[sustran] Re: Motorcycles summarised

Craig August Johnson caj24 at cornell.edu
Fri Jun 4 22:54:49 JST 2004


Jonathan,

The ADB has done substantial work on vehicle emissions in Asia.
They had a conference specifically about two-wheelers and emissions in 2001.
Here is the link to that report.
http://www.adb.org/documents/guidelines/Vehicle_Emissions/wheelers.asp

While it doesn't give a actual comparision of how two-wheelers are
compared to cars in terms of emissions, it does summarize some of the main
issues regarding emissions and two-wheelers.

Does anyone actually know of any data that summarizes differences between
pollution levels in cars and two-wheelers?

Craig Johnson


>
> I really question the value of generalized policy statements which
> render extremely complex situations into simple advocacy ones without
> supplying evidence.
>
> It would be useful to see some statistics on the environmental impacts of
> motorcycles as against cars. Does anyone have the data? Also, are there
> prospects for an electric or other low or no emission model of motorcycle
> that would provide personal mobility with less environmental consequences?
>
> Even if the motorcycle does cause significant pollution we have to also
> consider the political issue of whether we should restrict the mobility of
> low-income people who can afford only motorcycles but not that of
> wealthier car owners. Surely, we should control both (which might in fact
> be a good idea) or neither.
>
> As regards bus systems being "most economical and easiest to improve,"
> there are a variety of factors which will vary from city to city. We
> cannot make generalizations. Bus services are indeed worthy of development
> in many situations, but there are also situations where issues such as
> high subsidy cost, dispersed demands, or even inadequate institutional
> structures makes this difficult (note that there is no bus service at all
> in a national capital such as Phnom Penh despite years of discussion of
> the subject). Even when bus services are improved, there will remain
> demands for personal mobility to fill in for those occasions where public
> transport leaves gaps, and we need to see how that can be accommodated in
> the most environmentally-friendly way.
>
> For now, I have to tell you I use motorcycle taxis in Bangkok as they are
> the only way to cut through the traffic!!!
>
>
>                                                --Jonathan
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>
>> 3 June 2004
>>
>>
>> Dear K. Tsourlakis,
>>
>> Thank you for your message. I agree with you that Motorcycles (along
>> with
>> their cousins the scooters)  being less environmentally damaging than
>> motor
>> cars is a myth that will be exposed if proper studies are carried out in
>> how they are flooding the streets in the third world, particularly in
>> India
>> and South East Asia. They are certainly not less polluting, safer nor
>> more
>> sustainable than cars. If anything, due to their exploding numbers they
>> pose a greater threat to sustainable transport in these countries.
>>
>> For making the transport system sustainable there is no shortcut to
>> giving
>> the highest priority to public transport, starting with the bus based
>> systems which are the most economical and easiest to improve, given the
>> financial constrains of poorer nations.
>>
>> --
>> Sujit Patwardhan
>> Parisar,
>> Pune, India
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:57 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Perhaps motorcycles is another case where the problem of inappropriate
>> >technology transfer from north to south emerge (because traffic
>> >engineering is certainly a form of technology). The fact that
>> motorcycle
>> >use is limited (if not marginal) compared to car traffic in most of the
>> >technologically influential countries (e.g. in 1990 only 0.2% of
>> commuting
>> >trips in US were done by motorcycle -
>> >http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/journey/usmode90.txt - since
>> then
>> >m/c use has been declining further) results to a limited interest for
>> >relevant research. For people living in these countries it is often
>> >difficult to realise the complexities of extended motorcycle use, and
>> it
>> >is very easy to miss the point and e.g. to confuse the market view with
>> >the sustainability prospect. For instance is low price an advantage
>> from a
>> >sustainability viewpoint? Then why congestion charge, toll roads and
>> other
>> >ways to internalise the external cost are considered sustainable? If
>> cars
>> >were free, wou!
>> >  ld this considered as an advantage?
>> >
>> >It seems that the issue of motorcycle-car comparison can be reduced
>> into
>> >two questions:
>> >1. Are motorcycles a more preferable encumbrance on the streets than
>> cars?
>> >2. Do motorcycles really substitute cars on the street?
>> >My personal answer to both questions is a clear NO - my arguments
>> follow.
>> >
>> >1. The dominant (and unfounded) opinion, that it is better to use
>> >motorcycles than cars, is based in a series of myths, which I will try
>> to
>> >debunk:
>> >
>> >* motorcycles pollute less than cars do
>> >
>> >This is one of the most often as well as the most big myths about
>> >motorcycles. It is mostly caused from m/cs having usually smaller
>> engines
>> >than cars do, hence they consume less fuel. Although engine size isn't
>> >exactly proportional to fuel consumption (rotations rate is also
>> involved
>> >and m/c motors work usually on higher rpm) less fuel consumption does
>> not
>> >necessarily results to less pollution. The reason this doesn't happen
>> is
>> >that m/c engines are less developed than car engines. Many m/cs have
>> >2-stroke engines, which burn lubricants together with fuel. But even on
>> >the larger ones (sometimes having engines equal in power to a small or
>> >medium sized car - so the smaller engine argument doesn't apply at all)
>> it
>> >is difficult to incorporate anti-pollution technology (hybrids,
>> catalyst
>> >etc). This will always be so, because it is part of the low-price
>> >"advantage" - m/cs will be a step back from cars in "green" technology
>> >incorporation. Generally as the size of the vehicle increase!
>> >  s it is easier to apply pollution prevention technology (e.g. hybrid
>> > engines)- this is why it is much easier to implement it to buses and
>> > trains (in addition they are run by professionals and are much easier
>> > monitored, which facilitates further pollution control) The usual
>> opinion
>> > that m/cs pollute less than cars do, is not substantiated by evidence.
>> In
>> > Greece, where motorcycles rule, their pollution is not monitored like
>> > cars (it is part of their "promotion package"). But take a look for
>> > instance on the table at http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.html
>> > [http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.gif] where limits of allowed
>> > pollutants in Germany are presented, and proves that m/cs are allowed
>> to
>> > pollute more than cars. A study trying to estimate the total pollution
>> > from every possible source, has shown that in Greece in some
>> pollutants
>> > (like unburned hydrocarburates) the total air pollution from m/cs is
>> > already heavier than that of cars, although they are half the number
>> of c!
>> >  ars [http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/corinair/94/summgre.html - the
>> situa
>> >tion is worse 10 years later because of the proliferation of m/cs].
>> Also
>> >noise, which is another form of pollution (affecting mental rather than
>> >physical health) usually is not taken into account in car-m/c
>> comparisons.
>> >The most that could be said about motorcycles is that they pollute
>> somehow
>> >differently but certainly not less than cars.
>> >
>> >* motorcycles take up less space on the street
>> >
>> >This is true of course, if you compare one m/c and one car, but things
>> are
>> >more complicated than this. Because what this argument implies is that
>> we
>> >can substitute e.g. 1 car with 1 m/c. However in densely populated
>> cities,
>> >like those considered as ideal, street space disposed for traffic is
>> >normally saturated and every traffic flow improvement activates the
>> well
>> >known induced traffic effect (look e.g. at
>> >http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf). So the choice is not between 1 car
>> and 1
>> >m/c, but rather between 1 car and 2 m/cs or 3 m/cs, taking up the same
>> >space, but polluting more than 1 car does. Even worse is the case when
>> >m/cs do not reduce at all car use, but simply fill the gaps of car flow
>> >and pedestrian and free spaces, as the living example of Athens
>> suggests.
>> >So, less space taken up from each individual m/c does not necessarily
>> mean
>> >less total motorised traffic. What m/cs are good in, is in fact to fill
>> up
>> >better than cars the totality of urban space leaving less voids tha!
>> >  n cars do. Can this feature be considered as "sustainable" or
>> > "environmental friendly"?
>> >
>> >* Motorcycle accidents are caused by the presence of cars
>> >
>> >Motorcycles are inherently unsafe - more accurately: inherently more
>> >unsafe than cars. This is not only because of their smaller mass in the
>> >case of a collision, but because of their instability and less
>> protection
>> >offered to their riders. In a study done in Germany almost 40% of m/c
>> >fatalities are caused from collisions with pedestrians, other m/cs or
>> >fixed objects (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/D-2001-05.pdf p.115 table6.2)
>> >although the number of m/cs in Germany is less than 10% of the number
>> of
>> >cars. In countries where the number of m/cs is higher compared to the
>> >number of cars (like Vietnam), this proportion must be much larger. The
>> >numbers of m/c accidents are order of magnitudes higher than that of
>> cars
>> >not only in countries like Cambodja, where law enforcement is almost
>> non
>> >existent, but in every country of the world - look for instance in UK
>> >(http://www.begin-motorcycling.co.uk/rospa3.htm) or in the clockwork
>> >ordered Switzerland (http://www.bfu.ch/english/statistics/200!
>> >  1/usv_t_06.htm).
>> >
>> >* Motorcycle mix well with pedestrian flows and environments
>> >
>> >Because of their smaller size, m/cs can run in parallel rows on the
>> same
>> >lane. The difficulty of a pedestrian to cross a street grows
>> exponentially
>> >with the number of lanes (mathematically equals to p^n where n the
>> number
>> >of lanes and p the probability to find a traffic gap in a single lane
>> at a
>> >certain time interval). So they virtually double (or triple) the number
>> of
>> >lanes and make crossing of the street (exponentially) more difficult
>> for
>> >the pedestrians. Also, because of their small size it is difficult to
>> >block motorcycle intrusion in pedestrian spaces. While cars can be
>> easily
>> >blocked using bollards, pipe frames and other hurdles, every
>> engineering
>> >measure inhibiting motorcycle entrance will also inhibit pedestrians,
>> >wheelchair users, baby strollers etc. (e.g.
>> >http://www.pezh.gr/hmerida/moto1.jpg )
>> >
>> >* Motorcycle improves social equity and is an economic medium to
>> improve
>> >mobility for everyone
>> >
>> >Motorcycle is a mode of transport excluding a large part of the
>> population
>> >and more particularly the most vulnerable one, not only as drivers
>> (like
>> >cars do), but even as simple passengers: disabled and elderly persons,
>> >babies, small children etc.
>> >Motorcycle is not a low cost but a cheap [in the sense of paltry]
>> >transport medium. They are more expensive not only compared to cars
>> >(taking into consideration what they really offer), but also compared
>> to
>> >public transit and bicycles offering the same mobility. Do the 2
>> million
>> >m/cs of Ho Chi Minh city cost really less than 2 million bicycles or
>> >40.000 buses? (especially if we take into consideration functional
>> costs
>> >and other externalities - "accidents", pollution related
>> hospitalisation
>> >etc) Does anybody doubt that, in addition, the city would function
>> better,
>> >the environment would be healthier and total cost would be less in the
>> >latter case?
>> >
>> >There is no perfect free-market intermodal competition in urban space,
>> >because of the externalities of the necessary arrangements. These
>> >arrangements (road building, urban planning, facilities placing and
>> >pricing etc) affect transport modes and people will choose whatever
>> >happens to be cheaper in terms of time and money in each particular
>> place,
>> >whether this is car, motorcycle, train, bicycle, donkey or sky rocket.
>> M/c
>> >(instead of car) promotion to overcome income shortage is equal to
>> condemn
>> >lower classes in an intrinsically unsafe mode of transport. Correctly
>> >working administrations take over the responsibility to create a proper
>> >public transit network able to serve better and in an egalitarian way
>> the
>> >society, and favour mild transport modes (walking - biking). This way
>> they
>> >can achieve efficiency (less congestion - better mobility), more equity
>> >and better environment for their citizens and the whole planet.
>> >
>> >2. Many people in N. America (and other sprawl plagued places) tend to
>> see
>> >in motorcycles (or other motorised devices) an alternative to cars,
>> which
>> >are connected with this problem. However this seems to be rather
>> wishful
>> >thinking than a grounded strategy. Is there any example around the
>> world
>> >where motorcycles have ever improved sprawl? On the contrary there are
>> >plenty of examples where motorcycles were the first step towards
>> >motorization (e.g. currently in China, some years ago in southern
>> Europe).
>> >The next step, when income grows further, is the shift to private car.
>> >Also, the phenomenon of sprawl seems to be more complicated than the
>> >simplistic equation sprawl=cars, and it certainly involves the desire
>> to
>> >live alone in a building surrounded by a one acre land plot. Of course
>> >when urban densities decline, and quality public transit is not anymore
>> >feasible, then cars become a necessity, but a motorcycle can equally
>> well
>> >serve this purpose.
>> >
>> >M/cs will always be the transport medium of a minority. There are
>> plenty
>> >of situations where m/c is unsuitable - I don't think anyone would ever
>> >reasonably wish to carry his 3-years-old child or his 90-years-old
>> granny
>> >with a m/c (at least if there is an alternative like a proper public
>> >transit) and I doubt if your wife would ever accept to risk her 100$
>> >coiffure riding a m/c. According to recent studies their modal split
>> share
>> >in Athens is still less than 10% despite the favourable conditions and
>> the
>> >unconditional promotion by the greek administration (they have now
>> >announced new tax breaks
>> >[http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=43184]- the
>> second
>> >in one year period - and they are preparing special motorcycle lanes!).
>> In
>> >Greece, when cities were saturated with cars, the administration
>> instead
>> >promoting biking, walking and public transit, they promoted motorcycle
>> >use, in order to squeeze even more motorised traffic on the congested
>> >streets. The results of th!
>> >  is strategy can be seen at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm
>> >
>> >                   ----------------------
>> >
>> >A more interesting question is why m/cs are so much favoured, though
>> these
>> >shortcomings are almost evident to anybody willing to scrutinise the
>> >issue? The usual answer concerning cars is the powerful car lobby (car
>> and
>> >oil corporations). But in the case of motorcycles it is something more:
>> >_fanaticism_. A large part of motorcycle users are really fanatics. In
>> >Athens, whenever some tax raise or other measure affecting m/cs is
>> >impending, motorcycles manifestations are organised - so they gain
>> >continuously more privileges. In mid 90's the European Commission
>> decided
>> >to promote a directive to abolish m/cs with more than 100HP power (I
>> think
>> >this still holds in France), because so much power has obviously no
>> other
>> >purpose than breaking speed limits. Some fanatics manifested and
>> managed
>> >to block it. There is a strategy to present m/cs (which are even more
>> >lethal and noxious than cars) as harmless and sympathetic. I strongly
>> >recommend, for anybody able to understand german, the afo!
>> >  rementioned link [http://www.fuss-ev.de/themen/motorrad.html] - I
>> have
>> > similar experiences from Greece.
>> >
>> >So, the proposition that total abolition of motorcycles is a good idea,
>> >maybe sounds ridiculous but is not at all (actually nothing IS really
>> >ridiculous but always SEEMS ridiculous). What we are talking on this
>> list
>> >(and many other places) about limiting motorised traffic would probably
>> >also seem ridiculous 50 years ago (and perhaps reactionary thoughts
>> >against progress) but now it is mainstream. And perhaps after 50 years
>> all
>> >this irrational, wasteful and self-catastrophic way transports are
>> >currently oraganised, would seem even more ridiculous.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sujit Patwardhan
>> PARISAR
>> "Yamuna", ICS Colony,
>> Ganeshkhind Road,
>> Pune 411007
>> Telephone: 255 37955
>> Email: <parisar81 at yahoo.co.in> or <sujit at vsnl.com>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----
>
> Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510 (office)
> Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
> Transportation Engineering program
> School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B               02 524-8257 (home)
> Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
> PO Box 4
> Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
> Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509
>
> e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa
>         richmond at alum.mit.edu		              02 524-6051
> 					      Intl:  662 524-6051
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>
>



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list