. Pada saatnya, ketika pertemuan terjadi antara DPRD dan Gubernur, para wakil tukang becak akan diundang hadir untuk menyaksikan jalannya pembahasan 4. Jaringan Rakyat Miskin Kota, termasuk di dalamnya tukang becak dan pekerja sektor informal, bersama UPC, akan bertemu kembali dengan DPRD untuk membahas konsep alternatif bagi penyusunan Perda baru pengganti Perda 11/1988. Janji DPRD cukup melegakan, tetapi rakyat menunggu dengan kritis apakah DPRD akan sungguh-sungguh melakukan langkah-langkah untuk memenuhi janji tersebut, dan menunjukkan kesungguhan komitmennya seperti dinyatakan di depan para tukang becak tadi pagi. Jakarta, 9 Nopember 1999 wardah hafidz Koordinator UPC From alanhowes at usaksa.com Fri Nov 12 00:32:39 1999 From: alanhowes at usaksa.com (Alan P Howes) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:32:39 GMT Subject: [sustran] Re: Answer to Alan P. Howes (Question on Bus Drivers, Cash, Meal Reliefs) In-Reply-To: <01BF17FA.63238BC0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> References: <01BF17FA.63238BC0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: <382cdcf2.2495745@smtp.usaksa.com> Paula - Many thanks for your information, and the offer of the various documents. If you don't mind I will "take a rain check" - I get little time for reading, and I am having enough trouble currently learning Arabic without testing my French (not too bad, but not used for a few years) and Spanish (used more recently, but never really learnt in the first place!) Actually, I spent more time learning Catalan than Spanish - but not enough, I am afraid. Thanks again for your help. Alan. On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 17:13:33 -0400, you wrote: >I also have some documents about the transport administration in Mexico >city and Montreal, those are in french, if you are interested, send me your >personal email, so i can send them to you. >Cheers. >Ps. Anyone who is interested in these papers, send me an email and i'll >send them to you > >________________ >Paula Negron Poblete >Universite de Montreal >Faculte d'Amenagement > > > -- Alan & Jacqui Howes, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Formerly Perthshire, Scotland) alanhowes@usaksa.com http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] PLEASE DO NOT SEND LARGE MESSAGES (>100kB) WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE *** A debt-free start for a billion people in the world's poorest *** *** countries - Jubilee 2000, http://www.jubilee2000uk.org *** From gigi_goreng at hotmail.com Sat Nov 13 09:40:31 1999 From: gigi_goreng at hotmail.com (ria hutabarat) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:40:31 PST Subject: [sustran] [sustran] integrated transport and paratransit Message-ID: <19991113004031.65043.qmail@hotmail.com> Hello I'm doing some work on paratransit modes in developing world cities - things like rickshaws, pedicabs, jitneys and other unlicenced commercial passenger services. The cities I'm particularly interested in are Jakarta, Lagos, Nairobi, Delhi (or another Indian city, I haven't really chosen that one yet), Istanbul, and also Manila and Bangkok. And I'm looking at what these modes contribute to overall transport tasks and issues, who they're operated by, and who the users are... Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew of any surveys of these sorts of characteristics for paratransit services in developing world cities that I might be able to access? I'm particularly interested in these cities but if there are surveys of other places I'd be interested in them too. Also - Paula, I was involved in drafting up an integrated transport and sustainable development policy thing for the Australian government last year - the department of transport and regional development. We looked at several national integrated transport plans in Europe (including the UK White Paper on Integrated Transport; the US's TEA21; and lots of integrated transport plans and issues within Australia. In the end the national policy idea was shelved for a few reasons, but some of the more well known plans around Australia include the integrated regional transport plan for south east queensland (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/projects) and the 2010 plans for nsw and sydney (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/act2010/transindx.html). Hope that helps. Cheers Ria Hutabarat University of California, Berkeley riahut@uclink4.berkeley.edu >From: Paula Negron Poblete >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org >To: "Discussion List (E-mail)" >Subject: [sustran] integrated transport >Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:57:32 -0500 > >Hello everyone, i'm looking for information about integrated transport >policies. Does anyone have some information about that subject? I'm >particulary interested to know if the policies include integration between >transport planning and land use planning. Thanks in advance. > >_________________ >Paula Negron Poblete >Universite de Montreal >Faculte d'Amenagement > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Tue Nov 16 04:19:28 1999 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:19:28 -0800 Subject: [sustran] paratransit Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991115111928.007a4490@central.murdoch.edu.au> Ria, I'm quite interested in your research, and if you have a chance could you please tell me more. I'm a PhD student looking at transportation infrastructure development in Southeast Asia's large metropolitan areas, and I plan to research some case studies in Bangkok and Manila. I've spent some time working in Bangkok, and I have never come across surveys on paratransit services there. (Actually, I have a bit of concern about using the label "paratransit" in Bangkok - see my comments below.) If you mean the modes of transport not regulated by the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA), it could include motorcycle taxis (usually short distance), minibuses (usually longer distances running between central city and outer suburban/exurban areas), tuk-tuks (motorized 3 wheelers) in the city proper, river and canal boats (I'm not sure who regulates them), pedicabs in the outer suburban centers of the metro region, and song taews (converted pick up trucks acting as taxis in outer suburban areas). There is spatial differentiation between the types of modes and the level of regulation varies. The tuk-tuks are registered, the motorcycle taxis are informally regulated by local police, mafias, and district officials, the minibuses are largely unregulated although the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has in recent years been pushing to bring them under government control. In Bangkok it would be hard to call some modes strictly "paratransit" or "unlicensed" - they are all under some kind of formal or informal control that varies spatially and between jurisdictions. The modes fall along a continuum of formal and informal, and I'm not sure of the American category of "paratransit" (which implies that there is a "formal" sector of public transport which is entirely under government authority and this just isn't the case in Bangkok) can be clearly applied in this context. You may want to be more specific and look at modes of transport not regulated by the BMA or the BMTA. However, even that may cause you problems in the case of Bangkok, where most transport is run by private sector companies anyway. In a couple of weeks Bangkok's first mass transit system (the "skytrain) will open and it is virtually an entirely private sector initiative - unique in the world I believe! I would suggest that your best chance at finding info on Bangkok would be from student theses and dissertations. Although he didn't look that much at the modes you might call "paratransit", a Thai PhD student graduated from ISTP here with an excellent thesis, "Anatomy of a Traffic Disaster: Towards a Sustainable Solution to Bangkok's Transport Problems" (Chamlong Poboon, 1997). Most of the transport policies and plans, usually prepared by foreign consultants, only focus on large motorized vehicles and trains/mass transit. If you don't have it already I would obtain a copy of "Nonmotorized Vehicles in Ten Asian Cities" (World Bank, 1995). Best of luck, Craig Townsend ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From matt.burke at mailbox.uq.edu.au Mon Nov 15 14:30:24 1999 From: matt.burke at mailbox.uq.edu.au (Matthew Burke) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:30:24 +1000 (GMT+1000) Subject: [sustran] Re: [sustran] integrated transport and paratransit In-Reply-To: <19991113004031.65043.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ria, Matt Burke [yes - your former colleague] here. I have a decent stack of material on paratransit in Jakarta, some on Lagos, a reasonable Manila file, and at least something on Nairobi. The observations from my fieldwork trip of last November may also be of use. You can contact me at my new work [the Qld Dept of State Development - 07 3405 5499] or by reply e-mail to discuss this further. There are many others to contact in this regard and I could also furnish you with a preliminary contacts list with the usual suspects on it - though most would likely be Sustrans adherents. Matt Burke Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning University of Queensland +61 7 3365 3836 Land Planning and Management Queensland Department of State Development +61 7 3405 5499 On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, ria hutabarat wrote: > Hello > > I'm doing some work on paratransit modes in developing world cities - things > like rickshaws, pedicabs, jitneys and other unlicenced commercial passenger > services. The cities I'm particularly interested in are Jakarta, Lagos, > Nairobi, Delhi (or another Indian city, I haven't really chosen that one > yet), Istanbul, and also Manila and Bangkok. And I'm looking at what these > modes contribute to overall transport tasks and issues, who they're operated > by, and who the users are... Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew of any > surveys of these sorts of characteristics for paratransit services in > developing world cities that I might be able to access? I'm particularly > interested in these cities but if there are surveys of other places I'd be > interested in them too. > > Also - Paula, > I was involved in drafting up an integrated transport and sustainable > development policy thing for the Australian government last year - the > department of transport and regional development. We looked at several > national integrated transport plans in Europe (including the UK White Paper > on Integrated Transport; the US's TEA21; and lots of integrated transport > plans and issues within Australia. In the end the national policy idea was > shelved for a few reasons, but some of the more well known plans around > Australia include the integrated regional transport plan for south east > queensland (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/projects) and the 2010 plans for > nsw and sydney (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/act2010/transindx.html). > Hope that helps. > > Cheers > > Ria Hutabarat > University of California, Berkeley > riahut@uclink4.berkeley.edu > > >From: Paula Negron Poblete > >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > >To: "Discussion List (E-mail)" > >Subject: [sustran] integrated transport > >Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:57:32 -0500 > > > >Hello everyone, i'm looking for information about integrated transport > >policies. Does anyone have some information about that subject? I'm > >particulary interested to know if the policies include integration between > >transport planning and land use planning. Thanks in advance. > > > >_________________ > >Paula Negron Poblete > >Universite de Montreal > >Faculte d'Amenagement > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From sustran at po.jaring.my Mon Nov 15 23:35:20 1999 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Resource Centre) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:35:20 +0800 Subject: [sustran] (fwd) CSE: Playing with lives Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991115223520.00829bd0@relay101.jaring.my> From: "webadmin" Organization: Center For Science and Environment To: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:08:33 +0530 Subject: What's new at CSE ... What's new at the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India ....... Playing with lives An affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian automaker TELCO suggests a misinterpretation of the WHO's views on air pollution. The motive is easy to guess: to protect the commercial interests of the company, even if it means obfuscating the serious threat perceptions to public health. Down To Earth reports at http://www.oneworld.org/cse/html/dte/dte991115/dte_srep1.htm --------------------------------- Usha Sekhar Website Unit Centre for Science and Environment **************************************************************** * NOTE CHANGE IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS: PLEASE NOTE IT AS FOLLOWS * **************************************************************** CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT ( CSE ) 41, TUGHLAKABAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI- 110 062 TELE: 698 1110, 698 1124 698 3394, 698 6399 FAX : 91-11-698 5879 VISIT US AT: http://www.cseindia.org Email: webadmin@cseindia.org **************************************************************** From Yewlett at cardiff.ac.uk Thu Nov 18 17:43:02 1999 From: Yewlett at cardiff.ac.uk (Chris Yewlett) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:43:02 GMT0BST Subject: [sustran] Re: [sustran] integrated transport and paratransit In-Reply-To: <19991113004031.65043.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <199911181744.CAA00497@mail.jca.apc.org> From: "ria hutabarat" To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] [sustran] integrated transport and paratransit Date sent: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:40:31 PST Send reply to: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Hello > > I'm doing some work on paratransit modes in developing world cities - > things like rickshaws, pedicabs, jitneys and other unlicenced > commercial passenger services. The cities I'm particularly interested > in are Jakarta, Lagos, Nairobi, A research student of mine (Dr Samuel Obiero) wrote his thesis public transport in Nairobi, with particular reference to these services. He is now at University of Nairobi; details of thesis from our catalogue: Author: Obiero, Samuel V.O. Title: Public transport and the peak hour in Nairobi / by Samuel V.O. Obiero. Description: 421 leaves. Location: Bute Classmark: Thesis-CPLAN Number of Items: 1 Delhi (or another Indian city, I > haven't really chosen that one yet), Istanbul, and also Manila and > Bangkok. And I'm looking at what these modes contribute to overall > transport tasks and issues, who they're operated by, and who the users > are... Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew of any surveys of these > sorts of characteristics for paratransit services in developing world > cities that I might be able to access? I'm particularly interested in > these cities but if there are surveys of other places I'd be > interested in them too. > > Also - Paula, > I was involved in drafting up an integrated transport and sustainable > development policy thing for the Australian government last year - the > department of transport and regional development. We looked at > several national integrated transport plans in Europe (including the > UK White Paper on Integrated Transport; the US's TEA21; and lots of > integrated transport plans and issues within Australia. In the end > the national policy idea was shelved for a few reasons, but some of > the more well known plans around Australia include the integrated > regional transport plan for south east queensland > (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/projects) and the 2010 plans for nsw > and sydney (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/act2010/transindx.html). > Hope that helps. > > Cheers > > Ria Hutabarat > University of California, Berkeley > riahut@uclink4.berkeley.edu > > >From: Paula Negron Poblete > >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > >To: "Discussion List (E-mail)" > >Subject: [sustran] integrated transport > >Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:57:32 -0500 > > > >Hello everyone, i'm looking for information about integrated > >transport policies. Does anyone have some information about that > >subject? I'm particulary interested to know if the policies include > >integration between transport planning and land use planning. Thanks > >in advance. > > > >_________________ > >Paula Negron Poblete > >Universite de Montreal > >Faculte d'Amenagement > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Yewlett yewlett@cardiff.ac.uk Dept. of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University Tel: (+44) (1222) 875294 Glamorgan Building FAX: (+44) (1222) 874845 King Edward VII Avenue CARDIFF CF10 3WA, UK From jsum at arbld.unimelb.edu.au Fri Nov 19 09:31:46 1999 From: jsum at arbld.unimelb.edu.au (Jachrizal Sumabrata) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:31:46 +1100 Subject: [sustran] Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991115223520.00829bd0@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: <199911190034.LAA14103@arbld.unimelb.edu.au> Dear friends, The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise ticket prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) in Jakarta. In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. Regards Jachrizal Sumabrata Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Sat Nov 20 03:06:52 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:06:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: <199911190034.LAA14103@arbld.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have some general comments. There is always the conflict between the long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the government refuses to take road space and give it to public transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably yes. Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > Dear friends, > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise ticket > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > in Jakarta. > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > Regards > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > The University of Melbourne > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > From tanya8ph at ccs.iitb.ernet.in Sat Nov 20 05:19:06 1999 From: tanya8ph at ccs.iitb.ernet.in (Tanuka Bhowmick) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:49:06 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Seeking Information Message-ID: Dear list-members, I am a M.Phil student of Planning and Development in the Indian Institute of Technology. I am presently doing a reseach on sociological impacts of transport planning in the city of Mumbai, India with special reference to the shifting of wholesale markets from the congested Island City to a newer location. Can anyboby, pursuing research or having knowledge about this field suggest some on-line material or books about similar incidents to relieve a city from congestion and its immediate and far reaching effects. Government reports, seminar reports or any kind of research material would also be helpful. Thank you for any help in advance. Please respond to me directly if you want at tanya@hss.iitb.ernet.in Regards Tanuka Bhowmick ************************************************************************* T A N U K A B H O W M I C K ( M.PHIL STUDENT) Dept of Humanities and Social Sciences Room no 89, Hostel-11 Indian Institute of Technology Indian Institute of Technology Powai, Mumbai-400076 Powai, Mumbai-400076 E-mail: ************************************************************************* From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Nov 20 06:28:48 1999 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:28:48 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "So the people that can afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system." Eric, The folks with a car will not.. not ever, no where, move to public transport just cause it's there. At whatever price. They are addicts, dear friend. They will give it up only when the supply of needles gives out. Sad mess ain't it. But at least, if we understand it, we have our first clue. eric britton From negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA Sat Nov 20 07:18:08 1999 From: negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA (Paula Negron Poblete) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:18:08 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun Message-ID: <01BF32B2.46EBF6E0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their implantation. _________________ Paula Negron Poblete Universite de Montreal Faculte d'Amenagement -----Original Message----- From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have some general comments. There is always the conflict between the long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the government refuses to take road space and give it to public transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably yes. Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > Dear friends, > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise ticket > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > in Jakarta. > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > Regards > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > The University of Melbourne > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > From negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA Sun Nov 21 12:50:39 1999 From: negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA (Paula Negron Poblete) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:50:39 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta Message-ID: <01BF33AA.65BCEB80.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> I think you're right Eric, by saying that if we understand the problem we have a clue. I really think that one way to make people prefeer public transport is by making driving a real mess. By that I mean that unless autorities stop making investments in highways, there is absolute no way that people will change to public transport. _________________ Paula Negron Poblete Universite de Montreal Faculte d'Amenagement From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Nov 21 19:24:51 1999 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:24:51 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: <01BF33AA.65BCEB80.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: Further to Paula Negron Poblete's good suggestion: "I really think that one way to make people prefer public transport is by making driving a real mess." Actually, I thought that this war had already been fought and won - at least at the level of our expertise here. Since apparently I may have it wrong, let me summarize the state of the art/recipe as I understand it as we get set to meander off the stage of the 20th century: 1. You take that billion dollars you used to spend on building a new metro.... 2. To which you add the couple of billions that you regularly pour into road construction. 3. You stir and mix nicely and then tip it, not into hardware (concrete, steel, tunnels and the like) but rather into software (people, new access, amenity, efficiency and entrepreneurial concepts, cognitive and feedback systems) and .... while at the same time... 4. Getting all those inefficient, space-eating cars off the street -- specifically a pincers movement with tough, cleverly thought-out parking strategies at the leading edge, in partnership with persistent transfers by various means of street space to more efficient transport modes... bearing in mind that.... 5. When we speak of "more efficient transport modes" we have a lot of stuff in mind rather than good old honky stand in line and wait "public transport" ? la its rather dismal 20th century incarnation, and.... 6. That as we free street space we must also take into account that man does not live by transport alone and that there are other human uses to which much of it can well be put. I thought that we were post-industrial and that the knowledge society was now going to serve us all. But if I have this wrong... any of it... I shall be pleased to listen and learn. eric britton ecopl@n, Paris From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Tue Nov 23 06:06:42 1999 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:06:42 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991122130642.007a05d0@central.murdoch.edu.au> >From the Bangkok Post, 22 November 1999 (for original text with maps & photos go to http://bangkokpost.com/today/221199_News13.html) "Questions hang over feeder routes" It's only 14 days to the opening of the long-awaited skytrain. Will it serve only people along its routes? Will it prove convenience for people further out in the suburbs? This last of the five-part series looks at these issues. POONA ANTASEEDA and SUPOJ WANCHAROEN Chuchart Panburana, a 41-year-old civil servant and Silom native, loves the skytrain and is ready to pay the distance-based fare of between 10 and 40 baht. "The fare is reasonable. The most important thing is it helps save a lot of time," he said. By train it will take him less than three minutes to travel to his work in Ratchaprasong, instead of the usual 30 minutes by bus. Mr Chuchart views the skytrain as a promising solution to Bangkok's nightmarish traffic. Reasonable fare, speed, and better service are often cited as reasons why some people will switch from their existing method of transport to the skytrain. Decha Wilairat, 33, an engineering lecturer from Mahidol University, said Bangkok's first commuter rail while more expensive than buses was still cheaper than taxis and much faster. The Bangkok Mass Transit System Corp, operator of the skytrain, has projected a ridership of about 600,000 passenger trips a day. The service will begin on Dec 5, the 72nd birthday of His Majesty the King, and will operate from 6am to midnight. To ensure the passenger target is reached, the operator has obtained a 15-year concession from the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA), the city bus agency, to run 13 new bus routes to feed commuters from the suburbs into the system. A new company, Bangkok Transit Feeder Co, has been established to operate 175 air-conditioned feeder buses. The company was founded by Keeree Kanjanapas, chief executive officer of Tanayong which is the majority shareholder of BTSC. The city bus agency will be paid 150 baht a day for each bus during the first five years. After that the fee increases another 20%. Painted to match the colours of the skytrain, the buses will run from 5am to midnight starting from Dec 5. The fare will range from eight to 18 baht, similar to that charged by the yellow Euro-II buses. Mr Keeree expected the feeder system to boost the skytrain's potential to attract riders. He predicted it could could reach as much as 700,000 trips a day, much more than the projected 600,000 trips. Mr Keeree said the feeder routes were needed because extension sections of the 24km rail system were yet to be constructed. Three extension sections are expected to be added later on, including: from Onnuj to Samrong in Samut Prakan, from Taksin Bridge at the end of Sathon road to Wong Wian Yai circle in Thon Buri, and from Mor Chit to Rangsit. The city bus agency said, however, that the BTSC's feeder routes would overlay 18 existing routes serviced by 135 minibuses, regular air-conditioned and ordinary buses as well as 58 Euro-II buses and 47 microbuses. BMTA director Yanyong Kurowat indicated that some existing bus routes duplicating the feeder routes will be shortened to eliminate duplication. On some routes, the number of the buses will be reduced. Consumer rights protection groups were incensed with the BMTA's decision. They said granting the concession to Bangkok Transit Feeder Co would put an undue burden on consumers, especially the low-income people, forcing people to use feeder buses or the skytrain system. "The concession will leave the public with no choice but to use the BTS feeder. What about low-income people who might want to take a short trip? The fare of the feeder is much higher than the that for regular buses," said Saree Aongsomwang, secretary of the Consumer Organisation Federation of Thailand. Many other people want to know if there will be "park and ride" facilities to allow suburban commuters wishing to use the rail service to park their cars and ride on the train. Some of them said they are unlikely to leave their cars at home and rely on the feeder buses to take them to the rail stations. They are in for a disappointment, however. Mr Keeree said the concept of "park-and-ride" as operated in many countries could not be applied for the skytrain system here because of the high cost of land and parking in Bangkok. "The idea is impractical in Bangkok. We think the linkage between the feeder and the system is the most suitable way," he said. Bunyawat Tiptap, the city's director of traffic and transportation, agreed that park-and-ride would not be worth the investment in Bangkok. "The problem would be an inadequate feeder system," said the director. In planning traffic management and making the system easily accessible, city officials have asked the police to determine the best locations for taxi stands.Some bus stops will be relocated to prevent traffic congestion near skytrain stations and to disperse human traffic from the station as soon as possible. This measure is expected to also help reduce air pollution around the stations. Deputy governor Banasopit Mekvichai said the city would have to erect taxi stands and bus stops by dismantling some parts of the median strips, especially on Sukhumvit, Phaya Thai and Rama I roads where traffic congestion was already severe. Taxi stands will be located far away from bus stops to prevent traffic congestion. The stand locations were also designed for the convenience of commuters of the subway which is expected to be operational in the year 2003. "When the skytrain begins operation, taxis will have fixed locations to drop off or pick up train commuters," said Mrs Banasopit. Experts have warned, however, that ridership will suffer if there is a lack of good management of the skytrain system in conjunction with the existing bus system which should serve as the skytrain feeder. "Without good management, the ridership of the skytrain could be as low as 10,000 trips an hour or only 100,000 trips per day," said Kumropluk Suraswadi, deputy director of the Office of Megaprojects. He said BTSC has the capacity of up to one million trips per day but its problems lied with the feeder's capacity to handle the flow of people. As the opening date of the skytrain is approaching, Mr Kumropluk said there was little sign to show that the ridership projected by the BTSC would be achieved. "Where are the buses, the staff and the timetables? And will the feeder duplicate the existing bus routes? And what will be the appropriate concession fee?" asked Mr Kumropluk, suggesting that the matter be cleared up urgently. "Without the feeder the BTSC will unavoidably run into losses, similar to the city bus agency and the microbus which will continue to suffer losses without management improvement. And people will continue to use their own cars." Mr Kumropluk also questioned the BTSC's plan to buy 175 new buses to run in the 13 new feeder routes. He said it was better to use existing buses in the BMTA fleet or microbuses. Assoc Prof Chakkrit Kanok-kantapong from the Department of Civil Engineering, Prince of Songkhla University, who had studied the project, said people were unlikely to use the system if they have to walk more than 300m. He suggested that eventually the skytrain should be linked with the subway. A management plan should be mapped out now so that the two systems would help attract the public to using mass transit services, he said. Otherwise it would be a wasted investment. ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From ajain at kcrc.com Mon Nov 22 15:53:00 1999 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:53:00 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: >Many other people want to know if there will be "park and ride" facilities >to allow suburban commuters wishing to use the rail service to park their >cars and ride on the train. Some of them said they are unlikely to leave >their cars at home and rely on the feeder buses to take them to the rail >stations. > >They are in for a disappointment, however. Mr Keeree said the concept of >"park-and-ride" as operated in many countries could not be applied for the >skytrain system here because of the high cost of land and parking in Bangkok. > >"The idea is impractical in Bangkok. > >We think the linkage between the feeder and the system is the most suitable >way," he said. > >Bunyawat Tiptap, the city's director of traffic and transportation, agreed >that park-and-ride would not be worth the investment in Bangkok. Surprised to hear that "Park & ride" is considered impractical and unfeasible in Bangkok because of "high cost of land and parking". In Hong Kong, where the land and cost of parking is much dearer (I think this is undisputed) Government is actively pushing for Park-n-ride as a means to reduce urban congestion. Park-n-ride, I consider, would be feasible in Bangkok because the congestion level is so much worse and hence the modal shift would be higher, given a choice. The cost of Park-n-ride compared to the returns is low on an standalone basis but (if?) located close to the station the land can be considered "prime property" with a high degree of accessibility and becomes attractive for developers. The development rights usually cover the capital costs. So, as long as the parking charges cover the operating costs, you are breaking even. And that is what make it works. Hopefully, people start looking at these measures not as "worth the investment" but "for better planning and sustainability of the system". Alok Jain Hong Kong From JohnErnst at compuserve.com Mon Nov 22 13:13:54 1999 From: JohnErnst at compuserve.com (John Ernst) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:13:54 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Jakarta planning to dump becaks again? Message-ID: <199911220715.CAA25976@spdmraaa.compuserve.com> Despite activities aimed at increasing the acceptance of non-motorized tricycle pedicabs (becak) in Jakarta, events over the weekend are pointing to a repeat of Suharto's famous dumping of becaks into the bay. According to the English-language Jakarta Post, President Abdurrahman Wahid addressed a protest organized by the Urban Poor Coalition on Saturday (20 November) which included hundreds of becak drivers. He defended the 1988 ban on becaks "on humanitarian grounds" saying the drivers work "like horses" and that they need to be found other jobs ("President Abdurrahman defends ban on 'becak'', Jakarta Post, 21 November 1999, p.1). This prompted Jakarta Mayor Sutiyoso to order authorities to "begin cleansing the city's streets of becak" ("Sutiyoso firm on 'becak' raids", Jakarta Post, 22 November 1999, p3). Becak began to increase in Jakarta earlier this year, when the governor stated he would allow operation again because of the economic crisis. Now Sutiyoso plans to move the drivers back to their villages, offer them transmigration (an Indonesian program to move people from Java to other islands) or train them for other jobs. The Jakarta Post articles can be viewed online at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst Urban Transport Ecologist SUSTRAN - Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/ ITDP - The Institute for Transport and Development Policy www.itdp.org 8 Sukhumvit Soi 49/9 Bangkok 10110 Thailand Tel +66(1) 813-1819 Fax +1(801) 365-5914 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From sustran at po.jaring.my Mon Nov 22 16:46:58 1999 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Resource Centre) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:46:58 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991122154658.007d86d0@relay101.jaring.my> At 14:53 22/11/99 +0800, Alok Jain wrote: >Surprised to hear that "Park & ride" is considered impractical and >unfeasible in Bangkok because of "high cost of land and parking". In Hong >Kong, where the land and cost of parking is much dearer (I think this is >undisputed) Government is actively pushing for Park-n-ride as a means to >reduce urban congestion. I think that the explanation may be that the new mass transit system in Bangkok currently does not extend beyond the inner area of the city which is densely built up. There is also a danger that by putting park n' ride in such dense, mixed land-use locations could possible even reduce ridership by reducing the amount of human activity in the vicinity of stations. I imagine that Park and ride in Hong Kong would only be in the outer New Town areas (please correct me if I am wrong). Paul PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN) P.O. Box 11501, Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia. TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590 E-mail: sustran@po.jaring.my SUSTRAN: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/ The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on Asia and the Pacific. From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Tue Nov 23 02:54:02 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:54:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] more on Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 eric.britton@ecoplan.org wrote: > Further to Paula Negron Poblete's good suggestion: "I really think that o= ne > way to make people prefer public transport is by making driving a real > mess." >=20 > Actually, I thought that this war had already been fought and won - at le= ast > at the level of our expertise here. Since apparently I may have it wrong= , > let me summarize the state of the art/recipe as I understand it as we get > set to meander off the stage of the 20th century: >=20 > 1. You take that billion dollars you used to spend on building a new > metro.... The Metro benefits more people than highways do, and should not be lumped together with it as an expenditure benefiting elites. Local content and labor should be maximized to minimize the drain on foreign exchange and to provide employment, but I still think that megacities need these types of systems. Rail systems also address the point below about space being needed for non-transport use in the city. They are far more space efficient than roads, even than bus systems, and do liberate space for other uses. =20 =20 >=20 > 2. To which you add the couple of billions that you regularly pour into r= oad > construction. >=20 > 3. You stir and mix nicely and then tip it, not into hardware (concrete, > steel, tunnels and the like) but rather into software (people, new access= , > amenity, efficiency and entrepreneurial concepts, cognitive and feedback > systems) and .... while at the same time... >=20 > 4. Getting all those inefficient, space-eating cars off the street -- > specifically a pincers movement with tough, cleverly thought-out parking > strategies at the leading edge, in partnership with persistent transfers = by > various means of street space to more efficient transport modes... bearin= g > in mind that.... >=20 > 5. When we speak of "more efficient transport modes" we have a lot of stu= ff > in mind rather than good old honky stand in line and wait "public transpo= rt" > =E0 la its rather dismal 20th century incarnation, and.... >=20 > 6. That as we free street space we must also take into account that man d= oes > not live by transport alone and that there are other human uses to which > much of it can well be put. >=20 > I thought that we were post-industrial and that the knowledge society was > now going to serve us all. But if I have this wrong... any of it... I sh= all > be pleased to listen and learn. >=20 > eric britton > ecopl@n, Paris >=20 >=20 From alanhowes at usaksa.com Tue Nov 23 02:52:53 1999 From: alanhowes at usaksa.com (Alan P Howes) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:52:53 GMT Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: <01BF33AA.65BCEB80.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> References: <01BF33AA.65BCEB80.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: <383a53a2.1173646@mail.prime.net.sa> My often-stated-opinion (on misc.transport.urban-transit, when it was a place for sensible debate) is that you need a stick _and_ a carrot. Either on its own will not work. On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:50:39 -0500, you wrote: >I think you're right Eric, by saying that if we understand the problem we >have a clue. I really think that one way to make people prefeer public >transport is by making driving a real mess. By that I mean that unless >autorities stop making investments in highways, there is absolute no way >that people will change to public transport. > >_________________ >Paula Negron Poblete >Universite de Montreal >Faculte d'Amenagement > > -- Alan & Jacqui Howes, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Formerly Perthshire, Scotland) alanhowes@usaksa.com http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] PLEASE DO NOT SEND LARGE MESSAGES (>100kB) WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE *** A debt-free start for a billion people in the world's poorest *** *** countries - Jubilee 2000, http://www.jubilee2000uk.org *** From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Tue Nov 23 03:06:59 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:06:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun In-Reply-To: <01BF32B2.46EBF6E0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything about a "universal solution". A few points to consider: 1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths. 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips? 3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently. The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding. 4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail lines? 5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are traveling. On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess > without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we > usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and > mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that > I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive > (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, > that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial > perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico > city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for > the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are > used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility > than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". > It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily > prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate > also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid > transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that > important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the > example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every > day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the > number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than > buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems > are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic > and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their > implantation. > > _________________ > Paula Negron Poblete > Universite de Montreal > Faculte d'Amenagement > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] > Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta > > > > I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have > some general comments. There is always the conflict between the > long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta > should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with > people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be > adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City > or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. > > Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more > money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the > government refuses to take road space and give it to public > transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. > We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep > criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost > never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests > that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, > not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly > projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that > benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that > can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this > better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably > yes. > > Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise > fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on > car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because > it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to > be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can > afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is > wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise > ticket > > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > > in Jakarta. > > > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > > > Regards > > > > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > > The University of Melbourne > > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Wed Nov 24 03:19:59 1999 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:19:59 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991123101959.007a5100@central.murdoch.edu.au> >I think that the explanation may be that the new mass transit system in >Bangkok currently does not extend beyond the inner area of the city which >is densely built up. There is also a danger that by putting park n' ride >in such dense, mixed land-use locations could possible even reduce >ridership by reducing the amount of human activity in the vicinity of >stations. I imagine that Park and ride in Hong Kong would only be in the >outer New Town areas (please correct me if I am wrong). > I can't comment on the Hong Kong situation, but Paul is correct that Bangkok Transit System's inner city routes (it runs down the middle of Bangkok's busiest inner city roads) make park n' ride unfeasible. Furthermore, I would argue that parking supply should not be increased in any manner or form in inner city Bangkok. In 1990, parking per 1,000 CBD workers in Bangkok was 397 spaces. By comparison, in Singapore it was 164, in Tokyo 43, and in Hong Kong 33. Bangkok's "American levels" of parking provision have contributed to Bangkok's high private car use and hostile conditions of the public environment, and in many cases represent a subsidy from the poor to the rich! Building park n' rides in Bangkok would cancel out many of the benefits that will be derived from its first mass transit system. Craig ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From sustran at po.jaring.my Tue Nov 23 12:56:36 1999 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Resource Centre) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:56:36 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: more on Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991123115636.00825530@relay101.jaring.my> Here is a short section from a recent paper of mine ("Transport and Urban Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues", by Paul A. Barter, Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.20, No.1, Spring 1999). It is relevant to this debate over mass transit systems in large low-income and middle-income cities. Paul. --------------------------------------- Low cost strategies in transport and urban development A pro-poor approach to urban transport must inevitably be a low-cost approach. Such a strategy is also compatible with economic efficiency, an emphasis on ecological sustainability and with the creation of highly livable and attractive cities. The successful low-cost strategy of Curitiba in Brazil with its "surface metro" using busways is now well-known (Cervero, 1995; Rabinovitch and Leitmann, 1993). A low-cost, pro-poor approach is also not necessarily a second class transport approach. It is not widely realised that a number of cities that are now quite wealthy but which have successfully retained a high role for public transport (and in some cases also bicycles) actually adopted a low-cost strategy during the early stages of motorisation. Figure 1 illustrates some of the possible development trends in a schematic way. Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen are all cities in which the ownership of private cars was restrained severely for decades beginning when motorisation rates were low. Investment in public transport and road infrastructure were also kept at modest levels until incomes per capita had risen to high levels (Barter, 1999). Even Zurich in wealthy Switzerland has had great success with a relatively low-cost approach to both its public transport and road systems (Taplin, 1992). Few low-income cities can afford mass transit systems such as those now seen in Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong (Allport, 1994). But in fact, Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong began their restraint measures in the 1960s or early 1970s, long before they were able to afford to build mass transit systems. Indeed, it is likely that traffic restraint helped them to keep traffic congestion at bay and to buy time so that they could continue to function successfully with bus-based transport systems and then to eventually provide high quality public transport (Barter, 1999). Although it is not easy to formulate politically acceptable restraint policies that are equitable and that do not unduly damage rural interests and commerce (Foo Tuan Seik, 1995; Spencer and Madhaven, 1989; Tanaboriboon, 1992), but finding such measures needs to be a high priority for low-income and middle-income countries everywhere. Korea's example of very strong restraint of private vehicles throughout the post-war period right up until the mid-1980s may be a particularly useful example to other countries that currently have low-incomes and low motorisation (Barter, 1999; Gakenheimer, 1995). The examples presented here show that restraint of private vehicles offers a way for such cities to buy the time needed for a gradual improvement to public transport. Restraint of private vehicles also reduces the urgency to expand the road system. It seems likely that restraining private vehicle ownership and use, especially in low-income and middle-income cities, will be an important part of a pro-poor transport policy (Linn, 1983; Thomson, 1977). However, mistaken equity arguments are often heard in the debates over such measures and it is vital that these debates be better informed. There is therefore an urgent need for a thorough examination of the equity impacts and the impacts on the poor of various options for transport demand management (TDM) and fuel pricing policies in low-income cities. How the relevant revenues are used is a KEY factor in the equity outcomes. If revenues are used in a progressive manner, lower income and mobility disadvantaged people may benefit overall. If they are dedicated to more road construction, or are rebated to drivers as a group, then they may be regressive (Litman, 1996). ----------------------- References: Allport, R. (1994). Lessons Learnt from Worldwide Experiences of Rail Transit Systems - Implications for Future Policy. In Mass Transit Asia '94 Conference, Hyatt Regency Singapore, 31 May - 1 June. Barter, P. A. (1999) An International Comparative Perspective on Urban Transport and Urban Form in Pacific Asia: Responses to the Challenge of Motorisation in Dense Cities. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Western Australia. Cervero, R. (1995). Creating a Linear City with a Surface Metro: The Story of Curitiba, Brazil (Working Paper 643). National Transit Access Center (NTrac), University of California at Berkeley. Foo Tuan Seik (1995). Economic Instruments and Regulatory Measures for the Demand Management of Urban Transport (Unpublished report for UNCHS in preparation for the Habitat II conference). United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. Gakenheimer, R. (1995). Motorization in the Developing World: A draft Set of Research Concepts. Unpublished report for the World Bank. Linn, J., F. (1983). Cities in Developing Countries: Policies for their Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford: World Bank Research Publication, Oxford University Press. Litman, T. (1996). Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada. Rabinovitch, J. and Leitmann, J. (1993). Environmental Innovation and Management in Curitiba, Brazil (UMP Working Paper 1). Washington, D.C.: Urban Management Programme. Spencer, A. and Madhaven, S. (1989). The Car in Southeast Asia. Transportation Research, 32A(6), 425-37. Tanaboriboon, Y. (1992). An Overview and Future Direction of Transport Demand Management in Asian Metropolises. Regional Development Dialogue, 13(3), 46-70. Taplin, M. (1992). Model system: the Zurich way. Light Rail Review, 3, 5-11. Thomson, J. M. (1977). Great Cities and Their Traffic. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. ----------------------- PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN) P.O. Box 11501, Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia. TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590 E-mail: sustran@po.jaring.my SUSTRAN: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/ The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on Asia and the Pacific. From dhingra at civil.iitb.ernet.in Wed Nov 24 00:04:02 1999 From: dhingra at civil.iitb.ernet.in (Prof S L Dhingra) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:34:02 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991123101959.007a5100@central.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: Craig has given an apt justification for Bangkok Skytrain ,"park n' ride" and it's limitations as it is for the CBD area only. I visited Bangkok during Nov 7-13,99 at the time of Intl Conf 'C& EEC' organised by AIT.My area of interest is coordinated Mass Transit Systems. I could not have a ride of this as it was to be inaugurated by DEc 5. I order to make optimal use of the existing system and to relieve the extreme congestion encountered by one and all ,Iwish to offer the following additional observations/comments : 1.The skytrain is really in the sky meaning at more height than desirable. It is above the pedestrian over-bridges .Hopefully they are providing escalators otherwise the it may less attractive. 2.Pedestrian over-bridges are again at great height. As the experience shows these are never used and pedestrians will continue to cross Sukhumvit Road at their will . 3. From pedstrians view point , subways are the best usable alternative as they have to go down with gravity and lessor headroom ( only manheight headroom)of course , assured security is a pre-requisite.Although it is a costly alternative than the over-bridges. 4. With subways and proper pedestrian railings as well as the skytrain with escalators can mitigate the congestion in CBD to a large extent. 5. I think the metro,under construction by cut and cover method perpendicular to the skytrain and radiating from CBD, will further reduce the congestion . With warm compliments, Sincerely, dhingra On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Craig Townsend wrote: > >I think that the explanation may be that the new mass transit system in > >Bangkok currently does not extend beyond the inner area of the city which > >is densely built up. There is also a danger that by putting park n' ride > >in such dense, mixed land-use locations could possible even reduce > >ridership by reducing the amount of human activity in the vicinity of > >stations. I imagine that Park and ride in Hong Kong would only be in the > >outer New Town areas (please correct me if I am wrong). > > > > I can't comment on the Hong Kong situation, but Paul is correct that > Bangkok Transit System's inner city routes (it runs down the middle of > Bangkok's busiest inner city roads) make park n' ride unfeasible. > Furthermore, I would argue that parking supply should not be increased in > any manner or form in inner city Bangkok. In 1990, parking per 1,000 CBD > workers in Bangkok was 397 spaces. By comparison, in Singapore it was 164, > in Tokyo 43, and in Hong Kong 33. Bangkok's "American levels" of parking > provision have contributed to Bangkok's high private car use and hostile > conditions of the public environment, and in many cases represent a subsidy > from the poor to the rich! Building park n' rides in Bangkok would cancel > out many of the benefits that will be derived from its first mass transit > system. > > Craig > ________________________________________________ > Craig Townsend > Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy > Murdoch University > South Street, Murdoch > Perth, Western Australia 6150 > > tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 > fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 > email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au > From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Nov 24 00:30:55 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:30:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: more on Subway in Jakarta In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991123115636.00825530@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: Of course we all like Curitiba-like approaches. Curitiba is progressive on almost every urban development issue. But what do cities do when it is not possible to get control of the streets? Nothing? Just stay with buses in mixed traffic? Sometimes separte rights-of-way are the only realistic way to improve things. Eric On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, SUSTRAN Resource Centre wrote: > Here is a short section from a recent paper of mine ("Transport and Urban > Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues", by Paul A. > Barter, Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.20, No.1, Spring 1999). It is > relevant to this debate over mass transit systems in large low-income and > middle-income cities. > > Paul. > --------------------------------------- > > Low cost strategies in transport and urban development > > A pro-poor approach to urban transport must inevitably be a low-cost > approach. Such a strategy is also compatible with economic efficiency, an > emphasis on ecological sustainability and with the creation of highly > livable and attractive cities. > > The successful low-cost strategy of Curitiba in Brazil with its "surface > metro" using busways is now well-known (Cervero, 1995; Rabinovitch and > Leitmann, 1993). A low-cost, pro-poor approach is also not necessarily a > second class transport approach. It is not widely realised that a number of > cities that are now quite wealthy but which have successfully retained a > high role for public transport (and in some cases also bicycles) actually > adopted a low-cost strategy during the early stages of motorisation. Figure > 1 illustrates some of the possible development trends in a schematic way. > Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen are all cities in > which the ownership of private cars was restrained severely for decades > beginning when motorisation rates were low. Investment in public transport > and road infrastructure were also kept at modest levels until incomes per > capita had risen to high levels (Barter, 1999). Even Zurich in wealthy > Switzerland has had great success with a relatively low-cost approach to > both its public transport and road systems (Taplin, 1992). > > Few low-income cities can afford mass transit systems such as those now > seen in Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong (Allport, 1994). But in fact, > Singapore, Seoul and Hong Kong began their restraint measures in the 1960s > or early 1970s, long before they were able to afford to build mass transit > systems. Indeed, it is likely that traffic restraint helped them to keep > traffic congestion at bay and to buy time so that they could continue to > function successfully with bus-based transport systems and then to > eventually provide high quality public transport (Barter, 1999). Although > it is not easy to formulate politically acceptable restraint policies that > are equitable and that do not unduly damage rural interests and commerce > (Foo Tuan Seik, 1995; Spencer and Madhaven, 1989; Tanaboriboon, 1992), but > finding such measures needs to be a high priority for low-income and > middle-income countries everywhere. Korea's example of very strong > restraint of private vehicles throughout the post-war period right up until > the mid-1980s may be a particularly useful example to other countries that > currently have low-incomes and low motorisation (Barter, 1999; Gakenheimer, > 1995). The examples presented here show that restraint of private vehicles > offers a way for such cities to buy the time needed for a gradual > improvement to public transport. Restraint of private vehicles also reduces > the urgency to expand the road system. > > It seems likely that restraining private vehicle ownership and use, > especially in low-income and middle-income cities, will be an important > part of a pro-poor transport policy (Linn, 1983; Thomson, 1977). However, > mistaken equity arguments are often heard in the debates over such measures > and it is vital that these debates be better informed. There is therefore > an urgent need for a thorough examination of the equity impacts and the > impacts on the poor of various options for transport demand management > (TDM) and fuel pricing policies in low-income cities. How the relevant > revenues are used is a KEY factor in the equity outcomes. If revenues are > used in a progressive manner, lower income and mobility disadvantaged > people may benefit overall. If they are dedicated to more road > construction, or are rebated to drivers as a group, then they may be > regressive (Litman, 1996). > ----------------------- > > References: > Allport, R. (1994). Lessons Learnt from Worldwide Experiences of Rail > Transit Systems - Implications for Future Policy. In Mass Transit Asia '94 > Conference, Hyatt Regency Singapore, 31 May - 1 June. > > Barter, P. A. (1999) An International Comparative Perspective on Urban > Transport and Urban Form in Pacific Asia: Responses to the Challenge of > Motorisation in Dense Cities. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Western > Australia. > > Cervero, R. (1995). Creating a Linear City with a Surface Metro: The Story > of Curitiba, Brazil (Working Paper 643). National Transit Access Center > (NTrac), University of California at Berkeley. > > Foo Tuan Seik (1995). Economic Instruments and Regulatory Measures for the > Demand Management of Urban Transport (Unpublished report for UNCHS in > preparation for the Habitat II conference). United Nations Centre for Human > Settlements. > > Gakenheimer, R. (1995). Motorization in the Developing World: A draft Set > of Research Concepts. Unpublished report for the World Bank. > > Linn, J., F. (1983). Cities in Developing Countries: Policies for their > Equitable and Efficient Growth. Oxford: World Bank Research Publication, > Oxford University Press. > > Litman, T. (1996). Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport > Policy Institute, Canada. > > Rabinovitch, J. and Leitmann, J. (1993). Environmental Innovation and > Management in Curitiba, Brazil (UMP Working Paper 1). Washington, D.C.: > Urban Management Programme. > > Spencer, A. and Madhaven, S. (1989). The Car in Southeast Asia. > Transportation Research, 32A(6), 425-37. > > Tanaboriboon, Y. (1992). An Overview and Future Direction of Transport > Demand Management in Asian Metropolises. Regional Development Dialogue, > 13(3), 46-70. > > Taplin, M. (1992). Model system: the Zurich way. Light Rail Review, 3, 5-11. > > Thomson, J. M. (1977). Great Cities and Their Traffic. London: Victor > Gollancz Ltd. > ----------------------- > > > PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER > > A. Rahman Paul BARTER > Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN) > P.O. Box 11501, Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia. > TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590 > E-mail: sustran@po.jaring.my > SUSTRAN: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/ > > The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises > people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport > with a focus on Asia and the Pacific. > From mobility at igc.org Tue Nov 23 06:10:35 1999 From: mobility at igc.org (ITDP) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:10:35 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun References: Message-ID: <3839B14A.2780F436@igc.org> Might as well jump into the Jakarta metro fray. The Jakarta Metro is another example of how it is easier to raise $1.2 billion for a project of questionable economic importance than it is to raise $1 million for something that would have as big an impact. The metro project has some problems; its route selection was based on circumstances which no longer hold, it tends to serve the needs of a fairly moderate number of higher income people, etc. That being said, if the proposed Japanese funding comes through, I doubt many governments could (or should) resist such low interest (3%) loans for any project given the level of unemployment in Jakarta. If it leads to clustered development in the long run, maybe it could do some good. There is no question that the money might be better spent. There was a 1990 or 1992 plan for a curitiba-like 'pre-metro' that would give much more of the city coverage for much less money, but it has no political support that I can find. Given that the metro has some political support and potential funding, and is probably not the worst way to waste money. I think the NGOs working on sustainable and equitable transport in Indonesia will probably push to at least make sure that the access trips to this proposed MRT are thought through, and that some interrim bus prioritization plans are pushed through at the same time. Meanwhile, paying a little bit of attention to the 40% of trips made by pedestrians, and the growing population of bicyclists, and the threatened population of becaks, would be nice. Pedestrians have no sidewalks to walk on on 60% of the road network, and destitute bus drivers are burning subsidized kerosene instead of gasoline because its cheaper, filling the city with black smoke. Bajaj drivers are buying polluting very small two-stroke engines. None of the buses can afford spare parts, so they are falling apart. Parking is completely out of control. If Indonesians wish to press ahead with this metro plan using borrowed funds, okay. But let us not hear from the same officials supporting this plan that there is no money these other, more important things, that might actually do something for the mobility of Jakarta's 10 million people before another decade has passed. Best, Walter Hook Eric Bruun wrote: > I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything > about a "universal solution". A few points to consider: > > 1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It > would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths. > > 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes > if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips? > > 3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low > density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently. > The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of > just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding. > > 4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail > lines? > > 5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous > thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public > transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal > security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience > is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are > traveling. > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > > > I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess > > without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we > > usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and > > mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that > > I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive > > (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, > > that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial > > perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico > > city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for > > the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are > > used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility > > than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". > > It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily > > prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate > > also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid > > transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that > > important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the > > example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every > > day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the > > number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than > > buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems > > are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic > > and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their > > implantation. > > > > _________________ > > Paula Negron Poblete > > Universite de Montreal > > Faculte d'Amenagement > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] > > Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta > > > > > > > > I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have > > some general comments. There is always the conflict between the > > long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta > > should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with > > people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be > > adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City > > or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. > > > > Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more > > money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the > > government refuses to take road space and give it to public > > transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. > > We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep > > criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost > > never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests > > that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, > > not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly > > projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that > > benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that > > can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this > > better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably > > yes. > > > > Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise > > fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on > > car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because > > it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to > > be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can > > afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is > > wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > > > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > > > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > > > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > > > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > > > > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise > > ticket > > > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > > > in Jakarta. > > > > > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > > > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > > > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > > > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > > > > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > > > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > > > The University of Melbourne > > > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > > > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > > > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > > > > > -- Access ITDP's New Website: www.ITDP.org The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 115 W. 30th Street - Suite 1205 - New York, NY 10001 - USA tel: (212) 629-8001 fax: (212) 629-8033 From negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA Tue Nov 23 07:59:53 1999 From: negronpp at MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA (Paula Negron Poblete) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:59:53 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun Message-ID: <01BF35A9.3DA175C0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> The problem of transport in large metropolis in developing countries is not only a problem of transport, it's also a matter of poverty. I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything about a "universal solution". A few points to consider: 1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths. The density in a Third World city is very different from the density in a developed country. Just an example, in Mexico city, the slums in the metropolitan area have a very high density, considering that a "house" has approx. 45 square meters with 5 or 6 people living in there. That is a very high density! The density is influenced primary by the capacity of people to access to land. 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips? Unfurtunately, in third world metropolis (at least in latin america), the longer trips are made between the periphery and down town, but they are long not only because long distances, but also because people need to wait long periods of time for a bus. 3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently. The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding. The high level of bus trips or alternative vehicles trips are the reflect of the restricted offer of public transport by the public sector. The so called "informal means of transport" are just the answer to an inefficient "formal means of transport". 4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail lines? 5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are traveling. On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess > without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we > usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and > mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that > I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive > (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, > that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial > perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico > city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for > the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are > used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility > than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". > It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily > prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate > also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid > transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that > important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the > example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every > day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the > number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than > buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems > are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic > and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their > implantation. > > _________________ > Paula Negron Poblete > Universite de Montreal > Faculte d'Amenagement > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] > Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta > > > > I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have > some general comments. There is always the conflict between the > long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta > should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with > people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be > adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City > or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. > > Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more > money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the > government refuses to take road space and give it to public > transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. > We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep > criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost > never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests > that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, > not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly > projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that > benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that > can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this > better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably > yes. > > Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise > fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on > car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because > it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to > be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can > afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is > wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise > ticket > > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > > in Jakarta. > > > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > > > Regards > > > > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > > The University of Melbourne > > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > > > From robertc at uclink.berkeley.edu Wed Nov 24 04:46:53 1999 From: robertc at uclink.berkeley.edu (Rob Cervero) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:46:53 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Curitiba & Jakarta's metro In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19991123115636.00825530@relay101.jaring.my> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19991123114653.00745ab4@uclink4.berkeley.edu> Curitiba's busway has been so successful -- at times a veritable elephant train of double-articulated coaches -- even it is trying to convert some of its bus corridors to rail. As someone who regularly crawled along two-lane Jalan Fatmawati for years, Jakarta's north-south corridor, IMO, is ripe for high-capacity transit. The current traffic mess (particularly bad in the suburbs) is largely a product of unplanned growth. By adding huge increments of new accessibility, a rail line would do as much as anything to channel new growth into efficient, mixed-use settlements, focused around station areas. And waiting in the wings to funnel folks to and from the stations will be the ojek motorcycle-taxis, bajaj three-wheelers, kijang pirate taxis, and maybe even one day again, the becaks. Providing high-capacity trunkline services remains a public-sector responsibility -- no one else can pull this off. And Jakarta's richly endowed informal transport sector has always and will continue to provide vital feeder connectivity to main lines. Such public-private partnerships, as tacit as they are, offer the best hope of mounting respectable public transport services that effectively head off Jakarta's currently dizzying pace of auto-motorization. From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Nov 24 06:05:28 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:05:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Walter's Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun In-Reply-To: <3839B14A.2780F436@igc.org> Message-ID: In my defense, I did say that I do not know the specific alignment in Jakarta. I am not surprised if it happens to serve affluent areas, just like new projects tend to do here in the US. Also, it seems that I was on the mark about there being no support for a Curitiba type system, no matter how much sense it makes. I think the reason is probably simple -- the elite drive their cars and don't want "their" road space given to transit. The same thing is true even in the US. So this puts us back at the original question: is it worthwhile proceeding with these types of projects? One more dimension we haven't mentioned so far is the fact that Metros last indefinitely and will help many future generations, even if they don't address the most urgent needs. New York, Paris, London, Boston folk benefit from something started roughly 100 years ago. Eric On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, ITDP wrote: > Might as well jump into the Jakarta metro fray. > > The Jakarta Metro is another example of how it is easier to raise $1.2 billion > for a project of questionable economic importance than it is to raise $1 million > for something that would have as big an impact. > > The metro project has some problems; its route selection was based on > circumstances which no longer hold, it tends to serve the needs of a fairly > moderate number of higher income people, etc. That being said, if the proposed > Japanese funding comes through, I doubt many governments could (or should) resist > such low interest (3%) loans for any project given the level of unemployment in > Jakarta. If it leads to clustered development in the long run, maybe it could > do some good. > > There is no question that the money might be better spent. There was a 1990 or > 1992 plan for a curitiba-like 'pre-metro' that would give much more of the city > coverage for much less money, but it has no political support that I can find. > > Given that the metro has some political support and potential funding, and is > probably not the worst way to waste money. I think the NGOs working on > sustainable and equitable transport in Indonesia will probably push to at least > make sure that the access trips to this proposed MRT are thought through, and > that some interrim bus prioritization plans are pushed through at the same time. > > Meanwhile, paying a little bit of attention to the 40% of trips made by > pedestrians, and the growing population of bicyclists, and the threatened > population of becaks, would be nice. Pedestrians have no sidewalks to walk on > on 60% of the road network, and destitute bus drivers are burning subsidized > kerosene instead of gasoline because its cheaper, filling the city with black > smoke. Bajaj drivers are buying polluting very small two-stroke engines. None > of the buses can afford spare parts, so they are falling apart. Parking is > completely out of control. > > If Indonesians wish to press ahead with this metro plan using borrowed funds, > okay. But let us not hear from the same officials supporting this plan that > there is no money these other, more important things, that might actually do > something for the mobility of Jakarta's 10 million people before another decade > has passed. > > Best, > Walter Hook > > Eric Bruun wrote: > > > I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything > > about a "universal solution". A few points to consider: > > > > 1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It > > would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths. > > > > 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes > > if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips? > > > > 3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low > > density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently. > > The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of > > just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding. > > > > 4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail > > lines? > > > > 5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous > > thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public > > transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal > > security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience > > is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are > > traveling. > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > > > > > I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total mess > > > without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we > > > usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and > > > mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by that > > > I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very expensive > > > (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per kilometer, > > > that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial > > > perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of Mexico > > > city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed for > > > the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars are > > > used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility > > > than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". > > > It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily > > > prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate > > > also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid > > > transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that > > > important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the > > > example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every > > > day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the > > > number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than > > > buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems > > > are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic > > > and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy their > > > implantation. > > > > > > _________________ > > > Paula Negron Poblete > > > Universite de Montreal > > > Faculte d'Amenagement > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] > > > Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 > > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta > > > > > > > > > > > > I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have > > > some general comments. There is always the conflict between the > > > long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta > > > should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with > > > people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be > > > adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City > > > or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. > > > > > > Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more > > > money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the > > > government refuses to take road space and give it to public > > > transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. > > > We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep > > > criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost > > > never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests > > > that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, > > > not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly > > > projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that > > > benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that > > > can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this > > > better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably > > > yes. > > > > > > Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise > > > fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on > > > car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because > > > it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to > > > be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can > > > afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is > > > wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. Fatmawati > > > > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > > > > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > > > > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also Southern > > > > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > > > > > > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise > > > ticket > > > > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT (Becak) > > > > in Jakarta. > > > > > > > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits of > > > > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > > > > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > > > > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > > > > > > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > > > > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > > > > The University of Melbourne > > > > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > > > > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > > > > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Access ITDP's New Website: www.ITDP.org > The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > 115 W. 30th Street - Suite 1205 - New York, NY 10001 - USA > tel: (212) 629-8001 fax: (212) 629-8033 > > > > From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Nov 24 06:19:44 1999 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:19:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] More on Comments about the reply of Eric Bruun In-Reply-To: <01BF35A9.3DA175C0.negronpp@magellan.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: Paula, et. al: In truth, I don't really have strong feelings about the Jakarta project. I am somewhat being a devil's advocate because we hear so much about how little rail transit does, and not enough about the upsides. I guess I also realize that many slums are actually very dense, but my implicit assumption is that these are not permanent and are not really woven into a grand scheme of development that includes limiting ad-hoc development on a perimeter. My use of the word "density" is sloppy as I really mean limiting sprawl. Making the big assumption that there will be a development scheme, rail can be very helpful. With that I will butt out. Eric On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > The problem of transport in large metropolis in developing countries is not > only a problem of transport, it's also a matter of poverty. > > > I can't disagree with many of your points, but I never said anything > about a "universal solution". A few points to consider: > > 1) How densely could the city be developed without rapid transit? It > would have to sprawl further making even longer trip lengths. > The density in a Third World city is very different from the density in a > developed country. Just an example, in Mexico city, the slums in the > metropolitan area have a very high density, considering that a "house" has > approx. 45 square meters with 5 or 6 people living in there. That is a very > high density! The density is influenced primary by the capacity of people > to access to land. > > > 2) How many bus trips would be extended into extremely long commutes > if there wasn't an alternative to make longer trips? > Unfurtunately, in third world metropolis (at least in latin america), the > longer trips are made between the periphery and down town, but they are > long not only because long distances, but also because people need to wait > long periods of time for a bus. > > 3) Many of the bus trips are to the edge slums that are of very low > density. Rail can be useful to develop these places more efficiently. > The extremely high level of bus trips is, to me, an indication of > just how fast the perimeter of the city is expanding. > The high level of bus trips or alternative vehicles trips are the reflect > of the restricted offer of public transport by the public sector. The so > called "informal means of transport" are just the answer to an inefficient > "formal means of transport". > > 4) What would congestion be like for buses if there were no rail > lines? > > 5) I think that safety is not higher in autos. The most hazardous > thing is to be a pedestrian, auto is better, but riding on rail public > transport is probably the safest way to travel there is... Personal > security from robbery, yes, the auto is better perhaps. Convenience > is not always better with autos, it depends where and when you are > traveling. > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Paula Negron Poblete wrote: > > > I agree with Eric about the fact that large metropolis will be a total > mess > > without rapid transit networks, but I also point out the fact that we > > usually see in those systmes the "universal solution" to congestion and > > mobility problems. I think we need to keep our feets on the ground, by > that > > I mean that we can't reject the fact that those systems are very > expensive > > (the subway in Mexico city has a cost around 60 million USD per > kilometer, > > that means 2 stations only!). Imagine what would it be, from a financial > > perspective, to implant a network in a city (in the specific case of > Mexico > > city, the subway was set up in the 70's and the government hasn't payed > for > > the whole network yet). Beside that, we can't forget that private cars > are > > used not only because they offer more confort, security and flexibility > > than public transport, they are also the reflect of a need of "status". > > It's very nice to pretend than people who can afford cars will easily > > prefer to use rapid transit networks, but I think we need to concentrate > > also in the social reasons of their use. Concerning the role that rapid > > transit network plays in big metropolis in the Third World, it's not that > > important, if we compare with other means of transport. If I take the > > example of Mexico city, around 4 million travels are made by subway every > > day, but more than 16 million are made by buses and minibuses, and the > > number is rising. Even if rapid tansit networks can move more people than > > buses on a passenger per vehicle basis, the reality is that those systems > > are not only very expensive, but we also need to consider the topographic > > and geological caracteristics of the city, wich not always make easy > their > > implantation. > > > > _________________ > > Paula Negron Poblete > > Universite de Montreal > > Faculte d'Amenagement > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Bruun [SMTP:ebruun@rci.rutgers.edu] > > Sent: 19 novembre, 1999 13:07 > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Subway in Jakarta > > > > > > > > I know nothing about the specifics of the project, but I have > > some general comments. There is always the conflict between the > > long term and short term. Surely a city the size of Jakarta > > should eventually have a rapid transit system. I don't agree with > > people who say that buses and private services like becaks will be > > adequate for the forseeable future. Imagine what Mexico City > > or Sao Paolo would be like without rapid transit networks. > > > > Perhaps the pace of construction should be slowed down and more > > money put into bus lanes, signal priority etc., But if the > > government refuses to take road space and give it to public > > transport, then expensive grade-separated systems are a must. > > We actually have this problem even in the US -- the people who keep > > criticizing grade-separated transit as too expensive are almost > > never to be found when support is needed for bus lanes, which suggests > > that their real agenda is to stop public spending or promote autos, > > not improve mobility or livability. We end up with relatively costly > > projects with high levels of grade separation, and generally ones that > > benefit upper middle class suburbs most, because these are the ones that > > can get political and financial supports. The question is: is this > > better than doing nothing? In really big cities the answer is probably > > yes. > > > > Easier said than done, but rather than forcing operators to raise > > fares to survive, public transport fares should be subsidized by taxes on > > car and truck users. I understand that the new Bangkok Metro, because > > it is supposed to be commercially viable, has fares so high as to > > be unaffordable to most of the population. So the people that can > > afford to drive will be the ones using the rail system. What is > > wrong with this picture? Eric Bruun > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jachrizal Sumabrata wrote: > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > The 15 kms project worth US$ 1,5 billion, which starts from Jl. > Fatmawati > > > in South Jakarta up to the Kota in North Jakarta, will continue its > > > construction in 2000. It appears that it is an inappropriate ambitious > > > project, not only because the crisis is still underway, but also > Southern > > > part of Jakarta is a highly controlled area. > > > > > > In addition, at the moment bus operators are still wishing to raise > > ticket > > > prices, while urban poverty is still struggling to operate an NMT > (Becak) > > > in Jakarta. > > > > > > In relation to these problems, it may be argued that focus of benefits > of > > > transport investment was insufficiently assumed through its effect on > > > economic growth only as in the past. More importantly, transport > > > improvements should be also an instrument of proverty reduction. > > > > > > I am looking forward to your responds regarding this matter. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Jachrizal Sumabrata > > > Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning > > > The University of Melbourne > > > Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia > > > Telephone, +61 3 9344 9863 > > > Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 > > > > > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Thu Nov 25 02:32:47 1999 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:32:47 -0800 Subject: [sustran] buses in BKK & HCMC Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991124093247.0079d100@central.murdoch.edu.au> WB loan for bus agency turned down BANGKOK, Nov 21 Bangkok Post - Transport and Communications Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has rejected a World Bank loan offer of $5 million for the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority to conduct a study on privatisation, reasoning that the agency is already heavily indebted. Yanyong Kurowat, the BMTA director, said Mr Suthep, is chairman of a committee on the establishment of an organisation to control and supervise privatisation of the city bus agency. Since the government is conducting a study on the establishment of a central organisation to supervise all modes of land transport, the BMTA had proposed that the Transport and Communications Ministry seek a grant from the World Bank for this purpose instead, Mr Yanyong said. The BMTA's problems include its inability to collect 70-80 million baht debt from operators of about 2,000 buses under franchise contracts. Thonburi Prakorbyon Co, which operates airport buses, is also 2.9 million baht in debt with the BMTA as it is operating at a loss. The company, however, can still remain in operation because its has its own buses and repair garages. Moreover, it has 13 more years to go under a 15-year contract. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Ho Chi Minh City Plan Aims to Get People Back on the Buses HANOI, Nov 23 Asia Pulse - In an attempt to ease traffic congestion, cut pollution and reduce the number of accidents on the roads, Ho Chi Minh City's public transport plans to refurbish dilapidated vehicles to encourage people to use public transport. As the city's roads become more hazardous and congested transport authorities say they plan to increase the use of buses from five per cent of the population to 30 per cent in the next few years.Nearly 1,000 tri-wheeled Lambrettas will be changed into mini-buses and 700 large buses converted to 1,700 medium-sized buses. A new fleet of 12-25 seater vehicles will also help improve traffic flow. France's RATP bus company will set up a joint venture with 100-seater buses travelling four routes. Officials say buses are unpopular because they are old and uncomfortable, with some having been in operation for 25 years. The city has now 500 buses plying more than 30 routes. It is estimated that only 120 buses being run by the Saigon Star and Saigon passenger bus companies are up-to-date. Local people's preference for private transport - there are more than two million motorbikes in the city - has also contributed to the inefficiency of the public bus system. But to encourage more use of public transport, authorities have proposed that those who own buses and cars used for public travel be given tax breaks and preferential interest rate bank loans to renovate their old vehicles. They will also be encouraged to use 12 seater vehicles suited to the city's streets. (VNA) ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From ajain at kcrc.com Wed Nov 24 15:00:27 1999 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:00:27 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: In Hong Kong, Park'n'ride is planned not only in new towns but also in urban fringes. I never thought that PnR in Bangkok should be at all staions but at the end stations it certainly is a good idea. I am not very familiar with the alignment (I left the city before they started the construction) but if I remember correctly the alignment ends at Morchit and Onnui which as I recall are not central urban areas. They are urban fringes and can certainly provide an opportunity to reduce congestion in central areas. Alok Jain Hong Kong -----Original Message----- From: SUSTRAN Resource Centre [mailto:sustran@po.jaring.my] Sent: November 22, 1999 3:47 PM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') At 14:53 22/11/99 +0800, Alok Jain wrote: >Surprised to hear that "Park & ride" is considered impractical and >unfeasible in Bangkok because of "high cost of land and parking". In Hong >Kong, where the land and cost of parking is much dearer (I think this is >undisputed) Government is actively pushing for Park-n-ride as a means to >reduce urban congestion. I think that the explanation may be that the new mass transit system in Bangkok currently does not extend beyond the inner area of the city which is densely built up. There is also a danger that by putting park n' ride in such dense, mixed land-use locations could possible even reduce ridership by reducing the amount of human activity in the vicinity of stations. I imagine that Park and ride in Hong Kong would only be in the outer New Town areas (please correct me if I am wrong). Paul PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN) P.O. Box 11501, Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia. TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590 E-mail: sustran@po.jaring.my SUSTRAN: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS: http://www.egroups.com/group/sustran-discuss/ The SUSTRAN network promotes and popularises people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on Asia and the Pacific. From ajain at kcrc.com Wed Nov 24 16:00:03 1999 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:00:03 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: Craig, The point you note is indeed a valid one but you have to consider the peculiar characteristics of Bangkok "CBD" where the landuse is not categorically defined. First of all, tell me what is considered as CBD of Bangkok - Silom area or Sukhumvit area? I did some work few years ago as a part of my masters thesis and used Silom as CBD (a number of people differed in opinion). Both Silom and Sukhumvit has a high level of residential landuse unlike Hong Kong and Singapore (I guess Tokyo too). This is one of the reasons why parking ratios are higher in Bangkok CBD. High car ownership does not necessarily mean higher level of car travel. Car ownership is a reflection of affluence, nothing else but car travel is certainly an issue which affecting sustainability of transport systems. Again, I somehow do not agree that providing car parking in private developments (most of the parking in question, I think) represent subsidy from poor to the rich because if it were not car parking it would have been something else (of course not for the welfare of the poor). The investment in roads can be viewed like this. Providing high degree of car parking can just be a waste of useful resources and uneconomic activity. Having said all this (which is for the sake of arguments), I personally think a lot needs to be done to manage the travel demand in Bangkok. This transit system is just the beginning. Alok Jain Hong Kong -----Original Message----- From: Craig Townsend [mailto:townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au] Sent: November 24, 1999 2:20 AM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') >I think that the explanation may be that the new mass transit system in >Bangkok currently does not extend beyond the inner area of the city which >is densely built up. There is also a danger that by putting park n' ride >in such dense, mixed land-use locations could possible even reduce >ridership by reducing the amount of human activity in the vicinity of >stations. I imagine that Park and ride in Hong Kong would only be in the >outer New Town areas (please correct me if I am wrong). > I can't comment on the Hong Kong situation, but Paul is correct that Bangkok Transit System's inner city routes (it runs down the middle of Bangkok's busiest inner city roads) make park n' ride unfeasible. Furthermore, I would argue that parking supply should not be increased in any manner or form in inner city Bangkok. In 1990, parking per 1,000 CBD workers in Bangkok was 397 spaces. By comparison, in Singapore it was 164, in Tokyo 43, and in Hong Kong 33. Bangkok's "American levels" of parking provision have contributed to Bangkok's high private car use and hostile conditions of the public environment, and in many cases represent a subsidy from the poor to the rich! Building park n' rides in Bangkok would cancel out many of the benefits that will be derived from its first mass transit system. Craig ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From tjb at pc.jaring.my Wed Nov 24 20:35:18 1999 From: tjb at pc.jaring.my (tjb) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:35:18 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') References: Message-ID: <005101bf3670$2d3be400$7bf1fea9@p350> >From my own visit around that time: the extreme height is in part to clear the elevated highways. Having the pedestian bridges under the LRT is actually helpful, as pedestrians have to climb less far. The preferred option would be to incorporate pedestian crossings with stations, but the complexity of separating paid and unpaid side persons makes this difficult - also privatised systems are not driven to concern themselves about the needs of pedestrians not paying for a ride! And yes, escalators are being installed. The broader solution in my view is to give up the street level to vehicles and move all pedestians to the upper level in some of the large existing urban areas. This was the concept developed last year for Kuala Lumpur to provide an enclosed airconditioned elevated walkway covering the whole central area (a total of 52km of walkway) and thus providing the final link from public transport to final destination. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Barry Barry H S Sdn Bhd Transit Systems www.evalueco.com/barryhs ----- Original Message ----- From: Prof S L Dhingra To: Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:04 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') > Craig has given an apt justification for Bangkok Skytrain ,"park n' > ride" and it's limitations as it is for the CBD area only. > I visited Bangkok during Nov 7-13,99 at the time of Intl Conf 'C& EEC' > organised by AIT.My area of interest is coordinated Mass Transit Systems. > I could not have a ride of this as it was to be inaugurated by DEc 5. > I order to make optimal use of the existing system and to relieve the > extreme congestion encountered by one and all ,Iwish to offer the > following additional observations/comments : > > 1.The skytrain is really in the sky meaning at more height than desirable. > > It is above the pedestrian over-bridges .Hopefully they are providing > escalators otherwise the it may less > attractive. > 2.Pedestrian over-bridges are again at great height. As the experience > shows these are never used and pedestrians will continue to cross > Sukhumvit Road at their will . > 3. From pedstrians view point , subways are the best usable alternative > as they have to go down with gravity and lessor headroom ( only manheight > headroom)of course , assured security is a pre-requisite.Although it is a > costly alternative than the over-bridges. > 4. With subways and proper pedestrian railings as well as the skytrain > with escalators can mitigate the congestion in CBD to a large extent. > 5. I think the metro,under construction by cut and cover method > perpendicular to the skytrain and radiating from CBD, will further reduce > the congestion . > > > With warm compliments, > Sincerely, > dhingra > From mobility at igc.org Thu Nov 25 08:06:49 1999 From: mobility at igc.org (ITDP) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:06:49 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Becak Attack Action Alert Message-ID: <383C6F88.7D875191@igc.org> TO: Sustran Members,Aseed Members, etc. From: Walter Hook, ITDP, Michael Replogle, EDF Re: New Attack on Cycle Rickshaws in Indonesia We urge you to take action by faxing the below letter to President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia (fax # 62-21-348-4004) and to Governor Sutiyoso (62-21-384-8653). An emergency situation has arisen in Jakarta, Indonesia which could have lasting environmental and social consequences. Despite our collective hopes that the new government of Abdurrahman Wahid, known as Gus Dur, would support the lifting of Bylaw No. 11/1988 which banned the operation of non-polluting cycle rickshaws, or becaks, from Jakarta's streets, he and the Governor of Jakarta have called on the City Council to maintain the ban on cycle rickshaws, and to begin a crackdown on the over 8000 cycle rickshaws estimated to be operating there. The crackdown is to begin at once, and we need your help immediately to avoid this confrontation. Before the ban was imposed in 1988, there were well over 100,000 becaks operating in Jakarta, providing jobs for poor people and low cost taxi services in low and moderate income areas which generated no pollution. With the imposition of the ban, an estimated 40,000 cycle rickshaws were dumped into the Jakarta bay, and cycle rickshaws disappeared from Jakarta's streets, forcing people to take highly polluting and more expensive motorcycle taxis (ojeks) or motorcycle rickshaws (bajaj) instead. The confiscation of the becaks from their owners took away from the poor their most valuable, and often their only asset, and drove them into poverty. With the recent political changes, since July of 1998, the ban was not being enforced by Governor Sutiyoso, as he recognized the important role that these cycle rickshaws play in both generating employment among the poor and meeting basic mobility needs, particularly for women, in low and moderate income neighborhoods, while generating no greenhouse gases or pollution. An estimated 8000 cycle rickshaws have returned to Jakarta's streets with the easing of enforcement, but their status remained officially illegal as the Regional Parliament at that time refused to lift the ban, Bylaw No. 11/1988. Led by the Urban Poor Consortium, with support from LPIST, YLKI, LBH, and other environmental and social justice organizations, there was hope that the new government of Abdurrahman Wahid would support the repeal of Bylaw 11/1988. Megawati Sukarnoputri, currently the Vice President, had been thought to support the repeal of the law. To everyone's surprise, at a rally of 5000 supporters of the cycle rickshaws, President Abdurrahman Wahid defended the ban on pedicabs, and together with Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso called on the City Council not to revoke the law. "The ban on becak operating in the city was indeed meant as a measure to eradicate poverty," he said. "Jakarta is the capital city. It is not supposed to have becak on its streets anymore." While the President did call on authorities to create new jobs for the pedicab drivers, details on the alternative jobs were vague, and many were encouraged to participate in the government's controversial 'transmigration program.' We urge you to sign and send the following letter. Hon. President Abdurrahman Wahid, Governor Sutiyoso Dear President Abdurrahman Wahid, The world looks to your new Presidency with tremendous hope for a more democratic, free, and environmentally friendly Indonesia. We appreciate your long held concern for Indonesia's poor. However, we are greatly upset by your recent pronouncement calling for the continuation of the ban on cycle rickshaws, or becaks. While you have said that "the ban on becak operation in the city was indeed meant as a measure to eradicate poverty," in fact it has had the opposite effect, taking away jobs and assets from thousands of Jakarta's poor. Furthermore, women in particular depend on the becak for short trips in their neighborhoods, and do not like the cost, noise, pollution, and inconvenience of the only alternatives available to them, the 'ojek', which is also illegal, and the 'bajaj', which is highly polluting and noisy. It is the general consensus of the international transportation planning community that becaks also play a particularly important role as a feeder system to the public transportation system. While you no doubt feel that the cycle rickshaw is 'backward' and associated with 'exploitation,' interviews with cycle rickshaw drivers themselves indicate that this work is preferable to them to other forms of employment available to them. Furthermore, far from being backward, there are now cycle rickshaws operating in over 50 major cities around the world, including New York City, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Prague, Krakow, Mexico City, and Manila. Most cities, including New York, are encouraging their use as a pollution-mitigation measure. Given that the UN recently found Jakarta one of the three most polluted cities in the world, we feel that forcing passengers to rely on alternative, generally highly polluting modes of transportation is ill-advised. Recently, air pollution in Jakarta has gotten worse, as the bus fleets are aging due to lack of spare parts. Children in particular roblems of chronic respiratory illness and learning disabilities as a result of the toxic air emissions levels. Given the severe air pollution and continued unemployment, we implore you to reverse your decision to begin the draconian enforcement of Bylaw 11/1988, and instead hope you will urge the Jakarta City Council to repeal Bylaw 11/1988. Sincerely (your name). -- Access ITDP's New Website: www.ITDP.org The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 115 W. 30th Street - Suite 1205 - New York, NY 10001 - USA tel: (212) 629-8001 fax: (212) 629-8033 From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Fri Nov 26 03:58:44 1999 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:58:44 -0800 Subject: [sustran] [sustran] Re: Bangkok Transit System ('Skytrain') Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991125105844.00797910@central.murdoch.edu.au> Alok, >The point you note is indeed a valid one but you have to consider the >peculiar characteristics of Bangkok "CBD" where the landuse is not >categorically defined. First of all, tell me what is considered as CBD of >Bangkok - Silom area or Sukhumvit area? I did some work few years ago as a >part of my masters thesis and used Silom as CBD (a number of people >differed in opinion). Both Silom and Sukhumvit has a high level of residential >landuse unlike Hong Kong and Singapore (I guess Tokyo too). This is one of >the reasons why parking ratios are higher in Bangkok CBD. High car >ownership does not necessarily mean higher level of car travel. Car ownership is a >reflection of affluence, nothing else but car travel is certainly an issue >which affecting sustainability of transport systems. I do agree that definitions of "CBD" in Bangkok are problematic. The definition of Bangkok's CBD used for those 1990 parking figures was comprised of five districts: Phra Nakhon, Pom Prap Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong, Bang Rak (Silom area), and Pathum Wan. I believe an updated definition (in fact, the location of "CBD activities" continues to shift and expand rapidly) is needed and should include Ratchathewi, Khlong Toei (Sukhumvit), and Sathon districts. However, I suspect that those additional districts would include an even higher level of parking, so I'm not sure it would help your argument. Furthermore, I would suggest that in Bangkok car ownership (which is substantially higher than in wealthier cities like Hong Kong, Seoul & Singapore) reflects more than just level of affluence. >In Hong Kong, Park'n'ride is planned not only in new towns but also in >urban fringes. > >I never thought that PnR in Bangkok should be at all staions but at the end >stations it certainly is a good idea. I am not very familiar with the >alignment (I left the city before they started the construction) but if I >remember correctly the alignment ends at Morchit and Onnui which as I >recall are not central urban areas. They are urban fringes and can certainly >provide an opportunity to reduce congestion in central areas. I don't think I would classify Morchit as "urban fringe" (I would call it a middle suburb but that's open to interpretation), but that is where the one line terminates and I will concede that providing PnR at that location may be feasible. If the lines are actually extended further as is currently planned, the opportunities for providing PnR facilities will increase. However, I'm still not convinced that PnR is necessarily a good idea in Bangkok, where people have a remarkable tolerance for long commutes and a PnR may just encourage more sprawl and a greater shift toward private automobiles. Best wishes, Craig ________________________________________________ Craig Townsend Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch Perth, Western Australia 6150 tel: (61 8) 9360 6293 fax: (61 8) 9360 6421 email: townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au From halubis at trans.si.itb.ac.id Thu Nov 25 14:27:30 1999 From: halubis at trans.si.itb.ac.id (Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:27:30 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Curitiba & Jakarta's metro Message-ID: <001501bf3705$c557e820$1102cda7@harun.si.itb.ac.id> Who said, Go commitment from the government of Indonesia has been positive for subway in Jakarta ? The last time, say few month ago, through the Miyazawa plan (Japanese $$ assistance), the plan official echoed the options "take it now" or "never" for Jakarta subway. Noted that at least 70% things are going to fly back to Tokyo, plus the uncertainty of tariff affordability to maintain at least 55%-60% fairbox ratio, and couple with no guarantee what sources to be channelised for rest 40%. Uch... Wait.... wait... For sure Indonesia are still struggling to sosialise more extensive urban pricing sources and mechanism, and for transport itself it is still very simplictic and conventional. Study on road user tax to impose axle factor in annual license or registration of vehicle is yet to be sosialised, though, the study done 5 years ago. Public transport ? What you see out the window is a small top of the iceberg in the ocean. Fundamental system is not yet there. This harm any technical or fiscal advocacy to improve public transport performance. Market growth for this pity and forgetful public service or obligation is very much relying on the natural growth of population as the potential user. No room and hope from operator for attracting switch from the car users. See what happen at big terminal of public transport in Kampung Rambutan, as a relocation of the old Cililitan. >From technical reason is no reason what it become as chaotic as in old Cililitan, even more during this hard time of financial crisis where unemployed rates is unimaginable. You can just ask your cousin from another village, giving him some small capital and set up a very small bisniss, with no exit entry cost !!!!! You just simply stand a stick and tie umbrella and lay your stuff in bus terminal, and along the sidewalk approaching the terminal. Institutional planning framework is still not there. Public institutions are very much having theirown objective functions, hopefull could dominate. No where and not yet, in the city, parking control could be an instrument for transport policy. Even the price of chilies can not be controlled, especially, when a rainy day or flood comes. Within the new cabinet, now it seems to me, it is going to be even more tougher to speak of integrated planning and implementation, as more ministries have been set up, noticing they are very much link with tranposrt issues. We are just going to wait, if old government had a decree of three ministries to deal with one issue of transport and still not working...., may next week we heard of four of five ministries decree. Hopefully, I was wrong !! Harun al-Rasyid S. Lubis http://trans.si.itb.ac.id Traffic Lab, Transport Engineering Division Dept. of Civil Engineering - ITB Jl. Ganeca 10 Bandung 40132 - Indonesia Tel/Facs. +62 22 250 23 50 halubis@trans.si.itb.ac.id From rajatr at civil.iitb.ernet.in Thu Nov 25 15:15:14 1999 From: rajatr at civil.iitb.ernet.in (Rajat Rastogi 98404302) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 11:45:14 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Becak Attack Action Alert In-Reply-To: <383C6F88.7D875191@igc.org> Message-ID: Hon. President Abdurrahman Wahid, Governor Sutiyoso Dear President Abdurrahman Wahid, The world looks to your new Presidency with tremendous hope for a more democratic, free, and environmentally friendly Indonesia. We appreciate your long held concern for Indonesia's poor. However, we are greatly upset by your recent pronouncement calling for the continuation of the ban on cycle rickshaws, or becaks. While you have said that "the ban on becak operation in the city was indeed meant as a measure to eradicate poverty," in fact it has had the opposite effect, taking away jobs and assets from thousands of Jakarta's poor. Furthermore, women in particular depend on the becak for short trips in their neighborhoods, and do not like the cost, noise, pollution, and inconvenience of the only alternatives available to them, the 'ojek', which is also illegal, and the 'bajaj', which is highly polluting and noisy. It is the general consensus of the international transportation planning community that becaks also play a particularly important role as a feeder system to the public transportation system. While you no doubt feel that the cycle rickshaw is 'backward' and associated with 'exploitation,' interviews with cycle rickshaw drivers themselves indicate that this work is preferable to them to other forms of employment available to them. Furthermore, far from being backward, there are now cycle rickshaws operating in over 50 major cities around the world, including New York City, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Prague, Krakow, Mexico City, and Manila. Most cities, including New York, are encouraging their use as a pollution-mitigation measure. Given that the UN recently found Jakarta one of the three most polluted cities in the world, we feel that forcing passengers to rely on alternative, generally highly polluting modes of transportation is ill-advised. Recently, air pollution in Jakarta has gotten worse, as the bus fleets are aging due to lack of spare parts. Children in particular roblems of chronic respiratory illness and learning disabilities as a result of the toxic air emissions levels. Given the severe air pollution and continued unemployment, we implore you to reverse your decision to begin the draconian enforcement of Bylaw 11/1988, and instead hope you will urge the Jakarta City Council to repeal Bylaw 11/1988. Sincerely Rajat Rastogi Research Scholar Transportation Systems Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Powai, MUMBAI - 400 076, INDIA. E Mail: rajatr@gemini.civil.iitb.ernet.in Working Area: Non Motorised Modes promotion and integration for accessing transit (Sub Urban Rail) in Mumbai. __________________________________________________________________________ WALKING AND BICYCLING MAKES YOU ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY __________________________________________________________________________ From kerry.wood at paradise.net.nz Thu Nov 25 15:55:56 1999 From: kerry.wood at paradise.net.nz (Kerry Wood) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:55:56 +1300 Subject: [sustran] Still more on Jakarta and other places References: Message-ID: <383CDD79.2FEC8497@paradise.net.nz> Hello everybody Coming back to the last exchange but three, Eric Bruun wrote: > Of course we all like Curitiba-like approaches. Curitiba is progressive > on almost every urban development issue. But what do cities do when > it is not possible to get control of the streets? Nothing? Just stay > with buses in mixed traffic? Sometimes separte rights-of-way are the only > realistic way to improve things. Eric And Curitiba has very wide streets. Obviously there is no all-purpose solution - the answers will depend on what is there now, topography, density, culture (no-go areas for public transport?), climate and perhaps wealth above all. And what is sexy enough to justify a loan. A range of fashionable and not-so fashionable options can be broadly graded, then mixed-and-matched to put together an appropriate public transport system. In a rough order of increasing cost and capacity they are: 1 Plain old buses (POB) Boring but effective. Vuchic found that US cities with light rail have more passengers on the buses ALONE than cities without light rail. Can be slow and unreliable if delayed by congestion. 2 POB + bus lanes More effective but still boring. May be barely more effective if the bus lanes are in the places where they are easily fitted in, which are usually not the places where they are most needed. 3 POB + bus lanes + priority + integration GPS positioning linked to traffic signals, plus timekeeping feedback to the driver. Traffic signal priority may be barely perceptible or near-absolute - the higher the better. Zurich has achieved 95% within plus 30 to minus 90 seconds, for both buses and trams, but I suspect it doesn't have to be quite that good. Integration of ticketing and timetables plus keeping to the timetable so that the inevitable interchanges work well. Avoiding interchanges because people don't like them is probably counter-productive. Priority may be practical even if a street is too narrow for exclusive public transport space, by controlling traffic entry to the bottleneck at a rate low enough to ensure reasonably free-flow conditions, and providing for public transport to bypass the approach queue and go straight into the bottleneck. Another approach is to just exclude other motorised traffic, as has been done for Leidsestraat in Amsterdam (shopping street, width about 10 m, used by a single track tramway with passing bays on the canal bridges. Commercial delivberies are made before 10.00). Capacity may be an issue, for either the bus route or for other traffic crossing it. Or both. If traffic signals work on a 90 second cycle and the route is used by 60 buses an hour, that is one or two buses each way on each cycle. More if there is bunching but bunching indicates bad timekeeping. With full priority this may use as much cycle time as can be spared - especially if two priority routes cross. If this is the case the route capacity is say 60 buses x 50 people = 3000 passengers/hour, or say 4000 pass/h for bendy buses. Some routes manage much more: Gardner (A study of high capacity busways in developing cities, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport - August 1992) quotes over 20 000 pass/h, but this needs a lot of priority at junctions and a lot of width at stops. Route lengths quoted are 1.3 - 9.5 km, so these are not whole systems. 4 Light rail A modern system is likely to have a high priority and to be mostly segregated or semi-segregated, but at the basic level this is just option 3 with bigger vehicles. Capacity say 40 trams/h carrying say 400 passengers each, or 16 000 pass/h. Capacity can be increased to perhaps 60 trams/hr with grade separation at most or all junctions, and vehicle capacity can be increased to perhaps 600. The limit here is as much vehicle length as how many people can squeeze in - the vehicles cannot be longer than a central city city block. For poorer cities, there is the option of second-hand vehicles, or maybe new vehicles built locally to an older design. Minimum capacity of the busiest section (set by costs) is around 2000-5000 pass/h, depending on the number of bells and whistles. Critics tend to see light rail as very expensive but a good busway is not a lot cheaper. Light rail is sexier, but I suspect the real advantages are a bit more subtle: - Bigger vehicles mean longer headways, so higher capacity than a busway can be reached without interfering too much with cross traffic and without needing very expensive grade separation. - Longer headways mean that a vehicle can obstruct the route at a stop, so less width is needed than for a busway with the same capacity. The difference is about one traffic lane. For a tight squeeze the tracks can be interlaced to make a short section effectively single track. A 100 m length makes very little difference to operations if the headway is more than 2-3 minutes. - The rails obviously have to be continuous, reducing the political pressure to compromise (surely the buses can just join the traffic stream here...). - A completely predictable path means safer operation in pedestrian areas. - Smooth acceleration and braking,, and low acceleration forces when cornering, mean that having passengers stand is much more acceptable than in a bus. Passengers often stand when seats are available. This allows more space to be given to standing passengers, which increases capacity and allows faster boarding. 5 Everything else Separate rights of way, in the sky, below ground, on an old railway, wherever. Choose your technology (including the fancier forms of light rail) and squeeze it in where you can. Sorry, no more cheap solutions. Getting control of the streets is the key bit, but it doesn't have to be done all at once, and it helps when you realise that traffic will adjust to capacity reductions - at least within limits - as well as capacity increases. Average commuting times in London have apparently been reasonably stable for six centuries. Where Jakarta fits on all this I have no idea. Obviously it is Option 5. I hope it is a good solution for tthe local conditions. -- Kerry Wood MICE MIPENZ MCIT Transport Consultant 1 McFarlane Street, Wellington 6001, New Zealand Phone + 64 4 971 5549 From Berger at de-consult.de Thu Nov 25 17:16:45 1999 From: Berger at de-consult.de (Berger, Arnim) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:16:45 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Transportation Model in dev. countries Message-ID: Dear Sirs, I am engaged in a review of transportation modelling practice for transportation projects in developing countries (feasibility studies, economic and financial analysis of transport infrastructure...). Transportation models for projects in developing countries are often built differently from transportation models for developed countries due to the very limited available data base and special transportation considerations. I would appreciate it very much to be advised about the most recent research and best practice-developments of transportation model-choice for projects in developing countries to choose the best suited transportation model in future projects. Yours sincerely. Arnim Berger From alanhowes at usaksa.com Fri Nov 26 00:10:19 1999 From: alanhowes at usaksa.com (Alan P Howes) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:10:19 GMT Subject: [sustran] Bus Company Maintenance Outsourcing - Request Message-ID: <38404e93.1466237@mail.prime.net.sa> Can anyone help? We at SAPTCO (2,600 buses spread across 10 locations in Saudi Arabia) are looking at the possibility of contracting out our maintenance. has anyone relevant experience? (Or can point me in the right direction.) Our Acting CEO would like to see a sample contract - I would be happy with a check-list of issues we might need to address, and tips on problems which might arise. Thanks, Alan Howes -- Alan Howes, Special Advisor (Operations) Saudi Public Transport Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia alanhowes@usaksa.com PLEASE DO NOT SEND LARGE MESSAGES (>100kB) WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE *** A debt-free start for a billion people in the world's poorest *** *** countries - Jubilee 2000, http://www.jubilee2000uk.org *** From kisansbc at bom5.vsnl.net.in Sun Nov 28 05:14:14 1999 From: kisansbc at bom5.vsnl.net.in (kisansbc@bom5) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:14:14 -0800 Subject: [sustran] [Sustran] Integrated transport and paratransit Message-ID: <199911271837.NAA28139@cluster1.vsnl.net.in> To, Sustran-discuss We refer to email of Ria Hutabarat dated 12.11 and Paula Negron Poblete dated 05.11.1999. Ref Ria's communication, we are not aware of research or surveys on paratransport modes. Autorikshaws ply in restricted areas of Mumbai population 13 million area 434 sq km. They come in direct competition with taxies and pedestrians. There are no nonmotorised modes of transport like cycle or human rickshaws. Sharing taxies are not to be found in Mumbai. With reference to Paula's email of 03.11 we have been trying as a NGO to relate land use planning in traffic programmes for over 20 years. It is difficult to get the authorities to accept the relevance of land use planning because of the interests of the politicians and administrators. We enclose herewith our article on Mumbai's transport written this week for a magazine. It may give a glimpse of the problems faced in Mumbai. We would be happy to provide further information or extend collaboration/support to Ria and Paula in their work. Kisan Mehta President Save Bombay Committee From dojie at transportas.com.ph Sat Nov 27 18:05:18 1999 From: dojie at transportas.com.ph (Ronaldo R. Manahan) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 17:05:18 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Parking Requirements In-Reply-To: <38404e93.1466237@mail.prime.net.sa> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19991127170518.00a68c00@transportas.com.ph> Fellow SUSTRAN-Discuss members: I would like to inquire whether anyone has access to information regarding parking requirements for different land uses in CBDs and suburbs for Asian countries. Initial interest would be parking requirements fior high-density residential uses (condominiums). Source information (legislation, study recommendations, etc.) would be most useful. Thanks in advance. Ronaldo Manahan Transportas Consulting Manila, Philippines From tjb at pc.jaring.my Sat Nov 27 19:56:26 1999 From: tjb at pc.jaring.my (tjb) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:56:26 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Curitiba & Jakarta's metro References: <001501bf3705$c557e820$1102cda7@harun.si.itb.ac.id> Message-ID: <002b01bf38c6$0e8c0280$7bf1fea9@p350> I am visiting the Institute of Road Engineering, Bandung - just down the road from you - for two weeks from tomorroe. Maybe we can meet up for a chat about transport issues. I'll give uyyou a call once I've settled in. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Barry Barry HS Transit Systems Kuala Lumpur www.evalueco.com/barryhs ----- Original Message ----- From: Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis To: Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 1:27 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Curitiba & Jakarta's metro > Who said, Go commitment from the government of Indonesia has been positive > for subway in Jakarta ? > The last time, say few month ago, through the Miyazawa plan (Japanese $$ > assistance), the plan official echoed the options "take it now" or "never" > for Jakarta subway. Noted that at least 70% things are going to fly back to > Tokyo, plus the uncertainty of tariff affordability to maintain at least > 55%-60% fairbox ratio, and couple with no guarantee what sources to be > channelised for rest 40%. Uch... Wait.... wait... > > For sure Indonesia are still struggling to sosialise more extensive urban > pricing sources and mechanism, and for transport itself it is still very > simplictic and conventional. Study on road user tax to impose axle factor in > annual license or registration of vehicle is yet to be sosialised, though, > the study done 5 years ago. > > Public transport ? What you see out the window is a small top of the iceberg > in the ocean. Fundamental system is not yet there. This harm any technical > or fiscal advocacy to improve public transport performance. > Market growth for this pity and forgetful public service or obligation is > very much relying on the natural growth of population as the potential user. > No room and hope from operator for attracting switch from the car users. > > See what happen at big terminal of public transport in Kampung Rambutan, as > a relocation of the old Cililitan. > From technical reason is no reason what it become as chaotic as in old > Cililitan, even more during this hard time of financial crisis where > unemployed rates is unimaginable. You can just ask your cousin from another > village, giving him some small capital and set up a very small bisniss, with > no exit entry cost !!!!! You just simply stand a stick and tie umbrella and > lay your stuff in bus terminal, and along the sidewalk approaching the > terminal. > > Institutional planning framework is still not there. Public institutions are > very much having theirown objective functions, hopefull could dominate. No > where and not yet, in the city, parking control could be an instrument for > transport policy. Even the price of chilies can not be controlled, > especially, when a rainy day or flood comes. > > Within the new cabinet, now it seems to me, it is going to be even more > tougher to speak of integrated planning and implementation, as more > ministries have been set up, noticing they are very much link with tranposrt > issues. We are just going to wait, if old government had a decree of three > ministries to deal with one issue of transport and still not working...., > may next week we heard of four of five ministries decree. > > Hopefully, I was wrong !! > > Harun al-Rasyid S. Lubis http://trans.si.itb.ac.id > Traffic Lab, Transport Engineering Division > Dept. of Civil Engineering - ITB > Jl. Ganeca 10 Bandung 40132 - Indonesia > Tel/Facs. +62 22 250 23 50 halubis@trans.si.itb.ac.id > > From tjb at pc.jaring.my Sat Nov 27 20:00:40 1999 From: tjb at pc.jaring.my (tjb) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 19:00:40 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Parking Requirements References: <3.0.1.32.19991127170518.00a68c00@transportas.com.ph> Message-ID: <004401bf38c6$a52c7ee0$7bf1fea9@p350> whoops sorry to sustrans for the incorrectly addressed private mail - more noise on the net. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Barry BarryHS Transit Systems www.evalueco.com/barryhs From jsum at arbld.unimelb.edu.au Sun Nov 28 16:39:19 1999 From: jsum at arbld.unimelb.edu.au (Jachrizal Sumabrata) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:39:19 +1100 Subject: [sustran] Thank you In-Reply-To: <004401bf38c6$a52c7ee0$7bf1fea9@p350> References: <3.0.1.32.19991127170518.00a68c00@transportas.com.ph> Message-ID: <199911280741.SAA22527@arbld.unimelb.edu.au> Dear friends Thank you for your respond related on SubWay in Jakarta. As well as SubWay, there is also problems with NMT (Becak) Hope we can also discuss about NMT Regards Jachrizal Sumabrata Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia Telephone, +61 3 9344 7053 Facsimile, +61 3 9344 5532 From JohnErnst at compuserve.com Sun Nov 28 22:35:36 1999 From: JohnErnst at compuserve.com (John Ernst) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:35:36 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Conference Planned for Jakarta 31 May - 2 June 2000 Message-ID: <199911281406.JAA10366@hpdmraaa.compuserve.com> The following announcement is for a conference in Jakarta being developed with the support of SUSTRAN and the Institute for Transport and Development Policy (ITDP). First Announcement International Conference and Exhibition: Sustainable Transportation & Clean Air May 31st- June 2nd 2000 Jakarta, Indonesia The Conference on Sustainable Transportation & Clean Air will bring together decision-makers and professionals interested in the reduction of air pollution created by transportation. The conference will focus on the impact of transportation on the urban environment and the socio-economical consequences. It will provide practical, cost-effective measures to both enhance the efficiency of transportation systems while reducing negative impacts on air quality. A balance between local, regional and international speakers will ensure a balance between local circumstances and latest technology and best practices. The conference will also stimulate new partnerships and coordination within Asia and beyond. Conference Objectives - To build cognizance of the socio-economical impact of transportation and air pollution - To gain support for on-going activities and place important stalled initiatives back on the political agenda - To table new ideas and approaches from other countries in the region that appear feasible under the present economic restraints - To build a larger consensus of a platform for the transport sector and environmental sector including initiatives that could be adopted by governments, the private-sector and non governmental organizations - To initiate local, national and regional cooperation and sharing of best practices - To stimulate activities related to utilization of cost-effective and environmentally friendly technologies available at our conference exhibition Preliminary Conference Topics - The Costs of Air Pollution: Socio-Economical Aspects - The Importance of Transport Demand Management - The Critical Need for and Future of Urban Transport Systems - Strategies to Phase-out Leaded Gasoline in Asia - Measures and Benefits of Tail Pipe Emission Reduction - Increasing the Use of Non-Motorized Transport Sustainable Transportation Exhibition A poster session exhibition area, open to the public, will compliment the conference. National and international projects, governments and private companies will be invited to display and share information on their latest technology and approaches that enhance the environmental sustainability of transportation. This exhibition will be a perfect opportunity for projects and companies to interact with participants of the conference as well as the public. In January 2000 the official information bulletin will be distributed. It will contain detailed information for participants, speakers and exhibitors. For more information: Sustainable Transportation and Clean Air Conference Secretariat c/o Clean Air Project, Jakarta Jalan Wijaya XII, No. 44 12160 Jakarta, Indonesia Phone: +62 21 739 40 41 Fax: +62 21 722 30 37 E-mail: cap@swisscontact.or.id From sustran at po.jaring.my Tue Nov 30 15:05:11 1999 From: sustran at po.jaring.my (SUSTRAN Resource Centre) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:05:11 +0800 Subject: [sustran] fwd: Re: [Sustran] Integrated transport and paratransit Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991130140511.007d8a90@relay101.jaring.my> Subject: BOUNCE sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org: Non-member submission from ["India Centre" ] From: "India Centre" To: , Subject: Re: [sustran] [Sustran] Integrated transport and paratransit Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:03:35 +0530 Dear Kisan Bhai, Referring to your message about Shared Taxis. I am not sure what you are referring to but in have used shared taxis several times in Mumbai. You have a shared taxi schemes from Churchgate to Nariman Point as well as from V.T. to Nariman Point. Also several areas like Khandivili and Mira Road one has shared autorickshaws. Passengers pay a fixed rate and the taxi or auto runs from point to point without any stops. Deepika -----Original Message----- From: kisansbc@bom5 To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; , Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 1:40 PM Subject: [sustran] [Sustran] Integrated transport and para transit >To, >Sustran-discuss > >We refer to email of Ria Hutabarat dated 12.11 and >Paula Negron Poblete dated 05.11.1999. > >Ref Ria's communication, we are not aware of research >or surveys on paratransport modes. Autorikshaws ply >in restricted areas of Mumbai population 13 million area >434 sq km. They come in direct competition with >taxies and pedestrians. There are no nonmotorised modes >of transport like cycle or human rickshaws. Sharing >taxies are not to be found in Mumbai. > >With reference to Paula's email of 03.11 we have been >trying as a NGO to relate land use planning in traffic programmes >for over 20 years. It is difficult to get >the authorities to accept the relevance of land use planning >because of the interests of the politicians and administrators. >We enclose herewith our article on Mumbai's transport >written this week for a magazine. It may give a glimpse of >the problems faced in Mumbai. We would be happy to >provide further information or extend collaboration/support to Ria and >Paula in their work. > > >Kisan Mehta >President >Save Bombay Committee >