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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 1 , 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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.