[sustran] Re: Is park-and-ride a bad idea for Asian cities?

[Karthik Rao Cavale]

Mr. Jain,

You have not elaborated on your argument for park & ride facilities in
Mumbai, but I would strongly oppose it for several reasons. Let me explain:

a) As a transportation planner, one is expected to put himself in the shoes
of the "aam aadmi" (the typical person/user). Planning based on
*your*experience and needs alone is bad planning, very very bad
planning,
especially when you are very far removed from the common man.

Now, consider this. Automobile ownership in Bombay is very low for a city
given its relative economic prosperity by Indian standards. A very large
majority of people either walk to the station or transfer from another mode
of public transport - possibly an auto-rickshaw or a bus. By adding a park
and ride, you either require buses to make detours to drop passengers just
outside the station or for passengers to walk a longer distance. For people
walking to the station, you're putting more distance between the station and
the nearest development - which means more walking.

Essentially, for the sake of a very small number of vehicle owners who may
or may not end up using the park and ride, you're taxing a whole lot of
bus-users and pedestrians in terms of time.

b) If, god forbid, my previous statement turns out to be wrong and people
start shifting from buses to two-wheelers because it is now possible to park
at the metro station, then you'll end up choking the roads in the suburbs -
which will defeat the entire purpose of spending billions on the metro! It
will make roads even more unsafe, and worsen living conditions for those who
have no choice but to walk or cycle.

c) You speak of unsafe roads as if that is a constant that cannot be
changed. If that were the case, then I might grudgingly understand your
support for park-and-ride facilities.

But roads CAN be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists. To do so, we need
to create sidewalks, and we need to create curb-separated cycle lanes and we
need to enforce laws, but it can be done.

d) To the extent that a park-and-ride offers some relief to some persons in
the middle class (while worsening the problems of the poor), that is even
worse, because it only reduces the pressure on governments to solve the
common problems that need to be solved for the sake of all residents in the
city.

What we really need is a coordinated policy that will discourage cars and
two-wheelers - for the sake of safety, for the sake of mobility and access
for all, for the sake of efficiency even. That is the way we go from the
not-so-good present to a better future. Providing a metro with a
park-and-ride may go one step in this direction, as it probably does some
service to reducing the number of trips carried out entirely by private
transport, but it takes us two steps backward because now there will be so
much more traffic on the suburban roads in Charkop and Andheri. In the
process, it excacerbates the inequalities in the transportation system, by
forcing pedestrians and bus-users to make longer, more unsafe, and more
inconvenient trips (think of the pollution on the roads), while giving the
middle class a modicum of relief - and that too only when they are using
their vehicles. Many people in the middle class don't drive - old people,
women and children tend to make short trips entirely by walk or cycle, and
the situation arising out of the metro-cum-park-and-ride will only make
their lives even more difficult.

I will not speak of the third world in general - we plan for places, and
places cannot be generalized. But in the specific context of Bombay, and the
metro coming up between Charkop and Ghatkopar, I can say with certainty that
a park-and-ride will only result in disaster.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Zvi Leve <zvi.leve at gmail.com> wrote:

> In my opinion, Park & Ride should only be considered a temporary stage of
> development, unless it is provided within the context of much denser
> development (ie muli-level parking with other intense land-uses). Massive
> parking lots surrounding a single mass-transit node is not "development" -
> it is anti-development! Would you enjoy walking across this beautiful
> parking lot <http://www.flickr.com/photos/zvileve/4600137869/> to get to
> the
> equally beautiful light-rail station? In the scorching heat? Most of the
> day
> these lots are filled with cars and at night they completely empty. This is
> just not sustainable.
>
> Why not develop some *quality* commercial and service points in close
> proximity to the station, plop down four big towers on top (two
> residential,
> two for offices) at each corner to act as 'anchors'  and create a vibrant
> activity node which will have demand for mass-transit throughout the day. I
> appreciate thta the trends in most of these "newly motorizing" countries is
> away from anything that reminds people of density ("I have made it - I have
> my car"), but there are other forms of "development" which might even be
> sustainable.....
>
> There is an interesting article in a recent issue of the journal Mobilities
> by John Rennie Short and Luis Mauricio Pinet-Peralto about the epidemic of
> traffic accidents in cities in the "developing" world. The name is very
> appropriate (the "no accident" part) - No Accident: Traffic and Pedestrians
> in the Modern City<
> http://prod.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a917906422&fulltext=713240928
> >
> .
>
> Good luck selling that argument....
>
> Zvi
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>