7 ms·

How one Indian city cracked the problem of urban spread

85 points by godelmachine 8y ago

viburnum 8y ago
This article has it backwards. Long, straight, wide roads are great for speeding cars but terrible for humans. It's the different between walkable places like and suburban American car sewers. But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them.
- kartickv 8y ago
  Pedestrians will also have a shorter walk if roads are straight, won't they? And, unlike cars, which can easily drive a kilometer or two further with no strain, pedestrians and cyclists are sensitive to this.
  - viburnum 8y ago
    You have to walk a lot farther when the roads are bigger. All that road space has a cost. Straight roads make people drive faster, which makes not driving worse for everyone else.
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    In the limit, you build roads too small for cars, like in the old walled medieval cities in europe. They are in general great places to walk and terrible places to drive. In the other limit, you build like e.g. Detroit suburbs, where it's essentially impossible to do anything on foot, ever. If you have to choose which one to be more like, curvy narrow roads are the way to go if you care about pedestrians. Add to this the fact that, if you provide space for cars, they will take it up: adding lanes / width / parking increases car usage to a greater extent than the space added, such that you end up drawing more congestion to the area than before it was improved.
    - kartickv 8y ago
      We can control polluting vehicles by imposing a pollution charge, or even banning them from some roads. Or by limiting them to only one lane. I was trying to think in an idealistic or "from first principles" way as opposed to the practical / realistic approach you took. From that point of view, I'd want all roads to be straight lines to minimise travel distance.
- sho 8y ago
  > But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them. If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.
  - nimish 8y ago
    > The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
      - FiveSquared 8y ago
        And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
      - nindalf 8y ago
        Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
        remarkEon 8y ago
        What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Evidence I have contradicts your assertions. Pleasant roads in the Netherlands can be 70 ft wide. The ones described here are under 35 ft. I would speculate that you are forming your conclusions based on American notions of "wide". Indian suburban regions frequently are as dense as American urban areas, which may throw off your intuitions a bit if you're unfamiliar.
Tade0 8y ago
But the Atlas of Urban Expansion, a project based in New York University, estimates that roads built in Ahmedabad after 2000 are 8.5m wide, on average, compared with 7.2m for roads built earlier. Roads also take up more of the land area in the newly developed suburbs. Because wide roads can carry more cars and buses, future suburbanites in Ahmedabad ought to be spared the awful traffic jams that frustrate large Indian cities such as Delhi and Mumbai. I grew up next to a three lane street(roughly 18m in total width) that lead to the suburbs which in turn experienced rapid growth during the nineties, continuing a few years into the 21st century. The additional few tens of thousands of new inhabitants commuting each day to work were enough to turn this place into congestion hell. I don't think 8.5m - even each way is going to cut it in a city of well over 5 million.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Thankfully, if there's enough room, you can repurpose roads into light / heavy rail when density increases enough. Especially if the roads were laid out with foresight instead of organically tangling.
  - baq 8y ago
    Good luck with that when everyone already has a car...
    - marcthe12 8y ago
      Actually motorcycle are popular in India. Most people use motorcycles in India. It wosen the traffic as bikes can cut between cars.
      - choot 8y ago
        Motorcycle aren't as safe as cars.
        newnewpdro 8y ago
        My impression of India isn't a population that prioritizes safety. Just look up footage of trains in India, there are as many people clinging from the outside as there are inside.
ethbro 8y ago
The biggest problem seems to be preemptively cutting out speculators. It'd be nice to see some kind of eminent domain clawback for someone who bought land solely for speculative zoning change. Whether financial (e.g. compensating landowners on a multiplier scale according to how long they've owned the property) or legal (e.g. land recently sold is more easily seized via eminent domain, weakening the new owner's bargaining position). Land development in a coherent, socially productive manner is the ultimate tragedy of the commons -- the individually optimal move is always to be enough of a dick so that the social utilities get built on your neighbors' lands, then reap the benefits.
- yholio 8y ago
  It may seem unfair that speculators exist, but the losers there are the previous owners and not the rest of society. For those who buy flats in a residential building, the price will be the same regardless of who gets to pocket the land appreciation, a farmer or a real estate investor. The best way to protect the owners is to make the development process as transparent and impartial as possible, so that everybody can act on that information not just those with privileged access. For example, the local government could mandate that infrastructure development proceeds in concentric circles radiating from a virtual center point of the city, and layout a plan for a decade or two, with a number of stages. After this, money is awarded according to the plan, as the city needs to grow. So the information about a future urban development is known a decade in advance and the true owners can enjoy a steady growth in value as the events unfold. Speculators can still invest, but they need to do so well in advance, driving the whole land appreciation by providing liquidity.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    The problem isn't that speculators make money per se, its when speculation becomes a feeding frenzy that jacks up the market to insane numbers. See places like Vancouver where rich foreign investors dump millions into the market to have a safe haven for their money, and don't even bother to rent it out. Why would you bother when you get double digit returns YoY by just sitting on it.
  - 8y ago
bengaluru 8y ago
Happy/sad here. European cities are shifting to bikes to cut pollution (noise, brake dust, emission ...) amongst other things so that they are "livable" again. They are definitely putting in kinks in straight roads to prevent speeding and other rash driving. Unfortunate; Looks like Ahmedabad is aping the west (or US more precisely) by prioritizing cars and might end up with problems plaguing these cities now.
BIackSwan 8y ago
As a counter argument i propose you read the book “Seeing like a state” by James Scott. It clearly lays out the flawed thinking as done in the article and why this systematic kind of urban planning/engineering almost always fails. Having been a resident of ahmedabad for a decade and having several friends here let me point out that the residents here have seen commute times increase despite all the planning and expansion of roads here.
baybal2 8y ago
I don't think there is any much "innovativity" in that approach, just urban development done right.
kartan 8y ago
The solution looks good. But the remaining problem is density. The higher the density the easier is to provide services for the population. New York, Tokyo, Paris, etc, have several store tall buildings with people living in apartments. For what I see these new cities are more similar to Los Angeles or Mexico City than anything else. Single-family homes spread all over the place without access to trains or subways. I have lived all my life in apartments. So, for me, it feels normal and it is very practical. I guess that if you are used to single-family homes that is a difficult step to make.
screye 8y ago
It's a shame that Indian cities aren't designing themselves around public transport. Road projects ensure a continuous under the table paycheck, unlike public transport....so roads are easier to fund. But, they really aren't the answer. India is perfectly structured for public transport. High density, massive village -> city migration, a primarily lower-middle class population and some of the worst pollution on Earth . Mumbai and Delhi are 2 cities that are now entirely dependent on public transport. Many rich people in Mumbai take the local train, because of it being faster and more reliable than roads during peak times. Despite the public demand for it, it is very hard to now retroactively construct public transportation infrastructure in Mumbai.

85 points by godelmachine 8y ago

This article has it backwards. Long, straight, wide roads are great for speeding cars but terrible for humans. It's the different between walkable places like and suburban American car sewers. But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them.

kartickv 8y ago
Pedestrians will also have a shorter walk if roads are straight, won't they? And, unlike cars, which can easily drive a kilometer or two further with no strain, pedestrians and cyclists are sensitive to this.
- viburnum 8y ago
  You have to walk a lot farther when the roads are bigger. All that road space has a cost. Straight roads make people drive faster, which makes not driving worse for everyone else.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  In the limit, you build roads too small for cars, like in the old walled medieval cities in europe. They are in general great places to walk and terrible places to drive. In the other limit, you build like e.g. Detroit suburbs, where it's essentially impossible to do anything on foot, ever. If you have to choose which one to be more like, curvy narrow roads are the way to go if you care about pedestrians. Add to this the fact that, if you provide space for cars, they will take it up: adding lanes / width / parking increases car usage to a greater extent than the space added, such that you end up drawing more congestion to the area than before it was improved.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    We can control polluting vehicles by imposing a pollution charge, or even banning them from some roads. Or by limiting them to only one lane. I was trying to think in an idealistic or "from first principles" way as opposed to the practical / realistic approach you took. From that point of view, I'd want all roads to be straight lines to minimise travel distance.
sho 8y ago
> But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them. If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.
- nimish 8y ago
  > The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
    - FiveSquared 8y ago
      And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
    - nindalf 8y ago
      Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
      - remarkEon 8y ago
        What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?
scarejunba 8y ago
Evidence I have contradicts your assertions. Pleasant roads in the Netherlands can be 70 ft wide. The ones described here are under 35 ft. I would speculate that you are forming your conclusions based on American notions of "wide". Indian suburban regions frequently are as dense as American urban areas, which may throw off your intuitions a bit if you're unfamiliar.

Tade0 8y ago

But the Atlas of Urban Expansion, a project based in New York University, estimates that roads built in Ahmedabad after 2000 are 8.5m wide, on average, compared with 7.2m for roads built earlier. Roads also take up more of the land area in the newly developed suburbs. Because wide roads can carry more cars and buses, future suburbanites in Ahmedabad ought to be spared the awful traffic jams that frustrate large Indian cities such as Delhi and Mumbai. I grew up next to a three lane street(roughly 18m in total width) that lead to the suburbs which in turn experienced rapid growth during the nineties, continuing a few years into the 21st century. The additional few tens of thousands of new inhabitants commuting each day to work were enough to turn this place into congestion hell. I don't think 8.5m - even each way is going to cut it in a city of well over 5 million.

ethbro 8y ago
Thankfully, if there's enough room, you can repurpose roads into light / heavy rail when density increases enough. Especially if the roads were laid out with foresight instead of organically tangling.
- baq 8y ago
  Good luck with that when everyone already has a car...
  - marcthe12 8y ago
    Actually motorcycle are popular in India. Most people use motorcycles in India. It wosen the traffic as bikes can cut between cars.
    - choot 8y ago
      Motorcycle aren't as safe as cars.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        My impression of India isn't a population that prioritizes safety. Just look up footage of trains in India, there are as many people clinging from the outside as there are inside.

ethbro 8y ago

The biggest problem seems to be preemptively cutting out speculators. It'd be nice to see some kind of eminent domain clawback for someone who bought land solely for speculative zoning change. Whether financial (e.g. compensating landowners on a multiplier scale according to how long they've owned the property) or legal (e.g. land recently sold is more easily seized via eminent domain, weakening the new owner's bargaining position). Land development in a coherent, socially productive manner is the ultimate tragedy of the commons -- the individually optimal move is always to be enough of a dick so that the social utilities get built on your neighbors' lands, then reap the benefits.

yholio 8y ago
It may seem unfair that speculators exist, but the losers there are the previous owners and not the rest of society. For those who buy flats in a residential building, the price will be the same regardless of who gets to pocket the land appreciation, a farmer or a real estate investor. The best way to protect the owners is to make the development process as transparent and impartial as possible, so that everybody can act on that information not just those with privileged access. For example, the local government could mandate that infrastructure development proceeds in concentric circles radiating from a virtual center point of the city, and layout a plan for a decade or two, with a number of stages. After this, money is awarded according to the plan, as the city needs to grow. So the information about a future urban development is known a decade in advance and the true owners can enjoy a steady growth in value as the events unfold. Speculators can still invest, but they need to do so well in advance, driving the whole land appreciation by providing liquidity.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  The problem isn't that speculators make money per se, its when speculation becomes a feeding frenzy that jacks up the market to insane numbers. See places like Vancouver where rich foreign investors dump millions into the market to have a safe haven for their money, and don't even bother to rent it out. Why would you bother when you get double digit returns YoY by just sitting on it.
- 8y ago

bengaluru 8y ago

Happy/sad here. European cities are shifting to bikes to cut pollution (noise, brake dust, emission ...) amongst other things so that they are "livable" again. They are definitely putting in kinks in straight roads to prevent speeding and other rash driving. Unfortunate; Looks like Ahmedabad is aping the west (or US more precisely) by prioritizing cars and might end up with problems plaguing these cities now.

BIackSwan 8y ago

As a counter argument i propose you read the book “Seeing like a state” by James Scott. It clearly lays out the flawed thinking as done in the article and why this systematic kind of urban planning/engineering almost always fails. Having been a resident of ahmedabad for a decade and having several friends here let me point out that the residents here have seen commute times increase despite all the planning and expansion of roads here.

baybal2 8y ago

I don't think there is any much "innovativity" in that approach, just urban development done right.

kartan 8y ago

The solution looks good. But the remaining problem is density. The higher the density the easier is to provide services for the population. New York, Tokyo, Paris, etc, have several store tall buildings with people living in apartments. For what I see these new cities are more similar to Los Angeles or Mexico City than anything else. Single-family homes spread all over the place without access to trains or subways. I have lived all my life in apartments. So, for me, it feels normal and it is very practical. I guess that if you are used to single-family homes that is a difficult step to make.

screye 8y ago

It's a shame that Indian cities aren't designing themselves around public transport. Road projects ensure a continuous under the table paycheck, unlike public transport....so roads are easier to fund. But, they really aren't the answer. India is perfectly structured for public transport. High density, massive village -> city migration, a primarily lower-middle class population and some of the worst pollution on Earth . Mumbai and Delhi are 2 cities that are now entirely dependent on public transport. Many rich people in Mumbai take the local train, because of it being faster and more reliable than roads during peak times. Despite the public demand for it, it is very hard to now retroactively construct public transportation infrastructure in Mumbai.