[sustran] Fw: [sustran] initial reaction to WBCSD Mobility 2001 study

[kisan mehta]

----- Original Message -----
From: kisan mehta <kisansbc at vsnl.com>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>; <mobility at igc.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7.00AM
Sub: [sustran] initial reaction to WBCSD Mobility 2001 study


> Dear Walter, Paul and Sustran Colleagues,
>
> We received Walters' note on reaction to WBCSD
> Mobility 2001 study sometime. Walter, thank you. Am
> rushing off whatever I could before your due day.
>
> The WBCSD, as can safely be presumed, would
> initiate studies that show bright future for personal
> cars. The WBCSD is supported by world's large car manufacturers.  It is
> natural that they will all like to
> use experience in the US to promote motorisation.
>
> The IMF-World Bank have suggested to the authorities
to develop infrastructure to reach out to the remotest
corners of India.  The Government of India worked out
a plan for linking metro cities of India to meet
the IMF/WB grandiose suggestion.  Cost estimate
came to mindboggling Rs 250000 crores (100 crore
make 1 billion), practically double the national annual
budget.   Can this country think of such a programme
when so many more urgent development projects are
stalled for paucity of funds?  It is a blessing in
disquise that the US has prohibited multilateral
agencies from extending assistance to India and
Pakistan so avenues for ready money are blocked.
Pre Bush has started pouring money in Pakistan to kill
Bin Laden but not to India.  Fortunate for India.
>
> In the meantime, the Federal (we say Central or Union)
Govt has asked state governments to take up sector
roads on their own.  All states have announced
plans for sector expressways where even motorable
road did not exist. Maharashtra, of which Mumbai is the
capital, embarked on constructing flyovers and elevated
roads, cutting down pavements to widen carriageways spending a lot of money.
The result is that no money is
left for pursuing education and health programmes,
and for paying staff salaries.
>
> Global car manufacturers all rushed to India to take
advantage of car demand and set up assemby plants
following globalisation.  Now these mfrrs find it
difficult to dispose off their monthly production.
Production is being cut down. 100% loans with zero
or marginal interest are being offered by all mfrrs
fighting for survival.  Roads even after flyovers are
totally jammed up yet many aspire to become car
owners of one or more cars.  No loan available for
buying  a cycle or starting a small business. Prices
for gasoline too are kept below cost through
regulated pricing. Petroleum product users are
insulated against rising oil prices.  Despite this,
no ready buyers for cars.
>
> Such situation prevails in other developing countries.
For car mfrrs, developing countries only give hope to
maintain their level of business. The govt and finance
institutions have done their best to promote car market.
In countries, having 40% of their population living
`below poverty level' what is the likelihood of unlimited
market for cars?  We are still not talking of damage to
the environment.  Reliable figures are hard to find but
auto emissions exceed the pocket book figure of 60%.
>
> This study will not dare to record the stark reality as
the clients did not pay for getting an adverse report. If
car mfrrs are hoping that demand artificiallly created
by government, multilateral agencies, local financial
institutions in the developing countries will sustain their
high level manfacturing programmes, they are hoping
against hope.   Mumbai probably the most motorised
city in India still less than one million use car while road
and railway service provide 10 million journeys daily.
>
> In India, state and municipal transport services provide
bulk journeys. Practically no Indian city has privately
owned bus service.  Muncipalised bus service operates
in Mumbai providing about 4.5 million journeys a day.
Private intercity buses exist but very few compared to
public buses. Railways carry more passengers intercity.
Cargo is carried by railways and private trucks, private
truck accounting for about 45%. So it is not correct to
say that public road transport is non-existent. A
situation where personal car will be the major mode
of transport can never come as staving death
from starvation is prime consideration for citizens.
That oil is the first priority higher than food is
certainly not correct.
>
> Car provides freedom of movement is a myth in
crowded developing countries and cities.  With an
average density of 27,000 persons per sq km, what
does this freedom mean to car owners? If parking
was charged on Mumbai roads, number of cars
would go down drastically. The authorities do not
charge car owners for use of roads though bus
commuters have to pay about 15% of their fare
to the government.  This cross subsidy by
non-owners supports car owners but how
long can this stark paradox continue?
>
> I dwelt on critical aspects at length to help you
develop the proper response.  What one notices in
Mumbai prevails in all developing countries. They
cannot build expressways or even simple roads to
contain increasing number of vehicles.  Increase in
number of road accidents resulting in fatalities and
injuries to pedestrians is not taken into account by
the government and car mfrrs.  Mumbai has the
highest number of road accident rate in the world.
>
> You indicated that the allocation of 10 million $
is not exhausted.  We can personally help the
WBCSD to obtain the realistic picture.  Sustran
should offer to carry out an objective report for
the guidance of its members. Do contact me
for any info or clarification. Best wishes.
>
> Kisan Mehta  kisansbc at vsnl.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mobility <mobility at igc.org>
> To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 3:41 AM
> Sub: [sustran] initial reaction to WBCSD Mobility 2001 study
>
>
> > Our Ten Cents on a Ten Million Dollar Study
> >
> > The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has just
> released a new $10 million study called Mobility 2001, that was written
> under their supervision by
> MIT and Charles River Associates.  It is available online at
> www.wbcsdmobility.org.   ITDP will draft comments on the study.  Your
input
> is welcome.  Please send comments to
> > mobility at igc.org
> >
> > The auto and oil industries had two conflicting aims with this study:
> > 1)  assessing whether or not they have a future, 2) subtly promoting
> > their agenda in the face of mounting criticism.   The study doesn't
> > entirely succeed on either of these counts.  It extols the automobile,
> > while recognizing the problems that its growing use causes.  It suffers
> > from a tendency to generalize from US experience to developing
> > countries, which would no doubt be better off deciding for themselves
> > whether a future of automobile dependency in the face of rapidly
> > shrinking oil supplies is a good idea.
> >
> > Initial Reaction to Mobility 2001 by the WBCSD
> >
> > The study is largely descriptive, rather than prescriptive,
> and much of this description is reasonably accurate.  Its overview of
> pollution trends, traffic trends are reasonable.  However, it frequently
> suffers from over-generalizing
> trends from the US.
> >
> > Comments like "conventional public transport systems are best at serving
> high levels of travel demand...areas that typically meet these criteria
> include the urban core and the high density corridors between the core and
> the suburbs," were written with the US in mind.  "Public transport" in
> developing countries is almost non-existent, being all but replaced
> by paratransit and private bus transport, and these services make a profit
> even in distant peripheral areas.
> >
> > It characterizes the problem of urban sprawl, for example,
> as a direct result of growing private motor vehicle use, whereas in
> developing countries most people living in
> sprawling settlements do not own cars and are pushed to
> the periphery by a low income housing crisis.
> >
> > Much time is spent extolling the alleged freedom of private motor
> vehicles: "Privately owned motor vehicles are typically the most flexible
> means of providing mobility."   Sitting in a traffic jam and searching for
a
> parking space seems far less flexible to many of us than walking or biking
> to a busway or subway, then walking somewhere else, without having to
> worry about parking, refueling, maintaining the vehicle, theft,
> or crashing the vehicle.   A flexible system is one where
> people have many choices about how to make a trip, not a system of
> automobile dependence.
> >
> > The authors claim that developing country cities "house
> and transport too many people, on insufficient numbers of poorly
maintained
> roads and rails, and generally lack the money and institutional vigor to
fix
> the problem."  There
> exists, unfortunately, no accepted mechanism for
> determining the 'sufficiency' of a road network, nor an appropriate urban
> density.  Japan has managed to
> produce higher levels of per capita GNP than the US,
> with a fraction of the level of road infrastructure.
> > Many developing country cities, like Curitiba and Bogota, have done a
far
> better job than Houston or Los Angeles in fixing transport sector
problems.
> >
> > Even in the first world, the report claims that "highway infrastructure
> needs to be increased," though it admits
> "it is not possible to build our way out of congestion."
> To much of the world, it looks like the US has enough
> roads.  Should the rest of the world pay, with flooded
> coastlines, for the luxury of US drivers to continue to
> generate greenhouse gases?
> >
> > The report says that 96% of transportation relies on
> oil forgeting that in Africa 70% of  freight is moved by headloading, and
in
> countries like India and China a
> majority of trips continue to be made by non-motorized
> means.  Oil is clearly the number one fuel.  Perhaps
> food is the second most important fuel, but it is not
> mentioned.
> >
> > Given that large oil companies funded the study,
> one would expect a thorough review of the risks and
> ramifications of the world's limited fuel reserves.  In
> fact the analysis is limited to quotes from the
> International Energy Agency and the US Department of
> Energy that global fuel consumption will double in 25-28
> years, and that a transition to non-oil energy sources
> will be necessary beginning in the next 20-50 years,
> with oil prices estimated to rise only marginally (from a
> current price around $22 to around $25 a barrel) by
> 2020.  This is a great deal of uncertainty given that
> whole economies can be made or broken by fuel
> price volatility.
> >
>
>