[sustran] Re: Suggestion welcome : Automobile Use in Chinese Cities

[Francis PAPON]

Hello

I'd just like to give some personal impressions about Jean-François
Doulet's question:

>In order to stay aware of the professional community point of view, I would
>be very pleased to receive some of your comments about the Chinese case
>regarding motorisation process. My question is : Do you think that China has
>missed the opportunity to create an original worldwide experience of a dual
>based transport system (bicycle/automobile)?
>
My first concern is why do you think that the appropriate original dual
transport system for China is bicycle/automobile? I would think that a dual
system bicycle/public transport (mainly bus based) is more sustainable,
affordable, and efficient for densily populated and rapidly developping
Chinese cities, as the discussion about Dhaka has already emphasized.

Introducing cars in this system leads to unsafety for cyclists: even with
separate cycleways, they must mix at huge junctions, and underpasses or
overpasses demands a high energy cost from cyclists. But cars need always
more space, and cycleways are progressively reduced for more car lanes. So
cyclists are incited to use public transport or walk.

Introducing cars also demand separate right of ways for public transport
operations to be efficient. Building separated bus lanes is difficult as
space is needed for the automobile, and expensive metros have to be built,
making a much less extensive network that could have been achieved with
surface buses or trams.

China has a tremendous need of transport supply. Bus travel per capita in
1990 was one of the lowest in the world, twice less than North America and
Africa. Bicycle travel per capita is similar to what is observed in the
Netherlands or Denmark. The only way of increasing rapidly mobility for all
is to develop buses without impeding the bicycle system. Instead,
introducing cars for the richest will reduce the accessibility for the mass.

In fact the problem in China is not so much with private cars, but with
taxis and motorcycles. Taxis are more efficient than private cars (do not
need parking all day), and cheaper to use in China: so it is the transport
solution adopted by the upper middle class. Motorcycles are developping
much more quickly than cars. But both leads to the same problems as private
cars, but with less space requirements.

My second point is that there is now in 2000 one unique development model
in the world, which guide the entire economy, and in particular urban
transportation (The United States if you forgot it). China is looking to
this model, building a 40000 long highway network (the same as the
interstate system), several ring roads around major cities, and privatizing
state-own companies. The other potential models are overlooked:
- the Soviet Union model used to be a challenger to the US, but is now
buried after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, in spite the baby (a
comprehensive urban public transport system) should not be thrown away with
the bath water;
- Japan, second world GNP, is too weak politically as a loser of Second
World War to be a model; moreover, China has some ressentment against Japan
not having apolodgized about the atrocities during the occupation of China;
nevertheless, Japan makes huge investments in China, and Japan's rail-based
urban transport are well suited to Chinese cities needs;
- the European Union is also too weak politically, and with a less good
economic health as the US;
- Germany has developped a more balanced transport system than the United
States, but its reconstruction within the Marshall Plan followed the US
model;
- the UK is cloning the US model;
- I shall not be so presumptuous as to propose France as a model;
- Hong-Kong and Singapore, with good public transport, car restraint, and
coherent urban planning could be good models for China.

Anyway, China growing economy is already the second in volume (power
purchase parity), and will challenge the United States within 10 years.
China has to develop its own model, but will use the weapons of its
competitor. The future of urban transportation in Chinese cities could look
like present affluent Asian cities, because of the technical need to
accomodate an increasing demand in a limited space.

Best regards,

Francis Papon, chargé de recherche mailto:francis.papon at inrets.fr
INRETS/DEST/EEM, fax +33145475606
2, av. du Général Malleret-Joinville, F-94114 Arcueil France
http://www.inrets.fr/infos/centres/inrets/velo_arcueil.html