[sustran] Re: The next WBCSD Mobility study: "Some Cognitive Dissonance direct from Third World Cities"

[Todd Litman]

My impression of the report is that it can be considered progress, in that
leading members of the business community acknowledge that there are
significant sustainability problems associated with current transportation,
but it also emphasizes the benefits of mobility and so justifies solutions
that rely primarily on improving vehicle design, and shifting to transit in
urban areas. I suspect that it is intended to deflect calls for more
fundamental changes that would significantly reduce vehicle ownership and use.

The danger with this approach is that it can create a self-fulfilling
prophecy: if planners assume that automobile ownership and use will
increase, and that this is good for consumers and the economy, they help
create automobile-dependent transportation systems and land use patterns.

I would not deny the potential benefits of technological improvements in
vehicle design, but in general such technological innovations only address
one or two problems, and they often exacerbate others. For example,
increasing fuel efficiency (through CAFE standards or feebates) may reduce
energy consumption and some pollution emissions, but by reducing
per-kilometer vehicle costs it tends to increase total vehicle mileage (a
"rebound" effect), which increases congestion, crashes, road and parking
infrastructure costs, urban sprawl, and even some types of pollution
emissions (e.g., road dust). Similarly, many strategies to reduce traffic
congestion result in increased fuel consumption, crash costs, pollution and
sprawl. (For disucssion of this issue see "Efficient Vehicles vs. Efficient
Transportation", a paper I'll be presenting at TRB, which is also available
at http://www.vtip.org.)

Sustainability requires more than simply addressing a few particular
problems such as resource consumption and climate change. It requires
balancing a wide range of economic, social and environmental objectives,
and more integrated transportation planning that prevents solutions to one
problem that exacerbate others. I didn't see much in the report that
recognizes this deeper concept of sustainability (for discussion see
http://www.vtip.org/tdm/tdm67.htm.)

A more fundamental approach to sustainability would significantly change
transportation and land use patterns. In particular, it would involve
reforms to correct existing market distortions that favor automobile
ownership and use (see http://www.vtip.org/tdm/tdm60.htm), and it would
favor transportation improvements that provide multiple benefits, rather
than trying to address one transportation problem at a time (see
http://www.vtip.org/tdm/tdm52.htm). Our research indicates that correcting
such market distortions could significantly reduce total motor vehicle
travel, while making consumers better off overall, and increasing economic
efficiency and development.

A specific concern I have about this report is that it argues that
increased mobility is necessary for economic development. While it may be
true that motorized transportation used for production activities may
increase economic productivity and efficiency, there is little evidence
that consumer expenditures on moiblity increase economic development. On
the contrary, there is considerable evidence that consumer expenditures on
vehicles and fuel, and excessive vehicle use burden an economy and reduce
economic efficiency and development. Automobile dependency can be
particularly harmful to developing countries that import vehicles and fuel.
(For discussion see http://www.vtip.org/tdm/tdm54.htm, and "The Economic
Costs of Automobile Dependency" at http://www.vtip.org.)


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 09:42 AM 11/21/01 -0800, you wrote:
>My reading of the report confirms that it is full of generalities that can
>be argued in any way they wish.  In addition, I am unable to capture the
>main thrust of this report.
>
>I am also not sure as to what the next steps are.
>
>Where can we take this to?  Who are the main proponents of this study in the
>WB or other agencies?  Is this John Flora and company again?  Richard
>Scurfield is back with this group as coordinator for urban transport and
>this could be a good thing.  Richard is accessible and willing to listen.
>
>Best wishes.  setty.
>
>Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
>Professor Emeritus (Planning) & Adjunct Professor,
>University of British Columbia; and
>President
>Pacific Policy and Planning Associates
>1099 Marinaside Crescent--#702
>Vancouver, BC, Canada  V6Z 2Z3
>Phone:1-604-263-3576; Fax:1-604-263-6493
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mobility" <mobility at igc.org>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:36 AM
>Subject: [sustran] Re: The next WBCSD Mobility study: "Some Cognitive
>Dissonance direct from Third World Cities"
>
>
>> thanks, John, Eric, others,
>>
>> for the various comments on the WBCSD report.  So far, very few of the
>comments
>> were actually on the report, but were focused on the 'process'.
>>
>> i take this as an indication that most of you, like me, found the report a
>> pretty dull and muddled read, and difficult to sink one's teeth into.
>>
>> I do think we need to comment on how this document and the process of the
>WBCSD
>> Mobility 21 dialogs around the world fed into this report, and the purpose
>of
>> this report in the broader scheme of things..
>>
>> I doubt the WBCSD is going to go for a process that ceeds control over how
>their
>> donated money will be spent, ie. by reducing their influence on the
>steering
>> committee.  Furthermore, given the numerous other forums, (UN CSD 9,
>Habitat II,
>> Earth Summit, Global Road Safety Initiative, GITE, Shell's forums, Forums
>> discussing the World Bank Urban Transport Policy, etc. etc. etc.) where
>the
>> influence of these corporations is more checked, do we really want to
>suggest
>> big auto and big oil initiate a broader dialog w/ stakeholders on this
>topic,
>> when such stakeholder dialogs have already been held through UN-based
>> institutions, with prescious little effect?
>>
>> Given none of us were able to even read the document through, let alone
>take
>> from it any powerful or compelling message, i think their efforts'
>greatest risk
>> is irrelevance.
>>
>> I think we need to propose something that is appropriate for big auto and
>big
>> oil to do to reform themeselves to prepare for a post-auto and post-oil
>> dominated economy, something that will really make these companies think
>about
>> how to use their massive investment capital in a way that brings about
>this
>> transition, while saving their bacon.
>>
>> They probably should have started with a hard headed analysis of the oil
>and
>> auto markets in the future, and given us some indication of where these
>are
>> really going.  They should have this data inside their corporations, and
>it
>> would have been interesting to know how these companies viewed the future.
>>
>> I'm drafting something to this effect but will look at your further
>thoughts
>> after the Thanksgiving holidays.
>>
>> best
>> Walter Hook
>>
>> > Earlier references here: Walter Hook, Kisan Mehta, John Whitelegg,
>Matthias
>> > Mueth
>> >
>> > Dear Friends,
>> >
>> > Very very interesting.  I think that maybe we should put our heads
>together
>> > and see if we might offer these kind folks (the WBSC) not just a report
>on
>> > this or that, but rather get off and running with another, altogether
>> > different PROCESS.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>

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