சென்னை மாநகர போக்குவரத்து பிரச்சனைகள் - விரிவாக்கம்

சென்னை மாநகரின் நெருக்கடி குறித்து மெட்ராஸ் மியூசிங்ஸ் (Madras Musings) சில செய்திகளை படிக்க நேர்ந்தது. சென்னை மாநகரில் 1992இல் 6 லட்சம் வாகனங்கள் இருந்தன. 2001இல் 13 லட்சம் வாகனங்களாகப் பெருகின. இந்த கணக்கு 2012ன்படி சென்னையில் இன்றைக்கு 36 லட்சம் வாகனங்கள் இருந்தன. தற்போது ஒரு கோடியை எட்டிவிடும் அளவுக்கு சூழல்கள் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. இதனால் நகரம் மாசுபடுவதும், வாகன ஒலிப்பான்களுடைய சத்தங்கள் பொறுக்க முடியாமலிருக்கும் நிலையில் உள்ளன. இதன் பின்விளைவுகள் மிகவும் அபாயகரமாக அமையும். 

தினமும் 1500 புது வாகனங்கள் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டு பயன்பாட்டுக்கு வருகின்றன. நூறாண்டுகளுக்கு முன் இருந்த சென்னையின் சாலைகள் அதே அளவில் தான் இன்றும் உள்ளன. ஆனால் சாலை விரிவாக்கம் என்று பெரியளவில் செய்யப்படவில்லை. வாகனங்கள் மட்டும் பெருக்கப்படுகின்றன. யார் கேட்டாலும் எளிதாக வாகனத்தை வாங்கிவிடலாம். ஒரு வீட்டிற்கு 4 அல்லது 5 நான்கு சக்கர வாகனங்கள் வாங்கிவிட்டு தெருவில் நிறுத்த வேண்டிய நிலைமை. வெளிநாடுகளில் வாகனங்கள் வாங்குவதில் நகரத்தின் சுற்றுச்சூழல் நன்மையை கருதி சில கட்டுப்பாடுகள் உண்டு. சிங்கப்பூர், லண்டன் போன்ற நகரங்களில் வாகன ஒலிப்பான்கள் மூலம் சத்தங்களை எழுப்ப முடியாது. எழுப்பினால் அது குற்றமாகும். ஆனால் விலையுயர்ந்த வாகன ஒலிப்பான்களை வைத்துக்கொண்டு ஒலித்தால் தான் அந்த வாகனத்திற்கும், அதன் உரிமையாளருக்கும் மரியாதை என்ற போலித்தனமான உணர்வுகள். பெரிய வாகனங்கள் இருந்தால் தான் கௌரவம் என்ற மடத்தனமான எண்ணங்கள் இதற்காகவே கோடிக்கணக்கில் கடன் வாங்கி வாகனங்களை வாங்கும் பாசாங்குத்தனமான போக்குகள் போன்ற பொய்யான நிலைப்பாடுகள் நம்மிடையே உள்ளன. அரசாங்கமும் இதை கட்டுப்படுத்தாமல் புதுப் புது விதமாக ஷேர் ஆட்டோக்கள் மற்றும் வாடகை ஊர்திகள் என தேவையில்லாத போக்குவரத்து உரிமங்களை தாராளமாக அள்ளி வழங்கி தேவையற்ற போக்குவரத்து நெரிசல்களை அரசே உருவாக்கி சுற்றுச்சூழல் பாதிப்புகளையும் ஏற்படுத்தி விடுகிறது. 

ஒரு பக்கம் மக்கள் தொகை பெருக்கம், வேலைவாய்ப்பின்னை, வேலையிழப்புகள், வெறும் கடன் அட்டைகளை தேய்த்தாலே வாகனங்கள் வழங்கப்படுகிறது. அதனுடைய கடன்களை கட்ட முடியாமல் தினமும் தற்கொலை செய்து கொள்ளும் இளைஞர்கள். இப்படியான போக்கு சென்னை நகரில் மட்டுமல்லாமல் சமூகத்தில் எல்லா நகரங்களிலும் புரையோடிப் போய்விட்டன. இதை தடுத்து நிறுத்த வேண்டிய அவசரமும், அவசியமும் உள்ளது என்பதை அனைவரும் உணர வேண்டும். 

#சென்னை_மாநகர_விரிவாக்கம்

#சென்னை_போக்குவரத்து_நெரிசல்

#சென்னை_வாகன_பெருக்கம்

#Congestion_on_Chennai_city

#Madras_musings

#KSRadhakrishnanPostings

#KSRPostings

கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்.

20-02-2018

Why no Central largesse for City?

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

A former Union Finance Minister has dubbed the recently presented central budget as nothing but a vote-gathering exercise. While he may be influenced by political compulsions, this appears to be a logical inference. How else can we justify a whopping Rs 17,000 crore for a suburban and metro railway development scheme encompassing 160 km in Bengaluru, whilst Chennai got nothing? Karnataka is shortly to face an Assembly election. The other beneficiary has been Mumbai, which has got Rs 10,000 crore. As compared to this, Chennai Metro got nothing. Is it our fault that despite the best opportunities, our politicians prevented mid-term elections to the Assembly?

Chennai Metro has been pleading for a couple of years now that it be permitted to begin work on a second phase in its expansion. However, the detailed project report (DPR) when submitted to the Union Ministry for Housing and Urban Affairs was returned with the comment that the document did not give any justification for the poor patronage of the Metro despite it being operational over 50 per cent of the proposed 45 km network in Phase 1. At present 30,000 people use the Metro each day. The DPR for Phase 1 had apparently estimated that the full network of 45 km would carry around 7.7 lakh passengers a day. The Ministry has therefore said that the present 28 km ought to be catering to 4.5 lakh passengers at the minimum. With the present patronage being less than 10 per cent of what was estimated, the Ministry is questioning the viability of the entire service.

What follows is even more damning. The Ministry has said that the DPR for Phase 2 is totally silent on alternative modes of transport, such as bus and light rail; it makes no mention of last mile connectivity; and, above all, there is no thought given to public private partnerships. In short, the DPR is precisely what a group of bureaucrats seated in an ivory tower must have come up with. It is only with sorrow that we at Madras Musings would like to point out that these are precisely the lacunae that we have been highlighting all along in the first phase as well.

It is all very well to enthusiastically burrow under the ground, crack up heritage buildings above, swallow parks and open spaces and then report progress on the distance covered in terms of laying tracks. But public patronage is an altogether different exercise. No thought had been given to it when the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) was planned, and we are more or less on the same track when it comes to the Metro. Which is a pity, given that the idea is essentially a good one.

As of now therefore, our Metro is caught in a bind. Lack of funds means its proposed Phase 2 and its planned linking up with the MRTS are not going to happen any time soon. Those two are vital for the viability of the service overall. Without them, we are India’s costliest Metro and perhaps the nation’s least used one as well. If matters are left this way, we will end up having two isolated and poorly used transport systems – the MRTS and the Metro, both built at enormous cost in terms of money and damage to environment.

Our political establishment appears to be blissfully unaware of all this. Not a reaction has been expressed to the virtual cutting off of all central support. May be our MPs need to take a leaf from the books of their colleagues from Andhra who are busy protesting outside Parliament about poor budgetary support to their State. Or they could engineer an election.

Expansion alone won’t reduce congestion - Congestion and its consequences

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

The World Health Organisation recommends 10 micrograms of Particulate Matter 2.5 (indicator of pollution) in ambient air. However, in Chennai, it is between 40 and 60 micrograms as against the Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM) in air that is safe up to 60 micrograms per cubic metre. Some parts of Chennai have about 120 micrograms. The main reason for high air pollution is the exhaust from the ever-increasing number of vehicles on the city roads causing congestion, fuel wastage and high emission.

Chennai’s vehicle population has been accelerating steadily from 6 lakh in 1992, to 13 lakh in 2001 and 36 lakh in 2012. Chennai has the second largest vehicle population in the country. Daily, about 1,500 new vehicles hit the roads, with two-wheelers constituting more than 75 percent of them. It is predicted that Chennai will soon have twice as many vehicles as Mumbai. Still, car penetration within cities in the country is only about 20 per 1000 compared to 90 in China, indicating a frightening possibility for further growth unless steps are taken to cope with or discourage such progression.

In terms of vehicle density, that is, number of vehicles per km of road, Chennai tops the list with 2093 against Delhi’s 245. Delhi’s low density is because of its road length. Compared to 1800 km in Chennai, Delhi has around 30,000 km of road length. Owing to high traffic density, average bus speed in our city in 2014 was 18 kilometres per hour. Over the next five years, it is expected to come down to 12 km per hour.

The Government of Tamil Nadu has acknowledged its concern over the congestion in Madras and the consequences of it by, recently, increasing the Chennai Metropolitan Area from 1,189 sq. km. to 8,878 sq. km. On the face of it, dispersal of settlements over a wider expanse is a welcome step. However, unless it is swiftly followed up by time-bound investments for connectivity, affordable mobility and decentralisation of public services, there would be no impact on pollution levels. The last redefinition of the area in 1974 has still left outlying habitats in the extended area as isolated unserviced “islands”, congestion in the City remaining untouched. The contrast of population density of 7,448 persons/sq. km. in outlying areas and 26,903 persons/sq. km. in the down town area shows that people have not moved out. So, repeating the same mantra of extending the area is not by itself going to yield results. Professor A. Srivathsan of CEPT University (Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology), Ahmadabad, has identified this deficiency and pointed out that the previously extended area should first be integrated before demarcating a larger area.

Apart from giving priority to the previously extended area to provide connectivity, affordable mobility and localised public services, realising the full potential to rationalise and discipline traffic in the City, should receive urgent attention. In older cities, there is a limit up to which widening or building of more roads is feasible as a measure to reduce vehicle density. Therefore, innovative usage of available space should be fully exploited.

To moderate congestion, several cities are experimenting with new methods. The chaotic competition to occupy central road space among 2-, 3- and 4wheelers, and slow-moving hand carts, is there for us to see every day. Separating 2- and 3- wheelers from 4-wheeled motor vehicles by assigning them exclusive divided lanes is worth a try. Bays for bus stops could prevent these large obstructions taking positions right in the middle of the road as authorised bus stops. A narrow, protected lane on the margin could be earmarked for cyclists backed up by a bicycle sharing system. A good beginning was made in 2014 for a bicycle sharing system. It must be pursued, encouraged and systematised.

Converting regular two-way roads into one-ways is a short-term measure to achieve traffic decongestion and is effective up to a level of traffic volume beyond which only a flyover or equivalent device is needed. It must be said, however, that the one-way means of encouraging unidirectional flow is more efficiently applied in Chennai compared to Bengaluru.

A bus carrying 60 or so passengers has prior right to road space over cars occupying nearly the same space but carrying often only one or two passengers. The innovation of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, encouraged even by the World Bank, for large cities of developing countries, performs two functions – it disciplines the bus to move within the dedicated space and recognises its priority for taking lesser road space per passenger. The BRT looks and behaves like a subway, offering high capacity rapid transit without competing with other vehicles. We do not know why this method has not been tried on some of the City’s wide roads.

Chennai city’s bus network is among the best in the country for its comprehensive coverage but, in the process, it penetrates the interior, where congested and narrow roads cause traffic snarls that spread in a ripple effect to neighbouring areas. Cannot the secondary and tertiary routes be reserved for private-operated mini-buses or share-auto types that are more manoeuvrable? These could operate in allotted zones and can be painted in different colours so that they could be spotted if they operate in an unauthorised area.

Discouraging car ownership, use of cars on busy roads and use of roads at peak hours – through congestion pricing as in Singapore – is not such a far-fetched idea as it was a few years ago, thanks to easily available technology. Many cities have traffic signals that are automatically calibrated to a standard assessment of traffic demand in different parts of the day or even on a real-time basis from a central command. In the absence of such adjustments, we, as rule-abiding citizens, are often caught in a mini moral dilemma – going at 5 am in the morning to airport to wait for 90 seconds at a junction for a non-existent traffic or defy it in the absence of any risk. In Singapore, through these various methods, car ownership has come down to 0.18 per capita and use of public transport has gone up to 48 per cent.

Most of our sidewalks are unusable, because they are hazardous or filthy or taken up for unauthorised uses. If only the sidewalks were safe, attractively surfaced, and kept free of encroachments, they would be used by pedestrians and there could be freer flow of vehicular traffic.

Examples of rationalisation have been cited only to show there are possibilities at minimal cost. Systems become useless unless backed by strict enforcement of traffic rules. Equally important is responsible citizenship. The better income classes should not consider it infra dig to be seen using public transport. More people adopting mass public transport would reduce traffic density, increase speed of mobility and reduce pollution. For this, public transport should be clean, efficient, timely and affordable. Inadequacy or inefficiency of public transport forces people to resort to individualised unshared mobility.

Above all, visible demonstration of the government’s concern and swiftness of action would put citizens’ minds at rest.

Courtesy: Madras Musings.