[sustran] Re: Essay by Vivek Sharma forwared by Sunny-- Why critics of the Tatasmall car are barking up thewrongtree news

Prof J G Krishnayya sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in
Mon Jan 14 13:23:27 JST 2008


Mr. Sharma makes the point that those who critique the idea of the Tata
Small Car for India are elitist windbags riding around in their
chauffer-driven limos; and that the car,  according to Ratan Tata, has
emissions comparable on a per-passenger basis to those of motorcycles.
In short they are 4 times as bad as motorcycles.  Note that they have
2-stroke; 2-cyclinder engines.  He says that 250,000 cars, which is
Tata's estimate of production in the first year, would be "only" 1/4 of
the number of cars already being produced in India.....That the Nano
would add to congestion - but not probably in rural areas where the aam
admi will now have a car. That the Nano would be parked all over the
scene for lack of parking space, etc,  But this does not matter, since
parking and road space are not Mr. Tata's problem to deal with.
 
Does this all sound crazy to you?  It sounds like Mr. Vivek Sharma is
barking mad.
 
If the Tatas have so much design expertise at their disposal, it is sad
that the first 10 low-slung busses provided, e.g. to Pune Municipal
Transport two years ago could not be driven faster than 30 kmph because
of vibration, and almost broke apart; that their linkages to rear
engines did not work - among a list of some 25 other major faults (all
documented, by the way); and that they could not repair these vehicles
and put them on the road for 15 months, long after full payment had been
made. The World Bank team was taken for a ride in one of these busses
and got off vibrating in every bone.
 
The House of Tata would have done India a much bigger favour if they had
designed and built a series of better busses for Public transit use,
intra-urban and inter-urban.  As it is, Public transport in India is
buying Volvo busses (bodies as well as chassis) and the Chinese King
Long. Are Mr. Tata and his subordinates not ashamed that this enormous
market has been gifted away to Volvo (which are extremely well liked
though enormously expensive) and Chinese King Long??
 
It should be clear to the meanest intelligence that the Nano will become
primarily a 2nd, 3rd or 4th car for upmarket urban dwellers who have
parking room in their compounds, and possibly will cater also to the
wealthy non-tax-paying rural upper classes.  Road space that could have
gone to Public Transport will now be totally absent.  All the thinking
behind BRT, routing and road-furniture to suit pedestrians, cyclists
will go by the board while city administrators struggle with the
problems of accommodating the Nano.  The whole idea - while
engineering-wise a remarkable achievement - is overall a retrogressive
and viciously undemocratic step.  And that is much before we take up
either pollution or energy issues.
 
Prof J G Krishnayya
Director, Systems Research Institute,
17-A Gultekdi, PUNE 411037, India
www.sripune.org                 Tel +91-20-2426-0323
jkrishnayya at yahoo.com       Res 020-2636-3930
sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in       Fax +91-20-2444-7902
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Sunny
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:24 AM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Why critics of the Tata small car are barking up
thewrongtree news
 
Why critics of the Tata small car are barking up the wrong tree news
Vivek Sharma
10 January 2008
 
Those who criticise the Tata small car are barking up the wrong tree and
some of their arguments are elitist and discriminatory.
 
"India is in serious danger", warned the hugely popular New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman last November in one of his columns. The
danger, he said, is from the $2,500-Tata small car which he believes is
a highly retrograde initiative from a country capable of incredible
innovation.
 
Why is Friedman so worried about a car that may never be seen on
American roads? Because, he is very concerned about the well-being of us
Indians! He is worried that we will make an even bigger mess of our road
traffic and pollute our way to motoring bliss. He even asked Americans
to urge Indians not to imitate the indulgent American way of life, but
leapfrog and invent 'cheap-scale', sustainable solutions to big problems
like public transport.
 
On the face of it, the column reads like yet another patronising sermon
from a westerner baulking at the thought of third world masses enjoying
cheap personal transport the way Americans do. But Friedman, a three
times Pulitzer prize winner, is unlikely to harbour any prejudice
against India and Indians.
 
After all, one of his biggest claims to fame is a true 'eureka moment'
when it dawned on him that 'the world is flat' - while playing golf in
Bangalore! The picture of Bangalore he paints in that book, with
gleaming skyscrapers housing development centres for Microsoft, Sun and
Oracle adorning his view from the golf course, would easily beat BJP's
old 'India Shining' campaign.
 
Tom Friedman is not alone in deriding the Tata small car.
 
Ever since Ratan Tata announced his intention to build the cheapest car
ever, there has been no let up from a variety of Tata baiters. Some
competitors ridiculed the idea and questioned the company's ability to
launch a car at such a low price. Green activists and 'concerned' souls,
much before it caught Friedman's attention, have been warning us of the
terrible fate that awaits us if the small car becomes a reality. Their
objections range from vehicle safety to pollution and some of them sound
plain elitist in their arguments.
 
The elite who pretend to be liberals
Last year, a columnist in a major Indian financial newspaper wondered
how this country could allow a product like the Tata small car that
would make our urban lives messier and all the more tedious. This is one
of the biggest complaints against the Tata small car. But the question
is, messier and tedious for whom? Obviously the urban rich, for the
lives of the urban lower middle class and the poor cannot be made any
messier! So, those who cannot afford more expensive cars must stick to
their motorbikes so that the rich can continue to enjoy comfortable
rides in thin traffic!
 
Another curious argument is that most of the potential buyers of the
Tata car would have no parking space at their homes. So, it is said,
they will all start parking their puny little cars by the roadside and
clog traffic. A car manufacturer cannot be asked to sell to only those
who have their own parking space. It is the potential buyers' problem to
find a safe parking space. If they cannot find adequate parking space,
or find parking to be very expensive, they will not take out their cars
very often or will abstain from buying them in the worst case.
 
Given our 'highly developed civic sense' and 'ready willingness to obey
the rules', it is likely that many of the new small car owners would
conveniently park their vehicles where they should not. But, doesn't
that happen even now with those who can afford expensive cars? It is the
rich who flout traffic rules more blatantly and it is very likely that
cars left at 'no parking' areas will be the most expensive ones because
they know the traffic policeman will usually not dare to touch the
'sahib's gaadi'.
 
When that is the case, this argument smacks of blatant elitism. The less
affluent cannot be denied the safety and comfort of a cheap four-wheeled
vehicle, only because the existing infrastructure will come under
further strain. Any move to restrict the number of cars should apply to
all vehicles, irrespective of their cost. Even then, it should be
ensured that the costs of such measures - like increased road taxes and
parking charges - should be proportionate to the owners' ability to pay.
Anything else will be discriminatory and simply unfair.
 
The safety bogey
Another potential fault critics have come up with is safety. "When you
lower prices that drastically, how will you be able to meet safety
standards?" - Anumita Roychoudhury of the Centre for Science and
Environment (CES), one of the most-quoted critics of the Tata car, is
reported to have asked. Does she really believe that there are no safety
standards for vehicles in India? Even if they are inadequate, are we
supposed to believe that a manufacturer from the House of Tatas, would
risk its reputation and compromise on safety just to cut costs?
 
Even if the Tata small car is deemed less safe in terms of passenger
injuries in the event of a collision, we need to remember that nobody in
their right senses would enter such a car in a drag race! Neither will
any sensible driver try to test the car's speed limit on our dangerous
highways. Most potential buyers, ordinary middle class buyers, will
drive the car to work or take their families for an outing on weekends.
 
Is the probability of high speed collisions on our city roads, where the
average speed is in the range of 20 to 30 kmph, so high? In high-speed
highway collisions, will the passengers in other small cars like the
Maruti 800, Alto or even a Santro fare any better?
 
Furthermore, won't the Tata small car be far safer for lower middle
class families who now use motorcycles and scooters with only the rider
wearing a safety helmet in equally "dangerous" traffic conditions?
 
Roychoudhury has also argued that the Tata car has "not much chance" of
retaining its price tag when safety features like airbags and anti-lock
brakes are made standard in all vehicles. It is Ratan Tata who should
worry about that, not his detractors. Oh! Shouldn't his critics be
happier if the car becomes costlier and beyond the reach of its target
customers!
 
The pollution bogey
R K Pachauri, with all the added gravitas from the Nobel Peace Prize,
said the Tata small car is giving him "nightmares" - presumably implying
the environmental impact of emissions from more cars on our streets. He
is one of the biggest stars of the global warming campaigners, second
only to Al Gore, and it is understandable that he gets nightmares. Just
when he and his scientists and experts had convinced the sceptics that
global warming was for real, here is a company from his own country,
which he believes, is hell bent on worsening the problem!
 
Roychoudhury of CES is worried that "we have a time bomb ticking away"
in terms of the environmental impact of hundreds of thousands of Tata
small cars that will flood the streets in the coming years. Others are
no less appalled or frightened. But, how real is the potential pollution
problem posed by the Tata small car?
 
Ratan Tata has said that the car's emissions will be comparable to
two-wheelers on a per passenger basis. That is assuming that the car
will always have four passengers, which is unlikely. So, if the car
replaces as many two-wheelers on our roads, total emissions will
undoubtedly be higher.
 
But there is a potential upside, too. The Tata small car is said to be
twice as fuel-efficient as other small cars. So, if some of the existing
and potential owners of other small cars switch to the new car, the
increase in overall fuel demand and emissions will be lower.
 
Again, it is not that millions of Tata small cars will be rolled out
every year. Tata Motors' current capacity is 250,000 units per year,
which is less than a quarter of the total cars produced in the country.
In the long run, yes, the number of Tata small cars on our roads could
be in millions. But, the number of other small car models sold over a
period of as many years will also run into millions. Then, why single
out the Tata car for criticism?
 
The Tata small car will definitely increase the pace of passenger car
sales. But, the incremental addition to total car sales may not be as
high as it is being made out to be. On balance, potential emissions are
not the "nightmare" critics want us to believe.
 
The traffic chaos bogey
More cars on roads definitely mean more congestion. But, will the Tata
small car make it that worse as some fear? It is estimated that there
are over 12 million vehicles in India - four wheelers and above. Around
a million are being added every year, and the additions will only
increase. If Tata Motors sells as much as it can produce, we will see
250,000 cars being added every year. By the time the company reaches
full capacity, at the earliest in 2009-10, total number of vehicles will
be around 15 million. In percentage terms, the Tata small cars will
constitute less than 2 per cent of total vehicles on our roads. Even if
the company doubles its capacity, it will still be less than 4 per
cent.  Is that a big problem?
 
Our roads are congested in urban areas, not so much in semi-urban and
rural areas. It is likely that a substantial number of Tata small cars
will be sold in areas where the road traffic is not that bad. So, should
the village aam aadmi also be denied a cheap personal vehicle?
 
Even if the Tata small cars create utter traffic chaos in our cities, it
may be a blessing in disguise. The transport infrastructure in our
cities is pathetic probably because our netas never have to suffer
traffic blocks. The big shots, who take all the decisions, have police
vehicles clearing the way for them.
 
The lesser minions, who lobby to influence the decisions, are usually
chauffeured around and hence commuting is less tedious for them. So, to
take a highly charitable view on our netas, it is possible that they are
really not aware of the problems. When we protest loudly, they will
agree to 'look into the matter', without really grasping the enormity of
the problem and hence cannot be blamed for forgetting the promise.
 
But, they will grasp the problem better and will be forced to 'look into
it' if their cars cannot move. For them to roll down their windows and
see reality, the traffic should become so bad that even police vehicles
cannot clear the way. Then they will do something about our roads or let
the private sector do it.
 
I am all for mass transport systems - metro rail systems, high capacity
buses on dedicated lanes and so on - for our cities. Many commuters
would prefer public transport to driving their own cars, provided they
are safe, comfortable and reliable. There is no doubt that, in the not
too distant future, a majority of city dwellers will switch to public
transport from cars. Because it will be impossible to take out the cars
daily and our public transport systems would have improved beyond
recognition by then.
 
But, that will be a gradual transition. All we can do is to exert
pressure to speed up the process, and that is what all the activists
railing against the Tata small car should be doing. Until we have better
public transport, commuters would prefer personal transport - if they
can afford it - and there will be huge demand for personal vehicles. You
cannot fault a business for trying to meet market demand, in a
supposedly liberalised economy. If the Tatas had not done it, somebody
else would have. Bajaj already has a prototype ready!
 
All those who are arguing against the Tata small car are barking up the
wrong tree!
-------------------------------------------------------- 
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'). 


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list