From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Tue Jul 3 13:21:47 2012 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:21:47 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles Message-ID: Dear All, After Shanghai and Beijing, Guangzhou has introduced - literally overnight - a quota system for new cars. This means that the three largest cities in the largest vehicle market in the world now have a quota system in place. It appears more and more that we are witnessing a new model of motorization one in which the government realizes that unchecked growth in motorization has more disadvantages than advantages to society. It might be good to remember that while China has the largest motorcycle industry in the world that it also has banned the use of internal combustion motorcycles in over 100 cities. At the same time the ban on traditional motorcycles made it possible that China now have over 100 million electric motorcycles on the road with 20 million being added each year. No details are yet available on whether Guangzhou will follow the Beijing model with a lottery, or whether it will follow the Shanghai model where a monthly auction generates close to $ 1 billion per year in revenue for the city, a large part of which is used to support public transport. Cornie Guangzhou adopts car quota to counter gridlock Updated: 2012-07-01 18:19 ( Xinhua) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-07/01/content_15540462.htm GUANGZHOU - Authorities in south China's megacity of Guangzhou announced late Saturday that they will slash the number of new cars hitting the streets to ease the city's traffic jams and cut pollution. The city government announced during a press conference Saturday night that it will only allow 120,000 passenger vehicles to be registered over a one-year trial period, during which only 10,000 licenses will be handed out per each month. The new quota system went into effect on Sunday. Car dealerships were packed with customers as residents rushed to buy cars before the quota began. The city government said it will release a more detailed car quota plan by the end of July. Traffic jams in Guangzhou have worsened recently. Average speeds during rush hours have slowed to 20 km per hour and are expected to become even slower. Growing motor vehicle emissions have also worsened the city's air quality. Guangzhou is the third Chinese city to cap small passenger vehicle registrations after Beijing and Guiyang. In 2010, Beijing started to impose a monthly cap on the issuance of license plates and introduced a lottery system to distribute the plates. Guiyang, capital of southwest China's Guizhou province, introduced a similar lottery system last year. Guangzhou launches auto curb policy Global Times | July 02, 2012 01:25 By Wang Xinyuan http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/718338/Guangzhou-launches-auto-curb-policy.aspx Guangzhou instituted measures to control the number of new cars on the roads starting Sunday, a similar move to those in Beijing and Shanghai, in order to tackle traffic congestion and pollution. It is expected to affect low-end domestic automakers and dampen auto sales, industry insiders said. "We were asked to work all night long Saturday," Zeng Guobin, a Guangzhou-based auto dealer, told the Global Times. Many local residents rushed to buy cars Saturday night, the last chance they had to register their cars without restriction. Guangzhou's city government announced Saturday a quota system for new car owners. The local authorities will issue 10,000 new license plates monthly or 120,000 annually, only about 36 percent of the total number of plates issued in 2011. It is the fourth city to institute such control measures after Shanghai, Beijing and Guiyang. The new rule is aimed at curbing traffic congestion and air pollution problems, according to the local government. "The city government will issue detailed measures and procedures before the end of July," the Guangzhou government said. More cities are expected to follow suit by launching quotas, which will give a blow to auto sales in China, Fu Zhiyong, an auto consultant and partner with Adfaith Management Consulting, told the Global Times. China surpassed the US to become the world's largest auto market in 2009. But sales growth slowed significantly to only 2.45 percent in 2011 when China sold 18.5 million vehicles, the year when Beijing began its controls on the number of new cars. With Guangzhou following suit, auto sales in China might see a slight growth of under 3 percent in 2012, Fu estimated. There may soon be overcapacity in the auto industry, and the way out for domestic automakers might be to expand into overseas markets, Li Haiying, an auto analyst with Anbound Consulting, told the Global Times. Two auto dealers in Guangzhou said that it's likely Guangzhou will begin the same monthly lottery for new car registration launched in Beijing last year. Beijing launched the monthly lottery for car license plates in January 2011 as an effort to contain increasingly severe traffic congestion caused by the capital's 4 million cars. Shanghai introduced a control measure in 1994 of auctioning license plates, and a car license plate is now worth an average of 60,000 yuan, almost the price of a domestically made car. However, since Beijing launched its auto curbing policy in 2011, traffic congestion has not improved much, Fu said, noting that the best solution is more reasonable and comprehensive city planning. -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jul 3 15:47:29 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:47:29 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cd58e7$b95ecd60$2c1c6820$@britton@ecoplan.org> Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly not right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to propose in the many similar circumstances. But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a more primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would very much like to see your list. And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the many good ways that are available and proven that will get this demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. Now THAT is an interesting question. Eric Britton PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 _____________________________________________________________ Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport Project 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 16:01:03 2012 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:01:03 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything and keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things that can definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or wait for a policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those billions of cars sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda, or at least I see it that way. On 03/07/2012 01:47 a.m., eric britton wrote: > Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? > > Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly not right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to propose in the many similar circumstances. > > But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a more primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would very much like to see your list. > > And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the many good ways that are available and proven that will get this demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. > > Now THAT is an interesting question. > > Eric Britton > > > > > > PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 > > _____________________________________________________________ > Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor > New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport Project > 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility > 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton > > ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 16:17:01 2012 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:47:01 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> References: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agree with you Carlos. We have a similar situation in India as you know. People will make any excuses to postpone TDM - reasons of aspiration, rising incomes, rising population (yes even that), expression of status, and now the economic justification (a variation on "what's good for General Motors is good for America") as India becomes the hub for manufacture of automobiles and and auto ancillaries. We need TDM NOW !!!! and each year we delay putting this in place we are going to lose valuable urban assets, human lives and recognizable features of our great cities. -- Sujit On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything > and keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things > that can definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or > wait for a policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those > billions of cars sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step > towards a new agenda, or at least I see it that way. > > On 03/07/2012 01:47 a.m., eric britton wrote: > > Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? > > > > Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly > not right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to > propose in the many similar circumstances. > > > > But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a > more primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would > very much like to see your list. > > > > And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the > many good ways that are available and proven that will get this > demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, > society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. > > > > Now THAT is an interesting question. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor > > New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport > Project > > 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 > 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility > > 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 > 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton > > > > ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. * - J. Krishnamurti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com sujit@parisar.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/ Parisar: www.parisar.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Tue Jul 3 16:19:30 2012 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:19:30 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4ff2958a.d486e50a.676c.3fd3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4ff2958a.d486e50a.676c.3fd3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Eric, I am a geographer - not an economist :-) I see the manner in which Chinese cities approach this as an important development in the evolution of urban transport policy. Initially, the general mood was that additional road construction could resolve mobility problems ? a phase that is now finalizing in many countries in the developed and developing world. Following this a new approach has been gaining ground where the emphasis has been placed on the expansion of public transport infrastructure and services (metro, BRT, busses) combined in some cases with improvement of Non-motorized transport. This has now become known as the general ?sustainable urban transport? thinking and is promoted heavily in many cities and countries around the world with positive impacts in environment, economy and society. However, it is now becoming clear that also this second approach is not able to ensure sustainable access to goods and services in rapidly growing cities. A good example is that of Mexico City where the benefits of 4 BRT corridors and expansion of the metro were negated by an annual increase of about 500,000 private vehicles over the last years. In China the same could be seen in Beijing. Based on this one can argue that a third phase is required in which the re-orientation towards sustainable transport from the second phase is combined with a pro-active Travel Demand Management policy under which the number of Kilometers traveled by private cars is limited through various economic and other types of instruments, including limitations in the registration of the number of new vehicles, congestion charging, parking policies and fuel pricing policies among various others. Vehicle quota's might be one of the easiest to implement. Living in Shanghai where there has been a vehicle quota in place for the last 15 years its positive impact on traffic congestion and also for example the emissions of GHGs is evident. The argument against vehicle quota's, especially those which are auction based, often mention that these benefit the rich and discriminate against the poor. Being in a position that I could well afford a car here in Shanghai but that I prefer to use public transport or to cycle or walk (both subsidized with proceeds of the license plate action) I do not buy into that argument. So I guess that you will understand that I do not agree with your question whether there is a dumber way to get the job done. You will have to come up with more/better arguments to convince me. Cornie On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM, eric britton wrote: > Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? > > Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly not > right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to propose > in the many similar circumstances. > > But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a more > primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would very > much like to see your list. > > And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the > many good ways that are available and proven that will get this > demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, > society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. > > Now THAT is an interesting question. > > Eric Britton > > > > > > PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 > > _____________________________________________________________ > Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor > New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport > Project > 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 > 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility > 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | > eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton > > ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement > > > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 21:05:25 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:35:25 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: References: <4ff2958a.d486e50a.676c.3fd3SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <8BA760FD-1B1D-4B8A-A3FC-B9C13281D3AF@gmail.com> What works for goose may not work for the gander. Eric - there are no dumb or smart answers to this problem. Any strategy that works in moving (or you may term "forcing") the people towards more sustainable modes of transport should be welcome. It is always easy to reverse this process (against all good senses, by lifting the quota system, hopefully replaced by a "smarter" way of achieving the same objective) but once you have gone down an unrestricted car-growth scenario, the process is pretty much irreversible in short to medium term. So, yes. A welcome and wise move indeed. In India, where we see 7% vehicle ownership growth and 12% traffic growth, this should been done years ago but this is one of the pitfalls of a democratic system. Every politician want Indian cities to become Shanghai (not sure why?!) but when it comes to doing the right things they pander to self-serving interest group and lobbies. Regards Alok On 03-Jul-2012, at 12:49 PM, Cornie Huizenga wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I am a geographer - not an economist :-) > > I see the manner in which Chinese cities approach this as an important > development in the evolution of urban transport policy. Initially, the > general mood was that additional road construction could resolve mobility > problems ? a phase that is now finalizing in many countries in the > developed and developing world. Following this a new approach has been > gaining ground where the emphasis has been placed on the expansion of > public transport infrastructure and services (metro, BRT, busses) combined > in some cases with improvement of Non-motorized transport. This has now > become known as the general ?sustainable urban transport? thinking and is > promoted heavily in many cities and countries around the world with > positive impacts in environment, economy and society. > > > However, it is now becoming clear that also this second approach is not > able to ensure sustainable access to goods and services in rapidly growing > cities. A good example is that of Mexico City where the benefits of 4 BRT > corridors and expansion of the metro were negated by an annual increase of > about 500,000 private vehicles over the last years. In China the same could > be seen in Beijing. Based on this one can argue that a third phase is > required in which the re-orientation towards sustainable transport from the > second phase is combined with a pro-active Travel Demand Management policy > under which the number of Kilometers traveled by private cars is limited > through various economic and other types of instruments, including > limitations in the registration of the number of new vehicles, congestion > charging, parking policies and fuel pricing policies among various others. > > > Vehicle quota's might be one of the easiest to implement. Living in > Shanghai where there has been a vehicle quota in place for the last 15 > years its positive impact on traffic congestion and also for example the > emissions of GHGs is evident. > > > The argument against vehicle quota's, especially those which are auction > based, often mention that these benefit the rich and discriminate against > the poor. Being in a position that I could well afford a car here in > Shanghai but that I prefer to use public transport or to cycle or walk > (both subsidized with proceeds of the license plate action) I do not buy > into that argument. > > > So I guess that you will understand that I do not agree with your question > whether there is a dumber way to get the job done. You will have to come > up with more/better arguments to convince me. > > > Cornie > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM, eric britton wrote: > >> Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? >> >> Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly not >> right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to propose >> in the many similar circumstances. >> >> But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a more >> primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would very >> much like to see your list. >> >> And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the >> many good ways that are available and proven that will get this >> demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, >> society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. >> >> Now THAT is an interesting question. >> >> Eric Britton >> >> >> >> >> >> PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor >> New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport >> Project >> 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 >> 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility >> 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | >> eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton >> >> ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement >> >> >> > > > -- > Cornie Huizenga > Joint Convener > Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport > Mobile: +86 13901949332 > cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org > www.slocat.net > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jul 3 21:07:42 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:07:42 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> References: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004201cd5914$7529e3f0$5f7dabd0$@britton@ecoplan.org> To: eric britton Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' On Behalf Of Carlosfelipe Pardo Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:01 With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything and keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things that can definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or wait for a policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those billions of cars sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda, or at least I see it that way. ___________________________________________________________________ >From Wikipedia this morning, just to set the stage: "Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indian and European philosophy since antiquity. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments." Dear Carlos and All, I am delighted to see that I may have hit a nerve, not least because I really think that this sort of no-holds barred open discussion is vital not only for sustainability and democracy but also for good governance and quality of life. And Sustran and any other groups who might chose to carry this discussion are the just kinds of independent peer platforms for those who care to let the full range of voices and views be heard. We owe nothing to anyone or any government except to share with all our best understanding of the truth at the core of our difficult self-assigned challenge.. So let's see what we can get with a good dose of creative disagreement this morning on the topic of quotas. To start by agreeing with you Carlos: Yes of course what you say here makes a certain kind of sense -- but let's turn it around a bit to see if there may be a bit more to it that we might usefully take into consideration. And since we are basically looking at behavioral and not transport issues per se here, in this I appeal to your training as a psychologist to share with us your views. Here are the three central point's I hear you saying this morning, by the numbers: a. It's probably dumber not to do anything and keep thinking of any better solutions b. But if we wait and see how to do it, we'll have those billions of cars sooner than we expected! c. The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda. Let's take a step back and see if I can parse them point by point: . Your a. On the surface that would seem to make a certain kind good sense. But the reality is considerably more complex. The problem with this line of reasoning though is that a bad policy like this can be maintained by an authoritarian government (and there are a lot of them out there) for quite a long time, without feeding into any process that is capable of taking into account the real world feedback and the full complexity of the issues and the available solutions. It is not the beginning of something, it is a dead end. Here is what my ears hear the government implicitly saying in this situation. "Yes dear citizens, we understand that we have a problem with all those cars in our cities. And yes, happily for you all, we have a solution. And the solution is this . . . " And implicitly beyond that: "And now since we have therefore solved the problem, all you need to do is to behave in terms of the new legal and behavioral model, and all will be in order." (Which in song goes: "So hush little baby don't you cry".) Now this is not to contest the value of "authoritarian expert solutions" (though I do personally contest them). But the key problem here is not that a quota system is a poor way of "improving" the cars/mobility/economy/quality of life nexus. (Although it most definitely is, but we can get to that another day if necessary.) The "wonderful surprise " is that this quota idea could very well in this complex real world in which we live ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE!!! (On this point I invite all who care to work through how and why this is likely to be the case.) And as to "keep thinking of any better solutions", the fact is that there are many known policies and well-tested measures which could be brought on line in a matter of a few weeks or few months max -- it is only that the process need to be seriously engaged. But for now their "solution" appears to occupy all the intellectual and media terrain, so in fact it is blocking the process of the more complete policy debate that is called for especially in situation of this level of great complexity. . Your 2. Who said we should wait? We KNOW how to do it, and all that is needed is to get the ball rolling in the right direction. If the will were there the solution process could start to be engaged tomorrow morning. . Your 3: Somebody pinch me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one. What is proposed here is quite exactly just one more step in an old and tired agenda. # # # To conclude (for now): This is not China bashing (I am not that dumb). But cari amici it's 2012 and there is a big and troubled world out there badly in need of real ideas and good examples. And if there is one thing about the Chinese elephant that appeals greatly to me, it is that China is today the one elephant on this gasping planet that can turn on a dime. And since they are unique, it would be a wonderful thing if all of us who care could find a way to work with our Chinese colleagues in a true peer fashion to get the government and the cities turning on the right dime. We could do that, you know. Regards/Eric Britton ------------------------------------------------ On Behalf Of Carlosfelipe Pardo Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:01 To: eric britton Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything and keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things that can definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or wait for a policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those billions of cars sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda, or at least I see it that way. From fekbritton at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 22:19:05 2012 From: fekbritton at gmail.com (FEKBRITTON) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:19:05 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles Message-ID: <006b01cd591e$6c8e04b0$45aa0e10$@com> On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:17 Agree with you Carlos. We have a similar situation in India as you know. People will make any excuses to postpone TDM - reasons of aspiration, rising incomes, rising population (yes even that), expression of status, and now the economic justification (a variation on "what's good for General Motors is good for America") as India becomes the hub for manufacture of automobiles and and auto ancillaries. We need TDM NOW !!!! and each year we delay putting this in place we are going to lose valuable urban assets, human lives and recognizable features of our great cities. -- Sujit ----------------------------------------------------- Dear Sujit and All, (Building on this morning's good base including my latest post addressed to Carlos and All.) You know very well after all of these years that I fully agree with your excellent from the heart call: "We need TDM NOW !!!! and each year we delay putting this in place we are going to lose valuable urban assets, human lives and recognizable features of our great cities." But that's my point really. Quotas like this and odd-even schemes are not Transportation Demand Management -- in themselves they tend stand apart, somehow towering over and obscuring the rest. If we bear in mind that after a couple of decades of hard work on many parts that today TDM offers us a rich toolkit of multi-point integrated strategies and policies to reduce travel demand, and as a fundamental underpinning SOV use, there is certainly plenty of room for integrating a rich tapestry of projects and measures which, if they are got right, will certainly do a lot more for equitable mobility, life quality for all, environment and overall systemic efficiency than the quotas themselves. Let me have a closer look at the package of integrated TDM measures and policies which are accompanying the quota projects. I can only hope they are world level and a lesson for us all. . . Because, dear Sujit, as the wise man said: "Each year we delay putting this in place we are going to lose valuable urban assets, human lives and recognizable features of our great cities." Eric From michael.replogle at itdp.org Tue Jul 3 18:16:10 2012 From: michael.replogle at itdp.org (Michael Replogle) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:16:10 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: References: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> Message-ID: Vehicle quota systems, especially linked to auctions as in Singapore or Shanghai that help finance better public transport, are a quite sensible way to manage the pressures of motorization that naturally accompany rising incomes in urban areas. Such quotas have worked far more effectively than license plate restriction systems, which spur purchases of 2nd cars. Vehicle quotas alone are not sufficient, but accompanied by parking management, attention to improvements for public transport, walking, and cycling, sound urban planning, effective traffic operations and road investment, they make very sound policy. We need to begin treating urban traffic systems like ecological systems. When any species in an ecosystem grows too rapidly without check, it tends to unbalance the system and crowd out other species which may be better adapted to efficient exploitation of the resource base but which may lack defenses against the intruding more powerful species. Take for example what happens when excess nutrients are added to a coastal estuary, e.g., nitrogen runoff from factory farms and atmospheric nitrate deposition from motor vehicle and power plant emissions. This feeds the growth of algae, which blooms in such profusion that it blocks the sunlight from reaching the sea grasses at the bottom. With the death of the grasses, there is a loss of habitat for many other species and oxygen levels fall, creating a toxic zone that kills off all but the simplest forms of life, such as the algae, which thrive as they face no competition for resources. The overall biological productivity of the ecosystem declines sharply, along with species diversity. Visibility in the water falls to inches as the filter feeders that strain out suspended particles are killed off. So too it is when cheap oil, subsidies, policies favoring rapid motorization, and rising incomes lead to a sudden ride of motor vehicles, which crowd out walking and cycling and cause public transport system productivity to fall sharply as buses get stuck in traffic. This decreases the viability of alternatives to driving and leads to a self-reinforcing loop. Air pollution gets worse, decreasing visibility. People feel their choices constrained and the overall structure of the urban ecosystem changes to favor further the simple monoculture of motor vehicle use. One can intervene to restore balance to such an ecosystem process in various ways. Reduce the nitrogen and nutrient inputs; create artificial reefs for the oysters and filter feeders; limit overfishing to enable restoration of population growth among the threatened species in the case of the estuary. Replace subsidies for motor fuels, roads, and sprawl with higher user fees or taxes that reflect the polluter pays and user pays full-cost-pricing principles; manage and price parking and street space to reduce the niches in which motor vehicles are highly attractive; set quotas on motor vehicle fleet size growth to check vehicle population growth; and expand right-of-way allocated and managed to favor walking, cycling, and public transport. Michael Replogle Managing Director for Policy & Founder Institute for Transportation & Development Policy 1210 18th Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel: 202-552-3212 (Office) 301-529-0351 (Mobile) www.itdp.org | www.ourcitiesourselves.org Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide On Jul 3, 2012, at 3:17 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote: Agree with you Carlos. We have a similar situation in India as you know. People will make any excuses to postpone TDM - reasons of aspiration, rising incomes, rising population (yes even that), expression of status, and now the economic justification (a variation on "what's good for General Motors is good for America") as India becomes the hub for manufacture of automobiles and and auto ancillaries. We need TDM NOW !!!! and each year we delay putting this in place we are going to lose valuable urban assets, human lives and recognizable features of our great cities. -- Sujit On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything > and keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things > that can definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or > wait for a policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those > billions of cars sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step > towards a new agenda, or at least I see it that way. > > On 03/07/2012 01:47 a.m., eric britton wrote: >> Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news? >> >> Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly > not right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to > propose in the many similar circumstances. >> >> But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a > more primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would > very much like to see your list. >> >> And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the > many good ways that are available and proven that will get this > demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment, > society, the economy and life quality of all concerned. >> >> Now THAT is an interesting question. >> >> Eric Britton >> >> >> >> >> >> PS. Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012 >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor >> New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport > Project >> 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 > 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility >> 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 > 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton >> >> ? Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. * - J. Krishnamurti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com sujit@parisar.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blog: http://motif.posterous.com/ Parisar: www.parisar.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Wed Jul 4 11:06:54 2012 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:06:54 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4ff2e0a0.84ea440a.6a59.5238SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4ff29591.44e8440a.5612.02fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4FF298AF.7080802@gmail.com> <4ff2e0a0.84ea440a.6a59.5238SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Eric, Can you elaborate on the following two points: 1. The "wonderful surprise " is that this quota idea could very well in this complex real world in which we live ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE!!! (On this point I invite all who care to work through how and why this is likely to be the case.) -- *taking the examples of Singapore and Shanghai which both have had quota's for many years I fail to see how traffic and associated effects have become worse in these cities?* 2. Who said we should wait? We KNOW how to do it, and all that is needed is to get the ball rolling in the right direction. If the will were there the solution process could start to be engaged tomorrow morning. --* what is the package of measures that you would propose to accomplish the same effects?* best regards, Cornie On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM, eric britton wrote: > To: eric britton Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' On Behalf Of > Carlosfelipe Pardo Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:01 > > > > With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything and > keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things that can > definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or wait for a > policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those billions of cars > sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda, > or at least I see it that way. > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > > > >From Wikipedia this morning, just to set the stage: > > "Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been > central to Indian and European philosophy since antiquity. The dialectical > method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of > view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by > dialogue, with reasoned arguments." > > > > Dear Carlos and All, > > > > I am delighted to see that I may have hit a nerve, not least because I > really think that this sort of no-holds barred open discussion is vital not > only for sustainability and democracy but also for good governance and > quality of life. And Sustran and any other groups who might chose to carry > this discussion are the just kinds of independent peer platforms for those > who care to let the full range of voices and views be heard. We owe > nothing > to anyone or any government except to share with all our best understanding > of the truth at the core of our difficult self-assigned challenge.. So > let's see what we can get with a good dose of creative disagreement this > morning on the topic of quotas. > > > > To start by agreeing with you Carlos: Yes of course what you say here > makes > a certain kind of sense -- but let's turn it around a bit to see if there > may be a bit more to it that we might usefully take into consideration. > And > since we are basically looking at behavioral and not transport issues per > se > here, in this I appeal to your training as a psychologist to share with us > your views. > > > > Here are the three central point's I hear you saying this morning, by the > numbers: > > > > a. It's probably dumber not to do anything and keep > thinking of any better solutions > > > > b. But if we wait and see how to do it, we'll have those > billions of cars sooner than we expected! > > > > c. The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda. > > > > Let's take a step back and see if I can parse them point by point: > > > > . Your a. On the surface that would seem to make a certain kind > good sense. But the reality is considerably more complex. > > The problem with this line of reasoning though is that a bad policy like > this can be maintained by an authoritarian government (and there are a lot > of them out there) for quite a long time, without feeding into any process > that is capable of taking into account the real world feedback and the > full > complexity of the issues and the available solutions. It is not the > beginning of something, it is a dead end. > > Here is what my ears hear the government implicitly saying in this > situation. "Yes dear citizens, we understand that we have a problem with > all > those cars in our cities. And yes, happily for you all, we have a > solution. > And the solution is this . . . " And implicitly beyond that: "And now > since we have therefore solved the problem, all you need to do is to behave > in terms of the new legal and behavioral model, and all will be in order." > (Which in song goes: "So hush little baby don't you cry".) > > > > Now this is not to contest the value of "authoritarian expert solutions" > (though I do personally contest them). But the key problem here is not that > a quota system is a poor way of "improving" the > cars/mobility/economy/quality of life nexus. (Although it most definitely > is, but we can get to that another day if necessary.) > > > > The "wonderful surprise " is that this quota idea could very well in this > complex real world in which we live ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE!!! (On this > point I invite all who care to work through how and why this is likely to > be > the case.) > > And as to "keep thinking of any better solutions", the fact is that there > are many known policies and well-tested measures which could be brought on > line in a matter of a few weeks or few months max -- it is only that the > process need to be seriously engaged. > > But for now their "solution" appears to occupy all the intellectual and > media terrain, so in fact it is blocking the process of the more complete > policy debate that is called for especially in situation of this level of > great complexity. > > > > . Your 2. Who said we should wait? We KNOW how to do it, and all > that is needed is to get the ball rolling in the right direction. If the > will were there the solution process could start to be engaged tomorrow > morning. > > > > . Your 3: Somebody pinch me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry > at that one. What is proposed here is quite exactly just one more step in > an old and tired agenda. > > > > # # # > > > > To conclude (for now): This is not China bashing (I am not that dumb). But > cari amici it's 2012 and there is a big and troubled world out there badly > in need of real ideas and good examples. And if there is one thing about > the Chinese elephant that appeals greatly to me, it is that China is today > the one elephant on this gasping planet that can turn on a dime. And since > they are unique, it would be a wonderful thing if all of us who care could > find a way to work with our Chinese colleagues in a true peer fashion to > get > the government and the cities turning on the right dime. > > > > We could do that, you know. > > > > Regards/Eric Britton > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > On Behalf Of Carlosfelipe Pardo Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:01 > > To: eric britton Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' > > > > With China's motorization rate, it's probably dumber not to do anything and > keep thinking of any better solutions... I think there are things that can > definitely be improved, but if we wait and see how to do it (or wait for a > policymaker in China to pay attention), we'll have those billions of cars > sooner than we expected! The quotas are a first step towards a new agenda, > or at least I see it that way. > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jul 4 18:19:45 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:19:45 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles Message-ID: <003501cd59c6$2a3e3910$7ebaab30$@britton@ecoplan.org> Thanks Cornie (see below), but I suspect we are moving away from my intended point, specifically my less than immediate enthusiastic support of the concept of a lottery based quota system for car ownership. When it comes to cities one of the things we have learned over the last years is that what is most important about cars is not their ownership but how they are used. Once we have understood this fundamental strategic principle we immediately get into far more interesting and potential more effective territory, far more along the lines that Sujit is suggesting with his call for strong integrated TDM strategies, as opposed to specifically car ownership quotas. Also the points made by others concerning realizing the full potential of policies and measures that constitute our 2012 cities toolkit such as road pricing, fuel taxes, improved parking management, HOV priorities, better land use planning and policy, and of course significant investments and coherent planning and integration of the 'Environmental Big Three' (PT, Bike, Walk) and yet more are of course the real keys to success of our improved policy -- these are the sorts of things to which all cities and governments should be giving their fullest attention. Those of us who have slogging away at all this for so long and in so many different city, country and behavioral contexts, have long come to the conclusion that neither the really-should-be-dead Paradigm I (all those cars and mindless road building) nor the very much wheezing Paradigm II (all those expensive metros and busses stuck in traffic) have done the trick, and that it is now well time to give way to Paradigm III which you, I and others have extensively described over the last decade or more and which you summarize pretty well in one sentence. We call this the New Mobility Agenda and virtually all of our work for the last fifteen years has been precisely along these lines. You say that "Vehicle quotas might be one of the easiest to implement" and then go on to cite the example of Shanghai. and Singapore. Hmm. From this end I am not sure that a simple statement of personal views is quite enough. At the very least it is my hope that our professional community will not just play good puppy roll over on this quotas business. All I am asking is that these events, instead of being joyously announced as the stuff of the long awaited transition, should be subject to critical independent examination. And when Alok tells us that "It is always easy to reverse this process" (???), my experience is that once dug into the law, backing off on bad policies is not so easy as all that. And now, dear friends, I would like to sign off of this one. The exchange has been energetic, varied and interesting. And that is what I had in mind the first place when I whipped off that brief note yesterday morning. I did not expect, as you may well imagine, to convince any of you of my highly reserved opinion on, specifically, the wisdom of a "lottery based quota system" but rather to encourage critical thinking and exchange among our community of excellence. Thanks for lending me your brains. Kind regards, Eric Britton PS. In your note just in this morning Cornie, you ask of me two challenging questions. Excellent, but we are getting into deep water here and it is not the stuff of a quick off the cuff, on the run email exchange. Your questions are perfectly germane and worthy of careful response. But I am going to have to try to do this with you via Skype, faute de mieux. That's newmobility. You'll see me on line today -- even though it is the 4th of July, the 236th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the wise words of Thomas Jefferson which I leave you with today: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. . . --------------------------- On Behalf Of Cornie Huizenga Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:20 To: eric britton Cc: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Hi Eric, I am a geographer - not an economist :-) I see the manner in which Chinese cities approach this as an important development in the evolution of urban transport policy. Initially, the general mood was that additional road construction could resolve mobility problems a phase that is now finalizing in many countries in the developed and developing world. Following this a new approach has been gaining ground where the emphasis has been placed on the expansion of public transport infrastructure and services (metro, BRT, busses) combined in some cases with improvement of Non-motorized transport. This has now become known as the general sustainable urban transport thinking and is promoted heavily in many cities and countries around the world with positive impacts in environment, economy and society. However, it is now becoming clear that also this second approach is not able to ensure sustainable access to goods and services in rapidly growing cities. A good example is that of Mexico City where the benefits of 4 BRT corridors and expansion of the metro were negated by an annual increase of about 500,000 private vehicles over the last years. In China the same could be seen in Beijing. Based on this one can argue that a third phase is required in which the re-orientation towards sustainable transport from the second phase is combined with a pro-active Travel Demand Management policy under which the number of Kilometers traveled by private cars is limited through various economic and other types of instruments, including limitations in the registration of the number of new vehicles, congestion charging, parking policies and fuel pricing policies among various others. Vehicle quota's might be one of the easiest to implement. Living in Shanghai where there has been a vehicle quota in place for the last 15 years its positive impact on traffic congestion and also for example the emissions of GHGs is evident. The argument against vehicle quota's, especially those which are auction based, often mention that these benefit the rich and discriminate against the poor. Being in a position that I could well afford a car here in Shanghai but that I prefer to use public transport or to cycle or walk (both subsidized with proceeds of the license plate action) I do not buy into that argument. So I guess that you will understand that I do not agree with your question whether there is a dumber way to get the job done. You will have to come up with more/better arguments to convince me. Cornie ------------------------- From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Wed Jul 4 18:53:07 2012 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:53:07 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles In-Reply-To: <4ff40ac8.44e8440a.55f8.5a3bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4ff40ac8.44e8440a.55f8.5a3bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Eric, happy independence day! Just a small remark, the strength of the Shanghai and Singapore systems are that they are auction based. Car drivers are paying for PT, walking and biking. Sounds good doesn't it? happy to continue this discussion by skype. Cornie On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:19 PM, eric britton wrote: > Thanks Cornie (see below), but I suspect we are moving away from my > intended point, specifically my less than immediate enthusiastic support > of the concept of a lottery based quota system for car ownership. > > > > When it comes to cities one of the things we have learned over the last > years is that what is most important about cars is not their ownership but > how they are used. > > > > Once we have understood this fundamental strategic principle we > immediately get into far more interesting and potential more effective > territory, far more along the lines that Sujit is suggesting with his call > for strong integrated TDM strategies, as opposed to specifically car > ownership quotas. Also the points made by others concerning realizing the > full potential of policies and measures that constitute our 2012 cities > toolkit such as road pricing, fuel taxes, improved parking management, HOV > priorities, better land use planning and policy, and of course significant > investments and coherent planning and integration of the 'Environmental Big > Three' (PT, Bike, Walk) and yet more are of course the real keys to success > of our improved policy -- these are the sorts of things to which all cities > and governments should be giving their fullest attention. > > > > Those of us who have slogging away at all this for so long and in so many > different city, country and behavioral contexts, have long come to the > conclusion that neither the really-should-be-dead Paradigm I (all those > cars and mindless road building) nor the very much wheezing Paradigm II > (all those expensive metros and busses stuck in traffic) have done the > trick, and that it is now well time to give way to Paradigm III which you, > I and others have extensively described over the last decade or more and > which you summarize pretty well in one sentence. We call this the New > Mobility Agenda and virtually all of our work for the last fifteen years > has been precisely along these lines. > > > > You say that "Vehicle quotas might be one of the easiest to implement" and > then go on to cite the example of Shanghai. and Singapore. Hmm. From this > end I am not sure that a simple statement of personal views is quite > enough. At the very least it is my hope that our professional community > will not just play good puppy roll over on this quotas business. All I am > asking is that these events, instead of being joyously announced as the > stuff of the long awaited transition, should be subject to critical > independent examination. And when Alok tells us that "It is always easy > to reverse this process" (???), my experience is that once dug into the > law, backing off on bad policies is not so easy as all that. > > > > And now, dear friends, I would like to sign off of this one. The > exchange has been energetic, varied and interesting. And that is what I had > in mind the first place when I whipped off that brief note yesterday > morning. I did not expect, as you may well imagine, to convince any of you > of my highly reserved opinion on, specifically, the wisdom of a "lottery > based quota system" but rather to encourage critical thinking and exchange > among our community of excellence. Thanks for lending me your brains. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > PS. In your note just in this morning Cornie, you ask of me two > challenging questions. Excellent, but we are getting into deep water here > and it is not the stuff of a quick off the cuff, on the run email exchange. > Your questions are perfectly germane and worthy of careful response. But I > am going to have to try to do this with you via Skype, faute de mieux. > That's newmobility. You'll see me on line today -- even though it is the > 4th of July, the 236th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and > the wise words of Thomas Jefferson which I leave you with today: > > > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to > secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their > just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of > Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People > to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to > them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, > indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be > changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath > shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are > sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they > are accustomed. . . > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > On Behalf Of Cornie Huizenga Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:20 To: eric > britton Cc: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > I am a geographer - not an economist :-) > > > > I see the manner in which Chinese cities approach this as an important > development in the evolution of urban transport policy. Initially, the > general mood was that additional road construction could resolve mobility > problems a phase that is now finalizing in many countries in the > developed and developing world. Following this a new approach has been > gaining ground where the emphasis has been placed on the expansion of > public transport infrastructure and services (metro, BRT, busses) combined > in some cases with improvement of Non-motorized transport. This has now > become known as the general sustainable urban transport thinking and is > promoted heavily in many cities and countries around the world with > positive impacts in environment, economy and society. > > > > > > However, it is now becoming clear that also this second approach is not > able to ensure sustainable access to goods and services in rapidly growing > cities. A good example is that of Mexico City where the benefits of 4 BRT > corridors and expansion of the metro were negated by an annual increase of > about 500,000 private vehicles over the last years. In China the same could > be seen in Beijing. Based on this one can argue that a third phase is > required in which the re-orientation towards sustainable transport from the > second phase is combined with a pro-active Travel Demand Management policy > under which the number of Kilometers traveled by private cars is limited > through various economic and other types of instruments, including > limitations in the registration of the number of new vehicles, congestion > charging, parking policies and fuel pricing policies among various others. > > > > > > Vehicle quota's might be one of the easiest to implement. Living in > Shanghai where there has been a vehicle quota in place for the last 15 > years its positive impact on traffic congestion and also for example the > emissions of GHGs is evident. > > > > > > The argument against vehicle quota's, especially those which are auction > based, often mention that these benefit the rich and discriminate against > the poor. Being in a position that I could well afford a car here in > Shanghai but that I prefer to use public transport or to cycle or walk > (both subsidized with proceeds of the license plate action) I do not buy > into that argument. > > > > > > So I guess that you will understand that I do not agree with your question > whether there is a dumber way to get the job done. You will have to come > up with more/better arguments to convince me. > > > > > > Cornie > > ------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Jul 6 02:19:02 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:19:02 +0200 Subject: [sustran] WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized Message-ID: <009901cd5ad2$52642820$f72c7860$@britton@ecoplan.org> From: RodneyTolley [mailto:r.s.tolley@btopenworld.com] Sent: Thursday, 05 July, 2012 13:48 To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Helo Eric, Thank you for your call last week. Here is the contribution to the economic debate as promised: Readers may be interested in a discussion paper I produced for the South Australian Heart Foundation in November 2011 called "Good for Busine$$: the benefits of making streets more walking and cycling friendly". It does not pretend to be new research, but aims to be an accessible calling card for communities and traders, a summary of key evidence to date on the 'retail vitality/access on foot and bike' issue. It is available at: http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/GoodforBusinessFIN AL_Nov.pdf And no, I didn't find any evidence that local businesses suffer financially from access improvements for people on foot or on bikes. Rodney Dr Rodney Tolley Conference Director,Walk21 Honorary Research Fellow, Staffordshire University Phone (Mobile) +44(0)7788753305 email r.s.tolley@btopenworld.com From sutp at sutp.org Fri Jul 6 02:22:10 2012 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp at sutp.org) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:22:10 +0000 Subject: [sustran] SUTP Newsletter May-June, 2012 Message-ID: Having trouble viewing this email?Click here GIZ SUTP NewsletterIssue 03/12 ? MAY-JUNE, 2012 Message from GIZ-SUTP Team:Dear Reader, This issue of the newsletter features SUTP's recent publications and activities, such as supporting training courses on transport in Malaysia, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and our contributions at Rio+20 Summit. Please feel free to visit our website www.sutp.org for updated articles, publication and news. You could also send us your feedback at:sutp@sutp.org. We welcome you to forward this newsletter to others that may be interested in sustainable urban transport. TheSustainable Urban Transport Project (GIZ-SUTP) aims to help developing world cities achieve their sustainable transport goals, through the dissemination of information about international experience, policy advice, training and capacity building. In this Edition:Featured ArticlesPublications of InterestNews from Partners and ElsewhereUpcoming EventsFeatured ArticlesGIZ-SUTP participates in United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development at Rio+20, BrazilGIZ-SUTP actively participated, in the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development during Rio+20 Summit. This conference agreed on the outcome document "The Future We Want" whose final text considers now, in the first time, the importance and role of sustainable transport in 2 paras, namely para 132 and 133. GIZ-SUTP had also helped in shaping earlier versions of the text, by providing a voluntary commitment on sustainable transport development (more information here), and by engaging in many of the nearly 30 events on transport during Rio+20. Five presentations were held and panel discussions supported at side events and other related events in Rio de Janeiro and Niteroi. Read more > Mega-Cities 2012, Transport, Energy and Urban Development at Rio+20, BrazilThe German-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, the Government of the State of Rio de Janeiro, the City of Janeiro and the Ministry of Climate Protection, Environment, and Nature Conservation of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen organized a 2 days high level event at the Pavilion of the Government of the State of Rio de Janeiro. It was supported by GIZ. The event was well attended with an average of approx 100 participants. State Secretary for Transport of Rio de JaneiroJulio Lopes, Urban strategic consultant and ex-mayor of Bogot?Enrique Pe?alosa, the architect, city planner and ex-mayor of Curitiba,Jaime Lerner, the Secretary of State for HousingRafael Picciani, the State Sub-secretary of Energy, Logistics and Industrial Development of Rio de JaneiroMarcelo Vertis and Municipal Secretary of Transport of Rio de JaneiroAlexandre Sans?o were among the speakers. More information on the program could be foundhere. Seminar on Sustainable Urban Mobility in Niter?i during Rio+20, BrazilOn Wednesday June 13th, GIZ-SUTP contributed to the Rio + 20 conference with a day-long seminar on sustainable urban mobility in the city of Niter?i, located just across the harbor from Rio de Janeiro. The 2nd annual seminar, coordinated between the city government of Niter?i and ITDP, supported by GIZ, provided a platform for policymakers, technical and policy experts and representatives of civil society to talk about the best ways to improve urban mobility in Niter?i. GIZ presented on TDM and co-organized group work to analyze particular themes of sustainable mobility in Niter?i. The group discussions were especially fruitful, and focused on cycling, public transport and traffic management strategies like parking and other charging mechanisms. The event was attended by approx. 100 participants. Read more >. GIZ Transport and Mobility contributes to EFTA Dialogue in Eschborn, GermanyOn the 5th and 6th June 2012, the 15th Eschborn Dialogue took place at Eschborn which was organized by the Deutsche Gesellschaft f?r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Around 400 experts from politics, business, civil society and the GIZ attended EFTA in Eschborn, to"Driving transformation - the city as a global player" to illuminate this subject. On 6th June 2012, Mr. Breithaupt, from GIZ Transport sector welcomed the participants by sharing his work in the form of a presentation ??Changing Course in Urban Transport?. The presentation was in a form of illustration with numerous pictures explaining the sustainable alternatives to our transport problems from around the world. For the slide show please click here. GIZ participates in UrbanTec China Conference, Beijing, ChinaFrom May 30th to 31st the UrbanTec China conference, jointly held by Genertec and Koelnmesse, took place at China National Convention Center in Beijing. The conference proved to be a platform of global significance for the exchange of knowledge and experience in the field of urban transport. It featured three sessions focusing on ?Energy and Cities: Smart Grid and Clean Energy?, ?Infrastructure and Intelligent Transportation? and ?Green Buildings?, respectively. Attending the conference were numerous policy makers from the Chinese government, heads of international corporate enterprises, renowned research institutes and leading industry organizations. Mr. Daniel Bongardt, project director of GIZ China?s TDM Project, gave speech on ?Technologies for Low Carbon Urban Transportation ? A Systematic Review? and shared the international technical know-how and lessons learned. The full presentation is availablehere. GIZ supports KLRTC course in Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaMr Carlosfelipe Pardo took part as a facilitator/trainer in the KLRTC XXIV session of training on Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia and the Pacific Region. Twenty Seven participants took part in training, where issues ranging from financing to specific implementation of sustainable urban transport projects were discussed, and an action plan for each city was put forward as an end result with the support of Mr Pardo. The training event was organized by Citynet and KLRTC and took place on May 22-24, 2012 in Kuala Lumpur. The next training course will be held in 2013 along with Korea's KOTI Institute. Read more > GIZ-SUTP Delivers two day course on Sustainable Urban Transport for BhutanDuring May 17-18, 2012, GIZ provided a training course on Sustainable Urban Transport in Paro, Bhutan, in cooperation with the Road Safety Transport Agency of Bhutan government. The course had 30 participants from various cities in Bhutan, and focused on implementing sustainable transport policies in accordance to the country's Gross National Happiness index, and in supporting the current policies and projects developed in the country. Read more > Workshop on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) in Colombo, Sri LankaGIZ-SUTP, together with EMBARQ India conducted a two and half day residential training course on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) for over 20 senior level policymakers from Sri Lanka, from 8-10th May, 2012. The course was hosted and supported by the Air Resource Management & International Relations Division (AirMAC), Ministry of Environment, Sri Lanka. Read more > Publications of InterestModule 5h: "Urban Transport and Energy Efficiency" is now available in PortugueseThe SUTP Sourcebook Module 5h titled "Urban Transport and Energy Efficiency" serves as a navigator for decision makers and stakeholders, including local and national authorities, the private sector and non-governmental organizations. It provides a comprehensive overview of measures and policies designed to promote greater energy efficiency in transport, and assigns specific tasks and responsibilities to particular parties. The Sourcebook Module is now also available in Portuguese languagehere. New Technical Document on "Fighting Corruption in the Road Transport Sector" releasedCorruption is a huge challenge for the transportation sector. It causes economic losses, leads to deteriorating infrastructure and reduced quality of transport services. The new Technical Document #10 ?Fighting corruption in the road transport sector? explains what corruption is, and why it is so detrimental for economy and society. It gives hints how corruption in the transport sector may be detected, and what can be done to prevent corruption in the transport sector. This concerns not only the public and private sector, but the civil society in general which may play a crucial role in ?blowing the whistle? on corruption. Donors and international organizations are also offered advice on how to support the fight against corruption as a part of the cooperation with developing countries. The document is available for download here. International Fuel Prices 2010/2011 Report releasedThe 2010/2011, International Fuel Prices report provides an overview of the retail prices of gasoline and diesel in over 170 countries. This report further explores recent trends and case studies on fuel prices and fuel pricing policies in developing countries (with an additional chapter dedicated to the Arab World) and provides access to numerous additional resources. This edition is based on our survey in mid-November 2010 and provides a snapshot based on the crude oil price level of USD 81$ per barrel. The report was launched by Manfred Breithaupt during event on ?Windows of Opportunity for Environmental Reform?at Rio Convention Center. Download full report here. Factsheet on Environmental (EZ) or Low Emissions Zones (LEZ) releasedEnvironmental or Low Emission Zones are a new and successful trend, in which congestion charging and access restrictions according to a vehicle?s emission levels are combined. The major objective of LEZs is to improve the health of a city?s residents through banning the most polluting vehicles usually from the city center. This fact sheet gives an overview of the ?Umweltzone? in Berlin and ?Ecopass? in Milan, which since 2008 through major changes in fleet composition have helped to reduce pollution and in Milan additionally reduce traffic volume. The complete factsheet is available here. Chinese version of Module 3c "Bus Regulation and Planning" is now updatedThis module provides guidelines for the planning and regulation of bus systems in large cities in the developing world, whose public urban transport systems are "less developed". The term bus includes all road-based, frequent, fixed route passenger services, including all sizes of bus from 9-seat micro-buses, (Bali, Indonesia) to the largest rigid 12 meters double-decker (Hong Kong, Dhaka, Mumbai) and bi-articulated buses in Curitiba, Brazil. The bus transport industry embraces a wide range of operating regimes, from individual owners in loose organizations, (cities in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines) to large corporate bus undertakings in private ownership ( Singapore, Hong Kong) and publicly owned undertakings (cities in China, Bangkok, Damri in 14 Indonesian cities, Bangladesh Road Transport Cooperation - BRTC in Dhaka). The updated version is now available in Chinese. SUTP users can download the document free of charge fromhere (3,5 MB). Non-registered users must register first here and then proceed to download. Chinese version of Module 3b "Bus Rapid Transit" is now updatedThis module provides practical guidance on how a developing city can plan, finance, design and implement a world class Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. As a planning template for developing cities, this module can drastically reduce planning and consultancy costs which a developing city would otherwise incur in developing a BRT system. This module is complemented by the Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (830 pages) (clickhere for information on the BRT Planning Guide), which goes into depth in all planning issues of a BRT system. The updated version is now available in Chinese. SUTP users can download the document free of charge fromhere (3,5 MB). Non-registered users must register first here and then proceed to download. News from Partners and ElsewhereWorld's Development Bank Pledges $175 Billion for the creation of more Sustainable TransportThe eight largest multilateral development banks (MDBs) announced today that they will invest US$175 billion to finance more sustainable transportation systems over the coming decade, boosting equitable economic development and protecting the environment and public health across the developing world. Congestion, air pollution, road accidents and transport related climate change can cost 5-10% of GDP per year. The transportation sector is now the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases as a result of decades of urban planning that focused on improving mobility for automobiles at the expense of public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians. This approach has made life much more difficult for people in cities, especially the urban poor. The voluntary commitments are an outcome of the Rio+20 campaign of the Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT), ITDP, a multi-stakeholder partnership including UN-organizations, MDBs and other development organizations, including GIZ, NGOs and business sector organizations. 16 additional voluntary commitments were made by 13 organizations (including GIZ) on sustainable transport; the total pledged today will give millions of people across the world better access to schools, hospitals, jobs and markets. Read more > Walkability Forum: Better Air Quality and Livable CitiesOn 22 June, a national forum brought together key government and development agencies, research institutes and civil society in an attempt to improve walkability in India. The forum not only culminated efforts on walkability carried out by Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) with support from Shakti Foundation and other organizations across various cities in India published last year, but also provided an insight into the future of walkability in India - the challenges, the potential emission savings and policy interventions required to make our cities livable. CAI Asia Walkability Website ?www.walkabilityasia.org was also launched at this national forum. More Information could be found here. Download official press release here. global Transport Knowledge Practice publishes new report "Study on Public Transport Smartcards".The report summarizes the results of a study undertaken on behalf of the European Commission by the EC Smartcards Study consortium including AECOM, the lead consultant, The Transport Operations Group (TORG) of Newcastle University, P Johnson Associates, Austria Tech and NEA. It presents recommendations regarding possible actions at the EU level to encourage and support interoperability between current and future public transport schemes, through the use of Smartcards. Recommended actions have been assessed, in terms of their possible costs to the EC and the possible benefits that might accrue to scheme owners, public transport operators, public transport users and the public in general, through the bringing forward of more schemes and in a more integrated way than might otherwise be the case. Download full reporthere. ITDP and IUT train Indian Planners and Officials on Better Street DesignA three-day training workshop jointly organized by ITDP and the Institute of Urban Transport (IUT) concluded on 25 May in New Delhi. The workshop, ?Creating facilities for non-motorized transport users,? brought together more than 40 city engineers, planners, officials, practitioners and consultants from across India. Participants visited selected sites in Delhi and conducted street audits of pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The participants also surveyed land use conditions, street signs and signals, and parking issues, led by street design expert Michael King, Principal at Nelson Nygaard, who outlined a three-pronged strategy for designing pedestrian-friendly streets: first, observation of physical conditions and street user behavior; second, iterative testing of design solutions; and third, setting a direction for policies that are supportive of non-motorized transport. Read more > Upcoming Events09.07.2012, CITYNET 25th Anniversary Programme, Surabaya, Indonesia17.09.2012, TRANSED 2012, New Delhi, India27.09.2012, Networks for Mobility 2012, Stuttgart, Germany30.09.2012, Walk 21, Mexico City, MexicoFor a complete list of events clickhere. SUTP Disclaimer:On behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the GIZ through its sector project "Transport Policy Advisory Services" supports developing cities to reach their sustainable transport goals by providing technical assistance on transport projects and disseminating information regarding sustainable urban transport. This newsletter is a part of the activities of this project. The information in this newsletter has been carefully researched and diligently compiled. Nevertheless, GIZ does not accept any liability or give any guarantee for the validity, accuracy and completeness of the information provided. GIZ assumes no legal liabilities for damages, material or immaterial in kind, caused by the use or non-use of provided information or the use of erroneous or incomplete information, with the exception of proven intentional or grossly negligent conduct on the side of GIZ. GIZ reserves the right to modify, append, delete parts or the complete online content without prior notice, or to cancel any publication temporarily or permanently. The third party links are not under the control of GIZ and GIZ is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Links to the GIZ-SUTP homepage are admissible if the GIZ-SUTP website retrieved becomes the sole content of the browser window. Contact us: Any further queries regarding this document can be addressed tosutp@sutp.org. All the documents mentioned here are available for download from the SUTP website: http://www.sutp.org Copyright ? 2012 GIZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project. From sutp at sutp.org Fri Jul 6 02:54:45 2012 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp at sutp.org) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:54:45 +0000 Subject: [sustran] SUTP Newsletter May-June, 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the attached document containing GIZ-SUTP Newsletter for the month ofMay-June'2012. We sincerely apologise for the previous mail, as we faced some technical glitch while uploading our new GIZ-SUTP Newsletter. Best Wishes, SUTP-Team -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NL-SUTP-MAY-JUN-12.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 657450 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120705/16f79a25/NL-SUTP-MAY-JUN-12-0001.bin From sutp at sutp.org Fri Jul 6 02:22:10 2012 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp at sutp.org) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:22:10 +0000 Subject: ***removed*** Message-ID: ***removed*** From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 06:13:19 2012 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 02:43:19 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?Experts_for_brakes_on_Amritsar=92s_PRT?= =?windows-1252?Q?S_plan_-_Fear_project_will_mar_city=92s_heritage_?= =?windows-1252?Q?character?= Message-ID: *Perneet Singh Tribune News Service* Amritsar, July 6 The state government's ambitious PRTS (Personal Rapid Transport System) in the holy city will eclipse the view of its significant landmarks like Golden Temple, Jallianwalla Bagh, Town Hall and Hall Gate, besides adversely affecting the heritage character of the walled city, fear conservation and architecture experts. Talking to The Tribune, Prof SS Behl, Dean, Faculty of Physical Planning and Architecture, GNDU, said, "The PRTS will enter the walled city from the Hall Gate and will totally eclipse the view of this monumental landmark. The historic Town Hall, which the government intends to preserve as a heritage building, will also meet the same fate. Moreover, it will also block the view of the Jallianwalla Bagh and the main entrance of the Golden Temple (Ghanta Ghar Gate)." He said the project will take a toll on the heritage character of the walled city. "The PRTS will also deprive the pilgrims an opportunity to have a look at the historic Hall Bazaar as they shall pass overhead and not through the bazaar," he averred. He says the alignment (pathway) for the PRTS will also leave an impact on the ventilation and sunlight in the buildings adjoining it, besides impinging on the privacy of those residing inside. He said the government should instead explore other options, one of which could be having the PRTS on the circular road on the periphery of the walled city. Another option may be removing the encroachments on the main road leading to the Golden Temple and having dedicated lanes for pedestrians, rickshaws and private vehicles, he said. The Tribune has also got access to slides used in the official presentation by the state tourism authorities. These slides exhibit superimposed view of the walled city areas to give an idea as to how it will look once the PRTS comes up and it clearly shows that these landmarks will be eclipsed by the project. Balvinder Singh, Head, Guru Ram Das School of Planning, GNDU, said the proposed pathway from Railway Station (Gol Bagh side) to the Golden Temple passing through Hall Bazaar, Town Hall, Jallianwala Bagh and Chowk Ghanta Ghar, will alter the traditional layout of the walled city. He said the PRTS will pose a hurdle in getting the walled city listed among the World Heritage Cities even though at present the city fulfills almost all conditions for acquiring this status. Dr Sukhdev Singh, state convener of INTACH, said the distance being covered by the PRTS is too short and it would not be of much advantage when compared to the huge cost the project will entail. Besides, it will disturb the local habitat for years during its construction phase. "The government can instead act tough against encroachments and press into service battery operated vehicles, besides curbing land use from residential to commercial, which is increasing the traffic chaos in the walled city," he said. Dr Sukhdev said the government must understand that the people not only visit the Golden Temple but also go for shopping in markets of the walled city. Navdeep Asija, a transportation and road safety expert from Ferozepur, said the PRTS will mar the entire skyline of the walled city, besides threatening the business of the trading community. He said it will also lead to reduction of effective road width which will add to traffic congestion. Noted social activist Brij Bedi said the government should launch a crackdown against illegal encroachments and strictly implement traffic norms instead of contemplating such projects. "The people are driving vehicles in the city without licence while nobody bothers about traffic laws. Until such violations are not checked, the scenario will remain as it is," he said. The government should preserve the entire stretch from the Hall Gate to the Golden Temple and promote it as an old world charm, he said *The city view now and (right) the future look with the prts in place* *n The Golden Temple entrance* *n** The Hall Gate area * *n The Jallianwala Bagh area* http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120707/punjab.htm#3 From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 05:41:20 2012 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 02:11:20 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Amritsar traders also against PRTS - Say it will adversely affect their business Message-ID: *Perneet Singh/Neeraj Bagga Tribune News Service * * The Town Hall area view now and (below) the future look with the PRTS in place. Tribune photos * Amritsar, July 7 A day after conservation and architecture experts aired their concern regarding the PRTS project in the holy city, the trading community at Hall Bazaar and nearby markets has also expressed apprehensions about the plan taking a toll on their businesses. These traders are against the project right since its beginning. Hall Bazaar traders had even shut their shops in protest against the project on December 12 last year within days of Deputy CM Sukhbir Badal laying its foundation stone. Talking to The Tribune, Mahesh Mittal, a stationery shop owner, said the PRTS project would spell doom for their businesses. "The Sherawala Gate to Dharam Singh Market stretch was once a buzzing commercial area, but today you will not find even a small tea shop there". He said the PRTS would also not benefit the commuters. "Most commuters from Gol Bagh side of the railway station don't even take a rickshaw which charges Rs 10 per person up to the Golden Temple. They prefer to walk it". He said the PRTS fare was being projected at Rs 15-Rs 20 per person at present, which was bound to increase by the time the project was launched. He said the government should instead run battery-operated or CNG vehicles, besides constructing multi-storey parking lots in and around the walled city to reduce traffic congestion. Ankur Sharma, who owns an electric appliances shop at Hall Bazaar, said the PRTS would adversely affect the traders, particularly the retailers. "I fear that we will not be able to survive this jolt. The project will start hitting our businesses even before its start, as its construction phase will throw the traffic out of gear, leading to a chaos. Besides, shifting of power cables, sewerage and water lines will also create a mess in the market". Anil Kumar, another shopkeeper, said: "Where is the space for PRTS? The authorities have already demarcated a 7-ft footpath on either sides of the road, besides earmarking space for vehicle parking on the roadsides. There is hardly any space left for the vehicles to move". Referring to the state of affairs, he said the MC had installed lamp posts on the roadsides each costing Rs 70,000, but almost all of them had gone defunct while the plan to underground power and other cables remained on paper. Satnam Singh Kanda, who owns a hotel in Dharam Singh Market, said: "The tourists visit Amritsar not only to pay obeisance at the Golden Temple but also to shop at Hall Bazaar and other old markets which have their own charm. The government must understand that business in the walled city thrives primarily on tourists who may lose touch with heritage bazaars once the PRTS comes up" From czegras at MIT.EDU Sun Jul 8 18:13:06 2012 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:13:06 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Reminder: Deadline approaching for TRB papers on mobility in developing countries Message-ID: <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C1061AF9C@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu> With just less than a month remaining until the deadline for paper submissions for the 2013 TRB Annual Meeting we just want to remind you about our official call for papers, and an additional informal call for papers related to freight transportation in developing countries (scroll to the bottom of this email for that announcement). We look forward to your submissions! Call for Papers Transportation Research Board (TRB) 92nd Annual Meeting: January 13-17, 2013 Washington, DC, USA Call Title: Mobile-driven mobility intelligence: Information and communications technologies and mobility in developing countries Sponsoring Committees: ABE90 ? Transportation in the Developing Countries; AHB15?Intelligent Transportation Systems Call Description: The TRB Committees on Transportation in the Developing Countries (ABE90) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (AHB15) invite the submission of papers on a range of topics related to the growing role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in mobility systems of the developing world. This paper call is motivated by the explosive growth in: personal mobile communication devices (e.g., mobile phones), the power of distributed computing capabilities, low-cost sensor devices (e.g., RFID tags), and open source programming and data movements. These and related developments are enabling the merging of mobile communications and computation capabilities with mobility systems. The aim of this call for papers is to expand and improve our understanding of the use of such technological advances in transportation systems in the developing world and their potential for fundamentally changing system performance. Specific topics of interest include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. ICTs as new sources of low cost data collection (e.g., activity surveys, use of sensors, real-time and old cell phone data for transport planning and operations); 2. Data Observatories and Crowdsourcing for planning, operations, and participation (e.g., reporting grievances); 3. ICTs as fare media (e.g., possibilities for delivering targeted subsidies and better pricing); 4. ICTs enabling mobility service innovations (including by enhancing ?traditional? travel modes); 5. Mobility, communications and accessibility ? complementarity and/or substitutability? 6. Role of societal factors in influencing ICTs impacts on transportation; 7. Skepticism, doubts, and critiques of the role of such technology systems. Papers for publication and/or presentation must be submitted before August 1, 2012 to the TRB web-site: http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting2013/AnnualMeeting2013.aspx. Submission of complete papers, conforming to TRB standards and format, is required for consideration. Papers may be submitted for presentation only. Each paper will be peer-reviewed according to TRB procedures. TRB paper specifications are found online (http://www.trb.org/GetInvolvedwithTRB/Public/GetInvolvedSubmitaPaper.aspx). At the bottom of the TRB paper submission form, please indicate this call for papers and review by the Committee on Transportation in the Developing Countries (ABE90). Be sure to include this Committee name and number with the paper submission. For more information on this call for papers contact: Shomik Mehndiratta, World Bank, smehndiratta@worldbank.org; Christopher Zegras, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, czegras@mit.edu; please cc all correspondence to Setty Pendakur, Pacific Policy & planning Associates, pendakur@interchange.ubc.ca ---------------------------------------- Informal Paper Call: Freight in the Developing Countries: Moving Goods Smarter, Better, and Faster Committee friend Craig Milligan would like to encourage paper submissions related to freight transportation issues in the developing world. This isn't a formal call, but if enough papers are received we may be able to put together a (whole or in part) podium or poster session related to these issues. Description: The TRB Committee on Transportation in the Developing Countries (ABE90) invites the submission of papers on a range of topics related to the performance of freight transportation systems in the developing world. The paper call is motivated by the critical role that freight transportation systems can play in supporting inclusive and sustainable development. Papers are invited on the following sub-topics or other topics related to the title of the call. ? Urban freight systems in developing countries ? infrastructure, facilities, vehicles, and policies ? Clean freight programs in the developing countries ? Truck size and weight policies and their impacts in developing countries ? Experience of developing countries using performance measures and results-based monitoring and evaluation for freight systems. ? Freight logistics innovations and investments in the developing countries For more information, contact: Craig Milligan, University of Manitoba Transport Information Group, milligan.craig.a@gmail.com -- P. Christopher Zegras Ford Career Development Associate Professor, Transportation & Urban Planning Dept. of Urban Studies & Planning and Engineering Systems Division Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 10-403 | Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel: 617 452 2433 | Fax: 617 258 8081 | czegras@mit.edu http://czegras.scripts.mit.edu/web/ | http://dusp.mit.edu/transportation Office Hours (Spring ?12): Tue/Th, 2:00-3:30 (MIT Certificates needed for on-line sign up) Now available on ebooks: Urban Transport in the Developing World From yanivbin at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 22:50:50 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:20:50 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Why the fare of JnNURM buses is higher in state ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=22..080712.jul12 Why the fare of JnNURM buses is higher in state ? Source: Hueiyen News Service Imphal, July 07 2012: The fare for traveling in the semi-low floor buses provided to Manipur under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) is higher in comparison to the fare charged in other states like Assam. On the other hand, public have expressed their desire for increasing the number of semi-low floor buses plying on the roads and cutting down the fare rate. In all 25 buses have been sanctioned to Manipur under JnNURM but only 14 buses have arrived so far. The remaining 11 buses are to be provided only after furnishing the utilization certificates of the buses already in state. However, release of the remaining buses has remained pending as the required utilization certificates could not be provided. After many years of remaining stationed at the MSRTC complex at Moirangkhom, the service of two buses, out of the 14 provided, started on trial basis from Keishampat Bridge to Chingmeirong via Paona and Thangal Bazar around few months back. At that time the fare charged from each passenger was Rs 5 only. Later on more buses were inducted and the routes diversified in three different directions. Accordingly, the rate has also been revised. The first route starts from Canchipur in front of MU and ends at Koirengei after covering stop points like Temple of Learning, Kakwa; Mayengbam Leikai, Waikhom Leikai, Singjamei, Yumnam Leikai, Moirangkhom, Telephone Bhawan, Nupi Lan complex, M-Sector, PWD, DM College, Chingmeirong, Gauhati High Court, Mantripukhri, Khabam Lamkhai, Liberal College and Manipur Public School. The second route starts from Malom and ends at Khurai amlong with Malom Bazar, Airport, Herbet School, Kwakeithel, Keishampat, Electricity office, M-Sector, PWD, DM College, MMTA crossing, Khurai Lamlong, Salanthong, Chairenthong, etc as stop points. On the other hand, the third route which extends from DM office, Imphal West to DC office, Imphal East with main stop points as Naoremthong, NG College, Uripok, Gambhir Singh shopping complec, Kangla, Nityapat Chuthek, Sanjenthong, Palace Compound, Checkon, Ananda High Academy and Porompat. Any individual who boards any of these buses, regardless of the distance being travelled, are being charged Rs 10.However, in states like Assam, a passenger travelling a distance within 7 kms is charged Rs 3 and Rs 6 if the distance travelled is more than 7 kms. Interestingly, the cost of diesel used for the service of these semi-low floor buses is comparative cheaper here in Manipur than in Assam. Talking to Hueiyen Lanpao, a woman passenger at the Canchipur bus stop, who was waiting the bus to go to Khwairamband Market, said that even though the semi-low floor buses are comfortable for travelling, one has to wait for long. So, it would be better if the number of buses could be increased. "There are instances where I could not afford to more time in waiting for the bus and then hiring an autorickshaw to go to the market", the woman passenger disclosed. "Moreover, Rs 10 being charged whether I travel upto Khwairamband market or beyond is unreasonable", the woman passenger added. On condition of anonymity, a man who is in the service of operation of semi-low floor buses, informed that around 4 buses are bring pressed into service in each route, which are being operated under the overall supervision of UMTA and Transport Department. The drivers and conductors are appointed on contract basis. The bus services have been introduced on trial basis for one month. So, a meeting of UMTA is likely to be convened soon to discussion extension of the services. From sutp at sutp.org Sun Jul 8 21:56:13 2012 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp at sutp.org) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:56:13 +0000 Subject: [sustran] GIZ-SUTP Newsletter Issue 03/12 - May-June, 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the attached document containing GIZ-SUTP Newsletter for the month ofMay-June'2012. We sincerely apologise for the previous mail, as we faced some technical glitch while uploading our new GIZ-SUTP Newsletter. Best Wishes, SUTP-Team -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NL-SUTP-MAY-JUN-12.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 657450 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120708/545b1dd3/NL-SUTP-MAY-JUN-12-0001.bin From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 17:35:39 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:05:39 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?=91Bad_governance_fails_urban_transpor?= =?windows-1252?Q?t=92?= Message-ID: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Fw260512Bad.asp *?Bad governance fails urban transport?* *Sakshi Denis* New Delhi Rakesh Mohan, Chairperson (C), National Transport Development Policy Committee releases the report Getting Urban Transport on Track Photo: Naval Hans *THE BUREAUCRATICALLY-*structured government policies are too difficult to be implemented, said a top official on Friday, highlighting the loopholes in urban transport planning in the country. ?They (government policies) are bureaucratically-structured. There is no expertise in planning. Urban metropolitan transport authorities must set up. There should be a proper governance structure to bring all these authorities together,? said Rakesh Mohan, chair-person, National Transport Development Policy Committee on Friday. The metro network of trains is not feasible for smaller cities, said the former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) deputy governor, on the sidelines of the FICCI-India Urban Transport Summit-2012. ?I have nothing against metros (but) the transportation system in cities of two million people (is not feasible). There is a metro mania going on. It is not a question of public or private (partnership),? Mohan said while releasing a FICCI-KPMG report named *Getting Urban Transport on Track*. ?Metro and rail-based urban transport projects are the most capital intensive of options and may not necessarily be beneficial in terms of lifetime energy costs,? observed Mohan, who has also served as a secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs. Underlining that 30-40 percent of urban travellers are upset by the lack of footpaths and other facilities for them, he insisted that even a country like India ?caters to cars? and not the common man. *"Metro and rail-based urban transport projects are the most capital-intensive and may not be beneficial in terms of lifetime energy costs?* *Rakesh Mohan **Chairperson, National Transport Development Policy Committee* For better urban planning, he called for identification of the requirements of the people. The government seems to have qualms while using the public-private partnership (PPP) mode for urban transport, noted the report. Out of the 113 metro rail projects analysed, merely 13 cities had some sort of public-private partnerships while the rest were all controlled by the state. Significantly, a Ministry of Urban Development paper on the finance of metro projects released in April 2012 states that PPP-based rail projects have not flourished globally. Notably, the report also favoured a more eco-friendly urban transport system. From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Tue Jul 10 10:08:55 2012 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:08:55 +0800 Subject: [sustran] BRT kerfuffle, Delhi (Today's NYT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Delhi BRT in a New York Times blog. (hat tip from the Transit-Prof list) ======================================== July 9, 2012, 8:25 am Next Stop, Supreme Court, for Delhi?s Bitter Bus Corridor Battle By MALAVIKA VYAWAHARE and PAMPOSH RAINA [Buses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit corridor as other vehicles are stuck in a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this April 27, 2008 file photo.]Prakash Singh/Agence France-Presse ? Getty ImagesBuses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit corridor as other vehicles are stuck in a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this April 27, 2008 file photo. Delhi?s experiment with efficient public road transportation, in the form of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor, has devolved into a court battle that pitches the city?s wealthy, car-owning minority against the majority of road users. The next step may be the highest court in the land. The Delhi government plans to appeal to India?s Supreme Court to keep the corridor car-free if Delhi?s high court, which is hearing the case now, decides that cars should be allowed in the bus-only lanes, an official in Delhi?s Transport Department told India Ink on Monday. Delhi?s buses are residents? most important method of transportation in the city of over 16 million. Fewer than 20 percent of road users in Delhi travel in private vehicles, including cars and scooters, while about half of all road users in Delhi commute by bus, according to the RITES Delhi Traffic and Forecast Study. The rest use bicycles or three-wheeled auto-rickshaws, or go by foot. The BRT corridor, which is modeled after other systems in high-traffic cities like Bogota, was designed to make bus and bicycle travel safer and faster, and encourage travel that does not involve cars. It features a bicycle-only lane and a center lane just for buses. Whether the corridor, which was completed in April 2008, has been a success depends on which camp you ask. It has saved lives, but it has also increased the travel time for car drivers. Whether it has shortened bus travel times depends on which research you read. Drivers and their advocates are so upset that they have filed a flurry of court petitions, demanding that the corridor be shut. News coverage in some English-language newspapers, particularly The Times of India, has often been sympathetic to these drivers, calling the corridor a ?nightmare< http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-22/delhi/27765132_1_school-buses-brt-delhi-school>? and ?a volcano waiting to erupt< http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-07-27/delhi/27913330_1_ambedkar-nagar-and-moolchand-brt-bus-rapid-transit>.? An interim court order< https://docs.google.com/open?id=1r4m3doNk42Bv9H91WLFlFFQ-AY2rjVRCXkoHpqmgw02vR6RZbFSMFPrhi1yU> last week directed the government to allow private vehicles to use the corridor reserved for buses. A final judgment on whether to overturn it altogether is due this month from the Delhi High Court. According to B.B. Sharan, a retired colonel who is one of the petitioners< http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=55966&yr=2012> who wants the corridor open to all vehicles, ?only 50 buses plied on the corridor in an hour while the number of other vehicles was 40 to 50 times the number of buses.? Traffic jams are a common sight on the carriageway next to the bus lane, he said. ?It is unfair to give so little space to car users. Not a single car user has started using the bus; nobody has benefited from this,? he added. Not everybody agrees with his claim. ?The number of fatal accidents reduced from an average of 9 to 10 accidents per year between 2001 and 2006 to 2 in 2009 on the stretch,? said Geetam Tiwari, an assistant professor at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Ms. Tiwari was one of the authors of the report ?Delhi on the Move: 2005,? which proposed the BRT concept and was presented to the Transport Department in 1995. ?Fatal accidents involving bicyclists have not occurred in the bicycle lane since 2008,? she added. Dunu Roy, director of Hazards Centre in New Delhi, a nongovernmental organization, agreed with this assessment. ?After the BRT became operational, not only have fatalities gone down dramatically, accidents have gone down too,? he said. Private vehicle use is rising fast in New Delhi and most Indian metropolises: An average of 1317 vehicles, including auto-rickshaws and scooters, were added to Delhi roads every day during the 2010-11 fiscal year according to Delhi Statistical Handbook< http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186/chap10.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48%20> 2011, of these 95 percent were private cars and two wheelers. Soon, Delhi?s roads won?t be able to handle the traffic, transportation experts say, making introduction of systems like the BRT necessary. ?The capacity of roads in Delhi will be exceeded by 2021 on most major roads and junctions,? said Ms. Tiwari. Convincing private vehicle owners to use public transportation remains a difficult task in India. Car-pooling Web sites have sprung up< http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/19194145/Share-a-ride.html> recently, but bus transportation is widely seen as inconvenient, crowded and unsafe< http://www.indianexpress.com/news/82-delhi-women-find-buses-most-unsafe-study/541230/> for women. Advocates of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor argue that the interim court decision negates the corridor?s original purpose. ?Allowing other vehicles in the corridor essentially destroys the corridor. There is space for everyone, but the concern of minority car users seems to influence the city engineers and traffic managers,? Ms. Tiwari said. Even research related to the BRT is controversial. Mr. Roy of the Hazards Centre said there are multiple problems< https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4MX2hRTm4xTlkwSVU> with an interim report by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), a national research organization, which is the basis of the interim high court order. The CRRI had conducted a trial run between May 12 and May 23 allowing private vehicles in the bus corridor. In its report the institute concluded that traffic moved faster when other vehicles were allowed in the corridor than when they were barred, but the report did not make note of accidents or fatalities. ?Their report is completely unscientific,? Mr. Roy said. He pointed out that in the Terms of Reference< https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4McVhJUkJnbDZEZUk> the government asked for comparisons with the BRT corridor and mixed vehicle corridors on other roads. Instead, Mr. Roy said, ?the CRRI modified the BRT corridor itself and compared the results.? Subhamay Gangopadhyay, director of the institute declined to comment on the findings of the interim report and said that he would only speak once the final report is submitted to the Delhi High Court on July 12. Zubeda Begum, the lawyer representing the Delhi government?s transport department, said that she had not looked at the CRRI interim findings but said that the organization was not an expert on the matter. Despite the pending legal dispute, the Press Trust of India quoted< http://www.ptinews.com/news/2740363_More-BRT-routes-to-be-commissioned-in-the-city> Sheila Dikshit, Delhi?s chief minister, last month as saying that her government ?will commission more BRT routes in the city as a means to promote public transport, as a bulk of passengers were ?happy? with the existing facility,? but provided no further details. From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Tue Jul 10 21:58:09 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:58:09 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: BRT kerfuffle, Delhi (Today's NYT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120710085809.644072iwgyv7rrhd@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Surely there must be substantial time savings for the BRT users over the chaos the buses had to navigate before. But then again time doesn't really matter if you are poor according to many of the well off. I think we have seen the same thing in the US quite often, bus speedup only clogs the streets as the bus users don't really exist... Eric Quoting Paul Barter : > Delhi BRT in a New York Times blog. (hat tip from the Transit-Prof list) > ======================================== > > July 9, 2012, 8:25 am > > Next Stop, Supreme Court, for Delhi?s Bitter Bus Corridor Battle > By MALAVIKA VYAWAHARE and PAMPOSH RAINA > > [Buses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit corridor as other vehicles are stuck in > a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this April 27, 2008 file photo.]Prakash > Singh/Agence France-Presse ? Getty ImagesBuses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit > corridor as other vehicles are stuck in a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this > April 27, 2008 file photo. > > Delhi?s experiment with efficient public road transportation, in the form > of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor, has devolved into a court battle that > pitches the city?s wealthy, car-owning minority against the majority of > road users. > > The next step may be the highest court in the land. The Delhi government > plans to appeal to India?s Supreme Court to keep the corridor car-free if > Delhi?s high court, which is hearing the case now, decides that cars should > be allowed in the bus-only lanes, an official in Delhi?s Transport > Department told India Ink on Monday. > > Delhi?s buses are residents? most important method of transportation in the > city of over 16 million. Fewer than 20 percent of road users in Delhi > travel in private vehicles, including cars and scooters, while about half > of all road users in Delhi commute by bus, according to the RITES Delhi > Traffic and Forecast Study. The rest use bicycles or three-wheeled > auto-rickshaws, or go by foot. > > The BRT corridor, which is modeled after other systems in high-traffic > cities like Bogota, > was designed to make bus and bicycle travel safer and faster, and encourage > travel that does not involve cars. It features a bicycle-only lane and a > center lane just for buses. > > Whether the corridor, which was completed in April 2008, has been a success > depends on which camp you ask. It has saved lives, but it has also > increased the travel time for car drivers. Whether it has shortened bus > travel times depends on which research you read. > > Drivers and their advocates are so upset that they have filed a flurry of > court petitions, demanding that the corridor be shut. News coverage in some > English-language newspapers, particularly The Times of India, has often > been sympathetic to these drivers, calling the corridor a ?nightmare< > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-22/delhi/27765132_1_school-buses-brt-delhi-school>? > and ?a volcano waiting to erupt< > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-07-27/delhi/27913330_1_ambedkar-nagar-and-moolchand-brt-bus-rapid-transit>.? > > > An interim court order< > https://docs.google.com/open?id=1r4m3doNk42Bv9H91WLFlFFQ-AY2rjVRCXkoHpqmgw02vR6RZbFSMFPrhi1yU> > last week directed the government to allow private vehicles to use the > corridor reserved for buses. A final judgment on whether to overturn it > altogether is due this month from the Delhi High Court. > > According to B.B. Sharan, a retired colonel who is one of the petitioners< > http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=55966&yr=2012> who wants > the corridor open to all vehicles, ?only 50 buses plied on the corridor in > an hour while the number of other vehicles was 40 to 50 times the number of > buses.? > > Traffic jams are a common sight on the carriageway next to the bus lane, he > said. ?It is unfair to give so little space to car users. Not a single car > user has started using the bus; nobody has benefited from this,? he added. > > Not everybody agrees with his claim. > > ?The number of fatal accidents reduced from an average of 9 to 10 accidents > per year between 2001 and 2006 to 2 in 2009 on the stretch,? said Geetam > Tiwari, an assistant professor at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. > > Ms. Tiwari was one of the authors of the report ?Delhi on the Move: 2005,? > which proposed the BRT concept and was presented to the Transport > Department in 1995. > > ?Fatal accidents involving bicyclists have not occurred in the bicycle lane > since 2008,? she added. > > Dunu Roy, director of Hazards Centre in New Delhi, a nongovernmental > organization, agreed with this assessment. ?After the BRT became > operational, not only have fatalities gone down dramatically, accidents > have gone down too,? he said. > > Private vehicle use is rising fast in New Delhi and most Indian > metropolises: An average of 1317 vehicles, including auto-rickshaws and > scooters, were added to Delhi roads every day during the 2010-11 fiscal > year according to Delhi Statistical Handbook< > http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186/chap10.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48%20> > 2011, of these 95 percent were private cars and two wheelers. > > Soon, Delhi?s roads won?t be able to handle the traffic, transportation > experts say, making introduction of systems like the BRT necessary. ?The > capacity of roads in Delhi will be exceeded by 2021 on most major roads and > junctions,? said Ms. Tiwari. > > Convincing private vehicle owners to use public transportation remains a > difficult task in India. Car-pooling Web sites have sprung up< > http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/19194145/Share-a-ride.html> recently, but > bus transportation is widely seen as inconvenient, crowded and unsafe< > http://www.indianexpress.com/news/82-delhi-women-find-buses-most-unsafe-study/541230/> > for women. > > Advocates of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor argue that the interim court > decision negates the corridor?s original purpose. ?Allowing other vehicles > in the corridor essentially destroys the corridor. There is space for > everyone, but the concern of minority car users seems to influence the city > engineers and traffic managers,? Ms. Tiwari said. > > Even research related to the BRT is controversial. Mr. Roy of the Hazards > Centre said there are multiple problems< > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4MX2hRTm4xTlkwSVU> with an > interim report > by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), > a national research organization, which is the basis of the interim high > court order. > > The CRRI had conducted a trial run between May 12 and May 23 allowing > private vehicles in the bus corridor. In its report the institute concluded > that traffic moved faster when other vehicles were allowed in the corridor > than when they were barred, but the report did not make note of accidents > or fatalities. > > ?Their report is completely unscientific,? Mr. Roy said. He pointed out > that in the Terms of Reference< > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4McVhJUkJnbDZEZUk> the > government asked for comparisons with the BRT corridor and mixed vehicle > corridors on other roads. Instead, Mr. Roy said, ?the CRRI modified the BRT > corridor itself and compared the results.? > > Subhamay Gangopadhyay, director of the institute declined to comment on the > findings of the interim report and said that he would only speak once the > final report is submitted to the Delhi High Court on July 12. > > Zubeda Begum, the lawyer representing the Delhi government?s transport > department, said that she had not looked at the CRRI interim findings but > said that the organization was not an expert on the matter. > > Despite the pending legal dispute, the Press Trust of India quoted< > http://www.ptinews.com/news/2740363_More-BRT-routes-to-be-commissioned-in-the-city> > Sheila Dikshit, Delhi?s chief minister, last month as saying that her > government ?will commission more BRT routes in the city as a means to > promote public transport, as a bulk of passengers were ?happy? with the > existing facility,? but provided no further details. > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Jul 12 16:07:29 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:07:29 +0200 Subject: [sustran] No Parking, No Business 3: Walking and cycling perspectives Message-ID: <005001cd5ffd$03652fa0$0a2f8ee0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Eric Britton posted in World Transport Policy and Practice Eric Britton 9:05am Jul 12 No Parking, No Business 3: Walking and cycling perspectives worldstreets.wordpress.com Continuing our coverage of the open ?No parking, No business? conversation, more on walkability imp... View Post on Facebook ? Edit Email Settings ? Reply to this email to add a comment. From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 16:32:24 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:02:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: BRT kerfuffle, Delhi (Today's NYT) In-Reply-To: <20120710085809.644072iwgyv7rrhd@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <20120710085809.644072iwgyv7rrhd@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <5054A4D9-E1B5-4607-AD0D-3F3A036ED4F4@gmail.com> Dear Eric, Its kind of strange that most car users (and same one that criticise BRT) in Delhi go raving about Delhi Metro and how it has improved the city. Delhi Metro carries 2 million plus journeys every day. So either Delhi Metro fits in with the sense of "elitism" or is BRT actually falling short to deliver? I used Delhi BRT a few times. It is nowhere close to what you see in Southern America. These are low-floor "disabled-friendly" buses but anybody who is familiar with Delhi knows that if nothing else around there is disabled-friendly. The footpath (where they exist), the road crossings, the travel behaviour and everything else is daunting enough to even an able-bodied person. I sometimes thank the potholes which act as de-facto traffic calming measures (read a story a couple of days ago in Delhi where a girl was kidnapped in broad daylight by few goons in the car only to have their car stuck in a pothole a few hundred meters down the road - so they deter crime too!!). Having lived in Delhi for close to a year, I feel that a decently planned public transport system may still find a place within the transport fabric here. There is also enough intellectual capital behind the cause now. On the positive side, there are many more BRT corridors planned but as long as they wade their way through a "broken" infrastructure. Cheers Alok On 10-Jul-2012, at 6:28 PM, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > Surely there must be substantial time savings for the BRT users over the chaos > the buses had to navigate before. But then again time doesn't really matter if > you are poor according to many of the well off. I think we have seen > the same thing in the US quite often, bus speedup only clogs the > streets as the bus users don't really exist... > > Eric > > > Quoting Paul Barter : > >> Delhi BRT in a New York Times blog. (hat tip from the Transit-Prof list) >> ======================================== >> >> July 9, 2012, 8:25 am >> >> Next Stop, Supreme Court, for Delhi?s Bitter Bus Corridor Battle >> By MALAVIKA VYAWAHARE and PAMPOSH RAINA >> >> [Buses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit corridor as other vehicles are stuck in >> a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this April 27, 2008 file photo.]Prakash >> Singh/Agence France-Presse ? Getty ImagesBuses ply on the Bus Rapid Transit >> corridor as other vehicles are stuck in a traffic jam in New Delhi, in this >> April 27, 2008 file photo. >> >> Delhi?s experiment with efficient public road transportation, in the form >> of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor, has devolved into a court battle that >> pitches the city?s wealthy, car-owning minority against the majority of >> road users. >> >> The next step may be the highest court in the land. The Delhi government >> plans to appeal to India?s Supreme Court to keep the corridor car-free if >> Delhi?s high court, which is hearing the case now, decides that cars should >> be allowed in the bus-only lanes, an official in Delhi?s Transport >> Department told India Ink on Monday. >> >> Delhi?s buses are residents? most important method of transportation in the >> city of over 16 million. Fewer than 20 percent of road users in Delhi >> travel in private vehicles, including cars and scooters, while about half >> of all road users in Delhi commute by bus, according to the RITES Delhi >> Traffic and Forecast Study. The rest use bicycles or three-wheeled >> auto-rickshaws, or go by foot. >> >> The BRT corridor, which is modeled after other systems in high-traffic >> cities like Bogota, >> was designed to make bus and bicycle travel safer and faster, and encourage >> travel that does not involve cars. It features a bicycle-only lane and a >> center lane just for buses. >> >> Whether the corridor, which was completed in April 2008, has been a success >> depends on which camp you ask. It has saved lives, but it has also >> increased the travel time for car drivers. Whether it has shortened bus >> travel times depends on which research you read. >> >> Drivers and their advocates are so upset that they have filed a flurry of >> court petitions, demanding that the corridor be shut. News coverage in some >> English-language newspapers, particularly The Times of India, has often >> been sympathetic to these drivers, calling the corridor a ?nightmare< >> http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-04-22/delhi/27765132_1_school-buses-brt-delhi-school>? >> and ?a volcano waiting to erupt< >> http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-07-27/delhi/27913330_1_ambedkar-nagar-and-moolchand-brt-bus-rapid-transit>.? >> >> >> An interim court order< >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=1r4m3doNk42Bv9H91WLFlFFQ-AY2rjVRCXkoHpqmgw02vR6RZbFSMFPrhi1yU> >> last week directed the government to allow private vehicles to use the >> corridor reserved for buses. A final judgment on whether to overturn it >> altogether is due this month from the Delhi High Court. >> >> According to B.B. Sharan, a retired colonel who is one of the petitioners< >> http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=55966&yr=2012> who wants >> the corridor open to all vehicles, ?only 50 buses plied on the corridor in >> an hour while the number of other vehicles was 40 to 50 times the number of >> buses.? >> >> Traffic jams are a common sight on the carriageway next to the bus lane, he >> said. ?It is unfair to give so little space to car users. Not a single car >> user has started using the bus; nobody has benefited from this,? he added. >> >> Not everybody agrees with his claim. >> >> ?The number of fatal accidents reduced from an average of 9 to 10 accidents >> per year between 2001 and 2006 to 2 in 2009 on the stretch,? said Geetam >> Tiwari, an assistant professor at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. >> >> Ms. Tiwari was one of the authors of the report ?Delhi on the Move: 2005,? >> which proposed the BRT concept and was presented to the Transport >> Department in 1995. >> >> ?Fatal accidents involving bicyclists have not occurred in the bicycle lane >> since 2008,? she added. >> >> Dunu Roy, director of Hazards Centre in New Delhi, a nongovernmental >> organization, agreed with this assessment. ?After the BRT became >> operational, not only have fatalities gone down dramatically, accidents >> have gone down too,? he said. >> >> Private vehicle use is rising fast in New Delhi and most Indian >> metropolises: An average of 1317 vehicles, including auto-rickshaws and >> scooters, were added to Delhi roads every day during the 2010-11 fiscal >> year according to Delhi Statistical Handbook< >> http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186/chap10.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48049058b2290e296159d025186&lmod=-1847694946&CACHEID=7ac2f48%20> >> 2011, of these 95 percent were private cars and two wheelers. >> >> Soon, Delhi?s roads won?t be able to handle the traffic, transportation >> experts say, making introduction of systems like the BRT necessary. ?The >> capacity of roads in Delhi will be exceeded by 2021 on most major roads and >> junctions,? said Ms. Tiwari. >> >> Convincing private vehicle owners to use public transportation remains a >> difficult task in India. Car-pooling Web sites have sprung up< >> http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/19194145/Share-a-ride.html> recently, but >> bus transportation is widely seen as inconvenient, crowded and unsafe< >> http://www.indianexpress.com/news/82-delhi-women-find-buses-most-unsafe-study/541230/> >> for women. >> >> Advocates of the Bus Rapid Transit corridor argue that the interim court >> decision negates the corridor?s original purpose. ?Allowing other vehicles >> in the corridor essentially destroys the corridor. There is space for >> everyone, but the concern of minority car users seems to influence the city >> engineers and traffic managers,? Ms. Tiwari said. >> >> Even research related to the BRT is controversial. Mr. Roy of the Hazards >> Centre said there are multiple problems< >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4MX2hRTm4xTlkwSVU> with an >> interim report >> by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), >> a national research organization, which is the basis of the interim high >> court order. >> >> The CRRI had conducted a trial run between May 12 and May 23 allowing >> private vehicles in the bus corridor. In its report the institute concluded >> that traffic moved faster when other vehicles were allowed in the corridor >> than when they were barred, but the report did not make note of accidents >> or fatalities. >> >> ?Their report is completely unscientific,? Mr. Roy said. He pointed out >> that in the Terms of Reference< >> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7NsBPUxnA4McVhJUkJnbDZEZUk> the >> government asked for comparisons with the BRT corridor and mixed vehicle >> corridors on other roads. Instead, Mr. Roy said, ?the CRRI modified the BRT >> corridor itself and compared the results.? >> >> Subhamay Gangopadhyay, director of the institute declined to comment on the >> findings of the interim report and said that he would only speak once the >> final report is submitted to the Delhi High Court on July 12. >> >> Zubeda Begum, the lawyer representing the Delhi government?s transport >> department, said that she had not looked at the CRRI interim findings but >> said that the organization was not an expert on the matter. >> >> Despite the pending legal dispute, the Press Trust of India quoted< >> http://www.ptinews.com/news/2740363_More-BRT-routes-to-be-commissioned-in-the-city> >> Sheila Dikshit, Delhi?s chief minister, last month as saying that her >> government ?will commission more BRT routes in the city as a means to >> promote public transport, as a bulk of passengers were ?happy? with the >> existing facility,? but provided no further details. >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From yanivbin at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 22:38:30 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:08:30 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Meant to change the face of public transport, city buses today are a dying dream In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120712/jsp/jharkhand/story_15718652.jsp RIDE TO NOWHERE - *Meant to change the face of public transport, city buses today are a dying dream* Grounded: City buses stand idle at Baridih depot *They rolled on to the roads amid much fanfare, promising commuters of Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad a streamlined public transport system. A project of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the city buses were not only supposed to ease traffic but also keep pollution parameters under check. Yet barely two years later, the buses are on the verge of disappearing, plagued by problems ranging from poor returns, lack of maintenance, frequent strikes by staff over unpaid dues to alleged harassment from auto-rickshaw drivers and police alike. Amit Gupta takes a look at what ails our city buses* *Capital* City bus services in the capital were launched in June 2010. So far, there have been three strikes by drivers and conductors employed by the private agency, Ask Securities in Ranchi?s case. Of the 70 buses earmarked for the capital, 47 are on the roads. The other vehicles are in dire need of maintenance, while one is no more road-worthy after catching fire. Ticket sales in Ranchi are between Rs 1,600 and Rs 1,700 per day per bus, against an expenditure of Rs 1,300 on fuel and staff dues. The buses run on nine routes, ferrying 20,000 to 25,000 passengers daily. *Steel city* If the buses run in some semblance of order in the capital, the opposite holds true in the steel city. Services in Jamshedpur began in September 2010, and since then, the buses have gone off the roads as many as 14 times thanks to strikes by drivers and conductors, mainly over unpaid dues. Of the sanctioned 50 vehicles, barely 15 ply the roads on eight routes, while the rest gather dust at the Sidhgora depot. The service is yet to make profits. While Rs 1,300 is the daily expenditure per bus, including cost of fuel and pay of staff, daily collections rarely exceeds Rs 1,400. *Coal town* Introduced in August 2010, only 20 of the designated 70 city buses ply the streets of the coal capital. Collections are low ? barely Rs 900 to Rs 1,000 against the expenditure of Rs 1,300, and strikes frequent. The fifth and latest strike by drivers and conductors provided by Rider Security saw buses disappearing from the roads on Monday evening. *The deal* Perennially short of manpower, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation (JTDC) was asked to run the city buses till management and maintenance was taken over by respective civic bodies in Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur. JTDC in turn outsourced day-to-day affairs to three agencies ? Ask Security in Ranchi, Capital Security Service in Jamshedpur and Rider Security in Dhanbad. The outsourced agencies provide the bus staff and run the vehicles on designated routes. *The glitches* The urban development department is in no hurry to take a decision when the civic bodies should take over the ?ailing business?. This has left JTDC in a catch 22 situation, incurring losses and unable to pay the outsourced agencies, leading to disruption in services. ?The reasons behind running less number of buses are frequent protests by private bus operators, lack of support from the local administration and lack of an effective management and monitoring system,? complained Rakesh Kumar, manager (operations) of JTDC in Jamshedpur. ?We are short of staff. Conductors often do not give tickets printed by JTDC to the commuters. The money goes into their pockets. The operators run the service on their whims and fancies, rarely abiding by routes and timings. There should be a centralised computerised system to monitor real-time sale of tickets,? he added. *Next move* JTDC, meanwhile, has demanded Rs 1 crore from the urban development department to cover losses incurred by the respective outsourced operators and to maintain the vehicles. Sources said the urban development department was in the process of releasing Rs 50 lakh. Last year too, the JTDC was given Rs 50 lakh to cover losses. JTDC managing director Sunil Kumar, however, did not sound convincing when he spoke of improving the system. He appeared particularly concerned about the situation in the steel city, where bus staff have had to face flak from private operators and police alike. ?I know it comes under essential services, but the local administration in Jamshedpur does not help. The urban development department should take over now,? he said. *Way forward* The urban development department is talking to Urban Mass Transport Company, a Union government agency, on how to go ahead with effective maintenance and management of city bus services in the three mission cities. ?Till we make some workable arrangements to ensure the services run smoothly in future, the onus to run it lies with JTDC,? urban development secretary Nitin Madan Kulkarni said, adding it would take at least another two months before the respective corporations took over the task of running the buses. *Do you think the Munda government is serious about running city buses?* ** *Tell ttkhand@abpmail.com* From lisakane at iafrica.com Tue Jul 17 02:56:10 2012 From: lisakane at iafrica.com (Lisa Kane) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:56:10 +0200 Subject: [sustran] UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility, call for interest Message-ID: This call for interest looks like it could be of interest to list members: http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/11316_1_594501.pdf Regards Lisa Honorary Research Associate University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 +2721 6715404 +2772 7046605 From morten7an at yahoo.com Tue Jul 17 21:44:57 2012 From: morten7an at yahoo.com (Morten Lange) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility, call for interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1342529097.69410.YahooMailNeo@web39401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Lisa, for conveying this to the group. However the content does not infuse me with optimism .. I am sorry if I put this too bluntly, but the process around this project, seems quite unambitious and bureaucratic to me. And not a very open, collaborative process (?) Additionally they do not seem to be wanting NGO's on board at all, only consultancies (?) My final criticism is their wording in the only instance where active transport is specifically mentioned. It is to be "promoted". What is needed is much more radical : reallocation of space in favour of active transport modes. A redistribution of investments so, that (indirect) subsidies car users are reduced. ?Especially if one takes the externalities of motorized transport into account : Barrier effects (reducing public health and efficiency benefits achieved through active transport), pollution of at least five main types, land-use/sprawl, etc)? I know I am preaching to the choir, but perhaps some of you can offer consolation or hope that this exercise by UN Habitat will actually move things forwards, instead of just regurgitating cautious adjustments to a perilous Business as usual.? -- Regards / Kve?ja / Hilsen Morten Lange, Reykjav?k >________________________________ > From: Lisa Kane >To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" >Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012, 17:56 >Subject: [sustran] UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility, call for interest > >This call for interest looks like it could be of interest to list members: > >http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/11316_1_594501.pdf > >Regards > >Lisa > >Honorary Research Associate >University of Cape Town >Rondebosch 7701 >+2721 6715404 >+2772 7046605 >-------------------------------------------------------- >To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > > From lisakane at iafrica.com Tue Jul 17 22:03:22 2012 From: lisakane at iafrica.com (Lisa Kane) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:03:22 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility, call for interest In-Reply-To: <1342529097.69410.YahooMailNeo@web39401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1342529097.69410.YahooMailNeo@web39401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138B3BE7-C567-4313-A71A-30BEC34B3A48@iafrica.com> Dear Morten, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I wish I could offer the response you look for, but I cannot. In fact, I agree with your overall assessment. My motivation in circulating this was the hope, perhaps naive, that a Southern based Organisation would have the ability to be involved in a productive way. Regards Lisa Honorary Research Associate University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 +2721 6715404 +2772 7046605 On 17 Jul 2012, at 2:44 PM, Morten Lange wrote: > Thanks Lisa, for conveying this to the group. > > However the content does not infuse me with optimism .. > I am sorry if I put this too bluntly, but the process around this project, seems quite unambitious and bureaucratic to me. And not a very open, collaborative process (?) > Additionally they do not seem to be wanting NGO's on board at all, only consultancies (?) > > My final criticism is their wording in the only instance where active transport is specifically mentioned. It is to be "promoted". > What is needed is much more radical : reallocation of space in favour of active transport modes. A redistribution of investments so, that (indirect) subsidies car users are reduced. Especially if one takes the externalities of motorized transport into account : Barrier effects (reducing public health and efficiency benefits achieved through active transport), pollution of at least five main types, land-use/sprawl, etc) > > I know I am preaching to the choir, but perhaps some of you can offer consolation or hope that this exercise by UN Habitat will actually move things forwards, instead of just regurgitating cautious adjustments to a perilous Business as usual. > > -- > Regards / Kve?ja / Hilsen > Morten Lange, Reykjav?k > From: Lisa Kane > To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" > Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012, 17:56 > Subject: [sustran] UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility, call for interest > > This call for interest looks like it could be of interest to list members: > > http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/11316_1_594501.pdf > > Regards > > Lisa > > Honorary Research Associate > University of Cape Town > Rondebosch 7701 > +2721 6715404 > +2772 7046605 > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > From fekbritton at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 23:21:27 2012 From: fekbritton at gmail.com (FEKBRITTON) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:21:27 +0200 Subject: [sustran] UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility and paradigm shift In-Reply-To: <138B3BE7-C567-4313-A71A-30BEC34B3A48@iafrica.com> References: <1342529097.69410.YahooMailNeo@web39401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <138B3BE7-C567-4313-A71A-30BEC34B3A48@iafrica.com> Message-ID: <008401cd6427$75038700$5f0a9500$@com> re: UN=A9\Habitat Call for Expression of Interest for Cooperation = Partners for Production of Quick Guides for Sustainable Urban Mobility =20 Now are the times that try men's souls. - Tom Paine=20 =20 Dear Lisa, Morten and All, =20 I think this is an excellent exchange in this otherwise drab post Rio+20 world. Instead of pussy footing around and playing nice as usual, = Morten Lange points up a typical turgid example of the reason why we are = losing, and losing badly, the war of sustainability (and social justice). =20 The good news is that as a Viking he does not just sit there and applaud = one more half-baked mediocre (if well intentioned) idea. Instead he stands = back and looks at the issues (about which he knows a lot) and sounds a = challenge which really does need to be answered (but my bet is that it will of = course be ducked (i.e., ignored) as just about always, However we don't have = to take that, we can reverse the tide and improve the quality and courage = of these projects But we have to get together to do it. ).=20 =20 Morten characterizes this, in his perfectly chosen words: an approach = which is (a) "quite unambitious and bureaucratic", then (b) "not a very open, collaborative process", followed by (c) "they do not seem to be wanting NGO's on board at all", all the way to his knockout blow (d) "instead of just regurgitating cautious adjustments to a perilous Business as = Usual". He could have gone further and drawn our attention to the fact that this "call" -- " to promote a paradigm shift " , get it "paradigm shift"! -- gives a grand total of two weeks in the sleepy (for many) mid-summer for anyone with an idea to get back to them with a first proposal. That's a joke, right? =20 And there is more: Can someone out there remind me what is a "quick = guide" to sustainable urban mobility? Did anyone mention to them that there = are hundreds, thousands of them out there and that to change the game in = terms of urban transport, " to promote a paradigm shift ", it is not quick = guides or more endless repertories of "best practices" that are going to do = the job.=20 =20 Does anyone else think there is something badly wrong here? =20 Think of sustainable development as Syria, and the UN as the UN.=20 =20 Sustainable development and social justice cannot be passively = administered by civil servants whose first priority is to hang on to their jobs. It = is a war, a war we are losing, and one that needs to be fought and won with brains, engagement, ideas, openness, experience, outreach, = inclusiveness, communications, variety and risk taking. We need to dare, to look the = BAU team in the eye, to go for virile combat, to understand that to win = this one (urban mobility) we need to seize the public space (which a lot of people and established interest are not going to like), to make some big = and creative mistakes, to learn from them, to do more . . . and to win. =20 And in all this a tip of the hat to Lisa for agreeing with the overall assessment. And then her hope "the hope, perhaps naive, that a Southern based Organisation would have the ability to be involved in a productive way". (If that quiet call does not break your heart then you know = nothing .) =20 But finally, this is good news too because it is an informed, frank = exchange with, I hope, a couple of hundred of us following it and trying to = figure out how to avoid " just regurgitating cautious adjustments to a perilous Business as usual". =20 When will it be time to send in the A Team? (On which I definitely want Morten".) =20 Eric Britton =20 PS. Today I am grading papers for an annual Master Class that I give to = a last year MBA program at the Institut Sup=A8=A6rieur de Gestion in = Paris under the title Sustainable Development, Economy = & Society, which you can visit if you wish at http://sdes2012.wordpress.com/. I mention this here because I can truthfully say that everyone of the course papers I have thus far read = and commented are at a higher level than this two page UN Habitat call. No kidding. =20 =20 --- =20 On Behalf Of Lisa Kane Sent: Tuesday, 17 July, 2012 15:03 To: Morten Lange=20 =20 Dear Morten, =20 Thanks for taking the time to reply. I wish I could offer the response = you look for, but I cannot. In fact, I agree with your overall assessment. = My motivation in circulating this was the hope, perhaps naive, that a = Southern based Organisation would have the ability to be involved in a productive way. =20 Regards =20 Lisa =20 Honorary Research Associate University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 +2721 6715404 +2772 7046605 -------------------------------------------- =20 On 17 Jul 2012, at 2:44 PM, Morten Lange To: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org"=20 Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012, 17:56 Subject: [sustran] UN HABITAT quick guides on sustainable mobility,=20 call for interest =20 This call for interest looks like it could be of interest to list = members: =20 http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/11316_1_594501.pdf =20 Regards =20 Lisa =20 Honorary Research Associate University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 +2721 6715404 +2772 7046605 From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Jul 20 16:19:37 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:19:37 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "So much for green transport." Message-ID: <006f01cd6648$089f79c0$19de6d40$@britton@ecoplan.org> >From http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets today: DELHI'S MULTI-MILLION PUBLIC TRANSPORT FAILURE: A series of mistakes doomed Delhi's "Bus Rapid Transit" corridor before it ever got rolling. There is a certain smug, almost joyful desire to pillory the Delhi BRT project, and while it seems to me like BAU when I read it in certain Indian sources, coming out of the mouths of babes and sucklings in of all places The Alaska Dispatch -- -- kind of makes one wonder what the gent that wrote it had for breakfast that day. I like the way he ends in a bang, not a whimper-- "So much for green transport." QED eh? # # # The Streets of India on Facebook welcomes comments, articles, references, graphics and whatever else it takes to get the point of sustainable transport, sustainable cities and sustainable lives across in the world's largest and most, surely, original democracy. Sign in to http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets . From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 16:28:53 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:58:53 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Eric, Lately this has been attracting a lot of press. I am attaching a few articles. This quote from one of the persons representing one of the Residents Welfare Association encapsulates the problem. ?While there are not even enough buses and other intermediary transport like autos that were promised long ago, the government is trying to push BRT without dependable and safe public transport. How can they even expect people to shift from private to public vehicles when they don?t have enough public vehicles? It appears like a money-making enterprise,? As I had mentioned earlier, I do see a rising support for public transport but it has to be "good". By attaching a fancy acronym to a half-baked idea, is doing injustice to the cause of public transport. Best Regards Alok -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 120717-BRT Logic-TOI-P2-120717.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 244735 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120720/6cf5f50f/120717-BRTLogic-TOI-P2-120717-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 120717-BRT-TOI-P1-120717.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 87666 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120720/6cf5f50f/120717-BRT-TOI-P1-120717-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 120717-RWA-TOI-P2-210717.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 96187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120720/6cf5f50f/120717-RWA-TOI-P2-210717-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- On 20-Jul-2012, at 12:49 PM, eric britton wrote: >> From http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets today: > > DELHI'S MULTI-MILLION PUBLIC TRANSPORT FAILURE: A series of mistakes doomed Delhi's "Bus Rapid Transit" corridor before it ever got rolling. > > There is a certain smug, almost joyful desire to pillory the Delhi BRT project, and while it seems to me like BAU when I read it in certain Indian sources, coming out of the mouths of babes and sucklings in of all places The Alaska Dispatch -- -- kind of makes one wonder what the gent that wrote it had for breakfast that day. I like the way he ends in a bang, not a whimper-- "So much for green transport." QED eh? > > # # # > > The Streets of India on Facebook welcomes comments, articles, references, graphics and whatever else it takes to get the point of sustainable transport, sustainable cities and sustainable lives across in the world's largest and most, surely, original democracy. Sign in to http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets > > > > > . > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Jul 20 23:38:44 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:38:44 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Women and sustainable Development: Achievements & Recognition Message-ID: <012601cd6685$5f995420$1ecbfc60$@britton@ecoplan.org> A young woman in this year's graduate course for MBAs at the Institut Sup?rieur de Gestion in Paris of which I am both professor and to an extent coach, has prepared an interesting term paper, exploring the topic of Women and sustainable Development: Achievements & Recognition from her perspective (Tunisia) which we should be pleased to share in confidence with anyone here, against your comments. The opening lines of her fifteen page paper read: In the following article, the past and the present of women?s contribution to sustainable development were considered and linked to the current position of women in decision-making process. Are they fairly treated?? Do women suffer from discrimination??We will try to answer that through real life examples and related statistics Please feel free to get in touch on this. It will be good to have your comments. Kind regards/Eric Britton PS. For more on the Master Class, http://sdes2012.wordpress.com/. And on the supporting Facebook site - http://www.facebook.com/SDES.MasterClass _____________________________________________________________ Francis Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director / Editor New Mobility Partnerships | World Streets | The Equity/Transport Project 9, rue Gabillot 69003 Lyon France | T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 0787 | E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | S. newmobility 9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA 90210 | Tel. +1 213 985 3501 | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: ericbritton P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 33024 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120720/f0609200/attachment.jpe From yanivbin at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 17:52:48 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:22:48 +0530 Subject: [sustran] BRT won't be scrapped: Delhi government Message-ID: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-17/news/32714457_1_crri-brt-corridor-nyay-bhoomi *BRT won't be scrapped: Delhi government * PTI Jul 17, 2012, 09.42PM IST Tags: NEW DELHI: Notwithstanding the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) criticising the BRT corridor in South Delhi, Delhi Government today resolved not to scrap it and hinted that it would undertake more such projects. Delhi Chief Secretary P K Tripathi said government was determined to go ahead with the project as the BRT between Ambedkar Nagar and Delhi Gate has improved flow of bus transport. Following a Delhi High Court directive, the CRRI carried out a study of the BRT corridor and opined that the corridor has not been effective in improving bus transport. The Chief Secretary, however, said Delhi Government has the option of going to the Supreme Court on the issue. The Delhi High court is holding hearing on the issue. Commenting on CRRI report, Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit accused "certain sections" of politicising the issue and said government brought the BRT to serve commuters travelling by bus. "Certain sections are politicising the issue. The BRT has been built to ensure a better public transport system," she said. The Delhi High Court earlier this month has asked the city government to allow all vehicles to use the lane reserved for buses till its final order on a plea for opening BRT for all. The court asked the Transport Department to continue with the arrangement made by the CRRI during the experimental trial run on BRT between May 12 and May 23 this year till it decides the issue after CRRI submits its final report on the trial run. The bench had passed the order after a CRRI official, who was present in the court, told it that the traffic was smoother during the trial run. The court's direction had come on a plea by Nyay Bhoomi, an NGO, for restoring the vehicle movement on the BRT corridor, which had been discontinued by the government after the CRRI's trial run allowing all vehicles to ply on the lane reserved for buses. Ads by Google From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Sun Jul 22 22:30:04 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:30:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Alok, or someone: Help us readers out that don't know the corridors. I already had explained to me that the buses don't have priority at the intersections at all. How can the BRT really be so slow at 12 Km per hour? Even without priority at intersections, if one has laterally separated lanes, speed should be better than this. This doesn't sound like BRT at all to me. Eric Bruun Quoting Alok Jain : > Dear Eric, > > Lately this has been attracting a lot of press. I am attaching a few > articles. > > This quote from one of the persons representing one of the Residents > Welfare Association encapsulates the problem. > > ?While there are not even enough buses and other intermediary > transport like autos that were promised long ago, the government is > trying to push BRT without dependable and safe public transport. How > can they even expect people to shift from private to public vehicles when > they don?t have enough public vehicles? It appears like a money-making > enterprise,? > > As I had mentioned earlier, I do see a rising support for public > transport but it has to be "good". By attaching a fancy acronym to a > half-baked idea, is doing injustice to the cause of public transport. > > Best Regards > Alok > > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Mon Jul 23 21:09:06 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:09:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <20120723080906.13386l6goxg4zizm@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Alok Now I get it. I think that the proper response of the Delhi government is to say that the system doesn't work like it is supposed to do and that it currently isn't really BRT at all. Furthermore, rather than dismantle it, it will be converted to real BRT as quickly as possible. Eric Bruun Quoting Alok Jain : > Dear Eric, > > I quote below from one of the paper produced by DIMTS (operator of > BRT in Delhi) - > > Untrained Drivers: The bus operation is very inefficient. CORRIDOR > MANAGER has trained > more than 200 DTC drivers to drive buses with a view to ensure the > greater discipline in Bus > Lane. However, in DTC, buses, route numbers are not matched with > Drivers on a stable basis, > i.e. drivers are frequently changed on different routes. As a > result, it has been observed that > very often many un-trained drivers are driving buses in the corridor. > > Slow Speed: Currently, all types of buses are allowed to use the Bus > lane, including many > deteriorated buses and RTVs, which cause frequent breakdowns. Only > newer buses meeting > quality and maintenance standards should be allowed. It is also > found that blue line buses > sometimes linger at the bus stops. As a result, sometimes passengers > board and alight before > the bus platform. > > I am also attaching the full document which should give a fairly > good idea about the system/operational characteristics. > > Regards > Alok > From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 21:23:42 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:53:42 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120723080906.13386l6goxg4zizm@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120723080906.13386l6goxg4zizm@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <97DCFEAC-CEAF-4727-9517-2346A3F34B3D@gmail.com> Unfortunately, patience runs in short supply especially when you have vested interests adding fuel to the fire. A good lesson to learn though.. Alok On 23-Jul-2012, at 5:39 PM, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > Alok > > Now I get it. > > I think that the proper response of the Delhi government is to say that the system > doesn't work like it is supposed to do and that it currently isn't really BRT at all. > Furthermore, rather than dismantle it, it will be converted to real BRT as quickly > as possible. > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Alok Jain : > >> Dear Eric, >> >> I quote below from one of the paper produced by DIMTS (operator of BRT in Delhi) - >> >> Untrained Drivers: The bus operation is very inefficient. CORRIDOR MANAGER has trained >> more than 200 DTC drivers to drive buses with a view to ensure the greater discipline in Bus >> Lane. However, in DTC, buses, route numbers are not matched with Drivers on a stable basis, >> i.e. drivers are frequently changed on different routes. As a result, it has been observed that >> very often many un-trained drivers are driving buses in the corridor. >> >> Slow Speed: Currently, all types of buses are allowed to use the Bus lane, including many >> deteriorated buses and RTVs, which cause frequent breakdowns. Only newer buses meeting >> quality and maintenance standards should be allowed. It is also found that blue line buses >> sometimes linger at the bus stops. As a result, sometimes passengers board and alight before >> the bus platform. >> >> I am also attaching the full document which should give a fairly good idea about the system/operational characteristics. >> >> Regards >> Alok >> > > > From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Tue Jul 24 13:05:59 2012 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:05:59 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Parking policy for a Chinese audience (fwd from Reinventing Parking) Message-ID: Reinventing Parking ------------------------------ Parking for a Chinese audience Posted: 23 Jul 2012 07:00 AM PDT A brief post to share a bilingual presentation. I was honoured to present on international parking policy comparisons to the World Metropolitan Transport Development Forum 2012 in Beijing on 23-24 May. Thanks to the Beijing Transportation Research Center (BTRC) for inviting me. The organisers wanted lots of detail, hence the LONG set of slides. Obviously, I didn't go through all this in my time slot! Download the PDF here if you can't see the embedded slideshow below. * Paul Barter on Parking at the World Metropolitan Transport Development Forum 2012 ? Beijing, 23-24 May 2012 * from *Paul Barter * I hope the translation into Chinese was accurate. Any Chinese speaking parking experts out there - please let me know if you see any problems. -- Paul Barter http://www.reinventingparking.org http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 17:52:15 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:22:15 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> More on Delhi BRT in today's papers. Arrogant car users opposing BRT: Delhi govt 24 Jul 2012 Hindustan Times (Delhi) Harish V Nair harish.nair@hindustantimes.com Govt says politics of minority should not ignore interests of majority; alleges CRRI accorded value of time on basis of income The Delhi government on Monday told the high court that the ?arrogance? of car users was behind the campaign to scrap the 5.8km Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor between Moolchand and Ambedkar Nagar in south Delhi. Slamming the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) report, which said the public benefited without the corridor, the government stood by its project aimed at encouraging more people to use public transport and give up private vehicles. The govt has said that car users opposing the BRT are anti-poor. ?BRT projects are sanctioned for the entire country. One wrong step in Delhi may jeopardise the entire policy. The anger and arrogance of car users may not be permitted to wipe out the fragile protection of the common good,? the state said in an affidavit. ?The CRRI report is full of contradictions. It in fact supports the existence of the BRT by its conclusion that 70% of its users were moving faster and there was a 32% increase in bus ridership,? said government counsel KTS Tulsi. ?Aren?t the poor who travel by bus not entitled to travel fast? The BRT is being opposed as carwallahs are not able to travel faster than a bus,? Tulsi said. The Delhi Government is determined to reduce the number of cars on the roads, it told the High Court. It also made it clear that the government stood by BRT projects aimed at encouraging more people to use public transport and give up private vehicles. In its affidavit, the government has also accused car users of having an ?elitist bias? and being ?anti-poor? by opposing the BRT corridor between Moolchand and Ambedkar Nagar. ?Delhi Government has understood the value of seeking out alternatives to cars and has recognised buses as the best option. CRRI ignored the fact that congestion will only get worse by 2021 as car ridership will jump by 106 percent if BRT is not implemented,? the affidavit filed in the court said. ?BRT projects have been sanctioned for the entire country. One wrong step in Delhi may jeopardise the entire policy. Anger and arrogance of car (users) may not be permitted to wipe out the fragile protection of the common good. The politics of minority ought not to ignore the interests of the majority,? the affidavit said ?CRRI (Central Road Research Institute) has accorded value of time on the basis of income. Aren?t the poor who travel by bus not entitled to travel fast? BRT is being opposed as carwallahs are not able to travel faster than buses,? senior lawyer KTS Tulsi, who appeared for the government, told the court hearing a PIL demanding the scrapping of BRT. Tulsi said, ?The report is full of contradictions. It, in fact, goes on to support the existence of BRT by its conclusion that 70 per cent of its users were moving faster and there was 32 per cent rise in bus ridership.? The affidavit extensively quoted from a blog written by Anumita Roychowdhury, Executive Director at Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on the CRRI report to bolster its argument. ?In her opinion, car users on BRT are terribly upset as they cannot tolerate increased journey time, fuel loss and inconvenience,? it said ?The author believes there is a shocking elitist bias amongst car passengers and the belief that they have higher value of time than those in buses,? the affidavit quoted her as saying. On 23-Jul-2012, at 3:38 PM, Alok Jain wrote: > Dear Eric, > > I quote below from one of the paper produced by DIMTS (operator of BRT in Delhi) - > > Untrained Drivers: The bus operation is very inefficient. CORRIDOR MANAGER has trained > more than 200 DTC drivers to drive buses with a view to ensure the greater discipline in Bus > Lane. However, in DTC, buses, route numbers are not matched with Drivers on a stable basis, > i.e. drivers are frequently changed on different routes. As a result, it has been observed that > very often many un-trained drivers are driving buses in the corridor. > > Slow Speed: Currently, all types of buses are allowed to use the Bus lane, including many > deteriorated buses and RTVs, which cause frequent breakdowns. Only newer buses meeting > quality and maintenance standards should be allowed. It is also found that blue line buses > sometimes linger at the bus stops. As a result, sometimes passengers board and alight before > the bus platform. > > I am also attaching the full document which should give a fairly good idea about the system/operational characteristics. > > Regards > Alok > > On 22-Jul-2012, at 7:00 PM, bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote: > >> >> Alok, or someone: >> >> Help us readers out that don't know the corridors. I already had explained to me that the buses don't have priority at the intersections at all. >> >> How can the BRT really be so slow at 12 Km per hour? Even without priority at intersections, if one has laterally separated lanes, speed should be better than this. This doesn't sound like BRT at all to me. >> >> Eric Bruun >> >> >> Quoting Alok Jain : >> >>> Dear Eric, >>> >>> Lately this has been attracting a lot of press. I am attaching a few articles. >>> >>> This quote from one of the persons representing one of the Residents Welfare Association encapsulates the problem. >>> >>> ?While there are not even enough buses and other intermediary >>> transport like autos that were promised long ago, the government is >>> trying to push BRT without dependable and safe public transport. How >>> can they even expect people to shift from private to public vehicles when >>> they don?t have enough public vehicles? It appears like a money-making >>> enterprise,? >>> >>> As I had mentioned earlier, I do see a rising support for public transport but it has to be "good". By attaching a fancy acronym to a half-baked idea, is doing injustice to the cause of public transport. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Alok >>> >>> >> >> >> > From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 10:51:42 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:21:42 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, everybody busy pointing fingers. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments inShare Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT Works|Ahmedabad BRT 0 NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute itself. Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring bus commuters. But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used international norms employed in such studies." Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to continue with its floundering experiment. From krc12353 at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 11:54:29 2012 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao-Cavale) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:54:29 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and meaningless.) But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain wrote: > The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > everybody busy pointing fingers. > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > Article > Comments > > > inShare > > Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > 0 > > > > NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It > has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research > Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute > itself. > > Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called car > owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring bus > commuters. > > But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system > any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a > tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's reputation. > CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on > road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about the > methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has > used international norms employed in such studies." > > Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting stung > by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been promptly > dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that the agency > had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which > had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for the study. > Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had > recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is > based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series > of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation was > of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without BRT, > keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual > increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of 48% > in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. > Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in a > further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of > 15% in delays on the corridor. > > Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, occupancy > studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow studies ? > show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a transport > department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on > the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open > corridor." > > It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that > the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor > vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. > This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is > only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m > width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% > of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on > Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is > much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." > > The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to > continue with its floundering experiment. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jul 25 16:17:10 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:17:10 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Infoposter ECONOMICS - now available Message-ID: <001f01cd6a35$852f8f70$8f8eae50$@britton@ecoplan.org> From: CEE PORTAL [mailto:press@cee-portal.at] Sent: Wednesday, 25 July, 2012 08:15 The new infoposter "ECONOMICS" is now available: - the poster gives an overview of the development of economic theory from its beginnings. - the poster shows the historical roots of economic ideas and their application to contemporary economic policy debates. View and order at http://www.cee-portal.at/PrestaShop VOUCHERS: 20 % discount available until 26.07.2012. Quote voucher code AEA2012 during online checkout. Best regards Martin Kolmhofer CEE Portal 1210 Vienna Austria From cheryl.deutsch at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 16:38:38 2012 From: cheryl.deutsch at gmail.com (Cheryl Deutsch) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:38:38 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Does anyone have a copy of the CRRI report that they could pass along? Thanks, Cheryl On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, the > city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument of > whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and > meaningless.) > > But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's study. > Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments they > made regarding the assignment of these weights. > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > wrote: > > > The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > > everybody busy pointing fingers. > > > > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > > CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > > Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > > Article > > Comments > > > > > > inShare > > > > Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > > Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > > executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It > > has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research > > Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute > > itself. > > > > Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called > car > > owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring > bus > > commuters. > > > > But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system > > any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a > > tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's > reputation. > > CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on > > road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about > the > > methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report > has > > used international norms employed in such studies." > > > > Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting stung > > by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been promptly > > dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that the > agency > > had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which > > had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for the study. > > Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had > > recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is > > based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series > > of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation > was > > of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without > BRT, > > keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual > > increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > > > The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of > 48% > > in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. > > Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in > a > > further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of > > 15% in delays on the corridor. > > > > Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > occupancy > > studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow studies > ? > > show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a transport > > department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues > on > > the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open > > corridor." > > > > It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that > > the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor > > vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. > > This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is > > only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m > > width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > > > The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > > commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% > > of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on > > Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is > > much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." > > > > The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > > government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to > > continue with its floundering experiment. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > > (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Cheryl Deutsch Department of Urban Planning UCLA President UAW Local 2865 From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 21:10:19 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:40:19 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am trying to obtain a copy and will let you know once available. Cheers Alok On 25-Jul-2012, at 1:08 PM, Cheryl Deutsch wrote: > Does anyone have a copy of the CRRI report that they could pass along? > > Thanks, > Cheryl > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, the >> city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument of >> whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and >> meaningless.) >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's study. >> Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments they >> made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >> wrote: >> >>> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >>> everybody busy pointing fingers. >>> >>> >>> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >>> >>> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >>> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >>> Article >>> Comments >>> >>> >>> inShare >>> >>> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >>> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >>> 0 >>> >>> >>> >>> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >>> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It >>> has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research >>> Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute >>> itself. >>> >>> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called >> car >>> owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring >> bus >>> commuters. >>> >>> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system >>> any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a >>> tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's >> reputation. >>> CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on >>> road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about >> the >>> methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report >> has >>> used international norms employed in such studies." >>> >>> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting stung >>> by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been promptly >>> dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that the >> agency >>> had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which >>> had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for the study. >>> Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had >>> recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is >>> based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series >>> of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation >> was >>> of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without >> BRT, >>> keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual >>> increase in traffic of 5-7%. >>> >>> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of >> 48% >>> in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. >>> Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in >> a >>> further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of >>> 15% in delays on the corridor. >>> >>> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> occupancy >>> studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow studies >> ? >>> show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a transport >>> department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues >> on >>> the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open >>> corridor." >>> >>> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that >>> the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor >>> vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. >>> This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is >>> only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m >>> width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >>> >>> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >>> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% >>> of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on >>> Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is >>> much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." >>> >>> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >>> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to >>> continue with its floundering experiment. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >>> ================================================================ >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>> (the 'Global South'). >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). >> > > > > -- > Cheryl Deutsch > Department of Urban Planning > UCLA > > President > UAW Local 2865 > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From alok.priyanka at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 21:12:51 2012 From: alok.priyanka at gmail.com (Alok Jain) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:42:51 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and meaningless.) > > But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain wrote: > The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, everybody busy pointing fingers. > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > Article > Comments > > > inShare > > Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > 0 > > > > NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute itself. > > Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring bus commuters. > > But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used international norms employed in such studies." > > Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > > Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > > It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." > > The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to continue with its floundering experiment. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 23:04:19 2012 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:04:19 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> Message-ID: Alok and all, Do we know if the CRRI report valued the reduction in accidents and fatalities and greater reliability for bus users on the corridor as benefits? If CRRI only focused on the cost of delays to car users without accounting for these benefits, it is a lopsided and incorrect analysis. I would appreciate receiving the report too if you can manage to get it. Thanks, Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Alok Jain wrote: > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on value > of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users thereby > swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously heresy. I will only > know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > > > So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, > the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument > of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and > meaningless.) > > > > But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's > study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments > they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > wrote: > > The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > everybody busy pointing fingers. > > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > > CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > > Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > > Article > > Comments > > > > > > inShare > > > > Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It > has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research > Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute > itself. > > > > Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called > car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring > bus commuters. > > > > But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system > any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a > tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's reputation. > CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on > road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about the > methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has > used international norms employed in such studies." > > > > Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been > promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that > the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the > court, which had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for > the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for > Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, > which is based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a > series of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with > and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring > in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > > > The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of > 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. > Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in a > further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of > 15% in delays on the corridor. > > > > Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow > studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a > transport department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic > issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all > an open corridor." > > > > It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that > the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor > vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. > This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is > only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m > width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > > > The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% > of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on > Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is > much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." > > > > The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to > continue with its floundering experiment. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Thu Jul 26 23:25:47 2012 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:25:47 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB3F6@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Sadly, assigning a high value even for small time savings for car users, and thereby swaying the results in their favour is sadly more the norm, than heresy. Even more sadly, what this approach leads to in the long run is misery for all, including car users. Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] Sent: 26 July 2012 10:04 To: Alok Jain Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Alok and all, Do we know if the CRRI report valued the reduction in accidents and fatalities and greater reliability for bus users on the corridor as benefits? If CRRI only focused on the cost of delays to car users without accounting for these benefits, it is a lopsided and incorrect analysis. I would appreciate receiving the report too if you can manage to get it. Thanks, Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Alok Jain wrote: > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on value > of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users thereby > swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously heresy. I will only > know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > > > So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, > the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the argument > of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is futile and > meaningless.) > > > > But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's > study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value judgments > they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > wrote: > > The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > everybody busy pointing fingers. > > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > > CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > > Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > > Article > > Comments > > > > > > inShare > > > > Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > > > 0 > > > > > > > > NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. It > has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road Research > Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the institute > itself. > > > > Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it called > car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the study of ignoring > bus commuters. > > > > But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport system > any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as launching a > tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the organisation's reputation. > CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told TOI: "CRRI has been researching on > road and transport solutions for decades. If anyone has questions about the > methodology used for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has > used international norms employed in such studies." > > > > Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has been > promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to recall that > the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the > court, which had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for > the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport solutions for > Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, > which is based not only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a > series of field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with > and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring > in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > > > The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease of > 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the stretch. > Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which would result in a > further increase in travel time of 13% in 2015 as well as an increase of > 15% in delays on the corridor. > > > > Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation flow > studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at present. Said a > transport department official, "There is no denying that there are traffic > issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all > an open corridor." > > > > It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes that > the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on the motor > vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower journey speeds. > This, says the report, is because the "width of the available MV lane is > only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m > width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > > > The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is about 3% > of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed of buses on > Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT Ahmedabad) which is > much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - 13-15kmph)." > > > > The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to > continue with its floundering experiment. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Thu Jul 26 23:27:31 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:27:31 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Alok No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the poor person a full hour. Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. Eric Bruun Quoting Alok Jain : > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain wrote: >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >> Article >> Comments >> >> >> inShare >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >> attack on the institute itself. >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> > > From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Thu Jul 26 23:45:35 2012 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:45:35 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com>, <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Eric et al, Indeed! Let me re-state my posting more precisely: Sadly, assigning a high value even for small time savings for car users, WHILE NOT VALUING RESULTING TIME LOSSES FOR OTHERS, and thereby swaying the results in the favour OF CAR USERS is more the norm, than heresy. Even more sadly, what this approach leads to in the long run is misery for all, including car users, as other modes become unviable, and people who have access to cars are compelled to use them even for trips for which cars are easily avoidable (this effect is in addition to the sprawl and longer commuting distances that you talk about, Eric). Following this approach is bad enough in contexts in which the majority, even if not everyone, has access to cars. It is obscenely criminal in contexts in which the vast majority does not. According to Ivan Illich, who was a philosopher (and not a transportation engineer), and therefore perhaps understood better, said in his classic Energy and Equity that motorized vehicles "create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them for only a few"; automobile passengers become "consumers of others' time"; and finally, that motorized vehicles (and planning for them) "steal time from (poor) groups and reallocate it to usually richer groups". Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] on behalf of bruun@seas.upenn.edu [bruun@seas.upenn.edu] Sent: 26 July 2012 10:27 To: Alok Jain Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Alok No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the poor person a full hour. Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. Eric Bruun Quoting Alok Jain : > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain wrote: >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >> Article >> Comments >> >> >> inShare >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >> attack on the institute itself. >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 23:50:05 2012 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:50:05 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation policy issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car drivers and transit passengers: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor person commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I wonder if CRRI accounts for that. Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the developing world that anyone could direct me to? A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting exactly such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues that must be tackled as more corridors are considered. -Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > Alok > > No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > cost-benefit analysis. We may > think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > > The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > it can be is to > compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > saving a full hour > for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > according to this technique > saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > poor person a full hour. > > Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > sprawl. All evidence shows > that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Alok Jain : > > > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > > > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >> > >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > wrote: > >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >> > >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > >> > >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >> Article > >> Comments > >> > >> > >> inShare > >> > >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >> attack on the institute itself. > >> > >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >> > >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >> international norms employed in such studies." > >> > >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >> > >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >> > >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >> > >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >> > >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >> 13-15kmph)." > >> > >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > >> > >> ================================================================ > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri Jul 27 00:04:38 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:04:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Anjali Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each individual commuter their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would like to do. But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average income. There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average income along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits than a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time reduction on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the distribution of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) Eric Bruun Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation policy > issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > drivers and transit passengers: > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor person > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I > wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the > developing world that anyone could direct me to? > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting exactly > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. > But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues that > must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > > -Anjali > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> Alok >> >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >> cost-benefit analysis. We may >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >> >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >> it can be is to >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >> saving a full hour >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >> according to this technique >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >> poor person a full hour. >> >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >> sprawl. All evidence shows >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >> >> Eric Bruun >> >> >> >> Quoting Alok Jain : >> >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >> > >> > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >> > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >> >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >> wrote: >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> >> >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >> >> Article >> >> Comments >> >> >> >> >> >> inShare >> >> >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >> >> attack on the institute itself. >> >> >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >> >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> >> >> ================================================================ >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). >> > From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Fri Jul 27 00:06:32 2012 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:06:32 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>, Message-ID: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today), prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise. The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them, and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other, ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose. Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology, but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics. Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50 To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation policy issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car drivers and transit passengers: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor person commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I wonder if CRRI accounts for that. Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the developing world that anyone could direct me to? A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting exactly such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues that must be tackled as more corridors are considered. -Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > Alok > > No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > cost-benefit analysis. We may > think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > > The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > it can be is to > compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > saving a full hour > for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > according to this technique > saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > poor person a full hour. > > Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > sprawl. All evidence shows > that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Alok Jain : > > > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > > > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >> > >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > wrote: > >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >> > >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > >> > >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >> Article > >> Comments > >> > >> > >> inShare > >> > >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >> attack on the institute itself. > >> > >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >> > >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >> international norms employed in such studies." > >> > >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >> > >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >> > >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >> > >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >> > >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >> 13-15kmph)." > >> > >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > >> > >> ================================================================ > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 00:10:35 2012 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:10:35 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: I agree, and your ideas are good. The problem is pervasive in every area of transport policy. Thinking about toll roads and congestion pricing, an area I work on quite a bit -- toll rates are set based on average incomes in a corridor and on average values of time, deepening the equity impact on poor drivers. While strategies exist to mitigate this impact, I do think our methods of analysis need serious revisiting. I'm glad you deal with this in your book. -Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > Anjali > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > individual commuter > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would like > to do. > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average income. > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average income > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits than > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time reduction > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the distribution > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation >> policy >> issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car >> drivers and transit passengers: >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf >> >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor >> person >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. >> >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting >> exactly >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf >> >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues >> that >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. >> >> -Anjali >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: >> >> Alok >>> >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >>> >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >>> it can be is to >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >>> saving a full hour >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >>> according to this technique >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >>> poor person a full hour. >>> >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >>> sprawl. All evidence shows >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >>> >>> Eric Bruun >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Alok Jain : >>> >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >>> > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >>> >> >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >>> wrote: >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >>> >> >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >>> >> Article >>> >> Comments >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> inShare >>> >> >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >>> >> attack on the institute itself. >>> >> >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >>> >> >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." >>> >> >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >>> >> >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >>> >> >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >>> >> >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >>> >> >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >>> >> 13-15kmph)." >>> >> >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** >>> ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >> >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >>> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>> (the 'Global South'). >>> >>> >> > > > From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri Jul 27 00:11:23 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:11:23 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>, <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: <20120726111123.89131pwikwfzzgnv@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Madhav While we are on the subject, lets be blunt about another reality too. The decision makers often have a conflict of interest. They are amongst the minority who own cars and might themselves want to use the bus lane. Eric Bruun Quoting "Madhav Badami, Prof." : > I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today), > prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much > if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise. > > The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in > ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them, > and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other, > ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose. > Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology, > but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics. > > Madhav > > ************************************************************************ > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." > -- George Orwell > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > McGill University > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > www.mcgill.ca/mse > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > ________________________________________ > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org > [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] > on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] > Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50 > To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the > south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation policy > issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > drivers and transit passengers: > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor person > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I > wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the > developing world that anyone could direct me to? > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting exactly > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. > But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues that > must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > > -Anjali > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> Alok >> >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >> cost-benefit analysis. We may >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >> >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >> it can be is to >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >> saving a full hour >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >> according to this technique >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >> poor person a full hour. >> >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >> sprawl. All evidence shows >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >> >> Eric Bruun >> >> >> >> Quoting Alok Jain : >> >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >> > >> > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >> > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >> >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >> wrote: >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> >> >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >> >> Article >> >> Comments >> >> >> >> >> >> inShare >> >> >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >> >> attack on the institute itself. >> >> >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >> >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> >> >> ================================================================ >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > From vissu.indian at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 00:41:54 2012 From: vissu.indian at gmail.com (Visweswar) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:11:54 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: Anjali, I think you really made a valid statement " our methods of analysis need serious revisiting " . It is extremely pitiful to see that discrimination exists in every aspect of life, discriminating poor is not new in India. We "rehabilitate" slums and build malls and develop IT parks, we are in the process of renovating several airports in India and already have invested hundreds of Crores of rupees building fancy airports in all Indian metro. But do we ever care of providing cleaner toilets in our railway stations as a minimum? Seriously we don't need experts nor their expertise to do analysis and justify airports, we need good human beings and fellow citizens who value and understand needs of everyone and not only the rich. It is so stupid to see that we value the hunger of a rich car owner more than the hunger of a poor bus commuter. VOT needs to be put in trash.....1000 rupees of a rich person might buy him a days fuel for his car but the same 1000 rupees of a poor bus commuter would meet months of his commuting needs, so whose 1000 rupees is more valuable?? Visweswara Rao Gantasala. Transportation Planner, IBI Group. On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anjali Mahendra wrote: > I agree, and your ideas are good. The problem is pervasive in every area > of transport policy. Thinking about toll roads and congestion pricing, an > area I work on quite a bit -- toll rates are set based on average incomes > in a corridor and on average values of time, deepening the equity impact on > poor drivers. While strategies exist to mitigate this impact, I do think > our methods of analysis need serious revisiting. I'm glad you deal with > this in your book. > > -Anjali > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > Anjali > > > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > > individual commuter > > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would > like > > to do. > > > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average > income. > > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average > income > > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits > than > > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time > reduction > > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the > distribution > > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why > neoclassical > >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation > >> policy > >> issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the > U.S. > >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > >> drivers and transit passengers: > >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf< > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf> > >> > >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor > >> person > >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. > I > >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > >> > >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of > the > >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? > >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > >> exactly > >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on > an > >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf< > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf> > >> > >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's > not a > >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, > and > >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > training. > >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues > >> that > >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > >> > >> -Anjali > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Alok > >>> > >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may > >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > >>> > >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > >>> it can be is to > >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > >>> saving a full hour > >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > >>> according to this technique > >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > >>> poor person a full hour. > >>> > >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > >>> sprawl. All evidence shows > >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance > instead. > >>> > >>> Eric Bruun > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Alok Jain : > >>> > >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >>> >> > >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > > >>> wrote: > >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** > >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** > >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no< > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > >>> >> > >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >>> >> Article > >>> >> Comments > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> inShare > >>> >> > >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >>> >> attack on the institute itself. > >>> >> > >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >>> >> > >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." > >>> >> > >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >>> >> > >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >>> >> > >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >>> >> > >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >>> >> > >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >>> >> 13-15kmph)." > >>> >> > >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >>> >> > >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** > >>> ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> >> > >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> > http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> > >>> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > >>> (the 'Global South'). > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Vissu Support Akshaya patra: Unlimited food for education ( http://www.akshayapatra.org/) Every small contribution makes a difference. From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Fri Jul 27 00:52:09 2012 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:52:09 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120726111123.89131pwikwfzzgnv@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>, <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA>, <20120726111123.89131pwikwfzzgnv@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB4C3@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Eric, I absolutely agree. They -- and indeed, many high income Indians in cities -- have an (almost exclusively) "windshield view" of the world, because they are pretty much driven door to door everywhere. What makes things even worse is that, because they do not have to bother with wrestling with congestion on a daily basis or finding parking spots (their drivers, who are pretty much at their beck and call 24/7, do that for them as they sit in the back seat), they bear not the slightest bit of the costs that their going around in cars imposes, which of course means that they have no incentive whatsoever not to continue to be driven around endlessly in cars. That this is now causing India to become the diabetes capital of the world is a whole different story. Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [bruun@seas.upenn.edu] Sent: 26 July 2012 11:11 To: Madhav Badami, Prof. Cc: Anjali Mahendra; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Madhav While we are on the subject, lets be blunt about another reality too. The decision makers often have a conflict of interest. They are amongst the minority who own cars and might themselves want to use the bus lane. Eric Bruun Quoting "Madhav Badami, Prof." : > I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today), > prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much > if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise. > > The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in > ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them, > and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other, > ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose. > Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology, > but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics. > > Madhav > > ************************************************************************ > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." > -- George Orwell > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > McGill University > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > www.mcgill.ca/mse > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > ________________________________________ > From: > sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org > [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] > on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] > Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50 > To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the > south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation policy > issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > drivers and transit passengers: > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor person > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I > wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the > developing world that anyone could direct me to? > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting exactly > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. > But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues that > must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > > -Anjali > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> Alok >> >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >> cost-benefit analysis. We may >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >> >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >> it can be is to >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >> saving a full hour >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >> according to this technique >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >> poor person a full hour. >> >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >> sprawl. All evidence shows >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >> >> Eric Bruun >> >> >> >> Quoting Alok Jain : >> >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >> > >> > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >> > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >> >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >> wrote: >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> >> >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >> >> Article >> >> Comments >> >> >> >> >> >> inShare >> >> >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >> >> attack on the institute itself. >> >> >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >> >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> >> >> ================================================================ >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > From litman at vtpi.org Fri Jul 27 00:58:42 2012 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:58:42 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." - More Comprehensive Evaluation In-Reply-To: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com>, <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: <07a701cd6b47$87b4de40$971e9ac0$@org> There is considerable debate among transport economists concerning how to correctly value congestion delay and travel time costs. The conventional practice, which evaluates transport system performance based primarily on vehicle traffic speeds and roadway level-of-service, is inherently biased in favor of mobility over accessibility and automobile travel over other modes. More comprehensive project evaluation should at least consider the following factors: * Comprehensive congestion evaluation. Many economists criticize the way that congestion impacts and costs are quantified. See http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0505.pdf. * The barrier effect (delay that motor vehicle travel imposes on non-motorized travel). Incorporating this factor recognizes that expanding roads and increasing vehicle traffic reduces accessibility for many travelers, and therefore imposes travel costs as well as benefits. See http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0513.pdf . * The tendency of roadway expansion to generate traffic and induce sprawl, which reduces the congestion reduction benefits of highway expansion, increases external costs (downstream congestion, parking subsidies, accidents, fuel consumption and pollution emissions). See http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf. * The full costs of accommodating increased vehicle traffic. For example, each additional urban roadway lane typically accommodates 2,000 to 4,000 commute trips, each of which requires an additional parking space - costs that are avoided if the same trips are made by public transport. Similarly, automobile travel requires each user to have a vehicle, improving public transit can allow some households to reduce their vehicle ownership, providing large consumer cost savings. Taking into account parking and vehicle ownership costs will often shift the "preferred option" from highway to transit improvements - yet by tradition these are ignored in conventional project evaluation. * Non-drivers travel demands, and therefore the inherent efficiency and equity value of improving transport system diversity. See http://www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf . For more information see: Steve Abley, Paul Durdin and Malcolm Douglass (2010), Integrated Transport Assessment Guidelines, Report 422, Land Transport New Zealand (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/422. ITDP (2012), Transformando La Movilidad Urbana En M?xico (Transforming Urban Mobility In Mexico), Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.mexico.itdp.org); at http://mexico.itdp.org/documentos/transformando-la-movilidad-urbana-en-mexic o. ITDP (2012), Transforming Urban Mobility In Mexico: Towards Accessible Cities Less Reliant on Cars, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.mexico.itdp.org); at http://mexico.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/Transforming-Urban-Mobility-in-Mex ico.pdf. ITDP (2012), El Coche Nos , Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.mexico.itdp.org) and Trek Films; at http://mexico.itdp.org/galeria/videos/el-coche-nos, with English subtitles at http://mexico.itdp.org/archivo/galeria/videos. Booz Allen (2012), Integrating Australia?s Transport Systems: A Strategy For An Efficient Transport Future, Infrastructure Partnership Australia (www.infrastructure.org.au); at www.infrastructure.org.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=812. Todd Litman (2007), Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/access.pdf . Todd Litman (2011), Comprehensive Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comprehensive.pdf. PennDOT & NJDOT (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Smart Transportation Partnership (www.smart-transportation.com); at www.smart-transportation.com/guidebook.html. Nariida C. Smith, Daniel W. Veryard and Russell P. Kilvington (2009), Relative Costs And Benefits Of Modal Transport Solutions, Research Report 393, NZ Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/393/docs/393.pdf. Sincerely, Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org facebook.com/todd.litman Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Madhav Badami, Prof. Sent: July-26-12 7:46 AM To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu; Alok Jain Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Eric et al, Indeed! Let me re-state my posting more precisely: Sadly, assigning a high value even for small time savings for car users, WHILE NOT VALUING RESULTING TIME LOSSES FOR OTHERS, and thereby swaying the results in the favour OF CAR USERS is more the norm, than heresy. Even more sadly, what this approach leads to in the long run is misery for all, including car users, as other modes become unviable, and people who have access to cars are compelled to use them even for trips for which cars are easily avoidable (this effect is in addition to the sprawl and longer commuting distances that you talk about, Eric). Following this approach is bad enough in contexts in which the majority, even if not everyone, has access to cars. It is obscenely criminal in contexts in which the vast majority does not. According to Ivan Illich, who was a philosopher (and not a transportation engineer), and therefore perhaps understood better, said in his classic Energy and Equity that motorized vehicles "create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them for only a few"; automobile passengers become "consumers of others' time"; and finally, that motorized vehicles (and planning for them) "steal time from (poor) groups and reallocate it to usually richer groups". Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] on behalf of bruun@seas.upenn.edu [bruun@seas.upenn.edu] Sent: 26 July 2012 10:27 To: Alok Jain Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Alok No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the poor person a full hour. Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. Eric Bruun Quoting Alok Jain : > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously heresy. > I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic, >> the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the >> argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That debate is >> futile and meaningless.) >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's >> study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value >> judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain wrote: >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahme >> dabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, >> 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments >> >> >> inShare >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >> >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger. >> It has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road >> Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the >> institute itself. >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used international >> norms employed in such studies." >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES in >> a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT >> corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on >> a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field >> surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation was of >> the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without >> BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an >> annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the >> stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which >> would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation >> flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at >> present. Said a transport department official, "There is no denying >> that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad >> BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on >> the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower >> journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width of the >> available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This >> width is less than the 10m width available for each direction of >> travel before BRT was conceived. >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> 13-15kmph)." >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to >> continue with its floundering experiment. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From czegras at MIT.EDU Fri Jul 27 01:22:40 2012 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:22:40 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C10636673@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu> The broader questions about allocation of scarce public resources to improving social welfare are important - practically, few if any societies I know of make well-assessed, cross-sectoral decisions (better toilets or more BRT lanes....?). With respect to the travel time question, it is important to clarify the difference between individual VOT (which we actually do need to know to begin to attempt to make some reasonable estimate of demand by different user groups) and the societal VOT which should be used for project appraisal (and, in theory, allow one to determine - better toilets, more BRT lanes....). "Social" values of time (not individual) have long been recommended for project appraisal; transparency in the approach is CRUCIAL - as pointed out in this thread: whose time is being weighted and by what weight? Given the large number of public transport users and a very strong equity argument which could be made for the importance of their time, I find it impossible to believe that any TRANSPARENT, reasonably well-done evaluation of BRT in Delhi would not strongly support that option relative to other transportation projects (although, again, perhaps the public monies would be better spent on sanitation infrastructure for all I know). For a thorough, modestly technical, publicly available overview, with good recommendations (somewhat easily generalizable, in theory...): http://www.scribd.com/doc/52889305/The-Value-of-Travel-Time-Savings-in-Evaluation As to what the users do with their saved time and costs (move to the suburbs, make more trips, buy more tea, ...) - I believe the negative consequences should be accounted for and dealt with in the respective markets. In practice, I know that is a real can of worms; but, whether times savings will be re-invested in longer distances ("sprawl") or whether the congestion will accelerate sprawl is an open question. Undoubtedly both forces are at work, but not improving transportation conditions for the poor at the risk of inducing sprawl seems a bit misguided to me. Chris Zegras, MIT-DUSP http://czegras.scripts.mit.edu/web/ one step Tel: 617 452 2433 -----Original Message----- From: Visweswar [mailto:vissu.indian@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:42 AM To: Anjali Mahendra Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." Anjali, I think you really made a valid statement " our methods of analysis need serious revisiting " . It is extremely pitiful to see that discrimination exists in every aspect of life, discriminating poor is not new in India. We "rehabilitate" slums and build malls and develop IT parks, we are in the process of renovating several airports in India and already have invested hundreds of Crores of rupees building fancy airports in all Indian metro. But do we ever care of providing cleaner toilets in our railway stations as a minimum? Seriously we don't need experts nor their expertise to do analysis and justify airports, we need good human beings and fellow citizens who value and understand needs of everyone and not only the rich. It is so stupid to see that we value the hunger of a rich car owner more than the hunger of a poor bus commuter. VOT needs to be put in trash.....1000 rupees of a rich person might buy him a days fuel for his car but the same 1000 rupees of a poor bus commuter would meet months of his commuting needs, so whose 1000 rupees is more valuable?? Visweswara Rao Gantasala. Transportation Planner, IBI Group. On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anjali Mahendra wrote: > I agree, and your ideas are good. The problem is pervasive in every > area of transport policy. Thinking about toll roads and congestion > pricing, an area I work on quite a bit -- toll rates are set based on > average incomes in a corridor and on average values of time, deepening > the equity impact on poor drivers. While strategies exist to mitigate > this impact, I do think our methods of analysis need serious > revisiting. I'm glad you deal with this in your book. > > -Anjali > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > Anjali > > > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning > > each individual commuter their own value of time based on their > > income, as the theorists would > like > > to do. > > > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average > income. > > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average > income > > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings > > benefits > than > > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time > reduction > > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead > > break it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the > distribution > > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some > > people as our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why > neoclassical > >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such > >> transportation policy issues. However, interestingly, here's a > >> guidance document from the > U.S. > >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for > >> auto/car drivers and transit passengers: > >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf< > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf> > >> > >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a > >> poor person commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may > >> well be similar. > I > >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > >> > >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities > >> of > the > >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? > >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > >> exactly such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an > >> existing lane on > an > >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf< > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf> > >> > >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, > >> it's > not a > >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot > >> corridor, > and > >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > training. > >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the > >> issues that must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > >> > >> -Anjali > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Alok > >>> > >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is > >>> quite common. > >>> > >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an > >>> outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy > >>> business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor > >>> person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according > >>> to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as > >>> valuable as saving the poor person a full hour. > >>> > >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings > >>> promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved > >>> turns into longer commuting distance > instead. > >>> > >>> Eric Bruun > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Alok Jain : > >>> > >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based > >>> > on value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for > >>> > car users thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is > >>> > obviously heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point > >>> >> going into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or > >>> >> not. That debate is futile and meaningless.) > >>> >> > >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to > >>> >> the value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > >>> >> > > >>> wrote: > >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with > >>> >> BRT, everybody busy pointing fingers. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** > >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** > >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no< > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmed > abad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > >>> >> > >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul > >>> >> 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> inShare > >>> >> > >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad > >>> >> BRT > >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and > >>> >> poorly executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting > >>> >> the messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted > >>> >> by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched > >>> >> a scathing attack on the institute itself. > >>> >> > >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted > >>> >> the study of ignoring bus commuters. > >>> >> > >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public > >>> >> transport system any better - for that governance has to > >>> >> improve ? just as launching a tirade against CRRI will not make > >>> >> a dent in the organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S > >>> >> Gangopadhyay, told > >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions > >>> >> for decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used > >>> >> for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." > >>> >> > >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government > >>> >> getting stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best > >>> >> option. It has been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the > >>> >> government. It may help to recall that the agency had been > >>> >> hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which > >>> >> had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for > >>> >> the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport > >>> >> solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. > >>> >> Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on a > >>> >> week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field > >>> >> surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation > >>> >> was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with > >>> >> and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >>> >> > >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a > >>> >> decrease of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease > >>> >> in delay on the stretch. Compare this to the option of > >>> >> continuing with BRT, which would result in a further increase > >>> >> in travel time of 13% in > >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >>> >> > >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user > >>> >> perception, occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger > >>> >> flows and saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not > >>> >> working at its optimum at present. Said a transport department > >>> >> official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on > >>> >> the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >>> >> > >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It > >>> >> observes that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that > >>> >> of Ahmedabad on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which > >>> >> contributes to the lower journey speeds. This, says the report, > >>> >> is because the "width of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in > >>> >> either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m > >>> >> width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >>> >> > >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, > >>> >> the commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus > >>> >> composition is about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The > >>> >> observed average speed of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies > >>> >> between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >>> >> 13-15kmph)." > >>> >> > >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad > >>> >> BRT to continue with its floundering experiment. > >>> >> > >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** > >>> ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> >> > >>> >> ==============================**==============================* > >>> >> *==== SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > >>> >> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a > >>> >> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> > http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_s > s< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> > >>> ==============================**==============================**== > >>> == SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > >>> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus > >>> on developing > countries > >>> (the 'Global South'). > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > -- Vissu Support Akshaya patra: Unlimited food for education ( http://www.akshayapatra.org/) Every small contribution makes a difference. From datar.ashok at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 01:45:57 2012 From: datar.ashok at gmail.com (ashok datar) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:15:57 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB4C3@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> <20120726111123.89131pwikwfzzgnv@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB4C3@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: madhav and anjail and others I am shocked at the poor basis chosen for valuing the time savings based on the income dont we value the fuel saving per person km thru BRT its encouraging shift from private cars to public cars public transport cant succeed unless it gets space & users away from the private cars buses have no chance to be superior to cars unless they get the above we need to disincentivize the private transport simultaneously while allowing public transport to offer superior experience after all which mode uses public road space more efficiently to carry persons why cant we value the public space ? just because BRT in Delhi can do with some improvements doesnt mean we should abandon it and invite anarchy as the traffic keeps on growing and if the increase in trin traffic will be by cars what overall disastrous effects it will have on pollution, c ongestion and parking spaces so , if the BRT is not good enough , let us make it better . There is simply no alternative ashok datar On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Madhav Badami, Prof. < madhav.g.badami@mcgill.ca> wrote: > Eric, > > I absolutely agree. > > They -- and indeed, many high income Indians in cities -- have an (almost > exclusively) "windshield view" of the world, because they are pretty much > driven door to door everywhere. What makes things even worse is that, > because they do not have to bother with wrestling with congestion on a > daily basis or finding parking spots (their drivers, who are pretty much at > their beck and call 24/7, do that for them as they sit in the back seat), > they bear not the slightest bit of the costs that their going around in > cars imposes, which of course means that they have no incentive whatsoever > not to continue to be driven around endlessly in cars. That this is now > causing India to become the diabetes capital of the world is a whole > different story. > > Madhav > > ************************************************************************ > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- > George Orwell > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > McGill University > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > www.mcgill.ca/mse > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > ________________________________________ > From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [bruun@seas.upenn.edu] > Sent: 26 July 2012 11:11 > To: Madhav Badami, Prof. > Cc: Anjali Mahendra; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable > Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > Madhav > > While we are on the subject, lets be blunt about another reality too. > The decision makers > often have a conflict of interest. They are amongst the minority who > own cars and might > themselves want to use the bus lane. > > Eric Bruun > > > Quoting "Madhav Badami, Prof." : > > > I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today), > > prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much > > if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise. > > > > The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in > > ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them, > > and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other, > > ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose. > > Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology, > > but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics. > > > > Madhav > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." > > -- George Orwell > > > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > > McGill University > > > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > > www.mcgill.ca/mse > > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > > ________________________________________ > > From: > > sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org > > [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] > > on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] > > Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50 > > To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu > > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the > > south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical > > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation > policy > > issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. > > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > > drivers and transit passengers: > > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf > > > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor > person > > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. > I > > wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > > > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the > > developing world that anyone could direct me to? > > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > exactly > > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on > an > > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf > > > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not > a > > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and > > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > training. > > But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues > that > > must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > > > > -Anjali > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > > > >> Alok > >> > >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > >> cost-benefit analysis. We may > >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > >> > >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > >> it can be is to > >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > >> saving a full hour > >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > >> according to this technique > >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > >> poor person a full hour. > >> > >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > >> sprawl. All evidence shows > >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. > >> > >> Eric Bruun > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting Alok Jain : > >> > >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > >> > > >> > > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >> > > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >> >> > >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > >> wrote: > >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > >> >> > >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >> >> Article > >> >> Comments > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> inShare > >> >> > >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >> >> attack on the institute itself. > >> >> > >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >> >> > >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >> >> international norms employed in such studies." > >> >> > >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >> >> > >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >> >> > >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >> >> > >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >> >> > >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >> >> 13-15kmph)." > >> >> > >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >> >> > >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >> >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > >> >> > >> >> ================================================================ > >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >> >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > >> > >> ================================================================ > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > >> (the 'Global South'). > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > > countries (the 'Global South'). > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Ashok R.Datar Mumbai Environmental Social Network 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* From fekbritton at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 01:53:25 2012 From: fekbritton at gmail.com (FEKBRITTON) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:53:25 +0200 Subject: [sustran] the single concept of EQUITY In-Reply-To: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB3F6@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com>, <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB3F6@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: <00b601cd6b4f$2d37c330$87a74990$@com> Not meaning to talk all the time about the same subject, but our position (my position) is that if we wisely base all aspects of our transport/mobility system investments and policies on the single concept of EQUITY, just about all the injustices and stupidities (and heresies -- I liked that a lot Alok) wash right out of the system. ( A bit on that in process at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/.) From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 02:32:09 2012 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:32:09 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB46F@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> <20120726111123.89131pwikwfzzgnv@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB4C3@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: " we need to disincentivize the private transport simultaneously while allowing public transport to offer superior experience." With this, I completely agree, Ashok. This two-pronged approach has been my mantra for a long time, but it's interesting, at least in India that the push for disincentivizing private transport has been coming from the cities (Bangalore, Delhi, Mumbai off and on...remember Mr. R. Ramana's study on congestion pricing at MMRDA?), not from the universities or think tanks, which put all their effort into helping improve public transport. It's important work but its effectiveness remains limited because of the sheer growth in cars. "just because BRT in Delhi can do with some improvements does not mean we should abandon it and invite anarchy as the traffic keeps on growing..." Of course. Anarchy indeed. A good, defensible analysis needs to account for all these aspects you mention below. BTW, does anyone have numbers on what proportion, if any, of travelers on the pilot BRT corridor switched from cars to the BRT in Delhi? Given the nature of the corridor and its linkages at either end, I imagine it would be very small but please correct me if I'm wrong. -Anjali On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM, ashok datar wrote: > madhav and anjail and others > I am shocked at the poor basis chosen for valuing the time savings based on > the income > dont we value > the fuel saving per person km thru BRT > its encouraging shift from private cars to public cars > public transport cant succeed unless it gets space & users away from the > private cars > buses have no chance to be superior to cars unless they get the above > we need to disincentivize the private transport simultaneously while > allowing public transport to offer superior experience > after all which mode uses public road space more efficiently to carry > persons > why cant we value the public space ? > > just because BRT in Delhi can do with some improvements doesnt mean we > should abandon it and invite anarchy as the traffic keeps on growing and if > the increase in trin traffic will be by cars what overall disastrous > effects it will have on pollution, c ongestion and parking spaces > so , if the BRT is not good enough , let us make it better . There is > simply no alternative > > ashok datar > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Madhav Badami, Prof. < > madhav.g.badami@mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > I absolutely agree. > > > > They -- and indeed, many high income Indians in cities -- have an (almost > > exclusively) "windshield view" of the world, because they are pretty much > > driven door to door everywhere. What makes things even worse is that, > > because they do not have to bother with wrestling with congestion on a > > daily basis or finding parking spots (their drivers, who are pretty much > at > > their beck and call 24/7, do that for them as they sit in the back seat), > > they bear not the slightest bit of the costs that their going around in > > cars imposes, which of course means that they have no incentive > whatsoever > > not to continue to be driven around endlessly in cars. That this is now > > causing India to become the diabetes capital of the world is a whole > > different story. > > > > Madhav > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- > > George Orwell > > > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > > McGill University > > > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > > www.mcgill.ca/mse > > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > > ________________________________________ > > From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [bruun@seas.upenn.edu] > > Sent: 26 July 2012 11:11 > > To: Madhav Badami, Prof. > > Cc: Anjali Mahendra; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable > > Transport in the south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > > > Madhav > > > > While we are on the subject, lets be blunt about another reality too. > > The decision makers > > often have a conflict of interest. They are amongst the minority who > > own cars and might > > themselves want to use the bus lane. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > Quoting "Madhav Badami, Prof." : > > > > > I suspect that in most instances (at least in India today), > > > prioritizing cars is the default position, and happens without much > > > if any analysis, neo-classical economic or otherwise. > > > > > > The fault is not so much in our analytical approaches, as in > > > ourselves; after all, our analytical approaches, how we apply them, > > > and how we weigh various transport impacts relative to each other, > > > ultimately reflect our values, which are up to us to choose. > > > Transportation of course involves issues of science and technology, > > > but it is also very importantly about ethics -- and politics. > > > > > > Madhav > > > > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > > > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." > > > -- George Orwell > > > > > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > > > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment > > > McGill University > > > > > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > > > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > > > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > > > > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > > > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > > > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > > > www.mcgill.ca/mse > > > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: > > > sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org > > > [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@list.jca.apc.org] > > > on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra@gmail.com] > > > Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50 > > > To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu > > > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the > > > south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why > neoclassical > > > economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation > > policy > > > issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the > U.S. > > > DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > > > drivers and transit passengers: > > > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf > > > > > > Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor > > person > > > commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. > > I > > > wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > > > > > > Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of > the > > > developing world that anyone could direct me to? > > > A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > > exactly > > > such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on > > an > > > arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > > > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf > > > > > > The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's > not > > a > > > BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, > and > > > interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > > training. > > > But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues > > that > > > must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > > > > > > -Anjali > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > > > > > >> Alok > > >> > > >> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > > >> cost-benefit analysis. We may > > >> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > > >> > > >> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > > >> it can be is to > > >> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > > >> saving a full hour > > >> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > > >> according to this technique > > >> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > > >> poor person a full hour. > > >> > > >> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > > >> sprawl. All evidence shows > > >> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance > instead. > > >> > > >> Eric Bruun > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Quoting Alok Jain : > > >> > > >> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > > >> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > > >> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > > >> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > > >> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > > >> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > > >> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > > >> >> > > >> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > > >> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > > >> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these > weights. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain < > alok.priyanka@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > > >> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > >> >> > > >> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > > >> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > > >> >> Article > > >> >> Comments > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> inShare > > >> >> > > >> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > > >> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > > >> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > > >> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > > >> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > > >> >> attack on the institute itself. > > >> >> > > >> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > > >> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > > >> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > > >> >> > > >> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > > >> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > > >> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > > >> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > > >> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > > >> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > > >> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > > >> >> international norms employed in such studies." > > >> >> > > >> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > > >> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > > >> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > > >> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > > >> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > > >> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > > >> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > > >> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > > >> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > > >> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > > >> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > > >> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > > >> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > > >> >> > > >> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > > >> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > > >> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > > >> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > > >> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > > >> >> > > >> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > > >> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > > >> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > > >> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > > >> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > > >> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > > >> >> > > >> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > > >> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > > >> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > > >> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > > >> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > > >> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > > >> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > > >> >> > > >> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > > >> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > > >> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > > >> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > > >> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > > >> >> 13-15kmph)." > > >> >> > > >> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > > >> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > > >> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > > >> >> > > >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > >> >> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > >> >> > > >> >> ================================================================ > > >> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > >> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > > >> >> countries (the 'Global South'). > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > >> > > >> ================================================================ > > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > > >> (the 'Global South'). > > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > > > countries (the 'Global South'). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > > (the 'Global South'). > > > > > > -- > Ashok R.Datar > Mumbai Environmental Social Network > 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > > * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Jul 27 02:52:21 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:52:21 +0200 Subject: [sustran] the single concept of EQUITY In-Reply-To: <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com>, <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: <00c601cd6b57$6aadbc30$40093490$@britton@ecoplan.org> Madhav and others, I could not agree more. Bearing in mind that economics is in fact a branch of moral philosophy (True for Adam Smith and true too for us today if you think about it), in situations like this where some folks and schools have run amuck with unthoughtout mechanistic notions that confuse economics with a sort of indifferent plumbing, it is always a good idea to look around and try to figure out what really is going on. So when you talk about Chambers ("putting the last first") and Gandhi, let me add to your pantheon the great democrat Victor Hugo who put it more of less like this (my translation and memory): We must learn to replace the notion of charity with a far better one, solidarity. The point in all this being that if we get our ethics right, we are going to be far less likely to run into these silly and oh so harmful "traps of technicity gone berserk"). Now back to EQUITY! Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Madhav Badami, Prof. [mailto:madhav.g.badami@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2012 19:14 To: FEKBRITTON Subject: RE: the single concept of EQUITY Eric, I agree. If our fundamental objectives in public policy are just and equitable, and we put the last first, to paraphrase Robert Chambers, and give voice to the voiceless, including the environment, all else follows, as the night the day. As Mahatma Gandhi -- sadly forgotten in the land of his birth -- said, it is futile to dream up systems (and may I say, analytical approaches) so perfect that no one will need to be good. This is precisely why I said the fault is not in our analytical approaches, but in ourselves; and that transport policy, like all public policy (whether related to urban transport or public sanitation in India or health care in the USA), is fundamentally about ethics and politics, and only then about science, technology, and economics. Madhav ************************************************************************ "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George Orwell Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ________________________________________ From: FEKBRITTON [fekbritton@gmail.com] Sent: 26 July 2012 12:53 To: Madhav Badami, Prof.; 'Anjali Mahendra'; 'Alok Jain' Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; 'Sustainable Transport in the south' Subject: the single concept of EQUITY Not meaning to talk all the time about the same subject, but our position (my position) is that if we wisely base all aspects of our transport/mobility system investments and policies on the single concept of EQUITY, just about all the injustices and stupidities (and heresies -- I liked that a lot Alok) wash right out of the system. ( A bit on that in process at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/.) From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 06:11:32 2012 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: For those interested, here is the updated version of the US DOT guidance on value of time for which I sent a link earlier. The earlier one was from 2003, while this version was updated in 2011 http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > Anjali > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > individual commuter > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would like > to do. > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average income. > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average income > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits than > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time reduction > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the distribution > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation >> policy >> issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car >> drivers and transit passengers: >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf >> >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor >> person >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. I >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. >> >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting >> exactly >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf >> >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues >> that >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. >> >> -Anjali >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: >> >> Alok >>> >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >>> >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >>> it can be is to >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >>> saving a full hour >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >>> according to this technique >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >>> poor person a full hour. >>> >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >>> sprawl. All evidence shows >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >>> >>> Eric Bruun >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Alok Jain : >>> >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >>> > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >>> >> >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >>> wrote: >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >>> >> >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >>> >> Article >>> >> Comments >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> inShare >>> >> >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >>> >> attack on the institute itself. >>> >> >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >>> >> >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." >>> >> >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >>> >> >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >>> >> >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >>> >> >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >>> >> >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >>> >> 13-15kmph)." >>> >> >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** >>> ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >> >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >>> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>> (the 'Global South'). >>> >>> >> > > > From datar.ashok at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 13:21:56 2012 From: datar.ashok at gmail.com (ashok datar) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:51:56 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: In India , the situation is quite different than in the western countries. we have drivers in 2/3 of all private cars . what is the value of their time in fact, in a bus , u need only one driver for 40 persons. Again , In India buses tend to be fuller unlike in western countries and hence even if we use any other parameters, we need to use these extra parameters in an intelligent manner further, we have very limited space for parking at the destination and it is either free or underpriced and hence the drivers waste a lot of time searching the parking place BRTS - if combined with market driven parking provision and fees, we have a vastly superior situation . the buses stop between the two lanes blocking two cars behind each bus at the bus stop this is a critical benefit for the cars that would still remain on the corridor after introduction of BRTS hence BRTS has a lot of value to be discovered but if we throw the baby with the bath water then we are in serious trouble now which will be increasing in a compounded manner let us us the right maths ashok datar On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Anjali Mahendra wrote: > For those interested, here is the updated version of the US DOT guidance on > value of time for which I sent a link earlier. The earlier one was from > 2003, while this version was updated in 2011 > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > Anjali > > > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > > individual commuter > > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would > like > > to do. > > > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average > income. > > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average > income > > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits > than > > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time > reduction > > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the > distribution > > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why > neoclassical > >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation > >> policy > >> issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the > U.S. > >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > >> drivers and transit passengers: > >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf< > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf> > >> > >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor > >> person > >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar. > I > >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > >> > >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of > the > >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? > >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > >> exactly > >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on > an > >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf< > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf> > >> > >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's > not a > >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, > and > >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > training. > >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues > >> that > >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > >> > >> -Anjali > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Alok > >>> > >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may > >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > >>> > >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > >>> it can be is to > >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > >>> saving a full hour > >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > >>> according to this technique > >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > >>> poor person a full hour. > >>> > >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > >>> sprawl. All evidence shows > >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance > instead. > >>> > >>> Eric Bruun > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Alok Jain : > >>> > >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >>> >> > >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > > >>> wrote: > >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** > >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** > >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no< > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > >>> >> > >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >>> >> Article > >>> >> Comments > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> inShare > >>> >> > >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >>> >> attack on the institute itself. > >>> >> > >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >>> >> > >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." > >>> >> > >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >>> >> > >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >>> >> > >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >>> >> > >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >>> >> > >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >>> >> 13-15kmph)." > >>> >> > >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >>> >> > >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** > >>> ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> >> > >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> > http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> > >>> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > >>> (the 'Global South'). > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Ashok R.Datar Mumbai Environmental Social Network 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* From datar.ashok at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 13:37:30 2012 From: datar.ashok at gmail.com (ashok datar) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:07:30 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: the single concept of EQUITY In-Reply-To: <501183eb.08e7440a.693e.691aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <49232857A143A54AAD6D08E173ED3AB70EB42D@exmbx2010-9.campus.MCGILL.CA> <501183eb.08e7440a.693e.691aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: madhav , anjali and others you have brought some very important and meaningful concepts of equity and ethics to the debate. but I would like to bring some basic ground realities of Indian road use 2/3 of all cars have drivers whose job is only to drive and park on congested arteries, there is free for all . constant anarchy. passengers stand on road and buses in the middle blocking two cars behind. ( hence if a bus uses discilined use of only one lane, it is even good for the cars at the destination, there is parking anarchy if we can achieve some migration from cars to buses - say 10 to 20% and some reduction in the cars thru car pooling ( say 10 to 20% ) we will be able to attain higher thruput, higher speeds, lower emissions and fuel consumption per person km it is a truly win win for all but then we must also apply higher priced and restricted ( and tightly enforced) parking rules at destination. this together with bus priority in any appropriate form for the ground realities , will achieve some quick wins leading to virtuous cycle ashok datar On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM, eric britton wrote: > Madhav and others, > > I could not agree more. Bearing in mind that economics is in fact a branch > of moral philosophy (True for Adam Smith and true too for us today if you > think about it), in situations like this where some folks and schools have > run amuck with unthoughtout mechanistic notions that confuse economics with > a sort of indifferent plumbing, it is always a good idea to look around and > try to figure out what really is going on. > > So when you talk about Chambers ("putting the last first") and Gandhi, let > me add to your pantheon the great democrat Victor Hugo who put it more of > less like this (my translation and memory): We must learn to replace the > notion of charity with a far better one, solidarity. > > The point in all this being that if we get our ethics right, we are going > to > be far less likely to run into these silly and oh so harmful "traps of > technicity gone berserk"). > > Now back to EQUITY! > > Eric Britton > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Madhav Badami, Prof. [mailto:madhav.g.badami@mcgill.ca] > Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2012 19:14 > To: FEKBRITTON > Subject: RE: the single concept of EQUITY > > Eric, > > I agree. If our fundamental objectives in public policy are just and > equitable, and we put the last first, to paraphrase Robert Chambers, and > give voice to the voiceless, including the environment, all else follows, > as > the night the day. As Mahatma Gandhi -- sadly forgotten in the land of his > birth -- said, it is futile to dream up systems (and may I say, analytical > approaches) so perfect that no one will need to be good. This is precisely > why I said the fault is not in our analytical approaches, but in ourselves; > and that transport policy, like all public policy (whether related to urban > transport or public sanitation in India or health care in the USA), is > fundamentally about ethics and politics, and only then about science, > technology, and economics. > > Madhav > > ************************************************************************ > > "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- > George > Orwell > > Madhav G. Badami, PhD > School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University > > Macdonald-Harrington Building > 815 Sherbrooke Street West > Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada > > Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work) > Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 > URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning > www.mcgill.ca/mse > e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca > ________________________________________ > From: FEKBRITTON [fekbritton@gmail.com] > Sent: 26 July 2012 12:53 > To: Madhav Badami, Prof.; 'Anjali Mahendra'; 'Alok Jain' > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; > 'Sustainable Transport in the south' > Subject: the single concept of EQUITY > > Not meaning to talk all the time about the same subject, but our position > (my position) is that if we wisely base all aspects of our > transport/mobility system investments and policies on the single concept of > EQUITY, just about all the injustices and stupidities (and heresies -- I > liked that a lot Alok) wash right out of the system. ( A bit on that in > process at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/.) > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Ashok R.Datar Mumbai Environmental Social Network 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* From joshirutul at yahoo.co.in Fri Jul 27 13:37:33 2012 From: joshirutul at yahoo.co.in (Rutul Joshi) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:37:33 +0800 (SGT) Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <1343363853.70803.YahooMailNeo@web192206.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Hi all, While we wait for the CRRI report, I would like to point out something that is ignored in such reports. The cycle tracks have been pretty succesful on the Delhi BRT corridor. Last year in July, I was counting the number of cyclists on the corridor (using the cycle tracks) in morning peak hours on three different days - the number of cyclists came above 1000 per hour. In some places, the cycle tracks were congested and the motorized two-wheelers would use (read encroach) the cycle tracks only to be slowed down. Such 'critical mass' of cyclists would make many around the world jealous! But I am not sure if such 'benefits' will be quantified in typical CBAs. Rutul ________________________________ From: Anjali Mahendra To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012 2:41 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." For those interested, here is the updated version of the US DOT guidance on value of time for which I sent a link earlier.? The earlier one was from 2003, while this version was updated in 2011 http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > Anjali > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > individual commuter > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would like > to do. > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average income. > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average income > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings? benefits than > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time reduction > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the distribution > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > Eric Bruun > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > >? I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why neoclassical >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation >> policy >> issues.? However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the U.S. >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car >> drivers and transit passengers: >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf >> >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose.? Values of time for a poor >> person >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be similar.? I >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. >> >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of the >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting >> exactly >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on an >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf >> >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's not a >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, and >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver training. >>? But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues >> that >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. >> >> -Anjali >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: >> >>? Alok >>> >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. >>> >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage >>> it can be is to >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with >>> saving a full hour >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then >>> according to this technique >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the >>> poor person a full hour. >>> >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes >>> sprawl. All evidence shows >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance instead. >>> >>> Eric Bruun >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Alok Jain : >>> >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >>> > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes? BRT or not. That >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) >>> >> >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >>> wrote: >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >>> >> >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST >>> >> Article >>> >> Comments >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> inShare >>> >> >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing >>> >> attack on the institute itself. >>> >> >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. >>> >> >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." >>> >> >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >>> >> >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >>> >> >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." >>> >> >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. >>> >> >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >>> >> 13-15kmph)." >>> >> >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** >>> ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >> >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >>> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss >>> >>> ==============================**==============================**==== >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >>> (the 'Global South'). >>> >>> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------- To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From datar.ashok at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 13:48:22 2012 From: datar.ashok at gmail.com (ashok datar) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:18:22 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <1343363853.70803.YahooMailNeo@web192206.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <1343363853.70803.YahooMailNeo@web192206.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rutul let us bring out the hidden bicycle numbers out . this could be the single most important reason to justify BRTS ashok datar On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Rutul Joshi wrote: > Hi all, > > > While we wait for the CRRI report, I would like to point out something > that is ignored in such reports. The cycle tracks have been pretty > succesful on the Delhi BRT corridor. Last year in July, I was counting the > number of cyclists on the corridor (using the cycle tracks) in morning peak > hours on three different days - the number of cyclists came above 1000 per > hour. In some places, the cycle tracks were congested and the motorized > two-wheelers would use (read encroach) the cycle tracks only to be slowed > down. Such 'critical mass' of cyclists would make many around the world > jealous! But I am not sure if such 'benefits' will be quantified in typical > CBAs. > > > Rutul > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Anjali Mahendra > To: bruun@seas.upenn.edu > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south < > sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012 2:41 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > For those interested, here is the updated version of the US DOT guidance on > value of time for which I sent a link earlier. The earlier one was from > 2003, while this version was updated in 2011 > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > Anjali > > > > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning each > > individual commuter > > their own value of time based on their income, as the theorists would > like > > to do. > > > > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average > income. > > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average > income > > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings benefits > than > > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time > reduction > > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both > > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. > > > > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead break > > it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the > distribution > > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some people as > > our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : > > > > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why > neoclassical > >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such transportation > >> policy > >> issues. However, interestingly, here's a guidance document from the > U.S. > >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for auto/car > >> drivers and transit passengers: > >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf< > http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf> > >> > >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a poor > >> person > >> commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may well be > similar. I > >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. > >> > >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities of > the > >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? > >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting > >> exactly > >> such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an existing lane on > an > >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: > >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf< > http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf> > >> > >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, it's > not a > >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot corridor, > and > >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver > training. > >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the issues > >> that > >> must be tackled as more corridors are considered. > >> > >> -Anjali > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Alok > >>> > >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical > >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may > >>> think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common. > >>> > >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage > >>> it can be is to > >>> compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's commute with > >>> saving a full hour > >>> for a poor person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then > >>> according to this technique > >>> saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as valuable as saving the > >>> poor person a full hour. > >>> > >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes > >>> sprawl. All evidence shows > >>> that eventually time saved turns into longer commuting distance > instead. > >>> > >>> Eric Bruun > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Alok Jain : > >>> > >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on > >>> > value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users > >>> > thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously > >>> > heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car > >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going > >>> >> into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or not. That > >>> >> debate is futile and meaningless.) > >>> >> > >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in > >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the > >>> >> value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain > > >>> wrote: > >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT, > >>> >> everybody busy pointing fingers. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** > >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** > >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no< > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no > > > >>> >> > >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works > >>> >> Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST > >>> >> Article > >>> >> Comments > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> inShare > >>> >> > >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly > >>> >> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the > >>> >> messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted by the > >>> >> Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing > >>> >> attack on the institute itself. > >>> >> > >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it > >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the > >>> >> study of ignoring bus commuters. > >>> >> > >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport > >>> >> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as > >>> >> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the > >>> >> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told > >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for > >>> >> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the > >>> >> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used > >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." > >>> >> > >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting > >>> >> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has > >>> >> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to > >>> >> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the > >>> >> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport > >>> >> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES > >>> >> in a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 > >>> >> BRT corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not > >>> >> only on a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of > >>> >> field surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The > >>> >> simulation was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 > >>> >> with and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the > >>> >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. > >>> >> > >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease > >>> >> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on > >>> >> the stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, > >>> >> which would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in > >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. > >>> >> > >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception, > >>> >> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and > >>> >> saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its > >>> >> optimum at present. Said a transport department official, "There is > >>> >> no denying that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the > >>> >> Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor." > >>> >> > >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes > >>> >> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad > >>> >> on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the > >>> >> lower journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width > >>> >> of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of > >>> >> travel". This width is less than the 10m width available for each > >>> >> direction of travel before BRT was conceived. > >>> >> > >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the > >>> >> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is > >>> >> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed > >>> >> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT > >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - > >>> >> 13-15kmph)." > >>> >> > >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi > >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT > >>> >> to continue with its floundering experiment. > >>> >> > >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** > >>> ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> >> > >>> >> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > >>> >> countries (the 'Global South'). > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- > >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > >>> > http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_ss< > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> > >>> > >>> ==============================**==============================**==== > >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > >>> (the 'Global South'). > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Ashok R.Datar Mumbai Environmental Social Network 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* From debigoenka at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:10:34 2012 From: debigoenka at gmail.com (debigoenka) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:40:34 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fleet Taxis Message-ID: <78B8AE10D67E4387A46619E165991267@SONYDG> Hi all I have recently had some unpleasant experience with some fleet taxi services in Mumbai, who, after taking your booking requests, either do not send a vehicle or send you a sms cancelling the booking at the last moment. I have filed a complaint with the RTO saying that these fleet taxi firms should be fined in the same manner as a taxi driver who refuses to ply. All suggestions and ideas on how to take this forward are welcome. Cheers, warm regards Debi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debi Goenka Executive Trustee Conservation Action Trust www.cat.org.in Mobile +91 98200 86404 e-mail: debi@cat.org.in ------------------------------------------------- 5 Sahakar Bhavan, 1st Floor LBS Marg, Narayan Nagar Ghatkopar (West) Mumbai 400086 Tel: (91-22) 25122422/20 Telefax : 25122423 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri Jul 27 17:15:28 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:15:28 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." In-Reply-To: <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C10636673@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu> References: <500906a8.66e1440a.539b.58a0SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <20120722093004.56261pstnjtlzlgc@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <070B06A4-FE49-4E75-8BAA-41C64EDF37EB@gmail.com> <01B5D90E-E845-4406-B6A8-21E3A0C49562@gmail.com> <20120726102731.92111tuofa2tvc2b@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <20120726110438.63812vgb8t7mk2o6@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C10636673@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20120727041528.71971w3e0nw5n1uo@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Chris who is opposing speeding up transport for the poor out of fear of promoting sprawl?. I am opposing speeding up transport for the auto owners for fear of promoting sprawl. The way to deal with congestion that is incentivizing sprawl is to keep adding public transport capacity in the built up areas. Then zoning can be changed, buildings can be taller and more people can use NMT for many of their trips. But now we are back at the same issue again. This would require taking space from cars which many of the wealth car owners oppose. (Or one build underground and on elevated sections. But this will be much more limited in route distance due to the high expense. Which is why BRT is being promoted in the first place.) Eric Bruun Quoting "P. Christopher Zegras" : > The broader questions about allocation of scarce public resources to > improving social welfare are important - practically, few if any > societies I know of make well-assessed, cross-sectoral decisions > (better toilets or more BRT lanes....?). > > With respect to the travel time question, it is important to clarify > the difference between individual VOT (which we actually do need to > know to begin to attempt to make some reasonable estimate of demand > by different user groups) and the societal VOT which should be used > for project appraisal (and, in theory, allow one to determine - > better toilets, more BRT lanes....). "Social" values of time (not > individual) have long been recommended for project appraisal; > transparency in the approach is CRUCIAL - as pointed out in this > thread: whose time is being weighted and by what weight? Given the > large number of public transport users and a very strong equity > argument which could be made for the importance of their time, I > find it impossible to believe that any TRANSPARENT, reasonably > well-done evaluation of BRT in Delhi would not strongly support that > option relative to other transportation projects (although, again, > perhaps the public monies would be better spent on sanitation i > nfrastructure for all I know). > > For a thorough, modestly technical, publicly available overview, > with good recommendations (somewhat easily generalizable, in > theory...): > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/52889305/The-Value-of-Travel-Time-Savings-in-Evaluation > > > As to what the users do with their saved time and costs (move to the > suburbs, make more trips, buy more tea, ...) - I believe the > negative consequences should be accounted for and dealt with in the > respective markets. In practice, I know that is a real can of > worms; but, whether times savings will be re-invested in longer > distances ("sprawl") or whether the congestion will accelerate > sprawl is an open question. Undoubtedly both forces are at work, > but not improving transportation conditions for the poor at the risk > of inducing sprawl seems a bit misguided to me. > > > > Chris Zegras, MIT-DUSP > http://czegras.scripts.mit.edu/web/ > one step > Tel: 617 452 2433 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Visweswar [mailto:vissu.indian@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:42 AM > To: Anjali Mahendra > Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the > south; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport." > > Anjali, > > I think you really made a valid statement " our methods of analysis > need serious revisiting " . It is extremely pitiful to see that > discrimination exists in every aspect of life, discriminating poor > is not new in India. We "rehabilitate" slums and build malls and > develop IT parks, we are in the process of renovating several > airports in India and already have invested hundreds of Crores of > rupees building fancy airports in all Indian metro. > But do we ever care of providing cleaner toilets in our railway > stations as a minimum? Seriously we don't need experts nor their > expertise to do analysis and justify airports, we need good human > beings and fellow citizens who value and understand needs of > everyone and not only the rich. > It is so stupid to see that we value the hunger of a rich car owner > more than the hunger of a poor bus commuter. VOT needs to be put in > trash.....1000 rupees of a rich person might buy him a days fuel for > his car but the same 1000 rupees of a poor bus commuter would meet > months of his commuting needs, so whose 1000 rupees is more valuable?? > > Visweswara Rao Gantasala. > Transportation Planner, IBI Group. > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anjali Mahendra > wrote: > >> I agree, and your ideas are good. The problem is pervasive in every >> area of transport policy. Thinking about toll roads and congestion >> pricing, an area I work on quite a bit -- toll rates are set based on >> average incomes in a corridor and on average values of time, deepening >> the equity impact on poor drivers. While strategies exist to mitigate >> this impact, I do think our methods of analysis need serious >> revisiting. I'm glad you deal with this in your book. >> >> -Anjali >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, wrote: >> >> > >> > Anjali >> > >> > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning >> > each individual commuter their own value of time based on their >> > income, as the theorists would >> like >> > to do. >> > >> > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average >> income. >> > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average >> income >> > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings >> > benefits >> than >> > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time >> reduction >> > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both >> > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor. >> > >> > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead >> > break it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the >> distribution >> > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some >> > people as our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.) >> > >> > Eric Bruun >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting Anjali Mahendra : >> > >> > I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why >> neoclassical >> >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such >> >> transportation policy issues. However, interestingly, here's a >> >> guidance document from the >> U.S. >> >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for >> >> auto/car drivers and transit passengers: >> >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf< >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf> >> >> >> >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose. Values of time for a >> >> poor person commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may >> >> well be similar. >> I >> >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that. >> >> >> >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities >> >> of >> the >> >> developing world that anyone could direct me to? >> >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting >> >> exactly such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an >> >> existing lane on >> an >> >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback: >> >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf< >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf> >> >> >> >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution, >> >> it's >> not a >> >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot >> >> corridor, >> and >> >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver >> training. >> >> But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the >> >> issues that must be tackled as more corridors are considered. >> >> >> >> -Anjali >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, wrote: >> >> >> >> Alok >> >>> >> >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical >> >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is >> >>> quite common. >> >>> >> >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an >> >>> outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy >> >>> business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor >> >>> person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according >> >>> to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as >> >>> valuable as saving the poor person a full hour. >> >>> >> >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings >> >>> promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved >> >>> turns into longer commuting distance >> instead. >> >>> >> >>> Eric Bruun >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Quoting Alok Jain : >> >>> >> >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based >> >>> > on value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for >> >>> > car users thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is >> >>> > obviously heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of >> the full report. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car >> >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point >> >>> >> going into the argument of whether they constitutes BRT or >> >>> >> not. That debate is futile and meaningless.) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in >> >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to >> >>> >> the value judgments they made regarding the assignment of >> these weights. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain >> >>> >> > > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with >> >>> >> BRT, everybody busy pointing fingers. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/** >> >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/** >> >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no< >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmed >> abad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul >> >>> >> 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> inShare >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad >> >>> >> BRT >> >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and >> >>> >> poorly executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting >> >>> >> the messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted >> >>> >> by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched >> >>> >> a scathing attack on the institute itself. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it >> >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted >> >>> >> the study of ignoring bus commuters. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public >> >>> >> transport system any better - for that governance has to >> >>> >> improve ? just as launching a tirade against CRRI will not make >> >>> >> a dent in the organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S >> >>> >> Gangopadhyay, told >> >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions >> >>> >> for decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used >> >>> >> for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used >> >>> >> international norms employed in such studies." >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government >> >>> >> getting stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best >> >>> >> option. It has been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the >> >>> >> government. It may help to recall that the agency had been >> >>> >> hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which >> >>> >> had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for >> >>> >> the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport >> >>> >> solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors. >> >>> >> Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on a >> >>> >> week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field >> >>> >> surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation >> >>> >> was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with >> >>> >> and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the >> base, factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a >> >>> >> decrease of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease >> >>> >> in delay on the stretch. Compare this to the option of >> >>> >> continuing with BRT, which would result in a further increase >> >>> >> in travel time of 13% in >> >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user >> >>> >> perception, occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger >> >>> >> flows and saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not >> >>> >> working at its optimum at present. Said a transport department >> >>> >> official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on >> >>> >> the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is >> after all an open corridor." >> >>> >> >> >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It >> >>> >> observes that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that >> >>> >> of Ahmedabad on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which >> >>> >> contributes to the lower journey speeds. This, says the report, >> >>> >> is because the "width of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in >> >>> >> either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m >> >>> >> width available for each direction of travel before BRT was >> conceived. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, >> >>> >> the commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus >> >>> >> composition is about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The >> >>> >> observed average speed of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies >> >>> >> between 22-25kmph (CEPT >> >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS - >> >>> >> 13-15kmph)." >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi >> >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad >> >>> >> BRT to continue with its floundering experiment. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >> >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:** >> >>> ijjtzwbu_ss< >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ==============================**==============================* >> >>> >> *==== SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of >> >>> >> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a >> >>> >> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >> >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_s >> s< >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss> >> >>> >> >>> ==============================**==============================**== >> >>> == SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of >> >>> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus >> >>> on developing >> countries >> >>> (the 'Global South'). >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >> countries (the 'Global South'). >> > > > > -- > Vissu > > Support Akshaya patra: Unlimited food for education ( > http://www.akshayapatra.org/) > Every small contribution makes a difference. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > From datar.ashok at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 18:11:11 2012 From: datar.ashok at gmail.com (ashok datar) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:11:11 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fleet Taxis In-Reply-To: <78B8AE10D67E4387A46619E165991267@SONYDG> References: <78B8AE10D67E4387A46619E165991267@SONYDG> Message-ID: yes , this is a good observation Debi . One way to approach this problem is use of IT with the new developments in mobile telephony , it is possible that radio paging can be extended to all the taxies and autos at a very small cost this can be either voluntary or we can allow a slightly higher fee for all the taxies and autos who can join an approved service provider ( or Radio paging ) once we have 150,000 taxies/auto on radio paging rather than only 2000 or 3000 vehicle we can have a great competition and accessibility and high chances of success instantly. for meru , u have to book a few hours in advance whereas if we really work on universal paging system, this can improve the situation for all but we dont seem to have point for such governance and marketing focussed reforms which benefit users as well as service providers On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:10 AM, debigoenka wrote: > Hi all > > I have recently had some unpleasant experience with some fleet taxi > services in Mumbai, who, after taking your booking requests, either do not > send a vehicle or send you a sms cancelling the booking at the last moment. > > I have filed a complaint with the RTO saying that these fleet taxi firms > should be fined in the same manner as a taxi driver who refuses to ply. > > All suggestions and ideas on how to take this forward are welcome. > > Cheers, warm regards > > Debi > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Debi Goenka > Executive Trustee > Conservation Action Trust > www.cat.org.in > > Mobile +91 98200 86404 > e-mail: debi@cat.org.in > > ------------------------------------------------- > 5 Sahakar Bhavan, 1st Floor > LBS Marg, Narayan Nagar > Ghatkopar (West) Mumbai 400086 > > Tel: (91-22) 25122422/20 Telefax : 25122423 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > e-mail is strictly forbidden. > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Ashok R.Datar Mumbai Environmental Social Network 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.* From roger.gorham at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 07:02:21 2012 From: roger.gorham at gmail.com (Roger Gorham) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:02:21 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Motorcycle-proof design of cycleways? Message-ID: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> Dear all, I'm wondering if anyone here has (or knows of any) good experiences of cycle way design that easily permit bicycles but discourage use by motorized 2-wheelers? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Best, Roger Gorham Sent from my iPad From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 07:29:14 2012 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:29:14 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycle-proof design of cycleways? In-Reply-To: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> References: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3147329024715710098@unknownmsgid> Hey Roger, The Dutch found a way to reduce speeds of motorized two wheelers in Houten through a weird slope/ramp. Any Dutch people around who can give examples? Pardo Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. On 30/07/2012, at 5:11 p.m., Roger Gorham wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm wondering if anyone here has (or knows of any) good experiences of cycle way design that easily permit bicycles but discourage use by motorized 2-wheelers? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > Best, > > Roger Gorham > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From ianenvironmental at googlemail.com Tue Jul 31 07:34:47 2012 From: ianenvironmental at googlemail.com (Ian Perry) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:34:47 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycle-proof design of cycleways? In-Reply-To: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> References: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Roger, I have seen (and photographed) an example in York (UK). It was the same as this one: http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/32706/ It was/is awful! There are others: http://www.cyclestreets.net/photos/obstructions/other/all.html http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/tags/york/page2.html I didn't come across any motorcycle/scooter barriers in the Netherlands where scooters can be a problem on cycle paths - probably because they are a hazard for cyclists. Ian On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Roger Gorham wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm wondering if anyone here has (or knows of any) good experiences of > cycle way design that easily permit bicycles but discourage use by > motorized 2-wheelers? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > Best, > > Roger Gorham > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > From ianenvironmental at googlemail.com Tue Jul 31 07:42:47 2012 From: ianenvironmental at googlemail.com (Ian Perry) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:42:47 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycle-proof design of cycleways? In-Reply-To: <3147329024715710098@unknownmsgid> References: <3EEAC09D-2029-490F-926B-20DDD96F431D@gmail.com> <3147329024715710098@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi Carlosfelipe, I think you are referring to the "Drempels" which are designed to slow human powered bicycle traffic - not scooters. Example from Houten https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bvsXiMAAvkgpy2KeDN4U35OdRfnDON4ErrW52oc4bvM?feat=directlink Ian On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > Hey Roger, > > The Dutch found a way to reduce speeds of motorized two wheelers in > Houten through a weird slope/ramp. Any Dutch people around who can > give examples? > > Pardo > > Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. > > On 30/07/2012, at 5:11 p.m., Roger Gorham wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I'm wondering if anyone here has (or knows of any) good experiences of > cycle way design that easily permit bicycles but discourage use by > motorized 2-wheelers? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > > > Best, > > > > Roger Gorham > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------------------------------------------------- > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). >