[sustran] The Problem of Motorcycles

Madhav Govind Badami badami at unixg.ubc.ca
Fri Aug 8 09:48:05 JST 1997


1) This refers to Paul Barter's posting of June 30 on this subject, and
Rajeev Saraf's reply of July 2. I apologize for offering my views so late.
I would very much like to belong to, and look forward to actively
participating in, the SUSTRAN discussion group.

2) I agree, motorcycles (and more generally, motorized two-wheeled
vehicles) are a serious problem in Asian cities. I know India (and within
India, Delhi) best, so I will use these as examples to make my comments
and argue my points.

Motorized two-wheeled vehicles are the fastest growing vehicle type, and
account for 60 % of all motor vehicles nationally. Incidentally, India has
the world's largest population of this type of vehicle. In Delhi, there
are as many as 1.8 million motorized two-wheeled vehicles, comprising
around 66 % of the city's motor vehicle fleet (I estimate this works out
to approx. 150 vehicles per 1000 persons). This number is expected to rise
to approx. 3 millions, or 85 % of all motor vehicles, in the not distant
future. In addition to their numbers, these vehicles are used intensively,
accounting for over 60 % of total motor vehicle kilometres in Delhi.
Motorization has many impacts, but in terms of human health, perhaps the
most important are rapidly deteriorating air quality and road accidents.

In Delhi, motor vehicles already account for 60 % of total anthropogenic
air pollutant emissions. While motor vehicles are pre-dominant in terms of
Delhi's air pollution, motorized two-wheeled vehicles, the majority of
which are powered by highly polluting and fuel-inefficient two-stroke
engines, account for 45-75 % of total carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and
particulate emissions from all motor vehicles in that city. Their
contribution is marginal only in terms of nitrogen and sulphur oxides, for
which buses and other diesel vehicles are primarily responsible. This
situation is due to their very high emissions per vehicle-kilometre,
combined with the fact that they account for only 16 % of total
passenger-kilometres in motor vehicles. Thus, these vehicles represent the
most serious problem in terms of emissions per passenger-kilometre.

The impacts, including poor air quality, affect all but likely hit the
poor the hardest. They are typically the most exposed to and affected by
polluted air, accidents and loss of access and mobility (because they more
often than not live in high traffic areas and are pedestrians and
cyclists. They are also the least able to cope with impacts, because of
poor access to quality health care. The poor enjoy few of the benefits,
while bearing the brunt of the impacts, of motorization. So, there are
significant equity impacts in addition to health and welfare ones due to
motorization.

3) Paul Barter wonders if motorcycles can be seen as a solution. I would
not call them that, if by "solution" one means a consciously chosen answer
to a problem. But they certainly are a great way to get around, given the
circumstances. For large numbers of the not-so-poor, for whom cars are out
of reach, and public transit increasingly unavailable or inconvenient and
time-consuming, they offer excellent mobility at a not unreasonable price,
and thus easy access to essential services, in a situation in which that
access is becoming increasingly compromised (due to motorization !). Their
benefits include door-to-door capability and low parking space
requirements. And though they contribute to congestion, they can cope with
it as perhaps no other motorized mode can, because of their size and
maneuverability. Consequently, they are likely competitive with cars and
buses over considerable distances. No wonder these vehicles account for 60
% of all registered motor vehicles in India.

Ironically then, while motorized two-wheeled vehicles create impacts that
affect the poor the most, large numbers of low- and middle-income people
benefit from their use. And policies to address their impacts can hurt
low-income groups. In this regard, consider an emissions-reduction policy
that dramatically raises vehicle purchasing and/or operating costs for
low-income persons forced to live far away from their places of work
(because of low rent affordability) in areas not served or poorly served
by transit, and with no travel options other than their motorized
two-wheeled vehicles.

Thus, as Paul Barter points out, the public policy challenge is, how to
address their impacts, while minimizing policy impacts on low-income
users. Policies must also be selected for long-term effectiveness, low
cost and easy administration. And because motorized two-wheeled vehicles
provide significant benefits, we must, if we wish to wean users away from
them, attempt to preserve their benefits by other means. Thus, restricting
their ownership and use without providing viable options, such as
accessible, frequent, convenient and affordable public transit service,
would be to put users to considerable hardship.

4) Having laid the ground rules, as it were, for selecting policies to
control motorized two-wheeled vehicle impacts, let us consider some
that are targeted at their air pollutant emissions.

a) Four-stroke engines would significantly reduce exhaust hydrocarbon and
particulate levels and improve fuel efficiency. But, compared to
two-strokes, they have more moving parts, are much larger and heavier for
the same power output, and are more expensive. This is precisely why
two-strokes are preferred for small motorized two-wheeled vehicles such as
scooters and motorcycles -- they are simple in design, have a high
power/swept volume and power/weight ratio, are relatively inexpensive, and
easy to own, operate and maintain. Advanced two-strokes with timed fuel
injection and crankcase lubrication would have similar emissions and fuel
efficiency effects as four-strokes, while sacrificing only some of the
two-stroke's advantages. But both four-stroke and advanced two-stroke
machines will be more complex and expensive to own and maintain than
straight two-strokes.

b) Catalytic converters: if these were fitted on current two-stroke
vehicles, they would likely not last very long -- the very high exhaust
hydrocarbon levels would burn at very high temperatures in the converter,
resulting in heat damage to the catalyst. Also, lubricating oil would coat
the catalyst, rendering it ineffective. Catalytic converters on current
two-stroke machines may thus end up costing a lot, with little or no
benefit in terms of pollution reduction. To be truly effective, catalytic
converters need precise air-fuel ratio control, crankcase lubrication, and
timed fuel injection, all of which would add considerably to complexity
and cost. They also require lead-free fuel, because lead is a catalytic
poison. While unleaded gasoline has recently been introduced in the major
metropolises including Delhi, Indian gasoline outside these areas
continues to be leaded.

Now let us assume that new vehicle emission standards requiring
four-stroke/advanced two-stroke/catalytic conversion are mandated, and
production of two-strokes halted, from (let us say), the year 2000. Let us
make the further (reasonable) assumption that vehicles with these
technologies will be considerably more expensive than currently available
equivalent two-strokes. Apart from the technical problems raised: only
those who can afford it will scrap their existing two-strokes as planned,
and replace them with new technology vehicles. But many others will likely
delay scarpping their old, highly polluting vehicles even longer than they
would have, had two-strokes been still around. This will likely result in
increased emissions neutralizing gains due to the new technology vehicles
that did get purchased. And many more who just could not afford the
increased price, and large numbers who currently depend on 50 cc
two-stroke mopeds would either be left high and dry without any viable
alternatives, or be hit severely economically if they were forced to
purchase these expensive vehicles. On the other hand, if prices were
maintained, things would be a bit better in terms of emissions reduction
as well as equity (50 cc users would still be affected). But in any case,
fleet-wide emissions improvements would still take a long time, given the
low scrappage rates typical in India.

The purpose of the foregoing is not to suggest that improved vehicle
technologies are unnecessary, only to point out potential problems.
Whether we consider vehicle technology improvements or not, we need to
think of cost-effective solutions that will kick in right away. One such
is fuel quality improvement in terms of, for example, lead removal and
volatility reduction (for evaporative emissions control). Evaporative
emissions, which are rich in reactive hydrocarbons responsible for ozone
formation (along with nitrogen oxides), can be as high as 20 % of total
hydrocarbon emissions in vehicles without emission controls, particularly
in hot climates like India's. Fuel quality improvements, and lubricating
oil quality improvements (for particulate control), would not be
inexpensive, and would produce lower per-vehicle emission reductions than
vehicle improvements. However, unlike new vehicle emission standards which
can take a long time to be effective, fuel and lubricating oil quality
improvements can start reducing emissions (and improve fuel economy) in
all vehicles in-use and the fuel-distribution system as soon as they are
introduced.

5) In conclusion: motorcycles indeed are a serious problem, and their
impacts should be controlled. However, as I have argued, we must consider
the equity impacts of policies. Quite apart from the issues raised,
technological measures to reduce per-vehicle fuel consumption and
emissions can be neutralized by increases in vehicle-kilometres and trips
(Delhi's population is expected to increase to around 13 millions by
2000). If we want to reduce motorized two-wheeled vehicle ownership, use
and emissions while maintaining access and mobility for the masses, we
should provide viable alternatives. We need to enable people to do most of
their business on foot or bicycle by pro-actively planning for
non-motorized modes. We must certainly augment public transit service, but
the allocations required are massive, and the available funds meagre. The
bottom line: there are no easy solutions !

Madhav Badami
Doctoral Candidate
School of Community and Regional Planning
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list