Chennai monorail controversy

View: New views
20 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  
< Prev | 1 - 2 | Next >

Chennai monorail controversy

by Paul Barter :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Chennai monorail controversy

Some of you may be interested to know that Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the midst of a heated controversy over public transport. 

The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt for a huge monorail network is the issue.
See http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+News for the latest.

Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem to be weighing in (with the heavy rail supporters louder and more influential it seems).

http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm (Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will not help meet the transport requirement of city commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan.

Already the State had burnt its fingers with the "ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS) and the monorail would be its another "ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.

The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a comprehensive report for a rail based metro system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.

Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr. Sreedharan suspected that the State had been "influenced by monorail lobby with its tall claims and false promises." The lobby, the letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. …


or  http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm (Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)


Any comments?

Paul

Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY School of Public Policy  |  National University of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel: ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778 1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |  http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ 

I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.  
Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then try http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/
And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by John Ernst :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

The experience in Chennai appears to be
increasingly common in the larger Asian
cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.

Typically, these companies overestimate demand
and promise a totally self-sustaining system
running with only private investment.  Though
untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.

After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
financed monorail start construction.  But the
company soon came to the government asking for a
subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors...

It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.

Best,
John

At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:

>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>
>Some of you may be interested to know that
>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>
>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>See
><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+News>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News 
>for the latest.
>
>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>
><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm 
>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan.
>
>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>and the monorail would be its another
>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>
>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.
>
>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. …
>
>or
><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm 
>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>
>Any comments?
>
>Paul
>
>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ 
>
>
>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>Are you interested in urban transport in
>developing countries? Then try
><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ 
>
>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss 
>or <http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
  Visit http://www.itdp.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Eric Bruun :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message


I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco.
It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times
websites and does an archival search.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----

>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <sustran-discuss@...>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>
>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>running with only private investment.  Though
>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>
>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>company soon came to the government asking for a
>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors...
>
>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>
>Best,
>John
>
>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>
>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>
>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>See
>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+News>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News 
>>for the latest.
>>
>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm 
>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan.
>>
>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>and the monorail would be its another
>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>
>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.
>>
>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. …
>>
>>or
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm 
>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ 
>>
>>
>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>developing countries? Then try
>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ 
>>
>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss 
>>or <http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/
>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Lee Schipper :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something is not convincing to certain people!

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>

I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco.
It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seatte Times
websites and does an archival search.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----

>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <sustran-discuss@...>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>
>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>running with only private investment.  Though
>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>
>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>company soon came to the government asking for a
>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors...
>
>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>
>Best,
>John
>
>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>
>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>
>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>See
>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+News>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News 
>>for the latest.
>>
>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm 
>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan.
>>
>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>and the monorail would be its another
>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>
>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.
>>
>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>
>>or
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm 
>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/ 
>>
>>
>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>developing countries? Then try
>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ 
>>
>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss 
>>or <http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ 
>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Chennai monorail controversy

by fekb :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

The history of monorails fiascos is so long, so rocambolesque (is that a word in English? .. otherwise think Cervantes),  and so without real exception that one wonders about our collective memory. I started looking at them in the context of my first world transport technology survey in 1969 which gave me an opportunity to kick their wheels in half a dozen places, and yes! I did have several months of thinking maybe they had a place in the future of our cities.  But these are the sins of a foolish youth, and how in the world could any reasonably informed sapient person give in to the crude disinformation machine and sweetheart deals that the monorail lobby has come up with in city after city around the world.  Oh dear.

 

So for your reading pleasure, just below the couple of exchanges that have introduced this hot topic, I reproduce the text of “Back to the Future: Which way is the new Las Vegas Monorail heading?”, by Wayne Curtis

 

;-)

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
 [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
Sent:
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:26 AM

I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle Monorail fiasco. It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times websites and does an archival search.

 

Eric Bruun

 

 

-----Original Message-----

>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>

>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM

>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy

>

>The experience in Chennai appears to be

>increasingly common in the larger Asian

>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,

>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but

>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.

>

>Typically, these companies overestimate demand

>and promise a totally self-sustaining system

>running with only private investment.  Though

>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.

>

>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately

>financed monorail start construction.  But the

>company soon came to the government asking for a

>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor

>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to

>get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors...

>

>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.

>

>Best,

>John

>

>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:

>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message

>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"

>>

>>Some of you may be interested to know that

>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the

>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.

>>

>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt

>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.

>>See

>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+News>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News

>>for the latest.

>>

>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem

>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail

>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).

>>

>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm

>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)

>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for

>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing

>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will

>>not help meet the transport requirement of city

>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E. Sreedharan.

>>

>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the

>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)

>>and the monorail would be its another

>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.

>>

>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a

>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro

>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the

>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.

>>

>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.

>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been

>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall

>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the

>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. …

>>

>>or

>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm

>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)

>>

>>Any comments?

>>

>>Paul

>>

>>Paul A. Barter 

 

 

 

Back to the Future


Which way is the new Las Vegas Monorail heading?

by Wayne Curtis

.....

LLas Vegas is the Los Alamos of urban design, the nation's leading laboratory for experimenting with how our cities will look and function a half century from now. Among the questions currently under investigation: How much fake do Americans want and what kinds of fake do they prefer? How high and how far can celebrity-chef franchise dining go? How will hybrid hotel-condos actually work on a citywide level? How do you build a compact, pedestrian-friendly city around what amounts to a short but congested ten-lane highway?

Howard Hughes was right. He said Las Vegas could be a "city of the future," setting a course for the rest of America. (Hughes envisioned a "super environmental" city free of smog and run by an enlightened local government—but whatever.) When I read that Las Vegas had opened a new monorail system last year to whisk travelers up and down the Strip, my first thought was, Of course: all cities of the future have monorails.

My second thought was, When can I ride it? Those of us who came of age making pilgrimages to Disney's Tomorrowland know that monorails produce a complicated nostalgia for the future. For me the very word "monorail" triggers a slightly faded Technicolor reverie in which my back yard has its own helipad and my wife, Zorga, wears a silver body suit and sports a stiffly epoxied hairdo that resembles an inverted chafing dish. So when I visited Las Vegas in September, it wasn't the buffets or the baccarat tables that lured me out of my hotel room before I had even unpacked. It was the prospect of a monorail ride. I made my way over to the nearest station, paid my three dollars, and hopped on the next train, uncertain whether I was bound for the past or the future.

This much most people agree on when it comes to monorails: they run on a single rail. The trains can sit on top of the rail, as they do in Las Vegas, Seattle, and the Disney theme parks, or they can be suspended underneath, as they were at the 1964 New York World's Fair. Kim Pedersen, the founder and president of the 4,300-member Monorail Society, is driven to distraction by people who indiscriminately talk about "monorails" that aren't any such thing. Seattle has a monorail, he says; Detroit, with its People Mover, does not. Disney World has a monorail; Miami, with its Metromover (which, as anyone can see, is just an automated, elevated bus system), clearly does not.

I have my own criteria for a monorail. It has a single rail, of course. But it must also run swiftly on quiet rubber wheels right into the lobby of a hotel or an office building. There should be a soft swooshing sound as it slows; bonus points are awarded for a slight but discernible change in air pressure when it arrives. The opening of the doors should be accompanied by a soft bonging, followed by a lush female voice, at once intimate and aloof, urging one to step smartly inside.

The Las Vegas Monorail gets mixed marks on these counts. Its cars, based on the five-eighths-scale Alweg cars originally commissioned by Disney, are pleasingly futuristic—not fully Jetsons, but not far from A Clockwork Orange. Most of them are wrapped in advertising, like the buses that double as billboards. A beguiling female voice beckoned me inside, but after the doors closed, the spell was broken by piped-in ads for casinos, including one in which Barry Manilow personally implored me to disembark at the Hilton.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the Las Vegas Monorail is the route. The trains don't glide into hotel lobbies or even past football-field-size neon signs. The platforms are behind the casinos on the east side of the Strip, and getting to them from the west side requires a wearying hike across traffic and through bewildering, unmarked thickets of clanging slot machines. Once you're on board, the view out the window is sadly quotidian. The four-mile track winds behind the hotels, affording views mostly of parking lots, croupiers taking cigarette breaks, and vast, sand-colored roofs dotted with HVAC domes that shimmer in the desert heat like distant Bedouin encampments.

And the ride is bumpy and not very fast, owing to track curves and frequent station stops. "I have to admit, it's a little rough," said Pedersen, who recently spent five days in Las Vegas shooting video to promote monorails in other cities. "Especially having ridden so many Japanese monorails, which are as smooth as glass."

Monorails have more history than you might think. A patent for the first prototype was registered in 1821, and the first one-track passenger train appeared in 1825, drawn by a single horse. The Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, in 1876, featured a Victorian-looking double-decker steam monorail, and in 1911 the first of the modern monorail cars—those that resemble huge suppositories—made an appearance in Seattle, running on a wooden track.

But not until the middle of the past century did America reach the brink of its golden Monorail Age. In 1961 Disney nearly tripled the length of its 1959 Tomorrowland monorail, to two and a half miles, and made it as much a form of transportation as an amusement ride. A year later Seattle opened its mile-long monorail linking downtown to the World's Fair grounds and the Space Needle. A 1964 Saturday Evening Post article painted a glorious picture of tomorrow: "After reaching their train via escalator, the passengers recline in molded fiber-glass seats and gaze out large picture windows as electric power shoots them from station to station at 90 miles per hour." And tomorrow was nearly here. "The climate is right for a breakthrough in urban transportation," Popular Mechanics reported at about the same time, "and those monorail builders are just itching to show what they can do."

So what happened?

"Well, that's the mystery," Pedersen told me. "It runs the gamut from conspiracy theories involving oil and automobile companies to the fact that they just haven't been looked at seriously because they've been at theme parks and world's fairs."

I blame the future. The monorail shows that an idealized tomorrow can be every bit as encumbering as an imperfect yesterday. The monorail was twenty years ahead of its time, and it has been mired there ever since. It is to mass transportation what the theremin is to the symphony—a novelty that most people feel is best experienced once.

This vexes Pedersen, who remains convinced that monorails make good practical sense—despite the fact that the Las Vegas Monorail has been plagued by problems since its opening, including metal pieces that fell into the street, trains that stopped for no apparent reason, and one that left the station with its door open. Pedersen has also videotaped monorails in Malaysia and Japan, and he notes that one-track elevated systems can be installed relatively quickly and without claiming a large right-of-way in crowded urban cores. He sees the burgeoning urban interest in trolleys and other light rail, which often blocks car lanes and contributes to ground-level congestion, as "insane." And he wishes that people (I sense that by "people" he means writers like me) would stop imprisoning monorails in the future and let them come rolling into the present.

In this Pedersen has a natural ally in Curtis Myles, the president and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Monorail Company. I stopped by to visit Myles at the monorail's office, a few blocks east of the Strip, and found that he, like Pedersen, was quite optimistic, perhaps largely because he'd been on the job only two months. A former executive with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Myles sees the monorail as the last best hope for unknotting the Gordian traffic that plagues the Strip. Several times during our meeting he bounded up to a wall-mounted satellite photo of the resort corridor to show the several new routes he hopes to build, glossing over the fact that ridership so far had fallen short of projections. The train will go from the existing terminus to the airport, he said, and then along the west side of the Strip, through the MGM Mirage's new $5 billion Project CityCenter, and onward. "It has the potential to really address what is probably going to be the biggest problem this valley faces, which is getting people from the airport to the resort hotels," he told me. "I don't think people really appreciate how bad that problem is going to be."

This all sounded important, and I tried to focus on what he was saying. It was difficult. The second-floor conference room in which we sat was just yards from the elevated track, and every few minutes a monorail would streak past cinematically, filling the window with the canary-yellow cars of the Nextel train, or the Martian-green cars of Star Trek: The Experience's Borg Invasion 4D. (Resistance is futile, they read. You will be assimilated.) It brought to mind Alvy Singer's home under the Coney Island roller coaster in Annie Hall. Each time, I looked away from Myles and stared at the trains. He noticed. "I get a review of my job performance every six minutes," he said.

It was more than that. Sitting in the quiet office with the monorail whispering past, I was wholly transported to another time. Here was the future—just as I remembered it.


The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/vegas-monorails.

 







================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Karl Fjellstrom :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala
Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never heard
of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM -
forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the end
of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric & Eric
that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't
really just put it down to people's differing perceptions.
Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a different
story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many
positive benefits for the city.
Karl Fjellstrom

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On Behalf
Of Lee Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM
To: ericbruun@...; sustran-discuss@...
Cc: preston@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy

But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the Seattle
Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents. Something
is not convincing to certain people!

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>

I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle
Monorail fiasco.
It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
and Seatte Times
websites and does an archival search.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
<sustran-discuss@...>

>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>
>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>running with only private investment.  Though
>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>
>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>company soon came to the government asking for a
>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>get started again or he would look for yet another set of investors...
>
>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>
>Best,
>John
>
>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>
>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>
>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>See
>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+N
ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News 
>>for the latest.
>>
>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.h
indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm
>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E.
Sreedharan.

>>
>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>and the monorail would be its another
>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>
>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and surveys.
>>
>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>
>>or
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.h
indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm

>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/f
aculty/paulbarter/
>>
>>
>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>developing countries? Then try
>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blogspo
t.com/
>>
>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.jca.a
pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>>or
<http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ 

>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

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


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Lee Schipper :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the
Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K..
thanks for the clarifications.

>>> karl@... 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>>
Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala
Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never
heard
of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM
-
forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the
end
of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric &
Eric
that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't
really just put it down to people's differing perceptions.
Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a
different
story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many
positive benefits for the city.
Karl Fjellstrom

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On
Behalf
Of Lee Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM
To: ericbruun@...; sustran-discuss@...
Cc: preston@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy

But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the
Seattle
Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents.
Something
is not convincing to certain people!

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>

I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle
Monorail fiasco.
It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer
and Seatte Times
websites and does an archival search.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
<sustran-discuss@...>

>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>
>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>running with only private investment.  Though
>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>
>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>company soon came to the government asking for a
>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>get started again or he would look for yet another set of
investors...

>
>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>
>Best,
>John
>
>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>
>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>
>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>See
>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Search+N

ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News

>>for the latest.
>>
>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://www.h

indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm
>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E.
Sreedharan.

>>
>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>and the monorail would be its another
>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>
>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and
surveys.
>>
>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>
>>or
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://www.h

indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm

>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/f

aculty/paulbarter/
>>
>>
>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>developing countries? Then try
>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blogspo

t.com/
>>
>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.jca.a

pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>>or
<http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/

>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

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


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Walter Hook :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail, and
the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the
fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly
exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems.  They calculate
the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of people
that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that
the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply.  This will usually
give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical.  

The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there is
a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors, so
at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop
time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated.  In
two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is
stuck waiting and a queue forms.   Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck is
the station stop.  However,   because these systems don't exist in
developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for this
problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly assumes
the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway.


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...] On
Behalf Of Lee Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM
To: karl@...; sustran-discuss@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy

I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the
Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K..
thanks for the clarifications.

>>> karl@... 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>>
Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala
Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never
heard
of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM
-
forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the
end
of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric &
Eric
that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't
really just put it down to people's differing perceptions.
Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a
different
story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many
positive benefits for the city.
Karl Fjellstrom

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On
Behalf
Of Lee Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM
To: ericbruun@...; sustran-discuss@...
Cc: preston@...
Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy

But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the
Seattle
Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents.
Something
is not convincing to certain people!

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>

I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle
Monorail fiasco.
It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer
and Seatte Times
websites and does an archival search.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
<sustran-discuss@...>

>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>
>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>running with only private investment.  Though
>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>
>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>company soon came to the government asking for a
>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>get started again or he would look for yet another set of
investors...

>
>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>
>Best,
>John
>
>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>
>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>
>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>See
>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Sear
ch+N

ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News

>>for the latest.
>>
>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://w
ww.h

indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm
>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E.
Sreedharan.

>>
>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>and the monorail would be its another
>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>
>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and
surveys.
>>
>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>
>>or
>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://w
ww.h

indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm

>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>
>>Any comments?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.
sg/f

aculty/paulbarter/
>>
>>
>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>developing countries? Then try
>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blo
gspo

t.com/
>>
>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.j
ca.a

pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>>or
<http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustranne
t/

>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
worldwide
>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

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


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Eric Bruun :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Walter:

Why single out monorail and LRT for the accusation about using theoretical capacity? Boosters of
any mode can do this trick.

Also, we should keep in mind that sometimes that theoretical capacities really are do-able. The Central Line in London, for example, reliably runs 9-car trains at 95 second headways. (Actually, the vehicles per hour are do-able, the people capacity per hour depends on crowding assumptions, which vary. Japan and South America might tolerate 6 persons per square meter, North America and Europe only 4 persons.)

Eric Bruun

-----Original Message-----

>From: Walter Hook <whook@...>
>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 11:40 AM
>To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' <sustran-discuss@...>, karl@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail, and
>the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the
>fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly
>exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems.  They calculate
>the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of people
>that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that
>the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply.  This will usually
>give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical.  
>
>The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there is
>a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors, so
>at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop
>time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated.  In
>two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is
>stuck waiting and a queue forms.   Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck is
>the station stop.  However,   because these systems don't exist in
>developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for this
>problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly assumes
>the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...] On
>Behalf Of Lee Schipper
>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM
>To: karl@...; sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems (the
>Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about K..
>thanks for the clarifications.
>
>>>> karl@... 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>>
>Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of Kuala
>Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never
>heard
>of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then PM
>-
>forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by the
>end
>of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric &
>Eric
>that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you can't
>really just put it down to people's differing perceptions.
>Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a
>different
>story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had many
>positive benefits for the city.
>Karl Fjellstrom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On
>Behalf
>Of Lee Schipper
>Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM
>To: ericbruun@...; sustran-discuss@...
>Cc: preston@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the
>Seattle
>Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents.
>Something
>is not convincing to certain people!
>
>>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>
>
>I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle
>Monorail fiasco.
>It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle
>Post-Intelligencer
>and Seatte Times
>websites and does an archival search.
>
>Eric Bruun
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
><sustran-discuss@...>
>>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>>
>>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>>
>>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>>running with only private investment.  Though
>>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>>
>>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>>company soon came to the government asking for a
>>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>>get started again or he would look for yet another set of
>investors...
>>
>>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>>
>>Best,
>>John
>>
>>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>>
>>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>>
>>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>>See
>>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Sear
>ch+N
>
>ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News
>
>>>for the latest.
>>>
>>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>>
>>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://w
>ww.h
>
>indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm
>>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E.
>Sreedharan.
>>>
>>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>>and the monorail would be its another
>>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>>
>>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and
>surveys.
>>>
>>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>>
>>>or
>>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://w
>ww.h
>
>indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm
>>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>>
>>>Any comments?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.
>sg/f
>
>aculty/paulbarter/
>>>
>>>
>>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>>developing countries? Then try
>>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blo
>gspo
>
>t.com/
>>>
>>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.j
>ca.a
>
>pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>>>or
><http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustranne
>t/
>
>>>
>>>
>>>================================================================
>>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
>worldwide
>>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>>
>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi,

This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries:

Tapping Into Asia’s Euros 10 Billion A Year Rail Market

A STUDY of the Euros 10 billion/year Asian railway market based on market segments speaks of considerable pent-up potential in public transport investment in the region in the years ahead. It suggests that even if overall economic momentum should slow down in future, significant development potential exists in individual areas.

http://www.railjournal.com/A/xfeature1.html

----

In case anyone cares,  I say "On the Train" because I think train makes sense as the core of land-based transport, in a country where streets are living spaces between buildings.  BUT depending on the country it should either be just long-distance intercity services (unless they have sleeper cars on buses) or in Europe the situation is certainly different in regards to historical tram infrastructure, etc. BRT is more or less guided transport, which is why I like it.

Also, "On the Train" is for now focused on Europe, particularly on Eastern Europe. By the way  I imagine that in the near future - when cheap and easy oil is gone - many of the ring roads etc all over Europe will just be used for BRT. Unless I am missing a major technical hitch? People might want to use rail solutions for whatever reason but unless vehicles are light too much of the infrastructure would need to be strengthened - in addition to laying of rails, etc - and the resulting cost and energy use could be prohibative.

I am actually going to see if someone wants to develop some concept BRTsolutions for future of Europe's ringroads.

Some more questions:

- There is a short item in the new Carbusters talking about how particles from wearing-down tyres are causing health problems. Are any BRT systems dealing with this?

- Also, if buses used for BRT could last as long as trains it would be great. Are buyers of buses for BRT making sure they at least get vehicles which can be recycled easily?

- Do any "BRT cities" have a unique solution for urban freight? Jaime Lerner is correct in saying that it is natural that people want to be above ground, but freight doesnt have eyes.

So... whatever is appropriate, and watch out for the lobbyists!

- T, On the (you bought it whether you liked it or not) to the Future!


------------------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
International Coordinator
On the Train Towards the Future!

Green Idea Factory
Laubova 5
CZ-13000 Praha 3

++420 605 915 970

edelman@...
www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Lee Schipper :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Todd's two cents is not unreasonable. IF going underground both avoids
moving people out of the way and reduces vehicular traffic, why not? But
what about cost? Like it or not,
sustainable transport must be economically sustainable. What are the
rules? What costs and benefits to count? What should people pay,
particularly poor people?  Will a metro or light rail OR fast BRT cause
an expansion of a city that ultimately creates car-dependent suburbs
(like those around Paris, imho)? What are the rules of accounting that
could be used for
an honest study of alternatives?

Lee Schipper
Director for Research, EMBARQ
World Resources Institute
10 "G" St NE, Washington DC 20002
TLF 1 202 729 7735
FAX 1 202 729 7775

http://www.embarq.wri.org/en
Click here to sign up for the monthly WRI Digest:
http://www.wri.org/about/guestbook_joinemail.cfm 


>>> edelman@... 2/7/2006 4:24:39 PM >>>
Hi,

This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate
transport for developing countries:

Tapping Into Asia's Euros 10 Billion A Year Rail Market

A STUDY of the Euros 10 billion/year Asian railway market based on
market segments speaks of considerable pent-up potential in public
transport investment in the region in the years ahead. It suggests that
even if overall economic momentum should slow down in future,
significant development potential exists in individual areas.

http://www.railjournal.com/A/xfeature1.html 

----

In case anyone cares,  I say "On the Train" because I think train makes
sense as the core of land-based transport, in a country where streets
are living spaces between buildings.  BUT depending on the country it
should either be just long-distance intercity services (unless they have
sleeper cars on buses) or in Europe the situation is certainly different
in regards to historical tram infrastructure, etc. BRT is more or less
guided transport, which is why I like it.

Also, "On the Train" is for now focused on Europe, particularly on
Eastern Europe. By the way  I imagine that in the near future - when
cheap and easy oil is gone - many of the ring roads etc all over Europe
will just be used for BRT. Unless I am missing a major technical hitch?
People might want to use rail solutions for whatever reason but unless
vehicles are light too much of the infrastructure would need to be
strengthened - in addition to laying of rails, etc - and the resulting
cost and energy use could be prohibative.

I am actually going to see if someone wants to develop some concept
BRTsolutions for future of Europe's ringroads.

Some more questions:

- There is a short item in the new Carbusters talking about how
particles from wearing-down tyres are causing health problems. Are any
BRT systems dealing with this?

- Also, if buses used for BRT could last as long as trains it would be
great. Are buyers of buses for BRT making sure they at least get
vehicles which can be recycled easily?

- Do any "BRT cities" have a unique solution for urban freight? Jaime
Lerner is correct in saying that it is natural that people want to be
above ground, but freight doesnt have eyes.

So... whatever is appropriate, and watch out for the lobbyists!

- T, On the (you bought it whether you liked it or not) to the Future!


------------------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
International Coordinator
On the Train Towards the Future!

Green Idea Factory
Laubova 5
CZ-13000 Praha 3

++420 605 915 970

edelman@...
www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Zvi Leve :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport for developing countries:
>  
>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Chennai monorail controversy

by Lee Schipper :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

I have to agree with Eric. One BRT advocate makes an emissions
comparison between the Washington DC metro and a theoreticao BRT line
here in Dc. What if the
BRT line fails to attract passengers, not surprising in a country where
the AVERAGE city bus, day and  night, carries less than 10 passengers!
Obviously the Rapid Bus lines in LA are doing much much better, but who
would have dared claim that before they were introduced in late 2000.

>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/7/2006 3:37:16 PM >>>
Walter:

Why single out monorail and LRT for the accusation about using
theoretical capacity? Boosters of
any mode can do this trick.

Also, we should keep in mind that sometimes that theoretical capacities
really are do-able. The Central Line in London, for example, reliably
runs 9-car trains at 95 second headways. (Actually, the vehicles per
hour are do-able, the people capacity per hour depends on crowding
assumptions, which vary. Japan and South America might tolerate 6
persons per square meter, North America and Europe only 4 persons.)

Eric Bruun

-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter Hook <whook@...>
>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 11:40 AM
>To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
<sustran-discuss@...>, karl@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>Leaving aside the issues of cost and getting to and from a monorail,
and
>the difficulty of network development, I believe I've isolated the
>fallacy that leads monorail and light rail producers to wildly
>exaggerated claims about the capacity of such systems.  They
calculate
>the theoretical capacity of these systems based on the number of
people
>that these trains can carry, times the number of trains per hour that
>the signaling system can handle, and simply multiply.  This will
usually
>give you an impressive number, and it seems very logical.  
>
>The trouble is that at high volumes even in the best of systems there
is
>a fair amount of pushing and shoving to get in and out of the doors,
so
>at any station with high volumes of boarding and alighting, the stop
>time tends to quickly move beyond allocated 10 seconds allocated.  In
>two minute headways it does not take long before the train behind is
>stuck waiting and a queue forms.   Hence, as with BRT the bottleneck
is
>the station stop.  However,   because these systems don't exist in
>developing countries where demand is anywhere near high enough for
this
>problem to manifest itself, the capacity calculation mistakenly
assumes

>the bottleneck is the size of the vehicle and the lead time headway.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...] On
>Behalf Of Lee Schipper
>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:26 AM
>To: karl@...; sustran-discuss@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>I was thinking more generally of large over or underground systems
(the
>Bangkok Metro you illustrated in 2004 !). I did'nt even know about
K..
>thanks for the clarifications.
>
>>>> karl@... 2/7/2006 9:59:38 AM >>>
>Lee, Bangkok doesn't have a monorail, maybe you were thinking of
Kuala
>Lumpur. I don't know if this KL system has any adherents (have never
>heard
>of one), but after opening in August 2003 to a stated - by the then
PM
>-
>forecast of 80,000 daily passengers by the end of 2003, possibly by
the
>end
>of 2005 they had achieved half this number. I tend to agree with Eric
&
>Eric
>that it seems there are so many monorail fiascos around that you
can't
>really just put it down to people's differing perceptions.
>Bangkok Skytrain (an elevated heavy rail, not a monorail) is a
>different
>story. Although financially it's been a failure, overall it's had
many

>positive benefits for the city.
>Karl Fjellstrom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On
>Behalf
>Of Lee Schipper
>Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:45 AM
>To: ericbruun@...; sustran-discuss@...
>Cc: preston@...
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>
>But one need only look to Bangkok to see the same problem...and the
>Seattle
>Monorail, like Bangkok, or the Metro in Lima, has many adherents.
>Something
>is not convincing to certain people!
>
>>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/6/2006 9:26:27 PM >>>
>
>I would suggest that concerned individuals have a look at the Seattle
>Monorail fiasco.
>It shouldn't be hard to follow if one goes to the Seattle
>Post-Intelligencer
>and Seatte Times
>websites and does an archival search.
>
>Eric Bruun
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Ernst <itdpasia@...>
>>Sent: Feb 6, 2006 1:11 PM
>>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
><sustran-discuss@...>
>>Subject: [sustran] Re: Chennai monorail controversy
>>
>>The experience in Chennai appears to be
>>increasingly common in the larger Asian
>>cities.  Following some initial work by ITDP,
>>Hyderabad was considering a BRT system, but
>>monorail and rail companies quickly came in with enticing proposals.
>>
>>Typically, these companies overestimate demand
>>and promise a totally self-sustaining system
>>running with only private investment.  Though
>>untrue, the promise is still appealing to governments.
>>
>>After one false start, Jakarta had a privately
>>financed monorail start construction.  But the
>>company soon came to the government asking for a
>>subsidy, then stopped construction.  The governor
>>set a deadline of 6 days ago for the company to
>>get started again or he would look for yet another set of
>investors...
>>
>>It seems monorail is an easy dream to sell, a hard one to fulfill.
>>
>>Best,
>>John
>>
>>At 12:18 AM 2/6/2006, Paul Barter wrote:
>>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62AED.77CA1878"
>>>
>>>Some of you may be interested to know that
>>>Chennai (formerly Madras) in India is in the
>>>midst of a heated controversy over public transport.
>>>
>>>The Tamil Nadu state government decision to opt
>>>for a huge monorail network is the issue.
>>>See
>>><http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+monorail&btnG=Sear

>ch+N
>
>ews>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=chennai+btnG=Search+News

>
>>>for the latest.
>>>
>>>Both 'Metro' supporters and BRT supporters seem
>>>to be weighing in (with the heavy rail
>>>supporters louder and more influential it seems).
>>>
>>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm>http://w

>ww.h
>
>indu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020315440700.htm
>>>(Monorail plan ill-advised: Sreedharan)
>>>"The Tamil Nadu Government's decision to go for
>>>monorail for Chennai city to meet its growing
>>>traffic needs is most `unfortunate' as it will
>>>not help meet the transport requirement of city
>>>commuters," says Delhi Metro Rail Corporation managing director E.
>Sreedharan.
>>>
>>>Already the State had burnt its fingers with the
>>>"ill-advised" mass rapid transit system (MRTS)
>>>and the monorail would be its another
>>>"ill-advised venture," he said in a letter to the State Government.
>>>
>>>The State, which had asked the DMRC to submit a
>>>comprehensive report for a rail based metro
>>>system for Chennai, dashed off a letter to the
>>>Corporation recently asking it to stop all its investigations and
>surveys.
>>>
>>>Expressing surprise over the decision, Mr.
>>>Sreedharan suspected that the State had been
>>>"influenced by monorail lobby with its tall
>>>claims and false promises." The lobby, the
>>>letter noted, had already stalled the metro project in Bangalore. *
>>>
>>>or
>>><http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm>http://w

>ww.h
>
>indu.com/2006/01/29/stories/2006012901640500.htm
>>>(Divergent views emerge on utility of monorail project)
>>>
>>>Any comments?
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>Paul A. Barter  |  Assistant Professor  |  LKY
>>>School of Public Policy  |  National University
>>>of Singapore  |  29 Heng Mui Keng
>>>Terrace  |  Singapore 119620  |  Tel:
>>>ᄍ-6516 3324  |  Fax: ᄍ-6778
>>>1020  |  Email:  paulbarter@...  |
>>><http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/>http://www.spp.nus.edu.
>sg/f
>
>aculty/paulbarter/
>>>
>>>
>>>I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.
>>>Are you interested in urban transport in
>>>developing countries? Then try
>>><http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/>http://urbantransportasia.blo

>gspo
>
>t.com/
>>>
>>>And consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list,
>>><http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss>http://list.j

>ca.a
>
>pc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
>>>or
><http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/>http://www.geocities.com/sustranne

>t/
>
>>>
>>>
>>>================================================================
>>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion
>>>of people-centred, equitable and sustainable
>>>transport with a focus on developing countries
>>>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of
>>>the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>John Ernst   -  Director, Asia Region
>>    ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
>worldwide
>>  Visit http://www.itdp.org 
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
>>
>>
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
>focus is
>on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
countries
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main
focus
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Karl Fjellstrom :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Zvi,
In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
the other.
In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On Behalf
Of Zvi Leve
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
for developing countries:
>  
>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

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


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Sujit Patwardhan :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

8 February 2006


I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT.
--
Sujit

Sujit Patwardhan
PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India





At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
Zvi,
In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
the other.
In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On Behalf
Of Zvi Leve
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
for developing countries:

>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi

Sustainable Urban Transport
---------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
Member

PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India

Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
Email: <sujit@...>, <sujitjp@...>
-----------------------------------------------------


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Zvi Leve :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Karl Fjellstrom wrote:

>Zvi,
>In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
>applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
>median-aligned.
>  
>
That's great! Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to
actually experience a real functioning BRT system (there isn't one in
Montreal, and I've never been to South America), so my comments are only
based on my perceptions from reading about things. Another thing which
comes across about BRT is that these systems (at least those which work
well) do seem to be very well integrated with their urban environments.
In North America there is not much of a culture of urban boulevards, so
median alignments are more difficult to achieve.

I have only been to Shanghai in China, and I did not see any BRT there,
although they may be planning some. In terms of bicycles being 'squeezed
off of the road', scooters seem to be much more of a problem. It seems
inevitable that increased motorization (be it personal vehicles or mass
transit) follows rising income levels. But it would be a pity if
countries which had high levels of non-motorized transport would
completely shift away from that. There seems to be very little interest
in higher-end bicycles....

On the rail versus BRT debate, Singapore is also an interesting example.
Apparantly yhey were told that bus-oriented transit would be a much more
efficient and less expensive solution, but the authorities strongly felt
that they needed heavy rail in order to create the dense development
patterns that they needed given their limited land area.

Zvi


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Eric Bruun :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Sujit:
 
What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several reasons, some of which
might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your perspective.

From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of bus lanes are being built.
I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances involved.
 
While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in China.)
 
It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.)
 
As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities facing megacities.
 
Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush hours.
 
Eric Bruun  
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sujit Patwardhan
Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

8 February 2006


I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT.
--
Sujit

Sujit Patwardhan
PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India





At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
Zvi,
In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
the other.
In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On Behalf
Of Zvi Leve
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
for developing countries:

>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi

Sustainable Urban Transport
---------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
Member

PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India

Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
Email: <sujit@...>, <sujitjp@...>
-----------------------------------------------------



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Walter Hook :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Eric,

 

Certainly Delhi can use both BRT and Metro.  However, the density of Old Delhi is very high but the density of new Delhi is quite low, and the metro only passes briefly and tangentially through old delhi.   The road right of ways in New Delhi are massive, like 40 – 60 meters or more, with much of this land underutilized, so one can easily retrofit many of these streets with BRT without reducing motor vehicle throughput, particularly given the fact that the buses are being relocated out of the mixed traffic lanes where they currently consume two or more lanes due to irregular stopping behavior and volumes of as many as 200 buses an hour.

 

The Delhi High Capacity Bus system is still being widely talked about and they say they are going to implement the first corridor any day now, but they have been saying that for more than three years. 

 

The main factor seems to be that there was simply enough money both foreign and domestic in the Delhi metro to allow the project promoters to force through the creation of a fully independent parastatal organization, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, which while quite unaccountable has the decided advantage that it is capable of getting things built and cutting through the bureaucracy.

 

We have been pressing for years now to get Delhi to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle akin to the Delhi Metro Rail Corp (DMRC) to give the BRT interests an institutional home from where to coordinate the needed works and also become a comparative lobbying juggernaut.  There has been some recent progress in this regard, I hear, but the process is frustratingly slow.  

 

The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context. 

 

Sensible municipal authorities in India could just make rational plans for metro in one or two high volume corridors and BRT in other corridors and develop integrated systems, but this just isnt’ how projects are promoted and implemented in India right now largely due to the weakness of the government.  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@... [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@...] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:19 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

 

Sujit:

 

What are the "obvious reasons" that Govt prefers Metro? I see several reasons, some of which

might be "bad" some of which might be "good" depending upon your perspective.

>From what I understand of Delhi, both the Metro and many kilometers of bus lanes are being built.

I think that this is the only realistic approach given the urgency and severity of the air pollution, the traffic congestion and the distances involved.

 

While BRT could certainly be cheaper to construct than the Metro, my analysis of the situation is that it would have taken years to gather the right-of-way through the core of the city. The population densities reach 23,000 per square kilometer. Some people and businesses would have to be displaced and relocated. No doubt the motorists would have protested taking their precious road space, too. Probably the policy-makers themselves are amongst those opposing taking space from autos since they are amongst the elite who own cars. (I think this is also one of the main reasons why bicycle lanes are disappearing in China.)

 

It would also take years to get the traffic re-organized to favor the BRT vehicles consistently, reliably and safely across intersections and through neighborhoods. It would have to be very reliable and with long station spacings in order to have a decent speed. Speed is important for a city with the distances of Delhi. Speed is the way that people living in the outer areas can reach employment in far away locations and also what attracts people out of their autos and off their motorcycles.)

 

As I have argued here before, I think that high-performance Metros sometimes are the only realistic answer, even if it does cost more money. Because a nation doesn't have as much money to spend on infrastructure doesn't change the physical and political realities facing megacities.

 

Finally, I note from the IRJ article posted yesterday that the 55 kms of the Metro already open are carrying 700,000 trips per day. It must be pretty heavily used. The entire Washington DC Metro system of about 140 kms carries the same amount and it gets plenty crowded during the rush hours.

 

Eric Bruun  

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Sujit Patwardhan
Sent: Feb 8, 2006 1:27 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

8 February 2006


I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT.
--
Sujit

Sujit Patwardhan
PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India





At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote:

Zvi,
In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
the other.
In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...
[sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@...] On Behalf
Of Zvi Leve
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
for developing countries:

>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi

Sustainable Urban Transport
---------------------------------------------------
Sujit Patwardhan
Member

PTTF
Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum,
c/o Parisar, "Yamuna",
ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road,
Pune 411 007
India

Tel: +91 20 25537955
Cell: +91 98220 26627
Email: <sujit@...>, <sujitjp@...>
-----------------------------------------------------




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Jain Alok :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under $500 a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are several times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in this economic context.  "

 

I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at the least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and Metro depending on the corridor.

 

Alok Jain

 

 

"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated.




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.

Parent Message unknown Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

by Lee Schipper :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

I think some are saying that Poor countries are being lured into
building very expensiv systems no one can afford. Some of that
cost comes from poor countries, some comes from wealthy donor
countries. If Delhi and its riders want a metro and that is the most
cost effective way of moving the people, fine.

 Some middle income countries (notoriously, Peru, Lima), have been
lured -- the Lima metro
stands still because no one can afford to run it. Other metros in
middle income countries have simply gone bankrupt, as many of our
friends
have pointed out, and the government has stepped in. Where does that
money come from? Some of it comes from what would have helped the poor.

My own country builds horrendously expensive metros (Washington,
Atlanta, etc) but we have money to burn. Mexico City, with 11 metro and
rail lines,
wanted to build an additional metro line. They didn't have the money.
And they could not build in the soils in the corridor that most neede
service.

They  chose BRT, and 250 000 people a day, almost the same as use the
Delhi metro, are pretty happy.  For less than one tenth the cost of the
Delhi metro (about 40-50 million USD)!

Its really your choice, and it has nothing to do with elitism or poor
or rich. It's  a question of each of us wants to spend our money.

It is a bit complicated when the money comes from somewhere else, of
course. Maybe that's the problem.

You choose!

>>> ajain@... 2/8/2006 9:44:04 PM >>>
" The problem is that the DMRC and its various domestic and foreign
corporate backers are actually killing politically much more cost
effective BRT proposals.  Per capita incomes in India remain under
$500
a year, annual per passenger capital and operating subsidies are
several
times the per capita income(it is impossible to know for sure as the
books of the DMRC are a state secret it seems) is hard to justify in
this economic context.  "
 
I'm afraid this argument for justifying BRT for Delhi is elitist at
the
least. Are we trying to say that relatively poorer countries should
build BRT whereas the richer countries can have Metro? I think any
operating mode, as Eric points out, has its own merit and should be
planned accordingly. In my opinion, Delhi should have both BRT and
Metro
depending on the corridor.
 
Alok Jain
 
 



"KCRC - Better connections; better services"

This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or
proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity
to whom it was originally addressed.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or
contain viruses.  The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a
result of transmission over the Internet.

No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal
disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
unless specifically so stated.


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
< Prev | 1 - 2 | Next >