[sustran] South Africa's Transport Policy (or lack thereof)

[Obwon]

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy wrote:
> 
> RE Eric Bruun and WEndell Cox's comments on S.AFrica and the combi-taxis
> 

[...]

> 
> Furthermore, the political power of the black taxi industry also made it
> virtually impossible for us to put in decent bicycle parking facilities at
> the commuter rail stations in the townships.  We had the agreement of the
> Soweto planning office for a nice bike-and-ride strategy, but we were told
> in confidence that it was vetoed by the combi-taxi industry which saw it,
> correctly, as a threat.
> 
==========================================================================
> Unfortunately, for markets to function properly in the transport sector,
> some regulation appears to be required.
> 
==========================================================================

  I'd take issue with presenting your advocacy as needed "for markets to
function properly".  This is specifically because I don't see the issue,
in the overall, as being one of merely exercising control over or
leveling the playing field between the alternative within the market
sector "Transportation".

  I think that in so doing you are exposing your advocacy to many
unnecessary challenges from that quarter "market control/amelioration
etc." the controversiality of which can and does often impede the
progress so desired.

  The real and more direct issue is safeguarding for the public, 1.
breathable air, 2. Safety, 3. Wildlife habitat
preservation/accomodation, 4, waste reduction.

  Number one on the list to be most carefully considered, most
especially in light of the Asthma studies now underway, which find the
So. Bronx containing the highest levels of sufferers. is of course
breathable air or air-quality as it is commonly known.

  Since each human being takes in about 18 breaths per minute for life,
there's good reason to expect that man made effluents need to be
controled or else windup coating the lung of individuals with
unpredictable results.  Auto emmissions, unburnt fuel, noxious gases are
but a primary consideration.  The secondary considerations are what
these emissions become after mixing with the environments elements. 
Sunlight!  In areas recieving generous sunlight these emissions are
precursors of dangerous levels of Ozone which is not directly emited.

  The various oxides emitted, when combined with water in areas of
medium to high humidity are the precursors of acids whose microscopic
droplets suspended in the air attack masonry, metals, plastics and of
course flesh. Nor does it end there.  There are many man-made compounds
that leach into the air and that can also interact with these secondary
substances to produce newer untested compounds as well.  

  A population, therefore, is wise to constrain it's access to
individual mobility from the issues of health impacts to be expected! 
Nor should the weathy or affluent be unconcerned.  Most studies have
found that body fats are the most likely tissues of the body to become
reseviours of foreign compounds absorbed from the outside environment.  

  Studies have found, however, that these reservoirs can act as
concentrators and 'pumps'!  During period when body fat reduces, the
compounds they have stored are released into the bloodstream in ever
increasing concentrations.  Canibis is one example, where a 'pot' (NA
slang- Marijuana) smokers can obtain a 'rush' without smoking over
periods when missed meals cause body fat to decline.  So that's a long
term consideration, but a very real one that has to be taken into
account.

  Surely, as the socio-economic demands of the world are presently
configured due to our present technological status, individualized
mobility concerns are real if not demanded by practical considerations. 
However, wherever it is  possible, maximum considerations should be
given to the applicablity and usage of cleaner if less efficient
transportation alternatives.  People aware of the 'possible' prices of
individual mobility would be very wise indeed to limit the necessities
of it to the narrowest possible ranges.

   I don't believe that people would choose to place lives at risk at
random in order to achieve economic/recreational/social/entertainment
goals, but the equation is rarely drawn that way.  I believe that if
people knew for instance, that haveing high levels of congestion/auto
use, that older and younger people would die in greater quantity and
sooner.  That mature adults would suffer more diseases/afflictions and
fatigue (yes, I'm almost positive that high ozone levels leads to
increased fatigue, I'm certain that the increased stresses of auto
congestions do as well).  

  So it has to be drawn as an equation that people can personalize
and/or internalize when judgeing their transportation requirements!  To
be able to guess who will suffer, approximately how much suffering will
have to be borne and why it is figured that this will actually happen,
will do much to ameliorate the thinkings attendant to auto advocates
offers.  If say pedicab usage were explained in terms of how much
improved the quality of life in an area would be.  In terms of how many
lives would be saved, how much human suffering would decline, how much
property damage would be avoided.  Then the inconviences/ineffciencies
attandant pale by comparison to the alternatives.  It's really all about
saving lives and improving the quality of life, rather than the simpler
reallocation of economic benefit.

  Obwon