[King_pin09]

Voted a big NO

Prima facie, a sea link may appear as futuristic project which can be showcased as an technological marvel. However looking at the intrinsic details, one will find that such projects are cost and resource intensive both during and after construction. Besides the success of such projects largely depends on the system that feeds and collect traffic plying through. I have personally avoided taking the sealink on several occasions due to the traffic chaos on either side of the corridor.

I see personally such projects as akin to installing Stanley leather seats on an abandoned car rotting for years without engine. What is required is complete restoration to make the car up and running.

[laser2707]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Let me go against the grain here at the risk of being lynched by Mumbaikars.

Why should a sealink be elitist? Why can a sealink not have a lower rate for a BEST bus or any bus indirectly subsidized by the car users?

With due respect Sir. While I agree with your premise, the BWSL is such an ill conceived project - if BEST buses even with subsidized toll were allowed to ply it will gridlock the Worli seaface exit. It's bad enough as it is with sparse traffic.

For all its photogenic qualities the BWSL comes across to me as nothing more than a very expensive Bollywood backdrop without much practical utility. I know that's harsh but true.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Why should a sealink be elitist? Why can a sealink not have a lower rate for a BEST bus or any bus indirectly subsidized by the car users?

And have poor people on Worli seaface?

[MadinMumbai]

Yes! Yes and Yes!

I will make a counterintuitive pitch.

The environment cost of all the cars/buses and trucks averaging half or less per kilometre of their capability is never factored into any arguments against infrastructure projects. Fact is that on a daily basis almost double the pollutants through emissions are added to the atmosphere because we have crap infrastructure.

Most of the opposition to infrastructure projects connecting North-South Bombay comes from people living in South Mumbai. Nostalgia of how Bombay used to be/should be clouds their judgment into opposing any projects that will ease commuter’s woes. They don’t realise that a person spends 3-4 hours in traffic everyday burning tons of extra fuel every years. And wishing away this person is not an option.

And to people who say airy-fairy sweet nothings like- spend the money on public transport- this very same lot opposes mass transport projects as well. Court cases ranging from alignment of metro to buildings health to Aarey milk colony car shed issue are all filed as roadblocks to the metro project which is running behind schedule by a few decades. Environment has become a convenient buzz word but is actually a turf protection game. Of course the bandwagon is boarded by wooly headed, good intentioned, busybodies who have no sense of reality or history. They forget that most of what is good about Bombay, including today’s icon - Marine Drive was made by reclaiming land. Ditto every causeway that allows Bombay to be a city and not just a cluster of villages spread across islands.

Improved public transport is desirable. Improved road network is desirable. Use of waterways is desirable. Saying prioritise one over the other is neither helpful not desirable.

[arakhanna]

This topic is quite amusing. That fact that we are in auto forum is all the more galling.

So who is an elite? Ownership of 4W's is around 40 per thousand population in India. So even accounting for 4 per Household, its less than 16% of Indians would have ownership in their family. So if you own a 4W PV you are an elite. Period.

Now coming to the environment. All environmentalists would concur that if automobiles did not exist, pollution would decrease. Heck, if we actually went back to hunter gather existence reversing 3000 years of progress, the 2 degree Paris Climate accord would be a breeze. Yes that's stretching it to an hyperbole but the point I am trying to make is the choices being made are a reflection of the wants and desires of society. Progress is just an expression of yearnings of human kind.

Developing Bombay from 7 islands to a metropolis would not happened if environmentalists had they say few hundred years back. This is the reason no new cities are being developed in India and progress is being retarded.

As rightly said over 50% of Mumbai lives in slums. One of the reasons is that the Mafia in Mumbai tried to strangulate infrastructure. Why.. So that real estate prices keep rising as people want to stay close to their work places. Unaffordability causes the working migratory poor class to live in slums to decrease travel time.

However due to public pressure some infrastructure projects are being commissioned. Post the infrastructure development, prices have increased in suburbs higher than in town per sq.ft reflecting an easier commute. I believe that the coast road, Sewri - Nhava Sea Link etc would further democratize and improve the livability in Mumbai as WBSL has done maybe at a margin but definitely a positive impact.

I for one, recognize that every time I drive to Lonavala for a joy ride it has environmental consequences and every time I fly on holidays or work I am polluting and decreasing the quality of air for everyone. Somehow these activities do not invite the same rebuke from environmentalists as development projects do. Astounding. Maybe because their hypocrisy would then be called out?

Some of us like to drive 2L or maybe even 3L diesel engine vehicles because its more fun. We want bigger cars such as SUV's. We are okay degrading the environment to suit our lifestyle but a public good which is being created like the coastal road is looked down upon. We need more roads. We need more metro's and we need more train tracks. If its a public road then I do not see the issue. Especially if its tolled in a non discriminate manner.

We like to have our cake and eat it too.

The funny thing is that on this very forum we continuously critique the current taxes on petrol and diesel. As environmentalists we should actually rejoice the high taxation and pressure our governments to increase it further to make it unfordable to travel in private transport. We abhor the prices of automobiles in India and compare with developed countries where similar automobiles cost so much lower due to lower government taxation. Maybe in the next GST council we could petition our MLA's and MP's to further increase the rate from 28 to 50% thus cutting vehicle ownership and its resultant pollution and negating the need to make roads.

And my is answer is YES - Re: The environmental cost of Sea Links | Do you support such projects?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by arakhanna

This topic is quite amusing. That fact that we are in auto forum is all the more galling.

So who is an elite?

Developing Bombay from 7 islands to a metropolis would not happened if environmentalists had they say few hundred years back. This is the reason no new cities are being developed in India and progress is being retarded.

As rightly said over 50% of Mumbai lives in slums. One of the reasons is that the Mafia in Mumbai tried to strangulate infrastructure. Why.. So that real estate prices keep rising as people want to stay close to their work places. Unaffordability causes the working migratory poor class to live in slums to decrease travel time.

Some of us like to drive 2L or maybe even 3L diesel engine vehicles because its more fun. We want bigger cars such as SUV's. We are okay degrading the environment to suit our lifestyle but a public good which is being created like the coastal road is looked down upon. We need more roads. We need more metro's and we need more train tracks. If its a public road then I do not see the issue. Especially if its tolled in a non discriminate manner.

The funny thing is that on this very forum we continuously critique the current taxes on petrol and diesel. As environmentalists we should actually rejoice the high taxation and pressure our governments to increase it further to make it unfordable to travel in private transport. We abhor the prices of automobiles in India and compare with developed countries where similar automobiles cost so much lower due to lower government taxation. Maybe in the next GST council we could petition our MLA's and MP's to further increase the rate from 28 to 50% thus cutting vehicle ownership and its resultant pollution and negating the need to make roads.

IMHO the most sensible post on this thread Thank you @arakhanna. I for one looked at some of the posts with a mixture of incredulousness and amazement at the myopia. When folks say we don't want an infrastructure because it disturbs the view - well that is not elitist I believe. Thank you for saying it as it is. In Mumbai the politicians don't want the prices to drop and the South Bombay crowd don't want the hoi polloi driving in. Mumbai is already half the road down to where Kolkata is today*. Don't build your infrastructure and some of Mumbai's weight will shift to Indore, Amdavad, Vizakhapatnam, Delhi and other upcoming urban centres. It is already happening.

*Till ~1974 Kolkata was number 2 in India amongst cities in income tax collection. Mumbai was #1. Today Kolkata is #7 or #8. Mumbai is now jostling for the number #1 slot vis-a-vis Delhi.

[smooth indian]

Vote Yes! but reluctantly since the BWSL is already completed and it makes sense to have the coastal road. If one had asked me at the time of planning the BWSL I would have said 'No'. I am usually for big projects but the sea coast could have been kept clear of such intrusive development.

To me it makes sense to overhaul public transport by adding new tracks to existing suburban corridors and building new metro lines. This is already underway and will be completed at some point.

Yet! I feel one cannot neglect roads and motorists and their needs also have to be taken care of. Even with good public transport there will be a significant chunk of people who will rely on their vehicles for traveling. A healthy transport system is well balanced and will provide multiple modes of transport.

A good road system can exist in Mumbai without the need for fancy items. One of the things that needs ongoing work is to make the arterial roads more continuous and to allow then to connect with each other conveniently. The surface, signage and layout of many roads also needs to be improved. Flyovers need to be merged to form elevated roads and tunneling is needed to overcome barriers where elevated structures are not an option e.g. Juhu Aerodrome,

[v1p3r]

There are 2 sides to this tale -
One is that Mumbai needs roads. The example used most often is Delhi. The truth is that (New) Delhi occupies a unique position in Indian infrastructure. The government cares. Roads are broad, expressways are express and upkeep is good. It still doesn't do much for poor people (who are not on this forum) because they have to take public transport which is either slow or non-road. So while Mumbai may need roads, please don't compare it to Delhi. The only valid comparison is to Hyderabad, where greenfield development has occurred and average speeds are reasonably high. And for those interested in statistics, Mumbai's arterial road density is higher than NYC's. Road widths are similar, and more built up area is closer to main roads. I would not claim that NYC's commercial aspirations have suffered because its road density is less than Mumbai's. Source http://atlasofurbanexpansion.org/

The other side is that the environment needs saving. It does. You can make strawman arguments about almost anything else, but the truth is self-evident. The problem is that the people crying about the environment speak from a position of ridiculous privilege - like DiCaprio in a private jet. They conflate the disappearance of their precious sea view with what's happening to the sea itself. This happened previously, when an old lady who used to sing (and should've stopped long ago) didn't want a flyover near her house. It turned into national news. So, please stop bashing environmentalists who are trying to save us all because some privilege-infested fleabags are using them as an excuse.

The truth is that Mumbai needs all the help it can get. It needs better roads, it needs more roads, it needs better local trains, it needs a functioning mass transport system like a metro.

Mumbai also needs citizens who recognise their privilege and raise their voice to demand access to expressways and sea links and other fancy roads for autos, motorcycles, and buses. The day this forum has a thread supporting the plying of autos in south Mumbai, the rest of us will start taking it seriously.

Originally Posted by arakhanna

Developing Bombay from 7 islands to a metropolis would not happened if environmentalists had they say few hundred years back.

This is an incorrect statement. There were no environmentalists 200 years ago!

[smooth indian]

Everything else in your post seems alright except this ����

Originally Posted by v1p3r

There are 2 sides to this tale -
Mumbai also needs citizens who recognise their privilege and raise their voice to demand access to expressways and sea links and other fancy roads for autos, motorcycles, and buses. The day this forum has a thread supporting the plying of autos in south Mumbai, the rest of us will start taking it seriously.

Shouldn't Mumbai and other cities move beyond autorickshaws in this day and age. Especially when 4-wheeled vehicles (with arguably better features/capacity) are available at a comparable price.

Generally speaking! Environmentalists and other activists concerned with the well being of our society should take up the issue of population control more often. While our greed and myopia are supporting factors, our huge populations (which is still rising) has made things much worse. With the growth happening more in the lower end of the society particularly in rural areas, living off the land becomes more and more difficult and as more and more people pour into our cities it quickly becomes an urban and environmental nightmare.

[sodapop]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4PW66_g6XA

This is a very interesting and informative video. While I understand it might not be very relevant to this specific situation, I feel it highlights some problems with building more roads. Will request everybody to go through it atleast once

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by smooth indian

Shouldn't Mumbai and other cities move beyond autorickshaws in this day and age. Especially when 4-wheeled vehicles (with arguably better features/capacity) are available at a comparable price.

Ideally, everyone should move to public transport, with personal vehicles becoming a leisure/hobby that is expensive to have. The most extreme example is Singapore, with London, NYC and Tokyo not far behind. But my point was about elitism and it remains - why is it ok for the south of the city to have no autos whereas the rest can have them?

Originally Posted by smooth indian

Generally speaking! Environmentalists and other activists concerned with the well being of our society should take up the issue of population control more often. While our greed and myopia are supporting factors, our huge populations (which is still rising) has made things much worse. With the growth happening more in the lower end of the society particularly in rural areas, living off the land becomes more and more difficult and as more and more people pour into our cities it quickly becomes an urban and environmental nightmare.

You cannot control the population without long-term negative effects (ask China and Japan). The overpopulation explosion is a myth that has been discredited by scientists. For what it's worth, the UK has 2x the population density of China, and 3x that of Spain. I wouldn't call it underdeveloped. Everything that you have stated - living off the land, moving to urban areas from rural - is in bad shape because of misgovernance to the maximum in India.

[smooth indian]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Ideally, everyone should move to public transport, with personal vehicles becoming a leisure/hobby that is expensive to have. The most extreme example is Singapore, with London, NYC and Tokyo not far behind. But my point was about elitism and it remains - why is it ok for the south of the city to have no autos whereas the rest can have them?

It is OK for South Mumbai to not have auto rickshaws because they can make do with taxis. The extra 20% spent on a taxi ride is well worth the avoidance of chaos associated with auto rickshaws. FYI South Mumbai never had auto rickshaws and it is not OK for any part of India to have to do with autorickshaws. Ideally, we should phase out autorickshaws over a decade from all parts of India. The automobile industry in India has matured enough to provide better vehicles at comparable prices.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

You cannot control the population without long-term negative effects (ask China and Japan). The overpopulation explosion is a myth that has been discredited by scientists. For what it's worth, the UK has 2x the population density of China, and 3x that of Spain. I wouldn't call it underdeveloped. Everything that you have stated - living off the land, moving to urban areas from rural - is in bad shape because of misgovernance to the maximum in India.

UK has been able to do well despite higher population density because they held the levers of the world trade and economy. That economic success is in question as their hold over global trade has loosened in recent years.
India can't sustain a growing population and a high standard of living unless it becomes a hardcore mercantilist economy like China or the Colonial European powers, which is difficult with its democratic set up. We also can't expect to reverse misgovernance of the past in real time without have a handle on our population growth.

[arakhanna]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

This is an incorrect statement. There were no environmentalists 200 years ago!

Well v1p3r, if you were interested in history you would think twice before making such a statement.

Pulling out an example from our previous colonial rulers much much further back than just 200 years!!

"the very first effort to combat the combination of mist and noxious smoke was made in 1272 by King Edward I. He banned the burning of sea-coal in order to clean the London skies"

https://www.pbs.org/now/science/smog.html

There are umpteen such examples going back more than 200 years.

[v1p3r]

Originally Posted by arakhanna

Well v1p3r, if you were interested in history you would think twice before making such a statement.

Sorry, I didn't have a sarcasm sign handy! Mods, can we add it to the emoji list?

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by arakhanna

This topic is quite amusing. That fact that we are in auto forum is all the more galling.

So who is an elite?

It is indeed amusing!
But what is more amusing is folks on both sides of the asked question are part of the elites (you and me included), so neither side is providing the absolutely valid view.


Fact of the matter is I hardly see anyone talking about doing their part; everything else is just talk.

If I pulse the cars owned in this subset of folks, I'd get a few 4X4s, a few premium cars (BMWs, Lexus, etc.) and the rest owning C/D sedans or hatchbacks. All of those who will eventually use such infrastructure or the current options available. I'd be very surprised if I find anyone who doesn't fall in above set and instead is using or is ready to shift to the public transport on a daily basis.

If there are, I'd like to hear his/her opinion.