I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with 2 lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether the
projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is
justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and
finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with 2
> lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside
> the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PTTF" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ.
> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing Indian
railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains pass
through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local trains?
Please see relevant thread and maps here:
Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is
going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not
sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI
buildings" mega-project.
To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions) on
the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected
officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details
like route etc.). Isn't this common sense?
As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand who
you don't trust with a knife?
--
Vijay
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil <ranjit.gadgi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether the
> projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is
> justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and
> finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
> -- Ranjit
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with 2
>> lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside
>> the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "PTTF" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PTTF" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road network. You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
I frankly oppose the Metro as it stands anywhere in Pune - I lived through the Construction of (and now sometimes use) the $2billion Phoenix Metro Light Rail which cuts through the Phoenix Metro area http://routes.valleymetro.org/timetables/785/transit_route?type=1 This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but businesses along the corridor were hit badly
. - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non profitability of the system.
A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to maintain just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not the actual vehicles that run on it.
The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing > Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains > pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local > trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
> Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is > going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not > sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI > buildings" mega-project.
> To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions) on > the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected > officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details > like route etc.). Isn't this common sense? > As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand who > you don't trust with a knife?
> -- > Vijay
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil wrote:
>> The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether the >> projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is >> justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and >> finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
>> -- Ranjit
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with 2 >>> lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside >>> the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PTTF" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ. >>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PTTF" group. >> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value of
the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very quick,
so the alignment should come there.
Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group for
its own reason.
The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus
Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully
selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt
would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons).
We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact
what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal
vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the
city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official
thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more
more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess
will continue.
--
Sujit
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how connectivity
> can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road network.
> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside controlled
> access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will probably
> cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main arterial
> roads from long distance commuter traffic.
> I frankly oppose the Metro as it stands anywhere in Pune -
> I lived through the Construction of (and now sometimes use) the $2billion
> Phoenix Metro Light Rail which cuts through the Phoenix Metro area
> http://routes.valleymetro.org/timetables/785/transit_route?type=1 > This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but businesses
> along the corridor were hit badly
> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro is
> humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even -
> See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non
> profitability of the system.
> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to maintain
> just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not the
> actual vehicles that run on it.
> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land
> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for
> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
> - S
> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
>> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing
>> Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains
>> pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local
>> trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
>> Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is
>> going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not
>> sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI
>> buildings" mega-project.
>> To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions) on
>> the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected
>> officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details
>> like route etc.). Isn't this common sense?
>> As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand who
>> you don't trust with a knife?
>> --
>> Vijay
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil wrote:
>>> The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether the
>>> projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is
>>> justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and
>>> finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
>>> -- Ranjit
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with
>>>> 2 lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside
>>>> the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "PTTF" group.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/** >>>> msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ>
>>>> .
>>>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pttfgen+unsubscribe@**
>>>> googlegroups.com <pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/pttfgen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en>.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "PTTF" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pttfgen+unsubscribe@**
>>> googlegroups.com <pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/pttfgen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en>.
> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
*It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
*
Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US transportation
thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting / ignoring that US
has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new freeway now in
US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is unimaginable! In
fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take down urban
freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
private cars.
Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD of
improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these are
being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If these
were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public input,
I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
- Jayant
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value of
> the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very quick,
> so the alignment should come there.
> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group for
> its own reason.
> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus
> Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully
> selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt
> would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons).
> We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact
> what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal
> vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the
> city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official
> thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more
> more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess
> will continue.
> --
> Sujit
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how connectivity
>> can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road network.
>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside
>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will
>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main
>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
>> I frankly oppose the Metro as it stands anywhere in Pune -
>> I lived through the Construction of (and now sometimes use) the $2billion
>> Phoenix Metro Light Rail which cuts through the Phoenix Metro area
>> http://routes.valleymetro.org/timetables/785/transit_route?type=1 >> This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but
>> businesses along the corridor were hit badly
>> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro
>> is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even
>> - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non
>> profitability of the system.
>> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to maintain
>> just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not the
>> actual vehicles that run on it.
>> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land
>> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for
>> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
>> - S
>> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
>>> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing
>>> Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains
>>> pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local
>>> trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
>>> Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is
>>> going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not
>>> sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI
>>> buildings" mega-project.
>>> To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions)
>>> on the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected
>>> officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details
>>> like route etc.). Isn't this common sense?
>>> As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand who
>>> you don't trust with a knife?
>>> --
>>> Vijay
>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil wrote:
>>>> The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether
>>>> the projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is
>>>> justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and
>>>> finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
>>>> -- Ranjit
>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>>> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro with
>>>>> 2 lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro alongside
>>>>> the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "PTTF" group.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/* >>>>> *msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ>
>>>>> .
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pttfgen+unsubscribe@**
>>>>> googlegroups.com <pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>> group/pttfgen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en>.
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "PTTF" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pttfgen+unsubscribe@**
>>>> googlegroups.com <pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/pttfgen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en>.
>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
> *It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
> society.*
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PTTF" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pttfgen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en.
Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to place B.
Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance is a personal necessity (not even a luxury). Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both - not exclusively in one.
And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405 in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a really good example).
Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants. People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything. - the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban population. With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4 wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US transportation > thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting / ignoring that US > has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new freeway now in > US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is unimaginable! In > fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take down urban > freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for > improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing > highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for > private cars.
> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD of > improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these are > being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If these > were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public input, > I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
> - Jayant
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value of >> the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very quick, >> so the alignment should come there.
>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group >> for its own reason.
>> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus >> Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully >> selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt >> would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons). >> We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact >> what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal >> vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the >> city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official >> thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more >> more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess >> will continue. >> -- >> Sujit
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how >>> connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road >>> network. >>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside >>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will >>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main >>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
>>> I frankly oppose the Metro as it stands anywhere in Pune - >>> I lived through the Construction of (and now sometimes use) the >>> $2billion Phoenix Metro Light Rail which cuts through the Phoenix Metro >>> area >>> http://routes.valleymetro.org/timetables/785/transit_route?type=1 >>> This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but >>> businesses along the corridor were hit badly
>>> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro >>> is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even >>> - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non >>> profitability of the system.
>>> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to >>> maintain just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not >>> the actual vehicles that run on it.
>>> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land >>> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for >>> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
>>> - S
>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
>>>> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing >>>> Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains >>>> pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local >>>> trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
>>>> Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is >>>> going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not >>>> sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI >>>> buildings" mega-project.
>>>> To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions) >>>> on the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected >>>> officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details >>>> like route etc.). Isn't this common sense? >>>> As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand >>>> who you don't trust with a knife?
>>>> -- >>>> Vijay
>>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil wrote:
>>>>> The point is not really about where one can put a Metro, but whether >>>>> the projected ridership really requires a Metro and whether the cost is >>>>> justified, whether there are alternatives that can get the job done and >>>>> finally does the city have the ability to integrate land use and transport.
>>>>> -- Ranjit
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>>>> I have made a conceptual map of an alternate RiverSide Pune Metro >>>>>> with 2 lines running along the Mula-Mutha with option for a 3rd metro >>>>>> alongside the Mumbai Pune Railway track.
>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PTTF" group. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>> **msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pttfgen/-/WwCsjvNdg5EJ> >>>>>> . >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to pttfgen@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pttfgen+unsubscribe@** >>>>>> googlegroups.com <pttfgen%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>>> group/pttfgen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/pttfgen?hl=en>.
What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you talking
about?
If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you will
see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road space
and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
There is ample material available that will corroborate this, including the
following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to appreciate
that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few activists but it
is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport based on wide
empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us how to plan
anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning) even they are
abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources and mobility --
even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is
> never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium
> to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to
> place B.
> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance is
> a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce
> and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one
> can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode
> the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but
> the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth
> in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles
> should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public
> transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both -
> not exclusively in one.
> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405 in
> Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
> really good example).
> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything. -
> the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
> population.
> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay and
> no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
> ~Shriniwas
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US transportation
>> thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting / ignoring that US
>> has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new freeway now in
>> US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is unimaginable! In
>> fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take down urban
>> freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>> private cars.
>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD of
>> improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these are
>> being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If these
>> were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public input,
>> I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
>> - Jayant
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value
>>> of the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very
>>> quick, so the alignment should come there.
>>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group
>>> for its own reason.
>>> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus
>>> Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully
>>> selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt
>>> would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons).
>>> We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact
>>> what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal
>>> vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the
>>> city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official
>>> thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more
>>> more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess
>>> will continue.
>>> --
>>> Sujit
>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how
>>>> connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road
>>>> network.
>>>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside
>>>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will
>>>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main
>>>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
>>>> This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but
>>>> businesses along the corridor were hit badly
>>>> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro
>>>> is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even
>>>> - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non
>>>> profitability of the system.
>>>> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to
>>>> maintain just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not
>>>> the actual vehicles that run on it.
>>>> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land
>>>> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for
>>>> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
>>>> - S
>>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
>>>>> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing
>>>>> Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains
>>>>> pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local
>>>>> trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
Agree with Shrini. Public transportation is extremely important and bike
lanes too. But we also need a balanced approach. We can't completely ignore
the road network either.
Many times on this and other groups I have been reading about how the
'West' is removing freeways. That is not an entirely correct
representation. Yes, they are removing a few .. but adding a lot more. (And
note, they already have 100s in place..). Shrini has given the LA example.
Dallas is adding a huge new expansion to the existing city center freeways.
Along with this, they are also expanding the light rail network.
Agree with Shrini's observation re: Europe population not growing - unlike
in India, China and U.S.
Even in some of the most public transportation friendly cities like
Amsterdam, Zurich, London and extensive highway network exists,
complementary too metro, light rail, buses, cycle tracks, etc.
I do agree with many in this group that our local authorities are too
fixated on only the road infrastructure. And pay little attention to the
public transportation/pedestrians/cycles. That needs to be addressed. But
the answer to that is not to swing way to far to the other extreme. Like
everything else, a good balance is needed.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is
> never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium
> to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to
> place B.
> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance is
> a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce
> and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one
> can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode
> the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but
> the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth
> in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles
> should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public
> transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both -
> not exclusively in one.
> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405 in
> Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
> really good example).
> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything. -
> the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
> population.
> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay and
> no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
> ~Shriniwas
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US transportation
>> thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting / ignoring that US
>> has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new freeway now in
>> US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is unimaginable! In
>> fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take down urban
>> freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>> private cars.
>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD of
>> improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these are
>> being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If these
>> were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public input,
>> I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
>> - Jayant
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value
>>> of the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very
>>> quick, so the alignment should come there.
>>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group
>>> for its own reason.
>>> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus
>>> Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully
>>> selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt
>>> would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons).
>>> We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact
>>> what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal
>>> vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the
>>> city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official
>>> thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more
>>> more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess
>>> will continue.
>>> --
>>> Sujit
>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how
>>>> connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road
>>>> network.
>>>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside
>>>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will
>>>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main
>>>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
>>>> This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but
>>>> businesses along the corridor were hit badly
>>>> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a metro
>>>> is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break even
>>>> - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the non
>>>> profitability of the system.
>>>> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to
>>>> maintain just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not
>>>> the actual vehicles that run on it.
>>>> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land
>>>> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for
>>>> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
>>>> - S
>>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:11:52 AM UTC-7, Vijay Patil wrote:
>>>>> If "construction" issues are to be avoided then why not use existing
>>>>> Indian railways tracks? What is benefit of letting long-distances trains
>>>>> pass through heart of the city, when the route could be used by local
>>>>> trains? Please see relevant thread and maps here:
>>>>> Also note that this is not going to be just a "metro" project, this is
>>>>> going to be "metro + high FSI buildings" along the metro route project. Not
>>>>> sure route along the river is "convenient" for this "metro + high FSI
>>>>> buildings" mega-project.
>>>>> To add to what Ranjit said, there MUST be a per-requisite (conditions)
>>>>> on the performance of existing transportation agencies (and their elected
>>>>> officials) BEFORE they are trusted with any new projects (no matter details
>>>>> like route etc.). Isn't this common sense?
>>>>> As an analogy: Would you give a very expensive Gun in someone's hand
>>>>> who you don't trust with a knife?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Vijay
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Ranjit Gadgil wrote:
Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and needs
to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99% either.
Just a thought.
Amit
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you talking
> about?
> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you will
> see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road space
> and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
> There is ample material available that will corroborate this, including
> the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to appreciate
> that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few activists but it
> is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport based on wide
> empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us how to plan
> anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning) even they are
> abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources and mobility --
> even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is
>> never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium
>> to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to
>> place B.
>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance is
>> a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce
>> and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one
>> can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode
>> the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but
>> the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth
>> in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles
>> should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public
>> transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both -
>> not exclusively in one.
>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405 in
>> Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
>> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
>> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>> really good example).
>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything. -
>> the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
>> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
>> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
>> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
>> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
>> population.
>> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay
>> and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
>> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
>> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
>> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
>> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
>> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
>> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
>> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
>> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
>> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
>> ~Shriniwas
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US
>>> transportation thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting /
>>> ignoring that US has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new
>>> freeway now in US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is
>>> unimaginable! In fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take
>>> down urban freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>>> private cars.
>>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD
>>> of improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these
>>> are being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If
>>> these were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public
>>> input, I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
>>> - Jayant
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>>>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value
>>>> of the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very
>>>> quick, so the alignment should come there.
>>>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group
>>>> for its own reason.
>>>> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport Bus
>>>> Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points carefully
>>>> selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the Govt
>>>> would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious reasons).
>>>> We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal) cars. In fact
>>>> what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage use of personal
>>>> vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system can transform the
>>>> city for the better.... but till we are able to make a dent in the official
>>>> thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and sixties vision of more
>>>> more and more roads, flyovers and even more cars!!!) this traffic mess
>>>> will continue.
>>>> --
>>>> Sujit
>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how
>>>>> connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road
>>>>> network.
>>>>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside
>>>>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will
>>>>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main
>>>>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
>>>>> This didnt disrupt traffic as much as people anticipated - but
>>>>> businesses along the corridor were hit badly
>>>>> . - Also The cost of construction, maintenance and operation of a
>>>>> metro is humongous - there is no scope for private operators to every break
>>>>> even - See how the Delhi Airport- Metro link line is shut down due to the
>>>>> non profitability of the system.
>>>>> A Freeway is also expensive, but the local authority only has to
>>>>> maintain just the freeway and avoid congestion using metered ramps and not
>>>>> the actual vehicles that run on it.
>>>>> The only reason the river corridor seems more viable is that land
>>>>> acquisition in India has become a headache and using the river banks for
>>>>> placing the elevation pillars will be very quick.
If we ask for 1-99 split, we will be lucky to get 30-70, though we really
need 50-50 or so. Pretty standard negotiation stuff!
The basic principle is to have choice. And we don't have a choice today. We
are forced to use private fossil-fueled two-wheeler and four-wheelers due
to systematic neglect - and in many cases intentional deterioration - of
other transportation means. Only by making investments in public
transportation and non-motorized transportation in an aggressive manner,
those choices will become "real".
- Jayant
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and needs
> to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99% either.
> Just a thought.
> Amit
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
> patwardhan.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 13 July 2012
>> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you
>> talking about?
>> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you will
>> see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
>> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
>> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
>> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road
>> space and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
>> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
>> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
>> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
>> There is ample material available that will corroborate this, including
>> the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to appreciate
>> that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few activists but it
>> is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport based on wide
>> empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us how to plan
>> anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning) even they are
>> abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources and mobility --
>> even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is
>>> never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium
>>> to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to
>>> place B.
>>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance
>>> is a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce
>>> and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one
>>> can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode
>>> the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but
>>> the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth
>>> in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles
>>> should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public
>>> transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both -
>>> not exclusively in one.
>>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405
>>> in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
>>> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
>>> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>>> really good example).
>>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything. -
>>> the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
>>> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
>>> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
>>> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
>>> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
>>> population.
>>> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay
>>> and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
>>> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
>>> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
>>> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
>>> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
>>> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
>>> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
>>> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
>>> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
>>> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
>>> ~Shriniwas
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>>>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US
>>>> transportation thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting /
>>>> ignoring that US has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new
>>>> freeway now in US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is
>>>> unimaginable! In fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take
>>>> down urban freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>>>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>>>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>>>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>>>> private cars.
>>>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD
>>>> of improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these
>>>> are being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If
>>>> these were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public
>>>> input, I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
>>>> - Jayant
>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>>>>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental value
>>>>> of the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very
>>>>> quick, so the alignment should come there.
>>>>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each group
>>>>> for its own reason.
>>>>> The best option will be to have access controlled "Public Transport
>>>>> Bus Only" corridors (with cycles allowed) with connectivity points
>>>>> carefully selected, carved out of existing road network (though PMC and the
>>>>> Govt would much prefer new roads to be built at huge cost for obvious
>>>>> reasons). We definitely don't want freeways/expressways for (personal)
>>>>> cars. In fact what is urgently needed are several measures to discourage
>>>>> use of personal vehicles. That plus a well run pubic transport bus system
>>>>> can transform the city for the better.... but till we are able to make a
>>>>> dent in the official thinking (which is stuck in the nineteen fifties and
>>>>> sixties vision of more more and more roads, flyovers and even more
>>>>> cars!!!) this traffic mess will continue.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sujit
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, shrinipedia wrote:
>>>>>> I am not promoting this metro line. I just meant to show how
>>>>>> connectivity can be achieved/improved without disrupting existing road
>>>>>> network.
>>>>>> You could very well replace the metro with a 6/8 lane riverside
>>>>>> controlled access freeway/expressway with exits every 1-2 km - which will
>>>>>> probably cost the city the same, but would completely offload the main
>>>>>> arterial roads from long distance commuter traffic.
I'm sorry, but the American model being espoused by Srini is totally
outdated and if it continues in the U.S it is only because they are
"locked" into that model. LA and Dallas (for crying out loud!!) are hardly
beacons of hope for those who hope to address urban issues!
The faster growth rates in India make the "focus on public transport and
NMT" even more necessary, it is not an argument for so called "balance".
What it means is that the one or two or three lanes that one might add to
the road network will be hopelessly overwhelmed in no time at all - perhaps
even before they are built - offering no economic returns at all - and
meanwhile the meager resources for transport will get sucked into these
futile efforts while even basic amenities like footpaths/cycle tracks and
most of all basic public transport will be left to the dogs. So better not
to build at all and focus on ensuring accessibility and mobility. This
"balanced approach is needed" mantra is the favorite of all consultants and
bureaucrats and contractors and is nothing but utter hogwash.
The idea that suburbs are inevitable and that these cannot be served by
public transport is also terribly uninformed. Nothing could be further than
the truth.
As Sujit said, one cannot possibly counteract everything that was mentioned
- because the entire framework of sustainable transport is being questioned.
I am however somewhat surprised that others seem to be buying into this
discredited theory/model. Even the Govt. policy (NUTP) is more enlightened!!
> If we ask for 1-99 split, we will be lucky to get 30-70, though we really
> need 50-50 or so. Pretty standard negotiation stuff!
> The basic principle is to have choice. And we don't have a choice today.
> We are forced to use private fossil-fueled two-wheeler and four-wheelers
> due to systematic neglect - and in many cases intentional deterioration -
> of other transportation means. Only by making investments in public
> transportation and non-motorized transportation in an aggressive manner,
> those choices will become "real".
> - Jayant
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and
>> needs to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99%
>> either. Just a thought.
>> Amit
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
>> patwardhan.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 13 July 2012
>>> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you
>>> talking about?
>>> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you will
>>> see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
>>> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
>>> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
>>> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road
>>> space and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
>>> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
>>> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
>>> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
>>> There is ample material available that will corroborate this, including
>>> the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to appreciate
>>> that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few activists but it
>>> is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport based on wide
>>> empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us how to plan
>>> anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning) even they are
>>> abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources and mobility --
>>> even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles is
>>>> never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the premium
>>>> to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from place A to
>>>> place B.
>>>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance
>>>> is a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>>>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology, Commerce
>>>> and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of living one
>>>> can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network. People rode
>>>> the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to travel - but
>>>> the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the speed of growth
>>>> in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the private vehicles
>>>> should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles and public
>>>> transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to be in both -
>>>> not exclusively in one.
>>>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405
>>>> in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
>>>> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
>>>> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>>>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>>>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>>>> really good example).
>>>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>>>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>>>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>>>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>>>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>>>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything.
>>>> - the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
>>>> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
>>>> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
>>>> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
>>>> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
>>>> population.
>>>> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay
>>>> and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
>>>> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
>>>> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
>>>> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
>>>> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
>>>> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
>>>> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
>>>> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
>>>> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
>>>> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
>>>> ~Shriniwas
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>>>>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US
>>>>> transportation thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting /
>>>>> ignoring that US has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new
>>>>> freeway now in US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is
>>>>> unimaginable! In fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take
>>>>> down urban freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>>>>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>>>>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>>>>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>>>>> private cars.
>>>>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done INSTEAD
>>>>> of improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only reason these
>>>>> are being pushed is their money-making potential for the politicos. If
>>>>> these were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with enough public
>>>>> input, I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
>>>>> - Jayant
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>>>>>> I see your point but as usual, we are ignoring the environmental
>>>>>> value of the river by saying that putting pillars on riverbank will be very
>>>>>> quick, so the alignment should come there.
>>>>>> Despite the humongus cost everyone seems to want the Metro -each
>>>>>> group for its own reason.
> I'm sorry, but the American model being espoused by Srini is totally
> outdated and if it continues in the U.S it is only because they are
> "locked" into that model. LA and Dallas (for crying out loud!!) are hardly
> beacons of hope for those who hope to address urban issues!
> The faster growth rates in India make the "focus on public transport and
> NMT" even more necessary, it is not an argument for so called "balance".
> What it means is that the one or two or three lanes that one might add to
> the road network will be hopelessly overwhelmed in no time at all - perhaps
> even before they are built - offering no economic returns at all - and
> meanwhile the meager resources for transport will get sucked into these
> futile efforts while even basic amenities like footpaths/cycle tracks and
> most of all basic public transport will be left to the dogs. So better not
> to build at all and focus on ensuring accessibility and mobility. This
> "balanced approach is needed" mantra is the favorite of all consultants and
> bureaucrats and contractors and is nothing but utter hogwash.
> The idea that suburbs are inevitable and that these cannot be served by
> public transport is also terribly uninformed. Nothing could be further than
> the truth.
> As Sujit said, one cannot possibly counteract everything that was
> mentioned - because the entire framework of sustainable transport is being
> questioned.
> I am however somewhat surprised that others seem to be buying into this
> discredited theory/model. Even the Govt. policy (NUTP) is more enlightened!!
> -- Ranjit
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jayant Joshi <
> jayant.jo...@savepunetraffic.org> wrote:
>> Amit,
>> If we ask for 1-99 split, we will be lucky to get 30-70, though we really
>> need 50-50 or so. Pretty standard negotiation stuff!
>> The basic principle is to have choice. And we don't have a choice today.
>> We are forced to use private fossil-fueled two-wheeler and four-wheelers
>> due to systematic neglect - and in many cases intentional deterioration -
>> of other transportation means. Only by making investments in public
>> transportation and non-motorized transportation in an aggressive manner,
>> those choices will become "real".
>> - Jayant
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and
>>> needs to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99%
>>> either. Just a thought.
>>> Amit
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
>>> patwardhan.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 13 July 2012
>>>> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you
>>>> talking about?
>>>> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you
>>>> will see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
>>>> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
>>>> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
>>>> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road
>>>> space and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
>>>> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
>>>> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
>>>> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
>>>> There is ample material available that will corroborate this, including
>>>> the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to appreciate
>>>> that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few activists but it
>>>> is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport based on wide
>>>> empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us how to plan
>>>> anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning) even they are
>>>> abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources and mobility --
>>>> even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
>>>> Thank you for your patience.
>>>> --
>>>> Sujit
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles
>>>>> is never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the
>>>>> premium to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from
>>>>> place A to place B.
>>>>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own conveyance
>>>>> is a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>>>>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology,
>>>>> Commerce and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of
>>>>> living one can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network.
>>>>> People rode the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to
>>>>> travel - but the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the
>>>>> speed of growth in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the
>>>>> private vehicles should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles
>>>>> and public transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to
>>>>> be in both - not exclusively in one.
>>>>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the 405
>>>>> in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the heart
>>>>> and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately need
>>>>> to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>>>>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>>>>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>>>>> really good example).
>>>>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>>>>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>>>>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>>>>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>>>>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>>>>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve anything.
>>>>> - the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system - Some
>>>>> European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and tram
>>>>> friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would require
>>>>> cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km radius city
>>>>> space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing urban
>>>>> population.
>>>>> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to stay
>>>>> and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be serviced by
>>>>> public transport. With 200 million people being added to India's population
>>>>> every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both private vehicles
>>>>> and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales both 2 and 4
>>>>> wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
>>>>> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and have
>>>>> vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
>>>>> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
>>>>> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
>>>>> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
>>>>> ~Shriniwas
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:10:17 PM UTC-7, Jayant Joshi wrote:
>>>>>> Couldn't agree more! We seem to be hell-bent on copying US
>>>>>> transportation thinking from the sixties, while conveniently forgetting /
>>>>>> ignoring that US has learnt from it's mistakes and moved on! Building a new
>>>>>> freeway now in US is next to impossible. And building it in a river is
>>>>>> unimaginable! In fact, many US cities already have or are planning to take
>>>>>> down urban freeways. But not here in this great country of ours !!
>>>>>> Non-profitability in another red herring! It becomes a problem for
>>>>>> improving public transport, but is never an issue when providing
>>>>>> highly subsidized or totally free parking in the middle of the city for
>>>>>> private cars.
>>>>>> Metro and light rail aren't bad per se, but they can't be done
>>>>>> INSTEAD of improving bus system and non-motorized transport. The only
>>>>>> reason these are being pushed is their money-making potential for the
>>>>>> politicos. If these were done as part of a larger comprehensive plan with
>>>>>> enough public input, I am sure we wouldn't be having these debates here!!
Car ownership in the Netherlands is probably about 400 per thousand. In
India, Delhi is perhaps the worst with about 120+ per thousand.
Pune/Pimpri-Chinchwad is 88.
Amsterdam has terrific public transport, an amazing cycle track network and
of course I don't have to say anything about footpaths - they have been of
superb quality even before the second world war.
In the 70s, Europe also built a lot of freeways, roads and tunnels and lead
to huge increases in motorized traffic. They began to make a U-turn after
the oil embargo/middle east war in the 70s and also due to growing public
pressure against road fatalities.
They may of course be building some new highways and roads - but they have
in fact begun to shrink some of it, especially within cities and vastly
added to public transport and in their case cycling infrastructure.
Are they likely to dismantle all their roads and tunnels - probably not -
though Seoul is doing even that (to some extent). But for Europe ~ 400 cars
per thousand is about doable - with their economy and population density
they can feasibly support that level of car ownership. It comes at a high
price - but it can be done - while making sure the city is livable,
heritage structures are maintained etc.
What we have to ask is what is the feasible limit of car ownership that we
can sustain? My guess is we have reached it. 100. More than that and you
will have to tear apart cities, sacrifice open spaces, forget about housing
and overall sustainability. Our growth rates and population densities will
not allow for numbers of 200 - 300 and more. Just physically impossible.
Here is a ppt made by Dutch transport planner at a conference in Delhi
recently.
Slide 4 is interesting - they had planned a much bigger road network - but
eventually didn't build it!
> Ranjit - agree re: LA, Dallas. But what about Amsterdam, Zurich? They do
> have lots of freeways and big roads and tunnels.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ranjit Gadgil <ranjit.gadgi...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but the American model being espoused by Srini is totally
>> outdated and if it continues in the U.S it is only because they are
>> "locked" into that model. LA and Dallas (for crying out loud!!) are hardly
>> beacons of hope for those who hope to address urban issues!
>> The faster growth rates in India make the "focus on public transport and
>> NMT" even more necessary, it is not an argument for so called "balance".
>> What it means is that the one or two or three lanes that one might add to
>> the road network will be hopelessly overwhelmed in no time at all - perhaps
>> even before they are built - offering no economic returns at all - and
>> meanwhile the meager resources for transport will get sucked into these
>> futile efforts while even basic amenities like footpaths/cycle tracks and
>> most of all basic public transport will be left to the dogs. So better not
>> to build at all and focus on ensuring accessibility and mobility. This
>> "balanced approach is needed" mantra is the favorite of all consultants and
>> bureaucrats and contractors and is nothing but utter hogwash.
>> The idea that suburbs are inevitable and that these cannot be served by
>> public transport is also terribly uninformed. Nothing could be further than
>> the truth.
>> As Sujit said, one cannot possibly counteract everything that was
>> mentioned - because the entire framework of sustainable transport is being
>> questioned.
>> I am however somewhat surprised that others seem to be buying into this
>> discredited theory/model. Even the Govt. policy (NUTP) is more enlightened!!
>> -- Ranjit
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jayant Joshi <
>> jayant.jo...@savepunetraffic.org> wrote:
>>> Amit,
>>> If we ask for 1-99 split, we will be lucky to get 30-70, though we
>>> really need 50-50 or so. Pretty standard negotiation stuff!
>>> The basic principle is to have choice. And we don't have a choice today.
>>> We are forced to use private fossil-fueled two-wheeler and four-wheelers
>>> due to systematic neglect - and in many cases intentional deterioration -
>>> of other transportation means. Only by making investments in public
>>> transportation and non-motorized transportation in an aggressive manner,
>>> those choices will become "real".
>>> - Jayant
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and
>>>> needs to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99%
>>>> either. Just a thought.
>>>> Amit
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
>>>> patwardhan.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 13 July 2012
>>>>> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you
>>>>> talking about?
>>>>> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you
>>>>> will see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
>>>>> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
>>>>> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
>>>>> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road
>>>>> space and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
>>>>> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
>>>>> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
>>>>> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
>>>>> There is ample material available that will corroborate this,
>>>>> including the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to
>>>>> appreciate that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few
>>>>> activists but it is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport
>>>>> based on wide empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us
>>>>> how to plan anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning)
>>>>> even they are abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources
>>>>> and mobility -- even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
>>>>> Thank you for your patience.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sujit
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles
>>>>>> is never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the
>>>>>> premium to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from
>>>>>> place A to place B.
>>>>>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own
>>>>>> conveyance is a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>>>>>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology,
>>>>>> Commerce and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of
>>>>>> living one can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network.
>>>>>> People rode the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to
>>>>>> travel - but the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the
>>>>>> speed of growth in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the
>>>>>> private vehicles should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles
>>>>>> and public transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to
>>>>>> be in both - not exclusively in one.
>>>>>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the
>>>>>> 405 in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the
>>>>>> heart and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately
>>>>>> need to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>>>>>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>>>>>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>>>>>> really good example).
>>>>>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>>>>>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>>>>>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>>>>>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>>>>>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>>>>>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve
>>>>>> anything. - the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system
>>>>>> - Some European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and
>>>>>> tram friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would
>>>>>> require cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km
>>>>>> radius city space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning
So let's *first *have walking, cycling and public transport facilities as
in Amsterdam and then talk about the highways they have and if they have
any role to play in the *city's *traffic planning.
Our present discussion was not about the Mumbai Pune Expressway (and about
that too there are different opinions) but about whether the kind of road
widening, flyovers, underpasses and elevated roads and tunnels PMC is
planning to build have any place anymore..... now that we have seen that
model totally fail.
But if some on our list are so concerned about the fate of private
vehicles and their future, they need not be. PMC is doing everything
possible to meet their needs. But the irony is that no amount of money will
save that old outdated vision survive for too long - we are running out of
oil, we are running out of money to waste and the sooner we adopt sane
policies the better for us and for our future generations.
--
Sujit
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ranjit - agree re: LA, Dallas. But what about Amsterdam, Zurich? They do
> have lots of freeways and big roads and tunnels.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ranjit Gadgil <ranjit.gadgi...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but the American model being espoused by Srini is totally
>> outdated and if it continues in the U.S it is only because they are
>> "locked" into that model. LA and Dallas (for crying out loud!!) are hardly
>> beacons of hope for those who hope to address urban issues!
>> The faster growth rates in India make the "focus on public transport and
>> NMT" even more necessary, it is not an argument for so called "balance".
>> What it means is that the one or two or three lanes that one might add to
>> the road network will be hopelessly overwhelmed in no time at all - perhaps
>> even before they are built - offering no economic returns at all - and
>> meanwhile the meager resources for transport will get sucked into these
>> futile efforts while even basic amenities like footpaths/cycle tracks and
>> most of all basic public transport will be left to the dogs. So better not
>> to build at all and focus on ensuring accessibility and mobility. This
>> "balanced approach is needed" mantra is the favorite of all consultants and
>> bureaucrats and contractors and is nothing but utter hogwash.
>> The idea that suburbs are inevitable and that these cannot be served by
>> public transport is also terribly uninformed. Nothing could be further than
>> the truth.
>> As Sujit said, one cannot possibly counteract everything that was
>> mentioned - because the entire framework of sustainable transport is being
>> questioned.
>> I am however somewhat surprised that others seem to be buying into this
>> discredited theory/model. Even the Govt. policy (NUTP) is more enlightened!!
>> -- Ranjit
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jayant Joshi <
>> jayant.jo...@savepunetraffic.org> wrote:
>>> Amit,
>>> If we ask for 1-99 split, we will be lucky to get 30-70, though we
>>> really need 50-50 or so. Pretty standard negotiation stuff!
>>> The basic principle is to have choice. And we don't have a choice today.
>>> We are forced to use private fossil-fueled two-wheeler and four-wheelers
>>> due to systematic neglect - and in many cases intentional deterioration -
>>> of other transportation means. Only by making investments in public
>>> transportation and non-motorized transportation in an aggressive manner,
>>> those choices will become "real".
>>> - Jayant
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Amit Paranjape <aparanj...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Sujit - agree with you that this 99-1% balance is entirely wrong and
>>>> needs to be addressed on a top priority. But the answer cannot be 1-99%
>>>> either. Just a thought.
>>>> Amit
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sujit Patwardhan <
>>>> patwardhan.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 13 July 2012
>>>>> What balance between Public Transport and Private vehicles are you
>>>>> talking about?
>>>>> If you look at the investments in the last ten to fifteen years you
>>>>> will see that 99% of the effort has been to provide infrastructure for the
>>>>> private vehicles (almost always at the cost of public transport) and this
>>>>> in fact is the primary reason for the traffic mess we find ourselves in.
>>>>> This is not the place to explain the basic relationship between road
>>>>> space and modes of vehicles using the roads, neither is it necessary
>>>>> to explain why road widening, flyovers and more and more parking is counter
>>>>> productive as far a beating congestion is concerned because more roads
>>>>> encourage even greater use of private vehicles.
>>>>> There is ample material available that will corroborate this,
>>>>> including the following sites and I would urge you to browse through it to
>>>>> appreciate that what we are saying is not some Utopian dream of a few
>>>>> activists but it is "state of the art" vision on sustainable transport
>>>>> based on wide empirical evidence. Although US is hardly a place to tell us
>>>>> how to plan anything sustainable (let alone transport and city planning)
>>>>> even they are abandoning their old unworkable ways of planning resources
>>>>> and mobility -- even though it will not be easy to undo decades of damage.
>>>>> Thank you for your patience.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sujit
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:03 AM, shrinipedia <shriniwa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Focusing on Public transport alone while neglecting private vehicles
>>>>>> is never going to solve the problem. Many people would rather pay the
>>>>>> premium to be independent and ride their own 2 wheeler or car to go from
>>>>>> place A to place B.
>>>>>> Yes Public transport needs to step up - but having your own
>>>>>> conveyance is a personal necessity (not even a luxury).
>>>>>> Pune's growth as a center for Education, Industry, Technology,
>>>>>> Commerce and Healthcare has very much to do with the improved quality of
>>>>>> living one can enjoy in the city. That includes an upgraded road network.
>>>>>> People rode the 2 wheeler revolution in the late 80s through this day to
>>>>>> travel - but the roads and the traffic system couln't keep up with the
>>>>>> speed of growth in private vehicle ownership. That does not mean the
>>>>>> private vehicles should be banned and taken off the roads. Private vehicles
>>>>>> and public transport can peacefully co-exist. The ramp up though needs to
>>>>>> be in both - not exclusively in one.
>>>>>> And US is not destroying its infrastructure - even as we speak the
>>>>>> 405 in Los Angeles is being expanded, the interstate and freeways are the
>>>>>> heart and soul of America (minus New York Area). Indian cities desperately
>>>>>> need to remove passing traffic (people commuting longer distances/trucks
>>>>>> transporting goods/ST buses) out of regular surface streets to access
>>>>>> controlled road. (hence the PCMC Pune-Mumbai grade separator has been a
>>>>>> really good example).
>>>>>> Once these roads and an upgraded public transportation system come to
>>>>>> existence, you can find ways to regulate how people use it- As of now its a
>>>>>> free for all on the arterial roads - where people die every day like ants.
>>>>>> People have no choice between choosing to risk their lives in crowded
>>>>>> public transport or risking lives on unsafe roads.
>>>>>> Discouraging use of private vehicles is never going to solve
>>>>>> anything. - the biggest example is the Mumbai suburban local train system
>>>>>> - Some European cities have championed bike friendly cities in summer and
>>>>>> tram friendly cities in Winter - but to achieve anything like that would
>>>>>> require cities to forgo suburbanization and moving back to a tiny 10km
>>>>>> radius city space. Also Europe does not have a burgeoning and increasing
>>>>>> urban population.
>>>>>> With India's breakneck speed of urbanization, suburbs are here to
>>>>>> stay and no matter how much money one spends, all suburbs cannot be
>>>>>> serviced by public transport. With 200 million people being added to
>>>>>> India's population every decade, the only way out is to make sure that both
>>>>>> private vehicles and public transport will co-exist. Moreove vehicle sales
>>>>>> both 2 and 4 wheeler are drivers for industrialization.
>>>>>> For a City like Pune to be attractive to investments and jobs and
>>>>>> have vibrant local commerce, the only solution is to have freeway like high
>>>>>> speed access roads available to all - and some sort of reliable public
>>>>>> transport with sufficient safe parking spaces for people to park thier
>>>>>> 2-wheelers/cars and ride to hubs and get back home quickly.
