From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Feb 1 01:47:44 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:47:44 +0100 Subject: [sustran] What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? Commentary Message-ID: <058a01c62686$137cffb0$6401a8c0@Home> Thank you Stephen, This is a clear reminder that we need to be very careful in how we state all this, and I can only thank you for jabbing me on this. Here is my considered take on your point, and while I normally try not to engage in the exchanges here -- since this is what this particular Wikipedia group effort is about, I think it important that I share my reactions with the group as a whole. The Wikipedia is based on the principle of neutrality. Therefore when we write about our topic, we must see it as it is - not as we might perhaps wish it to be. (I have tried to provide some clear and pretty easy links into the guts of the Wikipedia workings that you can find in the lower half of the left menu under our Wikipedia top menu link. If you take the time you will see that there is more to it than you may have thought. You will see how Nature magazine tested it against the Britannica. Interesting to say the least) Yes and of curse I agree with you on this Stephan: there has been a sustained current of critical lucidity in the world of transportation that goes back far before Mrs. Bruntland and, if you will, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development. Jane Jacobs has been one very important force in this. As have you, Mayer Hillman, and yet others. (See below) But - and I am sure that you will be the first to agree - this current of more critical thinking has until recently largely gone ignored by those in power. While there were indeed the occasional victories, they were the exception and not the rule. Far from it! Dismissed by policy and decision makers with the wave of a hand - and even more often simply not acknowledged - as idealistic, impractical, impracticable, disingenuous, and even loony, leftist and anti-democratic ranting - the main lines of the transportation agenda simply were not impacted in any notable way. Look at it dollar for dollar and you'll see that even today the whole thing is still for the most part about optimizing flows between points, maximizing vehicles throughput and all the rest. That said, and as the Wiki draft tries to state fairly: this situation is shifting -- and the shift goes back at least a decade in terms of its notably gaining momentum. The truth though is that even today after so many years we continue to generate more words than key decisions. There is now the rhetoric of sustainable transportation, and we are seeing it used and abused like never before. But there is still a great deal of progress to be made out there in the real world and on the street. (And that is why I believe it is worth our all taking the time needed to make sure that we have a solid statement of what this is all about to put before the media, the researchers, the activists, students, those in government who often really would like to know how to do better. So I hope that I will be able to engage you all to this important group challenge.) As to when the first quantum break came, to get the ball rolling here I have based, on my own observations and experience, set an arbitrary limit of 1990 to this kind of continental divide. But it was in the early nineties the ball was really beginning to get rolling. And by the time that the OECD and Canadian government got together to organize the international conference Toward Sustainable Transportation, in Vancouver in March 1996, things were really beginning to take shape. (You can find the original web page on this if you go to http://www.newmobility.org) In this entry, we are trying to view the phenomenon of the sustainable transportation movement as a whole (difficult of course since it really is the sustainable of its parts). There are clearly numerous antecedents: the freeway revolts in North America, the first Woonerfs in the Netherlands, the early carsharing projects - but in all cases these events or movements were about something else, something more specific and not about "sustainable transportation" as an identifiable whole. Again, it was only with the last two decades that the movement really started to take shape. But then there is ever the ineluctable bottom line: a lot of the actors maybe talking the talk of sustainable transportation, but when it's time to walk the walk, to spend the money, other values continue to prevail. Which is what sustainable transport today is indeed all about. PS. I would like to see if I can get some help from you all to fill out the following which once it is solid enough I would like to transfer to the Wikipedia to see what others might do with it. What you have here are a number of names taken off the top of my head - and it is so terribly incomplete that I must apologize. However I am sure that you all will be able to help us do a lot better. And let's bear in mind that 1990 benchmark date. Some Early Voices of Sustainable Transportation (pre-1990) * Jane Jacobs * Stephen Plowden * Mayer Hillman * John Whitelegg * John Adams * Wolfgang Zuckermann * Jan Gehl * Peter Newman * Chris Bradshaw * Luud Schimmelpennink * Woonerf movement in the Netherlands * Donald Appleyard * Neil Goldschmidt Then, since these are important figures, it will be good if some of us might go in and start entries on those who are not already covered there. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Plowden [mailto:stephenplowden@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:38 AM I dispute the history in this article, especially the suggestion that the idea that the job of transport planning was to supply infrastructure was little questioned until about 15 years ago. It was seriously questioned in Britain (and probably other countries, which never fell for the transportation studies which Britain imported from America - no blame to the Americans) since the mid 1960s and for reasons of efficiency as well as environment. (The "predict and provide" approach is simply infeasible; bus lanes improve the carrying capacity of streets in terms or people rather than vehicles.) Sorry, I don't have time to develop this theme now, but I am worried that this article is part of a historical myth which is now growing up. eric.britton wrote: > *What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? * > > (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) > > * * > > *New Mobility Note & Invitation to Discussion:* > > *Editor's note:* We have always felt that these two concepts represent > in a rough way two sides of the same basic coin. "Sustainable > transportation" defines the problem set and then goes on to provide > clues and in some cases supporting structures as to the kinds of > solutions that should be better understood and pursued. By contrast > the "New Mobility Agenda" is just that, an /agenda/ for change, > concentrating on specific measure and tools and implementation and > coordination strategies, with strong emphasis on short term (2-4 > years) impacts. But just to be sure that this is clear and correct, we > have taken to the Wikipedia to post and test these two views. Starting > with the first, here you have our very rough and incomplete first cut > - for your comment and improvement. (Further background on the > workings and values of the Wikipedia, will be found on the New > Mobility Agenda site by clicking the Wikipedia link on the top menu.) > > ******************************** > > From The Economist Newspaper, Jan 19th 2006. Source: > http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5407644 > > > *Sustainable transportation (Entry under development)* > > > */From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, as per Sunday, January > 29, 2006./* > > /Full article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060131/d5a29882/attachment-0001.html From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Wed Feb 1 10:57:34 2006 From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:57:34 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) References: <020a01c624b1$44836170$6401a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <076401c626d4$19b125c0$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Eric, Your essay for Wikipedia is a worthy effort to bring this term some measure of recognition and meaning. To me, one must understand 'sustainable' and 'transportation' separately. Sustainable is an adjective which can be used with a wide range of nouns, usually complex processes (as contrasted to "sustainability," a noun). It means to carry out the process identified by the noun in a way that does not undercut the basic conditions for the continuation of the process. In the case of running a company, it means doing things such that it can be truly a "going concern." It has to treat its employees well, so they continue to work hard, and to listen to each other. It has to take care of its equipment, and to replace worn out units before they fail at important times or injure the employees. It means finding raw materials and ensuring they are available for access, including being fair with the owners of the resources. Etc. Applied to development, it means protecting the resources -- raw material, people, sources of finance, and approval of governments and the people -- so that it can continue to develop. Applied to education, it refers to passing on knowledge in a way that doesn't snuff out natural curiosity. ("Sustainable education" is not to be confused with "sustainability education"). Applied to transportation, it has to mean that transportation must be run in a way that it doesn't undercut itself. That means not running out of energy; not causing people to become angry about the impacts of traffic near them and to shut down the corridor or at a larger scale, take other punitive measure; not creating ill health for those using it or living nearby; etc. Do we understand the basic conditions of transportation? Do we know how much energy and how much "rolling stock" is necessary to do each kind of movement, and do we know how to ensure we don't go beyond these limits? Can we provide access to it that is equitable, so that it will not create 'enemies' that will politically undercut it, or that will hurt the sustainability of other important processes? Can we overcome distance in a way that doesn't increase distance for future trips? Is there a magic ratio of effort related to getting somewhere compared to the benefits realized after we arrive (There is a principle used by the peak-oil people that refers to the ratio between the energy used to recover a unit of energy compared to the energy provided by the recoverd unit)? It seems that transportation today is guilty of anwering all these questions badly, such that the basic pre-conditions for transportation are being undercut. The energy supplies are running out, such that transportation will face both shortages and steeply increasing costs. The quality of air and water are in decline, such that the ability to enjoy the fruits of travel are declining. The equitable spread of the commons costs and negative impacts of transportation are poorly distributed, such that user fees for road and parking are either unrelated to use or are charged rates that fall far short of the cost of providing them, and such that the poor, young, and elderly are more likely to live near busy, noisy roadways, to suffer from low transportation resources, and to pay through taxes and prices for services they don't use. The simplest principle is the oldest. The term "usufruct" refers to the traditional practice of picking the fruit, but leaving the tree, so that the latter can continue to produce the former, ad infinitum. But are we guilty of allowing, and even exalting, development processes, business-as-usual, rote-education, and flatulent transportation that is doing the opposite, almost literally guilty of burning the furniture in order to keep our over-sized palace warm. Chris Bradshaw Ottawa > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:51 AM > Subject: WorldTransport Forum What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) > What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? . . . . . From aables at adb.org Wed Feb 1 12:40:42 2006 From: aables at adb.org (aables at adb.org) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:40:42 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Message-ID: Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cc hfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/607045b3/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/607045b3/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/607045b3/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/607045b3/attachment-0002.gif From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Feb 1 16:31:09 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 8:31:09 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? References: Message-ID: <1MH9I.349HED@domain.com> From: (aables@adb.org) Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Hi Aurora, I wasnt clear on your instructions so could you please forward this to the relevant people? --- I am not clear if you mean new buses with new engines, but it seems this is the case. First of all, there is of course no "non-polluting" or "clean" so I suppose you mean "low-" and "cleaner" I just want to be clear... not just clearer on this :-) I am not sure if you are talking about Diesel, CNG or whatnot... Anyway, if an engine is maintained perfectly, with all parts replaced as necessary, it will stay at the same pollution levels as of time of manufacture. "Maintenance" is a relative term, however, and cannot be assumed to be perfect. You might see a tiny leak following a big plumbing problem in your home, and be able to remedy it with a pot or whatever until you get a plumber again, but of course with a sophisticated system like a bus engine anything beyond smoke and smell - these are not technical terms - will be undetectable except with diagnostic equipment. Of course, some of the equipment for exhaust recirculation, "Ad Blue" you might be steering towards, particle filters etc. are complicated and if costs for these are not built into a contract for after expiry of the warranty the operator is out of luck. This might be something PT operators should be very careful about. And one very important related issue which we just learned in the Czech Republic is that the railway operator purchased spare parts in advance for their new tilting highspeed trains (not so fast, dont be so impressed, plus they cost USD 20 million each)... but by the time the parts are needed they might be out of warranty. Of course, during the lifetime of the engine, the manufacturer might introduce equipment which decreases pollution levels... or indeed the staff of the PT operator might be able to make adjustments, for example to software or other technology, which will also improve things. Also, perhaps backing up a step in this discussion... though unlikely, it is possible during the lifetime of the engine that due to a combination of new research and changing politics an engine might simply be declared illegal, with no possibility of retrofitting solutions. So, I would be really careful about investing in any engine from this point on that is not the equivalent of Euro 5 standards for Diesel. This means Diesel with particle filters, exhaust recirculation with Ad Blue, or methane gas engines operated with natural gas (from the ground), biogas (post-consumer and/or post-agricultural) or "Green Gas" (from Svensk Biogas AG in Sweden, the term for the product of purpose-grown crops). The price will be higher, but this can be compared against the continuing negative health effects of things like particle emissions. The most recent research indicates that even the newest Diesel engines which are higher compression - but without particle filters - create particles of a size much smaller than from older Diesel engines... these can go deeper into your lungs. So, the issue is not number of particles anymore as much as it is size of particles. Finally, the price of oil is going to go up faster than natural gas (and I hope everyone is also aware of the tropical deforestation caused by growing of palm oil for Diesel) but natural gas prices will go up if just to follow oil prices. Biogas, on the other hand, could probably be created in the locale of a fuel station for buses and even owned by a municipality that also owns and/or operates the buses... so fuel resources can stay under local control... surely a good way to make it more possible to spend more money on maintainence, or new buses in 16 years. (If it is an option, trains last 30 years, though still need might new engines in 15 or so, by the way.... also, about 800 biogas buses operate in Sweden) - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From etts at indigo.ie Wed Feb 1 17:37:06 2006 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:37:06 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is 'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) References: <020a01c624b1$44836170$6401a8c0@Home> <076401c626d4$19b125c0$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <018301c6270a$af477590$0201a8c0@finn> Chris, No argument with any of what you say. Just one observation : transport is about the movement of people and goods, and we travel for a reason. How we organise ourselves in terms of where we live, where we work, where we do the necessities, and how we fill the time leftover - these on the one hand set the key parameters for transportation, and on the other are enabled or constrained by the transport options available to us. We need to get to work to get money to live, employers need us to arrive there to do whatever the company produces. Transport is the lifeblood of our economies. I don't think "sustainable transportation" can be considered in a box on its own. It needs to consider the broader society and economy that it serves. That's where the travel demand is determined, it's where lifestyle choices are made, and it's where opinions and prejudices are formed (e.g. 'only losers take the bus'). I think we can only talk about truly sustainable transportation when we work within the environment that creates the need and desire to travel. I think this is part of what Eric is getting at with the extra voice at the table. Having said all that, there is huge scope to work within the frameworks we are given. We have many 'least-harm' approaches, and can strive for a 'most-good' approach (even if somewhat Utopian). We should explicitly recognise that it is not going to be truly sustainable. Whatever real-world solution we come up with will use fossil fuels, will consume resources, will intrude on someone's environment, will from time to time kill people in accidents, and there will be opportunists within who carry out all sorts of unfair practices. The reason for my intervention is that I fear we could set and promote the target of sustainable transportation in a too idealistic way. Whatever good solutions we come up with would be subject to criticism, and the ideal becomes the enemy of the good. Perhaps a lot of effort needs to go into communicating that "sustainable" is about good practices in the real world, and not some spotless ideal. I like your example of usufruct, but would extend the analogy. It is not enough just to leave the tree - as a minimum one must not intrude on it's soil or light either. Better still, occasional pruning and nourishment (i.e. partnership with the tree) usually give a better yield for a longer period. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Bradshaw To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:57 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is 'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all,does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) Eric, Your essay for Wikipedia is a worthy effort to bring this term some measure of recognition and meaning. To me, one must understand 'sustainable' and 'transportation' separately. Sustainable is an adjective which can be used with a wide range of nouns, usually complex processes (as contrasted to "sustainability," a noun). It means to carry out the process identified by the noun in a way that does not undercut the basic conditions for the continuation of the process. In the case of running a company, it means doing things such that it can be truly a "going concern." It has to treat its employees well, so they continue to work hard, and to listen to each other. It has to take care of its equipment, and to replace worn out units before they fail at important times or injure the employees. It means finding raw materials and ensuring they are available for access, including being fair with the owners of the resources. Etc. Applied to development, it means protecting the resources -- raw material, people, sources of finance, and approval of governments and the people -- so that it can continue to develop. Applied to education, it refers to passing on knowledge in a way that doesn't snuff out natural curiosity. ("Sustainable education" is not to be confused with "sustainability education"). Applied to transportation, it has to mean that transportation must be run in a way that it doesn't undercut itself. That means not running out of energy; not causing people to become angry about the impacts of traffic near them and to shut down the corridor or at a larger scale, take other punitive measure; not creating ill health for those using it or living nearby; etc. Do we understand the basic conditions of transportation? Do we know how much energy and how much "rolling stock" is necessary to do each kind of movement, and do we know how to ensure we don't go beyond these limits? Can we provide access to it that is equitable, so that it will not create 'enemies' that will politically undercut it, or that will hurt the sustainability of other important processes? Can we overcome distance in a way that doesn't increase distance for future trips? Is there a magic ratio of effort related to getting somewhere compared to the benefits realized after we arrive (There is a principle used by the peak-oil people that refers to the ratio between the energy used to recover a unit of energy compared to the energy provided by the recoverd unit)? It seems that transportation today is guilty of anwering all these questions badly, such that the basic pre-conditions for transportation are being undercut. The energy supplies are running out, such that transportation will face both shortages and steeply increasing costs. The quality of air and water are in decline, such that the ability to enjoy the fruits of travel are declining. The equitable spread of the commons costs and negative impacts of transportation are poorly distributed, such that user fees for road and parking are either unrelated to use or are charged rates that fall far short of the cost of providing them, and such that the poor, young, and elderly are more likely to live near busy, noisy roadways, to suffer from low transportation resources, and to pay through taxes and prices for services they don't use. The simplest principle is the oldest. The term "usufruct" refers to the traditional practice of picking the fruit, but leaving the tree, so that the latter can continue to produce the former, ad infinitum. But are we guilty of allowing, and even exalting, development processes, business-as-usual, rote-education, and flatulent transportation that is doing the opposite, almost literally guilty of burning the furniture in order to keep our over-sized palace warm. Chris Bradshaw Ottawa > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:51 AM > Subject: WorldTransport Forum What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) > What is 'Sustainable Transportation'? . . . . . ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/1ddd4549/attachment.html From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Wed Feb 1 17:41:33 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:41:33 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Message-ID: <3D3B87A787D2FF4AAA02394FEFA07AA3A5CA2E@MBOX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear Au, I'm assuming this has something to do with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) program for retiring 15yrs and older public buses. For those of you who do not know, here's a brief backgrounder (from what I know, so please correct me if I'm wrong): The LTFRB, on 19 Jan, was set to implement a program to phase-out public utility buses which are 15yrs and older. The program aims to modernize the bus fleet and provide better services to commuters (well, it's about time!) and in compliance of the Clean Air Act. This goes way back to 2002 with a DOTC (Dept of Transportation & Communications) order setting 15yrs as the standard for buses to ply the roads. Now here comes the point of contention from the private bus operators and the government: the date of reckoning...when do you start counting? Date of manufacture or acquisition? Well....that's for another debate...Just recently, before the end of Jan, the DOTC suspended the order of the LTFRB pending a review as requested by the bus operators... Now back to your question...You must mean "less polluting", yes? I just wanted to clear that point. In the context of public transport buses in the Philippines, I would have to say no. Most buses plying the routes in Metro Manila are second-hand reconditioned units. Any maintenance done by the bus companies are to keep them running and not to keep them pollution-free, er... emit less pollution. You can see this on the roads everyday - most are smoke belchers. And no amount of maintenance can ever bring them back to their original state. From a technological point-of-view, it's possible to keep them clean but at what cost and how long? I doubt the private operators would ever spend that kind of money. My point is why keep such old buses running? Which clearly are pollution and health hazards...I just hope we can see a strong will to carry out the program and not give in to the lobbying of private operators which have no other interest but their bottomlines... Cheers, Joselito L. Guevarra _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of aables@adb.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:41 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cc hfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/4f3d1dea/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: image001.gif Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/4f3d1dea/attachment.gif From etts at indigo.ie Wed Feb 1 17:59:41 2006 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:59:41 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? References: Message-ID: <01b501c6270d$d69f73b0$0201a8c0@finn> Dear Aurora, In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good performance from older vehicles : a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and measurable b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose escalating penalties on their owners c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical assistance if needed) d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related work and testing within such a regime e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on somewhere else) On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses! If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be interested to receive it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: aables@adb.org To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cc hfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/417fc4d0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/417fc4d0/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/417fc4d0/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/417fc4d0/attachment-0002.gif From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Feb 1 18:08:35 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:08:35 +0100 Subject: [sustran] WorldTransport Forum What is 'SustainableTransportation'? References: <018301c6270a$af477590$0201a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <1JXMM.31057KM7@domain.com> Hi all, I like it that our "Tree of Usufruct" is being better defined. Everything is of course relative to a "spotless ideal" but at a certain point cold is simply cold... what I mean is that I am not going to stand naked outside in the "winter in Siberia" just like I wouldnt on the surface of Pluto... Siberia is not really better even though it is warmer. So - call me a fundamenalist if you like - we should call a spade a spade: I just see no place for any kind of urban, individually-owned and operated car on a list of "sustainable transport options" even if is operated on thought-power, wishes, waste heat from an absolutist email posting, etc. Even if the city doesnt have public transport or a really spreadout design, we have to steer away from any kind of possible confusion on this matter. - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From whook at itdp.org Thu Feb 2 00:06:58 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:06:58 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? In-Reply-To: <01b501c6270d$d69f73b0$0201a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <000701c62741$27c9c550$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them to smaller towns and foreign countries. What FTA says is that some 10 year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction. They can probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower concentrations of ambient air pollution. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora, In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good performance from older vehicles : a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and measurable b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose escalating penalties on their owners c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical assistance if needed) d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related work and testing within such a regime e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on somewhere else) On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses! If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be interested to receive it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: aables@adb.org To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cc hfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org _____ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/ac02e429/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/ac02e429/attachment-0001.gif From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 2 07:40:47 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:40:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Message-ID: <4548487.1138833647587.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060201/5a51f49b/attachment.html From schipper at wri.org Thu Feb 2 07:55:59 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:55:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean? Message-ID: The joker in the deck is contained in what Eric said. If you only put in a new engine, but not a completely new power train, you risk a total mismatch of power, power train, and load. For example, repowering an old bus with just a new engine will lead to far less than optimal performance We in EMBARQ retrofitted buses in Mexico City -- the 2001 buses had a huge decline -90% n an already low PM emissions, as measured by Chris Weaver's RAVEM. WE got something like 0.02 gm/km using ultra low sulfer diesel (15 PPM) and JM particle filters. Older 1991 buses got a 20-30% reduction in PM from a much higher level -- the numbers are on EMBARQs web site. These older buses only had diesel oxidation catalysts, because the partile filters would not work right on them. Original fuel, btw, was 350 PPM, clean by Manila standards. Our take away from this -- retrofit (with some repowering), or replace! >>> Eric Bruun 2/1/2006 5:40:47 PM >>> To add to what Walter said: I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but the drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have a new or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function largely like a new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to have lots of other maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and transmission. If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body added, its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what. Anything without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded will destroy both the chassis and the drive train. Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the single most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are inferior to petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that should be given immediately. One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates without subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence level to maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my family over cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution can not be separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my opinion, anyone who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't care about the environment very much. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Walter Hook Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Clean Clean DocumentEmail MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them to smaller towns and foreign countries. What FTA says is that some 10 year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction. They can probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower concentrations of ambient air pollution. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora, In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good performance from older vehicles : a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and measurable b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose escalating penalties on their owners c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical assistance if needed) d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related work and testing within such a regime e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on somewhere else) On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses! If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be interested to receive it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: aables@adb.org To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To"Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cchfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject[cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Thu Feb 2 11:20:33 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:20:33 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean? Message-ID: <3D3B87A787D2FF4AAA02394FEFA07AA3A508F7@MBOX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Eric, Foreign aid?! You must be joking right? The Philippines doesn't need aid to keep their ageing buses running. Yes, you're right. I too would choose to feed my family than care about the environment. But you see the private operators in the Phils are not scraping by, they're making huge profits by scrimping on maintenance, salaries and benefits of drivers and bus conductors (the one who diligently collects the fares). It is they who need the aid, not the bus companies. This is all interesting and we can go on with the technological fixes and stuff but it ain't worth a dime unless governance reforms come first. This is the most important thing and not finding out ways to keep those filthy buses running. Jojo _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:41 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean? To add to what Walter said: I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but the drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have a new or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function largely like a new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to have lots of other maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and transmission. If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body added, its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what. Anything without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded will destroy both the chassis and the drive train. Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the single most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are inferior to petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that should be given immediately. One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates without subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence level to maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my family over cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution can not be separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my opinion, anyone who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't care about the environment very much. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Walter Hook Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them to smaller towns and foreign countries. What FTA says is that some 10 year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction. They can probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower concentrations of ambient air pollution. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora, In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good performance from older vehicles : a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and measurable b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose escalating penalties on their owners c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical assistance if needed) d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related work and testing within such a regime e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on somewhere else) On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses! If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be interested to receive it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: aables@adb.org To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cc hfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org _____ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/b915de2a/attachment-0001.html From hfabian at adb.org Thu Feb 2 15:41:54 2006 From: hfabian at adb.org (hfabian at adb.org) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:41:54 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean? Message-ID: Hi Lee, What was the cost of retrofitting a bus using the JM particle filters, or for the older buses DOCs, from your experience in Mexico? Are there experiences in retrofitting buses in areas where sulfur in diesel is 500ppm? Diesel in the Philippines has 500ppm sulfur. In Metro Manila, the most pollutive are buses, jeepneys, and 2-stroke 3 wheelers. There are some on-going efforts to address the pollution from 2-stroke 3 wheelers. Increasing car ownership and usage has also contributed substantially to the air pollution problem. It is clear that several parallel efforts/ measures are needed in order to fully address this problem. Bert Herbert G. Fabian Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Asian Development Bank, Manila tel: + 63 2 632 4444 loc. 7666 fax: + 63 2 636 2381 e-mail: hfabian@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia "Lee Schipper" Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+hfabian=adb.org@list.jca.apc.org 02/02/2006 06:55 AM Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport To: cc: Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transportbuses clean? The joker in the deck is contained in what Eric said. If you only put in a new engine, but not a completely new power train, you risk a total mismatch of power, power train, and load. For example, repowering an old bus with just a new engine will lead to far less than optimal performance We in EMBARQ retrofitted buses in Mexico City -- the 2001 buses had a huge decline -90% n an already low PM emissions, as measured by Chris Weaver's RAVEM. WE got something like 0.02 gm/km using ultra low sulfer diesel (15 PPM) and JM particle filters. Older 1991 buses got a 20-30% reduction in PM from a much higher level -- the numbers are on EMBARQs web site. These older buses only had diesel oxidation catalysts, because the partile filters would not work right on them. Original fuel, btw, was 350 PPM, clean by Manila standards. Our take away from this -- retrofit (with some repowering), or replace! >>> Eric Bruun 2/1/2006 5:40:47 PM >>> To add to what Walter said: I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but the drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have a new or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function largely like a new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to have lots of other maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and transmission. If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body added, its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what. Anything without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded will destroy both the chassis and the drive train. Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the single most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are inferior to petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that should be given immediately. One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates without subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence level to maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my family over cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution can not be separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my opinion, anyone who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't care about the environment very much. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Walter Hook Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Clean Clean DocumentEmail MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them to smaller towns and foreign countries. What FTA says is that some 10 year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction. They can probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower concentrations of ambient air pollution. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora, In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good performance from older vehicles : a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and measurable b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose escalating penalties on their owners c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical assistance if needed) d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related work and testing within such a regime e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on somewhere else) On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses! If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be interested to receive it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: aables@adb.org To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old publictransport buses clean? Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM ----- gbathan@adb.org 01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to cai-asia@lists.worldbank.org To"Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" cchfabian@adb.org, "Bebet Gozun" , chuizenga@adb.org, majero@adb.org, mrco@adb.org, aables@adb.org Subject[cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean? Dear friends, In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine manufacture. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated. Glynda Glynda Bathan Coordinator Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5151 Fax (632) 636-2381 http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820 Fax (632) 636-2381 Email aables@adb.org http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/85205ce0/attachment.html From Zeenara.Najam at ait.ac.th Thu Feb 2 21:55:46 2006 From: Zeenara.Najam at ait.ac.th (Zeenara Najam) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:55:46 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Looking for opportunities Message-ID: <43E20152.000006.03752@AIT-K7HN5CACUSM> I am currently conducting research on Bus Rapid Transit in Bangkok, likely demand for its services, and its potential for improving the environment through creating public awareness. I am a masters student in Transportation Engineering at Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand, and will graduate this coming May. I would like to do further work on Bus Rapid Transit and on public transport in general for developing countries, and would appreciate advice from members of the list on seeking appropriate employment. Thank you so much for any ideas you might have. Zeenara Najam Graduate Student Transportation Engineering Asian Institute of Technology Thailand. +66-2-524-7205 st102121@ait.ac.th Sweetzeeni@yahoo.com www.ait.ac.th -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/454dd01f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 401 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/454dd01f/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 390 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/454dd01f/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 390 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/454dd01f/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 9086 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060202/454dd01f/attachment.jpe From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Fri Feb 3 21:44:29 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:44:29 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Revised module on Public Awareness Raising Message-ID: <20060203124443.DDFED2DCC4@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> The GTZ SUTP has published a revised 40-page module on Public Awareness Raising in Sustainable Transport (module 1e, 3.8 MB) by Carlos F. Pardo. It has expanded on some of the issues that were developed in the initial document, and has included information on diagnostic tools, levels of awareness of the population, types of information that can be given to the target groups and complementing other chapters. This module will be complemented in May 2006 by a Training Course on the same topic, and it will also be translated into Spanish by June 2006. The module is available (after registration) in www.sutp.org/download/index.php (Topic 1, module 1e). Best regards, GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP-Asia) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 2576 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 1 - 772 4727 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica en http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustranlac/join -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060203/218f091a/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sat Feb 4 04:24:22 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:24:22 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Seoul BRT article by John Pucher Message-ID: <30396660.1138994662923.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060203/bb43f58e/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Feb 6 16:18:03 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:18:03 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AB46@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Some of you may be interested to know that Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the midst of a heated controversy over public transport. The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt for a huge monorail network is the issue. See http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+ News for the latest. Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem to be weighing in (with the heavy rail supporters louder and more influential it seems). http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm (Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) "The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will not help meet the transport requirement of city commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. Already the State had burnt its fingers with the "ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) and the monorail would be its another "ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a comprehensive report for a rail based metro system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. Sreedharan suspected that the State had been "influenced by monorail lobby with its tall claims and false promises." The lobby, the letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. ... or http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm (Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) Any comments? Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060206/64f07996/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Feb 6 16:30:41 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:30:41 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Seoul BRT article by John Pucher Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AB4B@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Thanks Eric for sharing news of this article. Seoul's story is extremely interesting and worth studying by other cities. The article prompted me to write a blog posting to briefly review the main findings. See http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/2006/02/success-story-seouls-2004 -public.html (any comments or corrections welcome) Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sppbpa=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sppbpa=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2006 3:24 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Cc: jsynn@design.upenn.edu; yshin@dongeui.ac.kr Subject: [sustran] Seoul BRT article by John Pucher One of the latest issues of Journal of Public Transportation has an interesting article about the amazingly quick overhaul of the Seoul bus network. You can view this magazine on-line if you go to the Center for Urban Transportation website. I believe (from memory) it is www.cutr.usf.edu. The articles about marketing, or lack thereof, of bus services in the UK are also quite informative. Eric Bruun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060206/b225764c/attachment.html From itdpasia at adelphia.net Tue Feb 7 03:11:21 2006 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:11:21 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy In-Reply-To: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AB46@MBOX01.stf.nus.ed u.sg> References: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AB46@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060206105235.01bb9c18@adelphia.net> The experience in Chennai appears to be increasingly common in the larger Asian cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. Typically, these companies overestimate demand and promise a totally self-sustaining system running with only private investment. Though untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. After one false start, Jakarta had a privately financed monorail start construction. But the company soon came to the government asking for a subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. Best, John At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" > >Some of you may be interested to know that >Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >midst of a heated controversy over public transport. > >The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >for a huge monorail network is the issue. >See >http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >for the latest. > >Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >supporters louder and more influential it seems). > >http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >not help meet the transport requirement of city >commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. > >Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >and the monorail would be its another >"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. > >The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >comprehensive report for a rail based metro >system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. > >Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >claims and false promises." The lobby, the >letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. > >or >http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) > >Any comments? > >Paul > >Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >School of Public Policy | National University >of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ > > >I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >Are you interested in urban transport in >developing countries? Then try >http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ > >And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Feb 7 11:26:27 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:26:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: <31374989.1139279187368.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. >> >>or >>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>School of Public Policy | National University >>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ >> >> >>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>Are you interested in urban transport in >>developing countries? Then try >>http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ >> >>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From schipper at wri.org Tue Feb 7 11:45:08 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:45:08 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something is not convincing to certain people! >>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >> >>or >>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>School of Public Policy | National University >>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ >> >> >>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>Are you interested in urban transport in >>developing countries? Then try >>http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ >> >>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Tue Feb 7 13:04:52 2006 From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:04:52 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is 'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) References: <020a01c624b1$44836170$6401a8c0@Home> <076401c626d4$19b125c0$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> <018301c6270a$af477590$0201a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <057c01c62b9c$f5657f40$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Brendan, You suggest that we should not consider 'sustainable transportation' in a vacuum, or to get too idealistic. My post only tried to discuss basic principles: transportation choices should not undercut our continued ability to move about, nor to inflate distance into a downward spiral, in which we have to go further and further to accomplish as much as we did in the near past. I don't love the word 'efficiency.' But environmental principles have a lot to do with simply getting the most outcome for the least input. Transportation, indeed, is an input. It serves an end. Does a trip accomplish more if it is twice as long? Or use a vehicle twice as large? Or burn twice as much fuel? Or occur in a way that instills fear in pedestrians and cyclists twice as much? Cities are the ultimate human invention, by increasing the outcomes of trips while accomplishing those trips with ever-decreasing use of resources. They do (or did) that through creating and maintaining 'propinquity:' proximity in space and time. Planning of cities was the purvey of architects until the age of the car. A reading of Christopher Alexander's _A New Theory of Urban Design_ (1987) is a modern attempt to create the conditions of ancient planning, in which each site was developed (or redeveloped) considering its complementarity to the adjacent sites. In the age of the car, planning of places was taken over the professional planners who evolved not from architecture, but from civil engineers. Zoning today requires not _complementarity_ (how different land uses work together), but _compatibility_ (how to ensure adjacent uses are not very different). The result is the only serious requirement imposed now is for a land use not to bother its neighbours, and to provide parking, parking, parking, so that those residing at or visiting the site can have a place to leave their distance-conqueror during their stay. (see Shoup, 2004, _The High Cost of Free Parking_). Sadly, the parking requirement itself doesn't so much accommodate isolation of land uses from the other land uses that complement it, as it _imposes_ that isolation. It is sad to see Asians aching to mimic this bankrupt planning principle, and to accept the only-poor-people-ride-transit (or walk, cycle) bias, as if driving a car is somehow liberating, when it is really an isolating form of follow-the-leader, not unlike the parade of elephants in the circus, each holding it its trunk the tail of the one ahead. If only those in the "developed" world could set a new example of commons sense! Chris Bradshaw From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Feb 7 19:36:07 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:36:07 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Chennai monorail controversy In-Reply-To: <31374989.1139279187368.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <033701c62bd2$54ae3f70$6401a8c0@Home> The history of monorails fiascos is so long, so rocambolesque (is that a word in English? .. otherwise think Cervantes), and so without real exception that one wonders about our collective memory. I started looking at them in the context of my first world transport technology survey in 1969 which gave me an opportunity to kick their wheels in half a dozen places, and yes! I did have several months of thinking maybe they had a place in the future of our cities. But these are the sins of a foolish youth, and how in the world could any reasonably informed sapient person give in to the crude disinformation machine and sweetheart deals that the monorail lobby has come up with in city after city around the world. Oh dear. So for your reading pleasure, just below the couple of exchanges that have introduced this hot topic, I reproduce the text of "Back to the Future: Which way is the new Las Vegas Monorail heading?", by Wayne Curtis ;-) -----Original Message----- [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:26 AM I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. . >> >>or >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter Back to the Future Which way is the new Las Vegas Monorail heading? by Wayne Curtis ..... LLas Vegas is the Los Alamos of urban design, the nation's leading laboratory for experimenting with how our cities will look and function a half century from now. Among the questions currently under investigation: How much fake do Americans want and what kinds of fake do they prefer? How high and how far can celebrity-chef franchise dining go? How will hybrid hotel-condos actually work on a citywide level? How do you build a compact, pedestrian-friendly city around what amounts to a short but congested ten-lane highway? Howard Hughes was right. He said Las Vegas could be a "city of the future," setting a course for the rest of America. (Hughes envisioned a "super environmental" city free of smog and run by an enlightened local government-but whatever.) When I read that Las Vegas had opened a new monorail system last year to whisk travelers up and down the Strip, my first thought was, Of course: all cities of the future have monorails. My second thought was, When can I ride it? Those of us who came of age making pilgrimages to Disney's Tomorrowland know that monorails produce a complicated nostalgia for the future. For me the very word "monorail" triggers a slightly faded Technicolor reverie in which my back yard has its own helipad and my wife, Zorga, wears a silver body suit and sports a stiffly epoxied hairdo that resembles an inverted chafing dish. So when I visited Las Vegas in September, it wasn't the buffets or the baccarat tables that lured me out of my hotel room before I had even unpacked. It was the prospect of a monorail ride. I made my way over to the nearest station, paid my three dollars, and hopped on the next train, uncertain whether I was bound for the past or the future. This much most people agree on when it comes to monorails: they run on a single rail. The trains can sit on top of the rail, as they do in Las Vegas, Seattle, and the Disney theme parks, or they can be suspended underneath, as they were at the 1964 New York World's Fair. Kim Pedersen, the founder and president of the 4,300-member Monorail Society, is driven to distraction by people who indiscriminately talk about "monorails" that aren't any such thing. Seattle has a monorail, he says; Detroit, with its People Mover, does not. Disney World has a monorail; Miami, with its Metromover (which, as anyone can see, is just an automated, elevated bus system), clearly does not. I have my own criteria for a monorail. It has a single rail, of course. But it must also run swiftly on quiet rubber wheels right into the lobby of a hotel or an office building. There should be a soft swooshing sound as it slows; bonus points are awarded for a slight but discernible change in air pressure when it arrives. The opening of the doors should be accompanied by a soft bonging, followed by a lush female voice, at once intimate and aloof, urging one to step smartly inside. The Las Vegas Monorail gets mixed marks on these counts. Its cars, based on the five-eighths-scale Alweg cars originally commissioned by Disney, are pleasingly futuristic-not fully Jetsons, but not far from A Clockwork Orange. Most of them are wrapped in advertising, like the buses that double as billboards. A beguiling female voice beckoned me inside, but after the doors closed, the spell was broken by piped-in ads for casinos, including one in which Barry Manilow personally implored me to disembark at the Hilton. Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the Las Vegas Monorail is the route. The trains don't glide into hotel lobbies or even past football-field-size neon signs. The platforms are behind the casinos on the east side of the Strip, and getting to them from the west side requires a wearying hike across traffic and through bewildering, unmarked thickets of clanging slot machines. Once you're on board, the view out the window is sadly quotidian. The four-mile track winds behind the hotels, affording views mostly of parking lots, croupiers taking cigarette breaks, and vast, sand-colored roofs dotted with HVAC domes that shimmer in the desert heat like distant Bedouin encampments. And the ride is bumpy and not very fast, owing to track curves and frequent station stops. "I have to admit, it's a little rough," said Pedersen, who recently spent five days in Las Vegas shooting video to promote monorails in other cities. "Especially having ridden so many Japanese monorails, which are as smooth as glass." Monorails have more history than you might think. A patent for the first prototype was registered in 1821, and the first one-track passenger train appeared in 1825, drawn by a single horse. The Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, in 1876, featured a Victorian-looking double-decker steam monorail, and in 1911 the first of the modern monorail cars-those that resemble huge suppositories-made an appearance in Seattle, running on a wooden track. But not until the middle of the past century did America reach the brink of its golden Monorail Age. In 1961 Disney nearly tripled the length of its 1959 Tomorrowland monorail, to two and a half miles, and made it as much a form of transportation as an amusement ride. A year later Seattle opened its mile-long monorail linking downtown to the World's Fair grounds and the Space Needle. A 1964 Saturday Evening Post article painted a glorious picture of tomorrow: "After reaching their train via escalator, the passengers recline in molded fiber-glass seats and gaze out large picture windows as electric power shoots them from station to station at 90 miles per hour." And tomorrow was nearly here. "The climate is right for a breakthrough in urban transportation," Popular Mechanics reported at about the same time, "and those monorail builders are just itching to show what they can do." So what happened? "Well, that's the mystery," Pedersen told me. "It runs the gamut from conspiracy theories involving oil and automobile companies to the fact that they just haven't been looked at seriously because they've been at theme parks and world's fairs." I blame the future. The monorail shows that an idealized tomorrow can be every bit as encumbering as an imperfect yesterday. The monorail was twenty years ahead of its time, and it has been mired there ever since. It is to mass transportation what the theremin is to the symphony-a novelty that most people feel is best experienced once. This vexes Pedersen, who remains convinced that monorails make good practical sense-despite the fact that the Las Vegas Monorail has been plagued by problems since its opening, including metal pieces that fell into the street, trains that stopped for no apparent reason, and one that left the station with its door open. Pedersen has also videotaped monorails in Malaysia and Japan, and he notes that one-track elevated systems can be installed relatively quickly and without claiming a large right-of-way in crowded urban cores. He sees the burgeoning urban interest in trolleys and other light rail, which often blocks car lanes and contributes to ground-level congestion, as "insane." And he wishes that people (I sense that by "people" he means writers like me) would stop imprisoning monorails in the future and let them come rolling into the present. In this Pedersen has a natural ally in Curtis Myles, the president and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Monorail Company. I stopped by to visit Myles at the monorail's office, a few blocks east of the Strip, and found that he, like Pedersen, was quite optimistic, perhaps largely because he'd been on the job only two months. A former executive with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Myles sees the monorail as the last best hope for unknotting the Gordian traffic that plagues the Strip. Several times during our meeting he bounded up to a wall-mounted satellite photo of the resort corridor to show the several new routes he hopes to build, glossing over the fact that ridership so far had fallen short of projections. The train will go from the existing terminus to the airport, he said, and then along the west side of the Strip, through the MGM Mirage's new $5 billion Project CityCenter, and onward. "It has the potential to really address what is probably going to be the biggest problem this valley faces, which is getting people from the airport to the resort hotels," he told me. "I don't think people really appreciate how bad that problem is going to be." This all sounded important, and I tried to focus on what he was saying. It was difficult. The second-floor conference room in which we sat was just yards from the elevated track, and every few minutes a monorail would streak past cinematically, filling the window with the canary-yellow cars of the Nextel train, or the Martian-green cars of Star Trek: The Experience's Borg Invasion 4D. (Resistance is futile, they read. You will be assimilated.) It brought to mind Alvy Singer's home under the Coney Island roller coaster in Annie Hall. Each time, I looked away from Myles and stared at the trains. He noticed. "I get a review of my job performance every six minutes," he said. It was more than that. Sitting in the quiet office with the monorail whispering past, I was wholly transported to another time. Here was the future-just as I remembered it. The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/vegas-monorails. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060207/67da8394/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 258 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060207/67da8394/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 337 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060207/67da8394/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 167 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060207/67da8394/attachment-0002.gif From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Feb 7 20:48:46 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:48:46 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) In-Reply-To: <057c01c62b9c$f5657f40$b6973948@slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060207114857.D77262E069@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Also, please don't forget that Le Corbusier gave Engineers a higher degree than architects, thus perpetuating the "need" to have engineers planning fast cities. An excellent example is Kuala Lumpur. To illustrate, see Le Corbusier's opinion: "The Engineer's aesthetic and Architecture- two things that march together and follow one from the other- the one at its full height, the other in an unhappy state of retrogression" - Towards a new Architecture, 1931. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: ?+57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica en http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustranlac/join -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw Sent: Lunes, 06 de Febrero de 2006 11:05 p.m. To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all,does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?) Brendan, You suggest that we should not consider 'sustainable transportation' in a vacuum, or to get too idealistic. My post only tried to discuss basic principles: transportation choices should not undercut our continued ability to move about, nor to inflate distance into a downward spiral, in which we have to go further and further to accomplish as much as we did in the near past. I don't love the word 'efficiency.' But environmental principles have a lot to do with simply getting the most outcome for the least input. Transportation, indeed, is an input. It serves an end. Does a trip accomplish more if it is twice as long? Or use a vehicle twice as large? Or burn twice as much fuel? Or occur in a way that instills fear in pedestrians and cyclists twice as much? Cities are the ultimate human invention, by increasing the outcomes of trips while accomplishing those trips with ever-decreasing use of resources. They do (or did) that through creating and maintaining 'propinquity:' proximity in space and time. Planning of cities was the purvey of architects until the age of the car. A reading of Christopher Alexander's _A New Theory of Urban Design_ (1987) is a modern attempt to create the conditions of ancient planning, in which each site was developed (or redeveloped) considering its complementarity to the adjacent sites. In the age of the car, planning of places was taken over the professional planners who evolved not from architecture, but from civil engineers. Zoning today requires not _complementarity_ (how different land uses work together), but _compatibility_ (how to ensure adjacent uses are not very different). The result is the only serious requirement imposed now is for a land use not to bother its neighbours, and to provide parking, parking, parking, so that those residing at or visiting the site can have a place to leave their distance-conqueror during their stay. (see Shoup, 2004, _The High Cost of Free Parking_). Sadly, the parking requirement itself doesn't so much accommodate isolation of land uses from the other land uses that complement it, as it _imposes_ that isolation. It is sad to see Asians aching to mimic this bankrupt planning principle, and to accept the only-poor-people-ride-transit (or walk, cycle) bias, as if driving a car is somehow liberating, when it is really an isolating form of follow-the-leader, not unlike the parade of elephants in the circus, each holding it its trunk the tail of the one ahead. If only those in the "developed" world could set a new example of commons sense! Chris Bradshaw ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From schipper at wri.org Tue Feb 7 21:35:33 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:35:33 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum What is'SustainableTransportation'? (And how, if at all, does it r Message-ID: Isnt the irony, however, that while "transportation choices should not undercut our continued ability to move about," is a lofty goal, each travel undercuts everyone's ability to move about..by moving about? >>> "Chris Bradshaw" 2/6/2006 11:04:52 PM >>> Brendan, You suggest that we should not consider 'sustainable transportation' in a vacuum, or to get too idealistic. My post only tried to discuss basic principles: transportation choices should not undercut our continued ability to move about, nor to inflate distance into a downward spiral, in which we have to go further and further to accomplish as much as we did in the near past. I don't love the word 'efficiency.' But environmental principles have a lot to do with simply getting the most outcome for the least input. Transportation, indeed, is an input. It serves an end. Does a trip accomplish more if it is twice as long? Or use a vehicle twice as large? Or burn twice as much fuel? Or occur in a way that instills fear in pedestrians and cyclists twice as much? Cities are the ultimate human invention, by increasing the outcomes of trips while accomplishing those trips with ever-decreasing use of resources. They do (or did) that through creating and maintaining 'propinquity:' proximity in space and time. Planning of cities was the purvey of architects until the age of the car. A reading of Christopher Alexander's _A New Theory of Urban Design_ (1987) is a modern attempt to create the conditions of ancient planning, in which each site was developed (or redeveloped) considering its complementarity to the adjacent sites. In the age of the car, planning of places was taken over the professional planners who evolved not from architecture, but from civil engineers. Zoning today requires not _complementarity_ (how different land uses work together), but _compatibility_ (how to ensure adjacent uses are not very different). The result is the only serious requirement imposed now is for a land use not to bother its neighbours, and to provide parking, parking, parking, so that those residing at or visiting the site can have a place to leave their distance-conqueror during their stay. (see Shoup, 2004, _The High Cost of Free Parking_). Sadly, the parking requirement itself doesn't so much accommodate isolation of land uses from the other land uses that complement it, as it _imposes_ that isolation. It is sad to see Asians aching to mimic this bankrupt planning principle, and to accept the only-poor-people-ride-transit (or walk, cycle) bias, as if driving a car is somehow liberating, when it is really an isolating form of follow-the-leader, not unlike the parade of elephants in the circus, each holding it its trunk the tail of the one ahead. If only those in the "developed" world could set a new example of commons sense! Chris Bradshaw ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From karl at dnet.net.id Tue Feb 7 23:59:38 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:59:38 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002801c62bf7$1fa0b4a0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never heard of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM - forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the end of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & Eric that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't really just put it down to people's differing perceptions. Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a different story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many positive benefits for the city. Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM To: ericbruun@earthlink.net; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: preston@cc.wwu.edu Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something is not convincing to certain people! >>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >> >>or >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>School of Public Policy | National University >>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/f aculty/paulbarter/ >> >> >>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>Are you interested in urban transport in >>developing countries? Then try >>http://urbantransportasia.blogspo t.com/ >> >>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>http://list.jca.a pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 00:25:59 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:25:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K.. thanks for the clarifications. >>> karl@dnet.net.id 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>> Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never heard of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM - forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the end of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & Eric that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't really just put it down to people's differing perceptions. Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a different story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many positive benefits for the city. Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM To: ericbruun@earthlink.net; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: preston@cc.wwu.edu Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something is not convincing to certain people! >>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >> >>or >>http://www.h indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>School of Public Policy | National University >>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/f aculty/paulbarter/ >> >> >>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>Are you interested in urban transport in >>developing countries? Then try >>http://urbantransportasia.blogspo t.com/ >> >>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>http://list.jca.a pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From arulgreen at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 01:28:12 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:28:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Chennai needs BRT, not Monorail Message-ID: <20060207162813.85103.qmail@web51101.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Friends Greetings from PASUMAI THAAYAGAM When we are launching a Campaign for Sustainable Transport in Chennai, the State Government of Tamil Nadu has announced the Monorail Project for Chennai. Monorail is being used only as feeder service in all the countries where it is in operation. Only Japan does the monorail cover over 100 km. In Malaysia, Australia and United States it runs for less then 100 km. It is yet to be tested as a mainline metro system anywhere in the world. But the Government of Tamil Nadu in India is announced 300 km monorail project as a mainline metro system. (http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/22/stories/2006012214710700.htm) We are strongly opposing the Chennai monorail project. Instead of monorail, we are demanding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for Chennai. Our organization founder Dr. S. Ramadoss raised this demand at a demonstration against monorail project. (See - PMK suggests bus rapid transit system for Chennai http://www.thehindu.com/2006/01/25/stories/2006012507140400.htm) As a member of our organization, the Indian Railway Minister for State, Mr. Velu also opposed the project. (See - Monorail project not feasible: Velu http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B1B8DB6B2-5841-4B66-A6D0-A2FDFE4581AC%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Chennai) In this situation we are planning to organize a Seminar on Sustainable Transport in Chennai ? (for Bus Rapid Transit in Chennai) on 25 February 2006. We need your advice and support. with kind regards. R.ARUL, Secretary, PASUMAI THAAYAGAM (Green Mother Land), No. 9,(old No: 5, Lynwood Lane,Mahalingapuram, CHENNAI -600 034, Tamil Nadu, INDIA. Email: pasumaimail@yahoo.co.in Fax: +91 ? 44 ? 2817 2122 www.p-t.in PMK suggests bus rapid transit system for Chennai Ramadoss demands scrapping of the proposed monorail project CHENNAI: The Pattali Makkal Katchi on Tuesday urged the State Government to adopt the bus rapid transit (BRT) system to solve Chennai's public and mass transportation problem. The BRT system, which ensures use of high quality and high capacity buses for public transport, was cheaper than the monorail system and more suited to Chennai," said PMK founder S.Ramadoss, while leading a demonstration near Memorial Hall here. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea had gone for it. He demanded that the proposed monorail project be scrapped. Pointing out that it was proposed to cover 300 km, Dr. Ramadoss said even in industrialised nations such as Japan and United States, the coverage was much less. Considering the volume of traffic in the city, monorail would not be the answer. He said the fleet strength of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation should be increased to 5,000. There should be a separate track for bicycles on all roads. He criticised the trend of reducing the space meant for footpaths. http://www.thehindu.com/2006/01/25/stories/2006012507140400.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From whook at itdp.org Wed Feb 8 01:40:47 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:40:47 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c62c05$3fd59b60$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail, and the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems. They calculate the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of people that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply. This will usually give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical. The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there is a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors, so at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated. In two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is stuck waiting and a queue forms. Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck is the station stop. However, because these systems don't exist in developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for this problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly assumes the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM To: karl@dnet.net.id; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K.. thanks for the clarifications. >>> karl@dnet.net.id 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>> Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never heard of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM - forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the end of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & Eric that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't really just put it down to people's differing perceptions. Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a different story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many positive benefits for the city. Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM To: ericbruun@earthlink.net; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: preston@cc.wwu.edu Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something is not convincing to certain people! >>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times websites and does an archival search. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: John Ernst >Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >The experience in Chennai appears to be >increasingly common in the larger Asian >cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. > >Typically, these companies overestimate demand >and promise a totally self-sustaining system >running with only private investment. Though >untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. > >After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >financed monorail start construction. But the >company soon came to the government asking for a >subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors... > >It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. > >Best, >John > >At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >> >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >> >>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>See >>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News >>for the latest. >> >>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >> >>http://w ww.h indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan. >> >>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>and the monorail would be its another >>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >> >>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys. >> >>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >> >>or >>http://w ww.h indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >> >>Any comments? >> >>Paul >> >>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>School of Public Policy | National University >>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>http://www.spp.nus.edu. sg/f aculty/paulbarter/ >> >> >>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>Are you interested in urban transport in >>developing countries? Then try >>http://urbantransportasia.blo gspo t.com/ >> >>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>http://list.j ca.a pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>or http://www.geocities.com/sustranne t/ >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >John Ernst - Director, Asia Region > ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide > Visit http://www.itdp.org >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From litman at vtpi.org Wed Feb 8 02:45:17 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:45:17 -0800 Subject: [sustran] VTPI News - Winter 2006 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207094420.05e350e8@mail.islandnet.com> ----------- VTPI NEWS ----------- Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ------------------------------------ Winter 2006 Vol. 9, No. 1 ---------------------------------- The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ONLINE TDM ENCYCLOPEDIA ======================== The VTPI "Online TDM Encyclopedia" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm ) is a comprehensive information resource to help identify and evaluate innovative management solutions to transport problems, available for free on our website. We continually update and expand the Encyclopedia. We have recently updated the following chapters: "Contingency-Based Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm123.htm ) "Road Space Reallocation" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm56.htm ) "Campus Transport Management" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm5.htm ) As always, we appreciate feedback. Please let us know if you have suggestions for improving any of these documents. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW DOCUMENTS ============== Important New Book By VTPI Director Todd Litman "Parking Management Best Practices" by Planners Press (www.planning.org) will be released later this month. See the flyer at http://www.vtpi.org/PMBP_Flyer.pdf for more information and a substantial discount available for orders made before February 28, 2006. The typical automobile is parked 23 hours a day. Where and how it is parked can make a big difference to economic development, traffic reduction, smart growth, historic preservation, and many other planning efforts. "Parking Management Best Practices" describes more than two-dozen practical strategies for increasing parking facility efficiency and reducing excessive parking demand. These strategies expand the range of solutions available for addressing parking problems, providing an alternative to traditional predict and provide parking planning. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPDATED DOCUMENTS ============== We recently updated the following documents: "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism" (http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf ) This report as been updated to respond to Randal O'Toole's latest criticism of rail transit investments. "Safe Travels: "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism" http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf). This report by Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy investigates the safety benefits that can result from various mobility management strategies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE Below are VTPI articles recently published in professional journals. "Transportation Solutions," Moving the Movement: Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Urban Habitat (http://urbanhabitat.rpejournal.org/moving), Winter 2005. This journal includes a variety of articles dealing with transportation equity issues, available free on the website. "Sustainable Transportation and Equity? ("Igualdad y Transporte Sostenible"), in 'The Right to Mobility (El Derecho a la Movilidad), ' published by the Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de Valladolid (www.uva.es/arquitec), 2005; available at www.ciudad-derechos.org/eindex.html. This report includes a variety of papers that examine transportation equity issues throughout the world. "Lessons From Katrina and Rita: What Major Disasters Can Teach Transportation Planners," Journal of Transportation Engineering (http://scitation.aip.org/teo), Vol. 132, January 2006, pp. 11-18. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPCOMING EVENTS ================ VTPI Executive Directly Todd Litman will give the keynote speech at the School of Planning Annual Conference (http://planningconference.dal.ca), at Delhousie University, Halifax, Canada this week, February 9-10-11, 2006 The conference theme is, "Bringing Transit Home: Transforming Daily Life, Community, Attitudes & Opportunities." The conference is open to both professionals and the public and provides an excellent forum to explore and debate planning issues. Admission is free. Todd Litman will also give a series of presentations in New York, including a seminar titled, "Well-Measured Transportation Planning," Thursday, February 23, 2006, 2:30 ? 4:00 pm, Room 914, Kimmel Center New York University, sponsored by Transportation Alternatives (http://www.transalt.org) and the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (http://wagner.nyu.edu/news/293.html ). This seminar will explore how the techniques used to measure transportation system performance affect planning decisions, and the role of new methods suitable for multi-modal evaluation (for background see http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BEEN THERE ? DONE THAT ======================= We had a very busy but fun time at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting this year. Not only did we have one workshop presentation, five paper presentations, two poster presentations, and three committee meetings to attend, the entire Litman family came along to explore Washington DC, including wife Suzanne Litman and sons Graham (16) and Raviv (13). A wonderful time was had by all. There was considerable interest in our research on the future transportation trends (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf ), lessons for transportation planners from hurricanes Katrina and Rita (http://www.vtpi.org/katrina.pdf ), transit terrorism risks (http://www.vtpi.org/transitrisk.pdf ) and mobility management safety benefits (http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf ). Todd Litman chairs the TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators subcommittee, which is developing practical techniques for evaluating transportation systems' economic, social and environmental sustainability. To find out more and be kept informed about this subcommittee's activities contact Todd at litman@vtpi.org. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Urgent Issue: NPTS Not Funded =============================== The new federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, does not provide sufficient specific funding for the National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS, previously called the National Household Transportation Survey). Without additional funding, user support (at http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/index.shtml ) will end in about two months, and the next NPTS, scheduled for 2008, will be cancelled. Without NPTS we lose comprehensive and accurate travel demand data in a format that allows geographic and time series analysis. NPTS project management is in the FHWA Office of Policy, whose research budget was significantly reduced in the bill. FHWA is now investigating what can be done to support the program, but there are no easy answers. Funding can also come from NHTSA, FTA, RITA/BTS and possibly OST, but all have limited research budgets. The 2008 survey requires $7-8 million (less than the $11.5 million spent on the 2001 NHTS) and support functions for analysis and publications, website development and maintenance and user support costs another $850,000 per year. In a six-year cycle, the NPTS project totals about $12.6 million (averaging $2.1 million per year.) The most effective action to take at this point is to make sure that U.S. DOT knows of the many users would be adversely impacted by not continuing this crucial data series. Letters of support should be sent to: Norman Y. Mineta Secretary of Transportation U. S. Department of Transportation (S-1) 400- 7TH Street, S.W. Washington DC 20590 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ USEFUL RESOURCES ================= Below are some new information resources that you may find useful. Marie Demers's new book "Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity," (Vital Health Publishing, http://www.vitalhealthbooks.com/book/2414947630.html, 2006) is easy to read and provides an excellent introduction to issues related to why and how to increase nonmotorized transportation. It can help planners and policy makers understand the importance of increased walking and cycling, help health professionals understand how this can be done, and encourage individuals to take more steps each day. The book discusses various reasons that individuals and communities should improve walking conditions and encourage walking activity, and describes various ways of doing this. It emphasizes public health (particularly reduced obesity and increased physical fitness), community livability (including community cohesion) and personal enjoyment benefits, as well environmental and equity benefits. It describes policy and planning reforms to help create more walkable communities. CTOD and CNT, The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice, Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20060127_affindex.pdf), 2006. USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm), 2006. Norman King, Patrick Morency and Lucie Lapierre, Impacts Of Transportation On Public Health, Montr?al Public Health Department (http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/synthese/rapv8n3_eng.pdf), 2006. Pay as You Drive Insurance Pilot King County Metro, the Washington State Department of Transportation and other partners has $2,2 million to develop a Pay As You Drive (PAYD) Insurance Pilot project for Washington State over a 4-year period to evaluate the impacts of a pilot including at least 5000 participants. They are in the process of recruiting an insurance carrier to join in the project. The deadline for expressions of interest is February 15, 2006. For more information contact Bill Roach (bill.roach@metrokc.gov) or Bob Flor (bob.flor@metrokc.gov). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please let us know if you have comments or questions about any information in this newsletter, or if you would like to be removed from our email list. And please pass this newsletter on to others who may find it useful. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060207/758fe1ce/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Feb 8 06:24:39 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:24:39 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe References: <000601c62c05$3fd59b60$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <7GOG4.14809H6M@domain.com> Hi, This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: Tapping Into Asia?s Euros 10 Billion A Year Rail Market A STUDY of the Euros 10 billion/year Asian railway market based on market segments speaks of considerable pent-up potential in public transport investment in the region in the years ahead. It suggests that even if overall economic momentum should slow down in future, significant development potential exists in individual areas. http://www.railjournal.com/A/xfeature1.html ---- In case anyone cares, I say "On the Train" because I think train makes sense as the core of land-based transport, in a country where streets are living spaces between buildings. BUT depending on the country it should either be just long-distance intercity services (unless they have sleeper cars on buses) or in Europe the situation is certainly different in regards to historical tram infrastructure, etc. BRT is more or less guided transport, which is why I like it. Also, "On the Train" is for now focused on Europe, particularly on Eastern Europe. By the way I imagine that in the near future - when cheap and easy oil is gone - many of the ring roads etc all over Europe will just be used for BRT. Unless I am missing a major technical hitch? People might want to use rail solutions for whatever reason but unless vehicles are light too much of the infrastructure would need to be strengthened - in addition to laying of rails, etc - and the resulting cost and energy use could be prohibative. I am actually going to see if someone wants to develop some concept BRTsolutions for future of Europe's ringroads. Some more questions: - There is a short item in the new Carbusters talking about how particles from wearing-down tyres are causing health problems. Are any BRT systems dealing with this? - Also, if buses used for BRT could last as long as trains it would be great. Are buyers of buses for BRT making sure they at least get vehicles which can be recycled easily? - Do any "BRT cities" have a unique solution for urban freight? Jaime Lerner is correct in saying that it is natural that people want to be above ground, but freight doesnt have eyes. So... whatever is appropriate, and watch out for the lobbyists! - T, On the (you bought it whether you liked it or not) to the Future! ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 06:52:22 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:52:22 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: Todd's two cents is not unreasonable. IF going underground both avoids moving people out of the way and reduces vehicular traffic, why not? But what about cost? Like it or not, sustainable transport must be economically sustainable. What are the rules? What costs and benefits to count? What should people pay, particularly poor people? Will a metro or light rail OR fast BRT cause an expansion of a city that ultimately creates car-dependent suburbs (like those around Paris, imho)? What are the rules of accounting that could be used for an honest study of alternatives? Lee Schipper Director for Research, EMBARQ World Resources Institute 10 "G" St NE, Washington DC 20002 TLF 1 202 729 7735 FAX 1 202 729 7775 http://www.embarq.wri.org/en Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest: http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm >>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 4:24:39 PM >>> Hi, This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: Tapping Into Asia's Euros 10 Billion A Year Rail Market A STUDY of the Euros 10 billion/year Asian railway market based on market segments speaks of considerable pent-up potential in public transport investment in the region in the years ahead. It suggests that even if overall economic momentum should slow down in future, significant development potential exists in individual areas. http://www.railjournal.com/A/xfeature1.html ---- In case anyone cares, I say "On the Train" because I think train makes sense as the core of land-based transport, in a country where streets are living spaces between buildings. BUT depending on the country it should either be just long-distance intercity services (unless they have sleeper cars on buses) or in Europe the situation is certainly different in regards to historical tram infrastructure, etc. BRT is more or less guided transport, which is why I like it. Also, "On the Train" is for now focused on Europe, particularly on Eastern Europe. By the way I imagine that in the near future - when cheap and easy oil is gone - many of the ring roads etc all over Europe will just be used for BRT. Unless I am missing a major technical hitch? People might want to use rail solutions for whatever reason but unless vehicles are light too much of the infrastructure would need to be strengthened - in addition to laying of rails, etc - and the resulting cost and energy use could be prohibative. I am actually going to see if someone wants to develop some concept BRTsolutions for future of Europe's ringroads. Some more questions: - There is a short item in the new Carbusters talking about how particles from wearing-down tyres are causing health problems. Are any BRT systems dealing with this? - Also, if buses used for BRT could last as long as trains it would be great. Are buyers of buses for BRT making sure they at least get vehicles which can be recycled easily? - Do any "BRT cities" have a unique solution for urban freight? Jaime Lerner is correct in saying that it is natural that people want to be above ground, but freight doesnt have eyes. So... whatever is appropriate, and watch out for the lobbyists! - T, On the (you bought it whether you liked it or not) to the Future! ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Feb 8 06:59:01 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:59:01 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Delhi Metro References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207094420.05e350e8@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: Hi, I would be curious to see some views on this, too: Delhi Metro Expands To Tackle City?s Growing Pains The Indian capital, Delhi, opened its first metro line four years ago, and massive expansion is planned to meet soaring demand. http://www.railjournal.com/A/xfeature2.html - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Feb 8 07:37:33 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:37:33 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT References: Message-ID: From: Lee Schipper: So while your earlier > comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes donw > ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for (and > who pays) and other > ecnomic and social factors. Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, etc. --- Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus (with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so are they worried about future availability of CNG? - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 08:05:08 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:05:08 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT Message-ID: In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to smaller ones after around 5-6 years. >>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> From: Lee Schipper: So while your earlier > comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes donw > ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for (and > who pays) and other > ecnomic and social factors. Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, etc. --- Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus (with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so are they worried about future availability of CNG? - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Feb 8 08:18:29 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:18:29 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] CNG BRT Message-ID: <17882340.1139354310249.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Have a look at LA County's Orange Line (www.mta.net). All new buses they purchase are BRT, including the Orange Line. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:05 PM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT > >In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to >smaller ones after around 5-6 years. > >>>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> >From: Lee Schipper: > >So while your earlier >> comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes >donw >> ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for >(and >> who pays) and other >> ecnomic and social factors. > >Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query >about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long >as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. > >The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening >with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, >etc. > >--- > >Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source >is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new >BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of >Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there >energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary >vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus >(with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating >on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered >by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so >are they worried about future availability of CNG? > >- T > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Todd Edelman >International Coordinator >On the Train Towards the Future! > >Green Idea Factory >Laubova 5 >CZ-13000 Praha 3 > >++420 605 915 970 > >edelman@greenidea.info >www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > >Green Idea Factory, >a member of World Carfree Network > > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Feb 8 08:21:34 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:21:34 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Correction to CNG BRT Message-ID: <14484644.1139354494510.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I meant to say that all new buses LA County purchases are CNG, not BRT. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Bruun >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:18 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport , sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: CNG BRT > > > >Have a look at LA County's Orange Line (www.mta.net). All new buses they purchase are BRT, including the Orange Line. > >Eric Bruun > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Lee Schipper >>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:05 PM >>To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT >> >>In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to >>smaller ones after around 5-6 years. >> >>>>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> >>From: Lee Schipper: >> >>So while your earlier >>> comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes >>donw >>> ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for >>(and >>> who pays) and other >>> ecnomic and social factors. >> >>Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query >>about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long >>as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. >> >>The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening >>with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, >>etc. >> >>--- >> >>Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source >>is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new >>BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of >>Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there >>energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary >>vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus >>(with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating >>on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered >>by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so >>are they worried about future availability of CNG? >> >>- T >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Todd Edelman >>International Coordinator >>On the Train Towards the Future! >> >>Green Idea Factory >>Laubova 5 >>CZ-13000 Praha 3 >> >>++420 605 915 970 >> >>edelman@greenidea.info >>www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain >> >>Green Idea Factory, >>a member of World Carfree Network >> >> >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >>is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From zvi at inro.ca Wed Feb 8 08:09:17 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:09:17 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <7GOG4.14809H6M@domain.com> References: <000601c62c05$3fd59b60$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> <7GOG4.14809H6M@domain.com> Message-ID: <43E9289D.2060708@inro.ca> Hello, > >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: > > As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more "sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized vehicles. For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain roads. Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to procede? From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve 3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and no emissions, what is the better use of the space? Just some food for thought! Zvi From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 09:04:06 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:04:06 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Correction to CNG BRT Message-ID: which knowlingly costs them more than low sulfer diesel buses? >>> Eric Bruun 2/7/2006 6:21:34 PM >>> I meant to say that all new buses LA County purchases are CNG, not BRT. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Bruun >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:18 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport , sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: CNG BRT > > > >Have a look at LA County's Orange Line (www.mta.net). All new buses they purchase are BRT, including the Orange Line. > >Eric Bruun > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Lee Schipper >>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:05 PM >>To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT >> >>In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to >>smaller ones after around 5-6 years. >> >>>>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> >>From: Lee Schipper: >> >>So while your earlier >>> comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes >>donw >>> ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for >>(and >>> who pays) and other >>> ecnomic and social factors. >> >>Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query >>about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long >>as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. >> >>The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening >>with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, >>etc. >> >>--- >> >>Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source >>is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new >>BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of >>Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there >>energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary >>vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus >>(with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating >>on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered >>by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so >>are they worried about future availability of CNG? >> >>- T >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Todd Edelman >>International Coordinator >>On the Train Towards the Future! >> >>Green Idea Factory >>Laubova 5 >>CZ-13000 Praha 3 >> >>++420 605 915 970 >> >>edelman@greenidea.info >>www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain >> >>Green Idea Factory, >>a member of World Carfree Network >> >> >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >>is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 10:08:45 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:08:45 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT Message-ID: Kindly see our IEA book "Bus Systems for the Future",w hich still should be available as a PDF on the iea web site www.iea.org . the original assignment was to look into prospects for fuel cell buses (2000-2001) and get 1000 orders from a number of cities. No takers beyond a few experiments, including one still sputtering along sponsored by GEF, UNDP and others. Confident in fuel cell (fool cell?) buses. At about 10 times more than regular clean diesle or CNG buses (including all the trimmings, i.e., Hydrogen stations, etc), confident they work, as both VAncouver and Chicago had satisfactory tests. But as mass produced vehicles, they're just not here. Diesel hybrids are much closer -- we got pretty good results in Mexico City, after intensive tests of both a diesel parallel Hybrid (Allison) and a series hybrid from Brasil (eletrabus). Overhead trolley lines are VERY expensive and the trolley buses expensive because so few are produced. Biogas is still very marginal (I drove in a biogas taxi in Linkoeping, Sweden)..the mainstay is diesel, of which a growing minority in OECD countries are ultra low sulfer diesel buses. The next is CNg, perhaps 8000 in China and 8000 elsewhere. Then LPG -- a couple thousand in China, plus Vienna and half of Copenhagen and a few other places (including some in Paris). What matters is that buses (or rail) is relatively full, always moving, organized in stations..then the differential environmental impacts become small. When buses are stuck in traffic, they lose money, waste fuel, and get travelers angry.. When rail is expensive (usually), everyone looks the other way. So it comes down to what I suggest earlier -- what do you want, whom do you expect to ride, and what do you want them to pay? >>> schipper@wri.org 2/7/2006 6:05:08 PM >>> In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to smaller ones after around 5-6 years. >>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> From: Lee Schipper: So while your earlier > comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes donw > ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid for (and > who pays) and other > ecnomic and social factors. Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also query about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as long as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust recirculation, etc. --- Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel source is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a new BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead caternary vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus (with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems operating on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses powered by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if so are they worried about future availability of CNG? - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Feb 8 05:37:16 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:37:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: <33529354.1139344636927.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Walter: Why single out monorail and LRT for the accusation about using theoretical capacity? Boosters of any mode can do this trick. Also, we should keep in mind that sometimes that theoretical capacities really are do-able. The Central Line in London, for example, reliably runs 9-car trains at 95 second headways. (Actually, the vehicles per hour are do-able, the people capacity per hour depends on crowding assumptions, which vary. Japan and South America might tolerate 6 persons per square meter, North America and Europe only 4 persons.) Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Walter Hook >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 11:40 AM >To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' , karl@dnet.net.id >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail, and >the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the >fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly >exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems. They calculate >the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of people >that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that >the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply. This will usually >give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical. > >The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there is >a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors, so >at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop >time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated. In >two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is >stuck waiting and a queue forms. Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck is >the station stop. However, because these systems don't exist in >developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for this >problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly assumes >the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf Of Lee Schipper >Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM >To: karl@dnet.net.id; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the >Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K.. >thanks for the clarifications. > >>>> karl@dnet.net.id 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>> >Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala >Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never >heard >of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM >- >forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the >end >of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & >Eric >that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't >really just put it down to people's differing perceptions. >Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a >different >story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many >positive benefits for the city. >Karl Fjellstrom > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf >Of Lee Schipper >Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM >To: ericbruun@earthlink.net; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Cc: preston@cc.wwu.edu >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the >Seattle >Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. >Something >is not convincing to certain people! > >>>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> > >I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle >Monorail fiasco. >It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle >Post-Intelligencer >and Seatte Times >websites and does an archival search. > >Eric Bruun > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: John Ernst >>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy >> >>The experience in Chennai appears to be >>increasingly common in the larger Asian >>cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. >> >>Typically, these companies overestimate demand >>and promise a totally self-sustaining system >>running with only private investment. Though >>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. >> >>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >>financed monorail start construction. But the >>company soon came to the government asking for a >>subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >>get started again or he would look for yet another set of >investors... >> >>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. >> >>Best, >>John >> >>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >>> >>>Some of you may be interested to know that >>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >>> >>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>>See >>>ch+N > >ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News > >>>for the latest. >>> >>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >>> >>>http://w >ww.h > >indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. >Sreedharan. >>> >>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>>and the monorail would be its another >>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >>> >>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and >surveys. >>> >>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >>> >>>or >>>http://w >ww.h > >indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >>> >>>Any comments? >>> >>>Paul >>> >>>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>>School of Public Policy | National University >>>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>>http://www.spp.nus.edu. >sg/f > >aculty/paulbarter/ >>> >>> >>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>>Are you interested in urban transport in >>>developing countries? Then try >>>http://urbantransportasia.blo >gspo > >t.com/ >>> >>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>>http://list.j >ca.a > >pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>>or >http://www.geocities.com/sustranne >t/ > >>> >>> >>>================================================================ >>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>>transport with a focus on developing countries >>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>John Ernst - Director, Asia Region >> ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation >worldwide >> Visit http://www.itdp.org >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > >Send instant messages to your online friends >http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From regina at wholechoice.net Wed Feb 8 10:08:03 2006 From: regina at wholechoice.net (Regina Anderson) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:08:03 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Sustainability prize for non-profits Message-ID: <20060208010157.M74648@wholechoice.net> Hi All - Information below on a money prize for sustainability from Alcan (an aluminum manufacturing co) in association with the International Business Leaders Forum. Entries to be received by March 31. Must show outstanding contributions to at least two of the three pillars of sustainable development. "The $1 million Alcan Prize for Sustainability recognizes the not-for-profit sector for its contributions to global sustainability. The contest is open to all not-for-profit, non-governmental, and civil society organizations, based anywhere in the world that are ?working to progress and advance the goals of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.? Entries must be received by March 31st." More info and application available at: http://www.greenbiz.com/reference/awards_record.cfm?LinkAdvID=45810 best regards, Gina Manzo Anderson -- Regina Manzo Anderson, AICP Whole Choice - Movement for Health, Pedestrian Planning, Sustainability Bras Basah P.O. Box 315 Singapore 180231 From schipper at wri.org Wed Feb 8 11:19:59 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:19:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy Message-ID: I have to agree with Eric. One BRT advocate makes an emissions comparison between the Washington DC metro and a theoreticao BRT line here in Dc. What if the BRT line fails to attract passengers, not surprising in a country where the AVERAGE city bus, day and night, carries less than 10 passengers! Obviously the Rapid Bus lines in LA are doing much much better, but who would have dared claim that before they were introduced in late 2000. >>> Eric Bruun 2/7/2006 3:37:16 PM >>> Walter: Why single out monorail and LRT for the accusation about using theoretical capacity? Boosters of any mode can do this trick. Also, we should keep in mind that sometimes that theoretical capacities really are do-able. The Central Line in London, for example, reliably runs 9-car trains at 95 second headways. (Actually, the vehicles per hour are do-able, the people capacity per hour depends on crowding assumptions, which vary. Japan and South America might tolerate 6 persons per square meter, North America and Europe only 4 persons.) Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Walter Hook >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 11:40 AM >To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' , karl@dnet.net.id >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail, and >the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the >fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly >exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems. They calculate >the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of people >that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that >the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply. This will usually >give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical. > >The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there is >a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors, so >at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop >time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated. In >two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is >stuck waiting and a queue forms. Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck is >the station stop. However, because these systems don't exist in >developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for this >problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly assumes >the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf Of Lee Schipper >Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM >To: karl@dnet.net.id; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the >Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K.. >thanks for the clarifications. > >>>> karl@dnet.net.id 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>> >Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala >Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never >heard >of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM >- >forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the >end >of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & >Eric >that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't >really just put it down to people's differing perceptions. >Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a >different >story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many >positive benefits for the city. >Karl Fjellstrom > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf >Of Lee Schipper >Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM >To: ericbruun@earthlink.net; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Cc: preston@cc.wwu.edu >Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy > >But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the >Seattle >Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. >Something >is not convincing to certain people! > >>>> Eric Bruun 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>> > >I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle >Monorail fiasco. >It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle >Post-Intelligencer >and Seatte Times >websites and does an archival search. > >Eric Bruun > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: John Ernst >>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM >>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy >> >>The experience in Chennai appears to be >>increasingly common in the larger Asian >>cities. Following some initial work by ITDP, >>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but >>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals. >> >>Typically, these companies overestimate demand >>and promise a totally self-sustaining system >>running with only private investment. Though >>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments. >> >>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately >>financed monorail start construction. But the >>company soon came to the government asking for a >>subsidy, then stopped construction. The governor >>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to >>get started again or he would look for yet another set of >investors... >> >>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill. >> >>Best, >>John >> >>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote: >>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878" >>> >>>Some of you may be interested to know that >>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the >>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport. >>> >>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt >>>for a huge monorail network is the issue. >>>See >>>ch+N > >ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News > >>>for the latest. >>> >>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem >>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail >>>supporters louder and more influential it seems). >>> >>>http://w >ww.h > >indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm >>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan) >>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for >>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing >>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will >>>not help meet the transport requirement of city >>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. >Sreedharan. >>> >>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the >>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) >>>and the monorail would be its another >>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government. >>> >>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a >>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro >>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the >>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and >surveys. >>> >>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. >>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been >>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall >>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the >>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. * >>> >>>or >>>http://w >ww.h > >indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm >>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project) >>> >>>Any comments? >>> >>>Paul >>> >>>Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY >>>School of Public Policy | National University >>>of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng >>>Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: >>>ᄍ-6516 3324 | Fax: ᄍ-6778 >>>1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | >>>http://www.spp.nus.edu. >sg/f > >aculty/paulbarter/ >>> >>> >>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. >>>Are you interested in urban transport in >>>developing countries? Then try >>>http://urbantransportasia.blo >gspo > >t.com/ >>> >>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, >>>http://list.j >ca.a > >pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >>>or >http://www.geocities.com/sustranne >t/ > >>> >>> >>>================================================================ >>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >>>transport with a focus on developing countries >>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>John Ernst - Director, Asia Region >> ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy >>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation >worldwide >> Visit http://www.itdp.org >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > >Send instant messages to your online friends >http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From karl at dnet.net.id Wed Feb 8 13:14:17 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:14:17 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <43E9289D.2060708@inro.ca> Message-ID: <005801c62c66$4ef911b0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Zvi, In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or the other. In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both. Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Hello, > >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: > > As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more "sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized vehicles. For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain roads. Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to procede? From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve 3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and no emissions, what is the better use of the space? Just some food for thought! Zvi ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sulin at vectordesigns.org Wed Feb 8 11:24:24 2006 From: sulin at vectordesigns.org (Su-Lin Chee) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:24:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: As someone working on Kuala Lumpur?s public transportation information system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: 1. Mr. Bradshaw?s sustainable transportation comments: I agree wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians? ?only-poor- people-ride-transit bias.? That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to KL?s public transport usage, over and above political and economic issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the word ?buses?, it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle class and above people ? of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? 2. Mr. Fjellstromn?s KL monorail comments: among KL?s rail transit systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some of the city?s most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how the line doesn?t join up with KL?s train hub: KL Sentral. 3. Mr Pardo?s Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 From karl at dnet.net.id Wed Feb 8 14:12:46 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:12:46 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c62c6e$4fa22950$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Dear Su-Lin Che, Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you say the monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the competition... PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts of more than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the contractors, designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company they set up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, so they didn't lose much when it folded. STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was better, with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of operation, and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance completing the takeover in September 2002. Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of these systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the beginning that they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an incentive to maximize passengers. As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But considering that: - it was 8 years under construction - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean anything, this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during the peak) and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that even under the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity of only 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation information system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From sujit at vsnl.com Wed Feb 8 15:27:21 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:57:21 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <005801c62c66$4ef911b0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> References: <43E9289D.2060708@inro.ca> <005801c62c66$4ef911b0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20060208114247.03acac10@pop.vsnl.com> 8 February 2006 I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote: >Zvi, >In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new >applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are >median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when >there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is >usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or >the other. >In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes >of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for >both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both. >Karl > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Zvi Leve >Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Hello, > > > > >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport >for developing countries: > > > > >As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries >mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used >non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more >"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are >steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized >vehicles. > >For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated >ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW >often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on >certain roads. > >Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even >improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit >accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to >procede? > > From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people >per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an >energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve >3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and >no emissions, what is the better use of the space? > >Just some food for thought! > >Zvi > Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: , ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/21a47881/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Thu Feb 9 00:53:56 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:53:56 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <005801c62c66$4ef911b0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> References: <005801c62c66$4ef911b0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Message-ID: <43EA1414.4050803@inro.ca> Karl Fjellstrom wrote: >Zvi, >In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new >applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are >median-aligned. > > That's great! Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to actually experience a real functioning BRT system (there isn't one in Montreal, and I've never been to South America), so my comments are only based on my perceptions from reading about things. Another thing which comes across about BRT is that these systems (at least those which work well) do seem to be very well integrated with their urban environments. In North America there is not much of a culture of urban boulevards, so median alignments are more difficult to achieve. I have only been to Shanghai in China, and I did not see any BRT there, although they may be planning some. In terms of bicycles being 'squeezed off of the road', scooters seem to be much more of a problem. It seems inevitable that increased motorization (be it personal vehicles or mass transit) follows rising income levels. But it would be a pity if countries which had high levels of non-motorized transport would completely shift away from that. There seems to be very little interest in higher-end bicycles.... On the rail versus BRT debate, Singapore is also an interesting example. Apparantly yhey were told that bus-oriented transit would be a much more efficient and less expensive solution, but the authorities strongly felt that they needed heavy rail in order to create the dense development patterns that they needed given their limited land area. Zvi From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 9 06:19:28 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:19:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: <22868949.1139433568330.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/6b845252/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Thu Feb 9 06:33:19 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:33:19 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <22868949.1139433568330.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <008a01c62cf7$47fd3a80$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Dear Eric, Certainly Delhi can use both BRT and Metro. However, the density of Old Delhi is very high but the density of new Delhi is quite low, and the metro only passes briefly and tangentially through old delhi. The road right of ways in New Delhi are massive, like 40 - 60 meters or more, with much of this land underutilized, so one can easily retrofit many of these streets with BRT without reducing motor vehicle throughput, particularly given the fact that the buses are being relocated out of the mixed traffic lanes where they currently consume two or more lanes due to irregular stopping behavior and volumes of as many as 200 buses an hour. The Delhi High Capacity Bus system is still being widely talked about and they say they are going to implement the first corridor any day now, but they have been saying that for more than three years. The main factor seems to be that there was simply enough money both foreign and domestic in the Delhi metro to allow the project promoters to force through the creation of a fully independent parastatal organization, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which while quite unaccountable has the decided advantage that it is capable of getting things built and cutting through the bureaucracy. We have been pressing for years now to get Delhi to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle akin to the Delhi Metro Rail Corp (DMRC) to give the BRT interests an institutional home from where to coordinate the needed works and also become a comparative lobbying juggernaut. There has been some recent progress in this regard, I hear, but the process is frustratingly slow. The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. Sensible municipal authorities in India could just make rational plans for metro in one or two high volume corridors and BRT in other corridors and develop integrated systems, but this just isnt' how projects are promoted and implemented in India right now largely due to the weakness of the government. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:19 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Sujit: What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several reasons, some of which might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your perspective. >From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of bus lanes are being built. I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances involved. While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in China.) It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.) As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities facing megacities. Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush hours. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe 8 February 2006 I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote: Zvi, In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or the other. In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both. Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org ] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Hello, > >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: > > As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more "sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized vehicles. For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain roads. Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to procede? From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve 3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and no emissions, what is the better use of the space? Just some food for thought! Zvi Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: , ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/8253e92c/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 9 07:02:55 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:02:55 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: <17820751.1139436175631.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/d5531461/attachment-0001.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 9 07:09:59 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:09:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Correction to CNG BRT Message-ID: <32282651.1139436599321.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> LAC MTA had no choice. It was court ordered to buy CNG, kind of like Delhi. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Feb 7, 2006 7:04 PM >To: ericbruun@earthlink.net, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: Re: [sustran] Correction to CNG BRT > >which knowlingly costs them more than low sulfer diesel buses? > >>>> Eric Bruun 2/7/2006 6:21:34 PM >>> > > >I meant to say that all new buses LA County purchases are CNG, not >BRT. > >Eric > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Eric Bruun >>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:18 PM >>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >>Subject: CNG BRT >> >> >> >>Have a look at LA County's Orange Line (www.mta.net). All new buses >they purchase are BRT, including the Orange Line. >> >>Eric Bruun >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Lee Schipper >>>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 6:05 PM >>>To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>>Subject: [sustran] Re: Delhi Metro + Post-Oil BRT + Biogas BRT >>> >>>In most Latin American countries, buses are sold from main cities to >>>smaller ones after around 5-6 years. >>> >>>>>> edelman@greenidea.info 2/7/2006 5:37:33 PM >>> >>>From: Lee Schipper: >>> >>>So while your earlier >>>> comments are certainly valid (lifetime of vehicles, etc) it comes >>>donw >>>> ot how ot value the land, the costs, the way the system is paid >for >>>(and >>>> who pays) and other >>>> ecnomic and social factors. >>> >>>Todd: What I meant with "lifetime of vehicle" comment - and also >query >>>about tyre particles - was simply to make sure that buses last as >long >>>as possible, and how to do that... and the same with tyres. >>> >>>The envelope should continue to be pushed - it seems to be happening >>>with the latest engines in regards to using gas, exhaust >recirculation, >>>etc. >>> >>>--- >>> >>>Regarding post-peak oil BRT, the thinking for the onboard fuel >source >>>is mainly hydrogen, right? How confident is everyone in this? For a >new >>>BRT, are owners thinking they will go through two 15-year cycles of >>>Diesel or gas buses before they make the switch? Or three? Are there >>>energy-use advantages to getting electricity from an overhead >caternary >>>vs. some type of onboard hydrogen system? Are there any trolley-bus >>>(with caternary) type BRT systems? Are there any BRT systems >operating >>>on biogas? (I know that Sweden has about 800 normal city buses >powered >>>by biogas, plus one regional train). Are there any CNG BRTs? And if >so >>>are they worried about future availability of CNG? >>> >>>- T >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>Todd Edelman >>>International Coordinator >>>On the Train Towards the Future! >>> >>>Green Idea Factory >>>Laubova 5 >>>CZ-13000 Praha 3 >>> >>>++420 605 915 970 >>> >>>edelman@greenidea.info >>>www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain >>> >>>Green Idea Factory, >>>a member of World Carfree Network >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>================================================================ >>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus >>>is on urban transport policy in Asia. >>> >>> >>>================================================================ >>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. From whook at itdp.org Thu Feb 9 07:52:19 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:52:19 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: <17820751.1139436175631.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <00a301c62d02$5133eda0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Eric, Certainly we should all be glad that DMRC got something accomplished in the complex political reality of Delhi. If the head of DMRC had deeper insight, he would realize that DMRC itself would benefit from integration with a BRT systems serving corridors it will not reach for decades if ever, and it even would be good if they themselves developed BRT corridors as an integrated whole with the metro system. The head of DMRC is a rail oriented person, however, and has not been open to this suggestion, but rather very competitive with BRT/HCBS. We have been pushing an integrated system, (at least at the ticketing system level: we are worried about encumbering BRT with the ongoing operating losses of the DMRC) and there has been some progress in this area, with the first HCBS corridor to terminate adjacent to the Delhi Metro but HCBS's ticketing system issues are not yet resolved. You are correct to be concerned about the risk of sub-par BRT being built in India. We are doing what we can to avoid this eventuality. This is a risk everywhere. Of course metro's also can go badly wrong: witness the Lima holes in the ground, and the 2nd avenue subway hole in the ground, etc. What is desperately needed in India is a reasonable planning process so that some sort of longer term planning can be done, and various transport plans integrated. Foreign money can either help or inhibit a rational planning process where different alternatives can be weighed on their merits. The development banks, with procedures that in theory at least must past some sort of cost benefit test and rudimentary alternatives analysis, have theoretically better procedures than the bi-lateral loans and grants involved in the metro business, which are loans and grants tied to a specific technology with specific corporate backers, locking the recipient into a long term dependence on imported spare parts and technologies often from a single source supplier. Transit passengers would benefit the most from a planning process set the basic goals of a mass transit system to be designed (speed, capacity) and different interest groups were allowed to meet this technical specification at the most reasonable cost and long term operating cost. Of course, we live in a sub-optimal world, so one should be hesitant to criticize too harshly any system that has been implemented reasonably well and has reasonable levels of patronage. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:03 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe -----Forwarded Message----- From: Eric Bruun Sent: Feb 8, 2006 5:00 PM To: Walter Hook Subject: RE: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Walter I am sorry to hear that the DMRC backers are lobbying against BRT. I also like the idea of setting up a similar organization to manage BRT projects. I am glad to hear that there are rights-of-way where there needn't be a conflict with auto users. But I don't agree with you that the loans and other aid are necessarily a bad thing. There is a lot of technology transfer and management skill development attached to this project. This will help other Indian cities as well. Certainly Mumbai will be helped by a better domestic rail industry. I am also skeptical that BRT would actually be built to the same speed, capacity and reliability standards as the Metro. If it is not, it will not have the same impact, either in travel or in focusing development along the lines. Given the urgency of the problems in Delhi, I can see why authorities wouldn't want to take a risk on an unproven solution. Maybe after the first real BRT line is built and it performs well, it will be an easier sell. I recognize the fact of the low income in India, but lets put this in perspective. The entire phases I and II of the Metro (about 100 kms) was to cost a bit over $3 billion in 2002 US dollars. This is far less than a similar system would cost in a richer country. And how much money gets spent every year by the richest people in India just in importing cars and fuel? ( I am actually going to try to find this out.) On balance, I don't think it really rates as a major scandal or waste of money that a city of 13+ million spends $3 billion given all of the benefits. The scandals are 1) that it is so hard to also build BRT which is also needed and 2) that the commuter railroads and existing bus services are apparently poorly integrated with the Metro. Eric Bruun Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Walter Hook Sent: Feb 8, 2006 4:33 PM To: 'Eric Bruun' , 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Dear Eric, Certainly Delhi can use both BRT and Metro. However, the density of Old Delhi is very high but the density of new Delhi is quite low, and the metro only passes briefly and tangentially through old delhi. The road right of ways in New Delhi are massive, like 40 - 60 meters or more, with much of this land underutilized, so one can easily retrofit many of these streets with BRT without reducing motor vehicle throughput, particularly given the fact that the buses are being relocated out of the mixed traffic lanes where they currently consume two or more lanes due to irregular stopping behavior and volumes of as many as 200 buses an hour. The Delhi High Capacity Bus system is still being widely talked about and they say they are going to implement the first corridor any day now, but they have been saying that for more than three years. The main factor seems to be that there was simply enough money both foreign and domestic in the Delhi metro to allow the project promoters to force through the creation of a fully independent parastatal organization, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which while quite unaccountable has the decided advantage that it is capable of getting things built and cutting through the bureaucracy. We have been pressing for years now to get Delhi to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle akin to the Delhi Metro Rail Corp (DMRC) to give the BRT interests an institutional home from where to coordinate the needed works and also become a comparative lobbying juggernaut. There has been some recent progress in this regard, I hear, but the process is frustratingly slow. The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. Sensible municipal authorities in India could just make rational plans for metro in one or two high volume corridors and BRT in other corridors and develop integrated systems, but this just isnt' how projects are promoted and implemented in India right now largely due to the weakness of the government. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:19 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Sujit: What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several reasons, some of which might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your perspective. >From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of bus lanes are being built. I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances involved. While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in China.) It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.) As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities facing megacities. Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush hours. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe 8 February 2006 I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote: Zvi, In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or the other. In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both. Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Hello, > >This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries: > > As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more "sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized vehicles. For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on certain roads. Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to procede? From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve 3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and no emissions, what is the better use of the space? Just some food for thought! Zvi Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: , ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060208/fc7c5b39/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 9 09:16:44 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:16:44 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Yet more on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: <1771118.1139444204194.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Walter (Sorry to others who may be getting bored. This is my last message on this subject.) I wanted to drone on a little bit more, because you raised a really excellent point. As you said, some of the aid is self-serving. In the case of Delhi, I think it is Japanese aid. I have mixed feelings on the subject of being committed to a certain technology or manufacturer. I have decided that it is better that a country give self-serving aid that also helps others than prop up their industry by building more military hardware for export that drains poor countries of their foreign exchange. I would love to see the huge defense industries of the US, France and the UK start building railcars, control systems, hybrid propulsion systems, clean motorcycle engines, etc. for export rather than weapons. Better yet, I would like them to cut back on production for domestic military needs as well, and build even more export products. Not just finished equipment, but entire factories, industrial processes and training programs, so that the recipient nation eventually becomes self-sufficient. In the long run, unless it is a monorail or other exotic mode that is being built, it probably isn't a lifetime commitment to one supplier. One can always switch to other suppliers later. In the case of India, I think that they are going to move towards steadily higher domestic content. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Walter Hook >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 5:52 PM >To: 'Eric Bruun' , 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' >Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Eric, > >Certainly we should all be glad that DMRC got something accomplished in >the complex political reality of Delhi. If the head of DMRC had deeper >insight, he would realize that DMRC itself would benefit from >integration with a BRT systems serving corridors it will not reach for >decades if ever, and it even would be good if they themselves developed >BRT corridors as an integrated whole with the metro system. The head of >DMRC is a rail oriented person, however, and has not been open to this >suggestion, but rather very competitive with BRT/HCBS. We have been >pushing an integrated system, (at least at the ticketing system level: >we are worried about encumbering BRT with the ongoing operating losses >of the DMRC) and there has been some progress in this area, with the >first HCBS corridor to terminate adjacent to the Delhi Metro but HCBS's >ticketing system issues are not yet resolved. > >You are correct to be concerned about the risk of sub-par BRT being >built in India. We are doing what we can to avoid this eventuality. >This is a risk everywhere. Of course metro's also can go badly wrong: >witness the Lima holes in the ground, and the 2nd avenue subway hole in >the ground, etc. > >What is desperately needed in India is a reasonable planning process so >that some sort of longer term planning can be done, and various >transport plans integrated. >Foreign money can either help or inhibit a rational planning process >where different alternatives can be weighed on their merits. The >development banks, with procedures that in theory at least must past >some sort of cost benefit test and rudimentary alternatives analysis, >have theoretically better procedures than the bi-lateral loans and >grants involved in the metro business, which are loans and grants tied >to a specific technology with specific corporate backers, locking the >recipient into a long term dependence on imported spare parts and >technologies often from a single source supplier. Transit passengers >would benefit the most from a planning process set the basic goals of a >mass transit system to be designed (speed, capacity) and different >interest groups were allowed to meet this technical specification at the >most reasonable cost and long term operating cost. > >Of course, we live in a sub-optimal world, so one should be hesitant to >criticize too harshly any system that has been implemented reasonably >well and has reasonable levels of patronage. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf Of Eric Bruun >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:03 PM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in >Europe > > > > >-----Forwarded Message----- >From: Eric Bruun >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 5:00 PM >To: Walter Hook >Subject: RE: More on perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > > > >Walter > >I am sorry to hear that the DMRC backers are lobbying against BRT. I >also like the idea of setting up a similar organization to manage BRT >projects. I am glad to hear that there are rights-of-way where there >needn't be a conflict with auto users. > >But I don't agree with you that the loans and other aid are necessarily >a bad thing. There is a lot of technology transfer and management skill >development attached to this project. This will help other Indian cities >as well. Certainly Mumbai will be helped by a better domestic rail >industry. > >I am also skeptical that BRT would actually be built to the same speed, >capacity and reliability standards as the Metro. If it is not, it will >not have the same impact, either in travel or in focusing development >along the lines. Given the urgency of the problems in Delhi, I can see >why authorities wouldn't want to take a risk on an unproven solution. >Maybe after the first real BRT line is built and it performs well, it >will be an easier sell. > >I recognize the fact of the low income in India, but lets put this in >perspective. The entire phases I and II of the Metro (about 100 kms) was >to cost a bit over $3 billion in 2002 US dollars. This is far less than >a similar system would cost in a richer country. And how much money gets >spent every year by the richest people in India just in importing cars >and fuel? ( I am actually going to try to find this out.) > >On balance, I don't think it really rates as a major scandal or waste of >money that a city of 13+ million spends $3 billion given all of the >benefits. The scandals are 1) that it is so hard to also build BRT which >is also needed and 2) that the commuter railroads and existing bus >services are apparently poorly integrated with the Metro. > >Eric Bruun > >Eric Bruun > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Walter Hook >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 4:33 PM >To: 'Eric Bruun' , 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' >Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe >Dear Eric, > >Certainly Delhi can use both BRT and Metro. However, the density of Old >Delhi is very high but the density of new Delhi is quite low, and the >metro only passes briefly and tangentially through old delhi. The road >right of ways in New Delhi are massive, like 40 - 60 meters or more, >with much of this land underutilized, so one can easily retrofit many of >these streets with BRT without reducing motor vehicle throughput, >particularly given the fact that the buses are being relocated out of >the mixed traffic lanes where they currently consume two or more lanes >due to irregular stopping behavior and volumes of as many as 200 buses >an hour. > >The Delhi High Capacity Bus system is still being widely talked about >and they say they are going to implement the first corridor any day now, >but they have been saying that for more than three years. > >The main factor seems to be that there was simply enough money both >foreign and domestic in the Delhi metro to allow the project promoters >to force through the creation of a fully independent parastatal >organization, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which while quite >unaccountable has the decided advantage that it is capable of getting >things built and cutting through the bureaucracy. > >We have been pressing for years now to get Delhi to set up a Special >Purpose Vehicle akin to the Delhi Metro Rail Corp (DMRC) to give the BRT >interests an institutional home from where to coordinate the needed >works and also become a comparative lobbying juggernaut. There has been >some recent progress in this regard, I hear, but the process is >frustratingly slow. > >The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign >corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost >effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 >a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several >times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the >books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in >this economic context. > >Sensible municipal authorities in India could just make rational plans >for metro in one or two high volume corridors and BRT in other corridors >and develop integrated systems, but this just isnt' how projects are >promoted and implemented in India right now largely due to the weakness >of the government. > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf Of Eric Bruun >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:19 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific >sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Sujit: > >What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several >reasons, some of which >might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your >perspective. > >From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of >bus lanes are being built. >I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and >severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances >involved. > >While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my >analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather >the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities >reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have >to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have >protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the >policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from >autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is >also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in >China.) > >It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the >BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and >through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long >station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for >a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living >in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also >what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.) > >As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros >sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more >money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on >infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities >facing megacities. > >Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of >the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be >pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 >kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush >hours. > >Eric Bruun > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sujit Patwardhan >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >8 February 2006 > > >I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being >hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) >implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane >for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the >sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh >Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need >for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) >in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the >possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for >walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking >forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT. >-- >Sujit > >Sujit Patwardhan >PTTF >Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, >c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", >ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, >Pune 411 007 >India > > > > > >At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote: >Zvi, >In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new >applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, >are >median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when >there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is >usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one >or >the other. >In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high >volumes >of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad >for >both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for >both. >Karl > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org >[ >mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf >Of Zvi Leve >Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Hello, > >> >>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate >transport >for developing countries: >> >> >As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries >mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used > >non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more >"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are >steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized >vehicles. > >For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated >ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW >often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on >certain roads. > >Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even >improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit > >accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to >procede? > > From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people >per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an >energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve >3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and >no emissions, what is the better use of the space? > >Just some food for thought! > >Zvi >Sustainable Urban Transport >--------------------------------------------------- >Sujit Patwardhan >Member > >PTTF >Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, >c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", >ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, >Pune 411 007 >India > >Tel: +91 20 25537955 >Cell: +91 98220 26627 >Email: , >----------------------------------------------------- From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Feb 9 09:24:23 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:24:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Fw: CHINA'S CYCLISTS TAKE CHARGE Message-ID: <23510792.1139444664044.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > >-----Forwarded Message----- >>From: Rob Hayes >>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 6:39 PM >>To: Eric Bruun >>Subject: CHINA'S CYCLISTS TAKE CHARGE >> >> >> >>Recently published in the IEEE Spectrum journal >> >>This month's issue of the IEEE Spectrum magazine has an article about >>e-bikes in China. Here are the first few paragraphs for you reading >>pleasure: >> >>CHINA'S CYCLISTS TAKE CHARGE >>ELECTRIC BICYCLES ARE SELLING BY THE MILLIONS DESPITE EFFORTS TO BAN >>THEM >>BY PETER FAIRLEY >> >>It's 8 a.m. and Shanghai is moving. >> >>For the cars and trucks crammed together on the elevated highway >>cutting through downtown, it's a slow crawl. On the smaller roads >>below, traffic is rolling at a steady 10 to 15 kilometers per hour in >>what >> looks like a more traditional Chinese street scene. Vying with >>the cars and trucks for the same strip of pavement are a motley >>assortment of two- and three-wheeled vehicles-everything from simple >>steel-frame bikes and heavily laden pedal-powered carts to motorized >>scooters. >> >>Hidden within this stream is an entirely novel, homegrown class of >>commuter vehicle: electric bikes and scooters. There are an estimated >>1 million electric two-wheelers on Shanghai's streets; yet to the >>Western observer it is only what's missing that gives them away. Some >>look like scooters, but they have no tailpipe spewing exhaust, no >>sputtering engine. Some look like fanciful bicycles, but their pedals >>are oddly still as riders relax and let the battery-powered electric >>motor whisk them to work. >> >>For all the talk of China's growing infatuation with automobiles, the >>world's most populous nation continues to roll primarily on two >>wheels-and, increasingly, an >> electric motor drives them. The China >>Bicycle Association, a government-chartered industry group in >>Beijing, estimates that last year manufacturers sold 7.5 million >>electric bikes nationwide-nearly double the sales in 2003-and they >>are likely to ship more than 10 million this year. >> >>That's three times as many as the most optimistic projections for >>auto sales in China. There's a powerful desire for motorized personal >>transportation in China as its cities sprawl. The electric bicycle is >>an attractive option for commuters, service people, and couriers. At >>1500 to 3000 yuan (US $180 to $360), an electric bike is buyable at a >>small fraction of the cost of an automobile. It is also exhilarating. >>Hop on and crank the throttle, and an electric motor built into the >>hub propels you to speeds of 20 km/h or more. >> >>Despite the obvious appeal of electric bikes, some Chinese cities have >>banned them altogether, alleging environmental drawbacks and >> concerns >>about public safety. But that hasn't stopped millions from buying >>electric two-wheelers in China-an astonishing development for >>advocates who have struggled for a decade to build a market for >>electric bikes in the United States and Europe. >> >>"It is the dawn of a new era in electric bicycles," says Frank E. >>Jamerson, a former leader in electric vehicle R&D at General Motors >>Corp. whose Naples, Fla.-based consultancy recently completed a >>worldwide review of developments in light electric vehicles. "The >>electric bike is now a real player." Jamerson says China's electric >>bicycles accounted for roughly three-quarters of the electric >>vehicles (EVs) sold worldwide last year. "Courtesy of the Chinese >>domestic market, we now have very cheap electric propulsion systems >>that will move a human being," says Ed Benjamin, vice president of >>the Light Transport Division at electric-propulsion-technology >>firm WaveCrest Laboratories LLC, in >> Dulles, Va., and an authority on >>electric-bicycle markets. "The question is: what are we going to do >>with them? I'd say we don't know yet." >> >> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >>--------------------------------- >> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Feb 9 13:41:51 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:41:51 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Science Fiction Message-ID: I love it that science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury is now in the business of promoting monorails. Here is his editorial from the Feb. 5 Los Angeles Times. Transportation seems to attract more dreamers with no concept of reality than any other area of public policy. Bradbury is obviously completely unaware that his ideas should be kept for Disneyland or one of the wonderful worlds of fantasy he creates in his fiction writing --Jonathan L.A.'s future is up in the air By Ray Bradbury, RAY BRADBURY is the author of "The Martian Chronicles," "Fahrenheit 451" and "Something Wicked This Way Comes," among other books. SOMETIME IN THE next five years, traffic all across L.A. will freeze. The freeways that were once a fast-moving way to get from one part of the city to another will become part of a slow-moving glacier, edging down the hills to nowhere. In recent years we've all experienced the beginnings of this. A trip from the Valley into Los Angeles that used to take half an hour all of a sudden it takes an hour or two or three. Our warning system tells us something must be done before our freeways trap us in the outlying districts, unable to get to our jobs. In recent months there has been talk of yet another subway, one that would run between downtown L.A. and Santa Monica. That would be a disaster. A single transit line will not answer our problems; we must lay plans for a series of transportation systems that would allow us to move freely, once more, within our city. The answer to all this is the monorail. Let me explain. More than 40 years ago, in 1963, I attended a meeting of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors at which the Alweg Monorail company outlined a plan to construct one or more monorails crossing L.A. north, south, east and west. The company said that if it were allowed to build the system, it would give the monorails to us for free absolutely gratis. The company would operate the system and collect the fare revenues. It seemed a reasonable bargain to me. But at the end of a long day of discussion, the Board of Supervisors rejected Alweg Monorail. I was stunned. I dimly saw, even at that time, the future of freeways, which would, in the end, go nowhere. At the end of the afternoon, I asked for three minutes to testify. I took the microphone and said, "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, rarely have so many owed so little to so few." I was conducted out of the meeting. In a panic at what I saw as a disaster, I offered my services to the Alweg Monorail people for the next year. During the following 12 months I lectured in almost every major area of L.A., at open forums and libraries, to tell people about the promise of the monorail. But at the end of that year nothing was done. Forty years have passed, and more than ever we need an open discussion of our future. If we examine the history of subways, we will find how tremendously expensive and destructive they are. They are, first of all, meant for cold climates such as Toronto, New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo. But L.A. is a Mediterranean area; our weather is sublime, and people are accustomed to traveling in the open air and enjoying the sunshine, not in closed cars under the ground. Subways take forever to build and, because the tunnels have to be excavated, are incredibly expensive. The cost of one subway line would build 10 monorail systems. Along the way, subway construction destroys businesses by the scores. The history of the subway from East L.A. to the Valley is a history of ruined businesses and upended lives. The monorail is extraordinary in that it can be built elsewhere and then carried in and installed in mid-street with little confusion and no destruction of businesses. In a matter of a few months, a line could be built from Long Beach all the way along Western Avenue to the mountains with little disturbance to citizens and no threat to local businesses. Compared to the heavy elevateds of the past, the monorail is virtually soundless. Anyone who has ridden the Disneyland or Seattle monorails knows how quietly they move. They also have been virtually accident-free. The history of the monorail shows few collisions or fatalities.If we constructed monorails running north and south on Vermont, Western, Crenshaw and Broadway, and similar lines running east and west on Washington, Pico, Wilshire, Santa Monica and Sunset, we would have provided a proper cross section of transportation, allowing people to move anywhere in our city at any time. There you have it. As soon as possible, we must call in one of the world's monorail-building companies to see what could be done so that the first ones could be in position by the end of the year to help our huddled traffic masses yearning to travel freely. The freeway is the past, the monorail is our future, above and beyond. Let the debate begin. ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ajain at kcrc.com Thu Feb 9 11:44:04 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:44:04 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. " I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro depending on the corridor. Alok Jain "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060209/7ffe3815/attachment.html From ajain at kcrc.com Thu Feb 9 11:30:05 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:30:05 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: Dear Karl, I am not trying to come in defense of monorails but in your description quoted below, I could just change name of the city and "monorail" to any other public transport mode and it would still turn out to be accurate. BRT, Metros or anything else is not immune to these problems so singling out monorail on these grounds is unfair. These are "Management and Planning" problems not "Mode" problems. > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. Regards Alok "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From schipper at wri.org Thu Feb 9 12:00:32 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:00:32 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most cost effective way of moving the people, fine. Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been lured -- the Lima metro stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our friends have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the poor. My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro and rail lines, wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede service. They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of the Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of course. Maybe that's the problem. You choose! >>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. " I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro depending on the corridor. Alok Jain "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Feb 9 14:56:57 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:56:57 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Developing countries like India can less afford the luxury of squandering scarce resources on projects which will benefit the few. It is very easy for you to say that "we deserve the same as others," but you need to look at who the "we" is. Low income residents generally benefit most from a well-managed bus system. Often the issue isn't even a need for BRT, but a requirement for a sanely-managed regular bus service that is operated according to industry good practices, is reliable, safe and clean. Once that has been achieved, BRT can be added to that. Those who call for costly metro rail are often the ones being elitist unless they want to pay for it out of their own pocket, which is never the case. Resources are scarce. In India, they are less abundant than in the developed world. Spend them wisely to benefit as many people as possible. --Jonathan On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jain Alok wrote: > " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign > corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost > effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 > a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several > times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the > books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in > this economic context. " > > I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the > least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should > build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any > operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be > planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro > depending on the corridor. > > Alok Jain > > > > > > "KCRC - Better connections; better services" > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. > > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. > ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From sulin at vectordesigns.org Thu Feb 9 12:21:59 2006 From: sulin at vectordesigns.org (Su-Lin Chee) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:21:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: Mr Fjellstrom, Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather than ?mode problems? as Jain Alok has said. For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital constraints of the government, one would think that if the government were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just steer the whole thing right from the beginning? One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated planning. I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg emissions & cleanliness). > Dear Su-Lin Che, > > Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you say the > monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the competition... > > PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts of more > than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the contractors, > designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company they set > up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, so they > didn't lose much when it folded. > > STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was better, > with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of operation, > and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > completing the takeover in September 2002. > > Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of these > systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the beginning that > they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > incentive to maximize passengers. > > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > > The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean anything, > this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during the peak) > and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that even under > the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity of only > 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & > isolation > > As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation information > system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > > 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status > symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around > with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the > word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? > > 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how > the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > > 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to > plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. > On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > > Best wishes, > > Su-Lin Chee > > project manager > klang valley public transportation information system > vector designs > www.vectordesigns.org > 54a jalan kemuja > bangsar utama > 59000 kuala lumpur > tel/fax +603.22826363 > mobile +6016.2183363 > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 From schipper at wri.org Thu Feb 9 12:33:31 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:33:31 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: Both your good poitns can be reinforced by the observation that metros rairly take existing drivers in congestion from that congestion -- they allow others to go under the congestion, while creating totally new trip patterns. What Mayor Penalosa has made clear is that in a sense you MUST be prepared to give up road, i.e, "car" space, for "BRT" space. That increases the number of people per hour you can move, and quite possibly the average speed. If you have the $$ to build a metro, fine. But do you? >>> "Su-Lin Chee" 2/8/2006 10:21:59 PM >>> Mr Fjellstrom, Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital constraints of the government, one would think that if the government were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just steer the whole thing right from the beginning? One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated planning. I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg emissions & cleanliness). > Dear Su-Lin Che, > > Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you say the > monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the competition... > > PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts of more > than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the contractors, > designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company they set > up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, so they > didn't lose much when it folded. > > STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was better, > with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of operation, > and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > completing the takeover in September 2002. > > Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of these > systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the beginning that > they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > incentive to maximize passengers. > > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > > The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean anything, > this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during the peak) > and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that even under > the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity of only > 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & > isolation > > As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation information > system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > > 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status > symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around > with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the > word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? > > 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how > the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > > 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to > plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. > On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > > Best wishes, > > Su-Lin Chee > > project manager > klang valley public transportation information system > vector designs > www.vectordesigns.org > 54a jalan kemuja > bangsar utama > 59000 kuala lumpur > tel/fax +603.22826363 > mobile +6016.2183363 > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ajain at kcrc.com Thu Feb 9 12:32:08 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:32:08 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: Dear Lee, I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. A metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same should apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money in United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. Along the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it (we also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no subsidy). The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or white. Alok -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most cost effective way of moving the people, fine. Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been lured -- the Lima metro stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our friends have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the poor. My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro and rail lines, wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede service. They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of the Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of course. Maybe that's the problem. You choose! >>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. " I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro depending on the corridor. Alok Jain "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From schipper at wri.org Thu Feb 9 13:00:03 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great. We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley, Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no, repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground. The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We did. We burned money. too bad. Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev! Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped center of the road. What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money! Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East, as they say >>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>> Dear Lee, I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. A metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same should apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money in United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. Along the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it (we also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no subsidy). The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or white. Alok -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most cost effective way of moving the people, fine. Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been lured -- the Lima metro stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our friends have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the poor. My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro and rail lines, wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede service. They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of the Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of course. Maybe that's the problem. You choose! >>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> " The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. " I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro depending on the corridor. Alok Jain "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From karl at dnet.net.id Thu Feb 9 15:24:46 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:24:46 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c62d41$8f28d5a0$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Dear Jain, You say that 'I could just change name of the city and "monorail" to any other public transport mode and it would still turn out to be accurate". Please do so. Can you back this up by providing a couple of examples of bus-related projects (preferably in Asia) with problems of similar magnitude? With regard to demand, finances and construction time, all the recent Asian BRT/busway systems (Seoul 04, Jakarta 04, Brisbane 00, Kunming 99, Beijing 06, Taipei 01) that I'm familiar with are having problems with passengers exceeding rather than trailing projections and all are taking various measures to expand capacity (except for Sydney's Transitway but even that is apparently covering its operating cost). All were completed within a short implementation time, though Brisbane took somewhat longer. So please do provide some examples of BRT or busway projects with a similar magnitude of problems to recent metros such as HK's West Rail (operated by your company), Bangkok's Blue Line or Skytrain, Singapore's NEL, KL's systems, etc. Nothing against metros, as Asia has many successful Metro systems, but I guess one thing is that as Allport pointed out in the World Bank UTSR back in 2000, BRT/busway projects are an order of magnitude less risky. Even where busways are poorly planned, as in most of the cases above and probably most of the BRT/busway systems currently being planned in Asia, they tend not to result in massive financial burdens for the city, construction delays of many years, etc, and many of the problems are relatively easier and cheaper to fix. Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jain Alok Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 10:30 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation Dear Karl, I am not trying to come in defense of monorails but in your description quoted below, I could just change name of the city and "monorail" to any other public transport mode and it would still turn out to be accurate. BRT, Metros or anything else is not immune to these problems so singling out monorail on these grounds is unfair. These are "Management and Planning" problems not "Mode" problems. > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. Regards Alok "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From karl at dnet.net.id Thu Feb 9 15:24:46 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:24:46 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c62d41$91089220$1abcfea9@kfoffice> Su-Lin Che I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main problem rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would have been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't know enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some suggestions. Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating, car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well with the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves much of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL? I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced city can have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. Maybe a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities? Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation Mr Fjellstrom, Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital constraints of the government, one would think that if the government were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just steer the whole thing right from the beginning? One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated planning. I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg emissions & cleanliness). > Dear Su-Lin Che, > > Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you say the > monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the competition... > > PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts of more > than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the contractors, > designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company they set > up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, so they > didn't lose much when it folded. > > STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was better, > with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of operation, > and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > completing the takeover in September 2002. > > Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of these > systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the beginning that > they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > incentive to maximize passengers. > > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > > The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean anything, > this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during the peak) > and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that even under > the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity of only > 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & > isolation > > As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation information > system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > > 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status > symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around > with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the > word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? > > 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how > the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > > 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to > plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. > On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > > Best wishes, > > Su-Lin Chee > > project manager > klang valley public transportation information system > vector designs > www.vectordesigns.org > 54a jalan kemuja > bangsar utama > 59000 kuala lumpur > tel/fax +603.22826363 > mobile +6016.2183363 > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Feb 10 05:47:23 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: <13037441.1139518043819.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the operator of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property over the stations. In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should it occur). Also, in many regions politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the real estate -- they want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all be like Hong Kong does this mean we should never build Metros? I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once built, transport infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take sustainable development seriously, or not? As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with focusing on construction costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential. What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs to be asked. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM >To: ajain@kcrc.com, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great. > >We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never >should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY >with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the >stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley, >Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension >towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no, >repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would >be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a >parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the >early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground. > >The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver >high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We >did. We burned money. too bad. > >Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region >for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so >to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev! >Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped >center of the road. What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend >ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money! > >Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some >money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East, >as they say > > >>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>> >Dear Lee, > >I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. >A >metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same >should >apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being >rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money >in >United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. >Along >the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to >burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but >metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it >(we >also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no >subsidy). > >The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or >white. > >Alok >-----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into >building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that >cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor >countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most >cost effective way of moving the people, fine. > > Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been >lured -- the Lima metro >stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in >middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our >friends >have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that >money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the >poor. > >My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, >Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro >and >rail lines, >wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. >And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede >service. > >They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the >Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of >the >Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! > >Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor >or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. > >It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of >course. Maybe that's the problem. > >You choose! > >>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> >" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign >corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost >effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under >$500 >a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are >several >times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the >books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in >this economic context. " > >I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at >the >least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should >build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any >operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be >planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and >Metro >depending on the corridor. > >Alok Jain > > > >"KCRC - Better connections; better services" > >This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or >proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity >to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended >recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or >omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be >unlawful. > >Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free >as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or >contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any >errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a >result of transmission over the Internet. > >No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal >disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation >unless specifically so stated. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From schipper at wri.org Fri Feb 10 05:57:09 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:57:09 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: But the other side of the DC and San Francisco question is whether the far extensions of metro that DO make sense simply invited people of means to move out there...as the population declined by almost 30% between 1975 and 1995 in WAshington. And the BART metro was explicitly built as an intercity rail system, NOt an in-town metro. Joining these two makes sense if one has a real city system, which we have in WAshington DC -- unfortunately I don't know Metro's market share of all travel in the corridors it serves. but as more and more movement because tangential, radil rail systems serving suburbus make less and less sense... >>> Eric Bruun 2/9/2006 3:47:23 PM >>> Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the operator of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property over the stations. In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should it occur). Also, in many regions politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the real estate -- they want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all be like Hong Kong does this mean we should never build Metros? I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once built, transport infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take sustainable development seriously, or not? As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with focusing on construction costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential. What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs to be asked. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM >To: ajain@kcrc.com, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great. > >We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never >should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY >with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the >stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley, >Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension >towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that no, >repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density would >be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a >parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in the >early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground. > >The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver >high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We >did. We burned money. too bad. > >Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC region >for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or so >to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a maglev! >Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the undeveloped >center of the road. What's wrong with $200 million when you can spend >ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money! > >Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some >money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the East, >as they say > > >>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>> >Dear Lee, > >I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. >A >metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same >should >apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country being >rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money >in >United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. >Along >the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to >burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but >metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it >(we >also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no >subsidy). > >The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or >white. > >Alok >-----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into >building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that >cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor >countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most >cost effective way of moving the people, fine. > > Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been >lured -- the Lima metro >stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in >middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our >friends >have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that >money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the >poor. > >My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, >Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro >and >rail lines, >wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. >And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede >service. > >They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the >Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of >the >Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! > >Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor >or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. > >It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of >course. Maybe that's the problem. > >You choose! > >>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> >" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign >corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost >effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under >$500 >a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are >several >times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the >books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in >this economic context. " > >I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at >the >least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should >build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any >operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be >planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and >Metro >depending on the corridor. > >Alok Jain > > > >"KCRC - Better connections; better services" > >This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or >proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity >to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended >recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or >omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be >unlawful. > >Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free >as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or >contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any >errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a >result of transmission over the Internet. > >No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal >disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation >unless specifically so stated. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Fri Feb 10 11:57:54 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:57:54 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A9856B5@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> I have learned a lot from the discussion of mass transit options over the last few days. It was sparked by the news of Chennai's debate over Monorail, and has included examples from Malaysia, Thailand, the USA, Hong Kong and Singapore (have I missed any?). Four key issues emerged in the discussion that seem particularly important to me. ONE - CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, NOT JUST ONE PROPOSAL: As some have said in the last few days, the specific mass transit technology gets a lot of attention but is often beside the point. If ALL reasonable options were fairly evaluated on a level playing field, some corridors would merit ordinary bus, some BRT, some LRT, some Metro (and perhaps some rare cases might even suit monorail?). Unfortunately, unsolicited proposals from purveyors of specific options often get evaluated in isolation. TWO - CONSIDER URBAN STRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS: The criteria for evaluation must be framed with a keen awareness of the long-term land-use futures that are implied or assumed in each option. The implications for the future structure of the city are rarely an explicit part of the evaluation. These urban structure alternatives need to be more often an explicit part of the debate. Singapore was mentioned yesterday as an exception. In the MRT debate in Singapore which took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, different expectations (and normative views) about the role of the city centre (number of jobs in CBD) became one of the central issues in choosing between MRT against the express buses on expressways option, which assumed and would have supported more dispersed employment. Dinesh Mohan of IIT-Delhi once argued to me that numerous, middle-density BRT-based corridors would be more sustainable for Delhi (building on its existing structure) and would allow more affordable housing for the poor, than a small number of very dense (with expensive real estate) MRT-based corridors. THREE - ECONOMIC VIABILITY, NOT FINANCIAL VIABILITY: How do we judge 'success' of a mass transit system? There seem to be various perspectives here, resulting in some muddle I think. Some have implied that financial success is the key. This might be reasonable IF road transport was paying its full costs AND mass transit projects could capture their external benefits (especially in the form of property value increments). In reality these are never (rarely?) the case. In any case, fares should not be expected to cover the fixed infrastructure costs. This is because scale economies in most mass transit means that marginal cost pricing will never cover the full cost. In all conditions except an extreme crush load, the marginal cost of an extra passenger is always less than the average cost per passenger. It is ECONOMIC viability NOT FINANCIAL viability that must be the test. Public sector investment in the fixed assets of mass transit can be justified, provided it is subjected to the best cost-benefit analysis we can manage (various problems with real-world CBA notwithstanding!). This is why it is a common model for government to build the fixed asset then contract out the operations (eg in Singapore). It is therefore extremely surprising that anyone ever tries to build capital-intensive forms of mass transit with private finance alone. This argument provides circumstantial evidence therefore that Karl is probably right in saying that the investors in projects like Kuala Lumpur's LRT were bearing few of the risks, and cynically expected to be bailed out. Yes, it would have been better to get the public/private mix correct from the start. But it also means that it is overly harsh to say that a mass transit system has 'failed' its city if it cannot cover its capital costs from fares. FOUR - NEED TO BE POLITICALLY AWARE: Despite all the rational planning notions that I have drawn on above, in reality, politics and power play a key role in these decisions. We cannot ignore the political economy of urban transport. We can see this in many of the examples mentioned in the last few days. Rational analysis and evaluation is one tool in the game but it is often trumped by other tools (eg rallying public opinion, lobbying politicians, sweetening a deal with bilateral aid, etc) that are often wielded in the narrow interest of one powerful group or another. So should we drop the analytical tools and just play the politics, focusing on winning the rhetorical battles? I don't think so. But it is probably na?ve to think that the public interest and sustainable development aspirations will win out with rational planning alone. We need to be politically aware even as we appeal to careful analysis (AND scrutinise any evaluations that seem to be skewed by vested interests). We should oppose politically driven disasters but may sometimes need to pragmatically support sub-optimal (but politically viable) projects that are better than the other politically possible alternatives (such as no improvement at all, or flyovers and expressway building). Telling the difference is not so easy however. For some of us on this list, such Metros seem to be a politically viable alternative to having no improvement to public transport at all, and provide a politically vital demonstration that public transport, not expressways, can be the attractive 'modern' centrepiece of urban transport, and need not be just for the poor. Some also argue that Metro's help bring about the land use structures that are more sustainable in the long run. For others here, metros in low-income countries (such as the Delhi Metro) smack of a disastrous white elephant with tragic opportunity costs, stealing scarce investment funds that could do so much more if pumped into BRT. Worse, some see Metros as part of avoiding difficult choices over space allocation ('we can't do BRT if it means taking lanes from general traffic'), and might actually complement a sprawling, private-vehicle-based transport system in the long-run. Who is right? I don't know. Paul Paul A. Barter Assistant Professor, LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore, 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore 119620 Tel: +65-6516 3324; Fax: +65-6778 1020 Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ and consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Feb 10 12:06:04 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:06:04 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Metros and sprawl Message-ID: <12506446.1139540764751.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Lee I can't argue with you. I too think that the DC Metro might have gone out too far into the suburbs thereby promoting sprawl. I oppose all further extensions to the radial lines. I also agree that the BART extension to Dublin was a bad idea for the same reason. DC certainly should have some more tangential connections. This is where some BRT is desperately needed yesterday. This is a problem almost everywhere in the US -- transit is being built more for the benefit of higher-income commuters and for real estate developers than to promote sustainable development or all-day use of transit. I would characterize BART and the DC Metro as "hybrid" systems. They use rapid transit technology but serve two purposes: As rapid transit in the core and as commuter rail in the burbs. Linking this back to places like Delhi: -- If the Metro goes too far out towards the fringes it might only aggravate the chaos out there. If anyone has done any research on the trade-off between promoting sprawl and promoting sustainability, I would love to see it. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Feb 9, 2006 3:57 PM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe > >But the other side of the DC and San Francisco question is whether the >far extensions of metro that DO make sense simply invited people of >means to move out there...as >the population declined by almost 30% between 1975 and 1995 in >WAshington. And the BART metro was explicitly built as an intercity rail >system, NOt an in-town metro. > >Joining these two makes sense if one has a real city system, which we >have in WAshington DC -- unfortunately I don't know Metro's market share >of all travel in the corridors it serves. but as more and more movement >because tangential, radil rail systems serving suburbus make less and >less sense... > >>>> Eric Bruun 2/9/2006 3:47:23 PM >>> > >Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the >operator >of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property >over the stations. >In many places, this type of density will never occur (nor maybe should >it occur). Also, in many regions >politicians refuse to let public tranport companies make money off the >real estate -- they >want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. If we can't all >be like Hong Kong does this >mean we should never build Metros? > >I think there is far too much focus on the cost of construction. Once >built, transport >infrastructure can be of benefit for many decades. Do we take >sustainable development >seriously, or not? > >As for Washington, DC, this is a good example of what is wrong with >focusing on construction >costs. I would agree with Lee that some corridors make less sense than >others to build. But I also submit that the DC region can not physically >function without the Metro any longer. It is now absolutely essential. >What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs >to be asked. > >Eric > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Lee Schipper >>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 11:00 PM >>To: ajain@kcrc.com, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe >> >>Agree. The Hong Kong rail system is great. >> >>We should have built the inner parts of the DC metro; Atlanta never >>should have been built. San Francisco should have been built ONLY >>with strong measures to clust er housing, shops, etc around ALL the >>stops -- which did not occur ver much in the east bay (Berkeley, >>Oakland), and certainly not in the ridiculous extension >>towards Livermore Ca. My fellow citizens of Berkeley made sure that >no, >>repeat NO apartments, st ores, or any other increases in density >would >>be permitted around the North Berkeley BART METRO) stop -- its just a >>parking lot (at the cost of a few hundred homes that were removed in >the >>early 1970s) and a moving stairway into the ground. >> >>The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have >ver >>high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). >We >>did. We burned money. too bad. >> >>Forces, or rather farces, are now lobbying in the Washington DC >region >>for an almost 3 billion dollar extension of metro the last 20 km or >so >>to the main Washington DC Airport. Even stronger farces want a >maglev! >>Yet the main access road has space for 2-4 bus lanes in the >undeveloped >>center of the road. What's wrong with $200 million when you can >spend >>ten or fifteen times as much of someone else's money! >> >>Agree that Hong Kong has a very well run system that is making some >>money. Bangalore's bus system is similar. Two real pearls of the >East, >>as they say >> >> >>>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 10:32:08 PM >>> >>Dear Lee, >> >>I think we both are saying the same thing but putting it differently. >>A >>metro should be built only if can be fully justified and the same >>should >>apply to BRT. This should not have anything to do with a country >being >>rich or poor. I can't believe that there are no better uses of money >>in >>United States such that it can justify "burning" money on metros. >>Along >>the same lines, one can't say building metro always tantamounts to >>burning money. I am not sure if you have ever been to Hong Kong but >>metros here are well-justified and I do not think BRT can replace it >>(we >>also have a pretty good bus system - fully privatised with no >>subsidy). >> >>The whole point is about having choice and going beyond black or >>white. >> >>Alok >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] >>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:01 AM >>To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >>Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe >> >>I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into >>building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that >>cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor >>countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most >>cost effective way of moving the people, fine. >> >> Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been >>lured -- the Lima metro >>stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in >>middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our >>friends >>have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that >>money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the >>poor. >> >>My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington, >>Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro >>and >>rail lines, >>wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money. >>And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede >>service. >> >>They chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the >>Delhi metro, are pretty happy. For less than one tenth the cost of >>the >>Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)! >> >>Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor >>or rich. It's a question of each of us wants to spend our money. >> >>It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of >>course. Maybe that's the problem. >> >>You choose! >> >>>>> ajain@kcrc.com 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>> >>" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign >>corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost >>effective BRT proposals. Per capita incomes in India remain under >>$500 >>a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are >>several >>times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the >>books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in >>this economic context. " >> >>I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at >>the >>least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should >>build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any >>operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be >>planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and >>Metro >>depending on the corridor. >> >>Alok Jain >> >> >> >>"KCRC - Better connections; better services" >> >>This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or >>proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / >entity >>to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended >>recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken >or >>omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be >>unlawful. >> >>Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or >error-free >>as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or >>contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for >any >>errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a >>result of transmission over the Internet. >> >>No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal >>disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation >>unless specifically so stated. >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries >>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main >focus >>is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ajain at kcrc.com Fri Feb 10 18:32:45 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:32:45 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Message-ID: As I am subscribing to the digest mode, I am bit slow with replying to the chain of mail that my comments have elicited. Paul has given a very good summary which very well says that there is not ONE solution to all problems. Instead of slandering specific types of transport systems, they should be looked as a whole. Cities like Singapore and Hong Kong have shown how this can be done with political resolve (this might be completely a different agenda for discussion, I must admit). ************ From: Jonathan E. D. Richmond [mailto:richmond@alum.mit.edu] > Developing countries like India can less afford the luxury > of squandering scarce resources on projects which will benefit the few. I fully agree with your comment but in this context it pre-supposes that Delhi Metro is bad. I think the jury is still out. If you look through the entire concept of the densification of land use around stations is one of the prime goals of Delhi metro development. They certainly have over-projected the usage (and I have questioned some DM presenters in various conferences) but I do not think it is difficult for them to achieve operating break-even. A lot needs to be done and can be done in the area of inter-modal integration, seamless transfers etc. but as we all know it is part of the evolution. > It is very easy for you to say that "we deserve the same as others," but > you need to look at who the "we" is. Low income residents generally > benefit most from a well-managed bus system. Often the issue isn't even a One can compare the prices of DM with bus for long-distance routes and factor in the quality of travel (aircon vs non-aircon, exposure to elements). Other way to look at is fare over average income, which in my opinion (I do not have average income for Delhi, I would be gald to do the comparison) does not stand much different from rich cities. At no point do I deny the existence for buses and/or BRT but I have lived in Delhi long enough to differentiate the efficacy of the two for all type of journeys in Indian context. > Resources are scarce. In India, they are less abundant than in the > developed world. Spend them wisely to benefit as many people as possible. Absolutely. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] > The lesson is you cannot JUST build a metro unless you already have ver > high densities (and lots of vertical, i.e., high rise space as well). We > did. We burned money. too bad. Without any prejudice, landuse and transport should be well-integrated. Sometimes you build railway to induce high densities and sometime it is after you have them. It is always easier to integrate, cheaper to construct and effective to operate if railway are considered when landuse is being planned. Many a recent lines in Hong Kong/Singapore have gone down this path and have been successful. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > You say that 'I could just change name of the city and "monorail" to any > other public transport mode and it would still turn out to be accurate". > Please do so. Can you back this up by providing a couple of examples of > bus-related projects (preferably in Asia) with problems of similar > magnitude? Bangkok - bus lanes implementation around 1992 (I am sure, one can say it was not done effectively but hey, that's exactly what I have been saying for monorail/metro projects). I can't name more immediately but I can give a whole list of bus operations which are financially unviable (does not mean I am against them as one should look at all direct and indirect costs). I do not want to argue about the magnitude. To me, a spade is always black. > With regard to demand, finances and construction time, all the recent Asian > BRT/busway systems (Seoul 04, Jakarta 04, Brisbane 00, Kunming 99, Beijing > 06, Taipei 01) that I'm familiar with are having problems with passengers > exceeding rather than trailing projections and all are taking various Karl, most of the cities you quoted above also have a metro system. And that precisely is what I have been saying all along. There is a place for both BRT as well as Metro as long as they have been planned properly. > problems to recent metros such as HK's West Rail (operated by your company), > Bangkok's Blue Line or Skytrain, Singapore's NEL, KL's systems, etc. Let me provide some stats about West Rail. Its true that it failed to meet projection at the time of opening but so did all the socio-economic projections made in 1997 (heard of Asian crisis?!). Out of 9 stations, 6 were supposed to have big property developments (in total over 20,000 flats) and all the profit from this development belonged to Government (not to MY company). As it turns out, none of the property development has even begun construction. To the credit of rail, it was constructed on time, well below its original cost. Since its opening in Dec 2003, the patronage has almost doubled by end of 2005. ----Original Message----- From: Eric Bruun [mailto:ericbruun@earthlink.net] > Places like Hong Kong are exceptions. It is exceptionally dense and the operator In addition to Singapore and Hong Kong, metros are doing well in Sau Paulo, Shenzhen, many cities in Japan and possibly Taipei. > of the system can recover capital investment because it owns property over the stations. Not always but even if it does I do not see anything wrong with it. At least on a operating basis, if the railways can break-even, there can be strong case for them. Along the same lines, try putting in cost of right-of-way into BRT equation and then see how many are financially viable. > What is the cost of NOT having the Metro is a question that also needs to be asked. I am tempted to go down the philosophical line on this but refrain. Mankind would not have come this far if at every step we asked this question. ************** I think a lot is becoming very repetitive and I would consider this to my final mail on this topic. If anybody likes to continue, you are most welcome to do so off-list. Regards Alok "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From sulin at vectordesigns.org Fri Feb 10 18:39:01 2006 From: sulin at vectordesigns.org (Su-Lin Chee) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:39:01 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: Karl and everyone else, I guess Mr. Barter?s comments put a pretty conclusive point to most of these discussions. Indeed, a mix of modes according to specific conditions sounds wise. Apparently, the powers-that-be are next considering building another LRT line through the Western Damansara- North PJ section of greater KL. For me, anything that is affordable and doesn?t take twice the time of driving a car is good -- be it BRT, bus or rail. Just yesterday, commuters including myself waited for nearly two hours for a feeder bus from the Bangsar LRT station, because one of the two buses had broken down. Perhaps the other had as well, to warrant such a wait. Why is the bus system in such an, as you say, ?antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit? condition? Part of the blame must be put on what I feel is the attitude of routes being simple entrepreneurship exercises where buses ?fish? for passengers. Because of this, you get different operators employing most of their resources on cannibalizing each other on established money making routes. Of course, this attitude also sits well with bus operations being handled by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship Development rather than the Ministry of Transport. So yes, taking political factors into consideration, getting overall guidance and regulation done by a pertinent transportation agency rather than the CVLB is a great starting point. And apparently, the bill establishing it has already been gazetted in Parliament. So I hope all of you will watch that space! > Su-Lin Che > > I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main problem > rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would have > been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't know > enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure > that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some > suggestions. > > Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but > maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive > metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating, > car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of > medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system > improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well with > the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves much > of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL? > > I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced city can > have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. Maybe > a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector > regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities? > > Karl > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & > isolation > > Mr Fjellstrom, > Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! > Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main > facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first > place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the > political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather > than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. > > For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- > govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital > constraints of the government, one would think that if the government > were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just > steer the whole thing right from the beginning? > > One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from > lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated > planning. > > I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much > cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers > where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about > giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough > to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and > would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions > than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far > away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. > > So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than > existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg > emissions & cleanliness). > > > > Dear Su-Lin Che, > > > > Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you > say the > > monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the > competition... > > > > PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts > of more > > than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the > contractors, > > designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company > they set > > up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, > so they > > didn't lose much when it folded. > > > > STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was > better, > > with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of > operation, > > and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > > completing the takeover in September 2002. > > > > Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of > these > > systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the > beginning that > > they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > > incentive to maximize passengers. > > > > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a > harsh > > description and you surely know much better than me about the > system. But > > considering that: > > - it was 8 years under construction > > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to > mention > > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the > main > > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > > > > The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean > anything, > > this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during > the peak) > > and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > > (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that > even under > > the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity > of only > > 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > > > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf > > Of Su-Lin Chee > > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & > > isolation > > > > As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation > information > > system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > > > > 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > > wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > > people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > > KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > > issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and > status > > symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling > around > > with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention > the > > word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > > class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to > do?? > > > > 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > > systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > > even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > > relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > > of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is > how > > the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > > > > 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers > to > > plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating > city. > > On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > > of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Su-Lin Chee > > > > project manager > > klang valley public transportation information system > > vector designs > > www.vectordesigns.org > > 54a jalan kemuja > > bangsar utama > > 59000 kuala lumpur > > tel/fax +603.22826363 > > mobile +6016.2183363 > > > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main > focus is > > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people- centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, > the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > Su-Lin Chee > > project manager > klang valley public transportation information system > vector designs > www.vectordesigns.org > 54a jalan kemuja > bangsar utama > 59000 kuala lumpur > tel/fax +603.22826363 > mobile +6016.2183363 > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Feb 10 19:00:49 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:00:49 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Summary from Paul + References: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A9856B5@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Thanks to Paul for summary of all of this. Also, Iike what people have been saying about any motorised transport system enabling spawl Some specific things seem to have not been addressed much if at all in the past days in any detail: 1 - Future energy security for BRT systems. I want to hear more about hydrogen studies, etc. One advantage of rail is proven catenary system. If onboard hydrogen is a problem, what about next generation of vehicles being BRT trolley-buses with catenary (if possible dont lengthen routes, BUT improve the existing routes to focus on density) or even ground-powered systems, like in Bordeaux lightrail scheme. I am talking about next generation of vehicles, so 15 years from now! http://www.transport.alstom.com/pr_transp/2006/21362.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/pr_transp/2006/&idRubriqueCourante=6267 2 - New thing: Thoughts on subsurface metro for freight (what is called "metrofreight" in Joel Crawford book "Cafree Cities".) rather than the chaos of all those trucks, no matter how clean smelling they are, individually. Thanks, T ---------- Original Message ---------- To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport (sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org) From: Paul Barter (paulbarter@nus.edu.sg) Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe Date: 10/2/2006 3:57:54 > > Four key issues emerged in the discussion that seem particularly > important to me. > ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Feb 10 23:51:06 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:51:06 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008801c62e51$6d72b320$6401a8c0@Home> Hmm. Very interesting. But behind all this is a fundamental strategic issue which we have yet to face and resolve. Have you not noticed? One of the main hallmarks of "alternative transport thinking and policy" (that's most of us here by the way) is that it is well intentioned, often quite wise, but invariably somehow perceived as ad hoc, personal, and well "out of the mainstream". What's the answer to this? Well I think that at the end of the day it is really rather simple. But it is also eminently strategic. And that is to redefine what is in fact the mainstream of transport policy and practice. Let's not make this too abstract. Some specifics please. Today we have one thing called "sustainable transportation". It's a pretty good current of thinking, policy and practice, but it is still not that well understood. And in part to break this stasis, we are trying to provide an "open public and authoritative definition" of it - that reflects the consensus of the leading edge of the s/t community. You can see the first steps of this process in the Wikipedia (can you think of a better place to start? If so let us know), at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation. Now the fact is that this definition is still very much in process and I have a considerable amount of input to factor into the entry, and I hope that my other work (you know the stuff that pays the rent and the kids' tuition bills) will let up a bit and allow me to get back to this within the week. But don't let that slow you down if you have additional ideas, criticism, etc. for me. And then as opposed to that we are trying to push a positive concept which really could do the job and in fact refine the leading edge of transportation policy and practice, which we are calling the New Mobility Agenda and for which we are seeing the definition in process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda. And there too you are invited to pitch and help us all move to something that is more authoritative and able to stand on its own legs as a real alternative to 'old mobility" thinking. Unless we get together to take the high ground and in the process to redefine the rules and benchmarks, then it is more marginalization, and more awful projects and policies. (And by the way if anyone thinks it's rude to say harsh things about monorails, well then please put me down as very very rude.) Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation Karl and everyone else, I guess Mr. Barter's comments put a pretty conclusive point to most of these discussions. Indeed, a mix of modes according to specific conditions sounds wise. Apparently, the powers-that-be are next considering building another LRT line through the Western Damansara- North PJ section of greater KL. For me, anything that is affordable and doesn't take twice the time of driving a car is good -- be it BRT, bus or rail. Just yesterday, commuters including myself waited for nearly two hours for a feeder bus from the Bangsar LRT station, because one of the two buses had broken down. Perhaps the other had as well, to warrant such a wait. Why is the bus system in such an, as you say, "antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit" condition? Part of the blame must be put on what I feel is the attitude of routes being simple entrepreneurship exercises where buses "fish" for passengers. Because of this, you get different operators employing most of their resources on cannibalizing each other on established money making routes. Of course, this attitude also sits well with bus operations being handled by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship Development rather than the Ministry of Transport. So yes, taking political factors into consideration, getting overall guidance and regulation done by a pertinent transportation agency rather than the CVLB is a great starting point. And apparently, the bill establishing it has already been gazetted in Parliament. So I hope all of you will watch that space! -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:25 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation Su-Lin Che I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main problem rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would have been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't know enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some suggestions. Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating, car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well with the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves much of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL? I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced city can have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. Maybe a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities? Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & isolation Mr Fjellstrom, Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital constraints of the government, one would think that if the government were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just steer the whole thing right from the beginning? One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated planning. I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg emissions & cleanliness). > Dear Su-Lin Che, > > Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you say the > monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the competition... > > PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts of more > than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the contractors, > designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company they set > up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, so they > didn't lose much when it folded. > > STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was better, > with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of operation, > and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > completing the takeover in September 2002. > > Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of these > systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the beginning that > they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > incentive to maximize passengers. > > As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a harsh > description and you surely know much better than me about the system. But > considering that: > - it was 8 years under construction > - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to mention > that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the main > transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > > The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean anything, > this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during the peak) > and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that even under > the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity of only > 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL monorail & > isolation > > As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation information > system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > > 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and status > symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling around > with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention the > word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to do?? > > 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is how > the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > > 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers to > plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating city. > On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > > Best wishes, > > Su-Lin Chee > > project manager > klang valley public transportation information system > vector designs > www.vectordesigns.org > 54a jalan kemuja > bangsar utama > 59000 kuala lumpur > tel/fax +603.22826363 > mobile +6016.2183363 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060210/6ae1738e/attachment-0001.html From arulgreen at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 03:32:01 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:32:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Chennai Monorail Update : Court restrains Government from awarding final contract Message-ID: <20060210183201.89032.qmail@web51104.mail.yahoo.com> Monorail: Court restrains Government from awarding final contract ? The Hindu http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315450700.htm TN monorail lands in web of controversies ? Financial Express http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=116751 Monorail proposal after studying all metro systems, says Minister ? The Hindu http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/04/stories/2006020408430500.htm Monorail project: To cover 300 km in 18 corridors ? The Business Line http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020302161900.htm Chennai Monorail Govt?s Website http://www.tn.gov.in/tender/default.asp#MMRTS Monorail: Court restrains Government from awarding final contract Special Correspondent - The Hindu But allows it to go ahead with the process of finalisation of bids ? Bench asks why Government has not conducted feasibility study or environmental impact assessment ? Additional Advocate-General says monorail is a tramway and does not require Central clearance CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has restrained the Tamil Nadu Government from awarding final contract or work orders for the proposed monorail project without its prior permission. It also raised a barrage of questions relating to the feasibility and environmental impact of the project, legislative competence and the authenticity of a report submitted by the Pallavan Transport Consultancy Limited. Passing orders on a public interest litigation petition filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) leader, G.K. Mani, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan sought to know why the Government had not conducted any feasibility study or environmental impact assessment for the project. Final hearing Posting the matter to March 8 for final hearing, the Bench, however, permitted the Government to go ahead with the process of finalisation of bids. Mr. Justice Shah said the objections raised by Mr. Mani were serious and "could not be brushed aside." The court could not dismiss the plea simply because the PIL had been preferred by a political party. "Socio-economic assessment and environmental impact assessment are very, very important aspects. Why have you not done that?" he asked. Additional Advocate-General A.L. Somayaji argued that since monorail was a tramway it did not require Central clearance. The Delhi Metropolitan Rail Corporation had been merely asked to study a mass rapid transport system and submit a report to the Government. To this, the Chief Justice asked, "Can you furnish materials to show that monorail is treated as tram anywhere in the world?" He further observed that if it was railway, the State Government could not proceed with it. "You are specifically prohibited by law." If it was a tram, then the scheme had to be restricted to the Chennai municipal area. "But, your project is not restricted to the municipal limits." As regards Pallavan Consultancy's report, the Chief Justice asked if anyone had studied similar monorail schemes in other parts of the world while preparing the document. When he sought to know the project cost, Advocate-General N.R. Chandran said it would be known only after the bids were processed. Earlier, N.L. Rajah, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the tender document running to several pages did not show anywhere that the monorail project would be subject to environmental clearance. The Bench asked Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, P. Wilson, to take notice on behalf of the Union Ministries of Railways, Environment and Forests and Urban Development. http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315450700.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stephenplowden at blueyonder.co.uk Sat Feb 11 18:33:14 2006 From: stephenplowden at blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen Plowden) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:33:14 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation In-Reply-To: <008801c62e51$6d72b320$6401a8c0@Home> References: <008801c62e51$6d72b320$6401a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <43EDAF5A.4080906@blueyonder.co.uk> As an alternative to "old mobility" thinking, how about this from Changing Directions, the report of the (British) Independent Commission on Transport published in 1974. 11.6 In particular, a clear understanding is needed of the concept of mobility. The real goal is not ease of movement, but access to people and facilities. Movement is desirable only to the extent that access requires it. People will seek,of course, to improve their power of access within the situation in which they find themselves. In present conditions they evidently choose to acquire and use more and more transport . This fact, sometimes presented as proof of "society's choice", is people's response to the options offered them. They do not control the options; nor can they, as individuals, affect the collective impact of their individual choices. The Commission cannot accept the thesis that the sum of people's individual choices necessarily equals what they really want. eric.britton wrote: > Hmm. Very interesting. But behind all this is a fundamental strategic > issue which we have yet to face and resolve. > > Have you not noticed? One of the main hallmarks of ?alternative > transport thinking and policy? (that?s most of us here by the way) is > that it is well intentioned, often quite wise, but invariably somehow > perceived as ad hoc, personal, and well ?out of the mainstream?. > > *What?s the answer to this?* > > Well I think that at the end of the day it is really rather simple. > But it is also eminently strategic. And that is to redefine what is in > fact the mainstream of transport policy and practice. Let?s not make > this too abstract. Some specifics please. > > Today we have one thing called ?sustainable transportation?. It?s a > pretty good current of thinking, policy and practice, but it is still > not that well understood. And in part to break this stasis, we are > trying to provide an ?open public and authoritative definition? of it > ? that reflects the consensus of the leading edge of the s/t > community. You can see the first steps of this process in the > Wikipedia (can you think of a better place to start? If so let us > know), at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation. Now > the fact is that this definition is still very much in process and I > have a considerable amount of input to factor into the entry, and I > hope that my other work (you know the stuff that pays the rent and the > kids? tuition bills) will let up a bit and allow me to get back to > this within the week. But don?t let that slow you down if you have > additional ideas, criticism, etc. for me. > > And then as opposed to that we are trying to push a positive concept > which really could do the job and in fact refine the leading edge of > transportation policy and practice, which we are calling the New > Mobility Agenda and for which we are seeing the definition in process > at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda. And there too you > are invited to pitch and help us all move to something that is more > authoritative and able to stand on its own legs as a real alternative > to ?old mobility? thinking. > > Unless we get together to take the high ground and in the process to > redefine the rules and benchmarks, then it is more marginalization, > and more awful projects and policies. (And by the way if anyone thinks > it?s rude to say harsh things about monorails, well then please put me > down as very very rude.) > > Eric Britton > > -----Original Message----- > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & isolation > > Karl and everyone else, > > I guess Mr. Barter?s comments put a pretty conclusive point to most of > > these discussions. Indeed, a mix of modes according to specific > > conditions sounds wise. Apparently, the powers-that-be are next > > considering building another LRT line through the Western Damansara- > > North PJ section of greater KL. For me, anything that is affordable > > and doesn?t take twice the time of driving a car is good -- be it BRT, > > bus or rail. > > Just yesterday, commuters including myself waited for nearly two hours > > for a feeder bus from the Bangsar LRT station, because one of the two > > buses had broken down. Perhaps the other had as well, to warrant such > > a wait. Why is the bus system in such an, as you say, ?antiquated, > > neglected and generally decrepit? condition? > > Part of the blame must be put on what I feel is the attitude of routes > > being simple entrepreneurship exercises where buses ?fish? for > > passengers. Because of this, you get different operators employing > > most of their resources on cannibalizing each other on established > > money making routes. Of course, this attitude also sits well with bus > > operations being handled by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship > > Development rather than the Ministry of Transport. > > So yes, taking political factors into consideration, getting overall > > guidance and regulation done by a pertinent transportation agency > > rather than the CVLB is a great starting point. And apparently, the > > bill establishing it has already been gazetted in Parliament. So I > > hope all of you will watch that space! > > -----Original Message----- > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:25 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & isolation > > Su-Lin Che > > I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main > problem > > rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would > have > > been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't > know > > enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure > > that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some > > suggestions. > > Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but > > maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive > > metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating, > > car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of > > medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system > > improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well > with > > the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves > much > > of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL? > > I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced > city can > > have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. > Maybe > > a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector > > regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities? > > Karl > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > > Of Su-Lin Chee > > Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM > > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & > > isolation > > Mr Fjellstrom, > > Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! > > Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main > > facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first > > place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the > > political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather > > than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. > > For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- > > govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital > > constraints of the government, one would think that if the government > > were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just > > steer the whole thing right from the beginning? > > One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from > > lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated > > planning. > > I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much > > cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers > > where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about > > giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough > > to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and > > would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions > > than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far > > away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. > > So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than > > existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg > > emissions & cleanliness). > >> Dear Su-Lin Che, > >> > >> Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you > > say the > >> monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the > > competition... > >> > >> PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts > > of more > >> than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the > > contractors, > >> designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company > > they set > >> up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, > > so they > >> didn't lose much when it folded. > >> > >> STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was > > better, > >> with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of > > operation, > >> and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > >> completing the takeover in September 2002. > >> > >> Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of > > these > >> systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the > > beginning that > >> they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > >> incentive to maximize passengers. > >> > >> As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a > > harsh > >> description and you surely know much better than me about the > > system. But > >> considering that: > >> - it was 8 years under construction > >> - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > >> - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > >> passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > >> it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to > > mention > >> that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the > > main > >> transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > >> > >> The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean > > anything, > >> this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during > > the peak) > >> and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > >> (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that > > even under > >> the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity > > of only > >> 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > >> > >> Karl Fjellstrom > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] > > On Behalf > >> Of Su-Lin Chee > >> Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >> Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > > monorail & > >> isolation > >> > >> As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation > > information > >> system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > >> > >> 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > >> wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > >> people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > >> KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > >> issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and > > status > >> symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling > > around > >> with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention > > the > >> word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > >> class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to > > do?? > >> > >> 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > >> systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > >> even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > >> relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > >> of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is > > how > >> the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > >> > >> 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers > > to > >> plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating > > city. > >> On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > >> of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Su-Lin Chee > >> > >> project manager > >> klang valley public transportation information system > >> vector designs > >> www.vectordesigns.org > >> 54a jalan kemuja > >> bangsar utama > >> 59000 kuala lumpur > >> tel/fax +603.22826363 > >> mobile +6016.2183363 > >> > > > > The New Mobility Agenda: A factory for ideas > Permanently on line at http://NewMobility.org > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > Free group video/voice-conferencing - http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > New mobility > > Ideas > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe > " on the web. > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From schipper at wri.org Sun Feb 12 10:50:12 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:50:12 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Asia's'only-poor-people-ride-transit', KL monorail & isolation Message-ID: I would add two "pointlets" First, what is clear is that when each person makes independent decisions about time, distance, and mode, all persons basically bump into each other. IN other words, transprt doesn't work when there are a lot of us in a relatively constrained space we call a city. Second, to paraphrase Braudel "Transport brings people to people and goods to people." He doens't mention distance, only access, as the quote below says it. Lee >>> stephenplowden@blueyonder.co.uk 2/11/2006 4:33:14 AM >>> As an alternative to "old mobility" thinking, how about this from Changing Directions, the report of the (British) Independent Commission on Transport published in 1974. 11.6 In particular, a clear understanding is needed of the concept of mobility. The real goal is not ease of movement, but access to people and facilities. Movement is desirable only to the extent that access requires it. People will seek,of course, to improve their power of access within the situation in which they find themselves. In present conditions they evidently choose to acquire and use more and more transport . This fact, sometimes presented as proof of "society's choice", is people's response to the options offered them. They do not control the options; nor can they, as individuals, affect the collective impact of their individual choices. The Commission cannot accept the thesis that the sum of people's individual choices necessarily equals what they really want. eric.britton wrote: > Hmm. Very interesting. But behind all this is a fundamental strategic > issue which we have yet to face and resolve. > > Have you not noticed? One of the main hallmarks of "alternative > transport thinking and policy" (that's most of us here by the way) is > that it is well intentioned, often quite wise, but invariably somehow > perceived as ad hoc, personal, and well "out of the mainstream". > > *What's the answer to this?* > > Well I think that at the end of the day it is really rather simple. > But it is also eminently strategic. And that is to redefine what is in > fact the mainstream of transport policy and practice. Let's not make > this too abstract. Some specifics please. > > Today we have one thing called "sustainable transportation". It's a > pretty good current of thinking, policy and practice, but it is still > not that well understood. And in part to break this stasis, we are > trying to provide an "open public and authoritative definition" of it > * that reflects the consensus of the leading edge of the s/t > community. You can see the first steps of this process in the > Wikipedia (can you think of a better place to start? If so let us > know), at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation. Now > the fact is that this definition is still very much in process and I > have a considerable amount of input to factor into the entry, and I > hope that my other work (you know the stuff that pays the rent and the > kids' tuition bills) will let up a bit and allow me to get back to > this within the week. But don't let that slow you down if you have > additional ideas, criticism, etc. for me. > > And then as opposed to that we are trying to push a positive concept > which really could do the job and in fact refine the leading edge of > transportation policy and practice, which we are calling the New > Mobility Agenda and for which we are seeing the definition in process > at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda. And there too you > are invited to pitch and help us all move to something that is more > authoritative and able to stand on its own legs as a real alternative > to 'old mobility" thinking. > > Unless we get together to take the high ground and in the process to > redefine the rules and benchmarks, then it is more marginalization, > and more awful projects and policies. (And by the way if anyone thinks > it's rude to say harsh things about monorails, well then please put me > down as very very rude.) > > Eric Britton > > -----Original Message----- > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf Of Su-Lin Chee > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & isolation > > Karl and everyone else, > > I guess Mr. Barter's comments put a pretty conclusive point to most of > > these discussions. Indeed, a mix of modes according to specific > > conditions sounds wise. Apparently, the powers-that-be are next > > considering building another LRT line through the Western Damansara- > > North PJ section of greater KL. For me, anything that is affordable > > and doesn't take twice the time of driving a car is good -- be it BRT, > > bus or rail. > > Just yesterday, commuters including myself waited for nearly two hours > > for a feeder bus from the Bangsar LRT station, because one of the two > > buses had broken down. Perhaps the other had as well, to warrant such > > a wait. Why is the bus system in such an, as you say, "antiquated, > > neglected and generally decrepit" condition? > > Part of the blame must be put on what I feel is the attitude of routes > > being simple entrepreneurship exercises where buses "fish" for > > passengers. Because of this, you get different operators employing > > most of their resources on cannibalizing each other on established > > money making routes. Of course, this attitude also sits well with bus > > operations being handled by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship > > Development rather than the Ministry of Transport. > > So yes, taking political factors into consideration, getting overall > > guidance and regulation done by a pertinent transportation agency > > rather than the CVLB is a great starting point. And apparently, the > > bill establishing it has already been gazetted in Parliament. So I > > hope all of you will watch that space! > > -----Original Message----- > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:25 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & isolation > > Su-Lin Che > > I agree with you that the way the big decisions are made is the main > problem > > rather than any particular mode as such. I'm not saying that BRT would > have > > been better in Kuala Lumpur, or even that BRT is needed in KL. I don't > know > > enough about demand and road and traffic conditions there, though I'm sure > > that you or others who are familiar with the city (Paul Barter?) have some > > suggestions. > > Yes, it is very difficult now in KL to take away road space from cars, but > > maybe Seoul provides a relevant example. Seoul has a much more extensive > > metro network, but found that traffic conditions were still deteriorating, > > car reliance increasing, etc. So they built and are building a network of > > medium capacity (ie. one lane) bus lanes combined with other bus system > > improvements which has had impressive results. It integrates very well > with > > the metro, as in Hong Kong. In Seoul's case a visionary mayor deserves > much > > of the credit, maybe a similar figure is needed in KL? > > I've always found it striking in KL that such a modern and advanced > city can > > have such an antiquated, neglected and generally decrepit bus system. > Maybe > > a first step in KL and other cities in Malaysia is to take bus sector > > regulation out of the hands of the CVLB and give it to the cities? > > Karl > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > > Of Su-Lin Chee > > Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:22 AM > > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > monorail & > > isolation > > Mr Fjellstrom, > > Wow, your knowledge of KL's public transportation scene is impressive! > > Although I can't authoritatively agree with the figures, the main > > facts of what you say are true. Personally however, I would first > > place the main seat of the general public transporation fiasco on the > > political situation and the way big decisions are made, rather > > than "mode problems" as Jain Alok has said. > > For example, although the proven formula seems to be the private/quasi- > > govt sector building and the public sector operating, due to capital > > constraints of the government, one would think that if the government > > were capable of bailing out Putra LRT later, why didn't they just > > steer the whole thing right from the beginning? > > One could also say the woeful integration is not just an effect from > > lack of incentive but lack of faith in the entire system of integrated > > planning. > > I guess your main contention here is that BRTs would have been much > > cheaper and more efficient. I remember going to a forum of engineers > > where BRTs were presented and there being general skepticism about > > giving up road space. Dedicated bus lanes have been difficult enough > > to implement. KL drivers love their cars and road space too much and > > would perhaps prefer temporary incursions due to rail constructions > > than long-term deprivation of road space. BRTs just seem to be too far > > away from the mindsets of KLites, or perhaps too progressive. > > So perhaps you could enlighten me on how BRTs are much better than > > existing buses on priority lanes and in improved conditions (eg > > emissions & cleanliness). > >> Dear Su-Lin Che, > >> > >> Being the 'second most successful' KL rail transit system - as you > > say the > >> monorail is - is not such a glowing accolade. Consider the > > competition... > >> > >> PUTRA LRT went bankrupt and was nationalized in Nov 2001 with debts > > of more > >> than US$1.4 billion after only 3 years of operation. All the > > contractors, > >> designers, vehicle suppliers etc made fat profits and the company > > they set > >> up to operate PUTRA only had around 5% equity investment from them, > > so they > >> didn't lose much when it folded. > >> > >> STAR, the other main mass transit system, a heavy rail system, was > > better, > >> with debts of 'only' a few hundred million US$ after 5 years of > > operation, > >> and was also nationalized at the same time, with Ministry of Finance > >> completing the takeover in September 2002. > >> > >> Quite apart from the financial performance the integration etc of > > these > >> systems was woeful, partly because the operator knew from the > > beginning that > >> they would never cover the operating cost, so there was not really an > >> incentive to maximize passengers. > >> > >> As for the monorail being a fiasco, you are right this is probably a > > harsh > >> description and you surely know much better than me about the > > system. But > >> considering that: > >> - it was 8 years under construction > >> - a wheel fell off during a trial, striking a journalist, and > >> - two years after opening they had achieved only half the projected > >> passengers that they had forecast they would have 2 years earlier, > >> it's at least arguable that this might qualify as a 'fiasco'. Not to > > mention > >> that the last monorail station stops short by 200m or so from the > > main > >> transit terminal at KL Sentral as you mention. > >> > >> The fact that it is 'almost always packed' doesn't really mean > > anything, > >> this just reflects the relatively long headways (5 minutes during > > the peak) > >> and the very low capacity of the system. At the monorail website > >> (http://www.monorail.com.my/monorail-info.htm) they explain that > > even under > >> the most optimistic scenario it has a maximum theoretical capacity > > of only > >> 5,000 passnegers/hr/direction. > >> > >> Karl Fjellstrom > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] > > On Behalf > >> Of Su-Lin Chee > >> Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 10:24 AM > >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >> Subject: [sustran] Asia's 'only-poor-people-ride-transit',KL > > monorail & > >> isolation > >> > >> As someone working on Kuala Lumpur's public transportation > > information > >> system, I feel behooved to respond to some preceding posts: > >> > >> 1. Mr. Bradshaw's sustainable transportation comments: I agree > >> wholeheartedly about the frustration of seeing Asians' "only-poor- > >> people-ride-transit bias." That, to me, is the paramount obstacle to > >> KL's public transport usage, over and above political and economic > >> issues. It is a class thinking and cars are seen as a class and > > status > >> symbol. Public transport, especially buses, is seen as milling > > around > >> with the masses and the marginals of society. The moment I mention > > the > >> word "buses", it seems as if a mental barrier goes up in most middle > >> class and above people - of horror and non-acceptability. What to > > do?? > >> > >> 2. Mr. Fjellstromn's KL monorail comments: among KL's rail transit > >> systems, the monorail may be deemed the 2nd most successful or maybe > >> even the most successful, in terms of customer uptake and perceived > >> relevance of route. It is almost always packed and goes through some > >> of the city's most congested and popular parts. The one fiasco is > > how > >> the line doesn't join up with KL's train hub: KL Sentral. > >> > >> 3. Mr Pardo's Le Corbusier comment: Yes! The need to have engineers > > to > >> plan fast cities has resulted in what I feel is a very isolating > > city. > >> On an anecdotal level, many mid-term visitors to KL express feelings > >> of alienation and a lack of ground-level community interaction. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Su-Lin Chee > >> > >> project manager > >> klang valley public transportation information system > >> vector designs > >> www.vectordesigns.org > >> 54a jalan kemuja > >> bangsar utama > >> 59000 kuala lumpur > >> tel/fax +603.22826363 > >> mobile +6016.2183363 > >> > > > > The New Mobility Agenda: A factory for ideas > Permanently on line at http://NewMobility.org > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > Free group video/voice-conferencing - http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > New mobility > > Ideas > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe > " on the web. > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Feb 13 12:12:49 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:12:49 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: China & India today compared with USA in 1915 Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AF99@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> I am forwarding this interesting exchange from the NewMobilityCafe, since it is on topic for sustran-discuss. Lee points out that the transport situation in low or middle-income cities today is NOT the same as the past situations of today's high income cities. I have some thoughts on this too, which I will share later I hope. BTW Lee is responding to a question from Simon Norton below. Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ ------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:56:36 -0500 From: "Lee Schipper" Subject: Re: modal split Sort of right up my cycleway-- China today has roughly the GDP /capita (in purchasing power) of the US in 1915, but twice as many passenger automobiles per capita as the US did, and a much bigger urban tranpsort mess. India is in a way more "advanced" becuse of so many two wheelers. The most urgent problem is that there are so many people on foot or cycle being rundown by the cars and two wheelers in crowded cities. Think of it this way. Virtually every home in urban china today has a refrigerator, and roughly 20% have air conditioning. The former was barely invented in 1915, the latter unknown. Shanghai has more cell phones/capita than the Entire EU. SHanghai, to be fair, has the US per capita income of about 1925=30, but even then I will be that we had fewer land lines per capita than Shanghai has cell ph ones per capita. so what is stopping the onrush of motorization? (See our web site under China Motorization)! >>> S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk 2/9/2006 11:40:45 AM >>> Joshua Odeleye's posting prompts me to ask the following question. How does the transport mix in less developed countries compare with what prevailed in the richer countries when they were at the same stage of economic development ? Have there been any studies on this ? Simon Norton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060213/ab45c532/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Feb 13 13:12:41 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:12:41 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: International Institute for Mobility Training - search professor Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AFA0@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message: 2 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:38:27 +0100 From: Delphine BRETON Subject: International Institute for Mobility Training - search professor, Dear Madam, Dear Sir, We are an nonprofit association, which calls IIFM (International Institute for Mobility Training- www.iifm.ch) based in Geneva. We propose training (courses, seminar, workshop) in sustainable mobility to countries in transition and we would like to share our knowlege with your network. We search professor, who could teach some of our subject and we seach member, who subscribe to IIFM. You will find enclosed documents for professor and member (you find it also on the webpage). Could you transmit this formular to the member of your network, who could be interesting to teach about sustainable mobility in other countries. Yours faithfully, F.Wittwer D.Breton *** Delphine Breton Institut International de Formation en Mobilit? (IIFM) c/o mobilid?e s?rl Av. du Mail 1 CH - 1205 Gen?ve T 00 41 (0)22 321 23 77 F 00 41 (0)22 321 23 74 E delphine.breton@iifm.ch E breton@mobilidee.ch W www.iifm.ch W www.mobilidee.ch <> <> [This message contained attachments] Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060213/ba42fa64/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Feb 13 14:58:30 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:58:30 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Msiakini: Penangites fed up with poor public transport, plan to sue CVLB Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105AFB0@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/46816 Penangites refuse to be taken for a ride Anil Netto Feb 13, 06 11:48am Fed up with the failure by authorities in Penang to ensure an efficient public transport system on this bustling island, civil society groups are planning to take recourse to legal action. Citizens have been asking the authorities for better public transport for years, says Nizam Mahshar, coordinator for the Citizens for Public Transport, a network of 24 civil society groups. And now, as a last resort, the CPT is planning to file suit against the federal Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (CVLB) in the hope of encouraging it to improve public transport on Penang island.... It's 'attrocious' ... Disabled people suffer the most ... http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/46816 (subscribers only for full article sorry) --------------------- Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060213/01928366/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Feb 13 20:57:39 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (On the Train Towards the Future!) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:57:39 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Automobile (and public transport) adverstising and marketing Message-ID: <4SWS.6407JS5@greenidea.info> Hi everyone... I was originally just going to post this to the Carfree_Network list as research for a project World Carfree Network might start relating to auto adverts, but I hope it is worth a few crosspostings to make sure everyone gets the message. I am very curious to know what automobile ads etc are like in South Asia and Asia-Pacific regions... and what kinds of new positive campaigns public and non-motorised transport people are planning... Following are some stories on automobile adverts.... Some parents seems to adverse to direct targeting of children in ads, but all this means is that the automobile-industrial complex* will just use more subtle ways to reach who they want to reach. Otherwise, the car companies are using more Internet and more product placement. Scary... but hopefully this gives us some ideas. I think parents, for example, will respond really well to a positive campaign about bikes, walking, kids taking public transport together in the rain, playing in the street... T (Could people let me know OFFLIST if you have a problem reading the text, if the text wrapping is wrong, etc. Thanks.) * "Automobile-industrial complex" is based on the term "Military-industrial complex" from U.S. General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was meant as a warning that the military weapons industry would determine direction of politics etc... *** Automobile retailers turn to Internet http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/SUB/60210055/1078/newsletter07&refsect=newsletter07 Automakers open wallets to event sponsorship http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/SUB/60209107/1003/newsletter07&refsect=newsletter07 Kermit and Ford http://caimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CA&Date=20060213&Category=SUB&ArtNo=60210082&Ref=AR&maxw=300 Ford and Chrysler http://caimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CA&Date=20060213&Category=SUB&ArtNo=60210042&Ref=AR&maxw=300 Super Bowl car commercials fall flat http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/SUB/60210082 New movie pairs Chrysler with Ford -- Harrison, that is http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/SUB/60210042 Lexus leads way on interactive marketing http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/SUB/60210050 *** Note that a movie like "Firewall" and any other movie with cars featuring as actors (!) will be officially released worldwide - beyond where the car is sold - and of course also available on both legal and illegal DVDs indefinately. I appreciate that an advert industry mag is critical of it, but it makes me sad that Kermit the Frog "Its not easy being green" http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/i/itsnoteasybeinggreen.shtml is used to promote Ford products. (That song is well known at least by many millions in North America). Here is more on that, Ford: Now it's easy being green - Pricey TV ad shows off hybrid SUV http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/AUTO01/601310371/1148 The TV advert itself (turn sound on) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7372950930856015507 *** As I think have mentioned before, automobile imagery is actually also being used to promote public transit/transport: 1 - The new Skoda Transportation (not Skoda Auto, which is owned by VW) trams for Prague and Wroclaw (PL) have an exterior designed by Porsche Design Studio, which is in fact not part of Porsche Auto (they just license the name). In Prague more than a year ago, there was a contest in a Czech newspaper related to getting public opinion of the design, and the prize was... a free Porsche for a weekend with a free tank of petrol! A couple of weeks ago, when the prototype tram was on the street for the first time, the same newspaper said "Now, everyone can have their own Porsche!". A friend here - also an anti-car activist - thought it was actually made by Porsche Auto - and I am sure many others are confused. 2 - OeBB (Austrian National Railways) had a TV spot recently which showed close-ups - from inside and outside - of a man polishing, etc what seemed to be a red sportscar... but then the spot ended with a surprise! That the vehicle was actually their new Bombardier Talent regional trains! *** Finally, something positive: SJ (Swedish railways) did this ad on a field across the highway from an airport runway, so people on the planes which just took off could see how much cheaper it was to travel by train: http://www.svd.se/images/ettan2005/050706/sjreklam_339180.jpg ...and, for those who missed it, this is advert from UITP and UNEP from about a year ago (same time Kyoto Protocol came into force): http://www.uitp.com/mediaroom/tv-campaign.cfm ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From schipper at wri.org Mon Feb 13 21:13:55 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:13:55 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: China & India today compared with USA in 1915 Message-ID: I thought I did respond -- developing countries are more motorised than we were -- motorisation is cheaper and the rush is on, authorities are unfortunately looking the other way -- but the rail systems the US and Europe had in their cities are not prevalent in developing countries. Unforunately the rush to cities also means squatting and other very uncontrolled growth and sprawl in much of the developing world. At the end of the day it is the pace of motorization that no one seems to be able to keep up with or cap.... >>> paulbarter@nus.edu.sg 2/12/2006 10:12:49 PM >>> I am forwarding this interesting exchange from the NewMobilityCafe, since it is on topic for sustran-discuss. Lee points out that the transport situation in low or middle-income cities today is NOT the same as the past situations of today's high income cities. I have some thoughts on this too, which I will share later I hope. BTW Lee is responding to a question from Simon Norton below. Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ ------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:56:36 -0500 From: "Lee Schipper" Subject: Re: modal split Sort of right up my cycleway-- China today has roughly the GDP /capita (in purchasing power) of the US in 1915, but twice as many passenger automobiles per capita as the US did, and a much bigger urban tranpsort mess. India is in a way more "advanced" becuse of so many two wheelers. The most urgent problem is that there are so many people on foot or cycle being rundown by the cars and two wheelers in crowded cities. Think of it this way. Virtually every home in urban china today has a refrigerator, and roughly 20% have air conditioning. The former was barely invented in 1915, the latter unknown. Shanghai has more cell phones/capita than the Entire EU. SHanghai, to be fair, has the US per capita income of about 1925=30, but even then I will be that we had fewer land lines per capita than Shanghai has cell ph ones per capita. so what is stopping the onrush of motorization? (See our web site under China Motorization)! >>> S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk 2/9/2006 11:40:45 AM >>> Joshua Odeleye's posting prompts me to ask the following question. How does the transport mix in less developed countries compare with what prevailed in the richer countries when they were at the same stage of economic development ? Have there been any studies on this ? Simon Norton From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Fri Feb 17 17:04:57 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:04:57 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Transport information resource: global Transport Knowledge Partnership Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0105B301@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear sustran-discuss folks I have just been alerted to another useful web-based information resource on transport, with a focus on development-related issues. It is the global Transport Knowledge Partnership at http://www.gtkp.com/ Why haven't I noticed it before? I guess I have not been paying enough attention! The site includes a large number of useful documents in various formats. Note: you will need to allow popups in your browser for the site to make it work properly. According to the site, "The global Transport Knowledge Partnership is an initiative to promote and disseminate sustainable transport knowledge, whilst encouraging greater participation from the developing world. gTKP is currently sponsored and chaired by Peter O'Neill of the UK's Department of International Development with an Interim Board that includes David Silcock (GRSP), Adrian Walsh (Roadsafe), David Ward (FIA), Charles Melhuish (ADB), Brian Williams (UN-Habitat), Madan G Maleku (HMG/N), Nu'uman Danbatta (MoT, Nigeria) and Dai Dongchang (TPRI, China), Peter Njenga (IFRTD, East and Southern Africa)." Paul Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore 119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg | http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ | I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. Perspectives on urban transport in developing countries: http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060217/4561691c/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sun Feb 19 10:29:32 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:29:32 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Paper, work! Message-ID: I have just finished a paper about educating Asians to be professionals in transport-related development work. The paper starts with a review of educational traditions in Asia, the tendency to rote learning, and responses from students and government. I next discuss what I did to try to bring an active and interactive approach to teaching transport in two masters degree courses. If anyone would like to see the draft of the paper and provide comments, please email me. I would be particularly interested (in the case of Asians) to hear if the charcterizations of Asian education I cite hold true in your own country, and the extent to which modernization has taken place. I'll also advertize the fact here that I am currently looking for a new job -- in academia or with an appopriate agency -- or consulting work. I returned to the States last September, and have since been a Visiting Scholar at Harvard, where I am writing up the research I conducted in Asia (papers on transport planning in Singapore and Bangkok to follow). I am interested in how to bring more effective planning techniques to Asia, and in how institutional barriers may be overcome. I have also been active in the debate over appropriate urban transport technologies, and am interested in system management issues, such as providing better management of bus and rail systems. I am flexible as to location! Any leads would be appreciated! --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From binac at rediffmail.com Sun Feb 19 18:13:35 2006 From: binac at rediffmail.com (Bina C. Balakrishnan) Date: 19 Feb 2006 09:13:35 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Paper, work! Message-ID: <20060219091335.23664.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060219/cc67d5cf/attachment.txt From lokayan at vsnl.com Mon Feb 20 13:40:53 2006 From: lokayan at vsnl.com (LOKAYAN) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:10:53 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Paper, work! References: Message-ID: <001301c635d7$ed8b2dc0$0200a8c0@computer1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Sustran List" Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:59 AM Subject: [sustran] Paper, work! > > I have just finished a paper about educating Asians to be professionals in > transport-related development work. The paper starts with a review of > educational traditions in Asia, the tendency to rote learning, and > responses from students and government. I next discuss what I did to try > to bring an active and interactive approach to teaching transport in two > masters degree courses. > > If anyone would like to see the draft of the paper and provide comments, > please email me. I would be particularly interested (in the case of > Asians) to hear if the charcterizations of Asian education I cite > hold true in your own country, and the extent to which modernization has > taken place. > > I'll also advertize the fact here that I am currently looking for a new > job -- in academia or with an appopriate agency -- or consulting work. I > returned to the States last September, and have since been a Visiting > Scholar at Harvard, where I am writing up the research I conducted in > Asia (papers on transport planning in Singapore and Bangkok to follow). I > am interested in how to bring more effective planning techniques to > Asia, and in how institutional barriers may be overcome. I have also been > active in the debate over appropriate urban transport technologies, and > am interested in system management issues, such as providing better > management of bus and rail systems. I am flexible as to location! Any > leads would be appreciated! > > --Jonathan > ----- > Jonathan Richmond > Visiting Scholar > Department of Urban Planning and Design > Graduate School of Design > Harvard University > 312 George Gund Hall > 48 Quincy St. > Cambridge MA 02138-3000 > > Mailing address: > 182 Palfrey St. > Watertown MA 02472-1835 > > (617) 395-4360 > > e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > From joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 02:29:31 2006 From: joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com (joshua odeleye) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 30, Issue 22 In-Reply-To: <20060220030128.69FD52D3C9@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20060220172931.85862.qmail@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jonathan, Please send me a copy of the paper.I will like to compare your experience to mine in Nigeria.I teach URBAN TRANSPORT in the institute mentioned below.I wish you all the best. Best regards, JOSHUA ODELEYE. NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY, P.M.B 1148,ZARIA,NIGERIA. --- sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > > > ######################################################################## > Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > > About this mailing list see: > > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > ######################################################################## > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Paper, work! (Bina C. Balakrishnan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: 19 Feb 2006 09:13:35 -0000 > From: "Bina C. Balakrishnan" > Subject: [sustran] Re: Paper, work! > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Message-ID: > <20060219091335.23664.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > > Hi Jonathan, > > Do send me a copy of your paper- I am definitely > interested in > it! > > Bina C. Balakrishnan > Consultant > Transportation Planning & Engineering > Mumbai, India > e-mail: binac@rediffmail.com > > > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 Jonathan E.D.Richmond wrote : > > > >I have just finished a paper about educating Asians > to be > >professionals in > >transport-related development work. The paper > starts with a > >review of > >educational traditions in Asia, the tendency to > rote learning, > >and > >responses from students and government. I next > discuss what I did > >to try > >to bring an active and interactive approach to > teaching transport > >in two > >masters degree courses. > > > >If anyone would like to see the draft of the paper > and provide > >comments, > >please email me. I would be particularly interested > (in the case > >of > >Asians) to hear if the charcterizations of Asian > education I > >cite > >hold true in your own country, and the extent to > which > >modernization has > >taken place. > > > >I'll also advertize the fact here that I am > currently looking for > >a new > >job -- in academia or with an appopriate agency -- > or consulting > >work. I > >returned to the States last September, and have > since been a > >Visiting > >Scholar at Harvard, where I am writing up the > research I > >conducted in > >Asia (papers on transport planning in Singapore and > Bangkok to > >follow). I > >am interested in how to bring more effective > planning techniques > >to > >Asia, and in how institutional barriers may be > overcome. I have > >also been > >active in the debate over appropriate urban > transport > >technologies, and > >am interested in system management issues, such as > providing > >better > >management of bus and rail systems. I am flexible > as to location! > >Any > >leads would be appreciated! > > > > > > >--Jonathan > >----- > >Jonathan Richmond > >Visiting Scholar > >Department of Urban Planning and Design > >Graduate School of Design > >Harvard University > >312 George Gund Hall > >48 Quincy St. > >Cambridge MA 02138-3000 > > > >Mailing address: > >182 Palfrey St. > >Watertown MA 02472-1835 > > > >(617) 395-4360 > > > >e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu > >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > > > >================================================================ > > >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > > >people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport > with a focus > >on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > Because of the > >history of the list, the main focus is on urban > transport policy > >in Asia. > > > > ------------------------------ > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport > with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global > South'). Because of the history of the list, the > main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 30, Issue 22 > *********************************************** > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From arulgreen at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 02:59:48 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] CHENNAI: Seminar on Public Transport Systems for Chennai ? 25 February 2006, Saturday Message-ID: <20060220175948.48584.qmail@web51114.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sir/Madam Pasumai Thaayagam is happy to invite you for a half-day ?Seminar on Public Transport Systems for Chennai? The Seminar will be held on 25th February 2006 ? Saturday ? 3.30 pm to 07.00 pm. At IMAGE Auditorium, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai ? 28 (Ph: 2493 4638). Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, Honorable Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Prof. Dinesh Mohan, Professor and Coordinator, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme, I.I.T. New Delhi, Prof. T. Anantharajan, Former Professor, Anna University, Mr. M. G. Devesagayam, Sustain, Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS Mrs. Shoba Iyer, CAG and many other environmentalists will participate. If you are in Chennai, we look forward to your presence at the Seminar. Kindly send your confirmation for the participation in the seminar to: pasumaimail@yahoo.co.in (or) 044 ? 2817 2120, 94443 44331 With regards R.ARUL, Secretary, PASUMAI THAAYAGAM (Green Mother Land), No. 9,(old No: 5), Lynwood Lane, Mahalingapuram, CHENNAI -600 034. Tel: 044 ? 2817 2120 Fax: 044 ? 2817 2122 Cell: 94443 44331 Email: pasumaimail@yahoo.co.in www.p-t.in Transport in Chennai Chennai (formerly Madras) is the urban primacy of Tamil Nadu. Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) covers an area of 1177 sq. kilometers. CMA had a population of 5.7 millions in 1997 and it has increased to 7 million now. The total number of motor vehicles in Chennai has increased from 144,282 in 1984 to 1,674,185 in 2005. Between year 1992 and 2005 the number of motorized two wheelers increased from 433,046 to 1,266,114 and the number of motor cars has increased from 122,531 to 301,128. About 450 vehicles are registered every day in Chennai. That means 13,000 vehicles in a month and 160,000 a year. This trend has created many problems like environmental pollution, noise, traffic fatalities and injuries, congestion, and mobility problems. The majority of the city people use public transport, bicycles and pedestrian paths ? but these modes are totally neglected in Chennai. While the personalized motorized modes had increased manifold over the years, the growth in fleet of buses is abysmally poor. The compound growth rate of bus fleet that was of the order of 9 percent during 1970-80 had reduced to 6 percent during 1980-90 was about 4.2 percent for the period 1990-2000 and it is seen to be static now. The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773; out of these 1294 buses are more then 8 years old, that means Chennai has 1500 buses only. The passenger growth has decreased from 4,300,000 in 1998 to 3,300,000 in 2005. There are no segregated lanes for non-motorist transport and safer pedestrian facilities. Pasumai Thaayagam demands: (1) improved public transport ? i.e. at least 5000 buses (with 3500 new buses), traffic priority for buses, and possibly Bus Rapid Transit, (2) provision of improved rights of way for pedestrians and bicyclists, (3) better air quality. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Feb 21 02:28:57 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:28:57 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <020701c63643$2734fa90$6c01a8c0@Home> Hmm. Bottom line! What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to produce a first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets , together with a supporting media, outreach program, etc. ? which provides a clear and understandable picture of ?Why BRT and why not the other thing?. Authoritative, balanced, easy, and above all very human. Counterpoint: * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European city * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of cost, time of construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, danger/vandalism, etc.) * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very different contexts * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue situation of target cities. * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around I?d guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the trick (but what do I now about this end of it, eh?). It should be IRREFUTABLE! I?d love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right at the heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. Eric Britton After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an important hidden agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not to build the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the state owns the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the $1billion or so the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers would read this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> Dear Lee: The real problem is that with our country security problems since the 70's; we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some cities in the Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the confidence to come to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There are, but they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town by TM to the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the buildings in Christmas. In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these characteristics in the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, everyone in Bogota we are so happy with this article. This journalist is a hero for us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't like to use the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his reference is for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good opportunity for a new article about TM alone in the future. I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the people on the stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local people and the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more years before that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in the buses and the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas to the working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main street in historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, convention centres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of trips will be increased in TM. I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 years in operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, everyday more people will use TM for tourism. Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the infrastructure or the buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind of changes take more than one generation to be real. Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote tourism in TM worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will be happy to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to write about it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! How USCentric -- write letters ! > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > everyone's observations about bogota? > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > 4:29:31 PM >>> > Lee, > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > TM has > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > such as integration with > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > the only > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride facilities > that I > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > think about > tourists and further diffusion. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! How > USCentric -- write letters ! > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that does > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > the success to the rest of the world! > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > Thanks for the article Lee. > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > TransMilenio. > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is not > really that > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > that the author > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper connection straight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if tourism should be more of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also realise that > corridors > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been the > case to > date. > > Saludos, > > Lloyd > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > From: "Lee Schipper" > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! HowUS > Centric -- write letters ! > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the writer > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > Colombia > More on Colombia > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > Article Tools Sponsored By By SETH KUGEL Published: February 12, 2006 BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's capital and intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 miles of urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. And to top it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year round. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Travel in the News In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. No, seriously, it is. Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking hard for about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since taking office in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, cracked down on violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, given for developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State Department issued a Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy there. Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is theft, not kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer across the nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in 2005, down from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if possible; it is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 pesos to the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an informal tour guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in crowds. Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. It is laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few places you'll find: The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between Carreras 5 and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its 34,000 pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and sculptor Fernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others by Picasso, Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood of steep streets that is practically a museum in itself. Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant district known as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent restaurants, live music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the city see www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: steaks; corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; and the Bogotano specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, seasoned with guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for debate, but to start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334-8908, and two other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city (Carretera Central del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at Carrera 2 and Calle 21) to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the Museo del Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with-cathedral). Sports fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, where both Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the bullfights at the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1-334-1482 for tickets, which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely rural surroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic restaurants with traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? is the popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is heavy on the beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative calm should eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get a table, and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) ensues. The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses out on by not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, beautiful, tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060220/dac0c8e6/attachment-0001.html From schipper at wri.org Tue Feb 21 02:46:34 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:46:34 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Message-ID: Lots of people trying to do this -- and lots of counter-doers, too. Reminds me of Germany or France, late 1970s, when gas, oil, electricity and even coal was the "best, cheapest, most comfortable way to heat your home" depending on which fuel was sponsoring the ad or the film or the study. There are lots of BRT, Metro, Light rail studies, and lots of reasons why they are ignored by the stakeholders who pay the bills, even the much higher bills for metros (take Delhi). >>> "Eric Britton" 2/20/2006 12:28:57 PM >>> Hmm. Bottom line! What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to produce a first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets , together with a supporting media, outreach program, etc. * which provides a clear and understandable picture of "Why BRT and why not the other thing". Authoritative, balanced, easy, and above all very human. Counterpoint: * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European city * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of cost, time of construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, danger/vandalism, etc.) * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very different contexts * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue situation of target cities. * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around I'd guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the trick (but what do I now about this end of it, eh?). It should be IRREFUTABLE! I'd love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right at the heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. Eric Britton After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an important hidden agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not to build the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the state owns the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the $1billion or so the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers would read this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> Dear Lee: The real problem is that with our country security problems since the 70's; we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some cities in the Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the confidence to come to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There are, but they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town by TM to the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the buildings in Christmas. In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these characteristics in the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, everyone in Bogota we are so happy with this article. This journalist is a hero for us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't like to use the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his reference is for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good opportunity for a new article about TM alone in the future. I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the people on the stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local people and the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more years before that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in the buses and the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas to the working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main street in historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, convention centres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of trips will be increased in TM. I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 years in operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, everyday more people will use TM for tourism. Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the infrastructure or the buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind of changes take more than one generation to be real. Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote tourism in TM worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will be happy to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to write about it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! How USCentric -- write letters ! > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > everyone's observations about bogota? > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > 4:29:31 PM >>> > Lee, > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > TM has > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > such as integration with > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > the only > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride facilities > that I > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > think about > tourists and further diffusion. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! How > USCentric -- write letters ! > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that does > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > the success to the rest of the world! > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > Thanks for the article Lee. > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > TransMilenio. > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is not > really that > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > that the author > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper connection straight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if tourism should be more of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also realise that > corridors > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been the > case to > date. > > Saludos, > > Lloyd > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > From: "Lee Schipper" > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! HowUS > Centric -- write letters ! > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the writer > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > Colombia > More on Colombia > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > Article Tools Sponsored By By SETH KUGEL Published: February 12, 2006 BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's capital and intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 miles of urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. And to top it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year round. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Travel in the News In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. No, seriously, it is. Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking hard for about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since taking office in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, cracked down on violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, given for developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State Department issued a Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy there. Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is theft, not kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer across the nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in 2005, down from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if possible; it is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 pesos to the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an informal tour guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in crowds. Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. It is laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few places you'll find: The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between Carreras 5 and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its 34,000 pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and sculptor Fernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others by Picasso, Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood of steep streets that is practically a museum in itself. Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant district known as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent restaurants, live music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the city see www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: steaks; corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; and the Bogotano specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, seasoned with guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for debate, but to start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334-8908, and two other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city (Carretera Central del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at Carrera 2 and Calle 21) to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the Museo del Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with-cathedral). Sports fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, where both Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the bullfights at the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1-334-1482 for tickets, which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely rural surroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic restaurants with traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? is the popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is heavy on the beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative calm should eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get a table, and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) ensues. The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses out on by not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, beautiful, tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Feb 21 02:33:47 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:33:47 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! In-Reply-To: <020701c63643$2734fa90$6c01a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <20060220175421.3FBE62DE6C@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> This is also right up our alley in GTZ SUTP. However, where are the 200k? We could lend a hand in developing this and diffusing it. (also, English and Spanish versions would be useful). Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com _____ From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Lunes, 20 de Febrero de 2006 12:29 p.m. To: 'Lee Schipper'; eesandoval@cable.net.co Cc: diazoe@aolpremium.com; rgorham@atlantech.net; hidalgo_dario@bah.com; rcm2111@columbia.edu; mbuenon@gmail.com; whook@itdp.org; carlos.pardo@sutp.org; aardila@uniandes.edu.co; lfwright@usa.net; lindau@vortex.ufrgs.br; gmenckhoff@worldbank.org; Jlopezsilva@worldbank.org; 'Luis Gutierrez'; 'Nancy Kete'; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; 'Paul Steely White'; 'Stefan Schaefer'; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; 'Mikel E. Murga' Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Hmm. Bottom line! What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to produce a first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets , together with a supporting media, outreach program, etc. ? which provides a clear and understandable picture of ?Why BRT and why not the other thing?. Authoritative, balanced, easy, and above all very human. Counterpoint: * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European city * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of cost, time of construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, danger/vandalism, etc.) * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very different contexts * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue situation of target cities. * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around I?d guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the trick (but what do I now about this end of it, eh?). It should be IRREFUTABLE! I?d love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right at the heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. Eric Britton After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an important hidden agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not to build the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the state owns the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the $1billion or so the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers would read this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> Dear Lee: The real problem is that with our country security problems since the 70's; we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some cities in the Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the confidence to come to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There are, but they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town by TM to the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the buildings in Christmas. In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these characteristics in the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, everyone in Bogota we are so happy with this article. This journalist is a hero for us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't like to use the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his reference is for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good opportunity for a new article about TM alone in the future. I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the people on the stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local people and the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more years before that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in the buses and the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas to the working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main street in historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, convention centres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of trips will be increased in TM. I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 years in operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, everyday more people will use TM for tourism. Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the infrastructure or the buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind of changes take more than one generation to be real. Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote tourism in TM worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will be happy to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to write about it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! How USCentric -- write letters ! > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > everyone's observations about bogota? > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > 4:29:31 PM >>> > Lee, > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > TM has > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > such as integration with > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > the only > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride facilities > that I > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > think about > tourists and further diffusion. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! How > USCentric -- write letters ! > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that does > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > the success to the rest of the world! > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > Thanks for the article Lee. > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > TransMilenio. > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is not > really that > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > that the author > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper connection straight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if tourism should be more of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also realise that > corridors > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been the > case to > date. > > Saludos, > > Lloyd > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > From: "Lee Schipper" > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! HowUS > Centric -- write letters ! > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the writer > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > Colombia > More on Colombia > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > Article Tools Sponsored By By SETH KUGEL Published: February 12, 2006 BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's capital and intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 miles of urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. And to top it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year round. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Travel in the News In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. No, seriously, it is. Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking hard for about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since taking office in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, cracked down on violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, given for developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State Department issued a Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy there. Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is theft, not kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer across the nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in 2005, down from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if possible; it is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 pesos to the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an informal tour guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in crowds. Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. It is laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few places you'll find: The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between Carreras 5 and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its 34,000 pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and sculptor Fernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others by Picasso, Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood of steep streets that is practically a museum in itself. Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant district known as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent restaurants, live music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the city see www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: steaks; corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; and the Bogotano specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, seasoned with guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for debate, but to start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334-8908, and two other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city (Carretera Central del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at Carrera 2 and Calle 21) to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the Museo del Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with-cathedral). Sports fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, where both Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the bullfights at the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1-334-1482 for tickets, which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely rural surroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic restaurants with traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? is the popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is heavy on the beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative calm should eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get a table, and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) ensues. The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses out on by not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, beautiful, tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060220/c27a6608/attachment-0001.html From diazoe at itdp.org Tue Feb 21 06:23:22 2006 From: diazoe at itdp.org (Oscar Edmundo Diaz) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:23:22 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009401c63663$e2b717b0$6500a8c0@DIAZOEOLD> You should see how the French are trying to sell Trams in Mexico, even the Ambassador goes to events promoting them as the ONLY solution for Mexican cities. They use false information about TransMilenio for this purpose. Best, Oscar Edmundo Diaz Latin America Regional Director Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) Regional Office Avenida 13 N? 100-12, Oficina 1101 Bogot?, DC. COLOMBIA Tel: +(57-1) 635-1571/49/38 - Fax: +(57-1) 635-1649 Headquarters 127 W. 26th St. Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001, USA Tel +(1-212) 629-8001 - Fax +(1-212) 629-8033 URL: www.itdp.org - Alternate e-mail: diazoe@aolpremium.com Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide-----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:47 PM To: eesandoval@cable.net.co; eric.britton@ecoplan.org Cc: diazoe@aolpremium.com; rgorham@atlantech.net; hidalgo_dario@bah.com; stefan@cicalafilmworks.com; rcm2111@columbia.edu; mmurga@compuserve.com; mbuenon@gmail.com; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; carlos.pardo@sutp.org; steely@transalt.org; aardila@uniandes.edu.co; lfwright@usa.net; lindau@vortex.ufrgs.br; gmenckhoff@worldbank.org; Jlopezsilva@worldbank.org; Luis Gutierrez; Nancy Kete; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Lots of people trying to do this -- and lots of counter-doers, too. Reminds me of Germany or France, late 1970s, when gas, oil, electricity and even coal was the "best, cheapest, most comfortable way to heat your home" depending on which fuel was sponsoring the ad or the film or the study. There are lots of BRT, Metro, Light rail studies, and lots of reasons why they are ignored by the stakeholders who pay the bills, even the much higher bills for metros (take Delhi). >>> "Eric Britton" 2/20/2006 12:28:57 PM >>> Hmm. Bottom line! What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to produce a first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets , together with a supporting media, outreach program, etc. * which provides a clear and understandable picture of "Why BRT and why not the other thing". Authoritative, balanced, easy, and above all very human. Counterpoint: * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European city * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of cost, time of construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, danger/vandalism, etc.) * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very different contexts * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue situation of target cities. * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around I'd guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the trick (but what do I now about this end of it, eh?). It should be IRREFUTABLE! I'd love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right at the heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. Eric Britton After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an important hidden agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not to build the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the state owns the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the $1billion or so the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers would read this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> Dear Lee: The real problem is that with our country security problems since the 70's; we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some cities in the Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the confidence to come to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There are, but they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town by TM to the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the buildings in Christmas. In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these characteristics in the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, everyone in Bogota we are so happy with this article. This journalist is a hero for us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't like to use the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his reference is for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good opportunity for a new article about TM alone in the future. I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the people on the stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local people and the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more years before that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in the buses and the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas to the working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main street in historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, convention centres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of trips will be increased in TM. I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 years in operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, everyday more people will use TM for tourism. Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the infrastructure or the buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind of changes take more than one generation to be real. Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote tourism in TM worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will be happy to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to write about it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! How USCentric -- write letters ! > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > everyone's observations about bogota? > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > 4:29:31 PM >>> > Lee, > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > TM has > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > such as integration with > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > the only > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride facilities > that I > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > think about > tourists and further diffusion. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! How > USCentric -- write letters ! > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that does > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > the success to the rest of the world! > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > Thanks for the article Lee. > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > TransMilenio. > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is not > really that > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > that the author > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper connection straight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if tourism should be more of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also realise that > corridors > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been the > case to > date. > > Saludos, > > Lloyd > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > From: "Lee Schipper" > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! HowUS > Centric -- write letters ! > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the writer > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > Colombia > More on Colombia > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > Article Tools Sponsored By By SETH KUGEL Published: February 12, 2006 BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's capital and intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 miles of urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. And to top it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year round. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Travel in the News In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. No, seriously, it is. Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking hard for about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since taking office in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, cracked down on violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, given for developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State Department issued a Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy there. Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is theft, not kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer across the nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in 2005, down from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if possible; it is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 pesos to the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an informal tour guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in crowds. Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. It is laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few places you'll find: The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between Carreras 5 and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its 34,000 pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and sculptor Fernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others by Picasso, Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood of steep streets that is practically a museum in itself. Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant district known as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent restaurants, live music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the city see www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: steaks; corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; and the Bogotano specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, seasoned with guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for debate, but to start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334-8908, and two other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city (Carretera Central del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at Carrera 2 and Calle 21) to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the Museo del Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with-cathedral). Sports fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, where both Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the bullfights at the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1-334-1482 for tickets, which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely rural surroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic restaurants with traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? is the popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is heavy on the beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative calm should eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get a table, and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) ensues. The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses out on by not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, beautiful, tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. From schipper at wri.org Tue Feb 21 06:38:29 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:38:29 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Message-ID: I have had to clean up the mess in Hanoi and eleswhere, not to mention the French pressures for CNG... Lee Schipper Director for Research, EMBARQ World Resources Institute 10 "G" St NE, Washington DC 20002 TLF 1 202 729 7735 FAX 1 202 729 7775 http://www.embarq.wri.org/en Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest: http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm >>> "Oscar Edmundo Diaz" 2/20/2006 4:23:22 PM >>> You should see how the French are trying to sell Trams in Mexico, even the Ambassador goes to events promoting them as the ONLY solution for Mexican cities. They use false information about TransMilenio for this purpose. Best, Oscar Edmundo Diaz Latin America Regional Director Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) Regional Office Avenida 13 N? 100-12, Oficina 1101 Bogot?, DC. COLOMBIA Tel: +(57-1) 635-1571/49/38 - Fax: +(57-1) 635-1649 Headquarters 127 W. 26th St. Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001, USA Tel +(1-212) 629-8001 - Fax +(1-212) 629-8033 URL: www.itdp.org - Alternate e-mail: diazoe@aolpremium.com Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide-----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@wri.org] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:47 PM To: eesandoval@cable.net.co; eric.britton@ecoplan.org Cc: diazoe@aolpremium.com; rgorham@atlantech.net; hidalgo_dario@bah.com; stefan@cicalafilmworks.com; rcm2111@columbia.edu; mmurga@compuserve.com; mbuenon@gmail.com; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; carlos.pardo@sutp.org; steely@transalt.org; aardila@uniandes.edu.co; lfwright@usa.net; lindau@vortex.ufrgs.br; gmenckhoff@worldbank.org; Jlopezsilva@worldbank.org; Luis Gutierrez; Nancy Kete; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Lots of people trying to do this -- and lots of counter-doers, too. Reminds me of Germany or France, late 1970s, when gas, oil, electricity and even coal was the "best, cheapest, most comfortable way to heat your home" depending on which fuel was sponsoring the ad or the film or the study. There are lots of BRT, Metro, Light rail studies, and lots of reasons why they are ignored by the stakeholders who pay the bills, even the much higher bills for metros (take Delhi). >>> "Eric Britton" 2/20/2006 12:28:57 PM >>> Hmm. Bottom line! What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to produce a first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets , together with a supporting media, outreach program, etc. * which provides a clear and understandable picture of "Why BRT and why not the other thing". Authoritative, balanced, easy, and above all very human. Counterpoint: * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European city * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of cost, time of construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, danger/vandalism, etc.) * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very different contexts * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue situation of target cities. * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around I'd guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the trick (but what do I now about this end of it, eh?). It should be IRREFUTABLE! I'd love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right at the heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. Eric Britton After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an important hidden agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not to build the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the state owns the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the $1billion or so the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers would read this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> Dear Lee: The real problem is that with our country security problems since the 70's; we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some cities in the Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the confidence to come to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There are, but they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town by TM to the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the buildings in Christmas. In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these characteristics in the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, everyone in Bogota we are so happy with this article. This journalist is a hero for us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't like to use the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his reference is for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good opportunity for a new article about TM alone in the future. I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the people on the stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local people and the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more years before that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in the buses and the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas to the working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main street in historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, convention centres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of trips will be increased in TM. I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 years in operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, everyday more people will use TM for tourism. Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the infrastructure or the buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind of changes take more than one generation to be real. Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote tourism in TM worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will be happy to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to write about it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! How USCentric -- write letters ! > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > everyone's observations about bogota? > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > 4:29:31 PM >>> > Lee, > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > TM has > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > such as integration with > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > the only > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride facilities > that I > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > think about > tourists and further diffusion. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! How > USCentric -- write letters ! > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that does > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > the success to the rest of the world! > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > Thanks for the article Lee. > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > TransMilenio. > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is not > really that > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > that the author > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper connection straight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if tourism should be more of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also realise that > corridors > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been the > case to > date. > > Saludos, > > Lloyd > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > From: "Lee Schipper" > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio! HowUS > Centric -- write letters ! > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the writer > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > Colombia > More on Colombia > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > Article Tools Sponsored By By SETH KUGEL Published: February 12, 2006 BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's capital and intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 miles of urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. And to top it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year round. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Travel in the News In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. No, seriously, it is. Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking hard for about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since taking office in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, cracked down on violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, given for developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State Department issued a Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy there. Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is theft, not kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer across the nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in 2005, down from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if possible; it is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 pesos to the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an informal tour guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in crowds. Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. It is laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few places you'll find: The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between Carreras 5 and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its 34,000 pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and sculptor Fernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others by Picasso, Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood of steep streets that is practically a museum in itself. Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant district known as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent restaurants, live music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the city see www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: steaks; corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; and the Bogotano specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, seasoned with guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for debate, but to start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334-8908, and two other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city (Carretera Central del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at Carrera 2 and Calle 21) to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the Museo del Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with-cathedral). Sports fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, where both Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the bullfights at the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1-334-1482 for tickets, which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely rural surroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic restaurants with traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? is the popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is heavy on the beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative calm should eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get a table, and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) ensues. The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses out on by not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, beautiful, tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. From eesandoval at cable.net.co Tue Feb 21 09:50:52 2006 From: eesandoval at cable.net.co (eesandoval at cable.net.co) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:50:52 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Message-ID: <1d3de1fc7df4.43fa71fc@cable.net.co> In the Full BRT, the 95% of the success is the political will. And the political will is supported in the pool. For me, the only way to the New Yorkers want a Full BRT is known it. So, before expert letters or conferences or contracting consultants it is necessary that BRT examples appear in TV or the NY Mayor comes to Bogota, with TV of course. I suggest trying to talk with the journalist, saying that he did a very good report, but there is an element that we want to emphasize, because it could be very interesting for North American cities. Inviting (NGOs) a journalist to Bogota, joint with a TV journalist preferably, it is more effective than paying consultants. Maybe someone of you can invite this or other journalists to the conference of Mr. Pe?alosa this o next week in NY too. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Lunes, Febrero 20, 2006 10:38 pm Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! > I have had to clean up the mess in Hanoi and eleswhere, not to > mention the French pressures for CNG... > > Lee Schipper > Director for Research, EMBARQ > World Resources Institute > 10 "G" St NE, Washington DC 20002 > TLF 1 202 729 7735 > FAX 1 202 729 7775 > > http://www.embarq.wri.org/en > Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest: > http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm > > > >>> "Oscar Edmundo Diaz" 2/20/2006 4:23:22 PM >>> > You should see how the French are trying to sell Trams in Mexico, > even the > Ambassador goes to events promoting them as the ONLY solution for > Mexicancities. They use false information about TransMilenio for > this purpose. > Best, > > Oscar Edmundo Diaz > Latin America Regional Director > Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) > > Regional Office > Avenida 13 N? 100-12, Oficina 1101 > Bogot?, DC. COLOMBIA > Tel: +(57-1) 635-1571/49/38 - Fax: +(57-1) 635-1649 > > Headquarters > 127 W. 26th St. Suite 1002 > New York, NY 10001, USA > Tel +(1-212) 629-8001 - Fax +(1-212) 629-8033 > > URL: www.itdp.org - Alternate e-mail: diazoe@aolpremium.com > Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation > worldwide-----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:47 PM > To: eesandoval@cable.net.co; eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Cc: diazoe@aolpremium.com; rgorham@atlantech.net; > hidalgo_dario@bah.com;stefan@cicalafilmworks.com; > rcm2111@columbia.edu; mmurga@compuserve.com; > mbuenon@gmail.com; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; > carlos.pardo@sutp.org; steely@transalt.org; aardila@uniandes.edu.co; > lfwright@usa.net; lindau@vortex.ufrgs.br; gmenckhoff@worldbank.org; > Jlopezsilva@worldbank.org; Luis Gutierrez; Nancy Kete; > NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! > > Lots of people trying to do this -- and lots of counter-doers, > too. Reminds me > of Germany or France, late 1970s, when gas, oil, electricity and > even coal was > the "best, cheapest, most comfortable way to heat your home" > depending on which > fuel was sponsoring the ad or the film or the study. There are > lots of BRT, > Metro, Light rail studies, and lots of reasons why > they are ignored by the stakeholders who pay the bills, even the > much higher > bills for metros (take Delhi). > > >>> "Eric Britton" 2/20/2006 12:28:57 > PM >>> > Hmm. Bottom line! > > > > What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to > produce a > first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets > , together with a supporting > media,outreach program, etc. * which provides a clear and > understandable picture > of "Why BRT and why not the other thing". Authoritative, > balanced, easy, > and above all very human. > > > > Counterpoint: > > * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European > city > * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of > cost, time of > construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, > danger/vandalism, etc.) > > * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) > > * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very > differentcontexts > > * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue > situationof target cities. > > * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around > > > > I'd guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the > trick (but > what do I now about this end of it, eh?). > > > > It should be IRREFUTABLE! > > > > I'd love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right > at the > heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an > important hidden > agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not > to build > the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the > state owns > the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the > $1billion or so > the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers > wouldread this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? > > > > >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> > > Dear Lee: > > > > The real problem is that with our country security problems since > the 70's; > we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some > cities in the > Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the > confidence to come > to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There > are, but > they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the > airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota > transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town > by TM to > the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the > buildingsin Christmas. > > > > In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these > characteristics in > the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, > everyonein Bogota we are so happy with this article. This > journalist is a hero for > us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't > like to use > the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his > referenceis for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good > opportunity for a > new article about TM alone in the future. > > > > I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored > expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the > people on the > stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local > people and > the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more > yearsbefore that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in > the buses and > the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. > > > > Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas > to the > working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main > street in > historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, > conventioncentres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of > trips will be > increased in TM. > > > > I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 > years in > operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, > everyday more > people will use TM for tourism. > > > > Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the > infrastructure or the > buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind > of changes > take more than one generation to be real. > > > > Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote > tourism in TM > worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will > be happy > to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to > write about > it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. > > > > Best, > > > > > > Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro > > > > ----- Mensaje original ----- > > De: Lee Schipper > > Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am > > Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio!How USCentric -- write letters ! > > > > > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > > > everyone's observations about bogota? > > > > > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > > > 4:29:31 PM >>> > > > Lee, > > > > > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > > > TM has > > > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > > > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > > > such as integration with > > > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > > > the only > > > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride > facilities > > > that I > > > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > > > think about > > > tourists and further diffusion. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Carlos F. Pardo > > > Coordinador de Proyecto > > > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > > > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > > > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > > > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > > > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > > > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > > > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > > > P?gina: www.sutp.org > > > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > > > > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > > > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > > > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > > > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > > > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > > > Transmilenio! How > > > USCentric -- write letters ! > > > > > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > > > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that > does > > > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > > > the success to the rest of the world! > > > > > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > > > Thanks for the article Lee. > > > > > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > > > TransMilenio. > > > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is > not > > > really that > > > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > > > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > > > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > > > that the author > > > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > > > > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > > > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper > connectionstraight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if > tourism should be more > of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also > realise that > > > corridors > > > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been > the > > > case to > > > date. > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > > > Lloyd > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > > > From: "Lee Schipper" > > > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > > > Transmilenio! HowUS > > > Centric -- write letters ! > > > > > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the > writer > > > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > > > > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > > > > > Colombia > > > More on Colombia > > > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > > > > > Article Tools Sponsored By > > By SETH KUGEL > > Published: February 12, 2006 > > > > BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven > million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class > museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's > capital and > intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 > miles of > urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. > And to top > it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year > round. Skip to > next paragraph Readers > > Forum: Travel in the News > > > > In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. > > > > No, seriously, it is. > > > > Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism > officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking > hard for > about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since > takingoffice in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, > cracked down on > violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, > given for > developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book > Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State > Department issued a > Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has > decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." > > > > "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of > securityand public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere > is much more > relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States > Embassythere. > > > > Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is > theft, not > kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer > across the > nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in > 2005, down > from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. > > > > Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of > hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if > possible; it > is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 > pesos to > the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an > informal tour > guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in > crowds. > > > Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. > It is laid > out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few > places you'll find: > > > > The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between > Carreras 5 > and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its > 34,000pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, > 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and > sculptorFernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others > by Picasso, > Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood > of steep > streets that is practically a museum in itself. > > > > Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant > district known > as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo > neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the > fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent > restaurants, live > music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the > city see > > www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) > > > > Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: > steaks;corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; > and the Bogotano > specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, > seasoned with > guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for > debate, but to > start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334- > 8908, and two > other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city > (CarreteraCentral del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). > > > > Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so > physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at > Carrera 2 and > Calle > > 21) > > to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the > Museo del > Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with- > cathedral). Sports > fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, > where both > Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; > tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the > bullfightsat the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1- > 334-1482 for tickets, > which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). > > > > There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely > ruralsurroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic > restaurants with > traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? > is the > popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. > > > > And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, > 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated > spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out > www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is > heavy on the > beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve > everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative > calm should > eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get > a table, > and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) > ensues. > > > The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses > out on by > not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, > beautiful,tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: eesandoval.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 223 bytes Desc: Card for Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060221/95b501a9/eesandoval-0001.vcf From schipper at wri.org Tue Feb 21 10:08:48 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:08:48 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! Message-ID: Well, Im speaking at Columbia on March 8 talking about Mexico City. I can talk about TM from what I have in my slide collection, but I doubt Blumberg would come. But Ramon Munoz and I will figure out what it takes to get someone from the City tranpsort bureaucracy there. >>> 2/20/2006 7:50:52 PM >>> In the Full BRT, the 95% of the success is the political will. And the political will is supported in the pool. For me, the only way to the New Yorkers want a Full BRT is known it. So, before expert letters or conferences or contracting consultants it is necessary that BRT examples appear in TV or the NY Mayor comes to Bogota, with TV of course. I suggest trying to talk with the journalist, saying that he did a very good report, but there is an element that we want to emphasize, because it could be very interesting for North American cities. Inviting (NGOs) a journalist to Bogota, joint with a TV journalist preferably, it is more effective than paying consultants. Maybe someone of you can invite this or other journalists to the conference of Mr. Pe?alosa this o next week in NY too. Best, Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Lee Schipper Fecha: Lunes, Febrero 20, 2006 10:38 pm Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! > I have had to clean up the mess in Hanoi and eleswhere, not to > mention the French pressures for CNG... > > Lee Schipper > Director for Research, EMBARQ > World Resources Institute > 10 "G" St NE, Washington DC 20002 > TLF 1 202 729 7735 > FAX 1 202 729 7775 > > http://www.embarq.wri.org/en > Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest: > http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm > > > >>> "Oscar Edmundo Diaz" 2/20/2006 4:23:22 PM >>> > You should see how the French are trying to sell Trams in Mexico, > even the > Ambassador goes to events promoting them as the ONLY solution for > Mexicancities. They use false information about TransMilenio for > this purpose. > Best, > > Oscar Edmundo Diaz > Latin America Regional Director > Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) > > Regional Office > Avenida 13 N? 100-12, Oficina 1101 > Bogot?, DC. COLOMBIA > Tel: +(57-1) 635-1571/49/38 - Fax: +(57-1) 635-1649 > > Headquarters > 127 W. 26th St. Suite 1002 > New York, NY 10001, USA > Tel +(1-212) 629-8001 - Fax +(1-212) 629-8033 > > URL: www.itdp.org - Alternate e-mail: diazoe@aolpremium.com > Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation > worldwide-----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:47 PM > To: eesandoval@cable.net.co; eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Cc: diazoe@aolpremium.com; rgorham@atlantech.net; > hidalgo_dario@bah.com;stefan@cicalafilmworks.com; > rcm2111@columbia.edu; mmurga@compuserve.com; > mbuenon@gmail.com; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; > carlos.pardo@sutp.org; steely@transalt.org; aardila@uniandes.edu.co; > lfwright@usa.net; lindau@vortex.ufrgs.br; gmenckhoff@worldbank.org; > Jlopezsilva@worldbank.org; Luis Gutierrez; Nancy Kete; > NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out Transmilenio! > > Lots of people trying to do this -- and lots of counter-doers, > too. Reminds me > of Germany or France, late 1970s, when gas, oil, electricity and > even coal was > the "best, cheapest, most comfortable way to heat your home" > depending on which > fuel was sponsoring the ad or the film or the study. There are > lots of BRT, > Metro, Light rail studies, and lots of reasons why > they are ignored by the stakeholders who pay the bills, even the > much higher > bills for metros (take Delhi). > > >>> "Eric Britton" 2/20/2006 12:28:57 > PM >>> > Hmm. Bottom line! > > > > What this suggest to me is that this is exactly the right time to > produce a > first rate film/video along the lines of Contested Streets > , together with a supporting > media,outreach program, etc. * which provides a clear and > understandable picture > of "Why BRT and why not the other thing". Authoritative, > balanced, easy, > and above all very human. > > > > Counterpoint: > > * NYC and maybe one other US and, why not, one S. European > city > * Scan existing metro line in each city (reminders of > cost, time of > construction, cost of delays, achieved ridership, operating deficits, > danger/vandalism, etc.) > > * Look at plan for a new line (costs, time, etc.) > > * Visit 2, max. 3 BRTs that are doing the job in very > differentcontexts > > * Demonstrate how it would work in specific street/avenue > situationof target cities. > > * Wo(man) on the street interviews all around > > > > I'd guess that something on the order of $200k or so would do the > trick (but > what do I now about this end of it, eh?). > > > > It should be IRREFUTABLE! > > > > I'd love to lend a hand. As far as I am concerned this is right > at the > heart of the New Mobility Agenda as I understand it. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > After thinking about this, however, I realize there is an > important hidden > agenda...New York has struggled for 50 years over whether or not > to build > the 2nd ave. metro. Why not a BRT? Well, the reason is that the > state owns > the buses, the city the streets, but that aside, imagine the > $1billion or so > the city would save. So it had been my faint hope that New Yorkers > wouldread this, see about TM, and say "hmm why not here"? > > > > >>> 2/20/2006 11:26:13 AM >>> > > Dear Lee: > > > > The real problem is that with our country security problems since > the 70's; > we lost the tourism culture here in Colombia, except in some > cities in the > Caribbean. After Pe?alosa's period the people recover the > confidence to come > to Bogota, but we don't have strong tourism programs yet. There > are, but > they are starting. However, in almost all the tourism magazine in the > airlines there are reference to TM and in each report about Bogota > transformation. You can find tourism programs to go to down town > by TM to > the Gold and Botero Museums, especially to see the lights in the > buildingsin Christmas. > > > > In fact, it is the first document that I see, with these > characteristics in > the last three years, without mention or reference to TM. However, > everyonein Bogota we are so happy with this article. This > journalist is a hero for > us. I'm sure that in his next visit he could use TM and he won't > like to use > the NY metro for example. I'm sure that he didn't know TM and his > referenceis for the rest of buses system in Bogota* this is a good > opportunity for a > new article about TM alone in the future. > > > > I know that TM agency had printed maps with tourism icons, sponsored > expositions, theatre and films to show another option to the > people on the > stations, but in tourism, the best publicity is when the local > people and > the taxi drivers recommend visit the city by bus and we need more > yearsbefore that the Bogotanians forget our terrible histories in > the buses and > the taxi drivers don't see TM like their enemy. > > > > Of course, the current routes are mainly to go from the poor areas > to the > working places. With the introduction of the 7th avenue (the main > street in > historical terms) and the 26th street (airport, land terminal, > conventioncentres, new hotel areas), I'm sure that this kind of > trips will be > increased in TM. > > > > I know that you really love TM, but we are in elementary (only 5 > years in > operation) and with the work of us here or outside of Bogota, > everyday more > people will use TM for tourism. > > > > Don't forget that the most important in TM isn't the > infrastructure or the > buses, it is the cultural change, and on it, some times this kind > of changes > take more than one generation to be real. > > > > Of course if one of you can find donations in order to promote > tourism in TM > worldwide, I'm sure that the new General Manager of TM Agency will > be happy > to accept. Or if you can sponsor more journalists to come and to > write about > it, everyone here will be ready to organize an especial program. > > > > Best, > > > > > > Edgar Enrique Sandoval Castro > > > > ----- Mensaje original ----- > > De: Lee Schipper > > Fecha: Domingo, Febrero 19, 2006 0:03 am > > Asunto: RE: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > Transmilenio!How USCentric -- write letters ! > > > > > +But isnt it important to "mainstream" TM so that its a part of > > > everyone's observations about bogota? > > > > > > >>> "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 2/18/2006 > > > 4:29:31 PM >>> > > > Lee, > > > > > > I think the success has been broadcasted (maybe more than) enough. > > > TM has > > > (and still should) focus on access to the greater portion of the > > > population,and it should start to address seriously key issues > > > such as integration with > > > other modes (for instance, the Americas bike station is actually > > > the only > > > one in the entire system, and there are no park-n-ride > facilities > > > that I > > > know of). Once these issues are solved, it would be useful to > > > think about > > > tourists and further diffusion. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Carlos F. Pardo > > > Coordinador de Proyecto > > > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > > > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > > > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > > > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048 > > > Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309 > > > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > > > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > > > P?gina: www.sutp.org > > > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > > > > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > > > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en > > > Latinoam?ricaenviando un correo a sutp-lac- > > > subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lee Schipper [schipper@wri.org] > > > Subject: Re: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > > > Transmilenio! How > > > USCentric -- write letters ! > > > > > > Enrique once made the point, however, that the 2nd line in place > > > should have some appeal to the well off. Why not something that > does > > > serve tourists, which has the additional benefit of broadcasting > > > the success to the rest of the world! > > > > > > >>> Lloyd Wright 2/18/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> > > > Thanks for the article Lee. > > > > > > Yes, it is a major oversight that the author was oblivious to > > > TransMilenio. > > > However, in some ways this is partially understandable. TM is > not > > > really that > > > relevant from a tourist's standpoint. Bogot? actually has a lot of > > > attractions for national and overseas visitors, but many are not > > > reallyaccessible from TM. (Of course, it seems hard to believe > > > that the author > > > missed the Museo de Oro station). > > > > > > Probably from a tourist's perspective, a TM corridor on Carrera > > > S?ptima would be more useful. Or what about even a proper > connectionstraight to the airport terminals? I often wonder if > tourism should be more > of a consideration in corridor selection. Of course, I also > realise that > > > corridors > > > to low-income areas should be the first priority, as has been > the > > > case to > > > date. > > > > > > Saludos, > > > > > > Lloyd > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > > Received: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:31:23 PM EST > > > From: "Lee Schipper" > > > Subject: Times article on visiting Bogota leaves out > > > Transmilenio! HowUS > > > Centric -- write letters ! > > > > > > Letters shoudl be addressed to letters@nytimes.com -- the > writer > > > evenadvocates hiring a taxi for the day but not ridig the bus! > > > > > > Como se llama "harumph" en espanol? > > > > > > Colombia > > > More on Colombia > > > Bogot? Is Not Just for the Brave Anymore > > > > > Article Tools Sponsored By > > By SETH KUGEL > > Published: February 12, 2006 > > > > BOGOT?, COLOMBIA, the fourth largest city in South America, with seven > million residents, is home to a vibrant restaurant scene, world-class > museums and a charming colonial quarter. It is the country's > capital and > intellectual hub, an enlightened, pedestrian-friendly city with 75 > miles of > urban arteries turned over to cyclists and walkers every Sunday. > And to top > it off, the weather is temperate, with highs in the 60's year > round. Skip to > next paragraph Readers > > Forum: Travel in the News > > > > In other words, Bogot? is a great place to visit. > > > > No, seriously, it is. > > > > Violent reputations can take a long time to shake - just ask tourism > officials in Beirut or the Bronx - but Bogot? has been shaking > hard for > about a decade. Several mayors engineered an urban rebirth; since > takingoffice in 2002 the Colombian president, ?lvaro Uribe, > cracked down on > violence. Unesco awarded it the City for Peace Prize for 2002-3, > given for > developing "a true urban conviviability," and named it the World Book > Capital in 2007. And in January, the United States State > Department issued a > Travel Warning for Colombia that said, "Violence in recent years has > decreased markedly in most urban centers, including Bogot?." > > > > "The situation in Bogot? seems to be greatly improved in terms of > securityand public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere > is much more > relaxed," said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States > Embassythere. > > > > Bogot? can be dangerous, to be sure, but the primary concern is > theft, not > kidnappings. And extortion-related kidnappings are becoming rarer > across the > nation, with the government reporting a 51 percent drop: 369 in > 2005, down > from 747 in 2004.They remain far more frequent in rural areas. > > > > Visitors should avoid public transportation and call taxis instead of > hailing possibly unauthorized cars. Hire a taxi for the day if > possible; it > is relatively cheap (12,000 pesos an hour - just over $5 at 2,300 > pesos to > the dollar), eliminates waiting and the driver can serve as an > informal tour > guide. Do not wear fancy jewelry and keep a hand on your wallet in > crowds. > > > Once you get the safety drill down, the city is yours to explore. > It is laid > out in an easy-to-navigate grid of carreras and calles. Here are a few > places you'll find: > > > > The Gold Museum (Museo del Oro, Calle 16, 5-41 - meaning between > Carreras 5 > and 6, No. 41; phone 57-1-343-2222; entrance 2,500 pesos) with its > 34,000pre-Columbian gold items. The Botero Museum (Calle 11, No. 4-21, > 57-1-343-1223), a collection donated by the Colombian painter and > sculptorFernando Botero, including 123 of his own works and others > by Picasso, > Monet, Renoir and the like. La Candelaria, a colonial neighborhood > of steep > streets that is practically a museum in itself. > > > > Then there are the fine restaurants in the hot new restaurant > district known > as the Zona G, and those with a more edgy feel in the Bosque Izquierdo > neighborhood. And romantic Usaqu?n, a small town swallowed up by the > fashionable northern reaches of the city, has excellent > restaurants, live > music venues and a Sunday flea market. (For an introduction to the > city see > > www.english.bogotaturismo.gov.co.) > > > > Colombian food, largely unknown to Americans, has plenty to offer: > steaks;corncakes known as arepas; cheese buns called almoj?banas; > and the Bogotano > specialty, a chicken, potato and avocado stew called ajiaco, > seasoned with > guascas leaves. Where to find the best ajiaco is a matter for > debate, but to > start, there's Casa Vieja (Avenida Jim?nez, No. 3-62, 57-1-334- > 8908, and two > other locations); and on weekends, Entrepu?s, north of the city > (CarreteraCentral del Norte, kilometer 23, v?a Sop?, 57-1-865-0020). > > > > Bogot? is a typical Andean high-altitude polluted city-in-a-bowl, so > physical beauty is not its forte. But taking the funicular (at > Carrera 2 and > Calle > > 21) > > to the top of Monserrate hill is a must, along with a visit to the > Museo del > Oro and Plaza Bol?var (the requisite central-plaza-with- > cathedral). Sports > fans will want to check out a soccer game at El Camp?n stadium, > where both > Millonarios and Santa F? play (at Calle 57 Avenida 30, 57-1-315-8726; > tickets 8,000 to 30,000 pesos). In January or February, go to the > bullfightsat the Plaza de Santamar?a (Carrera 6, No. 26-50, 57-1- > 334-1482 for tickets, > which are 60,000 to 380,000 pesos). > > > > There is as much to do just beyond the city limits, in the lovely > ruralsurroundings that Bogotanos call the Sabana. Rustic > restaurants with > traditional food abound, and 30 miles from the city in Zipaquir? > is the > popular Salt Cathedral, literally a cathedral carved from a salt mine. > > > > And then there's Andr?s Carne de Res in Ch?a (Calle 2, No. 11a-56, > 57-1-863-7880), a restaurant in name but really a riotously decorated > spectacle of art and music and eccentricity (check out > www.andrescarnederes.com, to get an idea).The endless menu is > heavy on the > beef (that's what Carne de Res means, after all) but they also serve > everything from ajiaco to banana splits. Those wanting relative > calm should > eat in the afternoon; those going at night should go early to get > a table, > and stay late as the mayhem (eat, drink, dance, dance on tables) > ensues. > > > The Andr?s experience is representative of what the world misses > out on by > not going to Colombia: it manages to be profound, spellbinding, > beautiful,tumultuous, confusing and fattening all at once. > > > > > > From litman at vtpi.org Tue Feb 21 16:07:24 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:07:24 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Parking Management Best Practices - Discount Expires Feb. 28 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060220230643.031d5848@mail.islandnet.com> "Parking Management Best Practices" (http://www.vtpi.org/PMBP_Flyer.pdf ) is an important new book that will change the way you think about and solve parking problems. It describes more than two-dozen strategies that result in more efficient use of parking resources, and explains how to assemble them into an effective parking management program. Parking management can provide huge savings and benefits. Cost-effective parking management programs typically reduce parking requirements by 20-40% compared with what conventional planning specifies. This provides numerous economic, social and environmental benefits. Parking management can reduce parking facility costs, increase housing affordability, reduce motor vehicle traffic, encourage use of alternative modes, support more compact and accessible land use patterns, create more livable communities, reduce impervious surface and stormwater management costs, and allow more flexible building design. Current planning practices tend to overlook and discourage parking management solutions even when they are most cost effective and beneficial overall. This book identifies problems with current parking planning practices, discusses parking costs and the savings that can result from improved management, describes specific parking management strategies and how they can be implemented, discusses methods for parking management planning and evaluation, and describes how to develop the optimal parking management program for a particular situation. "Parking Management Best Practices" is written by VTPI Executive Director Todd Litman and published by Planners Press (www.planning.org). See the flyer at http://www.vtpi.org/PMBP_Flyer.pdf for a substantial discount for orders made before February 28, 2006. For additional information see our free new report, "Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ), which summarizes the ideas in "Parking Management Best Practices." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DEPAVING FOR PARADISE ? Preface from "Parking Management Best Practices" Years ago, singer Joni Mitchell lamented that 'They?ve paved paradise and put up a parking lot.' The song resonates because there is much to dislike about parking facilities. They tend to be unattractive and displace more pleasant land uses. Yet, the same people who protest these costs often travel by automobile, and require parking at their destination. We dislike parking facilities until we need one, at which time we want it to be abundant, convenient and free. The tension between the high costs of parking facilities and our desire for them creates a conflict for individuals, businesses and communities. This book attempts to reconcile this conflict. It describes a variety of management strategies that can increase the efficiency of parking activities and reduce the amount of parking required in a particular situation. This is a practical and effective way to save money and land, create more attractive communities, increase user convenience, and support various other planning objectives. Most parking management strategies have modest individual impacts: a five percent reduction here, a ten percent reduction there, but together they can often reduce total parking requirements by a quarter, a third, or even more. This can represents the difference between a successful or unsuccessful development, an ugly or beautiful streetscape, a walkable or automobile-dependent community. Our challenge is noble but formidable. There are often obstacles to the implementation of innovative parking management programs. So arm yourself before you proceed. Be sure that you are familiar with all possible parking management strategies. Identify and publicize benefits. Develop contingency plans. Treat your allies with kindness and your foes with respect. Ultimately you will succeed, because the strategies described in this book truly make the world a better place. Parking management helps create paradise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060220/4864b333/attachment.html From arulgreen at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 02:25:28 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:25:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Chennai battles for sustainable transport - www.peopleandplanet.net Message-ID: <20060221172528.77017.qmail@web51115.mail.yahoo.com> Chennai battles for sustainable transport Posted: 21 Feb 2006 Chennai, formerly Madras, on the Coromandel Coast of southern India, has grown into a metropolitan city of 7 million people. It is also the scene of a major campaign to oppose the decision by the State Government of Tamil Nadu to solve the city?s transport problem by building a 300 km monorail. The campaign?s plea for a transport system that meets the needs of all the people will be echoed in cities around the world. A pressure group, Pasumai Thaayagam (Green Motherland), has launched the Campaign for Sustainable Transport in Chennai. It argues that Monorail is used only as feeder service in all the countries where it is in operation, and that only a city-wide rapid bus system will meet the needs of Chennai?s growing population. It has distributed leaflets throughout the city and is organising school meetings. It is also holding a seminar on sustainable transport in the city this week. Only Japan has a monorail over 100 km. the campaign organisers say. In Malaysia, Australia and United States monorails runs for less then 100 km. It is yet to be tested as a mainline metro system anywhere in the world. But the Government of Tamil Nadu has announced 300 km monorail project as a mainline metro system. ?We are strongly opposing the Chennai monorail project. Instead of monorail, we are demanding a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for Chennai. Our organisation?s founder Dr. S. Ramadoss raised this demand at a demonstration against the monorail project. And he has the backing of the Indian Railway Minister for State, Mr. Velu, who has also opposed the project,? the campaign organisers told Planet 21. Bicycle lanes A BRT system, would ensures the use of high quality and high capacity buses for public transport, Mr Ramadoss told the demonstrators. It would be cheaper than the monorail system and more suited to Chennai. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea had gone for it. The proposed monorail project could not meet the transport demands of the Chennai Metropolitan Area and should be scrapped. He said the fleet strength of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation should be increased to 5,000. There should be a separate track for bicycles on all roads and no reduction in the space meant for footpaths. The Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) now covers an area of 1177 sq. kilometres. The number of motor vehicles in the city has grown from 144,282 in 1984 to 1,674,185 in 2005. Between year 1992 and 2005 the number of motorised two wheelers increased from 433,046 to 1,266,114 and the number of cars has increased from 122,531 to 301,128. About 450 vehicles are registered every day in Chennai. That means 13,000 vehicles in a month and 160,000 a year. This trend has created many problems including pollution, noise, traffic fatalities and injuries and wasteful congestion. Most people use public transport, bicycles and pedestrian paths - but these modes are totally neglected in Chennai. Static fleet While personal means of motorised transport has increased greatly over the years, growth in the bus fleet has been abysmally poor. The bus fleet grew by some 9 per cent during 1970-80, a rate that was reduced to 6 per cent during 1980-90 and to about 4 per cent for the period 1990-2000 until it was now static. The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773, out of which 1294 are more then 8 years old. That means Chennai has only about 1500 workable buses. As a result, passenger growth has decreased from 4,300,000 in 1998 to 3,300,000 in 2005. Moreover, there are no segregated lanes for non-motorist transport and or safe pedestrian facilities. Chennai?s campaign demands: ? improved public transport - i.e. at least 5000 buses (with 3500 new buses), with traffic priority for buses, and possibly Bus Rapid Transit ? provision of improved rights of way for pedestrians and bicyclists ? better air quality. http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2679 to contact PASUMAI THAAYAGAM (Green Mother Land), No. 9,(old No: 5), Lynwood Lane, Mahalingapuram, CHENNAI -600 034, Tamil Nadu, INDIA. Email: pasumaimail@yahoo.co.in Fax: +91-44-28172122 www.p-t.in __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Feb 22 05:52:23 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:52:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport - www.peopleandplanet.net Message-ID: <23851679.1140555143736.JavaMail.root@elwamui-francias.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Arul What about things that could be done in the shorter term at fairly low cost? Are there railways which could be upgraded into a regional service? Could enforcement and queue bypasses speed up the buses? What excuse should politicians have to oppose these but yet support the monorail project? Eric Brun -----Original Message----- From: arul rathinam Sent: Feb 21, 2006 12:25 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Chennai battles for sustainable transport - www.peopleandplanet.net Chennai battles for sustainable transport Posted: 21 Feb 2006 Chennai, formerly Madras, on the Coromandel Coast of southern India, has grown into a metropolitan city of 7 million people. It is also the scene of a major campaign to oppose the decision by the State Government of Tamil Nadu to solve the city?s transport problem by building a 300 km monorail. The campaign?s plea for a transport system that meets the needs of all the people will be echoed in cities around the world. A pressure group, Pasumai Thaayagam (Green Motherland), has launched the Campaign for Sustainable Transport in Chennai. It argues that Monorail is used only as feeder service in all the countries where it is in operation, and that only a city-wide rapid bus system will meet the needs of Chennai?s growing population. It has distributed leaflets throughout the city and is organising school meetings. It is also holding a seminar on sustainable transport in the city this week. Only Japan has a monorail over 100 km. the campaign organisers say. In Malaysia, Australia and United States monorails runs for less then 100 km. It is yet to be tested as a mainline metro system anywhere in the world. But the Government of Tamil Nadu has announced 300 km monorail project as a mainline metro system. ?We are strongly opposing the Chennai monorail project. Instead of monorail, we are demanding a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for Chennai. Our organisation?s founder Dr. S. Ramadoss raised this demand at a demonstration against the monorail project. And he has the backing of the Indian Railway Minister for State, Mr. Velu, who has also opposed the project,? the campaign organisers told Planet 21. Bicycle lanes A BRT system, would ensures the use of high quality and high capacity buses for public transport, Mr Ramadoss told the demonstrators. It would be cheaper than the monorail system and more suited to Chennai. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea had gone for it. The proposed monorail project could not meet the transport demands of the Chennai Metropolitan Area and should be scrapped. He said the fleet strength of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation should be increased to 5,000. There should be a separate track for bicycles on all roads and no reduction in the space meant for footpaths. The Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) now covers an area of 1177 sq. kilometres. The number of motor vehicles in the city has grown from 144,282 in 1984 to 1,674,185 in 2005. Between year 1992 and 2005 the number of motorised two wheelers increased from 433,046 to 1,266,114 and the number of cars has increased from 122,531 to 301,128. About 450 vehicles are registered every day in Chennai. That means 13,000 vehicles in a month and 160,000 a year. This trend has created many problems including pollution, noise, traffic fatalities and injuries and wasteful congestion. Most people use public transport, bicycles and pedestrian paths - but these modes are totally neglected in Chennai. Static fleet While personal means of motorised transport has increased greatly over the years, growth in the bus fleet has been abysmally poor. The bus fleet grew by some 9 per cent during 1970-80, a rate that was reduced to 6 per cent during 1980-90 and to about 4 per cent for the period 1990-2000 until it was now static. The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773, out of which 1294 are more then 8 years old. That means Chennai has only about 1500 workable buses. As a result, passenger growth has decreased from 4,300,000 in 1998 to 3,300,000 in 2005. Moreover, there are no segregated lanes for non-motorist transport and or safe pedestrian facilities. Chennai?s campaign demands: ? improved public transport - i.e. at least 5000 buses (with 3500 new buses), with traffic priority for buses, and possibly Bus Rapid Transit ? provision of improved rights of way for pedestrians and bicyclists ? better air quality. http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2679 to contact PASUMAI THAAYAGAM (Green Mother Land), No. 9,(old No: 5), Lynwood Lane, Mahalingapuram, CHENNAI -600 034, Tamil Nadu, INDIA. Email: pasumaimail@yahoo.co.in Fax: +91-44-28172122 www.p-t.in __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Wed Feb 22 10:53:42 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:53:42 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport - www.peopleandplanet.net In-Reply-To: <23851679.1140555143736.JavaMail.root@elwamui-francias.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23851679.1140555143736.JavaMail.root@elwamui-francias.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: There is a truly wonderful article Bish Sanyal write many years back on the "Make-Believe World of the Calcutta Metro-Rail" which explains the allure of something that seems both high-tech and clean in India. The monorial represents modernity. PLUS, it will surely be quite expensive to ride, so that it can be the airconditioned preserve of the middle-classes, with the poor left on the street... I made a mistake when I interviewed senior management from the Calcutta Metro Rail. I suggested that the service was for the upper classes. Oh no... Those at the top did not ride the trains: they had chauffeurs. The rail system was for the solid Indian middle class, to make them feel comfortable, to keep out the dirt and squalor of Calcutta, to make them feel like they had made it. And I am sure the image of the monorail has a similar role to play in Chennai! --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ajain at kcrc.com Wed Feb 22 12:31:59 2006 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:31:59 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport Message-ID: > The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773, > out of which 1294 are more then 8 years old. That > means Chennai has only about 1500 workable buses. Buses more than 8 years old are non-workable? That seems a bit odd. I have seen buses older than 10 years working perfectly well. In Hong Kong the useful life of the buses is taken as 14 to 17 years, depending on the body frame. Alok "KCRC - Better connections; better services" This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From etts at indigo.ie Wed Feb 22 13:17:52 2006 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport References: Message-ID: <021501c63766$f5bf88c0$e8ce6ada@finn> Alok, It very much depends on the bus design, and also on the maintenance regime throughout its life. Most buses in western countries would have an economic life of about 12 years, after which increased maintenance costs make it an increasingly unviable proposition. Nonetheless, there is no reason why they cannot last many more years. For the last decade there has been a thriving business throughout the CIS in buses which have been discarded by European cities, and are shipped out to Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. to get another 3-5 years working life. Standard bus life in China is 8 years. A fairly respectable 10-metre standard buses costs about $20,000. Engines usually outlast the body. Some cities are now extending bus life to 10 years, but it is not a good proposition to do a major capital overhaul of the vehicle at 8 years to get another 3-5 years out of it. As a very general statement, it is not a problem for Chinese cities to finance bus replacements. As I recall most Russian buses of the Soviet era (LAZ, LiAZ) also had 8 year design life. This was based on a strong production sector which churned out fit-for-purpose vehicles. By mid- to late-1990's, it became normal to carry out major capital repair to extend the vehicle life by 4-5 years. This usually cost about 25-30% of the price of a new vehicle. I don't know whether this was normal practice during the Soviet era, I suspect not and that it was a practical way of surviving in the transition years when they had absolutely no money. This never prevented individuals and small companies in rural areas from keeping some buses ticking over for maybe 20 years, but such extreme long life was never practice for city fleets. >From recollection, Sri Lanka doesn't get too much productivity out of 8 year old buses, a mix of Tatas (?) and Ashok Leylands. Just because a bus is 8 years old doesn't make it unworkable. However, if normal experience with the bus design and local conditions are that most buses are deadbeat and spend a lot of time off the road by 8 years, then it is reasonable to apply it as a threshold. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Jain Alok To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:31 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport > The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773, > out of which 1294 are more then 8 years old. That > means Chennai has only about 1500 workable buses. Buses more than 8 years old are non-workable? That seems a bit odd. I have seen buses older than 10 years working perfectly well. In Hong Kong the useful life of the buses is taken as 14 to 17 years, depending on the body frame. Alok -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060222/07d8cde4/attachment.html From arulgreen at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 16:04:30 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:04:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for sustainable transport In-Reply-To: <021501c63766$f5bf88c0$e8ce6ada@finn> Message-ID: <20060222070430.415.qmail@web51115.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Brendan Finn, Jain Alok Mr. Ct. Meyyappan, Managing Director of Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Chennai (MTC - the government owned company) said in a recent conference ?The replacement policy should be such that all vehicles ? that is MTC Buses ? above 8 years to be replaced immediately. At present 1294 vehicles are above 8 years and it has to be replaced.? ARUL --- Brendan Finn wrote: > Alok, > > It very much depends on the bus design, and also on > the maintenance regime throughout its life. > > Most buses in western countries would have an > economic life of about 12 years, after which > increased maintenance costs make it an increasingly > unviable proposition. Nonetheless, there is no > reason why they cannot last many more years. For the > last decade there has been a thriving business > throughout the CIS in buses which have been > discarded by European cities, and are shipped out to > Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. to get another > 3-5 years working life. > > Standard bus life in China is 8 years. A fairly > respectable 10-metre standard buses costs about > $20,000. Engines usually outlast the body. Some > cities are now extending bus life to 10 years, but > it is not a good proposition to do a major capital > overhaul of the vehicle at 8 years to get another > 3-5 years out of it. As a very general statement, it > is not a problem for Chinese cities to finance bus > replacements. > > As I recall most Russian buses of the Soviet era > (LAZ, LiAZ) also had 8 year design life. This was > based on a strong production sector which churned > out fit-for-purpose vehicles. By mid- to > late-1990's, it became normal to carry out major > capital repair to extend the vehicle life by 4-5 > years. This usually cost about 25-30% of the price > of a new vehicle. I don't know whether this was > normal practice during the Soviet era, I suspect not > and that it was a practical way of surviving in the > transition years when they had absolutely no money. > This never prevented individuals and small companies > in rural areas from keeping some buses ticking over > for maybe 20 years, but such extreme long life was > never practice for city fleets. > > >From recollection, Sri Lanka doesn't get too much > productivity out of 8 year old buses, a mix of Tatas > (?) and Ashok Leylands. > > Just because a bus is 8 years old doesn't make it > unworkable. However, if normal experience with the > bus design and local conditions are that most buses > are deadbeat and spend a lot of time off the road by > 8 years, then it is reasonable to apply it as a > threshold. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > _____________________________________________________________________________________ > >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : > etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jain Alok > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:31 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai battles for > sustainable transport > > > > The total number of buses in Chennai is 2773, > > out of which 1294 are more then 8 years old. > That > > means Chennai has only about 1500 workable > buses. > > Buses more than 8 years old are non-workable? That > seems a bit odd. I > have seen buses older than 10 years working > perfectly well. In Hong Kong > the useful life of the buses is taken as 14 to 17 > years, depending on > the body frame. > > Alok > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport > with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global > South'). Because of the history of the list, the > main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hfabian at adb.org Thu Feb 23 18:56:48 2006 From: hfabian at adb.org (hfabian at adb.org) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:56:48 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Chinese (Shanghai)-German-Dutch approach to "punish" high polluting vehciles Message-ID: _____ Dear all, It appears that a new approach is emerging in the struggle to deal with gross polluting vehciles. In all three cases it involves the introduction of a sticker system based on vehicle technology/age type, which in all three cases is linked to the Euro classification. Certain roads are blocked, in the case of shanghai the elevated highways during day time, in the case of Gernany and Netherlands specific roads with high PM levels. For the Chinese case see http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/153765.htm .. Two questions, does anyone have documentation on the German and Ducth plans in English so that we can document it more properly and is this system also in place in other cities and countries? Considering the wide diversity in subscribers to the Listserv I am certain that there are probably several opinions among the readers of the Listserv on the merits of this approach. It would be good to hear what the views are and whether this is something that more cities and countries in Asia should consider. Cornie Cornie Huizenga (Mr) Head of Secretariat Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank Tel (632) 632-5047 chuizenga@adb.org www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia www.adb.org (Embedded image moved to file: pic18467.gif) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic18467.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1763 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060223/45ed0ef0/pic18467.gif From karl at dnet.net.id Fri Feb 24 00:38:19 2006 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:38:19 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced Message-ID: <000001c6388f$2d97a6f0$1b00a8c0@kfoffice> (I-Newswire) - The much talked about plans for an underground monorail from Patong to Antarctica have been fully announced today says Khun Chocktip, Thailand Initiative for Tourism (TIT) President. After several years of feasibility studies a final conclusion of whether to consider the proposal or not will now finally be decided by the year 2012. Khun Chocktip explained, "Normally these types of proposals take decades to come to fruition but we have done it in less than ten years. The speed of these feasibility studies puts other parts of the country to shame. The underground monorail to Antarctica has so much potential and even though it will never happen as it is not physically possible we should all be proud of our highly paid feasibility consultants, they offer us such value for money!" As usual the Patong Times refrains from commenting on political matters, especially those that involve large sums of money being spent on consultants. (http://i-newswire.com/pr57459.html) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060223/2ed5a148/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Fri Feb 24 00:00:20 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:00:20 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced In-Reply-To: <000001c6388f$2d97a6f0$1b00a8c0@kfoffice> Message-ID: <20060223151707.8E69B2DC17@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> It's very funny to see that Patong or Phuket spends money on these ridiculous plans to go to Antarctica, when they haven't even solved their paratransit problem of tuk-tuk mafia. They are the sole means of transportation for people who do not own cars, since bus transit has been banned from one Phuket beach to the other. Maybe the underground monorail to Antarctica will have extensions inside the island? Carlos F. Pardo _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom Sent: Jueves, 23 de Febrero de 2006 10:38 a.m. To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced (I-Newswire) - The much talked about plans for an underground monorail from Patong to Antarctica have been fully announced today says Khun Chocktip, Thailand Initiative for Tourism (TIT) President. After several years of feasibility studies a final conclusion of whether to consider the proposal or not will now finally be decided by the year 2012. Khun Chocktip explained, "Normally these types of proposals take decades to come to fruition but we have done it in less than ten years. The speed of these feasibility studies puts other parts of the country to shame. The underground monorail to Antarctica has so much potential and even though it will never happen as it is not physically possible we should all be proud of our highly paid feasibility consultants, they offer us such value for money!" As usual the Patong Times refrains from commenting on political matters, especially those that involve large sums of money being spent on consultants. (http://i-newswire.com/pr57459.html) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060223/a62c9f9b/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Fri Feb 24 01:15:51 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:15:51 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced In-Reply-To: <000001c6388f$2d97a6f0$1b00a8c0@kfoffice> Message-ID: <002801c63894$6ae38a10$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Is this a put on? Its hilarious. w. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:38 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced (I-Newswire) - The much talked about plans for an underground monorail from Patong to Antarctica have been fully announced today says Khun Chocktip, Thailand Initiative for Tourism (TIT) President. After several years of feasibility studies a final conclusion of whether to consider the proposal or not will now finally be decided by the year 2012. Khun Chocktip explained, "Normally these types of proposals take decades to come to fruition but we have done it in less than ten years. The speed of these feasibility studies puts other parts of the country to shame. The underground monorail to Antarctica has so much potential and even though it will never happen as it is not physically possible we should all be proud of our highly paid feasibility consultants, they offer us such value for money!" As usual the Patong Times refrains from commenting on political matters, especially those that involve large sums of money being spent on consultants. (http://i-newswire.com/pr57459.html) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060223/a22325c3/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Feb 24 12:23:39 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:23:39 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] BRT cancelled Message-ID: >From The Nation Feb. 24, 2006 CITY TRANSPORT Rapid bus service runs out of steam The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, a pet project of Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin, is likely to flop due to several setbacks, especially the lack of money, demand and governmental support, a city official said yesterday. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is planning to shelve the Bt2.7-billion project and blame the government for its lack of support and deliberate delay in granting an operating licence, the BMA source said. The BMA's Traffic and Transport Department has been assigned to plan the exit strategy. The source was referring to the initial findings of a meeting of officials at the Traffic and Transport Department and divisions under the BMA's Public Works Department on Wednesday. Apirak's secretary Sukij Kong-thorranin called the meeting. Officials agreed it would be difficult to persuade motorists to switch to the BRT, the source said. The BRT was one of Apirak's most high-profile campaign pledges. Its goal was to cut traffic congestion. Under the plan, special buses would run on the lane beside the median strip of certain streets. Unlike city buses, the BRT buses would have doors on the right to allow passengers to board and get off at stops on the median strips. Traffic Police, however, complained that the loss of one lane to the BRT would only worsen traffic congestion while the BMA has yet to decide whether to buy or lease the first batch of BRT buses. The first two routes - Nawamin-Kasetsart roads and Chong Nonsee-Ratchaphruek roads - were to open last October. The Highways Department, which oversees the Nawamin-Kasetsart route, was reluctant to support the BRT project because the median strip on this route supports columns for a section of a raised expressway that is being built. Officials were afraid that BRT commuters could be injured or killed by falling debris during the expressway's construction. The Interior Ministry, which supervises the BMA, recently issued a directive asking it to put the BRT project on hold while it consults other government agencies on the BMA request to obtain a permanent operating license for the BRT service. The BMA source also said Sukij was satisfied with progress on the extension of the Skytrain's Silom route from Sathorn Road on the Phra Nakhon side to Taksin Road on the Thon Buri side. The 2.2-kilometre elevated railway viaduct was built solely with the BMA funding. Jeerawan Prasomsap The Nation ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au Fri Feb 24 11:51:58 2006 From: kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au (Kirk Bendall) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:58 +1100 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced In-Reply-To: <002801c63894$6ae38a10$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <20060224025158.60062.qmail@web34205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Who said Homer Simpson got the last laugh from a monorail? kirk (Sydney - where the monorail generated contoversy in the community and conflict putting stations in redevelopment sites) Walter Hook wrote: Is this a put on? Its hilarious. w. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Karl Fjellstrom Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:38 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Underground monorail from Phuket to Antarctica announced (I-Newswire) - The much talked about plans for an underground monorail from Patong to Antarctica have been fully announced today says Khun Chocktip, Thailand Initiative for Tourism (TIT) President. After several years of feasibility studies a final conclusion of whether to consider the proposal or not will now finally be decided by the year 2012. Khun Chocktip explained, ?Normally these types of proposals take decades to come to fruition but we have done it in less than ten years. The speed of these feasibility studies puts other parts of the country to shame. The underground monorail to Antarctica has so much potential and even though it will never happen as it is not physically possible we should all be proud of our highly paid feasibility consultants, they offer us such value for money!? As usual the Patong Times refrains from commenting on political matters, especially those that involve large sums of money being spent on consultants. (http://i-newswire.com/pr57459.html) ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060224/4ea12244/attachment.html From ganant at vsnl.com Fri Feb 24 15:01:24 2006 From: ganant at vsnl.com (ganant at vsnl.com) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:01:24 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: CHENNAI: Seminar on Public Transport Systems for Chennai ?25 February 2006, Saturday Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060224/5880a25e/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Mon Feb 27 11:07:29 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:07:29 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok BRT cancelled (doesn't make driving easier) In-Reply-To: <022a01c63912$4e58b9f0$6c01a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <20060227020728.65BB92C3D1@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> This decision is the shoe that hadn't dropped. Time and again, Bangkok officials said that they didn't understand what would happen to cars if a BRT would be in place. The fright of removing space from cars was such, that one of their designs (from BMA TTD, the transport authority) removed the sidewalk so cars wouldn't lose so much space. Seemingly, they weren't aware of the fact that people would actually use the buses, or walk to the stations. A funnier anecdote was when they asked me about the Car free day, and after some time of discussing, they said "but wait, cars are not allowed on the streets during that day? It's impossible!" If Bangkok doesn't address demand properly, and keeps expecting to relieve congestion by providing more space to cars, it will keep on being a bad (or worst) practice in transport. Their policy decisions on transport are only aesthetic and based on paramenters of "what looks more modern" or "what would make us look wealthier to others". That is stranger when their society is 85% Buddhist. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo *views expressed do not represent those of employers. -----Original Message----- From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan.E.D.Richmond@ns-mr11.netsolmail.com Sent: Viernes, 24 de Febrero de 2006 02:17 a.m. To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Bangkok BRT cancelled (doesn't make driving easier) -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:24 AM To: Sustran List Subject: [sustran] BRT cancelled >From The Nation Feb. 24, 2006 CITY TRANSPORT Rapid bus service runs out of steam The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, a pet project of Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin, is likely to flop due to several setbacks, especially the lack of money, demand and governmental support, a city official said yesterday. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is planning to shelve the Bt2.7-billion project and blame the government for its lack of support and deliberate delay in granting an operating licence, the BMA source said. The BMA's Traffic and Transport Department has been assigned to plan the exit strategy. The source was referring to the initial findings of a meeting of officials at the Traffic and Transport Department and divisions under the BMA's Public Works Department on Wednesday. Apirak's secretary Sukij Kong-thorranin called the meeting. Officials agreed it would be difficult to persuade motorists to switch to the BRT, the source said. The BRT was one of Apirak's most high-profile campaign pledges. Its goal was to cut traffic congestion. Under the plan, special buses would run on the lane beside the median strip of certain streets. Unlike city buses, the BRT buses would have doors on the right to allow passengers to board and get off at stops on the median strips. Traffic Police, however, complained that the loss of one lane to the BRT would only worsen traffic congestion while the BMA has yet to decide whether to buy or lease the first batch of BRT buses. The first two routes - Nawamin-Kasetsart roads and Chong Nonsee-Ratchaphruek roads - were to open last October. The Highways Department, which oversees the Nawamin-Kasetsart route, was reluctant to support the BRT project because the median strip on this route supports columns for a section of a raised expressway that is being built. Officials were afraid that BRT commuters could be injured or killed by falling debris during the expressway's construction. The Interior Ministry, which supervises the BMA, recently issued a directive asking it to put the BRT project on hold while it consults other government agencies on the BMA request to obtain a permanent operating license for the BRT service. The BMA source also said Sukij was satisfied with progress on the extension of the Skytrain's Silom route from Sathorn Road on the Phra Nakhon side to Taksin Road on the Thon Buri side. The 2.2-kilometre elevated railway viaduct was built solely with the BMA funding. Jeerawan Prasomsap The Nation ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From arulgreen at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 13:47:02 2006 From: arulgreen at yahoo.com (arul rathinam) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:47:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Chennai Seminar - Monorail project not viable, says Anbumani ? The Hindu Message-ID: <20060227044702.93982.qmail@web51112.mail.yahoo.com> Monorail project not viable, says Anbumani "Metro rail will suit the State better" Staff Reporter ? The Hindu, 27?02-2006 ? Hassle-free commuting enhances productivity ? Bus-rapid transport system mooted Chennai: Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has termed the State Government's proposed monorail project "unviable". Mr. Ramadoss said that the advanced countries used the monorail system only for short distances but the Tamil Nadu government had proposed a 300-kilometre network for Chennai. Even Japan used it only as a feeder service, he said at a seminar on public transport systems organised here on Saturday by the voluntary organisation Pasumai Thayagam. The approximate cost of laying one kilometre of the monorail network would be Rs. 162 crore, the Minister said. The fares would also have to be high, thus making the service unaffordable, he added. In contrast to the monorail, the metro rail project abandoned by the State was a far better option that would serve more number of people and reduce congestion on roads, Mr. Ramadoss said. Noting that vehicle explosion on roads was a serious threat to road safety, the Minister urged the Government to strictly carry out the required procedure before issuing licences. This could prevent a number of road accidents, he noted. Bus rapid transport Dinesh Mohan, coordinator of the Transportation Research and Injury Programme, IIT Delhi, also said that the monorail was an extremely costly option of public transport. Making a case for bus rapid transport systems, Mr. Mohan said that it was a cheap and efficient method that only required better traffic management. "Even in Delhi and Kolkata, the metro rail is under-utilised. A rapid transport system with a dedicated traffic lane only for buses is the best option for cities," he said. A bus rapid transport system would require very little investment as it did not require a completely new infrastructure network to be put in place. Further, advanced information technology could be used to schedule transport-on-demand bus systems to meet needs during peak hours, Mr. Mohan added. Urban infrastructure expert Anandarajan, former professor at Anna University, said that Chennai had a vehicle population of 17 lakh, of which 13 lakh was two-wheelers. He called for an integrated bus and rail system to push up the use of public transport and reduce dependence on two-wheelers and cars. Madras Institute of Development Studies Professor S. Janakarajan stressed on planned development for the city's peri-urban areas, which were growing rapidly. "If roads are congested when a person commutes from a suburb to the city for work, the hassle he has to go through reduces overall productivity levels," he said. M.G. Devasahayam, trustee of voluntary organisation SUSTAIN, said that the average age of the 2,773 buses in Chennai is 7.62 years. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation must procure new high-capacity buses such as vestibule buses. Shobha Iyer, Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, underscored the need for affordable transport for the poor. She added that pedestrians and cyclists must be included in the transport development plan. The Hindu, 27?02-2006 http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/27/stories/2006022714250300.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bayk_aksyon at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 22:01:52 2006 From: bayk_aksyon at yahoo.com (Ramon Fernan) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:01:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Carbon credits and developing alternative fuels in LDCs In-Reply-To: <17820751.1139436175631.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060227130152.56208.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm not sure if this has been brought up for discussion in this forum as I was disconnected for a long time from the group. I was wondering what people think about the idea of the developed countries promoting alternative fuels, specifically for transport but can be for any other uses, in order for them to earn carbon credits? Is this a good idea? Should civil society groups get involved? Are there any examples, both good and bad, for how these kinds of things work? I would really appreciate your thoughts on this. Ramon Fernan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ganant at vsnl.com Mon Feb 27 23:35:04 2006 From: ganant at vsnl.com (ganant at vsnl.com) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:35:04 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai Seminar - Monorail project not viable, says Anbumani ? The Hindu Message-ID: <11052b91108ea5.1108ea511052b9@vsnl.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060227/dc4c665e/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Feb 28 04:19:18 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:19:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Metro rail underused? Message-ID: <2089482.1141067959144.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> 700,000 passengers per day on a 55 km long network (so far) doesn't sound underused to me. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: arul rathinam >Sent: Feb 26, 2006 11:47 PM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Chennai Seminar - Monorail project not viable, says Anbumani ? The Hindu > >Monorail project not viable, says Anbumani > >"Metro rail will suit the State better" > >Staff Reporter ? The Hindu, 27?02-2006 > >? Hassle-free commuting enhances productivity >? Bus-rapid transport system mooted > >Chennai: Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has >termed the State Government's proposed monorail >project "unviable". Mr. Ramadoss said that the >advanced countries used the monorail system only for >short distances but the Tamil Nadu government had >proposed a 300-kilometre network for Chennai. Even >Japan used it only as a feeder service, he said at a >seminar on public transport systems organised here on >Saturday by the voluntary organisation Pasumai >Thayagam. > >The approximate cost of laying one kilometre of the >monorail network would be Rs. 162 crore, the Minister >said. The fares would also have to be high, thus >making the service unaffordable, he added. > >In contrast to the monorail, the metro rail project >abandoned by the State was a far better option that >would serve more number of people and reduce >congestion on roads, Mr. Ramadoss said. Noting that >vehicle explosion on roads was a serious threat to >road safety, the Minister urged the Government to >strictly carry out the required procedure before >issuing licences. This could prevent a number of road >accidents, he noted. > >Bus rapid transport > >Dinesh Mohan, coordinator of the Transportation >Research and Injury Programme, IIT Delhi, also said >that the monorail was an extremely costly option of >public transport. Making a case for bus rapid >transport systems, Mr. Mohan said that it was a cheap >and efficient method that only required better traffic >management. >"Even in Delhi and Kolkata, the metro rail is >under-utilised. A rapid transport system with a >dedicated traffic lane only for buses is the best >option for cities," he said. A bus rapid transport >system would require very little investment as it did >not require a completely new infrastructure network to >be put in place. Further, advanced information >technology could be used to schedule >transport-on-demand bus systems to meet needs during >peak hours, Mr. Mohan added. > >Urban infrastructure expert Anandarajan, former >professor at Anna University, said that Chennai had a >vehicle population of 17 lakh, of which 13 lakh was >two-wheelers. He called for an integrated bus and rail >system to push up the use of public transport and >reduce dependence on two-wheelers and cars. > >Madras Institute of Development Studies Professor S. >Janakarajan stressed on planned development for the >city's peri-urban areas, which were growing rapidly. >"If roads are congested when a person commutes from a >suburb to the city for work, the hassle he has to go >through reduces overall productivity levels," he said. > > >M.G. Devasahayam, trustee of voluntary organisation >SUSTAIN, said that the average age of the 2,773 buses >in Chennai is 7.62 years. The Metropolitan Transport >Corporation must procure new high-capacity buses such >as vestibule buses. Shobha Iyer, Citizen Consumer and >Civic Action Group, underscored the need for >affordable transport for the poor. She added that >pedestrians and cyclists must be included in the >transport development plan. > >The Hindu, 27?02-2006 >http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/27/stories/2006022714250300.htm > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.