[sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam

[Craig August Johnson]

In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples
of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based
urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle
usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the
streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well
with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has
contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different
than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there
are a greater number of collisions between
motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not
fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in
Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities.

Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative
impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as
sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from
inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities
for the following reasons:

1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine
motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per
gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are
many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions.

2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are
incredibly dense,   thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still
relatively uncongested given the high density.

3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the
surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment
like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not
lost by the increase in motorbikes.

4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable
form of individual motorized transportation.  In Vietnam, the price of a
car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of
around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many
industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands.
Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as
personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite
affordable.

5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is
less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This
compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is
.98km per 1000 residents.

Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great
speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road
infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure
with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is
now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic
fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than
motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more
detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes.


Craig Johnson

Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study
in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer



>
> I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive motorcyclists
> in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without proper
> mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, as
> they don't use the latest technology.
>
> However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they
> need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity.
> Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest autos,
> unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, small
> motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large
> numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as
> those who own the cars.
>
> But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles on
> the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at
> why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are increasingly
> far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as
> governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead.
> What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle?
> Blame
> a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies.
>
> The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather have
> merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving,
> low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, or
> in cars and trucks?  Motorcycles can have their place if public policy is
> sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses,
> motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks,
> they
> will be good.
>
> We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick
> propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace cars
> on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace
> pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity,  electricity
> consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role
> where
> they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K. Tsourlakis" <ktsourl at mailbox.gr>
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention
>
>
>>
>> At 05:59 ðì 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>>
>> >.....................................
>> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had
>> >a considered discussion on road safety.   It would seem to me that
>> >road traffic injuries are correlated with  the increase in high
>> >speed road networks and increased motorisation.  The 'vulnerable
>> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps
>> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but
>> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and
>> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of
>> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention
>> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed
>> >motorisation?
>> >.....................................
>>
>>
>> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up
> motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised
> transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And
> motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially
> benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as
> entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more
> -
> motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have
> certainly
> their share too.
>>
>> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute
> indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and
> their
> users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not
> usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of
> the
> population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically
> impaired, elderlies etc).
>>
>> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about
> many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like
> this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and
> rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas,
> for
> the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms
> like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would
> motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport
> (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has
> anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution
> to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present?
>>
>> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the
> oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of
> the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look
> at
> http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate
> encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last
> one
> is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated
> (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of
> cars)
> while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically
> influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies
> less
> than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror
> stories"
> about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> _________
>> http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
>> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro êáé
> äþñï ôï domain óáò!
>
>