Urban Planning Blog

Land scarcity in downtowns in large metropolitan areas is often the cause for lack of open public space. The green spaces that have been created earlier on have not expanded or modified to reflect the changes in urbanity. Hence there is a need to create open spaces better if they are green wherever you might find the opportunity. Planners and urban designers often overlook the small lots or even smaller spaces within lots as a feasible option for green space. Citizens do not discriminate against the size of the open space although larger spaces may be more beneficial but availability of a space is better than nothing at all. Thinking on similar lines, the Rebar Group developed the concept of PARK(ing) that was completed last November and successfully tested for usability.

PARK(ing) is an investigation into reprogramming a typical unit of private vehicular space by leasing a metered parking spot for public recreational activity.

We identified a site in an area of downtown San Francisco that is underserved by public outdoor space and is in an ideal, sunny location between the hours of noon and 2 p.m.

There we installed a small, temporary public park that provided nature, seating, and shade. Our goal was to transform a parking spot into a PARK(ing) space, thereby temporarily expanding the public realm and improving the quality of urban human habitat, at least until the meter ran out.

Thus, PARK(ing) operated within available resources and made best use of what otherwise would have been an opportunity cost. I am sure with the growing amount of parking in otherwise dead downtowns, we could do with a little spot of green. Heck, we might be even willing to pay for it, as the PARK(ing) project seems to imply.

Much ink has been spilled ( or bytes consumed) discussing Lata Mangeshkar’s alleged threat to quit Mumbai if the flyover on Peddar Road is built. A little bit of background if you have missed out on the story. Mumbai has been on a flyover building spree for the past 4-5 years and every time someone complains of traffic problems in Mumbai, a flyover contract is handed out. Peddar Road is one of the most congested roads in South Mumbai especially so during the rush hour which lately is anytime between 8am to 8pm. Lata Mangeshkar, the ‘voice of India’ is using her clout and indulging in emotional blackmail by stating that she will leave Mumbai if the flyover on Peddar Road is built. Her reasons – considering that it is a seismic zone, it would directly impact the foundations of the buildings in the area; not to mention bring the traffic right up to her eye level. Now the reactions to her statements have ranged from dismissive (her wish) to downright despicable (calling her all sorts of names in the abuse book).

Personally, I see it as a citizen advocacy movement. She issues such a statement simply because she knows it will catch attention. She is indulging in a classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) routine and trust me, if you were in her place, you would be doing just as much or even more. You cannot justify shutting up Lata by saying that no one would listen to low-income people if they chose to protest taking of their legal property. It is a systemic problem and needs legal consultation on specifics regarding land ownership, compelling government interest, and fair distribution of costs. Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with her statement. She would move out if she so wishes (probably it would be better for her health too) and does not even demand compensation. Housing supply is so crunched up in Mumbai that her flat would still command a hefty price tag although it should incorporate the existence of a flyover that would supposedly drive the price down. This fact alone would also deny her any compensation if she chooses to demand one.

She has chosen to make a personal statement that a public amenity (flyover) would impact her and the residents in the neighborhood the greatest; so much that it would make her reconsider living there – a place that is her home for the last 45 years. If she is stating a scientific finding (seismic zone and weakened foundations), then she should be answered relative to those concerns because they certainly raise not only a public safety issue but also a ‘taking’ of her property considering it would lose economic value. The second argument (taking of property; acquisition in Indian legalese) would probably not hold since it doesn’t result in complete loss of economic value or productive use of her property owing to the flyover. But if it requires her to move, then I guess the cost of the flyover on Lata is much more than the cost on the people that would use it. And I am not talking of the fiscal costs here.

Facts and legal arguments wouldn’t work here and instead she has chosen to make an emotional appeal; probably it has failed. Sonia Gandhi recently showed how to successfully use an emotional angle to recover from a hopeless situation. I bet she would be singing a slogan that we used on our college rivals in a sing-song manner when we have fooled them - ch#$@ banaya, bada mazaa aaya. But in this case, Mumbai seems to care less if she lives in Mumbai or not. Maybe she has exhausted her utility now.

I wonder how would people react if Sachin Tendulkar (not now but at the height of his cricketing prowess) would threaten to immigrate to Australia (just to rub it in) if a flyover was built near his home. I bet the flyover proponents would find another place for directing traffic. People, it is an emotional appeal; listen to it if you choose to or ignore it. Don’t berate the old lady for resorting to measures that we understand best.

“The prosperity of a nation is by counting the number of cars on the roads. Therefore there should not be cyclists travelling long distances and traffic should be made homogenous,”

The above priceless quote was uttered by Delhi’s Engineer-in-Chief, R Subramaniam. I am amazed that such a person with absolutely no knowledge of city form and urban economics holds such a high position in the government. Thankfully, he is only responsible for transportation policy in the capital city and not elsewhere. Policy in socialist India was government-driven and if this was the general attitude of all officials in the capital, we all would be forced to “be prosperous by driving more cars”.

Mr. Subramaniam seems to suffer from a case of spurious correlation. He must have seen America and noticed the number of cars on its road and decided that having more cars is the way to develop your country. Unfortunately, in a material-riddled society, his thoughts are shared by many and acquiring a vehicle irrespective of the ability to drive one safely is seen as an indicator of prosperity. In fact, people are buying more cars is only indicative of the choice they are making with their new-found wealth. However, if you look closely, they don’t even have that kind of money but they simply have easier access to car loans that the financial sector is heaping on the consumers. If the people somehow had opted to buy tons of chocolates with the money, it would mean that more chocolates in the country mean a more prosperous nation. So cars are simply a commodity that people buy to indicate their economic condition. Cars thus do not make a country prosperous but prosperous countries sure do have more cars.

Why am I harping so much on this lone bureaucrat’s statement? Simply because, it is one of the reasons that the Urban Development Ministry chose not to impose the condition to allocate space for pedestrians and cyclists for the city of Delhi. It allocated Rs.1650 crores over the next for years to Delhi to build 25 new flyovers and road over bridges. All this money with no express condition to consider the other forms of transportation – bicycles and pedestrians – which incidentally is also the primary form of transport for the lower-income class of people. However, Mumbai was denied this transportation largesse because of the same condition that it exempted Delhi from.

This policy decision is wrong and unfair on multiple counts. First, it unfairly discriminates against the population of the city that doesn’t own cars. Flyovers are primarily meant for car owners so that it can expedite their commute and reduce congestion. Of course, on the flip side, such a policy of building flyovers in fact encourages car ownership and brings more cars on the streets thus negating the advantage of additional road space added by flyovers. More flyovers are built to rectify the problem and the cycle continues. If you want to see a city dominated by flyovers and roads, come down to Houston and see if you would like to live in a ‘prosperous city with lots of cars and flyovers’. Second, the policy discriminates between cities i.e. Delhi and Mumbai by having different standards. Urban transportation policy needs to be coherent and if allocating space for pedestrians and cyclists is a guiding principle, it cannot differ from city unless a city has no cycles or people walking on the street, which is not the case for any Indian city, big or small. Third, environmentally, encouraging a car-centric urban form is disastrous. The prosperous nations that Mr. Subramaniam looks up to have since long suffered from problems of sprawl and inner city dilapidation causing other socio-economic problems. The developed countries have begun to reconsider their position on the role of automobiles in a city. London has already imposed a hefty congestion tax that limits vehicular traffic in the city (government-side policy) and astronomical parking charges make driving into New York City make it economically unviable (market-oriented mechanism). Dense and pedestrian friendly cities not only improve the social fabric of the city but also cause a lesser burden on the environment, at least until a pollution-free mode of transportation is developed.

Let us hope that this policy decision is reconsidered. The worse case scenario would be if Mumbai also was given the luxury of ignoring the transportation needs of more than 90% of its population.

In related news, Lata Mangeshkar is in the news for ‘delaying city infrastructure improvements’. In a later post, I will explain why her actions aren’t wrong.

See this, Mumbaikars and think again if you want your city to be another Shanghai. For crying out loud, more flyovers will not help. They just make people buy more cars and negate the advantage. If you don’t believe me, read Gary Becker’s opinion. The Texas Transportation Institute (a block down the street from my college) estimated that the extra time and fuel spent in driving as a result of traffic congestion in 1994 was worth over $75 billion and might have already toped $150 billion [prediction for 2005]. Is economics the answer, like it usually is? A fee for driving into central London reduced the traffic inflow by 20%. People took to public transit that was widely available, carpooled or explored other means of joint transportation. All vehicles entering Manhattan already pay stiff tolls at the bridges but are those toll charges enough to deter people from driving in.

One of the biggest changes I saw during my visit to India was the horrific increase in traffic and to make it worse, it was unruly traffic compounded by Neanderthal behavior. I was informed that suddenly many cars have hit the streets due to a booming economy and ease of loan availability; especially for two-wheelers. At the same time, we are fully aware of the lack of any strictness in conducting driving road tests, if at all they are conducted, for obtaining a license to drive. We condemn the rash driving habits of film stars but forget the thousands of other incidents that never make it to the newspapers. First of all, the solution to traffic management is to inculcate a sense of responsibility and association with the fact that driving is not a right but in fact a privilege (printing it on the back of the licenses probably isn’t enough).

The problem with implementing economic disincentives for traffic management is that those that can afford to pay can easily get around the system. For every solution, there is a counter-argument of infringing on individual behavior but as Becker explains, a driver does not consider the effect of his driving on the other users of the road, but only on himself. It is a classic negative externality.