RE: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?
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.
Carlos F. Pardo
[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM
To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
Cc: sudhir@...; sujitjp@...; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com;
Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better,
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.
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
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
On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@...;
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 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
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
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