[sustran] Re: Guangzhou joins the list of cities in China with a quota for new vehicles

[Alok Jain]

What works for goose may not work for the gander.

Eric - there are no dumb or smart answers to this problem. Any strategy that works in moving (or you may term "forcing") the people towards more sustainable modes of transport should be welcome. It is always easy to reverse this process (against all good senses, by lifting the quota system, hopefully replaced by a "smarter" way of achieving the same objective) but once you have gone down an unrestricted car-growth scenario, the process is pretty much irreversible in short to medium term.

So, yes. A welcome and wise move indeed. In India, where we see 7% vehicle ownership growth and 12% traffic growth, this should been done years ago but this is one of the pitfalls of a democratic system. Every politician want Indian  cities to become Shanghai (not sure why?!) but when it comes to doing the right things they pander to self-serving interest group and lobbies.

Regards
Alok

On 03-Jul-2012, at 12:49 PM, Cornie Huizenga wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> 
> I am a geographer - not an economist :-)
> 
> I see the manner in which Chinese cities approach this as an important
> development in the evolution of urban transport policy. Initially,  the
> general mood was that additional road construction could resolve mobility
> problems – a phase that is now finalizing in many countries in the
> developed and developing world. Following this a new approach has been
> gaining ground where the emphasis has been placed on the expansion of
> public transport infrastructure and services (metro, BRT, busses) combined
> in some cases with improvement of Non-motorized transport. This has now
> become known as the general “sustainable urban transport” thinking and is
> promoted heavily in many cities and countries around the world with
> positive impacts in environment, economy and society.
> 
> 
> However, it is now becoming clear that also this second approach is not
> able to ensure sustainable access to goods and services in rapidly growing
> cities. A good example is that of Mexico City where the benefits of 4 BRT
> corridors and expansion of the metro were negated by an annual increase of
> about 500,000 private vehicles over the last years. In China the same could
> be seen in Beijing.  Based on this one can argue that a third phase is
> required in which the re-orientation towards sustainable transport from the
> second phase is combined with a pro-active Travel Demand Management policy
> under which the number of Kilometers traveled by private cars is limited
> through various economic and other types of instruments, including
> limitations in the registration of the number of new vehicles, congestion
> charging, parking policies and fuel pricing policies among various others.
> 
> 
> Vehicle quota's might be one of the easiest to implement.  Living in
> Shanghai where there has been a vehicle quota in place for the last 15
> years its positive impact on traffic congestion and also for example the
> emissions of GHGs is evident.
> 
> 
> The argument against vehicle quota's, especially those which are auction
> based, often mention that these benefit the rich and discriminate against
> the poor.  Being in a position that I could well afford a car here in
> Shanghai but that I prefer to use public transport or to cycle or walk
> (both subsidized with proceeds of the license plate action) I do not buy
> into that argument.
> 
> 
> So I guess that you will understand that I do not agree with your question
> whether there is a dumber way to get the job done.  You will have to come
> up with more/better arguments to convince me.
> 
> 
> Cornie
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM, eric britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>wrote:
> 
>> Oh dear, is that supposed to be good news?
>> 
>> Economists of course do not love quotas. And while they are certainly not
>> right all the time, there is often good sense in what they have to propose
>> in the many similar circumstances.
>> 
>> But let me ask you all this? Can you possibly tell me a worse way, a more
>> primitive way, a dumber way to get this particular job done? I would very
>> much like to see your list.
>> 
>> And once we have that out of the way, what about making up a list of the
>> many good ways that are available and proven that will get this
>> demand/supply disequilibrium into better balance for the environment,
>> society, the economy and life quality of all concerned.
>> 
>> Now THAT is an interesting question.
>> 
>> Eric Britton
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PS.  Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
>> 
>> _____________________________________________________________
>>  Francis  Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director /  Editor
>>  New Mobility Partnerships   | World Streets  |  The Equity/Transport
>> Project
>>  9, rue Gabillot   69003 Lyon France  |  T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
>> 0787  | E. eric.britton at ecoplan.org   |  S. newmobility
>>  9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA  90210  |   Tel. +1 213 985 3501 |
>> eric.britton at newmobility.org  |  Skype: ericbritton
>> 
>>  Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cornie Huizenga
> Joint Convener
> Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport
> Mobile: +86 13901949332
> cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org
> www.slocat.net
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').