[sustran] Re: more on value of modes

[Eric Bruun]

Daryl

This will be my last comments to your thread, as I think the moderator
rightly doesn't like these kinds of discussions to ramble on. 

I don't object to "generalizations" being made, I object to "gross overgenralizations".

I don't agree to your concept that selecting of modes is only about what works for "most people". "Most people" of an entire nation don't go into the Central Business District of a large city every day. Does this mean that we should only support automobiles? The time concentration and location concentration of travel have a great deal to do with what are the appropriate modes (note the plural). Or what about the large percentage of persons who are too old or young to drive, have disabilities, or simply don't want the responsiblity of driving -- can we ignore their mobility needs because they are in a minority? In the United States, this
minority is about 100 million people. In India it is probably in the hundreds of millions of people.  

I don't agree either that modes should be paid for ONLY by those who benefit. Your definition of benefit seems to be confined to the movement from point A to point B. Your definitions of benefits and costs are too narrow. People benefit (and get costs imposed on them) in a variety of ways depending upon what modes are being favored or have been historically favored by public policy. Just a couple of examples: People who like to drive actually benefit as well when people who are willing to use public transit do so. It would be physically impossible in any kind of efficient city for every person to drive a car for every trip (assuming, unrealistically, that they all had a driver's licence and could afford a car). People who want to walk or bicycle benefit from investments in a public-transit oriented urban form because this is complementary to their needs, but are largely deprived of this ability in a car-dependent urban form. People who prefer the auto-based lifestyle don't compensate these people in any way for the involuntary imposition of an auto-based lifestyle that is forced upon them as well.

Benefits can be even more indirect. For example, we all will benefit from reduced global warming if some of us are given the option not to drive. 

All of these examples show why a monetary subsidy to non-auto modes might be justifed. On the other hand, making auto users pay more than they personlly benefit from their auto might also be justified as their personal benefits comes with far more externalities than traveling by transit, by bicycle or by walking.

Eric 


-----Original Message-----
>From: Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com>
>Sent: Jul 20, 2007 4:50 PM
>To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes
>
>
>
>> Original Message From Markus Sander; Friday, July 20, 2007 12:08 PM
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote:
>> 
>> > You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying
>> > that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross
>> > overgeneralization.
>> 
>> Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his
>> sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a
>> different transportation mode.
>
>
>Eric and Marcus,
>Any statement that applies to a majority of the population is a
>generalization.  
>I said: "The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation
>mode that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people."
>
>Markus, as you point out, the language of my statement clearly indicates it
>is general.  It is usually easy to point to specific instances that are
>contrary to any generalization; if we are to have a meaningful discussion of
>mode value, let us continue to remain general, and focus on how various
>modes are able to meet transportation needs of "most people" in a developing
>economy, as this is a core issue in determining true sustainability of a
>transportation mode.  Don't you agree?
>
>
>> > It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive
>> > everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to
>> > impoverish me.
>> 
>> Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that
>> (seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse
>> powers)?
>
>I have had people seriously laugh at me for: driving a car with too much
>power, too little power, too big, too small, too expensive, too cheap, wrong
>brand, wrong color, etc. -- and it was all the same car!  
>
>Consistent with the focus and mission of sustran, let's not focus on me or
>you, but continue to focus on "most people", and specifically most people in
>developing economies who are desiring to improve their mobility.  
>
> 
>> > Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result
>> > of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes.
>> 
>> That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of
>> course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is
>> desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure.
>
>Eric and Marcus,
>
>I am glad we agree that any mode investments should be paid for only by
>those who benefit.  If one is concerned with planning and investing in
>transportation infrastructure for a developing national economy, should not
>the planners focus on comparing infrastructure investment alternatives
>according to the required fees for the chosen mode being fully paid for by
>those who use it? 
>
>Should not the focus be to implement the mode that offers the greatest
>percentage of the population the most transportation accessibility and value
>for a given investment?
>
>Is it not likely that since investments in roads have been more productive
>than rail investments in developed nations (for most people) that the same
>will hold true in developing nations (for most people)?  
>
>One cannot expect a mode that offers lower relative transportation value to
>displace a mode offering greater relative transportation value.  It is
>prudent to note that road investments (like rail investments before that,
>and canal investments before rail), are reaching the limits of
>sustainability.  
>
>There are new mode alternatives that offer the same likelihood of value
>improvement over roads as railroads offered most people compared to canals.
>The time is ripe to consider the new modes that offer improved
>sustainability than roads when compared on a "total benefit to total cost
>ratio" basis.    
>
>
>Daryl Oster
>(c) 2007  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
>e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
>of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
>FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com
>
>-------------------------------------------------------- 
>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').