From litman at vtpi.org Fri Jun 1 13:42:13 2012 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:42:13 -0700 Subject: [sustran] VTPI NEWS - Spring 2012 Message-ID: <082701cd3fc2$7b37eb40$71a7c1c0$@org> ----------- VTPI NEWS ----------- Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ------------------------------------- Spring 2012 Vol. 12, No. 2 ----------------------------------- The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW VTPI DOCUMENTS ==================== "Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists' and Pedestrians' Right to Use Public Roadways" (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf ) Many people believe that non-motorized modes (walking, cycling, and their variants) have less right to use public roads than motorists, based on assumptions that motor vehicle travel is more important than non-motorized travel and motor vehicle user fees finance roads. This report investigates these assumptions. It finds that non-motorized modes have clear legal rights to use public roads, that non-motorized travel is important for an efficient transport system and provides significant benefits to users and society, that less than half of roadway expenses are financed by motor vehicle user fees, and pedestrians and cyclists pay more than their share of roadway costs. Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely on non-motorized modes tend to overpay their fair share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists. "Changing Vehicle Travel Price Sensitivities: The Rebounding Rebound Effect" (http://www.vtpi.org/VMT_Elasticities.pdf ) There is growing interest in transportation pricing reforms to help achieve various planning objectives such as congestion, accident and emission reductions. Their effectiveness is affected by the price sensitivity of transport, that is, the degree that prices affect travel activity, measured as elasticities (percentage change in travel caused by a one-percent price change). Lower elasticities imply that price reforms are relatively ineffective at achieving planning objectives, burdensome to consumers, and that rebound effects (additional vehicle travel caused by increased fuel economy) are small so strategies that increase vehicle fuel economy are effective at conserving fuel. Higher elasticities imply that price reforms are relatively effective and bearable to consumers, and rebound effects are large. Some studies found very low transport elasticities during the last quarter of the Twentieth Century but recent evidence suggests that price sensitivities have since increased. This report discusses the concepts of price elasticities and rebound effects, reviews vehicle travel and fuel price elasticity estimates, examines evidence of changing price sensitivities, and discusses policy implications. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Transport Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Policies" (http://www.vtpi.org/comp_em_eval.pdf), submitted for publication in 'Transportation Research A.' There is debate concerning the best strategies for reducing transport energy consumption and pollution emissions. Some studies favor 'clean vehicle' strategies that reduce motor vehicle emission rates. Others favor 'mobility management' strategies that reduce total vehicle travel. These different conclusions tend to reflect different analysis scope. Analyses that favor clean vehicle strategies tend to overlook or undervalue some significant impacts, including cleaner vehicle lifecycle analysis and rebound effects, and mobility management co-benefits. More comprehensive analysis tends to favor mobility management. This article investigates these issues and provides specific recommendations for comprehensive evaluation of emission reduction options. "Transportation Prescription For Healthy Cities " (http://www.vtpi.org/Lockwood_HealthyCities_2004.pdf ). This report, written in 2004 by transportation engineer Ian Lockwood for the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, discusses design concepts for healthier communities and suggests specific ways to incorporate them into transport policy and planning practices. Posted with permission (thanks Ian!). * * * * * UPDATED DOCUMENTS ================= Below are a few recently updated VTPI documents: "Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior" (www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf ) Transport demand refers to the amount and type of travel that people would choose under specific conditions. This report describes concepts related to transport demand, investigates the influence that factors such as prices and service quality have on travel activity, and how these impacts can be measured using elasticity values. It summarizes research on various types of transport elasticities and describes how to use this information to predict the impacts of specific transport price and service quality changes. "Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs" (www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf ) This report describes methods for evaluating non-motorized transport (walking, cycling, and their variants) benefits and costs, including direct benefits to users from improved walking and cycling conditions, and various benefits to society from increased non-motorized travel activity, reduced automobile travel, and support for more compact land use development. It identifies various types of benefits and costs, and describes methods for measuring them. It discusses non-motorized transport demand and ways to increase non-motorized travel activity. This analysis indicates that non-motorized travel provides significant benefits, many of which are overlooked or undervalued in conventional transport economic evaluation. "Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impacts" (www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf ) This report investigates the safety impacts of mobility management strategies that change how and the amount people travel. It evaluates the safety impacts of various types of strategies including improvements to alternative modes, pricing reforms and smart growth land use policies. Evidence summarized in this report indicates that per capita traffic crash rates tend to increase with per capita vehicle travel, and mobility management strategies can provide significant safety benefits. This analysis indicates that mobility management is a cost effective traffic safety strategy, and increased safety is one of the largest benefits of mobility management. * * * * * PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE =================== "Sustainable Transportation Indicators for TDM Planning" (https://asct.memberclicks.net/assets/tdm_review_winter_2012.pdf ) This issue of 'TDM Review' focuses on program evaluation methods. This article discusses a practical set of sustainable transport goals, objectives and performance indicators that can be used for evaluating transportation demand management programs. "Sustainable Transport Evaluation: Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD Process" (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background%20Paper%2010 %20-%20transport.pdf ). This report published by the United Nation's Commission on Sustainable Development identifies practical methods for evaluating the sustainable development impacts of transport policies and programs. It proposes the establishment of a working group coordinated by an international professional organization or agency to develop a recommended set of sustainable transport evaluation methods, performance indicators, and data standards. 'Adjusting Data Collection Methods: Making the Case for Policy Changes to Build Healthy Communities,' in "From Inspiration to Action: Implementing Projects to Support Active Living" (www.walklive.org/project/implementation-guide ). This comprehensive report includes a section by Todd Litman that discusses transport planning biases that undervalue walking and cycling improvements, and specific ways to better incorporate active transport in transport planning analysis. "Transformando La Movilidad Urbana En M?xico" ("Transforming Urban Mobility In Mexico), (http://mexico.itdp.org/documentos/transformando-la-movilidad-urbana-en-mexi co ). This study by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy analyzes mobility problems and innovative management solutions for creating more efficient and sustainable transport in Mexican cities. Recent Planetizen Blogs (http://www.planetizen.com/blog/2394 ): "Choosing Ignorance is Stupid" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/56685 ) "Avoiding Undesirable Self-Fulfilling Prophecies" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/56017 ) "Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Planning" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/55540 ) Let's be friends. Todd Litman regularly posts on his Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/todd.litman). Befriend him now! * * * * * UPCOMING EVENTS ===================== "Non-motorized Transport For Healthy and Sustainable Communities," Velo Village (http://www.velovillage.ca), 21-23 June, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada Todd Litman will give this keynote presentation at what will surely be a fun event. "What's It Worth? Comprehensive Evaluation of Bicycling Benefits" at Velo-City Global 2012 (http://www.velo-city2012.com ), Thursday, 28 June 2012, Vancouver, BC. This presentation will discuss the economic, social and environmental benefits of non-motorized transportation and how to incorporate them into transport policy and project evaluation. USEFUL RESOURCES ================= "Understanding How to Develop and Apply Economic Analyses: Guidance for Transportation Planners (http://statewideplanning.org/resource_list/understanding-how-to-develop-and -apply-economic-analyses-guidance-for-transportation-planners ). This report provides guidance for developing, implementing, evaluating and communicating transportation investment economic analysis. It describes various categories of economic impacts and analytical techniques that can be applied to planning and project analysis. Saga City (http://www.sagacitymovie.org ). This entertaining animated video explains how past transport and land use policies contribute to sprawl and automobile dependency, the problems that result, and how smart growth policy reforms can create better communities. It is a good introduction to urban planning issues for a general audience. "Land Use and Traffic Congestion" (http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ618.pdf ). This study by J. Richard Kuzmyak for the Arizona Department of Transportation found that roads in more compact urban neighborhoods had considerably less traffic congestion despite many times higher densities, than in suburban neighborhoods. This appears to result from more mixed land use which reduces travel distances, more transit and nonmotorized travel, fewer vehicle miles of travel (VMT), and more connected streets which allows for better channeling of traffic and enables walking. "Across Latitudes and Cultures - New Global Database on Bus Rapid Transit" (http://www.brt.cl ). This new website provides comprehensive data on more than one hundred bus rapid transit systems to help planners and researcher evaluate BRT systems. "The End of a Life Cycle: Urban Highways Offer Cities New Opportunities for Revitalization" (http://www.itdp.org/urbanhighways ). This attractive report describes projects in many cities to convert urban highways into multi-modal roadways, with slower speed, wider sidewalks, bike and bus lanes, and attractive streetscaping to integrate them into the urban environment. Also see, "The Life and Death of Urban Highways" (www.itdp.org/documents/LifeandDeathofUrbanHighways_031312.pdf ). "The Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation" (http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1002-Center-City-Economic-Cultur al-Vibrancy-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Transportation.pdf ). This study by the Mineta Transportation Institute found that residents of urban regions with more vibrant downtowns tend to drive less, rely more on walking and public transport, and consume less fuel than in urban regions with less vibrant downtowns. "Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation: A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas" (www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/3/835 ). This study estimates the savings and benefits that could be achieved by implementing mobility management strategies in Brazilian cities, including walking and cycling improvements, Bus Rapid Transit systems, and efficient pricing reforms. "Interview: John Norquist and Our Congestion Obsession" (http://americancity.org/buzz/entry/3410 ). This interview in the Next American City discusses how overemphasis on motor vehicle congestion problems can bias transport planning at the expense of other planning objectives. Also see, "Smart Congestion Relief" (http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf ) "American Journal of Preventive Medicine" Vol. 42, No. 5 (http://www.ajpmonline.org ). This issue focuses on use of geographic information systems to quantify the relationships between community design and physical activity. 'Obesogenic' refers to conditions that encourage obesity. See "Objective Assessment of Obesogenic Environments in Youth " (http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3371[3]-st amped.pdf ); "Obesogenic Neighborhood Environments, Child and Parent Obesity: The Neighborhood Impact on Kids Study" (http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3373[3]-st amped.pdf ); and "Patterns of Obesogenic Neighborhood Features and Adolescent Weight: A Comparison of Statistical Approaches" (http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3374[3]-st amped.pdf ) "The Crisis In American Walking: How We Got Off The Pedestrian Path" (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/walking/2012/04/why_don_t_americans_walk _more_the_crisis_of_pedestrianism_.html ). These Slate Magazine columns by author Tom Vanderbilt discuss how biased attitudes and planning practices have reduced community walkability, and ways to correct them. The Global Green Growth Institute (http://www.gggi.org) is an international institute dedicated to pioneering and diffusing the "green growth" development model that integrates economic objectives such as poverty reduction, job creation and social inclusion, with environmental objectives such as protecting air, water and biodiversity. "Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers: Walking and Bicycling in Small Towns and Rural America" (http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/reports/BeyondUrba nCentersReport.pdf ). This attractive report by the Rails To Trails Conservancy and Bikes Belong describes why and how to support walking and cycling in small towns and rural areas. "From Inspiration to Action: Implementing Projects to Support Active Living" (http://www.walklive.org/project/implementation-guide ). This free guidebook by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the Walkable and Livable Communities (WALC) Institute describes practical ways to create more walkable and bikable communities. It includes case studies and advice from experts. "Going the Distance Together: A Citizen's Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions for Better Transportation" (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_W184.pdf ). This comprehensive but easy-to-read report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program describes how citizens can become involved in transport planning, from setting strategic goals to project design and operations. It provides an introduction to key transport planning concepts and issues, guidance for citizen involvement, and comprehensive reference information. "The Surprising Story of Travel Behavior in Bellingham, Washington" (https://www.whatcomsmarttrips.org/news/2012report.aspx ). This describes the impacts of the Neighborhood Smart Trips program on travel behavior based on comprehensive travel surveys. The results indicate that the program resulted in significant shifts from driving to walking, cycling and public transit travel, resulting in a 15% reduction in per capita vehicle travel (from 11.4 to 9.7 average daily miles) by program participants. "Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy" (www.frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Transportation%20&%20the% 20New%20Generation%20vUS.pdf ) This report describes the decline in per capita vehicle travel occurring in North America, particularly among young people, and its implications for transport policy and planning. "Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users" (http://files.meetup.com/1468133/Evidence%20on%20Why%20Bike-Friendly.pdf ) This study by Wesley E. Marshall and Norman W. Garrick, published in 'Environmental Practice' found that U.S. cities with higher per capita bicycling rates tend to have much lower than average traffic fatality rates for all road users. Travel Behavior and Built Environment: Exploring the Importance of Urban Design at the Non-Residential End of the Trip (www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2057_1379_Kuzmyak%20WP12RK1.pdf ). This Lincoln Institute study indicates that employment density, job/population balance, street network grain and connectivity, transit service quality, and regional accessibility all have a significant effect on vehicle trip and vehicle travel. "Smart Parking Revisited: Lessons from the Pioneers" (http://www.planning.org/planning/default.htm). This article by Jeremy Nelson and Jason Schrieber describes examples of successful parking management programs. Pando (http://www.pando.sc ) is a new online network designed to help researchers and practitioners share information on community-level sustainability initiatives. "City Cycling" (http://www.amazon.com/City-Cycling-Urban-Industrial-Environments/dp/0262517 817 ). This comprehensive book edited by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler will be available in October. Prepurchases from Amazon.com receive a $10 discount ($18 instead of $28). "Commuting Distance, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Metabolic Risk" (www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_3386[4]-stamped.p df ). This study of 4,297 adults in 12 Texas metropolitan counties found that after adjusting for other demographic and behavioral factors, commuting distance was negatively associated with physical activity and cardiorespiratory f?tness (CRF), and positively associated with body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and blood pressure. * * * * * Please let us know if you have comments or questions about any information in this newsletter, or if you would like to be removed from our email list. And please pass this newsletter on to others who may find it useful. Sincerely, Todd 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" From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Sat Jun 2 10:23:11 2012 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:23:11 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus In-Reply-To: <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca> References: <030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org> <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/. I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about the jitney issue today]. The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with lauding these initiatives. But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport, even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served. *Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. * In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or 'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people disagree with this but it is an important debate. Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit ( http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings (and many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues that it applies especially to low density places. Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range of people. Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn more about 'connective networks' in public transport: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in the case of Delhi's Metro for example) http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss. Paul From kfjellstrom at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 18:31:56 2012 From: kfjellstrom at gmail.com (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:31:56 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus In-Reply-To: References: <030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org> <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: Hi Paul, To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers' as if they are something actually good. Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail network background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on buses. We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and maximize ridership and passenger time savings. I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html. The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly not the only disadvantage of transfers. The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you are promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The reality is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially at the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other transfer situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc. Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have to do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet requirements and system costs. Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels that what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels than the 'direct-service' networks. It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and other costs of transfers. And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. Similarly, calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs 'connective' is just another piece of doublespeak. Of course, these are just some very general, high level observations. The situation is different in every city and corridor and in some situations you may have to put up with more transfers than others. Some transfers of course are unavoidable, but an important initial objective should always be to minimize them. best, Karl On 2 June 2012 09:23, Paul Barter wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/. > > I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick > Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about > the jitney issue today]. > > The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely > infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very > different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed > an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with > lauding these initiatives. > > But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these > two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport, > even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served. > > *Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. * > > In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or > 'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people > disagree with this but it is an important debate. > > Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit ( > http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings > (and > many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue > that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a > wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density > contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and > rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues > that it applies especially to low density places. > > Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some > threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could > probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities > that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse > network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same > trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have > a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range > of people. > > Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit > network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn > more about 'connective networks' in public transport: > > http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html > http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html > > http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html > http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html > > But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in > the case of Delhi's Metro for example) > http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html > > I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It > focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and > hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss. > > Paul > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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 carlosfpardo at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 19:38:04 2012 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 05:38:04 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus In-Reply-To: References: <030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org> <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: <-893731520417615628@unknownmsgid> Just to weigh on another side of the discussion, having lots of services at one stop makes it difficul for users to know what bus they should take unless there is an excellent information system (sometimes only a digital version is useful, and there are cannot be enough of these in stations - via smartphones is a solution). I once took part in a project where I had to evaluate users' level of understanding of the TransMilenio information systems, and we found that people were often confused with the wide range of services and hatee looking at maps, ended up riding the wrong buses and lost time trying to understand where to take their service (granted, this is not the case for everyday users). Of course, the report we gave to the municipality is not available to the public (!) and the solutions we proposed were not implemented (and we haven't received feedback from government regarding if/when they will). I think you can develop complex and multiple services to the point that users are able to understand them properly and with little effort, or to the point that technology and good graphic design can reduce the need for users to engage in a complex cartographic research project every time they change their trip/destination. (I can't comment on this aspect for the Guangzhou BRT because all signage and information systems were in Chinese when I was there). Pardo Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. On 4/06/2012, at 4:32, Karl Fjellstrom wrote: > Hi Paul, > > To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing > transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing > books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers' > as if they are something actually good. Some people making this argument > presumably come from a fixed-rail network background, and/or are promoting > fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps explain why they try to impose this > fixed rail network thinking on buses. > > We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou > doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so > we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more > transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too > delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to > the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a > transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending > dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually > thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT > opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. > It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and > maximize ridership and passenger time savings. > > I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. > http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html. > The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly > not the only disadvantage of transfers. The analysis is wrong, for several > reason, and I'm surprised that you are promoting this material. When > looking at frequencies and hence waiting times, it assumes no overlap > between the direct-service routes. The reality is with direct service > routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap at key, high demand > points. This provides many passengers - especially at the high demand areas > where they are most useful - with multiple route options, at high > frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute transfer cost, which > is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation you should probably > assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best situation, e.g. where you > just need to cross a platform. In other transfer situations you may e.g. > need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another bus stop or platform, > which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes transfer time that the > analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and you are uncertain about > the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is full, or there is no seat on > the next bus, etc. Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, > vehicles typically have to do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to > trip time and hence fleet requirements and system costs. Plus there's the > cost of building and operating the transfer facilities. It's why you almost > always see when looking at fare levels that what you misleadingly call > 'connective' networks have higher fare levels than the 'direct-service' > networks. > > It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over > these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and > other costs of transfers. And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of > describing proposals to cut bus routes and connect them with other routes > at hubs is one of the reasons the term 'integration' now has so little > actual meaning. Similarly, calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high > transfer costs 'connective' is just another piece of doublespeak. > > Of course, these are just some very general, high level observations. The > situation is different in every city and corridor and in some situations > you may have to put up with more transfers than others. Some transfers of > course are unavoidable, but an important initial objective should always be > to minimize them. > > best, Karl > > > On 2 June 2012 09:23, Paul Barter wrote: > >> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this discussion about >> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-bus/. >> >> I didn't intend to sound disparaging about initiatives like the Brunswick >> Explorer or the ITN rideshare exchange idea. [I don't want to talk about >> the jitney issue today]. >> >> The Brunswick Explorer is a good approach in a situation that is extremely >> infertile ground for public transport. The ITN likewise (in a very >> different way). The ITN barter system mentioned right at the end is indeed >> an interesting innovation too (as Brendan says). I have no problem with >> lauding these initiatives. >> >> But I still think the article is misleading because it implies that these >> two initiatives provide a damning criticism of mainstream public transport, >> even for bigger cities where many more people can and should be served. >> >> *Also, please don't dismiss "connective networks" so lightly. * >> >> In my view, a more positive embrace of connections (or 'transfers' or >> 'changes') in public transport can have major benefits. I know many people >> disagree with this but it is an important debate. >> >> Paul Mees (in his two books) and Jarrett Walker of Human Transit ( >> http://www.humantransit.org/) and Vukan Vuchic in his various writings >> (and >> many others, especially in the German speaking world and Scandinavia) argue >> that better integration is a key to doing better with public transport in a >> wide range of contexts. This applies even to surprisingly low-density >> contexts (including North American and Australian metropolitan areas and >> rural and semi-rural places near European cities). Paul Mees even argues >> that it applies especially to low density places. >> >> Maybe Brunswick is indeed too small and too auto-oriented but above some >> threshold in city size and density, a simple time-pulse bus network could >> probably serve the community well. Those smallish North American cities >> that have halfway decent public transport all tend to have a timed-pulse >> network. Rural Switzerland achieves good public transport using the same >> trick. Unlike the Brunswick Explorer, such a connective network would have >> a hope of scaling up as the city grows and of aiming to serve a wider range >> of people. >> >> Jarrett Walker has a particular talent for explaining integrated transit >> network planning issues, so here are some links for those who want to learn >> more about 'connective networks' in public transport: >> >> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html >> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html >> >> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/los-angeles-deleting-some-lines-can-be-fair.html >> http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html >> >> But mistakes in network planning can indeed force too many transfers (as in >> the case of Delhi's Metro for example) >> http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-the-connection-count-test.html >> >> I would highly recommend Jarrett's book, also named Human Transit. It >> focuses on North America and Australia but the principles are universal and >> hence relevant to our focus at sustran-discuss. >> >> Paul >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 hghazali at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:12:04 2012 From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:12:04 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Poor planning in bus transit system causing hardships to people Message-ID: Just when you thought the government should be preparing itself for election year, they bring along another ill-planned benefaction. http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/06/04/city/lahore/poor-planning-in-bus-transit-system-causing-hardships-to-people/ LAHORE - Poor planning to execute the so-called Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) project has turned the international standard dual carriageway, Ferozepur Road, into a dirt road, especially from Quainchi to Rohi drain, causing grave hardships for commuters in the scorching heat. The dual carriageway, which connects Lahore with Kasur, was initiated by former Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi to cater to fast increasing traffic needs and was completed in six years about two years back. The road was rightly termed by people of the area from Model Town to Kahna and beyond a gift by the then chief minister as it was completed not only as per international standards and had service lanes on both sides but also a greenbelt in the middle from Chungi Amar Sadhu to Kasur. As there is no public park in the area from Chungi to Kasur, the greenbelt had not only made the road one of most beautiful thoroughfares of the city, but had well started serving people as a recreation spot as people were seen sitting in it and walking along the road in the evening to enjoy this park-like facility. About four months back, the provincial government came up with a plan to initiate the bus rapid transit system by removing the greenbelt and encroaching on the road from both sides, turning the road into a dirt road where traffic move sat snail?s pace to the torment of commuters. While thousands of trees have been uprooted for the project, there is no possibility of planting new ones as there is no space for the same and it presents a look of a jungle of electric poles from Quainchi to Nishter Town. As the main focus is on the BRTS, the quality of work at various sections of the dual carriageway where it has been expanded, especially from Ghazi road to Nishter Town, is extremely poor and there are hundreds of manholes near General Hospital and Mian Bazaar which are right in the middle of the road, uneven and improperly covered making it impossible for the traffic to move smoothly. A number of persons talking to APP expressed concern over the way the work is being carried out on the project. Tariq, a businessman who daily goes to Gulberg from Glaxo Town, said there was no need for spending a huge amount on the project as an international level bus service could be run on the already existing dual carriageway just by developing international standard bus stops. He said if the provincial government had decided to carryout the project at all cost, it should have expanded the road first so that there was no hurdle to the flow of the traffic. But, unfortunately exactly the reverse had been done as work on BRTS was started first and then expansion of the dual carriageway which played havoc with the traffic which usually remains clogged for hours, he added. Nasreen, a citizen, talking to APP at Main Bazaar said,? I had come early morning to purchase clothes of my children to avoid the blazing sun but it took me three hours to reach the bazaar from Nishter Town. Now I am standing at the stop but traffic has not moved even an inch for the last two hours.? She expressed resentment over the way the dual carriageway had been damaged and said, ?It took only 20 to 30 minutes to reach Mian Bazaar from Nishter Town, but now the whole day is wasted.? She said if the provincial rulers were so eager to implement BRTS, they should have first completed the expansion work of the dual carriageway and then initiated the project so that traffic could continue to flow normally and people had not to spend hours on the road in the roasting temperatures of summer. A number of other people talking to APP at Quainchi, General Hospital, Chungi, Bank Stop, Kahna, Nishter Town and Dulo Khurd expressed similar views. When contacted, Commissioner Lahore Division Jawad Rafiq Malik said plants and trees removed from the greenbelt had been planted at various other places along the canal road and Jallo Park. He said, ?After the completion of the project by August14, plantation along the Ferozepur road would be carried out wherever possible.? BRTS Project Director Col (R) Younis Bharola said as work was in progress on both BRTS and expansion of the dual carriageway and heavy machinery was being used, sometimes traffic problems arose. He claimed that additional traffic police had been deployed along the road and their number would be further increased to ensure better flow of traffic. Cell: 0333 4231 666 *When conditions are right, things go wrong* From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Mon Jun 4 21:42:13 2012 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:42:13 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus In-Reply-To: References: <030301cd3dc0$4bdea4f0$e39beed0$@org> <4FC63CCD.9030503@ties.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a chance to clarify a little. I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here goes. I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key points: - Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying that every city must make its network more connective no matter what. - The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more lines to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective network" (with fewer route kms) can usually help. - A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks tend to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to the attractiveness of public transport. On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote: > To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing > transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing > books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers' > as if they are something actually good. > PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end. I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections). But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies. Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of service on each line. > Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail network > background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps > explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on buses. > PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses around the rail spines. But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks is die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail. > We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou > doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so > we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more > transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too > delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to > the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a > transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending > dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually > thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT > opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. > It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and > maximize ridership and passenger time savings. > PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but: - If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating more connections or a simpler network for their own sake. - On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case, there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of course). - In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the other day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes. I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on prior experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience? > I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. > http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html. > The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly > not the only disadvantage of transfers. > PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the same input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times, despite the need for the connections. > The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you are > promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting > times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The reality > is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap > at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially at > the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route > options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute > transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation > you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best > situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other transfer > situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another > bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes > transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and > you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is > full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc. > PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key point via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a connection can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems with connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough. We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical question for specific cases. For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a situation. Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have to > do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet > requirements and system costs. > PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have reached this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it. But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning is easy. > Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer > facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels that > what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels > than the 'direct-service' networks. > PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or not worthwhile. It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over > these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and > other costs of transfers. > PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky trade-off to be faced here. The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy. In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for more people. > And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to > cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the > reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. Similarly, > calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs 'connective' > is just another piece of doublespeak. > PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which causes confusion. Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then, yes, it would probably be a bad idea. I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the network? Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about "high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high frequencies) Hope this helps. Paul -- Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm us all less. paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.org From etts at indigo.ie Tue Jun 5 17:55:13 2012 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:55:13 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus - local transit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Paul, Karl, Chris and others, I think we have jumped across a few concepts from where this discussion started. As often happens, we are discussing loosely connected things from different perspectives and for different contexts. I respectfully suggest to decouple the discussion into three strands: 1) Solutions for mass movement of people through connected networks with priority to the primary axes 2) Solutions for diffuse movement of people in large urban areas and their hinterlands, a lot of which is not served well by the network designed for the mass movements 3) Solutions for the smaller scale where mass transit is less appropriate and/or cannot be sustained The original article deals with toolbox items for (2) and (3), which is my interest for this particular thread. The article referred to 'conventional wisdom' and 'investing billions to engineer rails, trains and buses'. I did not think the author criticised such expenditure, but rather tried to point out that it is not the only wisdom. If this is what she meant, I find I am in complete agreement with her. We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited to local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility services. In my opinion, whether we are talking about Brunswick, Brisbane, Bangalore or Beijing, there is a need for local and peripheral transit in addition to the mass transit. What I loosely call 'local and peripheral transit' is not some minor residual travel. Over the 24/7, it is the dominant travel in any society, it just doesn't bundle itself nice and neat for mass transit to serve. Travel demand, forecasting and network models have serious difficulty with it, and the vast majority of our transit networks continue to be designed around the peak work and education commute. Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed, regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with low car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway, because otherwise society cannot function. With best wishes, Brendan. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 On 04/06/2012 13:42, "Paul Barter" wrote: >Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a >chance to clarify a little. > >I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better >understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here >goes. > >I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key >points: > >- Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I >am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying >that every city must make its network more connective no matter what. > >- The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more >lines >to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service >frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of >overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective >network" >(with fewer route kms) can usually help. > >- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency >service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks >tend >to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to >the attractiveness of public transport. > >On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote: > >> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing >> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people >>writing >> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud >>'transfers' >> as if they are something actually good. >> > >PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end. >I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to >get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short >headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and >which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections). > >But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of >transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies. >Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of >service on each line. > > >> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail >>network >> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps >> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on >>buses. >> > >PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are >a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses >around >the rail spines. > >But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks >is >die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often >accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail. > > >> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying >>Guangzhou >> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, >>so >> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have >>more >> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too >> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer >>to >> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a >> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending >> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are >>usually >> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT >> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. >> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and >> maximize ridership and passenger time savings. >> > >PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but: > >- If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then >there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already >the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating >more connections or a simpler network for their own sake. > >- On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are >served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may >have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case, >there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective >network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of >course). > >- In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common >argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the >other >day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes. > I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this >problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift >to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like >that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you >mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on >prior >experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience? > > >> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. >> >>http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and- >>good-for-your-city.html. >> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly >> not the only disadvantage of transfers. >> > >PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not >really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if >the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the >same >input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times, >despite the need for the connections. > > >> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you >>are >> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting >> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The >>reality >> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route >>overlap >> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially >>at >> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route >> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute >> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation >> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best >> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other >>transfer >> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to >>another >> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes >> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, >>and >> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is >> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc. >> > >PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key >point >via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a >connection >can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the >payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms >can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems >with >connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough. > >We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in >cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical >question for specific cases. > >For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming >your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be >pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a >situation. > >Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have >to >> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet >> requirements and system costs. >> > >PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also >become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have >reached >this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it. > >But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple >grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a >grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the >intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or >more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of >trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning >is easy. > > >> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer >> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels >>that >> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels >> than the 'direct-service' networks. >> > >PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They >should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or >not worthwhile. > >It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over >> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and >> other costs of transfers. >> > >PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my >experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely >aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They >genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are >generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that >transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as >possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky >trade-off to be faced here. > >The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and >connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent >service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it >will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy. >In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the >frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for >more people. > > >> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to >> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the >> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. >>Similarly, >> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs >>'connective' >> is just another piece of doublespeak. >> > >PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which >causes confusion. > >Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation >that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a >proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of >headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then, >yes, it would probably be a bad idea. > >I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't >it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the >network? > >Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for >benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about >"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get >better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high >frequencies) > >Hope this helps. > >Paul >-- >Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm >us all less. >paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org >http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.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 dguruswamy at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 18:50:28 2012 From: dguruswamy at hotmail.com (Dharm Guruswamy) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:50:28 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus - local transit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1338889828.2909.140661085144617.41809955@webmail.messagingengine.com> Brendan, I think you bring up some interesting issues. However, I would like to take objection to the paragraph below: We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while > ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get > 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are > very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited > to > local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see > local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new > investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated > network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility > services. What I think you ignore is that major transit infrastructure comes about because of a failiure of the market to provide service without large negative externalities. In Latin America in particular people prefer the BRT lines which replaced the largely unregulated or very corrputly regulated transit it replaces. I also think you are overgeneralizing when you closed your e-mail: > Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed, > regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and > form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and > those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with > low > car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway, > because otherwise society cannot function. I am in Hong Kong right now on vacation and just came from Tokyo. These are both every deveoped cities which have a diverse and incredibly diverse systems of public transit. I actually prefer Tokyo because the air pollution here in Hong Kong is terrible largely because there are too many lightly regulated minibuses and taxis plying the street. In Tokyo all surface transport is heavily regulated and of very high quality albeit also very expensive . My wife and I split our stay between two hotels. We used a taxi to transfer. The taxi was new, spotless and equipped with the latest GPS and the driver wore a suit and tie and white gloves. In a sense you get what you pay for. No one complains about the air pollution or congestion caused by Tokyo taxis.. they only complain about the price (about US $9 once the meter starts). Here in Hong KOng the MTR operates a high quality rail system but the bus system is of every unequal quality with the fixed route buses offering high quality services and the minibuses operating very poor quality service. The government is trying to regulate the irregular buses which don't even run regular routes. The key thing in developed countries is that we stop investing in new fixed guideway transit so indeed there are gaps in service. However, the solution is to keep investing and not necasserily to allow new services. Unregulated sevices are often polluting, provide poor quality service and don't provide accessibility to the disabled. Find me a city with extensive paratransit that doesn't have large negative externalities and I will be on board, otherwise I'm for regulation and more regulation because well regulated systems simply work better. Dharm Gurusamy, AICP CTP On Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 09:55 AM, Brendan Finn wrote: > Dear Paul, Karl, Chris and others, > > I think we have jumped across a few concepts from where this discussion > started. As often happens, we are discussing loosely connected things > from > different perspectives and for different contexts. > > I respectfully suggest to decouple the discussion into three strands: > > 1) Solutions for mass movement of people through connected networks with > priority to the primary axes > 2) Solutions for diffuse movement of people in large urban areas and > their > hinterlands, a lot of which is not served well by the network designed > for > the mass movements > 3) Solutions for the smaller scale where mass transit is less appropriate > and/or cannot be sustained > > The original article deals with toolbox items for (2) and (3), which is > my > interest for this particular thread. > > The article referred to 'conventional wisdom' and 'investing billions to > engineer rails, trains and buses'. I did not think the author criticised > such expenditure, but rather tried to point out that it is not the only > wisdom. If this is what she meant, I find I am in complete agreement with > her. > > We all witness cities investing in major transit infrastructure while > ignoring the "small stuff". Quite often the diverse local services get > 'rationalised' as part of such projects. The outcome is systems which are > very efficient for the commute mass movement, but which are less suited > to > local and diverse movements than what they have replaced. We also see > local mobility initiatives being blocked, either to protect the new > investment, or because they are 'inconsistent' with the new integrated > network. We get faced with "either/or" instead of complementary mobility > services. > > In my opinion, whether we are talking about Brunswick, Brisbane, > Bangalore > or Beijing, there is a need for local and peripheral transit in addition > to the mass transit. What I loosely call 'local and peripheral transit' > is > not some minor residual travel. Over the 24/7, it is the dominant travel > in any society, it just doesn't bundle itself nice and neat for mass > transit to serve. Travel demand, forecasting and network models have > serious difficulty with it, and the vast majority of our transit networks > continue to be designed around the peak work and education commute. > > Failure to provide for it leads to two inevitable outcomes. In developed, > regulated countries, people make all the other trips by private car and > form an auto-oriented society (even if it also has mass transit), and > those without a car are marginalised. In less developed countries with > low > car ownership, paratransit forces its way into the market place anyway, > because otherwise society cannot function. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > ___________________________________ > Brendan Finn e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286 > > > > > > On 04/06/2012 13:42, "Paul Barter" > wrote: > > >Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a > >chance to clarify a little. > > > >I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better > >understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here > >goes. > > > >I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key > >points: > > > >- Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I > >am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying > >that every city must make its network more connective no matter what. > > > >- The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more > >lines > >to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service > >frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of > >overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective > >network" > >(with fewer route kms) can usually help. > > > >- A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency > >service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks > >tend > >to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to > >the attractiveness of public transport. > > > >On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote: > > > >> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing > >> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people > >>writing > >> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud > >>'transfers' > >> as if they are something actually good. > >> > > > >PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end. > >I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to > >get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short > >headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and > >which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections). > > > >But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of > >transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies. > >Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of > >service on each line. > > > > > >> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail > >>network > >> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps > >> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on > >>buses. > >> > > > >PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are > >a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses > >around > >the rail spines. > > > >But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks > >is > >die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often > >accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail. > > > > > >> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying > >>Guangzhou > >> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, > >>so > >> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have > >>more > >> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too > >> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer > >>to > >> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a > >> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending > >> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are > >>usually > >> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT > >> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. > >> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and > >> maximize ridership and passenger time savings. > >> > > > >PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but: > > > >- If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then > >there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already > >the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating > >more connections or a simpler network for their own sake. > > > >- On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are > >served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may > >have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case, > >there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective > >network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of > >course). > > > >- In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common > >argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the > >other > >day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes. > > I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this > >problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift > >to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like > >that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you > >mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on > >prior > >experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience? > > > > > >> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. > >> > >>http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and- > >>good-for-your-city.html. > >> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly > >> not the only disadvantage of transfers. > >> > > > >PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not > >really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if > >the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the > >same > >input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times, > >despite the need for the connections. > > > > > >> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you > >>are > >> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting > >> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The > >>reality > >> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route > >>overlap > >> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially > >>at > >> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route > >> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute > >> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation > >> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best > >> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other > >>transfer > >> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to > >>another > >> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes > >> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, > >>and > >> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is > >> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc. > >> > > > >PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key > >point > >via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a > >connection > >can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the > >payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms > >can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems > >with > >connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough. > > > >We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in > >cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical > >question for specific cases. > > > >For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming > >your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be > >pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a > >situation. > > > >Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have > >to > >> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet > >> requirements and system costs. > >> > > > >PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also > >become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have > >reached > >this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it. > > > >But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple > >grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a > >grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the > >intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or > >more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of > >trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning > >is easy. > > > > > >> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer > >> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels > >>that > >> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels > >> than the 'direct-service' networks. > >> > > > >PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They > >should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or > >not worthwhile. > > > >It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over > >> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and > >> other costs of transfers. > >> > > > >PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my > >experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely > >aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They > >genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are > >generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that > >transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as > >possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky > >trade-off to be faced here. > > > >The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and > >connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent > >service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it > >will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy. > >In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the > >frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for > >more people. > > > > > >> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to > >> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the > >> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. > >>Similarly, > >> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs > >>'connective' > >> is just another piece of doublespeak. > >> > > > >PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which > >causes confusion. > > > >Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation > >that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a > >proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of > >headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then, > >yes, it would probably be a bad idea. > > > >I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't > >it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the > >network? > > > >Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for > >benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about > >"high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get > >better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high > >frequencies) > > > >Hope this helps. > > > >Paul > >-- > >Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm > >us all less. > >paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org > >http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.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'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). -- Dharm Guruswamy dguruswamy@hotmail.com From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Tue Jun 5 21:02:35 2012 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:02:35 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Network issue Thinking Outside the Bus Message-ID: <20120605080235.14255kbzuteyk95n@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Hello again everyone: Pleas+e see the second half of the attached chapter Route and Network Analysis. It is entitled "Interaction between Route and Network Design". In it, I summarize Young-Jae Lee's 1998 dissertation. It takes into account three basic types of input: Demand -- high or low Travel speed -- high or low Transfer Penalty -- high or low Then, it creates three possible different types of network, depending upon social cost, which includes a combination of operating cost and user time cost: Transfer-oriented Transfer-avoidance Directly - connected I consider it to really be quite helpful in understanding the route planning dilemma. A lot of the arguments that people have are really just a result of unstated assumptions. One person visualizes Burlington, Vermont (a city of 100,000 people in the US) others visualize Kolkata. The answer is different for both. Eric Quoting Paul Barter : > Thanks Karl for the thoughtful comments and Guangzhou examples. Gives me a > chance to clarify a little. > > I don't think we will agree but it is worthwhile getting to a better > understanding of where the disagreements might be. In that spirit, here > goes. > > I'll make a few comments amongst your text below but here are two key > points: > > - Connective networks are not the answer to every problem or situation. I > am claiming the idea often deserves more consideration. I am not saying > that every city must make its network more connective no matter what. > > - The point is to get to a "turn-up-and-go" level of service on more lines > to make public transport more attractive overall. If your service > frequencies are currently poor and you have a complex network with lots of > overlapping services, then reorganising towards a more "connective network" > (with fewer route kms) can usually help. > > - A key empirical issue here is the question of how much high frequency > service matters. Those who are more sympathetic to connective networks tend > to see the evidence as demonstrating that short headways matter a lot to > the attractiveness of public transport. > > On 4 June 2012 17:31, Karl Fjellstrom wrote: > >> To me there seems to be a contradiction between objectives of maximizing >> transit ridership and saving passenger time, and many of the people writing >> books and reports about transit, especially the ones who laud 'transfers' >> as if they are something actually good. >> > > PB: You are correct of course that connections are only a means to an end. > I haven't heard of anyone saying they are a good thing except in order to > get something else which is very good: namely, high frequencies/short > headways which give people the freedom to "turn up and go" at stops (and > which fortunately also reduces the pain of waiting for those connections). > > But the key point is that sometimes reforms that increase the number of > transfers does increase ridership by helping to increase frequencies. > Minimising transfers will not maximise ridership if it means low levels of > service on each line. > > >> Some people making this argument presumably come from a fixed-rail network >> background, and/or are promoting fixed rail systems, which perhaps helps >> explain why they try to impose this fixed rail network thinking on buses. >> > > PB: Interesting. Yes, there may be some correlation. Obviously, if you are > a die-hard rail advocate you will certainly want to reorganise buses around > the rail spines. > > But that doesn't mean everyone who is sympathetic to connective networks is > die-hard pro-metro! I am not. And ironically, Jarrett Walker is often > accused in the US of being pro-bus and anti-rail. > > >> We saw this argument presented a lot in Guangzhou. People saying Guangzhou >> doesn't have enough transfers, and has too many overlapping bus routes, so >> we need to build transfer hubs and cut the bus routes so we can have more >> transfers. To me it is a lot like arguing that Guangzhou's food is too >> delicious, so we need to cut it back, make it less tasty so it's closer to >> the average. Anyway, these consultant proposals, which culminated in a >> transport master plan in 2006 funded by a World Bank loan recommending >> dozens of transfer hubs and cutting the bus routes accordingly, are usually >> thankfully and rightly dismissed by the city. And then the Guangzhou BRT >> opened in early 2010. The Guangzhou BRT is based on an opposite premise. >> It's a direct-service model, the idea being to minimize transfers and >> maximize ridership and passenger time savings. >> > > PB: I don't know GZ well so I am guessing here, but: > > - If most routes ALREADY have attractive headways throughout the day then > there would be no headway-based argument to simplify the network. Already > the case across most of Guangzhou? If so, there would be no point creating > more connections or a simpler network for their own sake. > > - On the other hand, could it be that, even though all key corridors are > served wonderfully by overlapping routes, many routes in outer areas may > have low headways (eg more than 15 or 20 minutes)? If that were the case, > there might be some merit to some shift in the direction of a connective > network. (Not necessarily any extreme change -- it is a spectrum of > course). > > - In addition, in dense cities like Guangzhou there is another common > argument for reorganisation of bus lines (mentioned by Eric Bruun the other > day): bus congestion on the busiest corridors with the overlapping routes. > I guess Guangzhou's amazing open BRT has now shown a new answer to this > problem. But until the GZ BRT, consultants probably assumed that a shift > to closed BRT or to rail would be necessary to cope with a corridor like > that (which would force more connections). Maybe the consultants you > mentioned were thinking along those lines. An honest mistake based on prior > experience but now in need of updating in light of the GZ experience? > > >> I took a quick look at the first link you provide below. >> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html. >> The travel time argument is key, but the longer travel times are clearly >> not the only disadvantage of transfers. >> > > PB: Just to be clear, despite his attention-seeking headline, he is not > really arguing transfers are good in themselves. But he is saying that if > the network simplification can achieve high enough frequencies for the same > input of resources, then you can actually get shorter total travel times, > despite the need for the connections. > > >> The analysis is wrong, for several reason, and I'm surprised that you are >> promoting this material. When looking at frequencies and hence waiting >> times, it assumes no overlap between the direct-service routes. The reality >> is with direct service routes that you end up with a lot of route overlap >> at key, high demand points. This provides many passengers - especially at >> the high demand areas where they are most useful - with multiple route >> options, at high frequencies. Secondly, the analysis assumes a 5 minute >> transfer cost, which is far too low. Even in the best transfer situation >> you should probably assume a 10 minute delay. And that is in the best >> situation, e.g. where you just need to cross a platform. In other transfer >> situations you may e.g. need to alight, cross a road, and walk to another >> bus stop or platform, which could easily already exceed the 5 minutes >> transfer time that the analysis lists. Plus you may need to pay again, and >> you are uncertain about the waiting time. Plus perhaps the next bus is >> full, or there is no seat on the next bus, etc. >> > > PB: Yes he glosses over lots of these issues in order to make his key point > via an oversimplified example. There is no denying that making a connection > can be painful and we should only increase connections in a network if the > payoff is worthwhile. It is one step in a wider argument that such reforms > can often offer more attractive public transport, despite the problems with > connections and the difficulties with making them easy enough. > > We should only reform towards a more connective network arrangement in > cases where this really delivers better service not worse. An empirical > question for specific cases. > > For example, if you already have very good frequencies without reforming > your network (as in GZ?), then making it more connective may very well be > pain without gain. I don't blame you for being sceptical in such a > situation. > > Plus, in order to access some transfer facility, vehicles typically have to >> do some additional manoeuvring, which adds to trip time and hence fleet >> requirements and system costs. >> > > PB: Agreed. And in hubs-and-spokes type networks the interchanges can also > become bottlenecks for buses. Some of Singapore's interchanges have reached > this point I think. You wouldn't want to over do it. > > But don't forget other kinds of connective networks, such as the simple > grid, for which these transfer-point problems are less of an issue. But a > grid raises other issues like how to get the bus stops close enough to the > intersections without screwing them up. Singapore's bus stops are 150m or > more from intersections: hence no grid of bus routes here. Lots of > trade-offs, no free lunches ... Didn't mean to imply that network planning > is easy. > > >> Plus there's the cost of building and operating the transfer >> facilities. It's why you almost always see when looking at fare levels that >> what you misleadingly call 'connective' networks have higher fare levels >> than the 'direct-service' networks. >> > > PB: Fair point. Shouldn't ignore such costs if comparing the options. They > should be counted when asking if the changes are worthwhile on balance or > not worthwhile. > > It's typically disingenuous of people advocating transfers to gloss over >> these issues of the actual physical transfer requirements and time and >> other costs of transfers. >> > > PB: Maybe some do gloss over them in their zeal. That's a pity. But in my > experience, people advocating this kind of reorganisation are sincerely > aiming for the benefits that flow from short-headway service. They > genuinely want public transport to improve to attract more users. They are > generally transit advocates. They are generally acutely aware that > transfers are still a pain and that they need to be made as painless as > possible. But if not, then yes, they are not being honest about the tricky > trade-off to be faced here. > > The key point is to see that there is a trade-off between frequency and > connections. And it runs both ways. If a city can't support frequent > service on a 'direct network' that aims to minimise connections, then it > will either have abysmal frequencies or require heroic levels of subsidy. > In such a city, more transfers may be a price worth paying to get the > frequencies up to a level that makes public transport more attractive for > more people. > > >> And misusing the word 'integration' as a way of describing proposals to >> cut bus routes and connect them with other routes at hubs is one of the >> reasons the term 'integration' now has so little actual meaning. Similarly, >> calling these cut-up bus networks imposing high transfer costs 'connective' >> is just another piece of doublespeak. >> > > PB: I agree that integration has too many different meanings now, which > causes confusion. > > Maybe you have seen some inappropriate proposals for bus reorganisation > that are giving the idea of connective networks a bad name. If such a > proposal imposes high transfer costs without large benefits in terms of > headways and strenuous efforts to make the transfers less painful, then, > yes, it would probably be a bad idea. > > I don't see why 'connective network' is double-speak. If anything, doesn't > it honestly acknowledge that the approach involves more connections in the > network? > > Maybe the problem with the term is that it doesn't make the hoped-for > benefit obvious enough! So perhaps the proponents should talk about > "high-frequency connective networks" to highlight that the point is to get > better frequencies. (Remember, no point doing it if you already have high > frequencies) > > Hope this helps. > > Paul > -- > Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and harm > us all less. > paulbarter@reinventingtransport.org > http://www.reinventingtransport.org http://www.reinventingparking.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'). > > ----- End forwarded message ----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transit book chapter 3.pdf Type: application/x-download Size: 861655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120605/19ff7007/Transitbookchapter3-0001.bin From yanivbin at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 22:20:05 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:50:05 +0530 Subject: [sustran] JNNURM buses pose problems; Centre steps in In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JNNURM buses pose problems; Centre steps in Staff Reporter The Union Government has decided to formulate guidelines for maintenance of buses funded through the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). The decision comes in the wake of complaints pouring in from various States about the buses' performance, as well as the anomalies that have surfaced. On Thursday, officials of the Union Ministry of Urban Development said a standardisation of the maintenance procedures is in progress. A senior official of the Ministry said there have been complaints about the buses, and efforts are on to address the concerns. ?There have been complaints from Faridabad. In Kolkata, there was no special purpose vehicle and buses were given to individual drivers; also there were no depots or system for servicing. Consequently buses were parked along the road and repaired by local mechanics,? said Sudhir Krishan, Secretary, Urban Development Ministry. Other complaints that were received by the Ministry were from Delhi, where a problem of ventilation has been more predominant and from Mumbai, where the complaints were about design issues. Ministry sources said meetings have been held to iron out the problems that have surfaced and efforts are being made streamline the maintenance procedure through standardisation. Printable version | Jun 10, 2012 6:44:33 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/article3503321.ece From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 03:54:30 2012 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:24:30 +0530 Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover epidemic continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport Policy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: 11 June 2012 *Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes? * http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11 *Will it end traffic woes? Of course not but who cares?* Blatantly violating the recommendations of our "National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP)" that asks cities to focus on people not vehicles, all our cities in a hurry to grow into urban giants of tomorrow are trying to outdo each other in building more and more flyovers. These useless monoliths of the inglorious phase of urban planning that is also called "car-dominated" phase of city planning did nothing to solve the problem of road congestion but ironically made it worse by attracting even more private vehicles on these corridors. But like coining new popular slogans we love to make new policies that no one in the Govt bothers to enforce. NUTP supports Public Transport, Non-motorised Transport (NMT) and warns against profligate use of personal auto vehicles that hog road space, guzzle fuel (that's getting dearer and scarcer) and belch deadly auto effluents that are deadly for our health. But our cities don't seem to care a fig and continue building expensive infrastructure for the auto vehicle while starving public transport buses from even meagre financial help needed for survival. Our city leaders feel cycle tracks are a waste of public money and ask "who uses the cycle these days?" Obviously something is seriously wrong with our city governance and its not going to be put right by those who have slept all these years. People need to wake up and demand a change. Do read this article:- , http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11 the text version of this appears below:- -- Sujit *Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes?* * * Niyati Rana & Ashwini Ramesh Bahadur Soratiya ? Sells Maskabun I have been doing business here for the last 14 years. I am disappointed with the proposal. It will be difficult for us to find a new place if the civic body moves us from here once the work begins. Shifting my business to the market will be costly as I will have to pay more rent than what we earn. The flyover will harm our business. We have not been notified about shifting to another place. And when we do, the govt won?t help us by providing us a facility at some other place to continue out trade. This will affect our business which gives me Rs2000-2500 a day. I suggest that a food court be built under the proposed flyover. It will help the vendors and the rent would add to the government?s earnings.? Experts say traffic will shift to the already congested lane towards Vastrapur lake Ahmedabad already has over a dozen flyovers and it plans to build more when countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have come to the realisation that flyovers cannot decongest traffic on roads. The latest flyover to be sanctioned by the city authorities would come up over the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA) crossroads. It has been argued that the flyover would solve the problem of chronic traffic congestion that plagues this point but the proposal has drawn criticism from city planners and architects in Ahmedabad. Experts say flyovers do not provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion; they just shift the congestion to a different place. In this case too, traffic congestion would be shifted to a different area once the IIMA flyover is ready, the experts say. Academicians, architects and city planners are one in saying that vehicular traffic using the flyover would get off near the new IIMA campus and drive to the lane going to the Vastrapur lake. This narrow lane is already congested with all kinds of traffic, right from Alpha One Mall. A member of faculty at Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT) University said that the IIMA flyover would merely shift the traffic congestion to a different point. ?It seems that the flyover was sanctioned without conducting a study to understand the flow of traffic. The authorities here seem to like launching big projects without understanding what is really needed,? he said. Director (transport) at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), Anuj Malhotra, also believes that flyovers don?t really provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion. "At the current rate of increase in the number of private vehicles, the city?s roads get saturated by the time a flyover is ready. The city of Ahmedabad adds 600 vehicles to its roads daily," he said. Ahmedabad-based architect Yatin Pandya holds similar views. He said that the IIMA flyover would let the traffic flow straight in one direction. ?When we build a flyover, the idea is to remove the conflict between vehicles crossing each other at the crossroads. Ideally, to remove congestion, flyovers should also have branches to direct the flow of vehicles to the right or left,? he said. He further said that building a split flyover would not serve the purpose. Some aspects such as direction of the flyover, nature of the traffic and alignment of the flyover should be kept in mind while building flyovers, he added. Malhotra also said that channelising traffic over a junction with a flyover results in increasing the speed of vehicles. ?This increases the chances of fatalities during accidents. Also, channelizing never helps because the vehicles bypassing this junction will collect at the next. Hence, no matter how many flyovers we build, they will never be sufficient to end the traffic congestion,? he said. A study conducted by ITDP with EMBARQ (a centre for sustainable transport solutions), states that most advanced cities of the world have recognized that flyovers are of little help in decongesting traffic. Instead, they are moving towards a policy of discouraging the use of private vehicles. This is being done by re-allocating finances for investment in better traffic management systems and improving and maintaining high quality public transport systems. *DNA Ahmedabad, dated 11June 2012* -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [image: Inline image 1] *Parisar* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 17934 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120612/beed733a/attachment.jpe From joshirutul at yahoo.co.in Tue Jun 12 14:42:02 2012 From: joshirutul at yahoo.co.in (Rutul Joshi) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:42:02 +0800 (SGT) Subject: [sustran] Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover epidemic continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport Policy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1339479722.31523.YahooMailNeo@web192204.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Hi Sujit and others, The figures available on the urban renewal mission website (http://jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Approved-projects-sectorwise.pdf) says that - * Out of the total central funding of about 171 billion INR, whooping 17,040 millions INR are spent on "Roads/Flyovers" with another 843 millions on stand-alone parking structures. This makes it about 10.42 percent of total central funding. This means the urban mission places 'Roads/Flyovers' as the most important priority after sectors such as water supply, sewerage and drainage. * Compared to that, only about 16,114 millions INR are spent under the title of 'Mass rapid transport systems'. Some of the mass rapid transit plans included their own flyovers/bridges as part of this cost. And we also know that some cities like Pune is believed to have taken this money and widened roads instead of attempting to build any mass transit system.? Well, this is the state of affairs after six years of existence of the 'National Urban Transport Policy' which vouched for the 'streets for people' and 'not roads for vehicles'. We seems to be spending much more on Roads/Flyovers with the central funding then on the mass rapid transit systems. Why should the national government fund the roads/flyovers? In any case, lots of cities spend on roads/flyovers on their own. Rutul _________________________________________ Rutul Joshi, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Planning and Public Policy, CEPT University, Ahmedabad - 380009. ? _________________________________________ ________________________________ From: Sujit Patwardhan To: PTTF General Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:24 AM Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flyover epidemic continues ... hell with "The National Urban Transport Policy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 June 2012 *Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes? * http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11 *Will it end traffic woes? Of course not but who cares?* Blatantly violating the recommendations of our "National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP)" that asks cities to focus on people not vehicles, all our cities in a hurry to grow into urban giants of tomorrow are trying to outdo each other in building more and more flyovers. These useless monoliths of the inglorious phase of urban planning that is also called "car-dominated" phase of city planning did nothing to solve the problem of road congestion but ironically made it worse by attracting even more private vehicles on these corridors. But like coining new popular slogans we love to make new policies that no one in the Govt bothers to enforce. NUTP supports Public Transport, Non-motorised Transport (NMT) and warns against profligate use of personal auto vehicles that hog road space, guzzle fuel (that's getting dearer and scarcer) and belch deadly auto effluents that are deadly for our health. But our cities don't seem to care a fig and continue building expensive infrastructure for the auto vehicle while starving public transport buses from even meagre financial help needed for survival. Our city leaders feel cycle tracks are a waste of public money and ask "who uses the cycle these days?" Obviously something is seriously wrong with our city governance and its not going to be put right by those who have slept all these years. People need to wake up and demand a change. Do read this article:- , http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=3&edcode=1310005&eddate=2012-6-11 the text version of this appears below:- -- Sujit *Will IIMA flyover end traffic woes?* * * Niyati Rana & Ashwini Ramesh Bahadur Soratiya? ? Sells Maskabun I have been doing business here for the last 14 years. I am disappointed with the proposal. It will be difficult for us to find a new place if the civic body moves us from here once the work begins. Shifting my business to the market will be costly as I will have to pay more rent than what we earn. The flyover will harm our business. We have not been notified about shifting to another place. And when we do, the govt won?t help us by providing us a facility at some other place to continue out trade. This will affect our business which gives me Rs2000-2500 a day. I suggest that a food court be built under the proposed flyover. It will help the vendors and the rent would add to the government?s earnings.? Experts say traffic will shift to the already congested lane towards Vastrapur lake Ahmedabad already has over a dozen flyovers and it plans to build more when countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have come to the realisation that flyovers cannot decongest traffic on roads. The latest flyover to be sanctioned by the city authorities would come up over the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA) crossroads. It has been argued that the flyover would solve the problem of chronic traffic congestion that plagues this point but the proposal has drawn criticism from city planners and architects in Ahmedabad. Experts say flyovers do not provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion; they just shift the congestion to a different place. In this case too, traffic congestion would be shifted to a different area once the IIMA flyover is ready, the experts say. Academicians, architects and city planners are one in saying that vehicular traffic using the flyover would get off near the new IIMA campus and drive to the lane going to the Vastrapur lake. This narrow lane is already congested with all kinds of traffic, right from Alpha One Mall. A member of faculty at Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT) University said that the IIMA flyover would merely shift the traffic congestion to a different point. ?It seems that the flyover was sanctioned without conducting a study to understand the flow of traffic. The authorities here seem to like launching big projects without understanding what is really needed,? he said. Director (transport) at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), Anuj Malhotra, also believes that flyovers don?t really provide a solution to the problem of traffic congestion. "At the current rate of increase in the number of private vehicles, the city?s roads get saturated by the time a flyover is ready. The city of Ahmedabad adds 600 vehicles to its roads daily," he said. Ahmedabad-based architect Yatin Pandya holds similar views. He said that the IIMA flyover would let the traffic flow straight in one direction. ?When we build a flyover, the idea is to remove the conflict between vehicles crossing each other at the crossroads. Ideally, to remove congestion, flyovers should also have branches to direct the flow of vehicles to the right or left,? he said. He further said that building a split flyover would not serve the purpose. Some aspects such as direction of the flyover, nature of the traffic and alignment of the flyover should be kept in mind while building flyovers, he added. Malhotra also said that channelising traffic over a junction with a flyover results in increasing the speed of vehicles. ?This increases the chances of fatalities during accidents. Also, channelizing never helps because the vehicles bypassing this junction will collect at the next. Hence, no matter how many flyovers we build, they will never be sufficient to end the traffic congestion,? he said. A study conducted by ITDP with EMBARQ (a centre for sustainable transport solutions), states that most advanced cities of the world have recognized that flyovers are of little help in decongesting traffic. Instead, they are moving towards a policy of discouraging the use of private vehicles. This is being done by re-allocating finances for investment in better traffic management systems and improving and maintaining high quality public transport systems. *DNA Ahmedabad, dated 11June 2012* -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [image: Inline image 1] *Parisar* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 23:57:02 2012 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:57:02 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Transport Survey Message-ID: <4FD9FBBE.10501@gmail.com> Dear all, I am forwarding this email from Carlos Cadena, I hope you can help him out (he is cc'd here): "I am a PhD fellow at the United Nations University in Maastricht. My project deals with political determinants of transport sustainability in Latin American cities. As part of my project, I have a short survey that I am running through key experts. Would you be able to give me 10 minutes to fill it in? You can find it online via this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFpiUVF2NVRTVmtvU1plTzE1OWJGT1E6MQ Thank you, Carlos (cadena (at) merit.unu.edu ) From yanivbin at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 14:58:50 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:28:50 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Cities with More Walkers, Bike Commuters are Less Obese Message-ID: http://www.governing.com/news/state/gov-biking-walking-cities-obesity-study.html Cities with More Walkers, Bike Commuters are Less Obese BY: Mike Maciag | June 14, 2012 The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirms an alarming trend: we?re fat and not getting any slimmer. An estimated 35 percent of U.S. adults are obese, and another third still maintain weights exceeding those deemed healthy. This doesn?t bode well for governments and individuals paying insurance premiums, especially with the country?s aging population. But there are antidotes to the problem, and among the best could be sidewalks and bike lanes. The infrastructure not only facilitates outdoor recreation and an alternative to congested roadways, but data shows it delivers slimmer waistlines in some of the nation?s largest metropolitan regions. A *Governing* reviewof census and CDC data finds communities where more residents walk or bike to work boast significantly healthier weights. The analysis of 2010 statistics for 126 metropolitan areas finds these communities are strongly correlatedwith higher numbers of residents who are neither obese nor overweight. Historically, studies have linked trails, sidewalks and bike lanes with an increase in walking or cycling. As medical costs continue to rise and evidence mounts that such infrastructure also improves well-being, more officials might look to give health consideration greater standing in transportation planning. ?The more access that people have to these kinds of places, the more likely they are to be healthy,? said Susan Polan, associate executive director for public affairs and advocacy with the American Public Health Association. Metropolitan regions with the healthiest weights are home to high counts of walkers and bike commuters. The CDC considers those with sizable weights for their height (body mass index of 30 or greater) to be obese, and others who are not quite obese, but exceeding healthy weights, to be ?overweight.? Approximately half of Fort Collins-Loveland, Colo., metro area residents are neither overweight nor obese. That might not sound like a lot, but it?s the highest percentage of healthy residents of all metro areas surveyed for the CDC?s 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual telephone survey measuring a range of health issues. Accordingly, census figures indicate 5.3 percent of Fort Collins-Loveland area commuters walk or bike as their primary form of transportation to work, one of the highest rates in the country. Five of the top 10 healthiest metro areasin terms of weight were among the 10 regions with highest percentages of residents walking or biking to work in the *Governing* analysis. Although tallies of walkers and bikers are small compared to all commuters, many who walk or bike to public transit stations aren?t counted in the Census Bureau?s American Community Survey data, and significantly more exercise outdoors outside of their daily commutes. While only a fraction of workers in an area may opt to bike or walk to work, having the necessary infrastructure in place compels others to use it more regularly. Spending hours a day in a car or living a sedentary lifestyle makes it difficult to shed pounds. Exercising helps, and eating habits, medical conditions and other factors understandably drive obesity rates as well. Along with commuting habits, other measures showed statistically significant relationships with healthy weights in the analysis. Healthier metro areaswere most closely correlated with the portion of a region?s population holding at least a bachelor?s degree. The Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn. metro area, a wealthy region ranking near the top in education attainment, recorded the lowest obesity rate in the CDC's 2010 survey. Still, the correlation between commuting and residents not considered obese nor overweight was strong--16 percent greater than the relationship with median household income. An area?s average commute time was slightly correlated with weight, but was not statistically significant. *Scatter plot of metro areas' walkers/bike commuters correlated with healthy weights:* The CDC recommends a range of infrastructure for communities to rein in obesity. Bike lanes, shared-use paths and bike racks promote cycling. Urban design with adequate sidewalks, lighting, street crossings and similar features supports walking and other physical activity. The agency also suggests localities work to cut miles driven on roadways. American Public Health Association's Polan cited public transit projects and converting old rail lines into trails as two of the more popular initiatives localities pursue. It?s particularly important, she said, to encourage kids to walk to school and educate them about pedestrian safety at a young age. Last year, Los Angeles County, Calif., earmarked nearly $16 million in funding for an initiativeaimed at curbing obesity, part of which included expanding bike networks and promoting open spaces. ?There are a lot of smaller initiatives that can engage and energize people and make them realize what a difference they can make at the local level,? Polan said. When cutting expenses, health costs are an easy target. A recent studyby two Lehigh University researchers reported obesity-related costs accounted for $190 billion annually in U.S. health expenditures, nearly 21 percent of the country?s total bill. Advocates often push for related projects in transportation planning, but the amount of weight officials actually give to health concerns varies. While it may be a major consideration in some communities, others focus strictly on economic concerns, Polan said. John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, said many American cities have taken steps in recent years to promote walking and biking. To improve walkability, connected street grids ? with slower speed limits and no more than two lanes in each direction ? are a key component, he said. Those looking to move can use the popular walkscore.comwebsite to measure how accessible an apartment or home?s various neighborhood amenities are on foot. Norquist, whose group advocates mixed-use and transit-oriented development, cited New York City, San Francisco, Denver and Albuquerque, N.M., as cities making strides in developing walkable communities. Biking has also accelerated, Norquist said, particularly in Seattle and other older urban environments. ?The old downtowns are in great shape for biking,? he said. Young people?s attitudes toward biking and public transit have shifted, with more seeking alternatives to long car rides, Norquist said. Bicycle manufacturers have joined in the push to remake communities, hiring lobbyists to pressure Washington and support more bike-friendly transportation planning policies. The emphasis on healthy lifestyles in urban design isn?t new, though. Richard Jackson, a former head of the CDC?s National Center for Environmental Health who has since become one the movement?s most vocal proponents, published an article linking built environments to adverse health effects back in 2001. Norquist said that the benefits of walking and biking have now become one of the central themes of urbanists? arguments for urban revival as recreation represents an increasingly key aspect of living downtown. ?It?s really going to be a big factor, because people want to be healthier,? he said. "It's a very personal thing." *View a summary of the methodology and results* *Data* The CDC?s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System measures obesity and other health factors. The table below shows 2010 estimates for each geographic region surveyed, most of which are metro areas. Click herefor a complete list of communities included in the 2010 survey, along with specific counties comprising each area. The following definitions describe the data: -- *Healthy weight*: Neither overweight nor obese -- *Overweight*: Body mass index of 25-29.9 -- *Obese*: Body mass index of 30-99.8 -- *No physical activity*: Respondents reporting doing no physical activity or exercise in the past 30 days From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 08:42:51 2012 From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:42:51 +0100 Subject: [sustran] (no subject) Message-ID: http://rockvillemarylandchiropractor.com/wp-content/themes/twentyten/yahoolinksus.html From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 08:42:51 2012 From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:42:51 +0100 Subject: ***removed*** Message-ID: ***removed*** From paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org Sun Jun 17 14:44:02 2012 From: paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org (Paul Barter) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:44:02 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Don't click on suspicious link from hacked "Jeff Turner" email Message-ID: I hope it is obvious that you should not click the link in the recent email from Jeff Turner. His hotmail has obviously been hacked. I have deleted the message from the sustran-discuss archives. Paul On 17 June 2012 07:42, jeff turner wrote: > > http:// > ... > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Jun 17 19:57:40 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:57:40 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Hacking Sustainability: Part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <20120616.050211.1110.0@webmail-beta03.dca.untd.com> Message-ID: Where can we find this app? The idea is familiar: i.e., making use of the smart phone with GPS in our pocket, and putting it to work to help us calibrate and understand a range of interconnected variables related to our mobility choices. Both (a) as the now more familiar on-line information system that can help us make better travel choices, and, less well known, (b) as a feedback system which will permit us to understand the key implications of those specific choices. Including where we travel, when and how -- and as a result the health, economics and environmental impacts of our choices, and if possible both personal and collective. Think of such an app as a healthy mobility feedback kit in our pocket. There are of course literally thousands of transport apps out there today of various intentions and quality, a number of them really excellent. But where are the ones that also provide user feedback and decision criteria on (a) those specific mobility choices and (b) their impacts on health, environment, economics? Does such an app exist, and if so please share your information with us so that we all can have a look and learn from good examples? For starters and to do the full job, these apps would have to provide the more usual functions of the full range of mobility choices open to each of us, in that place and at that time: both the phone and database know who you are, your location, and to a certain extent your historic transport preferences. On that base you then tap in your desired destination, desired time or conditions of transit (either right now or scheduled at some future time as you prefer). Your app will then present what it guesses are your likely preferences stacked and presented to you in the order that the database knows you usually prefer -- as well as the by now pretty usual range of information on likely time in transit, CO2 impacts, etc., etc. Handy stuff and pretty well served by many apps already out there doing the job in different places. Again we open up this kind of tool and use it not because we HAVE to -- but because we figure it is in our interest to do so. And of course once we get the habit, we just do it without really thinking about it. And in the process we have moved up the effectiveness scale from active to passive reactions, the latter being far more powerful. Just the kind of thing that is needed to get on the path to sustainability. But that's just the first layer. However before we get to the second layer, a few quick words about the challenge of sustainability on our benighted wheezing planet. At the heart of the move to sustainability, in all senses, is the idea that we, one by one, are going to have to modify our behavior and replace many old habits, some bad, with ones that may benefit us, both personally and collectively Now we are not taking about "behavior modification" at the hands of some dark government agency or merciless Soviet doctor/scientist sitting at a threatening console controlling electrodes attached to our who-knows-where parts. But rather a personal willingness of our part to change, if only a bit, simply we understand that this or that decision and action will be to our personal benefit. And perhaps, why not?, beneficial in some small way to society as a whole. Changing because we want to, not because we are forced to. Now back to that app. What I want it to tell me is, for example, if I walk or bike on my next trip, or hop into my car, what will be the personal health impacts of my choice. And if possible not simply in the frame of calories burned, but also against the backdrop of a more personalized health database/app. Ditto for the financial impacts (on my purse and that of the community as a whole), the effect on traffic, the environmental impacts, etc. And so on down the mobility choice chain. Our good app might at the end of each week/month present us with a summary of the various key implications of our aggregate mobility choices over that period. Finally, our good app will have to be open and programmable so that it can be easily and legally adapted to work in different places. Now where is that app we should be looking at here? /Eric Britton From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 01:35:43 2012 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:05:43 +0530 Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! America's love affair with the motor car is running on empty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: 14 June 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/12/america-motor-car-transport?CMP=EMCENVEML1631 America's love affair with the motor car is running on empty - David Burwell - guardian.co.uk , Tuesday 12 June 2012 11.53 BST The country once wedded to driving is having its eye turned by other forms of transport ? but policymakers are oblivious [image: Inline image 2] The number of miles driven by the average American has fallen since 2000. Photograph: Joe Baraban/Alamy America's love of driving is iconic. The open road is a central manifestation of America the free. During the 20th century, the total movement of cars and trucks on our national roads and highways grew as fast as our economy, or faster. Movement ? measured by total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) ? was considered an unqualified blessing. In the 1960s each American drove about 5,000 miles a year in a car, van, or truck. By 2000 that number was 10,000 miles. Which means we are twice as well off ? right? Wrong. In the early years of the 21st century, something very interesting happened. Individual vehicle travel in America lost its glamour ? and its connection to economic growth. In 2003 when VMT was 2.9 trillion miles, US gross domestic product was just under $11tr. In 2011 GDP passed $15tr while total vehicle travel was still about 2.9 trillion miles. In 2011 alone GDP went up 1.5% while VMT went down 1.5%. VMT per capita is receding as well, with each American now travelling less than 9,500 miles annually. America is not alone. The UK has experienced similar trends, with a 13% drop in annual trips by cars and vans since 1996, and a 4% reduction in annual distance travelled over the same time period. The ratio of vehicle miles travelled to GDP in the core EU 15 states has dropped by more than 10% since 2000. There are a number of explanations for why VMT is no longer growing at the same rate as GDP. Demand for shopping and business trips has slowed as these activities are increasingly conducted electronically. Internet-based social networks are fast replacing hanging out at the mall as a teenage pastime. Then there is the cost: fewer young people can afford car ownership ? the cost of insurance, fuel, and maintenance on even a used car is simply too high. Transportation policy has been slow to respond to this change in the way we prefer to travel and, at times, actively resists the shift in customer demand for cheaper, cleaner, on-demand travel choices. Forecasters continue to predict 1.6% annual increases in vehicular travel demand as far as the eye can see ? and are designing road and highway expansions to match. The Congressional Budget Office still links travel demand (and thus fuel tax revenues) directly to GDP growth. Earlier this year House leaders in Congress tried to strip funding for transit, bicycling, and pedestrian travel from the Highway Trust Fund, causing a backlash within their own ranks that forced them to drop a floor debate on the measure. In the absence of policy leadership, Americans are taking matters into their own hands. Baby boomers are giving up the suburbs for communities with more travel choices. Younger adults are delaying getting a driver's licence and, when they do, they are not buying cars or using them as much. Instead, they are embracing new forms of "collaborative consumption" ? sharing vehicles through car-share and bike-share programmes. New "smart apps" allow users to identify travel options to places they want to go on a real-time basis, then guide them to the nearest available vehicle ? whether bus, car, bicycle or train ? to get them there. All age groups appear to be moving toward mixed communities where schools, businesses, residences, and shops are in close proximity ? even walking distance. Failure to recognise this sea-change in travel behaviour leads to massive misallocation of scarce infrastructure capital. If vehicular travel is, as it seems, decoupling from GDP growth, then transportation investments should respond by supporting a much broader array of travel behaviour than driving, including bus, bus rapid transit, shared ride services, cycling and safe pedestrian travel. America still stands for freedom ? but it is no longer just the freedom of the open road. Freedom to multitask while we travel. Freedom to access social networks, buy goods and services, and conduct business without sitting in traffic. Freedom to live in clean, healthy environments. In such a world, planning to accommodate more and more driving when the customer is signalling a desire for new transportation services makes no sense. The stagnation in VMT growth is an important indicator of how lifestyles are changing in America. It's about time our legislators designed transportation policies that suit our needs in the 21st century. ? David Burwell is the director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *[image: Inline image 3] * * * *Parisar* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 17934 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120617/2adcf839/attachment-0002.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 25221 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120617/2adcf839/attachment-0003.jpe From jeffreymturner at hotmail.com Mon Jun 18 04:04:06 2012 From: jeffreymturner at hotmail.com (jeff turner) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:04:06 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Unintended Message In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues You may have received an e-mail from me earlier today. Unfortunately my e-mail has been hijacked and I did not send this message. Please disregard the earlier message, delete it and do not open the link enclosed within it. I apologise for any inconvenience my earlier message may have caused and steps are being taken to make sure this doesn't happen again. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Best regards Jeff TurnerIndependent Consultant&Visiting LecturerInstitute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsUK From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Tue Jun 19 07:27:46 2012 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:27:46 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Postdoc starting in September 2012 Message-ID: <201206182227.q5IMRa89008415@dillinger.concordia.ca> >Hello All, > >I am pasting below a call for a postdoc starting September 2012. If >interested please do not hesitate to contact me at >govind@encs.concordia.ca. > >Regards >Govind Gopakumar Ph.D. >Asst. Professor and Associate Chair, Centre for Engineering in Society >Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Concordia University >1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd West, EV002.251 >Montreal, Quebec, Canada >H3G 1M8 >Ph: (514)-848-2424 x 4068 (work) > (514)-951-9216 (cell) >Email: govind@encs.concordia.ca >Website: http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~govind/ > >Author of Transforming Urban Water Supplies in India >(http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415670678/) > > > >Postdoctoral Position in Politics of Urban Infrastructure in India > >We are a novel interdisciplinary academic centre seeking to hire a >postdoctoral researcher to work with Dr. Govind Gopakumar on his SSHRC >(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) funded research >project, Assembling Infrastructure Decongestion: a pilot investigation >of the topology of urban infrastructure transformation. This project >will try to comprehend the dynamics of contemporary efforts to >decongest clogged and choked infrastructures in Bengaluru, India. > >This one-year position (with the possibility of renewal for another >year) beginning in September 2012 will be hosted in the Centre for >Engineering in Society in the Faculty of Engineering and Computer >Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. The project will >provide the researcher with at least four opportunities to strengthen >their research expertise. First, the researcher will develop the >capacity to draw upon recent developments in fields such as technology >studies, geography, sociology, planning and public policy to >conceptualize this project. Second, the researcher will assist in >developing a methodologically sound strategy to study processes of >decongesting infrastructures. Third, the researcher will implement the >methodology through an extended period of fieldwork in India >(especially in Bengaluru). Finally, the researcher will co-author >conference papers and journal articles to document research findings. > >To meet these goals, we seek a candidate who has recently completed >(or will complete by August 2012) their Ph.D. in science and >technology studies, geography, sociology, planning or public policy >with a demonstrated research experience in the social and political >aspects of contemporary transformation in urban infrastructures in >India. Those interested are encouraged to send a letter of >introduction, a statement of research, three letters of recommendation >(by email), two writing samples (including a dissertation chapter), >and a recently updated resume to Govind Gopakumar >(govind@encs.concordia.ca) by 10th July 2012. Only electronic >applications will be considered. Shortlisted candidates will be >interviewed. To facilitate seamless relocation, preference will be >given to candidates from Canadian universities who are citizens or >permanent residents. From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 13:51:10 2012 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:21:10 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Time to push the reverse gear - GoI Monitor Message-ID: Time to push the reverse gear Mon, 18/06/2012 - 17:53 NAVDEEP ASIJA *India is widening roads and building flyovers to pamper car owners while the world is going for traffic-free ways and public transport * [image: Delhi traffic jam] Our roads cater to all kinds of vehicles unlike the homogeneous traffic of Western countries. Image: Wikicommons INDIA'S NATIONAL transport policy says there should be socially equitable distribution of space on roads but as is quite evident, we are biased towards motor vehicles. For a country like us, number of people transported is much more important than number of vehicles transported. By that standard, most of our highways are unconstitutional. We have only 18 four wheelers per 1,000 persons, which is much less when compared with US (809) and Germany (554). However, that does not stop us from importing their designs for our roads, thus, inviting disaster. Since the western road designs are for homogeneous traffic (because almost everyone there is on a car), they don't cater to our local traffic which include pedestrians, cyclists, animal-driven carts and a large number of two wheelers using the same road as heavy motor vehicles. Also, expanding and building flyovers on our urban roads without a firm policy related to land use pattern along these roads is an illogical exercise. Practically, one urban road should not be expanded more than four lanes because according to the rule of traffic equilibrium, people shift to alternate, under-utilised routes whenever there is congestion. More than four lane makes it difficult for a pedestrian to cross the road in the available 15 to 20 second time. Let's have a look at a scenario when there is a normal road with residences alongside. The traffic starts increasing with time, so the road is widened. Now, due to this extra lane, the route attracts more people and besides meeting its own demand, it has to cater to additional 10 per cent traffic. Due to the increased vehicle movement, the house owners residing along the road find it lucrative to turn their dwellings into commercial spaces. This change in activity will attract 20 per cent more traffic and during the day time, one lane will be occupied for parking again causing congestion. Now, the next 'logical' step for our planners is to further expand the road or build a flyover. The problem is we keep on digging the road while the solution lies on its side. If there had been a freeze on change of land use, there would not have been any commercial activity and the traffic would have been manageable. In many European cities, the planners are doing just that: freezing the land use change and returning to narrower roads with lesser traffic. *Stress on public transport* The urban highways are being dismantled in several cities across the world. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a pioneer of this concept. In 2003, an expressway in the city's Central Business District (CBD) was demolished to reclaim a natural creek Cheonggyecheon. It was found that though the expressway served the mobility needs of the burgeoning car owners, it severely diminished the attractiveness of CBD which lost around 40,000 residents and 80,000 jobs in 10 years after the expressway was completed. [image: Seoul greenway] The revitalised Cheonggyecheon Greenway By: lensfodder via Flickr Besides the demolition of expressway, Seoul also implemented a car restriction policy and established designated several kilometers of median lanes for buses resulting in increased accessibility to public transport. According to the traffic surveys by Seoul Metropolitan Government, the number of vehicles entering or leaving 24 entry/exist points along the Cheonggyecheon in 2006 decreased by 43 per cent and 47 per cent, respectively, as compared to their 2002 baselines. The commercial area started attracting investors and property prices in the area increased. Improvement in air quality and reduction of noise pollution were additional advantages. Now, more than 50,000 people daily visit the creek for recreational activities. Similar success stories also exist in Paris, Berlin and US cities of New York, Portland, San Francisco and Milwaukee. Sadly, we are blindly borrowing from the infrastructure model of the US and other developed countries while they are junking it. Our cities need to lay more stress on public transport. A car's average household trip occupancy rate is 1.1 but it takes around 23 sq m, the same area which can host several cyclists. This will also help save the foreign reserve, one third of which is currently being spent on oil import. In Delhi, the bus rapid transport (BRT) corridor has democratised the public space which had earlier been occupied by private vehicles. Besides offering faster service to bus users, it has brought around 1,200 new cyclists to the main road by offering them a separate lane. Scared of bigger motor vehicles, these cyclists were earlier taking internal, longer routes. The same BRT has been dubbed a failure by car users just because they are facing congestion. Owning a car is a luxury in our country and it should not automatically guarantee a right to freeway. The real benefits of BRT will be visible only if it's further expanded. People will switch to buses easing congestion and leading to improvement in air and noise pollution. Example of Bogota in Colombia can be quoted here for better understanding. The city was facing heavy traffic congestion for which six urban highways (with toll plazas) and a metro system were proposed. However, Bagota's mayor decided to go for BRT and within six years of its implementation, traffic fatalities in the city reduced by 89 per cent while cycle use increased by five times because of traffic-free ways. The whole system was developed much faster and at a fraction of the cost of highways and metro system. A BRT corridor costs Rs 3-5 crore per km as compared to Rs 200 crore per km for a metro and can carry 30 per cent more passengers if designed properly. It's high time we understand these simple calculations and avoid falling into the trap of highly expensive expressways and flyovers just to ensure smooth ride to a small fraction of our population. * Navdeep Asija is a civil engineering research scholar working in the field of road safety.* *http://www.goimonitor.com/story/time-push-reverse-gear * From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 13:49:21 2012 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:19:21 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_Development_Banks_Announce_=93G?= =?windows-1252?Q?ame_Changer=94_for_Sustainable_Transport_at_Rio+2?= =?windows-1252?Q?0?= In-Reply-To: <9b8e796db3-sujit=parisar.org@mail.vresp.com> References: <9b8e796db3-sujit=parisar.org@mail.vresp.com> Message-ID: 21 June 2012 *"This is a game changer for sustainable transport. It will ensure that hundreds of millions of people will have cleaner air, less congested roads, and safer transportation.* *?Ten years ago transportation wasn?t even in the discussion; now it?s a major outcome from the world?s preeminent conference on sustainable development.* While we wait for our decision makers to become "game changers" (instead of being stumbling blocks for sustainable development - not just transportation), it's good to see the intentions of development bankers at Rio+ conference. Do read. -- Sujit ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: EMBARQ Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM Subject: Development Banks Announce ?Game Changer? for Sustainable Transport at Rio+20 To: sujit@parisar.org ** [image: EMBARQ] Mexico Brasil Turkiye India Andino [image: Transoeste BRT] Development Banks Announce "Game Changer" for Sustainable Transport at Rio+20 The world?s largest multi-lateral development banks ? led by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and others ? committed to provide more than *$175 billion* over 10 years to support sustainable transport in developing countries. The announcement was made at the UN Sustainable Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20) by the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, CAF- Development Bank of Latin America, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and the World Bank. *Following is a statement from our director, Holger Dalkmann :* "This is a game changer for sustainable transport. It will ensure that hundreds of millions of people will have cleaner air, less congested roads, and safer transportation. ?Ten years ago transportation wasn?t even in the discussion; now it?s a major outcome from the world?s preeminent conference on sustainable development. ?Banks are putting their money where it matters ? on streets built for people, not just cars. The world?s population is expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, with more than half living in Asia, mostly in urban areas. At the same time, the rate of vehicle ownership is predicted to skyrocket from around 800 million cars a decade ago to around 2 billion in 2030. These two mega-trends are coming together to create an environment where people must compete for financial, institutional, and physical resources. In response, we need better urban designs; more sustainable transportation modes, like walking, biking and mass transit; and improvements in existing vehicle and fuel technology. ?This investment is not just about improving the way people move from point A to point B; it?s also about providing access and mobility for the poor and improving road safety, not to mention reducing transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. Transport is no small piece of the climate change pie: the sector represents approximately one-quarter of global CO2 emissions. ?Today?s announcement will no doubt encourage other decision-makers, especially national governments, to consider financing transport projects based on social and environmental benefits. It will push sustainability into the core of urban development. ?At the same time, we need to make sure that the money gets invested into the right kind of projects, and that there are sound mechanisms to measure its impact. This will require full transparency and independent monitoring. ?Countries often invest in transportation and infrastructure, but much of that goes into highways. We need to be smarter about where money flows, whether that means creating vibrant public spaces, providing safer infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, or building high-tech, low-cost transit systems. Doing this would be a paradigm shift in the way we finance the growth of sustainable cities, similar to what the Asian Development Bank has done with its Sustainable Transport Initiative, a lending and technical assistance program for transport projects in Asia and the Pacific that emphasizes inclusive economic and environmentally sustainable growth. ?EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute?s center for sustainable transport, is a founding member of the Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport, which helped to catalyze this new financial commitment by the banks. ?Years from now, we may look back at Rio+20 as the moment when transport was pushed to the top of the sustainability agenda.? EMBARQ.org Careers Events Staff News ------------------------------ Click to view this email in a browser If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe ------------------------------ EMBARQ - The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St NE Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20002 USA Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy. [image: Non-Profits Email Free with VerticalResponse!] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *[image: Inline image 1] * * * *Parisar* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 17934 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120621/c2dabc66/attachment.jpe From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Jun 23 17:37:55 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:55 +0200 Subject: [sustran] local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized Message-ID: <002d01cd511b$80966840$81c338c0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike accessible? Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the work.. Kind thanks/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 P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 21:20:21 2012 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:20:21 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized In-Reply-To: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid> Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce representatives have said that their sales went down since then but they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report. Pardo Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote: > Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local > businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike > accessible? > > > > Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? > > > > Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to > me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these > local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the > work.. > > > > Kind thanks/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 > > > > P 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 operations at velomondial.net Sat Jun 23 21:22:40 2012 From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:22:40 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized In-Reply-To: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid> References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <83722BED-4A88-4338-9AE8-F6DCCC8DF969@velomondial.net> We have no knowledge of such reports and we have been looking for them. Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Velo Mondial, A Micro Multi-National operations@velomondial.net +31206270675 landline +31627055688 mobile phone Velo Mondial's Blog Search Button Booklet Click here for information on urban mobility issues you always wanted to have On 23 jun. 2012, at 14:20, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main > road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce > representatives have said that their sales went down since then but > they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report. > > Pardo > > Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. > > On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote: > >> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local >> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike >> accessible? >> >> >> >> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? >> >> >> >> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to >> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these >> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the >> work.. >> >> >> >> Kind thanks/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 >> >> >> >> P 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'). From litman at vtpi.org Mon Jun 25 08:23:20 2012 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:23:20 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Local Economic Development Impacts of Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements In-Reply-To: <1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <002d01cd511b$80966840$81c338c0$@britton@ecoplan.org> <1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org> Here is information on walkability impacts local economic development impacts from the "Walkability" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm92.htm ) Pedestrian Malls and Districts ============================== Pedestrianized commercial districts can support urban revitalization and economic development by creating a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors, although they must be carefully implemented to be effective (Rodriguez 2010). Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic altogether, at least during certain time periods such as evenings or weekends, while others allow automobile traffic but use traffic calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes. Success varies depending on specific conditions. Many pedestrian-only commercial streets created in North American towns and cities during the 1970s failed to attract customers, and many were subsequently reopened to automobile travel, but others thrived, particularly in resort communities or as part of overall downtown redevelopment. Below are guidelines for creating successful pedestrianized streets and districts: ? It is generally better to calm vehicle traffic and improve non-motorized conditions throughout an area, than to let high speed and volume motor vehicle traffic dominate except on a token pedestrian street. ? Pedestrian areas require a critical mass of users. They should be both a destination and a thoroughfare that connects diverse attractions (housing, shops, offices, etc.). Encourage development that attracts a broad range of customers and clients, including retail, housing, education and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops. ? Develop a pleasant environment, with greenery, shade and amenities. Building features and street furniture should be pedestrian scale and attractive. Maintain high standards for security, cleanliness and physical maintenance. Minimize blank building walls. ? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit vehicles, resident and hotel pickup, service and emergency vehicles, or other appropriate categories. ? Pedestrian streets should be located in pedestrian-friendly areas with good access to public transit and parking. Slow and restrict vehicle traffic on cross-streets. ? Develop a variety of artistic, cultural and recreational amenities (statues, fountains, playgrounds) and activities (concerts, fairs, markets). Highlight historical features. Mark Byrnes (2012), ?The Uncertain Legacy of America's Pedestrian Malls,? Atlantic Cities (www.theatlanticcities.com); at www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/05/uncertain-legacy-americas-pedestrian-malls/1929 Luis Rodriguez (2011), Pedestrian-Only Shopping Streets Make Communities More Livable, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com); at www.planetizen.com/node/47517. ====================================================================================== Here is information on car-free streets impacts local economic development impacts from the "Car-Free Planning" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm6.htm ) Pedestrian-Oriented Commercial Areas --------------------------------------- Pedestrianized commercial districts can support urban revitalization and economic development, although they must be carefully implemented to be effective (West 1990; Robertson 1990; ?Pedestrian Malls,? Wikipedia). They can help create a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors (Rodriguez 2010). Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic altogether, at least during certain time periods such as evenings or weekends, while others allow automobile traffic but use Traffic Calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes (Boyd 1998). Success varies depending on specific conditions. Many pedestrian-only commercial streets created during the 1970s in North American towns and cities failed to attract customers, and many were subsequently reopened to automobile travel. However, some pedestrian-only streets succeeded, particularly in Resort communities or as part of appropriate downtown redevelopment (Rodriguez 2010). Retail areas often subsidize vehicle parking on the assumption that customers need to drive to make large purchases. This may sometimes be true, but not always. Many cities find that a significant portion of shoppers arrive without a car and those who arrive by alternative modes are good shoppers. A study of Prince Street (Schaller Consulting 2006), a commercial street in SoHo, New York City found that: ? 89% of Prince Street users arrive by subway, bus, walking or bicycle. Only 9% arrive by car. ? By a ratio of 5:1 shoppers said they would come to Prince Street more often if they had more space to walk, even if it meant eliminating parking spaces. This ratio was nearly identical for visitors and those who live and work in the area. ? Most shoppers would rather see space taken away from parked cars rather than street vendors. ? The shoppers who value wider sidewalks over parking spent about five times as much money, in aggregate, as those who value parking over sidewalks. Similarly, a study of downtown San Francisco shoppers that found less than one-fifth drive to shop, and that they spend less money in aggregate than shoppers using other transportation modes (Bent 2006). The study indicates drivers spend more each trip than transit riders, but visit less often and account for far fewer total visits and therefore spend less in total. Walkers average eight downtown shopping trips a month, spending $36 per trip and $291 per month. Motorists average four downtown shopping trips a month, spending $88 per trip and $259 per month. Transit riders average seven shopping trips per month, spending $40 per trip and $274 per month. Overall, 60% of shoppers arrive by public transit, 20% arrive by walking, 19% by automobile and 1% by bicycle, yet downtown merchants surveyed in the study estimated that 90% of their customers arrive by car. A study of consumer expenditures in British towns found that customers who walk actually spend more than those who drive, and transit and car travelers spend about the same amounts. Business and residents should be involved in planning and managing pedestrian commercial streets. Often, a downtown business organization or Transportation Management Association will oversee Streetscape development, as well as parking management and promotion activities. Below are recommended guidelines for creating a successful pedestrian commercial street or district: ? Pedestrian streets are only successful in areas that are attractive and lively. They require a critical mass of users. They should serve as both a destination and a thoroughfare by forming a natural connection route between diverse attractions (housing, shops, offices, etc.). ? Develop a pleasant environment, with greenery, shade and rain covers. Use brick, block pavement or textured cement instead of asphalt, if possible. Street-level building features and street furniture should be pedestrian scale and attractive. Minimize blank building walls. ? Encourage the development of diverse pedestrian-oriented activities that attract a broad range of customers and clients, including retail and commercial services, housing and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops. ? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit and HOV vehicles, pickup and drop-off for residents and hotels, service and emergency vehicles, or other categories deemed appropriate. ? Pedestrian streets should have good access to public transit and parking. They should be located in pedestrian-friendly areas. Mid-block walkways and buildings open to through public traffic should be developed and enhanced as much as possible. ? Develop a variety of artistic, cultural and recreational amenities (statues, fountains, playgrounds) and activities (concerts, fairs, markets). Highlight historical features. ? Pedestrian streets should generally be small and short, typically just a few blocks in length, although this may increase over time if appropriate. ? Security, cleanliness and physical maintenance standards must be high. ? Vehicle traffic on cross-streets should be slowed or restricted. ====================================================== Here is information on bicycle facility impacts local economic development impacts from the "Cycling Improvements" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm93.htm ) "In a survey of business owners in an urban retail district, Drennen (2003) found that 65% consider arterial bike lanes to provide overall economic development benefits, compared with 4% that consider it overall negative, and 65% support expansion of the program in their area." Emily Drennen (2003), "Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses," Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University (www.emilydrennen.org); at www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf. "Merchants on a particular street often object to parking-to-bike-lane conversions out of fear that they will lose customers who use on-street parking. This is often untrue or inappropriate. In many cases, on-street parking serves only a small portion of their total customers, alternative parking is available nearby, and some of their customers who currently drive will shift to cycling if suitable facilities are available (Sztabinski 2009). This is actually a debate between very local costs (the merchants who lose a few parking spaces) versus widely distributed benefits (businesses throughout the area who will benefit from reduced automobile parking demand, travelers who benefit from financial savings and health benefits, and all residents who benefit from reduced traffic congestion, accident risk and pollution emissions)." Fred Sztabinski (2009), "Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business A Study of Bloor Street in Toronto?s Annex Neighbourhood," The Clean Air Partnership (www.cleanairpartnership.org); at www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/bike-lanes-parking.pdf. ============================================================= >From my report, "Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts" (www.vtpi.org/econ_dev.pdf ) "Walkability can affect retail area attractiveness and therefore economic success (Hass-Klau 1993). Retailers sometimes favor automobile access (traffic and parking lanes) over non-motorized access (such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes and traffic calming) because they assume motorists spend more than customers who travel by other modes, but in many urban areas a majority of customers arrive by alternative modes, and although motorists tend to spent more per trip, pedestrians and cyclists shop more frequently and spend more per capita over a month or year (Transportation Alternatives & Schaller Consulting 2006; Sztabinski 2009; Malatest & Associates 2010). Because bicycle parking is space efficient it generates about five times as much spending per square meter as automobile parking (Lee and March 2010). Although tourism requires transport, excessive emphasis on motor vehicle access (for example, expanding highways, parking facilities and airports) can spoil the attributes that attract visitors. Unique transport activities, such as walking, cycling and train travel, can help attract tourists (Tourism Vermont 2007)." European Commission (1999), "Cycling: The Way Ahead For Towns And Cities: A Handbook for Local Authorities," Environment DG, European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/images/language/lang_en3.gif). C. Hass-Klau (1993), ?Impact Of Pedestrianisation And Traffic Calming On Retailing, A Review Of The Evidence From Germany And The UK,? Transport Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21-31. Alison Lee and Alan March (2010), ?Recognising The Economic Role Of Bikes: Sharing Parking In Lygon Street, Carlton,? Australian Planner, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 85 - 93; at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293681003767785; also see http://colabradio.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Value_of_Bike_Parking_Alison_Lee.pdf. Malatest & Associates (2010), "Victoria Regional Rapid Transit: Survey Of Businesses, Property Owners, And Customers," BC Transit (www.transitbc.com); at www.transitbc.com/vrrt/displaypdf/Business_Survey_Results.pdf. TA (2006), "Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo," Transportation Alternatives & Schaller Consulting (www.transalt.org); at www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/soho_curbing_cars.pdf. Tourism Vermont (2007), "Travel and Tourism Industry in Vermont: A Benchmark Study of the Economic Impact of Visitor Expenditures on the Vermont Economy," Vermont Department of Tourism & Marketing, Vermont Partners (www.vermontpartners.org); at www.vermontpartners.org/pdf/Research_Brochure_2007.pdf; methodology at www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/publications/implan_method.pdf. Also see: CPF (2008), "Economic Benefits of Cycling for Australia," Cycling Promotion Fund (www.cyclingpromotion.com.au); at www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPF_CyclingBenefits.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? 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? From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman Sent: June-23-12 6:34 AM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; UTSG Mailing List (Z UTSG Mailing List -) Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized 1. Well, in the US, there were a number of pedestrianized malls created in the 1960s and 1970s. With a couple of exceptions, most have been removed. They weren't successful for multiple reasons: (1) cities were depopulating; (2) locally-owned stores in downtowns were decamping to the suburbs; (3) community mental health facilities weren't created as a part of the deinstitutionalization movement and so center cities became a kind of holding place for "street people" (people with health and substance abuse issues that made it difficult for them to live "normally"); (4) locally owned department stores failed, further reducing the impact of downtown as a commercial destination. So basically, streets were pedestrianized simultaneously with a severe decrease in the number of pedestrians, and an increase in other problems. As someone said on a now defunct Project for Public Spaces e-list on public space (maybe it's another list topic to pick up and run with as part of the New Mobility Agenda), plants don't animate places, people do. And so having motorized traffic has been considered to be an important albeit not lovingly component of place activation. The places in the US where pedestrian malls continue to be successful are limited, but are in places where there are great numbers of pedestrians, either as college students (Boulder, CO; Burlington, VT; to some extent Charlottesville, VA--there are vacancies there) or in tourist areas (Santa Monica, CA; Miami Beach, FL [I think]). I wrote a blog entry about Boulder's pedestrian mall a few years ago, which is cited within this entry: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/04/todays-trends-with-pedestrian-malls.html Boulder's mall in fact is highly managed to be active, which is key to its success. 2. David Feehan, formerly director of the Intl. Downtown Assn., co-authored a journal article on the topic (I don't know if it was accepted), and I can ask him if I can forward it to the list. He also distinguishes between "transit malls" like Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis and 16th St. in Denver, where transit is part of the mall, just not motor vehicles. (There is also the bus mall in Portland, OR, although cars do go on it too. It has been recently redesigned. When I was there in 2005, I thought it was grim.) A professor, Kent Robertson, wrote a bunch of articles on the topic in the 1990s. E.g., http://uar.sagepub.com/content/26/2/250.abstract 3. As far as one way streets go, interestingly, I read an article in the Ann Arbor Observer more than 20 years ago about the impact of making Glen St. one way in the late 1960s. The gas station located on the street had a 50% drop in business. In fact, the IRS audited them because they didn't believe it. 4. When I was in Montreal for vacation in July 2010, some merchants on St. Catherine Street had a campaign against the Art Festival on the street, which banned cars for many blocks (from the Rue Berri-UQAM station pretty far down but not all the way (I think) to the Papineau Station. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=bc8e730d-3ee8-46bd-8e7f-2073b0102417 And Montreal has a number of other pedestrian street initiatives--near McGill U, and in the Old City. I bet Zvi Leve could offer some insights as to what merchants think today. Richard Layman _____ From: eric britton To: Sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; UTSG Mailing List (Z UTSG Mailing List -) Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:37 AM Subject: WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike accessible? Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the work.. Kind thanks/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 P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement __._,_.___ The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda Consult at: http://NewMobility.org To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ From sunny.iclei at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 17:13:47 2012 From: sunny.iclei at gmail.com (Sunny Kodukula) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:13:47 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized In-Reply-To: <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid> References: <4fe58078.e3e1440a.715e.ffff9a4aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <-3864495263560956097@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <10B45ED5-8B43-4860-B644-90A2BC9A9051@gmail.com> There is always a perception from the businesses in the area of their sales being down, this is to corroborate their earlier perception that such a project harms the business. But a research will show the opposite. I dont think there is document proof of sales going down. It will be great to see such a report. cheers sunny On 23.06.2012, at 14:20, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > Bogot? has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main > road (s?ptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce > representatives have said that their sales went down since then but > they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report. > > Pardo > > Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos. > > On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton wrote: > >> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local >> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike >> accessible? >> >> >> >> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? >> >> >> >> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to >> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these >> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the >> work.. >> >> >> >> Kind thanks/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 >> >> >> >> P 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'). From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 04:34:27 2012 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:04:27 +0530 Subject: [sustran] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Five Years of Velib -- How Cycling Became Chic in Paris !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: 25 June 2012 06/25/2012 Five Years of VelibHow Cycling Became Chic in Paris By Stefan Simons in Paris *Once upon a time, only a small number of Parisians rode bikes, but the French capital city's Velib bike rental system has shaken up the way locals move from Point A to Point B. Five years after their debut, cycling has become cool in Paris -- and there are fewer cars clogging up the city center.* * * *Read the full article here: * http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/paris-bike-hire-scheme-is-five-years-old-a-840775.html Or see the attachment. -- Sujit -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *[image: Inline image 1] * * * *Parisar* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 17934 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/attachment-0001.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: How Cycling Became Chic in Paris_25_6_2012.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 48510 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/2c7a248e/HowCyclingBecameChicinParis_25_6_2012-0001.bin From yanivbin at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 14:56:25 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:26:25 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Centre sanctions 60 more buses, Nagpur Municipal Corporation refuses Message-ID: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Centre-sanctions-60-more-buses-Nagpur-Municipal-Corporation-refuses/articleshow/14378777.cms *Centre sanctions 60 more buses, Nagpur Municipal Corporation refuses* Anjaya Anparthi, TNN | Jun 25, 2012, 12.21AM IST Article Comments (1) inShare Read more:Vilas Muttemwar|Vansh Nimay Infra Projects Pvt Ltd|Jawaharlal Nehru|additional deputy 1 NAGPUR: In 2009, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) had applied for 800 buses for the city, citing the population of over 24 lakh. Today, the central government's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) unit, which functions under the Union ministry of urban development (UD), is giving NMC another 60 buses, but NMC is not ready to take them, since it is finding it difficult to maintain the existing buses. The JNNURM's central sanctioning and monitoring committee (CSMC) took a review of buses sanctioned for the city on May 30 at New Delhi. According to the minutes of the meeting approved on June 8, the Centre had sanctioned 300 buses for the city, including 240 standard and 60 minibuses on February 21, 2009. In the meeting on January 3, 2012, the CSMC sanctioned 60 standard buses instead of 60 minibuses. But, sources told TOI, NMC had expressed its inability to procure and run 60 more buses. Actually, the NMC had procured just 240 standard-size buses and expressed inability to buy the 60 minibuses. Later, NMC planned to procure two air-conditioned buses to run between the airport and the city or in the proposed 'Nagpur Darshan' tours. However, NMC none of these plans materialized. Now, NMC does not want the 60 more standard buses despite 70% funding coming from the centre and state government. NMC's decision is a big blow for the city as the number of buses is falling short in catering to the requirements of the city. Besides 240 buses sanctioned by the government, Starbus operator Vansh Nimay Infra Projects Pvt Ltd had purchased 230 buses since 2007. Around 110-120 buses of total 470 are non-functional today, leaving 350-360 buses on the roads. Buses are often overcrowded. Besides, buses are run on very few routes and yet to start services in many parts of the city. The worst part of Starbuses is that the existing buses are very badly maintained. A senior official from Vansh Nimay told TOI that running more buses is not at all possible. "Bus stand, depot and workshop is must to operate city bus service. None of these is available in the city. The maintenance of existing buses is not possible due to lack of infrastructure," he said. Additional deputy municipal commissioner Sanjay Nipane was not available to comment despite repeated attempts. In fact, JNNURM unit is upset with NMC's performance. According to the minutes of the meeting, secretary (UD) Dr Sudhir Krishna was concerned with the way the bus funding project is being implemented in the city. "Krishna also cited complaints being received every now and then by the ministry. Krishna suggested the state government should review the issues sincerely and minutely, and take necessary action to sort out these issues." It is further mentioned that NMC is yet to initiate steps to provide proper service to citizens. "No details of coordination between Starbuse and Nagpur Mahanagar Parivahan Limited (NMPL), a special purpose vehicle formed by NMC to operate service have been provided to JNNURM. Payment to the bus manufacturers should be done without waiting for the instalments from the ministry. The state government was asked to submit a reply within 30 days from December 22, 2011, after an enquiry. The reply is yet to be submitted. Enquiry was done following allegations made by MP Vilas Muttemwar," the minutes say. From barbara at rideyourcity.co.za Tue Jun 26 16:36:31 2012 From: barbara at rideyourcity.co.za (Barbara Jennings) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:36:31 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Southern African Transport Conference 2012 In-Reply-To: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za> References: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za> Message-ID: <4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za> Dear Colleagues, For the past 30 years more than 700 leading transport experts and professionals have gathered together during the Southern African Transport Conference (SATC) to discuss and debate Southern Africa's transport challenges and trends based on in-depth research papers and presentations. This year will be no different as the SATC kicks off from *Monday 9 July to Thursday 12 July 2012* at the CSIR International Convention Centre in Pretoria. In-depth research papers on topical transport issues have been reviewed by the Technical Committee to ensure the content is relevant, interesting and informative for all delegates from the transport industry or related industries. The SATC's theme for this year is /"Getting Southern Africa to Work."/ Hot topics such as urban transport, infrastructure and rural transport, traffic management, BRTs road management and access and many more will be explored through a series of information sessions, plenary addresses and workshops. Please find three very relevant articles attached for publication in the run up to the conference: 1. Can variable speed limits in South Africa work? / By Christo Bester and MS Marais /2. Giving infrastructure projects a green rating: How to design 'green' from the inside out. 3. Living the public transport lifestyle: is it possible in South Africa? / By Gail Jennings/ Please let me know if you need more information about the conference. Best wishes, Barbara *Barbara Jennings* /Distribution Manager//, Ride Your City/ Tel: (021) 782 7480 www.capetownbicyclemap.co.za Facebook Twitter WordPress Want a signature like mine? Click here. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SATC 2012 Speed limits.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 88745 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012Speedlimits-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SATC 2012 Green rating system-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56027 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012Greenratingsystem-1-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SATC 2012 - public transport_ lifestyle.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 67511 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20120626/9b260040/SATC2012-publictransport_lifestyle-0001.pdf From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jun 26 17:40:42 2012 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:40:42 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Parking vs. ped/bike. What if the other guy actually has a point? Message-ID: <006901cd5377$627d87e0$277897a0$@britton@ecoplan.org> Last Saturday morning, the 23rd of June, I thought to ask an open question to several of our New Mobility Agenda fora as follows: Has anyone out there ever run across a solid report or study showing that local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike accessible? Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made? Most of us here are familiar with the other side of this coin, but it occurred to me that this such critical references might be useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the world. My reason for doing this was that this matter of ubiquitous business and political resistance to pedestrian and cycling improvements, if they come at the expense of convenient parking and easy car access -- is a battle which comes up time and again with almost the same arguments advanced on the two sides, and which results far more often than not in an impasse. City after city, country after country, you can count on it. So faced with this I had decided to write a thinkpiece setting out a range of strategies for local government, activists and others who favor softer transport means. And since what I know of the literature is by and large supportive of the out-car in-bike/ped approach, I thought that before leaping into the fray to see if I might do well to get a better grasp on the downside when it comes to real world applications and debates. Or in other words, maybe the other guy just may have a point. Today, only four days later, we have received more than two dozen communications from academics, consultants, activists and people involved in local government in more than a dozen different countries who set out some very thoughtful perspectives and background, which makes it clear to me that this is an area of transport policy and practice that requires a careful and balanced approach. But let's think about handling this in two stages, starting with the open dialogue without editorial or analysis on my part. Let me today invite you to see the responses that have come in thus far which are all summaries on our World Streets Facebook site at http://www.facebook.com/worldstreets. You will see the original question and the responses to date if you simply scroll down the page. For the rest, once the flow is stemmed, we can get down to the strategy piece and recommendations. Kind thanks to all who have generously joined in. And if you have not yet shared your references or ideas, this forum is still wide open. Eric Britton From zvi.leve at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 01:22:49 2012 From: zvi.leve at gmail.com (Zvi Leve) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:22:49 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Local Economic Development Impacts of Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements In-Reply-To: <09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org> References: <1340458460.27567.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <09b701cd5260$57a40f00$06ec2d00$@org> Message-ID: I would like to expand a bit on a few points which Todd has already made: On 24 June 2012 19:23, Todd Alexander Litman wrote: > > > > ? Pedestrian areas require a critical mass of users. They should be > both a destination and a thoroughfare that connects diverse attractions > (housing, shops, offices, etc.). Encourage development that attracts a > broad range of customers and clients, including retail, housing, education > and employment. Apartments and offices can often be located over shops. > > > I think that there are two fundamentally different types of development here: specific places such as a square or even and individual street, or along entire corridors which are crucial for providing continuity (car drivers do not like stop and go traffic, why should this be the norm for pedestrians?). Many European cities have entire networks of contiguous pedestrian areas which permit people to move about the city without being exposed to vehicular traffic at every intersection. These are truly separate networks, not just individual streets.... Concerning mixed uses, it is hugely important to bring more than just commercial and housing to the area! Office space, services (health and even educational), and cultural uses can all animate the area at different times of day. > ? Allow motor vehicles as required for access, with appropriate > restrictions based on need, time and vehicle type. This may include > unrestricted motor vehicle traffic during morning hours, transit vehicles, > resident and hotel pickup, service and emergency vehicles, or other > appropriate categories. > It is very important to provide some flexibility in access and to recognize that there are different needs at different times of day. > "Merchants on a particular street often object to parking-to-bike-lane > conversions out of fear that they will lose customers who use on-street > parking. This is often untrue or inappropriate. In many cases, on-street > parking serves only a small portion of their total customers, alternative > parking is available nearby, and some of their customers who currently > drive will shift to cycling if suitable facilities are available > (Sztabinski 2009). This is actually a debate between very local costs (the > merchants who lose a few parking spaces) versus widely distributed benefits > (businesses throughout the area who will benefit from reduced automobile > parking demand, travelers who benefit from financial savings and health > benefits, and all residents who benefit from reduced traffic congestion, > accident risk and pollution emissions)." > In Montreal, most of the pedestrian projects are in central areas which have quite high property values. The small commerce owners often cannot afford to live in such areas, and have moved to more distant car-oriented suburbs. Thus, the owners arrive at their commerces by car and naturally assume that most of their clientele arrive in a similar manner. Access to parking spaces is a very important concern for these people.... But in my opinion, the larger issue is the fact that small business owners cannot afford to live in the area where their businesses are located. Richard has also made a number of excellent points. The link between pedestrian and cycling improvements (or any transportation project) and economic "development" is far from direct. There are many other factors at work, and many perverse incentives which encourage or discourage certain development outcomes..... > > > 1. Well, in the US, there were a number of pedestrianized malls created > in the 1960s and 1970s. With a couple of exceptions, most have been > removed. They weren't successful for multiple reasons: (1) cities were > depopulating; (2) locally-owned stores in downtowns were decamping to the > suburbs; (3) community mental health facilities weren't created as a part > of the deinstitutionalization movement and so center cities became a kind > of holding place for "street people" (people with health and substance > abuse issues that made it difficult for them to live "normally"); (4) > locally owned department stores failed, further reducing the impact of > downtown as a commercial destination. > > > > So basically, streets were pedestrianized simultaneously with a severe > decrease in the number of pedestrians, and an increase in other problems. > As someone said on a now defunct Project for Public Spaces e-list on > public space (maybe it's another list topic to pick up and run with as part > of the New Mobility Agenda), plants don't animate places, people do. And > so having motorized traffic has been considered to be an important albeit > not lovingly component of place activation. > > > > 4. When I was in Montreal for vacation in July 2010, some merchants on > St. Catherine Street had a campaign against the Art Festival on the street, > which banned cars for many blocks (from the Rue Berri-UQAM station pretty > far down but not all the way (I think) to the Papineau Station. > > > And Montreal has a number of other pedestrian street initiatives--near > McGill U, and in the Old City. I bet Zvi Leve could offer some insights as > to what merchants think today. > > > Pedestrian and cyclist development in Montreal has become a *highly* contentious topic. Projet Montr?alwhich won all of the seats in the central Plateau Mont-Royal borough has been pushing non-stop to get as many progressive transportation things done while they can, but they are encountering significant push-back from many directions (from merchants on one of the pedestrian streetsfor example). On the other hand, Jimmy Zoubris who is a small commerce owner on Parc Ave (a long-struggling commercial artery) recognizes that we are in for a "rough ride" but he has thrown his support fully behind the Projet Montreal team. Best, Zvi From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Thu Jun 28 12:43:04 2012 From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:43:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Safety on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Roads In-Reply-To: <4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za> References: <4FE885D5.3010301@rideyourcity.co.za> <4FE9667F.30803@rideyourcity.co.za> Message-ID: <4FEBD2C8.3000004@ties.ottawa.on.ca> Our BRT system in Ottawa is just passed its 30th birthday. Just a couple months ago, two of the buses collided. Although the low-speed collision (at turn within one of the stations) resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, there was a furore of the slow reaction of the authority to report the accident and inform users of the reasons for near gridlock for hours. Obviously, the authority had not considered such an occurrence possible. Given that passengers do not have seat belts, that many do not have seats, that speeds of buses are quite high (compared to regular-street service) and that these roadways (called "transitway" locally) are undivided, so that buses from opposing directions have no physical barrier (such as a Jersey barrier) providing separation and a deflector if one bus moved toward the centreline), this situation seems to be a huge catastrophe just waiting to happen. The lack of restraints on transit vehicles reflects the expectation that collisions would occur primarily with much smaller vehicles, in which case the brunt of the impact would be experienced by the other vehicle. But collisions between two loades buses at high speeds (60-80 kms are common, and patrons have reported higher speeds). Rail technology, which is often much faster, is at least "guided" and operator error less consequential. Does anyone know of any industry or state recognition of this risk -- or of actual collisions between two or more transit vehicles -- that might shed some light on just how dangerous this situation is and what measures might be taken to reduce that danger? Chris Bradshaw Ottawa, Canada From yanivbin at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 15:07:59 2012 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:37:59 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Japan agency seeks to build Rs. 4, 800 crore tunnel in Western Ghats Message-ID: http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/27231114/Japan-agency-seeks-to-build-Rs.html Japan agency seeks to build Rs. 4,800 crore tunnel in Western Ghats Under the JICA proposal, the proposed 18.5km stretch will include five tunnels, and four overbridges Shamsheer Yousaf Bangalore: The Karnataka government is looking to solve the recurring problem of unmotorable roads on the national highway between Bangalore and the port city of Mangalore by constructing an 18.5 kilometre, multi-stage tunnel through the Western Ghats at a cost of Rs. 4,800 crore. An expert group from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has submitted a report to the Karnataka government on the construction of a four-lane expressway between Sakleshpur in Hassan district and Gundia in Dakshina Kannada district along National Highway 48 connecting Bangalore and Mangalore. Under the JICA proposal, the proposed 18.5km stretch will include five tunnels, and four overbridges. A 2km arch bridge will also be constructed to provide connectivity across a valley. The current 30km road from Sakleshpur to Mangalore climbs over the Shirdi ghat section of the Western Ghats. The condition of this section of the highway deteriorates every year because of heavy rainfall?around 400 centimetre annually?and accidents are frequent. In 2011, the state government spent nearly Rs. 22 crore on repairing the stretch. The proposed expressway, to be built over six years, is expected to reduce the commuting time from 3 hours to less than half-an-hour. The proposed road will also improve connectivity to the New Mangalore Port. ?Currently, consignments from several parts of Karnataka prefer to go either to Chennai or to Goa despite Mangalore port being closer,? said Karnataka?s large and medium industries minister Murugesh Nirani. ?We need to close the gap in the connectivity infrastructure.? JICA also submitted that the project will be financially viable if traffic density is around 10,000 vehicles per day. According to the figures furnished by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), the traffic density is estimated at around 8,000 vehicles daily. Nirani added that the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) had expressed interest in providing technical assistance to build the tunnel with private firms in a public-private partnership. Public works minister C.M. Udasi said the state government had already submitted the proposal to the union ministry of road transport and highways and is awaiting a reply. ?We had a long discussion with the Japanese delegation during the Global Investors Meet earlier this month and some firms have expressed interest in taking up the project,? he said. The state government took the tunnel approach after it failed to receive environment clearances for converting the the ghat section into a four-lane highway. Several projects in the Western Ghats have been held up due to lack of environmental clearances. These include the Hubli-Ankola railway line and a hydel power project in Gundia. *shamsheer.y@livemint.com* From czegras at MIT.EDU Fri Jun 29 03:26:26 2012 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:26:26 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Workshop summary: Transantiago and Metrobus: How to Achieve Social Sustainability? Message-ID: <117C5FA4BB7A2B4F8F181601FE75608C10613566@OC11EXPO30.exchange.mit.edu> A summary of a recent workshop on implementing Bus Rapid Transit in Santiago de Chile and Mexico City has recently been added to the website of the BRT Centre of Excellence: http://www.brt.cl/event-wrap-up-transantiago-and-metrobus-how-to-achieve-social-sustainability/ -- 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 hghazali at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 14:06:32 2012 From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:06:32 +0500 Subject: [sustran] Hasty infrastructure development leads to unhappy surprises Message-ID: Folks, The news item below urges us to think twice about how much we value efficiency and expeditiousness in infrastructure development. I'm wondering if there are any more tragic stories from other jurisdictions and what we can do to curb low quality infrastructure. http://tribune.com.pk/story/400658/public-safety-truck-driver-dies-under-collapsed-bridge/ *A truck driver from Sargodha was killed inside his vehicle by a pedestrian bridge in an accident on the Ring Road in North Cantonment on Thursday.* Officials said that Rana Sajjad, 25, a resident of Chak 43, Sargodha, was driving with the ?bucket? of his truck up and it struck the overhead bridge on the Ring Road near the Harbanspura grid station. The bridge collapsed on the truck and crushed the vehicle. Hundreds of bystanders gathered at the scene and sought to pull out the driver, but heavy machinery was needed to remove the debris. Rescue 1122 later called cranes to remove the collapsed section of the concrete bridge. Rescue officials said that the driver had been crushed under the weight. They said an autopsy was being conducted. Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif arrived at the scene and ordered an inquiry. District Coordination Officer Noorul Amin Mengal and Commissioner Jawad Raffique Malik also visited the accident site. Officials of the National Engineering Service of Pakistan (NESPAK) who had visited the scene of the accident said that the driver had likely raised the truck bucket to clean it, which was a common but illegal practice by truckers. They said that oil from the hydraulic pump that raises the bucket in the truck was leaked all over the road, indicating that the bucket was up. They said that the raised bucket struck the beam, which rested on the pillar via a projection that fit inside a recess in the column. The impact of the bucket on the beam broke the wall of the recess and the beam came crashing down on the truck. They said that there was no other attachment between the beam and column. Ring Road Authority Deputy Director Najam Waheed told *The Express Tribune* that there were 20 overhead pedestrian bridges on the Northern Loop of the Ring Road of which at least 16 were concrete constructions of the same design as the bridge that collapsed. Col (retired) Asim, the director for enforcement as well as operations and maintenance in the Lahore Ring Road Authority, said that the Chief Minister?s Inspection Team had been tasked with conducting an inquiry. He said that veteran civil engineers would be involved in the inquiry. He said that only physical impact could have brought the bridge down. He said that under agreements with the Ring Road Authority, the construction companies that had built pedestrian bridges were to maintain the bridges for a year or two before the authority took responsibility. He said the bridge that collapsed had been built in June 2009, while the railing had been installed in September that year, by Khalid Rauf and Company. *Published in The Express Tribune, June 29th, 2012.* Cell: 0333 4231 666 *When conditions are right, things go wrong* From edelman at greenidea.eu Fri Jun 29 23:02:47 2012 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:02:47 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Is the ECF the Elite Cyclists' Federation? Message-ID: <4FEDB587.6090408@greenidea.eu> Is the ECF the Elite Cyclists' Federation? As ECF's annual conference event (Velo-city Global) enters its last day, it seems a good time to ask how "Global" the conference is every other year (the first Velo-city Global was in Copenhagen in 2010 and the next will be Adelaide in 2014), and very much related to that, how inclusive it is. To continue reading see this link: http://greenideafactory.blogspot.de/2012/06/is-ecf-elite-cyclists-federation.html (note to readers: All the images are meant to be sarcastic or silly) -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory / SLOWFactory Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu Skype: toddedelman https://www.facebook.com/Iamtoddedelman http://twitter.com/toddedelman http://de.linkedin.com/in/toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany