Prioritising safety is a philosophy, one that needs proactive introduction and maintenance throughout all layers of decision-making involved.
The staggering differences between Mumbai Metro and Mumbai Suburban Rail are clearly driven by the frameworks each system operates in, in the first place. I wonder whether anyone has attempted researching and understanding the underlying mechanisms for both of those systems in detail.
Some of the differences are just history, Metro is built to modern standards by Japanese (I think) builders. Suburban Rail is 100 years old and is slowly being improved with Air Conditioning (which will allow shutting doors and windows, and is thus a safety feature as well as a health feature). Institutionally, building new things seems easier than fixing existing things there, for whatever reasons.
Studies listed below compare the portion of road spaces dedicated to various modes with their share of travel demands. They generally find that automobile infrastructure (higher-speed traffic lanes plus parking lanes) receives more space than fair or efficient, particularly in denser and lower-income areas where there is higher non-auto mode shares. You could also say that higher design speed, which favor faster automobile travel over pedestrian and bicycle safety are inefficient and unfair for the reasons you describe.
This is more evidence that conventional transport planning overvalues speed over other goals (affordability, safety, livability, environmental quality) compared with what is optimal.
Todd Litman (2023), Fair Share Transportation Planning: Estimating Non-Auto Travel Demands and Optimal Infrastructure Investments, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/fstp.pdf.
Streetspace Allocation Option Generation Tool (https://ifpedestrians.org/roadoptions/public), developed by the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London for the European Union’s MORE (Multi-modal Optimization of Roadspace in Europe).
Marie-Eve Will, Yannick Cornet and Talat Munshi (2020), “Measuring Road Space Consumption by Transport Modes: Toward a Standard Spatial Efficiency Assessment Method and an Application to the Development Scenarios of Rajkot City, India,” Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vo. 13, 1 pp. 651–669 (https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2020.1526).
Prioritising safety is a philosophy, one that needs proactive introduction and maintenance throughout all layers of decision-making involved.
The staggering differences between Mumbai Metro and Mumbai Suburban Rail are clearly driven by the frameworks each system operates in, in the first place. I wonder whether anyone has attempted researching and understanding the underlying mechanisms for both of those systems in detail.
Some of the differences are just history, Metro is built to modern standards by Japanese (I think) builders. Suburban Rail is 100 years old and is slowly being improved with Air Conditioning (which will allow shutting doors and windows, and is thus a safety feature as well as a health feature). Institutionally, building new things seems easier than fixing existing things there, for whatever reasons.
Thanks David. You make good points.
Studies listed below compare the portion of road spaces dedicated to various modes with their share of travel demands. They generally find that automobile infrastructure (higher-speed traffic lanes plus parking lanes) receives more space than fair or efficient, particularly in denser and lower-income areas where there is higher non-auto mode shares. You could also say that higher design speed, which favor faster automobile travel over pedestrian and bicycle safety are inefficient and unfair for the reasons you describe.
This is more evidence that conventional transport planning overvalues speed over other goals (affordability, safety, livability, environmental quality) compared with what is optimal.
REFERENCES
Felix Creutzig, et al. (2020), “Fair Street Space Allocation: Ethical Principles and Empirical Insights,” Transport Reviews, Vo. 40:6, 711-733 (DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2020.1762795); at https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/276707275/Creutzig2020fair.pdf.
Stefan Gössling, et al. (2016), “Urban Space Distribution and Sustainable Transport,” Transport Reviews (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1147101).
Stefan Gössling (2020), “Why Cities Need to Take Road Space from Cars - And How this Could be Done,” Journal of Urban Design (doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1727318); at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13574809.2020.1727318.
Todd Litman (2023), Fair Share Transportation Planning: Estimating Non-Auto Travel Demands and Optimal Infrastructure Investments, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/fstp.pdf.
Streetspace Allocation Option Generation Tool (https://ifpedestrians.org/roadoptions/public), developed by the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London for the European Union’s MORE (Multi-modal Optimization of Roadspace in Europe).
Marie-Eve Will, Yannick Cornet and Talat Munshi (2020), “Measuring Road Space Consumption by Transport Modes: Toward a Standard Spatial Efficiency Assessment Method and an Application to the Development Scenarios of Rajkot City, India,” Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vo. 13, 1 pp. 651–669 (https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2020.1526).