I think metros are great..but these days they cost
$400-1000 PER CENTIMETER!
at that price, I'll take three.
Director of Research
EMBARQ, the WRI Center
for Sustainable Transport
10 G St. NE
Washington DC, 20002
+1202 729 7735
FAX +1202 7297775
>>> eric.britton@... 12/27/06 4:37 AM >>>
Dear Sudhir and Sujit,
"High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh?
But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and
waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in and is
ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary step in the
and policy process as . . .
BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER!
That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible
maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers.
So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to
tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting
opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good
going to take.
This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel
be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the
needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put
them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the ledger
to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting at the
Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get
right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in mind
the whole thing is indeed all about.
Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions,
with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have something
It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and
and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media and
attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in the state
Denmark (or wherever).
I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me
leave it to
him and to all of you on this.
Behalf Of Sudhir
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM
To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities
On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest
cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion.
Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode
the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users.
It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to
Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities
25 December 2006
Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but
humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros)
transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion
roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand.
Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers
them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded
streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is
simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets
not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto
but get on with building the underground tunnels with their promise of
(overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the streets.
This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve
congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed
cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two
come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at the cost
needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership projected in
concocted project reports.
But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the
companies their obscenely high profits and the public left high and dry
over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised underground
If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed
sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles
long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW
capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but let's
sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. Incentives
Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) and real
auto vehicles through various TDM measures appropriate for each city. I
not saying anything new but in all the technical discussions of pphpd
per Km etc we sometimes miss the most obvious.