Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?

Expand Messages
  • Carlos F. Pardo SUTP
    Eric, I would add nicer to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric,



      I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a
      feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for
      the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old
      fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and
      beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups
      and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way.



      Best regards,



      Carlos F. Pardo



      From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      eric.britton@...
      Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM
      To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
      Cc: sudhir@...; sujitjp@...; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com;
      WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better,
      faster, cheaper?



      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
      necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in
      and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary
      step in the planning and policy process as . . .



      BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER!



      That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible
      policy 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 spend
      it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now.
      As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good
      metro is going to take.



      This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs
      to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the
      real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put
      quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the
      ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting
      at the problems NOW!



      Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get
      them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in
      mind what the whole thing is indeed all about.



      Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions,
      along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have
      something else in mind?



      It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and
      brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media
      and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in
      the state of 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.



      Eric Britton







      -----Original Message-----
      From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...
      [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...]
      On 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



      Dear Sujit,



      On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that
      high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion.

      Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which
      has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users.



      It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced
      traffic.



      Regards

      Sudhir



      -----Original Message-----
      From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...
      [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...]
      On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan
      Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM
      To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
      Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@...;
      WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@...
      Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities



      25 December 2006
      Christmas



      Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in
      my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros)
      transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on
      the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand.

      Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty
      of 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 that
      we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so
      let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto
      vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their
      promise of high (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 at
      huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two
      wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at
      the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership
      projected in the concocted project reports.

      But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the
      infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left
      high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised
      underground metro.

      If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed
      sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles
      have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW
      faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but
      let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced.
      Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling)
      and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures
      appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the
      technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the
      most obvious.
      --
      Sujit
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.