By Rodrigo Henríquez (*)
About the letter that former President Ricardo Lagos sent to the commission investigating the Transantiago Many have waited a mea culpa on his part, or even more, assuming a greater responsibility Regarding the results of the design and implementation of the plan. However, after reading this letter is unnecessary to continue looking for more blame or liability, since all the explanations are there, in view of the world.
The first thing you care to read the letter is that an explicit reference to the Transantiago Plan was based on two axes: the construction of urban highways and the extension of subway lines, against which it is self-doubt wondering what happened to the buses "should not have made this the third and main axis of the Plan? However, beyond this bad introduction to views on the subject in subsequent paragraphs Lagos reflects at least two grave misconceptions which added to the above, explain the poor design, implementation and launch of this revolutionary system of urban transport.
The first of these relates to the justification of the first axis and corresponds to point out that urban highway construction favors the movement of buses, and that clears the streets (Page 1, fifth paragraph.) This aberrant sentence shows the utter ignorance about the reasons that explain the phenomena of congestion. The population growth and increasing incomes of the same, bring the direct consequence that people increase the number of trips taken every day and also a higher proportion of them do in a car, since it will be increasingly within reach of their pockets. To build urban freeways is giving the green light to the increased use of this transport, which congestion and pollution at least 10 times more a public transport bus per passenger (you can easily reach 20 times) . That is, the construction of urban highways NO not only promotes the movement of buses, but the difficult, increasing levels of congestion and making even more attractive than it already is the most inefficient mode of transport: the car.
The second error, and complementary to the previous lies in thinking (or impose) the system should be self-financing, which was sufficient to reduce the fleet of buses and average mileage (page 3, fourth paragraph.) First, for a smaller supply to serve the same demand is absolutely necessary is completely built the infrastructure for the freest possible movement of buses, that is, segregated roads, by not this happens, the buses are reduced speed of movement and therefore take longer to perform one cycle (go and return whereabouts), which for us will mean a reduction in the ability of passengers carried per hour or the lack of buses to meet the stated frequencies. Second, although the infrastructure was built, you can not avoid demand subsidies if it is desired to reduce the time passengers in the system, mainly the waiting time, so to make public transport a more attractive.
is, to impose self-financing scheme involves charging infrastructure costs to the amount of the fee and therefore increases, delay the construction of this infrastructure with the consequences described and also underestimates the importance of while public transport users spend on a trip, where the waiting time of transshipment product is essential. The high levels of overcrowding and wait times today are a direct result of this design condition.
This implies that the prioritization of public transport system over private has never been such, since I never had the financial support (subsidies) or political support (management), not least the clarity of concepts that are required to achieve be designed and implemented successfully, that is, achieving a modern bus system, adequate infrastructure, travel times and at a rate less attractive.
declare that is to streamline and prioritize public transport system forcing self-financing and parallel to subsidize the construction of urban highways, is to stick a bullet in the foot, since in practice it is favoring the less sustainable mode of transport and less sustainable over time since it is the most inefficient from the point of view of resource use, infrastructure, pollutant emissions and energy resources.
responsibilities regarding the serious problems of mobility that has a majority of Santiago residents currently lie in such decisions and even more in this kind of thoughts regarding how to address issues of transport of people living in a city. Denying
resources now so that next year the system to work fairly well, continue to act with the same logic to declare one thing and do another, however, the results of this "strategy" already know: a system inefficient bus, a subway collapsed, with more cars on the streets, more traffic chaos, the more pollution, more delays for all users of the system and thus lower mobility of citizens and reduced quality of life. With all this theoretical and empirical evidence, legislators and authorities of this country, once again commit the same error?
(*) Master in Transportation Engineering, University of Chile.
0 comments:
Post a Comment