[sustran] Re: Bangkok bike parking

[Eric Bruun]

Scott

I haven't read the attached article yet, but I have read other articles by Kenworthy and Newman. 
I don't have any position about climate's role, but I have some idea about wealth, car ownership and
car use. First, US cities with very high ownership have far lower regional GDPs than western European cities that have far lower car ownership. (700-800 per 1000 in US Cities, 400-600 in European cities, if I recall correctly.) Also, just because people own cars doesn't mean they automatically start using them for every trip. 

I think the point that Newman and Kenworthy made was that if you live in an auto-dependent place with
no realistic options, you will spend the money and you will drive a lot. If you need a car to go to work, for
example, you will buy one even if it is a hardship.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: "D. Scott TenBrink" <scott at pedalsong.net>
>Sent: May 9, 2006 3:08 AM
>To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Bangkok bike parking
>
>
>I found that the Newman and Kenworthy article, which Sunny distributed, 
>is vague
>and unconvincing in regards to the impact of wealth and climate on
>auto-dependency.
>
>Regarding wealth, they switch between density and vehicle miles as the measure
>of auto-dependency as it suits their argument. They are refuting the 
>claim that
>?As soon as people get enough money they will buy a car and move to the
>suburbs?, but they do not ackowledge that these are two seperate decisions.
>Instead they equate low density development, vehicle ownership, and vehicle
>miles as measures of the same thing- auto-dependency. Perhaps they should have
>better defined this term from the start.
>
>Also, they argue that the variation between income level and vehicle miles
>across continents indicates that wealth is not indicative of auto-dependency.
>But they do not address the possibility that there are other factors that vary
>across continents that may account for the variation while wealth generally
>follows car ownership.
>
>They accurately point out that levels of of car use and ownership are lower in
>dense areas across all levels of wealth. But this does not imply that 
>wealth is
>not a factor in car use and ownership- just that it is not the ONLY factor.
>
>I found the argument against the impact of climate to be simply odd. 
>The bulk of
>the argument is against a theory that certain climates encourage large-lot
>housing. I have never heard such an argument but would be willing to 
>agree that
>climate has little direct impact on lot size.
>
>However, they present a confused argument on the impact of weather on mode
>choice. Thay state that "Detroit and Denver have few supposed car-enhancing
>climate features for much of the year, but are totally dominated by the
>automobile and extensive, low density suburban land use." But I would think it
>is the BAD weather that encourages those who can afford it to own a private
>vehicle. I don't know what type of weather would be considered 
>"car-enhancing",
>but rain, snow, wind and cold are all common arguments by people from northern
>climates as to why they do not want to wait for the bus or ride a bike 
>to work.
>
>Further, they completely ignore the possibility that it may be too hot 
>to ride a
>bike or walk long distances. What I consider a short (2 mile), early morning
>bike commute to work in Bangkok leaves me drenched in sweat. Without 
>shower and
>changing facilities, this would not be an option for me.
>
>They do make a point that the impact of wealth, climate, and the other factors
>on auto-dependency are interrelated and dependent on context. And it is
>encouraging to see the exceptions to the general rule. But claiming that these
>assertions are "myths" is taking the argument a step too far.
>
>In relation to the original article on Bangkok bike parking, it is 
>important to
>recognize that there are solutions to managing wealth, climate and weather
>impacts on NMT, but it is foolish to deny that they have an impact on mode
>choice. I agree with Linda that there are more productive initial paths 
>to take
>than promoting cycling (especially in such a half-assed way). Of 
>course, it is a
>lot cheaper to install a bike rack than a BRT system. If the goal is 
>only to get
>good press, I'd go with the bike rack, too!
>
>-Scott TenBrink
>
>-also, I should note that I find cycling in Bangkok to be much safer than most
>cities that I've ridden in mixed traffic because drivers are aware of 
>"non-car"
>users.  I've found that this is the great benefit to having taxis, buses,
>motorbikes, pedestrians, push-carts, pedal-carts, and elephants share 
>the road.
>
>
>
>Quoting Sunny <sksunny at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Linda,
>>
>> I understand from your reply that climate influences the car 
>> ridership in cities like Bangkok. In my opinion climate and wealth 
>> are not exactly the causes for excessive auto dependency, I feel that 
>> as you said in your mail the policies are a factor coupled with the 
>> car friendly infrastructure. Please find enclosed a paper by Peter 
>> Newman and Jeff Kenworthy on the 10 common factor we think are a 
>> reason for automobile dependency but actually these 10 factors are 
>> myths.
>>
>> I fully agree with you on the issue of bribes.
>>
>> Sunny
>>
>> Linda Fullerton wrote:
>>> Dear Sunny,
>>>
>>> I agree with you that if public transport was improved more people 
>>> would use it. But one needs to recognise that in Thailand the car is 
>>> a highly valued status symbol. In the public eye success is 
>>> determined by the number of expensive cars in the carport. Those who 
>>> can afford to do so have more cars than the number of drivers in the 
>>> house. Those who do so are very often high ranking police or army 
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> You said: many people say tht bike travel is not safe thts the 
>>> reason they don't use bikes....if it is made safer then we can 
>>> expect an increase in bike usage...
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt it. The climate for most of the year doesn't lend 
>>> itself to bike usage and - as was the case in the west a few 
>>> generations ago - the bicycle is regarded as the lowest form of 
>>> transport. With increased wealth one buys a motorbike - which is not 
>>> only a status symbol, it's quicker, more comfortable in the heat and 
>>> easier to carry more passengers/luggage.
>>>
>>> I think it would be more productive and realistic to forget about 
>>> bicycles and invest more energy into improving the public transport 
>>> system. The skytrain desperately needs to be extended both in its 
>>> reach and in its accessibility. But of perhaps more importance, as 
>>> its improvement would benefit far higher numbers, is to focus some 
>>> attention on the neglected bus system. The buses are probably the 
>>> most polluting vehicles on the road network, are badly driven and 
>>> are on the whole unsafe or perceived as being so. They are also 
>>> cramped, hot and unpleasant. Like the bicycle they are viewed as 
>>> being the lowest form of public transport.
>>>
>>> But these of course require government policy decisions which it is 
>>> difficult to influence. At development level one could encourage 
>>> developers to promote public transport usage by providing a decent 
>>> minibus service to pick up employees from key locations such as the 
>>> nearest skytrain station if too far to walk, together with 
>>> discouragement of car use by restrictions on company cars as part of 
>>> a salary package and restricted parking provision.
>>>
>>> Re: I have to agree with your comment on the 200 or 100 baht fines/bribes
>>> (in India) but have you heard of a fine of 100 baht if you cross the
>>> road without using a pedestrian overpass?
>>>
>>> I meant bribes. I would love to see a survey of the number of bribes 
>>> taken compared to the number of tickets issued. I estimate a ratio 
>>> of perhaps 20 to 1. But that is only the visible form of corruption. 
>>> Far worse is that which goes on at the higher levels which 
>>> influences what infrastructure is built, when and by whom. It is a 
>>> sad fact that corruption governs Thailand. Until corruption is 
>>> seriously tackled the transport system will not improve.
>>>
>>> I'm sure the government would enjoy being encouraged to fine a 
>>> pedestrian for crossing a road instead of providing adequate 
>>> pedestrian crossing facilities. Imposing fines would achieve nothing 
>>> other than further alienating the ordinary person and further lining 
>>> the pockets of the police. Count the number of footbridges along 
>>> Bangna-Trad Road, for instance, and you will understand why people 
>>> prop ladders against the barriers in the central reserve to help 
>>> them cross - often a total of 10 busy traffic lanes with dual 3 lane 
>>> carriageway plus 2 lanes of service road each side - instead of 
>>> walking five miles to the nearest footbridge. The effects on 
>>> transport at local level do not seem to be considered as part of 
>>> highway schemes.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Linda.
>>>
>>> .
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ================================================================
>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>>> countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, 
>>> the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.