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

[eric britton]

Thanks Cornie (see below), but I suspect we are moving away from my intended point, specifically my less than immediate enthusiastic  support of the concept of a lottery based quota system for car ownership.

 

When it comes to cities one of the things we have learned over the last years is that what is most important about cars is not their ownership but how they are used. 

 

Once we have understood this fundamental strategic principle we immediately get into far more interesting and potential more effective territory, far more along the lines that Sujit is suggesting with his call for strong integrated TDM strategies, as opposed to specifically car ownership quotas.  Also the points made by others concerning realizing the full potential of policies and measures that constitute our 2012 cities toolkit such as road pricing, fuel taxes, improved parking management, HOV priorities, better land use planning and policy, and of course significant investments and coherent planning and integration of the 'Environmental Big Three' (PT, Bike, Walk) and yet more are of course the real keys to success of our improved policy -- these are the sorts of things to which all cities and governments should be giving their fullest attention.

 

Those of us who have slogging away at all this for so long and in so many different city, country and behavioral contexts, have long come to the conclusion that neither the really-should-be-dead Paradigm I (all those cars and mindless road building) nor the very much wheezing Paradigm II (all those expensive metros and busses stuck in traffic) have done the trick, and that it is now well time  to give way to Paradigm III which you, I and others have extensively described over the last decade or more and which you summarize pretty well in one sentence.  We call this the New Mobility Agenda and virtually all of our work for the last fifteen years has been precisely along these lines. 

 

You say that "Vehicle quotas might be one of the easiest to implement" and then go on to cite the example of Shanghai. and Singapore. Hmm. From this end I am not sure that a simple statement of personal views is quite enough.  At the very least it is my hope that our professional community will not just play good puppy roll over on this quotas business.  All I am asking is that these events, instead of being joyously announced as the stuff of the long awaited transition, should be subject to critical independent examination.  And when Alok  tells us that  "It is always easy to reverse this process" (???), my experience is that once dug into the law, backing off on bad policies  is not so easy as all that.

 

And now, dear friends,  I would like to sign off of this one.  The exchange has been energetic, varied and interesting. And that is what I had in mind the first place when I whipped off that brief note yesterday morning. I did not expect, as you may well imagine, to convince any of you of my highly reserved opinion  on, specifically, the wisdom of a "lottery based quota system" but rather to encourage critical thinking and exchange among our community of excellence.  Thanks for lending me your brains.

 

Kind regards, 

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. In your note just in this morning Cornie, you ask of me two challenging  questions. Excellent, but we are getting into deep water here and it is not the stuff of a quick off the cuff, on the run email exchange. Your questions are perfectly germane and worthy of careful response. But I am going to have to try to do this with you via Skype, faute de mieux. That's newmobility. You'll see me on line today -- even though it is the 4th of July, the 236th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the wise words of Thomas Jefferson which I leave you with today: 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. . . 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------

 

 

On Behalf Of Cornie Huizenga  Sent: Tuesday, 03 July, 2012 09:20  To: eric britton  Cc: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport



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

-------------------------