[sustran] Re: [SUSTRAN] Re: Tata Nano: CriminalizingMobility orMobilizing Crime

[Sarath Guttikunda]

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
> >
>
>
>