[sustran] Re: any details on Nano and safety and environmental regs?

[Anumita]

-- As Michael has pointed out, all car companies have to get their vehicles type 
approved to meet the emissions standards to sell in the Indian market. In 2010 about 
16 cities are expected to move to Euro IV and the rest of the country to Euro III. 
(Currently Euo III in 11 cities and Euro II in the rest of the country). So all cars 
including Nano will have to comply with these standards. But,  -- in-use compliance 
regulations are nearly non-existent – there are no effective checks on in-use 
performance over life time. 

-- Sarath, you have made an important point. Operational costs will be a decisive 
factor in influencing the shift from MCs to cheap cars -- and these costs for MCs are 
a lot lower than cars. Also the point that other car companies are making today is that 
a drop in the car prices by nearly $2500 from the current cheapest model (Maruti 
800), can net in a very new class of buyers. On the whole car sales are expected to 
increase just not in big cities but also in smaller cities. Even rural and suburban 
market for cars is expected to increase quite significantly – which means the total car 
stock will increase rapidly in the years to come. 

--- The message is clear – we need stringent emissions standard to leapfrog vehicle 
technologies and fuels; in-use compliance regulations to keep them reasonably clean 
during their useful life; fuel economy regulations to reduce energy impacts; and, at 
the same time urgent implementation of rapid solutions for mass mobility and 
congestion. -- There is no scope of Either/Or for any of us today...... 

Anumita


On 1 Feb 2008 at 2:38, Michael P. Walsh wrote:

> 
> My understanding is that it will comply with the emissions requirements at Type Approval (a 
> prototype well maintained vehicle) but I am skeptical that it will comply in use over its lifetime. But 
> of course no one has any actual data at this point.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Lee Schipper wrote:
>      Mike, can you help. 
>     I was interviewed by CNN Business but no response yet..
>     
>     
>     Lee Schipper
>     EMBARQ Fellow
>     EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
>     www.embarq.wri.org
>     and
>     Visiting Scholar
>     UC Transportation Center
>     Berkeley CA USA www.uctc.net
>     skype: mrmeter
>     +1 510 642 6889
>     Cell +1 202 262 7476
>      
>     
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org
>     [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
>     Behalf Of Walter Hook
>     Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:58 PM
>     To: 'Sarath Guttikunda'; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>     Cc: 'Anumita'; Rhys Thom
>     Subject: [sustran] any details on Nano and safety and environmental
>     regs?
>     
>     I was "mis" quoted in the Daily News saying the Nano does not meet
>     Western emissions, road worthyness and safety standards.  What i said
>     was that it "might" not but that i didn't know. 
>     
>     Does anybody know for sure?  Would it be in compliance with euro IV or
>     EPA standards, etc? 
>     
>     -----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 Sarath Guttikunda
>     Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 6:41 AM
>     To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>     Cc: Anumita; RThom at wri.org
>     Subject: [sustran] Re: [SUSTRAN] Re: Tata Nano:
>     CriminalizingMobilityorMobilizing Crime
>     
>     Dear Anumita,
>     
>     Thanks for your elaborate email..
>     
>     My 2 cents,
>     
>     In an interview with Ratan Tata, he mentioned that goal behind making
>     Nano is family safety and he is inspired to making Nano after seeing a
>     family on a motorcycle. I have seen some arguments in papers and on net,
>     that the largest jump in buying a Nano will come from the MC group. This
>     I doubt.
>     
>     A simple math between MCs and Cars, assuming all gasoline (priced at
>     Rs.50per liter) and a family traveling 30 km per day. MCs give 60 km per
>     lit, which translates to Rs.0.83 per km or Rs.7800 per year per family.
>     If the family jumps to a Nano, assuming a 20 km per lit, math translates
>     to Rs.2.50per km or Rs.23,400 per year per family. One year = 6 working
>     days per week and 52 weeks.
>     
>     On an average, a middle class family with MC in India earns between 10K
>     to 15K. Even if we take the higher end of 15K, this accounts to 4% for
>     MCs and 13% for cars on fuel expenses per year. That is a big change.
>     
>     This does not account for the price difference (~Rs.40K for MC and
>     Rs.125Kfor Nano) and interests they will incur for 5 or 10 years of
>     loans, insurance, and maintenance. And lets not forget Parking - even if
>     it is cheap compared to the developed nations.
>     
>     There is no doubt that with growing demand for cars, Nano will be a hit
>     (similar to Maruti 800 when it arrived in the 80's) - given the
>     production levels are as high as the current demand. What we saw on TV
>     is a glimpse of the car which is still a year away or less from hitting
>     the roads. A good public awareness campaign with numbers will do good -
>     explaining what people will end up spending - both in terms on money and
>     time (leading to more congestion).
>     
>     MCs are by far the largest number in the country and will remain so for
>     the coming decades. On the other side, a good price differential and
>     extra tax for cars, Nano could shift some people away from buying SUVs,
>     who knows :-) Cars are not bad, but more cars on road make it worse.
>     
>     Similarly, there are some discussions on how Nano will cut into the 3Ws
>     and Taxi market, which is also stretching the limits. In the cities like
>     Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, or Bangalore, parking has already become a
>     problem, and more cars will not make it easy. Under a parking cap, 3Ws
>     and Taxis still rule the short trip version.
>     
>     As we argue on cars and MCs, as Anumita pointed out, we have to also
>     understand the lack of "public transport" in place to take the current
>     travel loads. And also the share of diesel on road. We are basically
>     stuck at "Access to Mobility".
>     
>     with regards,
>     Sarath
>     
>     --
>     Sarath Guttikunda
>     New Delhi, India
>     Phone: +91 9891 315 946
>     Email: sguttikunda at gmail.com
>     
>     On Jan 25, 2008 11:56 AM, Anumita <anumita at cseindia.org> wrote:
>     
>       
>     Lee,
>     
>     I guess all of us are saying the same thing. Clearly, this fuss over 
>     Nano is just not about Nano but about cars, all cars - big, small, 
>     cheap, expensive cars.
>     Nano has
>     given us the chance to focus the public debate on congestion, oil 
>     guzzling and emissions and make these concerns more visible. This 
>     debate is certainly very nuanced.
>     
>     -- Look at the Indian paradox today - super cheap cars like Nano will 
>     expand the bottom of the market pyramid when rising incomes have 
>     already triggered a steady drift to bigger cars and SUVs. So the ends 
>     are stretched both ways. Car companies will continue to compete on 
>     costs in a price sensitive market. With frugal engineering, weak 
>     regulations, fiscal largess to the car companies, even for their 
>     production facilities, cars can come very cheap. Question is how do we
>         
>     
>       
>     deal with it?
>     
>     -- Interestingly, in a car to car comparison nano or any small car can
>         
>     
>       
>     offer fuel savings - certainly more sensible than the bigger, more 
>     powerful, high performance cars that are about several hundreds per 
>     1000 people in many industrialized cities.
>     But the new investments in the Indian auto sector will have to be 
>     linked with stringent emissions regulations, in-use compliance 
>     requirements and efficiency standards.
>     
>     - But the reason why we are debating Nano, and, are so concerned 
>     today, is because we still have the time, the chance and the 
>     alternatives to plan mobility systems differently in Indian cities. We
>         
>     
>       
>     already have a reasonable strength in the usage of public transport at
>         
>     
>       
>     least in big cities, NMT and walking -- that if protected and improved
>         
>     
>       
>     can help us to take an alternative route and avoid huge emissions and 
>     oil guzzling in Indian cities. Building alternatives at this stage of 
>     motorisation is critical
>     -- cars may drive growth and aspirations, but they can never meet the 
>     commuting needs of the urban majority.
>     
>     -- But this is where we draw a blank. As in the rest of the world we 
>     have also realized that to a very great extent mobility management 
>     hinges on fiscal measures (in addition to providing good public 
>     transport).  But the wisdom of taxing a product for the vice and not 
>     just for their values is still quite alien to the Indian and many 
>     other Asian fiscal regimes. The governments are strongly entrenched in
>         
>     
>       
>     command and control strategies. They are still not looking at fiscal 
>     measures that can change consumer and commuter choices, push cities to
>         
>     
>       
>     make better choices on transportation options, create alternative 
>     sources of revenue and broaden the revenue base to fund mobility and 
>     technology transition. But this will require a different kind of 
>     maturity and sophistication in our fiscal regimen.
>     
>     -- Greening of taxes will be an even bigger battle in the present 
>     context of governance and public awareness. Aspirational vote bank 
>     never says tax our cars and the governance systems in cities are not 
>     strong enough to force it down.
>     Therefore, just the opposite is happening today. The city governments 
>     penalize buses by taxing them higher per passenger they carry than 
>     cars that carry lot less and use up more road space etc.
>     
>     -- In Delhi, we are amidst discussions on fuel taxes, parking charges,
>         
>     
>       
>     road taxes etc.
>     But resistance is unbelievable. Even if matters move in Delhi it will 
>     still be a drop in the ocean. The policy mandate on transportation and
>         
>     
>       
>     mobility matters is so decentralized that it is the ability of all 
>     individual cities that will ultimately decide the progress on this 
>     front. National policies like JNURM etc are still not strong enough 
>     framework to create a template for the cities. Smaller cities are 
>     going to be even more badly hit by small car explosion as public 
>     policies on public transport are virtually non existent for these 
>     cities - just because these cities do not have high density travel 
>     corridors to justify investment in 'profitable' public transport.  
>     This means millions are left to organise their own mobility and will 
>     happily graduate from bicycles and cycle rickshaws to cheap cars.
>     
>     -- We need to understand that when it comes to practical planning for 
>     mobility management in our cities the basic policy tools, databases, 
>     policy indicators of sustainability etc do not even exist to enable 
>     city level planning and action. Even public voice remains dormant. 
>     This is where we need to move fast to see some real action. Otherwise,
>         
>     
>       
>     good ideas will remain good ideas while cars take over.
>     
>     Anumita
>     
>     ******************************
>         
>     **************************
>     Anumita Roychowdhury
>     Associate Director,Research and Advocacy Centre for Science and 
>     Environment 41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi 110062
>     Tel: 91-11-29955124, 29955125, 29956394
>     Fax: 91-11-29955879, 29955870
>     Email: anumita at cseindia.org
>     Website: www.cseindia.org
>     ***************************************************
>           
>     
>     On 24 Jan 2008 at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote:
>     
>         
>     Anumita, what do you say? Sounds like we're between a piece of 
>     rubber and a spare tyre
>     
>     
>     Lee Schipper
>     EMBARQ Fellow
>     EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport www.embarq.wri.org 
>     and Visiting Scholar UC Transportation Center Berkeley CA USA 
>     www.uctc.net
>     skype: mrmeter
>     +1 510 642 6889
>     Cell +1 202 262 7476
>     
>           
>     
>     
>         
>     
>     
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>     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'). 
>     
>     
>       

********************************************************
Anumita Roychowdhury
Associate Director,Research and Advocacy
Centre for Science and Environment
41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area
New Delhi 110062
Tel: 91-11-29955124, 29955125, 29956394
Fax: 91-11-29955879, 29955870
Email: anumita at cseindia.org
Website: www.cseindia.org
***************************************************