[sustran] Re: Reducing number of cars on the road

[Todd Litman]

I realize that it may seem that using pricing to limit automobile use is
inequitable, because "the rich will drive and the poor will be forced onto
transit/walking/cycling/ridesharing, etc.). But this is not true, for the
following reasons:

* Overall equity impacts depend entirely on what is done with the revenue.
If congestion pricing, vehicle fees, increased fuel taxes or mileage fees
are used to reduce existing regressive taxes, fund services used by
lower-income people (such as pedestrian and cycling improvements, public
transit, health care, education, etc.), or returned as some sort of per
captia rebate, it can be overall progressive with respect to income. For
discussion see "Using Road Pricing Revenue; Efficiency and Equity
Considerations" at http://www.vtpi.org.

* Pricing can be structured to be progressive. For example, congestion
tolling can include giving each resident or car owner a certain number of
free peak-period trips. To drive during peak periods more frequently
motorists would need to purchase these from others or pay a toll.
Similarly, per-kilometer fees can increase, so they are low for the first
few thousand kilometers a vehicle is driven each year, and increase for
more kilometers. 

* One of the greatest inequities of increasing automobile dependency is the
reduction in the quantity and quality of other modes (i.e., buses are also
stuck in traffic, and demand for transit declines, resulting in reduced
service). Congestion fees, parking pricing and road pricing can avoid the
congestion which makes every road user worse off (including bus passengers)
and provide an incentive for middle-class car owners to continue using
public transit, therefore maintaining quality of service.


I believe that it is very important that people interested in reducing
automobile depenceny support pricing instruments, despite the appearance of
"inequity." This is simply wrong, and other TDM strategies cannot be
effective without significant pricing reform. Our discussion should focus
on how to make such pricing equitable and efficient.


Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org




At 10:10 AM 03/29/2000 +0900, Mohsin J. Sarker wrote:
>Personally I do not like such TDM measures to reduce automobile use which
>causes social inequality. Congestion pricing, road pricing, higher gasoline
>tax may reduce automobile use, but will cause social inequality. In the
>above sentence, I used the word 'may', because in high income country, if
>everybody is able to pay the money of such pricing, then such TDM measures
>will not be effective. In developing countries or in the countries where
>both high and low income people live, such TDM measures will cause social
>inequality by facilitating high income people to use automobile more & more
>conveniently by forcing low income people to choose alternative transport
>modes. I think, we should look for such TDM measures which will not cause
>social inequality. About one of them I discussed in above paragraph. Other
>may restricting odd & even number vehicle, but there are lot of arguments on
>it.
>
>So, do you know any other TDM measures which will not cause social
>inequality but will reduce automobile use? Lets have a discussion on this
>point.
>
>Mohsin J. Sarker
>Ph,D, Candidate
>Regional Planning
>Department of Civil Engineering
>Utsunomiya University
>7-1-2 Yoto, Utsunomiya, Japan 321-8585
>Tel : +81-28-689-6223
>Fax: +81-28-689-6230
>Email: t9802 at cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ashish Verma (99404003)" <rsashu at civil.iitb.ernet.in>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:55 PM
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Reducing number of cars on the road
>
>
>>
>> Promoting public transport is a very effective means of reducing the no.
>> of cars coming on to road. Besides this, some other measures could be-
>> 1. Levying heavy car parking charges & car entry restrictions esp. in CBD
>> area in order to discourage the use of car.
>> 2. Promoting communication & information technology(internet, mobile phone
>> etc.) so that the total no. of person trips can be reduced, thus reducing
>> the car usage.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Ashish Verma
>> IIT Bombay
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>>
>> > The goal of reducing the number of cars is undoubtedly very positive,
>but
>> > India has a poor record of enforcement of any kind of regulation. As any
>> > visitor to India/citizen knows, regulation is only a route to bribery :
>> > driving licences,  registration of vehicles, insurance claims, pollution
>> > checks.
>> > Such a ban is only likely to benefit corrupt policemen and transport
>staff.
>> > Todd's alternatives in TDM appear far more appealing.  Increasing supply
>of
>> > public transport (which in any case is a pre-requisite for such a ban)
>and
>> > taxing private automobile use would be both socially and politically
>> > acceptable.
>> > More traffic is generated in India because of the failure of public
>> > transport to meet the need for greater mobility in a country which has a
>> > growing economy in the post-liberalisation phase.
>> > There is also little emphasis even from NGOs to integrate rail and bus,
>> > which would provide a total solution.
>> >
>> >
>> > G.Ananthakrishnan, Chennai-based journalist can be reached at Tel: + 91
>44
>> > 8413942 , Fax: + 91 44 8415395.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org