[sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?

[Lake Sagaris]

Hi all

I've been following this debate with interest. Figures for Chile and most 
if not all of South America strongly contradict the figures for the US. I 
suspect Asian patterns are closer to the rest of the less developed world, 
given the high figures for poverty, which make car ownership prohibitive. 
In Santiago, where over one third of Chile's 14 million people live, year 
2000, figures from SECTRA, the government body responsible for transport 
planning.

Buses: 43.4%, 4.8 million trips daily
Metro (subway): 7.2%, 0.8 million trips daily
Car: 20.8%, 2.3 million trips daily
Taxis: 1.4%, 0.16 million trips daily
Foot/Bike: 27.1%, 3 million trips daily
Total: 11 million trips daily.

This is a country that has enjoyed strong growth (averaging 6%) over the 
past ten years or more and even with current economic troubles (employment 
almost 10%) is still growing at 3-5% annually. With high pollution and 
extensive urban sprawl, it would be extremely unwise to attempt to impose a 
car-oriented model here (although some are attempting this, among them the 
public works ministry). If they doubled the roads available in the city, as 
they expect the number of cars to do over the next ten years, there would 
be virtually no room left for houses, parks or most people.

Developing -- favoring -- improvements to mass transit, biking and walking 
would help reduce Santiago's major air pollution. It would be cheaper, in a 
country with very limited resources, favor equality, reduce noise, reduce a 
severe green space deficit and improve the quality of life.

Most of the world's people live in developing countries, with limited 
access to cars. Why build transportation -- or indeed, cities themselves -- 
around these inefficient, highly polluting (see World Bank figures for 
cars' hugely disproportionate contribution to Santiago's deadly smog) and 
elitist elements? The government's subsidy for the Costanera Norte urban 
highway project (US$120 million of a $480 million and rising budget) would 
be enough to replace 20% of Santiago's current buses with state-of-the-art 
models (heat, air conditioning, proper chassies, automatic transmissions, 
etc.), using better diesel (Chile doesn't meet international standards), 
and first-rate bus stop designs. This number of buses would carry as many 
passengers as the whole highway put together. And they would be people from 
much more varied income levels than the car-driving elite.

Chile has a badly underfunded education system (no heat throughout 0 degree 
winters, for example, and no bathrooms unless parents themselves raise the 
funds for them, while teachers make a pittance) for 90% of Chileans and a 
luxury private system for the elite. It has a state-of-the-art health care 
system for the 15% covered by private health insurance, and 85% covered by 
the severely underfunded public system. One system for the rich; another 
for the rest of us. Cars/highways represent the same dichotomy within the 
transport system.

Developing countries should build cities and transport systems to benefit 
the underprivileged majority. To me, that's democracy.

Best
Lake

Living City
Santiago, Chile

At 05:26 PM 05/07/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually, public transport excludes a much larger percentage of the people.
>
>Let us take the average American urbanized area of 1 million for example.
>Generally, the 95 percent or so of people with access to cars can get to 100
>percent of the jobs --- we could call this an Auto Employment Access Index
>of 95 - this means 5 percent are excluded. Auto competitive transit service
>(let us say a 40 minute ride, nearly double that of the average auto
>commute) is available, on average, to less than 15 percent of jobs, assuming
>the average downtown employment share of 10 percent. On the assumption that
>100 percent of the residences are within walking distance of transit (a
>highly optimistic assumption, since in Portland only 78 percent are), that
>gives us a Transit Employment Index of 15 --- this means 85 percent are
>excluded. Do the walk and cycle index and it wont even match that.
>
>With respect to the very few who dont have cars, perhaps the best approach
>is to follow the proposals of the Democratic Leadership Council, largely
>endorsed by President Clinton, that would implement financial incentives to
>universalize access to autos. For those not able to drive, we should provide
>good dial a ride systems.
>
>I suspect if you calculate modal Employment Access Indexes for European
>cities and for that matter affluent Asian cities, you will generally find
>the auto number considerably higher than the transit number. The comparison
>will be less stark than in the US, Canada and Australia, but it will still
>be generally stark.
>
>
>DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
>http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
>http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
>Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
>PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <BruunB at aol.com>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>; <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>;
><sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Cc: <litman at vtpi.org>
>Sent: Thursday, 05 July, 2001 13:29
>Subject: [sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?
>
>
> > Wendell,
> >
> > I would like to suggest that there is a reason to be biased against
>private transport. The benefits go primarily to the individual, but
>externalities go to the public at large. Nor can it ever be available to all
>age groups, all income groups, to people with disabilities, etc.. These
>people get none of the benefits but the same externalities.
> >
> > Public transport uses less space, creates fewer externalities, and doesn't
>exclude large portions of the population.
> >
> > I think the core of our difference is that we can't agree on how to
>evaluate these externalities, and what to do, if anything, about
>compensating for them.
> >
> > Eric Bruun