[sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."

[bruun at 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." <madhav.g.badami at 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 at mcgill.ca
> ________________________________________
> From:  
> sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org  
> [sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca at list.jca.apc.org]  
> on behalf of Anjali Mahendra [anjali.mahendra at gmail.com]
> Sent: 26 July 2012 10:50
> To: bruun at seas.upenn.edu
> Cc: worldtransport at yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the  
> south; NewMobilityCafe at 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, <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> 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 <alok.priyanka at 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 <alok.priyanka at 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').
>
>