[sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car

Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory edelman at greenidea.info
Thu Jul 12 02:23:30 JST 2007


Walter Hook wrote:
> I would argue this is not a problem inherent in car ownership but rather a
> function of undercharging for parking on public roads.  Parking is a
> function of use, not of ownership
>   
LESS of all sorts of parking is needed when cars are owned communally 
(carshare) meaning that parking is a function of ownership -- or how 
cars are owned.

Also, the construction costs of underground or overground public and 
private parking is not internalised.... all those construction lorries 
destroying the roads, poisoning the air...

- T
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Lee Schipper
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
> Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car
>
> I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or
> sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and
> cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on
> the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an
> (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there
> are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property.
>
>   
>>>> "Walter Hook" <whook at itdp.org> 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>>
>>>>         
> Carlos, 
>
>  
>
> You are way off.  Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems,
> and a
> lot of social benefits.  The social costs are related to car USE and
> overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on
> location.  In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution,
> and
> in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in
> other
> locations it will not.  It is therefore more socially optimal to
> regulate
> car USE than to regulate its ownership.  
>
>  
>
> If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could
> certainly be banned on those grounds.  But a cheap car generates no
> more
> congestion than an expensive car.  
>
>  
>
> Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from
> consumers to
> the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for
> public investments. 
>
> It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion
> benefits
> will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the
> aggregate
> social benefits of a congestion charge.  In poor areas, where there is
> likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to
> be
> priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little
> congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be
> the
> worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and
> again
> there will be no congestion relief. 
>
>  
>
> If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a
> far
> less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge.  If
> the
> purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no
> good
> either. 
>
>  
>
> With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person
> can
> prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the
> trip
> is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge
> is).
> This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative
> license
> plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second
> car, or
> a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an
> expensive car.  
>
>  
>
> Best
>
> Walter 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org 
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Zvi Leve
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM
> To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
> Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh
> car
>
>  
>
> Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one
> of
> the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national
> development
> goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of
> government
> (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the
> politicians
> to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to
> force
> the debate is certainly a legitimate approach.
>
> Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they
> apparently
> banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this
> may
> seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such
> a
> large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that
> Shanghai
> would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's
> citizens
> might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the
> Shanghai Automotive Industry <http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/57/57065.html>
> Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under
> license
> from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! 
>
> Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar
> situation.
> People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives
> access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in
> a
> convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other
> 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already
> has
> relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of
> 'motorized
> vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much
> of a
> difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an
> accessible
> one!) will make....
>
> Best regards,
>
> Zvi
>
>
> Carlos F. Pardo wrote: 
>
> Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about
> congestion
> charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a
> certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to
> those who
> only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class
> people
> in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those
> who
> have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e.
> rich
> people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside
> the
> city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only
> use
> their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off?
>
> However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging
> can be
> used (and is used) for improvements in public transport...
>
> I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such
> as the
> ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of
> controlling
> very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the
> cities to
> improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Carlos F. Pardo
> Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator
> GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
> Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708
> Bogotá D.C., Colombia
> Tel/fax:  +57 (1) 236 2309  Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
> carlos.pardo at sutp.org   www.sutp.org 
>
>
>
> Lee Schipper wrote: 
>
> Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the
> boom and bust — either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private
> motorization — will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning
> of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's
> inability to plan and enforce!
>  
> Lee Schipper
> Director of Research
> EMBARQ, the WRI Center
> for Sustainable Transport
> 10 G St. NE
> Washington DC, 20002
> +1202 729 7735
> FAX +1202 7297775
> www.embarq.wri.org 
>  
>   
>
> "Anupam Gupta, CLSA"  <mailto:anupam.gupta at clsa.com>
> <anupam.gupta at clsa.com>
> 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM
>  
>         
>
> Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually.
> Do
> forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your
> answers.
>  
>  
> Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process
> can.
> What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and
> move
> the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a)
> whether
> the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear
> the
> matter. 
>  
> Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," 
>  
> "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a
> handful of
> key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with
> all
> these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in
> India
> and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). 
>  
> "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess
> the BHP
> will also be on the lower side. 
>  
> "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One
> reason
> why
> they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just
> over
> US$5,000). 
>  
> "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be
> smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise
> duty.
> I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. 
>  
> Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the
> Chief
> Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's
> boss).
> My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler
> drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr.
> C is
> also coming from. 
>  
> Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As
> outrageous as
> Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability
> and
> scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly
> anti-congestion
> pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not
> happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply
> everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on
> parking,
> the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in
> certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more
> people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as
> often.
> Something's not right in that. 
>  
>  
>  
> Regards,
> Anupam Gupta
> +91 22 6650 5074
> Mobile +91 98204 98981
>  
>  
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing
> this Email
>  
> The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and
> Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at
> https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request.
>  
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
> YAHOOGROUPS. 
>  
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
> join
> the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
> yahoogroups
> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you
> can).
> Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>  
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries
> (the 'Global South'). 
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____  
>
>
>
>  
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
> YAHOOGROUPS. 
>  
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
> join
> the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
> yahoogroups
> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you
> can).
> Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>  
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries
> (the 'Global South'). 
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
> YAHOOGROUPS. 
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join
> the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
> Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South'). 
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. 
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). 
>
>   


-- 
--------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory

Korunní 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic

++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
Skype: toddedelman
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

edelman at greenidea.info

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list