[sustran] Fw: Motorcycles summarised

[Eric Bruun]

Re: [sustran] Motorcycles summarised
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Marcus Wigan 
To: K. Tsourlakis 
Cc: Eric Bruun 
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [sustran] Motorcycles summarised


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "K. Tsourlakis" <ktsourl at mailbox.gr>
  To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
  Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 4:27 PM
  Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles summarised


  >
  > 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)


have you checked the effects in other first world countries? the Us is far from typical. Italy for example.. especially Milan, and Rome..


 I was there a couple of weeks ago investigating just this sort of issue. I have a dvd of traffic behaviours under heavy m/c use (Like and Rome and to a far lesser extent london) and the capacity gains are evident. I also have videos/dvd records of the riders eye view of the flows in inner and outer areas of Roome to see how the capacity effects actually work. The demand for scooters/mc in inner(rich) areas for business and work mobility is quite remarkable.. I am writing about the cultural aspects that have led to this outcome.. I might add that modern low pollution engines predominate in Rome from my sample counts, in passing.


  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?



have you, for example, examined the recycling aspects of motorcycles? the recycling level is phenomenally high- higher than cars by a big fraction.


  Then why congestion charge, toll roads and other
  ways to internalise the external cost are considered sustainable? If cars
  were free, wou!



have you done the mathematics on this? I have...if you have id welcome the sums and the capacity rates etc used..


  >  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.
  >



I would appreciate the evidence that you used for this, as your views do not seem to meet the realities of the data!
I also think that a slightly better informed debate on sustrans list might be very useful in raising the common levels of solid information- + and - on these questions!


  > 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).



1. the orbital engine which is cleaner than the ambient air in most cases, is now licnesed by Italian, indonesian and Chinese manufacturers of  small machines.. and form a rapidly growing fraction of the fleet.
2. significant fraction of the larger motorcycle fleet is already fitted with catalytic converters, and have engine maps to optimise emission out put levels rather than power.
3. the m/c manufacturers are continuing to set high quality emission goals for new generations of machines (and have this as a formal and committed investment priority)


  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!



This does appear to be written form a standpoint somewhat removed from a close knowledge of motorcycles! As an engineer id be happy to provide you with sources of solid information on this question.


  >  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



The first electric vehicles were actually motorcycles.. and electric powered light motorcycles are manufacturerd in huge numbers and with now very high levels of sophistication.. the furphy that these are 'really bicycles' is easily dismissed as the canadians and everbody else are moving to enlarge the power rating in KW for double or more the 200watt levels that allow such light motorcycles to be deemed 'bicycles'(yet be exempt for all safety braking dynamics etc etc regulations that fortunately motorcycles are all subject to..) currently there are huge number of non-deemed bicyles that are electric motorcycles appearing in Japan and China...


  (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").



I note the use of your work opinion...I suggest that you check the actual figures of enforcement.. in the research studies doen of onroad motorcycle fleet in the US for Mobile6, the polluting vehicles were in general fitted withnoncompliant aftermarket exahust systems..an issue on which most countries are moving to manage better -- see recent TUV reports


   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.



Not quite-what is says is that the designs under the specified TUV test conditions are less stringent at this stage. BUT the real test is what the on road pullution emission levels are in use- and these reports are geninely hard to come by as they are enforcement reports.. the issue in complicated by maintenance rates and the differential annual mileages of vehicles on road by age of vehicle (I can give you some useful references if you wished to actually do the analysis rather then rely upon 'usual opinion')


  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!


 and selective comment- I presume that greece doesnt have an enforcement system for emission levels? Also, if these are oldish 2-strokes, the NoX emissions are NIL (which completely avoids the corrosive byproducts from four stroke engines) for 40 years japan has for example differentiated between engine types in setting pollutant output levels_ they are aimed at  reducing the hydrocarbons in 2strokes, but not as harshly as the hydrocarbons form 4strokes as 2strkes dot produce any Nox... and vice versa for 4strokes.. now of ckurse we have the new issue of P1 and p5 oarticulates where car diesel engnes (rapidly growing now) are becoming a matter of serious concern...


one needs to do ALL the emission sums more fully and in a balanced manner to get the picture sorted out.






  >  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.



Again, the measures of OEM noise levels are interesting to check on.. certainly the levels are only now converging towards cars- but the driving and noise production cycles are what cerate the real world noise levels- and the differences are not as marked as you seem to infer- again the aftermarket inferior quality exhausts are a major irritant to everyone..but it might be useful to note that a widespread view held amongst even mature and unaggressive riders is that motorcycles are so quiet now that pedestrians step out in front tof one (and the less persuasive argument that a noisier exhaust can improve this situation.. as noise is a function of rpm, the same effects could be achieved or at least much of them by choosing a lower gear in pedestrian areas, so one woudl hesitate to support this latter assertion!)


  >
  > * 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"?




This is a bit cicular, and avoids the evidence. 1. yes motorcycles take up less space than cars- and indeed also can use space that cars cannmot use-thereby increasing capcity on a road- this is escpeically true at complex large intersections in satuurated conditions (references available) where the expsne of increasing caapcity for cars is quite unaffordable.


So yes, they gain caapcity


Next point: as the car occupancy figures continue to drop towards unity (esp in peak hours) the mean occupancy of motorcycles (typically around 1.10 are converging, so this suggests a genuine substistution effect. Also, the shadow cost of parking of cars is very very high in congested areas, and m/c demand less than a fifth of this (even ignoring the ability to use nooks and crannies unsuable for anything else). So there is a further gain


in malaysia there is now a specific policy of encoyraging people to sue public transport for holidays/weekends and 'keep the motorcycel for work journeys'...


Now you argue that this real gain is not a real gain because it is an increase in capacity!


I suggest that you pick which argumnent you wish to run, at present your two arguments cancel each other out.


  > * 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.



This is about to be subject to a massive study called MAIDs which will be released 30 June 2004 (yes, once a m/c falls over or it hit, it is the safety of the road environment that matters.. references readily available and can be supplied). Conflating hard (and impact magnifying) impact terminations with other factors disguises this.. the culpability of m/c if roughy equaly to cars in collisions, but again see AMIDs for suprising new large scale european data imminently. Certainly when rights of way of the mc are compromised the culpability is more on the side of the cars.. that too is well known/


sadly motorcycle are not usually afforded the protection of specifically adjusted oad design that bicycles (a very closely related mode, that does not obey road regualtions or pay for insurance of road tax in most cases) are afforded. One might argue that similar favourable treatment woudl be necessary to get a balanced assessment of culpability and vulnerability!


  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!



Again i suggets looking inot MAIDs as this is a good protocl not subject to many of the reprtng peculiarities so well known to us all between different officila ficures!


  >  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 )




This is again a set of undifferentiated arguments about several matters all conflated.. they need to be picked apart to be dealt with. It woudl take a page ro tow to do so, and if it is areal concern of yours Ill try and find the time to do if it woudl be helpful.



  > * 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.



Actually this is not quite trus. In developing countries EVERYone fits on a motorcycle.. not that i approve of it, but it is visibly done (again pictures available if you do not have the evdience to hand), also the motorcycle and sidecar is actually used by peopel who cannot get into publci transport due to leg probelms etc.. againm I can put yu in touch with not just individuals  but groups of disabled reliant on motrocycles...


ironically the general point is one that is in the spirit you intended it actually REALLY ture about bicycles! (I can give you the stability, age, fragility etc etc data if you need it) it was a bit of a sri=prise to find that this was the caee.. but of course the clue was the predominance of males bicycle riders in alla ge grousp that i should have realsied had more than one type of significance!




  > 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),

? what attrbyte set are you referring to here? it is far from clear...


Id love to see the calculation s on this- they dont seem to be correct. certainly our work on mode chocie in travel to work in developed countries dosnt seem to confirm your assertion- have you specifc data availabel to discuss?


   but also compared to public
  transit and bicycles offering the same mobility.



They simply dont. My own work shows a performance enveleope that is for longer average trips than cars at higher average speeds.. and several tiems both distance and spped of bicycles (ie real communting distances/times as dkstunct from bicycles shortrange perforamnce envelope.. yes i do have the data)


   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?



id be interested in the calculation one of the sad fact is that the high values of death and injury in developing countires are biased upwards by the fact the richest people drive cars etc.. so we need to be very clear on


you coudl be right - but to be able to discuss this rationally..


1 are we using WTP sums?
2. what are the economic multiplers used for workforce paricipation and capitla formation and husing tradeoffs?

  >
  > 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.



Interesting- the motorcycel parking spaces in the City of Lonodn AND the commuter stations that feed it are overflowing and totally inadequate..(data and pictures available) or perhaps were you indicating a reverse incoem effect (ir higher income mor so?)


   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).



As an aging person I fond buses a cocnern due to the danger of falls that i incur (whoever gives up their seat to an older person any more?) and walking is also circumscribed due to fading knees.. I do find this assumption of older peopel being betetr off walking and busing (on the rare occasions that the buses actually run when one needs them) a bit patronaising- and fundmentally inaccurate..forcing relaince of such people on buses and walking may not seem much to a younger person-- but just wait a few years!


  This way they can achieve efficiency
  (less congestion - better mobility), more equity and better environment for
  their citizens and the whole planet.



see above

  >
  > 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.




Interesting- here is another conflated argument about caputal formation, workforcre participation, housing aspiration and mobility and job choice ranges.. all added in to the transprot and economic development cycle-- this is a really good argument to have, but is is about the issues ive listed- not motorcycles!


  > 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)



i love th e extreme cases.. but I can supply bus occupancy pictures demisntrating clealry that in KL i woudl NOT want the 3 or 90 year old in the buis- greater risk *there were over 120 people in a bus licnesed for 60 inclduing standing-- and thepressures on the peopel where huge--and the jerks alarming and sudden- this was KL 2 weesk ago--

  and I doubt if your wife would ever accept to risk her 100$
  coiffure riding a m/c.



Perhaps not yours, but my first and current wives have and had- and have often asked to use the mc not the car due to other aspects of the accessibility they afford- certainly in the choice between outr(quite reasonable) train service (no buses after6pm of course ina major city...) the m.c isand was  invariably requested...


   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!)



At last! some sort of recognition of a vulnerazble transport mode! Just like malaysia...

  . 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




Actualy one needs to promote all modes, to fit the performance enveleopes and needs of the different people..

  > A more interesting question is why m/cs are so much favoured,



presumably you mean Greece only? It is far from evident in the rest of the worls..


  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.



!!! they are mere amateurs compared to the Bicycle lobby! and at least they actually pay for their road use! In almost every country they are strongly discriminated against in all circumstances, even where their capacity contributions are incontrovertible (such as the tollways)


  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.



Actually the effects are quite different. Torque and power are realted via rpm.. so a lareg and ptoentially pwoerful machines is a joy to ride at sedate speeds due to the wide power band..I think that this argument is one that says more about the person making it than the reality!



  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.



Perhaps this paragrpah is more a personal opinion than a verifiable fact! At least it might be reasonabel to debate the pints and provide solid evidence!


   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.




I would be very pleased to have a grounded and numerate debate on this issue.. but we will need to gather more data between us on the points that you have asserted, as there is not enough there to move forward: some points would  seem to be less than fully researched and supported at this stage.


Id also be very keen to get a better picture of the current situation in Athens, as it certainly appears to be one where there is much to be learned. Would you please condier providing me with a bit more data? Id like to understand the Athens policy developments in this area in a  systematic manner, as they look as if they could modify - possibly very substantially- some m of the report i am currently woking on.


Yours sincerely


marcus Wigan


Founder member (US TRB Committee on Bicycles (and emeritus member-elect)
Founder and Emeritus Member TRB Committee on Motorcycles and Mopeds)


==============================================================================
Dr Marcus Wigan,      Working presently in :        Melbourne, Australia

* Principal Oxford Systematics, Box 126 Heidelberg 3084 Australia

* Email:Base address oxsys at optusnet.com.au  Website: http://go.to/mwigan

* Professor of Transport Systems, TRi: the Transport Research Institute
  Napier University Edinburgh Scotland Email m.wigan at napier.ac.uk
* Professorial Fellow, Civil and Environmental Engineering
  University of Melbourne Email mwigan at unimelb.edu.au

Australia: Tel +61 39 459 9671 Fax + 61 39 459 8663 Mobile +61 410 489 029
UK:        Tel +44 131 455 5140 Fax +44 131 5141
UK         Mobiles +44 788 0988 521  and +44 7984 993 558 (please try both)
==============================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040604/1f8bc156/attachment-0001.html