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

Karthik Rao Cavale krc12353 at gmail.com
Fri May 14 03:09:38 JST 2010


Mr. Jain,

You seem to be approaching this problem exclusively from the perspective of
the architect designing the metro station. You lament the fact that streets
are not walkable, and yet your design interventions remain focussed on the
station itself.

But the appropriate solution for a place could include improvements on
residential streets or collector roads  in the suburbs, new bus routes etc.
also. Now a PnR does make the station more accessible for people, but the
collector streets (say Mahakali Road in Chakala) may get choked because
people who might have walked or taken a bus despite the inconveniences will
now drive a two wheeler and park it at the station. We don't want that, do
we?

Instead, if we concentrated on making ped, bike and PT improvements on the
smaller roads, ALL trips can be carried out by ped/bike or public transport.
This option should not be dismissed beforehand, and there is nothing utopian
about the option being proposed here.

I have no quarrel with integrated development and intermodalism, but a PnR
in the current policy environment will only choke collector streets and take
us even further from walkable streets and neighbourhoods.

And then there is the fact that multi-storey PnRs cost money - money that
won't be easy to recover. If we expect people to park cars and take the
metro, the parking rates will have to be very low, to keep the generalized
cost of a metro trip competitive in comparison to the low cost of a trip
carried out entirely by personal transport. If the PnR has to be subsidized,
the public will pay the price for bribing car-owners to not destroy the
city. Surely there are better ways of spending public money!

In a city where there is more control over the number of personal vehicles,
it might be valuable, but that is not the reality in Mumbai. That battle
cannot be fought at a neighbourhood level.

karthik

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Jains <alok.priyanka at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Karthik. I did not elaborate too much on my arguments.
>
> The park-and-ride that I have been proposing are more of what Zvi has
> mentioned (where is the space in Mumbai to have US / Europe style PnR??).
> You may have noticed that I proposed their incorporation in developments
> which are more like regional transport hubs with all-weather bus
> pick-up/drop-off, bicycle park, pedestrian throughfares, PnR and associated
> amenities. These are intended to promote use of public transport. There are
> generally residential components associated with these developments so the
> space utilisation can be maximised.
>
> Car ownership may be low in Mumbai, number of cars aren't. In 2009 there
> were 530,000 cars registered in Mumbai. Between 2001-05 growth in registered
> cars in Mumbai was 19% which jumped to 30% between 2005-09. We can argue
> endlessly on this but these numbers are not going to disappear overnight.
> The idea is to get these cars off the road as much as possible which then
> increases space for public transport. I work in Andheri which is the heart
> of metro construction. Karthik, you are welcome to join me in the morning
> anyday and I can show that a journey that is walkable in 20 minutes (Andheri
> station to Link Road) takes 30 to 45 minutes by bus. I have made a bold
> assumption when I say "walkable". One can walk, yes, but even by the worst
> standards this journey is not "walkable".
>
> Instead if stations are planned as TODs (which I am afraid is not happening
> anywhere in Mumbai), which is what I am proposing, walking environment
> improves, all-weather public transport interchanges are provided adjacent to
> metro stations with amenities. I was part of designing metro systems for a
> large part of my career in Hong Kong and am appalled on how stations are
> being planned in Mumbai. If there were enough transport activists who can
> look beyond the word "metro", there would be PILs for wasting public funds.
> Yes, it would work well, will have a high ridership in this mobility starved
> city but is that the best that can be offered? Unfortunately, mulit-modal
> integration, integrated development or any similar concept are not even
> understood here.
>
> Karthik, I agree there's lot that can be done but the question is whether
> it is being done? I said earlier that if I were almighty it is not how I
> will do things but I know I am not. I take present as a constraint and plan
> within a foreseeable framework. Its not about being right or wrong. I do not
> know what is "aam aadmi" (I presume you generalise them to low-income group)
> but have spoken to enough of them to realise that most of them hold the
> wrong dream. For them "owning a car/motorcycle" signifies an achievement in
> life. We need to address this mentality because this is the latent demand
> for private vehicles. By putting existing car owners on public transport, I
> think we can at least abate this mentality (works very well in
> HK/Singapore). End of the day, I have no problem with car ownership but with
> car usage.
>
> Best wishes,
> Alok
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Karthik Rao Cavale <krc12353 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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').
>>>
>>
>>
>


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list