[sustran] A bias against drivers?

Dinesh Mohan dmohan at cbme.iitd.ernet.in
Sat Jul 7 16:08:16 JST 2001


Maxie:

You might find this interesting!

Dinesh

Todd Litman wrote:

>  I respectfully
> disagree that giving emphasis to the quality of the pedestrian environment
> reflects a bias against drivers. Walking is the most basic form of
> transportation which virtually everybody depends on, including people who
> think of themselves primarily as drivers. Admittedly, in a "perfect"
> suburban landscape with abundant off-street parking at every destination a
> motorist could travel for days without ever depending on public pedestrian
> facilities, but in practice, improving the pedestrian/cycle environment can
> be one of the most effective ways to benefit motorists, by providing more
> convenient access to a larger pool of parking spaces and by allowing us a
> wider range of travel choices (walking, cycling, transit), and for
> recreational walking (even in Texas, famous for being proudly
> automobile-dependent, the most popular tourist destination is now San
> Antonio's Riverwalk).
>
> I think it is wrong to suggest that investements in walking, cycling or
> public transit  necessarily conflict with the interests of motorists. In
> many cases, such investments are the most cost effective way to improve
> transportation choices and reduce congestion (see "Least Cost Planning" and
> "Social Benefits of Public Transit" in our Online TDM Encyclopedik,
> available free at http://www.vtpi.org.
>
> It is interesting to consider to what degree current transportation choices
> and activities are affected by market distortions, and to what degree they
> would change in a more efficient and neutral market. I have written two
> papers that explore these issues: "Transportation Market Distortions - A
> Survey" and "Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets", both are also
> available at http://www.vtpi.org. I would love to get feedback on since I
> plan to prepare them for to submit to a journal over the next few weeks.
> Here are a few highlights from that analysis for the U.S:
>
> * Fuel taxes and registration fees only cover about 2/3 of total U.S.
> roadway expenese (local roads are locally funded). Fuel taxes would need to
> increase by about 42% just to cover these additional direct expenese, and
> more if other roadway services (traffic policing and emergency services)
> were charged to users.
>
> * Unpriced, off-street parking represents a cost estimated at about $250
> billion annually in the U.S.
>
> * Failing to implement congestion charges tends to favor space-intensive
> modes (driving over ridesharing, transit, cycling and walking).
>
> * The practice of treating roadway land as having zero value (i.e.,
> collecting no rent or property taxes from road users) represents a market
> distortion that favors space-intensive travel modes. Road user charges
> would need to more than double if users paid such rents.
>
> * Fixed vehicle insurance pricing practices tend to encourage automobile
> use. Distance-based insurance is justified on actuarial grounds and would
> reduce automobile use by 10% or greater.
>
> * A number of planning practices tend to encourage automobile-oriented
> transportation and land use patterns. These include dedicated funds and
> matching grants for roads (particularly if they are not transferable to
> other accounts) generous minimum road and parking requirements, utility
> pricing that does not reflect the higher cost of dispersed development, and
> filing to consider the full effects of generated traffic during
> transportation planning and modeling.
>
> * Some critics argue that market distortions favoring automobiles are
> counterbalanced by subsidies to transit, but there are orders of magnitude
> differences. Total U.S. transit subsidies are on the order of $20 billion,
> and about half of these are justified on purely equity grounds (e.g.,
> special mobility services for people with disabilities, wheelchair lifts,
> transit service in lower-density areas). This is about the same amount that
> is spent just on automobile advertising, and less than a tenth off the
> amount devoted to parking subsidies.
>
> This analysis suggests that the "optimal" transportation system that would
> result from correcting market distortions would include personal automobile
> travel, but it would be at a significantly lower level (1/3 to 1/2 less)
> than what currently occurs. The result of such reforms would be that
> consumers would choose to drive less, use alternatives more, place a higher
> value on transportation-efficient land use, and be better off overall as a
> result. I don't think it is fair to suggest that this represents an
> "anti-driver" bias. It is simply basic market economics reflecting consumer
> sovereignty. If this analysis is wrong, please let me know why.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org--



=======================================================================
Send your response to DRAFT CHARTER ON PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SAFETY, GO TO
TRIPP website http://www.iitd.ac.in/tripp/

[IMORTANT: if this server gives you trouble in sending a mail to me,
you can use <trippdelhi at hotmail.com> temporarily.]
=======================================================================
Dinesh Mohan
Henry Ford Professor for Biomechanics and Transportation Safety
Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme
Room MS 808, Main Building
Indian Institute of Technology
Hauz Khas
New Delhi 110016

Phone:    (+91 11) 659 1147 & 659 6361
FAX:      (+91 11) 685 8703 & 685 1169
Home:   (+91 11) 649 4910
Email:    dmohan at cbme.iitd.ernet.in
=======================================================================




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list