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

Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper?

Expand Messages
  • Eric Bruun
    Two quick comments: 1) Don t confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn t built the promised
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Two quick comments:

      1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
      the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize
      the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
      the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

      2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds
      of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely
      more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city.

      Eric Bruun

      -----Original Message-----
      >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" <Carlos.Pardo@...>
      >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
      >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' <sustran-discuss@...>
      >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@...
      >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?
      >
      >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
      >
    • Rory McMullan
      I haven t been following this discussion in full but I notice that in debating better, faster, cheaper it has mostly been about trams, buses, metro and rail,
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I haven't been following this discussion in full but I notice that in debating better, faster, cheaper it has mostly been about trams, buses, metro and rail, while the provision and promotion of an adequate and safe walking and cycling network have hardly been mentioned.

        I believe that right across the world  there is an over-emphasis on gleaming new infrastructure projects, while often the quickest and cheapest way to a sustainable urban transport system is just giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians.

        I also like the World's most congested cities tag mentioned alongside Better Faster Cheaper, chronic congestion is surely the best TDM tool we have to encourage folk to use a bike or a BRT to get around.


        Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote:
        Two quick comments:

        1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
        the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize
        the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
        the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

        2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds
        of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely
        more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city.

        Eric Bruun

        -----Original Message-----
        >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" <Carlos.Pardo@ sutp.org>
        >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
        >To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' <sustran-discuss@ list.jca. apc.org>
        >Cc: WorldTransport@ yahoogroups. com, sujitjp@gmail. com
        >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?
        >
        >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@ ecoplan.org
        >Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM
        >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
        >Cc: sudhir@secon. in; sujitjp@gmail. com; 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@list. jca.apc.org
        >[mailto:sustran-discuss- bounces+eric. britton=ecoplan. org@list. jca.apc.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@list. jca.apc.org
        >[mailto:sustran-discuss- bounces+eric. britton=ecoplan. org@list. jca.apc.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@ free.fr;
        >WorldTransport@ yahoogroups. com; Sustran-discuss@ jca.apc.org
        >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
        >


        Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

      • Eric Bruun
        Sujit: That is a big if about buses getting priority. You won t get any argument from me that bus lanes and signal priority would be a very good thing. But
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Sujit:
           
          That is a big "if" about buses getting priority. You won't get any argument from me that bus lanes and signal priority would be a very good thing. But how long does one have to wait? It is my understanding that the pollution problems were urgent in Delhi. This alone might have justified the Metro, especially if a less corruption prone model could be used to finance and build the system, and efforts were made to build up industrial and management skills usable elsewhere in India.
           
          Thus, I also clearly don't agree that it is "obvious" that Metro is favored ONLY because it is more expensive, has more opportunities for kickbacks, etc. In addition to not requiring street space, it also has a higher travel speed than any BRT system -- this could be very important in very large cities with long travel distances.
           
          I didn't claim that building on separate rights-of-way automatically reduces congestion. I claimed that if efforts are not taken to reduce congestion and the liberated bus space from former auto and bus users fills back up, we are still left with the benefit that a higher level of activity can be supported within a given area. This is a good thing from a sustainable development standpoint. If anyone doubts that this is true, then I would recommend reading Yong-Eun Shin's 1997 disseratation from the City and Regional Planning program at the University of Pennsylvania. He made a mathematical model that shows the level of development intensity that can be supported as a function of passenger transport infrastructure.
           
          Finally, I don't fully agree with the analysis in Lloyd Wright's NMT/BRT book, but that is a subject for another forum.

          Eric Bruun

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Sujit Patwardhan
          Sent: Jan 3, 2007 1:03 AM
          To: Eric Bruun , Global 'South' Sustainable Transport , NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper?

          3 January 2007



          Dear Eric,

          1) Neither have they constructed cycle tracks or pedestrian sidewalks (costing peanuts) on 40-60 meter plus(ie 130 feet/196 feet) WIDE roads in many places. Whether one blames the "rail" or the "highway" lobby, I thought the real point was to show how much quicker BRT and NMT infrastructure can be put in place if it is given priority -- and not to state the obvious, that political support is often strongest when more expensive (and even unviable) projects are proposed because there's  greater scope for kickbacks and also because such projects are assumed to be better simply because they cost more.

          We feel our task as NGOs is to expose  these myths and to demand as loudly and incessantly as possible that we want cheaper, simpler and quicker solutions for a problem that is literally threatening to bulldoze our cities into a "monoculture" of cement and concrete wedded to an auto dominated vision. A vision that has not worked (for solving the pollution, congestion and livability problem) in even ONE city in the whole world !!!!!

          If we keep showing this reality to our citizens and politicians who ARE indeed privileged car users, people do understand and start asking questions. Questions such as why doesn't the city have better public transport or why aren't there citywide safe cycle tracks (particularly for the school children) or why senior citizens don't have adequate wide and obstruction-free footpaths?
          Hopefully such focused pressure will create the much needed "political will" to drive and adopt sensible solutions.

          2) In contrast the "alternative" solutions albeit adopted rather late in the day for most western cities, are showing wonderful results in more than a dozen cites around the globe (both in the first as well as the third world). As Lloyd Wright's book on NMT/BRT points out can we in Asian cities avoid the auto dominated path and leapfrog directly to the more sustainable alternatives?

          And the last point before I close my rather long winded response, I  question the image of underground metros carrying hundreds of thousands commuters and thus easing the pressure on roads. To my knowledge, other than high rise cities like Hongkong,  underground Metros in Asian cities only have high capacity potential. In reality they carry far less people and hence don't really make much of an impact on the extreme congestion on the roads. I also remember someone showing the figures to prove that for the cost of the Metro, Delhi could have had a citywide-FREE BRT system.


          --
          Sujit




          On 1/3/07, Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote:
          Two quick comments:

          1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
          the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize
          the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby."  Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
          the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

          2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds
          of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely
          more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city.

          Eric Bruun

          -----Original Message-----
          >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" < Carlos.Pardo@...>
          >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
          >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' < sustran-discuss@...>
          >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@...
          >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities  - Better, faster, cheaper?
          >
          >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
          >




          --
          ------------------------------------------------------
          Sujit Patwardhan
          sujit@...
          sujitjp@...

          "Yamuna",
          ICS Colony,
          Ganeshkhind Road,
          Pune 411 007
          India
          Tel: 25537955
          -----------------------------------------------------
          Hon. Secretary:
          Parisar
          www.parisar.org
          ------------------------------------------------------
          Founder Member:
          PTTF
          (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum)
          www.pttf.net
          ------------------------------------------------------
        • Michael Yeates
          Also, I note the trend towards discussing buses or light rail or train (heavy rail) which seems to have ignored the need for integrated public transport ...
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Also, I note the trend towards discussing buses or light rail or train (heavy rail) which seems to have ignored the need for "integrated public transport" ... thus including walking and cycling as well as local feeder 'vehicles' presumably buses of appropriate type that "feed" to the heavier public transport service whether bus, light or heavy rail to provide a "connected" and convenient public transport service.

            The experience here in Brisbane (Queensland Australia) with its much publicised "busways" has provided an excellent illustration of this failing to provide integrated public transport, walking and cycling.

            The busway and heavy rail (Citytrain) systems remain in competition with limited if any integration. Duplication in parallel is common. Underuse is also common as is congestion on the busways caused by too many buses congesting the busways and resulting in the need to keep spending big bucks to relieve the congestion in and through the CBD (like roads?) essentially to keep the surface roads free for car users.

            Not surprisingly, we get a very easy city to drive through or to in off-peak ... and congestion in peak hours ... so the solution is big bucks spent on tunnels ... multi-billions on road and busway tunnels ... virtually nothing on walking and cycling (which don't need much spent IF TDM and traffic management favours them) and still only one major circumferential bus route with a 30 minute frequency.

            We have just opened a $60-70m bridge for buses, peds and bikes. It replaces two small cross river ferries to be sold for $40,000 each ...

            Michael Yeates .........

            At 05:15 AM 4/01/2007, Rory McMullan wrote:

            I haven't been following this discussion in full but I notice that in debating better, faster, cheaper it has mostly been about trams, buses, metro and rail, while the provision and promotion of an adequate and safe walking and cycling network have hardly been mentioned.

            I believe that right across the world  there is an over-emphasis on gleaming new infrastructure projects, while often the quickest and cheapest way to a sustainable urban transport system is just giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians.

            I also like the World's most congested cities tag mentioned alongside Better Faster Cheaper, chronic congestion is surely the best TDM tool we have to encourage folk to use a bike or a BRT to get around.


            Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote:
            Two quick comments:

            1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
            the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize
            the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
            the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

            2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city.

            Eric Bruun

            -----Original Message-----
            >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" <Carlos.Pardo@... >
            >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
            >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' < sustran-discuss@...>
            >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@...
            >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?
            >
            >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
            >


            Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
          • Lee Schipper
            in Bangalore, the earliest BRT plans were discussed in the late 1990s, with support from SIDA... Today is 2007! ... Sujit: That is a big if about buses
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              in Bangalore, the earliest BRT plans were discussed in the late 1990s,
              with support from SIDA... Today is 2007!

              >>> ericbruun@... 1/3/2007 4:10:43 PM >>>


              Sujit:

              That is a big "if" about buses getting priority. You won't get any
              argument from me that bus lanes and signal priority would be a very good
              thing. But how long does one have to wait? It is my understanding that
              the pollution problems were urgent in Delhi. This alone might have
              justified the Metro, especially if a less corruption prone model could
              be used to finance and build the system, and efforts were made to build
              up industrial and management skills usable elsewhere in India.

              Thus, I also clearly don't agree that it is "obvious" that Metro is
              favored ONLY because it is more expensive, has more opportunities for
              kickbacks, etc. In addition to not requiring street space, it also has a
              higher travel speed than any BRT system -- this could be very important
              in very large cities with long travel distances.

              I didn't claim that building on separate rights-of-way automatically
              reduces congestion. I claimed that if efforts are not taken to reduce
              congestion and the liberated bus space from former auto and bus users
              fills back up, we are still left with the benefit that a higher level of
              activity can be supported within a given area. This is a good thing from
              a sustainable development standpoint. If anyone doubts that this is
              true, then I would recommend reading Yong-Eun Shin's 1997 disseratation
              from the City and Regional Planning program at the University of
              Pennsylvania. He made a mathematical model that shows the level of
              development intensity that can be supported as a function of passenger
              transport infrastructure.

              Finally, I don't fully agree with the analysis in Lloyd Wright's
              NMT/BRT book, but that is a subject for another forum.

              Eric Bruun


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Sujit Patwardhan
              Sent: Jan 3, 2007 1:03 AM
              To: Eric Bruun , Global 'South' Sustainable Transport ,
              NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper?

              3 January 2007



              Dear Eric,

              1) Neither have they constructed cycle tracks or pedestrian sidewalks
              (costing peanuts) on 40-60 meter plus(ie 130 feet/196 feet) WIDE roads
              in many places. Whether one blames the "rail" or the "highway" lobby, I
              thought the real point was to show how much quicker BRT and NMT
              infrastructure can be put in place if it is given priority -- and not to
              state the obvious, that political support is often strongest when more
              expensive (and even unviable) projects are proposed because there's
              greater scope for kickbacks and also because such projects are assumed
              to be better simply because they cost more.

              We feel our task as NGOs is to expose these myths and to demand as
              loudly and incessantly as possible that we want cheaper, simpler and
              quicker solutions for a problem that is literally threatening to
              bulldoze our cities into a "monoculture" of cement and concrete wedded
              to an auto dominated vision. A vision that has not worked (for solving
              the pollution, congestion and livability problem) in even ONE city in
              the whole world !!!!!

              If we keep showing this reality to our citizens and politicians who ARE
              indeed privileged car users, people do understand and start asking
              questions. Questions such as why doesn't the city have better public
              transport or why aren't there citywide safe cycle tracks (particularly
              for the school children) or why senior citizens don't have adequate wide
              and obstruction-free footpaths?
              Hopefully such focused pressure will create the much needed "political
              will" to drive and adopt sensible solutions.

              2) In contrast the "alternative" solutions albeit adopted rather late
              in the day for most western cities, are showing wonderful results in
              more than a dozen cites around the globe (both in the first as well as
              the third world). As Lloyd Wright's book on NMT/BRT points out can we in
              Asian cities avoid the auto dominated path and leapfrog directly to the
              more sustainable alternatives?

              And the last point before I close my rather long winded response, I
              question the image of underground metros carrying hundreds of thousands
              commuters and thus easing the pressure on roads. To my knowledge, other
              than high rise cities like Hongkong, underground Metros in Asian cities
              only have high capacity potential. In reality they carry far less people
              and hence don't really make much of an impact on the extreme congestion
              on the roads. I also remember someone showing the figures to prove that
              for the cost of the Metro, Delhi could have had a citywide-FREE BRT
              system.


              --
              Sujit




              On 1/3/07, Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote: Two quick
              comments:

              1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I
              point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built
              the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take
              many years to get public policy changed to priortize
              the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on
              a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and
              the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they
              are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.)

              2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build
              elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds
              of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy
              doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely
              more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail
              lines than out in the fringes of the city.

              Eric Bruun

              -----Original Message-----
              >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" < Carlos.Pardo@...>
              >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM
              >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable
              Transport' < sustran-discuss@...>
              >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@...
              >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested
              Cities - Better, faster, cheaper?
              >
              >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
              >




              --
              ------------------------------------------------------
              Sujit Patwardhan
              sujit@...
              sujitjp@...

              "Yamuna",
              ICS Colony,
              Ganeshkhind Road,
              Pune 411 007
              India
              Tel: 25537955
              -----------------------------------------------------
              Hon. Secretary:
              Parisar
              www.parisar.org
              ------------------------------------------------------
              Founder Member:
              PTTF
              (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum)
              www.pttf.net
              ------------------------------------------------------
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.