This is actually not true. The question of supporting public transit is not a question of how spread out cities are, but actually one of population density. Though Delhi is spread out, no planner would argue that its density levels are not high enough to support economically viable public transport. The question, I think, is more political than topographical. It isn’t that delhi’s geography doesnt pose some challenges, but they are easily answerable by good design. cities with much harder terrains have much better connectivity.

The link between cars and public transport is an interesting one .. but the answer is one that no one seems to like.

At some point in the who BRT media circus Dinesh Mohan was excoriated for saying that congestion is finally the only barrier to car utilization – it was interpreted as another “socialist” “quota raj” “license raj” type comment. But if you think about – and this was explained to me by another transportation expert – there is some truth to it.

Lets assume that Delhi gets a great public transport system that can efficiently ferry people from one point in the city to another in moderate comfort and at reasonable cost. To incentivize it over the car – we offer dedicated corridors to buses and the metro of course has its own line. Thus the lure of public transport is that it gets you from say – patparganj to south ex without the trauma of battling traffic.

The system is a great success – and after a point everyone starts using this fantastic system. They use to the point where people stop using cars. Thus traffic also thins out. After a point traffic will thin out to the point where it actually becomes more convenient to actually drive from patparganj to South ex again. Why stand and wait for buses or trains, possibly stand for 15 minutes before you get a seat, think about how you are going to get back, when the roads are relatively clear and parking is not a problem?

So car traffic starts building up again until we hit a equilibrium point where the trauma of traffic is only just balanced by the relative convenience of cars.

Hence we will have to learn to live with an equilibrium level of congestion.

Now i would like to point out that i have not seen any data to substantiate what appears to be a seductively simple premise. I would be interested in seeing what our readers have to say.

One caveat is that the model assumes that cars are fairly easy to own – which is true for the current scenario.

Hence one way to alter the position of this equilibrium could be to make car ownership difficult – if you – for example raise the price of cars and make car loans more expensive – that would automatically reduce the number of new cars on the road.

Or increase the price of petrol for example, and make diesel cars prohibitively expensive. Or as i suggested earlier – make parking far more expensive.

I see an argument on why private transportation should not be the sole preserve of the elite – but I’m still not sure how to think it through.
Would be interested in feedback.

While these are slightly old figures – the data from delhiplanning.nic.in states that :
“DTC was taken over by Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi from Govt. of India in August, 1996. The DTC fleet comprised 3131 buses in 1998-99, which has increased marginally to 3200 buses in 1999-2000. A major fleet expansion is planned in 2000-01, with the number of buses projected to increase to 4600. DTC has also engaged 2623 buses of private operators under the kilometer scheme in 1999-2000. 87-90 percent of the DTC buses have been on road in the last two years, compared to a low of 53.7% in 1995-96. Fleet utilization has increased significantly since 1995-96.
16. About 57% of DTC buses are overage (exceeding eight years), out of which about 24% are more than 10 years old.
17. The DTC fleet comprised 8.9% of the total number of buses registered in Delhi in 1998-99.”

The new orders thus imply an increase of about 75 per cent – however with old buses being phased out, you are probably right in assuming that the fleet size shall increase only marginally.

I personally am not sure what a nationalisation of the entire bus fleet will achieve. It might be a positive in terms of better labour conditions for the drivers and conductors – but otherwise I dont know how it will improve service.

Other ideas being talked about as late as August 08, revolve around handing over licenses on a zone by zone basis – where private coalitions will be paid a flat fee by the government and told to run the buses – this should, theoretically, eliminate competition within city routes and bus drivers will not be forced to race along city routes in an attempt to maximise passengers.

As i have written before – the radial shape of the city presents peculiar problems for public transport as buses/trains do not have high density corridors that offer favourable passengers per kilometre ratios. The spread out nature of the city makes it conducive for car driving.

In fact the best way to actually curb car use would probably be to raise parking rates and designate certain parts of the city – like markets for instance, car free zones.. This has been written about but never seriously pursued.

It would be interesting to see how the auto industry fares in the next few years. Globally most car companies in the first world are facing severe losses – the Detroit motor companies – particular GM and Chrysler are lurching from bail out to bail out, and the onset of a recession has meant that auto sales in August 08 fell around 30 per cent. This is primarily due to the tightening of credit markets (most cars are bought on loan) – so we are going to see a far more aggressive growth strategy in Asia – particularly india and china.

In New York – the pattern appears to be reversed where the buses actually display far more “technology” than the metro does .. the New York Metro is in many ways like the mumbai suburban train network – linear, crowded, and considered to be “So New York” – which roughly translates into the Mumbaikar idea of “thats Mumbai” or “the spirit of the city”. The “so New Yorkness” is a cover for the fact that most stations dont have display boards that indicate the time interval between trains … they actually have a conductor that calls out each station manually, and of course – there is no cellphone signal on the trains.
It was however built in the late 19th century. At a stop on the “L” line – you can make out tiles that are dated “1862″ – this is a reference i have been meaning to check – and will update once i do.

The bus system by contrast is pretty gimmicky. New York has so called “kneeling buses” that actually – through a miracle of hydraulics – “kneel” at bus stops – so one side of the bus lowers till it is the same height as the curb; thereby facilitating wheelchair access.

The appeal of gimmickry would explain why Delhi is sold on the idea of a “sky train” – think of the images it evokes – to paraphrase
“Lightly o lightly we glide and we sing
We bear her along like a train on a string”

Even the name – SKY TRAIN – it evokes a sensation of lightness, flight, happiness. a feeling of rising above the squalor of the city. In fact it even sounds better than AIRBUS – and air buses are actually planes …

If i didnt know what either was, chances are I would invariably choose a skytrain over an airbus.

The other world of course is monorail – now how cool is that .. a Monorail – it sounds so indescribably advanced .. I feel like i would need to take a diuretic before i got onto a monorail, with a tripod in my hand … “Its great to be bipedal” I would say, “Are those signsboards made of Light Emitting Diodes instead of Liquid Crystal Displays?”

Now what if we were to make it even cooler? I know – lets call a “world-class” “zero emission” “fully automated” “ergonomic” “monorail” “sky train”?

Bus Rapid Transit? You must be kidding.