[sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?

[Wendell Cox]

Interesting and useful statistics. Point is well taken that much of the
world is not as the US and Europe. I do not argue for imposition of an auto
model, I argue for objectivity. One doesnt appropriately start the
discussion by demonizing alternatives, alternatives are eliminated by
evaluation. And, obviously, as Eric Bruun rightly points out, we do not all
agree on all of the evaluation criteria.

Meanwhile, the urban form of Santiago makes it possible for public transport
to play such an important role, and largely without subsidy (at least with
regard to buses). Where numbers of this magnitude are found, this is usually
the model. Finally, to return European or American cities to similar urban
forms cannot physically or politically be done in, as Eric Brittan put it,
my lifetime (or that of my offspring).

Best regards and thank you for the data.
Wendell Cox

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: Lake Sagaris <sagaris at lake.cl>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 05 July, 2001 19:55
Subject: [sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?


> 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
>