HOT TOPICS
SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
Delhi BRT - Lessons for Bangalore ?
Written By Naveen - 8 June, 2008
Traffic Bangalore CTTP BRTS Analysis public transport Metro Rail
It's one of the most controversial infrastructure projects in the country but for all those who said that the Delhi Bus Corridor system was an out and out failure, here is a reality check.
A poll conducted by NDTV shows that there is a sharp divide in opinion on the success of the project between those who use buses on the corridor and those who drive cars on the same stretch.
Perhaps the big message here is that public transport must be considered a practical option for everyone, including people who cannot think about life beyond their luxury cars.
There have been many days of chaos, some days better than others but the debate has divided the city down the middle.
In an exclusive opinion poll, NDTV has asked car and bus drivers as also bus passengers whether this will work?
Car vs. bus drivers
• 65 per cent of car drivers feel the Bus Rapid Transit System(BRT) has made traffic congestion worse in the areas where the BRT runs.
• A whopping 75 per cent of bus drivers say the BRT is a huge improvement for buses.
• More than 50 per cent of car drivers say that the new bus stops in the middle of the road do not make driving more difficult.
• Bus drivers say it's easier to pick up passengers from the new bus stops and 72 per cent of them say the middle-ofthe-road stops are working better than the earlier system.
• Most car drivers, 76 per cent, however, say that they are worried about hitting pedestrians crossing the road.
• 61 per cent of car drivers say driving is easier now that buses have their own lane bus drivers.
• 82 per cent of them say the new bus lanes for them make driving easier.
Bus passengers
• 88 per cent of bus commuters feel the new BRT and its buses are an improvement on Delhi's public transport system
• 71 per cent believe it will help in reducing travel time - most bus users say their commute time has already been slashed by 50 per cent after the BRT was introduced.
• 60 per cent of bus commuters say there are enough Marshals and traffic policemen to help guide them to their buses.
Link to the NDTV poll (pdf file)
COMMENTS
Naveen - 8 June, 2008 - 04:43
Beijing BRT system different from one in Delhi: Dikshit
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, back from a visit to Beijing, on Monday said the Bus Rapid Transit System there was different from the capital's and attibuted its success to the discipline of the Chinese.
Dikshit, who visited the Chinese capital on a four-day trip and saw the Olympic Games venues as well as the BRT corridor, told reporters here, "the two models cannot be compared as the needs are different."
She said, "they (BRT in China) are entirely different systems. For instance, bus lanes are on the sides of the corridor while for cycles there is a separate track which is at times used by cart pullers as well."
Dikshit attributed the success of BRT there to the Chinese, who she said, strictly follow traffic rules and regulations.
"The traffic is very disciplined. Unlike in Delhi, they do not allow two wheelers and rikshaw to ply on the BRT route. There are no dividers but the lanes are separated through a prominently painted line," she said.
Dikshit, however, ruled out banning two-wheelers and rickshaw from Delhi's BRT corridor as was being done in China, saying that it was not a feasible step. "We have to consider the ground realities."
The chief minister said, "We have to adapt according to our needs. Once the Moolchand to Delhi Gate stretch is complete we will evaluate it with the stretch connecting Ambedkar Nagar and Moolchand.
She said Moolchand to Delhi Gate route "is based on China model but with some minor changes."
http://www.thehindujobs.com/thehindu/holnus/001200806022068.htm
Also see :
LSE study group approves of BRT
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/LSE-study-group-approves-of-BRT/319172/
Urban transport in a jam session
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Urban-transport-in-a-jam-session/317379/
Delhi BRT - Letter against Times of India
Naveen - 8 June, 2008 - 05:27
Several professionals have jointly signed & sent a combined letter to Times of India, Delhi :
BRT Corridor
From: Hazards Centre (hazardscentre@gmail.com)Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:18:46 PM
Dear Mr Editor,
I am attaching a letter to the editor signed by 90 persons who come from scientific and professional backgrounds and are part of the middle class constituency whom you have been so assiduously wooing through your paper. They are all dismayed by what is becoming of a once great newspaper known for objective reporting and analysis.
Since your policies seem to be flexible enough to devote a great amount of space in your paper to the events happening around the Bus Rapid Transport Corridor in Delhi (as well as other cities), it is only proper that you publish this letter in its entirety. If it cannot come in the Letters Column (which has shrunk significantly over the years), you may consider placing it elsewhere on the editorial page.
If you do not do so, it will be only another indicator of the selective bias that now characterises the Times of India.
Yours sincerely
Dunu Roy
Hazards Centre
92-H, Third floor, Pratap Market, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 Ph: 011-26714244, 26187806
Email: hazardscentre@gmail.com,haz_cen@vsnl.net Website: www.hazardscentre.org
To The Editor
The Times of India Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002
The High Capacity Bus System has found many ardent advocates the world over as a relatively inexpensive and efficient mass transport system. Renamed – somewhat incorrectly – as the Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) in the city of Delhi, it has been designed not only for the most widely used form of public transport (the bus carries about 40% of the 15 million passenger trips per day in the city), but also provides demarcated space for the cyclist and the pedestrian (who account for another 42%), while leaving a substantial two lanes for the private cars and two/three-wheelers (which account for the remaining 8% and 10% respectively).
Nevertheless, some media channels – particularly the Times of India – have been carrying on a sustained campaign against the first BRT corridor being constructed in Delhi calling it, amongst other things, a “manic mess”, “killer corridor”, and “Tughluqian disaster”. These various newspapers and television channels (who seem to be more intent on being newsmakers) are legitimately entitled to present the views of various citizens groups – although it is striking that most of the ‘citizens’ interviewed are private car owners – but there is also an ethical limit to how the news and views should be presented.
The recent front-page headline in the Times of India of April 25, 2008, reads, “IIT dept behind BRT gets funds from bus makers” and accuses “Dinesh Mohan and Geetam Tiwari from IIT-D’s Transport Research and Injury Prevention Programme” of being patronised by the “Volvo Education Research Foundation and Ford Motor Company”.
We would, firstly, like to point out that it is the Government of India’s stated policy to encourage all public science research institutions to raise their own funds from charitable trusts and foundations and industry and not depend solely upon the University Grants Commission – and this is part of the process of ‘liberalisation’ that has been enthusiastically supported and promoted by the editors of many newspapers, including the Times of India.
Secondly, to resort to this kind of journalistic innuendo that, therefore, all scientific research must inevitably follow the dictates of the funding agencies casts grave aspersions on the character of objective research conducted at recognised world-class institutions like the IIT. Using discredited methods of rapid opinion-polls, which are known to be biased and a popular means of market promotion, the Times of India is challenging a system based on sound scientific research, in a clear effort to protect the interests of a minority of car drivers, without publicly clarifying what is the rational basis for their ‘research’ methodology, nor what is the source of their inspiration.
We condemn, in no uncertain terms, this violation of journalistic ethics by a daily that claims the pride of being India’s widest read English newspaper and demand that the editors immediately publish an unqualified apology to the concerned scientists.
1. Dunu Roy, Director, Hazards Centre, 92 H Pratap Market, Munirka New Delhi 110067 haz_cen@vsnl.net
2. Imrana Qadeer, Retired Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi qadeeroy@vsnl.com
3. Ravi Duggal, Independent Researcher, Mumbai r.duggal57@gmail.com
4. Anant Maringanti, Post-Doctoral Fellow, National University, Singapore anantumn@gmail.com
5. Jayant Pendharkar, Head, Global Marketing, Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai jayant.pendharkar@tcs.com
6. Benny Kuruvilla, Research Associate, Focus on the Global South, Delhi bennyk@focusweb.org
7. Subhash Gatade, Editor, ‘Sandhan’, Delhi subhash.gatade@gmail.com
8. Kalyani Menon Sen, Independent Researcher, Delhi kmenonsen@gmail.com
9. Ardhendu Sen, Independent Researcher, Delhi ardhendu.sen@gmail.com
10. Vinay Baindur, Independent Urban Consultant, Bangalore yanivbin@gmail.com
11. Siddharth Sareen, Development Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras sidsareen@gmail.com
12. Kasturi Sen, Wolfson College, Oxford kas_sen2002@yahoo.com
13. Himanshu Upadhyaya, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai himanshugreen@gmail.com
14. Ramaswamy R Iyer, Hon Research Professor, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi ramaswam@vsnl.com
15. Sujit Patwardhan, Honorary Secretary, Parisar, Pune sujitjp@gmail.com
16. Jyotin Sachdev, President, Shared Expectations, Bethlehem jyosachdev@gmail.com
17. Sadanand Menon, Media and Cultural Analyst, Chennai sadanandmenon@yahoo.com
18. Girja Sharan, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad gsharan@iimahd.ernet.in
19. Navsharan Singh, Senior Program Specialist, International Development Research Centre, Delhi nsingh@idrc.org.in
20. Deepak Nirula, Delhi deepaknirula@airtelmail.in
21. Jagdish Patel, Director PTRC, Vadodara jagdish.jb@gmail.com
22. Suman Sahai, Convenor, Gene Campaign, Delhi genecamp@vsnl.com
23. Nitya Ghotge, Anthra, Pune anthra.pune@gmail.com
24. Sanjeev Ghotge, Professor, Centre for Applied Systems Analysis in Development, Pune sanjeev.ghotge@gmail.com
25. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, Bangalore leo@esgindia.org
26. Anjum Rajabali, Screenwriter, Mumbai anjumrajabali@gmail.com
27. Sudhir Badami, Civil Engineering Consultant, Mumbai sudhirbadami@gmail.com
28. Sudarshan Khanna, ex-Principal Designer, National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad sudarshan_khanna@yahoo.com
29. Shreya Gadepalli, Senior Program Director, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York shreya@itdp.org
30. Kishore Namjoshi, Pune kayen@pn3.vsnl.net.in
31. Vivek Khadpekar, Urban Planner, Ahmedabad vivek.khadpekar@gmail.com
32. Ashok Sreenivas, Parisar Urban Transport Group, Pune ashok.sreenivas@gmail.com
33. Jaswant Krishnayya, Director, Systems Research Institute, Pune jkrishnayya@yahoo.com
34. Zoya Hasan, Member, Minorities Commission, Delhi zoyahasan@bol.net.in
35. Praveen Pardeshi, Municipal Commissioner, Pune praveen.pardeshi@punecorporation.org
36. Abhijit Lokre, Senior Planner, CEPT University, Ahmedabad abhijitlokre@gmail.com
37. Bharati Chaturvedi, Director, Chintan Action and Research Group, Delhi bharati@chintan-india.org
38. Pravin Kumar Kushwaha, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, JNU, Delhi pravinoasis@yahoo.com
39. Shirish B Patel, Senior Urban Planner, Mumbai shirish@spacpl.com
40. Darshini Mahadevia, Professor, CEPT, Ahmedabad d_mahadevia@yahoo.com
41. Deepak Agarwal, Dayton dagarwal01@comcast.net
42. Kanishka Lahiri, Sun Microsystems, Bangalore kanishka.lahiri@gmail.com
43. Nandan Maluste, Banker, Mumbai nandan.maluste@gmail.com
44. Mira Shiva, International People’s Health Council, Delhi mirashiva@gmail.com
45. Sudhir Karnik, Mumbai sudhirkarnik@yahoo.com
46. Uday Karmarkar, Professor, UCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles uday.karmarkar@anderson.ucla.edu
47. Maya Gidvani, Mumbai p_gidvani@yahoo.com
48. Pratap Gidvani, Mumbai p_gidvani@yahoo.com
49. Pravin Gandhi, Mumbai praving@vsnl.com
50. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Professor, JNU kamalchenoy@gmail.com
51. Anuradha Chenoy, Professor, JNU chenoy@gmail.com
52. Somya Iyer, Software Engineer, Bangalore somya.iyer@lycos.com
53. E A Elias, Managing Director, APW President Systems Limited, Mumbai elias@apwpresident.com
54. Madhav Badami, Professor, School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal madhav.g.badami@mcgill.ca
55. Vijay Paranjpye, Chairman, Gomukh Environmental Trust for Sustainable Development, Pune paranjpye@yahoo.co.uk
56. Ravi Chopra, Director, People’s Science Institute, Dehradoon psiddoon@gmail.com
57. Sushil Khanna, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta sushil@iimcal.ac.in
58. Padma Prakash, Editor eSocialSciences, Mumbai padma@esocialsciences.com
59. Tapan Bose, General Secretary, South Asian Forum for Human Rights, Kathmandu bose.tapan@gmail.com
60. Sreedhar, Director, Environics, Delhi environics@gmail.com
61. Shailesh Gandhi, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, Mumbai shaileshgan@gmail.com
62. Kirtee Shah, Chairman KSA Design Planning Services, Ahmedabad kirtee@ksadps.com
63. Pramod S Phadke, Mumbai micron2@vsnl.com
64. Subodh Abbhi, Paonta Sahib subodh.abbhi@gmail.com
65. Yogesh Agrawal, President, Sequoia Corp, Mercer Island yogi.agrawal@sequoiasci.com
66. Sudhir Gota, Sustainable Transport sudhirgota@gmail.com
67. Nikhil Anand, Department of Anthropology, Stanford nikhil.anand@stanford.edu
68. Arvind Caprihan, Professor, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque arvindc@unm.edu
69. Indur Shivdasani, Retired, Masiny Corp, Washington indur212@gmail.com
70. Arun Bidani, Delhi bidani.arun@gmail.com
71. Mahesh Gaur, President, Raj Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Delhi maheshgaur@gmail.com
72. Kailash Mishra, Chairman, EG Gas Ltd, Calcutta kailash.mishra@eggas.co.in
73. Anvita Arora, Director, Innovative Transport Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi anvitaa@rediffmail.com
74. Vinay Dharmadhikari, Retired, Department of Electronics, Government of India, Delhi vinay2000@gmail.com
75. Arun Tolani, Menlo Park arun.tolani@gmail.com
76. Niladri Chatterjee, Department of Mathematics, IIT, Delhi niladri@maths.iitd.ac.in
77. Anurag Soni, IIT, Delhi anu_rag_soni@yahoo.com
78. Himani Jain, IIT Delhi himani.iit@gmail.com
79. Kathikeyan Balaraman, Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT, Delhi balramkarthi@gmail.com
80. Arati Walia, Maharani Bagh, Delhi awconfer@vsnl.com
81. Praful Bidwai, Journalist, Delhi praful@bol.net.in
82. Peter Tennent, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi awconfer@vsnl.com
83. Kavi Bhalla, Harvard Initiative for Global Health, Harvard kavi_bhalla@harvard.edu
84. Maneesh Mahlawat manees_m@yahoo.com
85. Varun Arya, Secretary, IIM Alumni Association, Ahmedabad aryav@sancharnet.in
86. Joseph Fazio, Professor, School of Mines and Technology, South Dakota fazioj@gmail.com
87. Shrikant Bangdiwala kbangdiw@bios.unc.edu
88. Ton Daggers, General Director, IBC Movilization Utrecht ibc@transportvision.nl
89. Jason Chang, Professor, National Taiwan University, Taipei skchang@ntu.edu.tw
90. Dibyendu Sengupta, Transportation Engineer, Washington dsengupta@gmail.com
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~tripp/delhibrts/brts/hcbs/Open%20letter%20TOI%20BRT.pdf
narayan82 - 8 June, 2008 - 06:09
Transmogrifier - 8 June, 2008 - 19:43
I would disagree with Ms. Dikshit's excuse that 'the Chinese BRT model works better because they are more disciplined'. I have seen excellent lane discipline in action on a section of Anna Salai in Chennai where they have auto/two-wheeler, bus and LMV lanes... and believe me it works. When they were introduced, the traffic police overstaffed the road and were ruthless in issung spot-fines. That effort spread over some duration, produced results that worked well beyond anyone's expectation.
I would also argue that HCBS/BRT be used for buses only. Mixing it with two-wheelers and rickshaws is just not safe. Having said that though, status quo might be the way to go while hoping that as HCBS/BRTS catches on, more people would make the switch to public transport. At that point other options such as adding a bicycle lane that could be used by the rickshaws might be added too.
transmogrifier
narayan82 - 9 June, 2008 - 05:14
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!