[sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam

[Karl Fjellstrom]

Dear all,

I don’t know the stats on this and I've never studied it in any detail, but
would like to query some of the observations made below...:
- in my view motorcycles in Southease Asia are not an 'altnernative' to
car-based systems but rather a uniquely SE Asian precursor. They are in this
sense at best a temporary alternative to car based systems, not a real,
'viable alternative' as suggested below. People are 'graduating' to cars as
incomes rise. You can see this clearly in cities like Bangkok where incomes
are higher and there is a transition from mcs to cars.
- motorcycles are in many senses the natural enemies of public transport.
It's no coincidence that Denpasar & Ho Chi Minh have less than 5% mode share
of motorised trips by bus. This in itself is fine and is probably highly
efficient as explained below, as an average m/c trip is in the order of 10
times cheaper than a public transport trip. But what about the future? A
generation is growing up using personal motor vehicles.
- Does anyone have figures? My anecdotal observations suggest bicycles are
being literally shoved aside by motorcycles in Vietnamese cities, at an
alarming rate. I was in HCM for a week and personally witnessed 3 crashes
where cyclists had been sideswiped by mcs, and fell. The statement that high
nos. of mc's 'co-exist quite well' with high nos of bicycles certainly
doesn't match my observations in HCM. The fact that both are present doesn't
mean they are necessarily co-existing well. What are the trends?
- Likewise for pedestrians, there are mcs parked all over the walkways and
pedestrians often have to walk in the street as a result.

As to the statement that a total ban is 'ridiculous' (below)... I agree that
on traffic management grounds it would be untenable. But like it or not some
cities are doing it. Guangzhou - which has 1.5 million mcs constituting 20%
fo trips in 2002 - is seriously planning a city-wide ban (extending to the 8
urban districts of 1,400 sq km) on motorcycles and has already banned mcs
from the Ersha Island area. For more than a year now they have not been
registering any new motorcycles. One of the main concerns they cited there
is what they considered to be the relatively high association of mcs with
crime.

regards, Karl Fjellstrom


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Craig August Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 12:28 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Cc: a3b14 at yahoogroups.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam

In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples of
how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based urban
transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle usage
(60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the
streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well
with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has
contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different
than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there
are a greater number of collisions between motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles,
but these collisions are usually not fatal, and are rarely treated as
accidents. Most of the road fatalities in Vietnam happen on highways and not
in the cities.

Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative
impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as
sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from inadequate
public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities for the
following reasons:

1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine
motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per
gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are many
viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions.

2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are
incredibly dense,   thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still
relatively uncongested given the high density.

3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the
surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment like
in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not lost by
the increase in motorbikes.

4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable form
of individual motorized transportation.  In Vietnam, the price of a car is
15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of around 300
motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many industrialized European
countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands.
Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as
personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite
affordable.

5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is
less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This
compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is
.98km per 1000 residents.

Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great
speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road
infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure with
funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is now
occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic
fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than
motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more
detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes.


Craig Johnson

Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study in
Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer



>
> I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive 
> motorcyclists in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street 
> racers without proper mufflers. I also agree that most current 
> motorcycles pollute too much, as they don't use the latest technology.
>
> However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, 
> they need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity.
> Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest 
> autos, unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. 
> Third, small motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing 
> countries in large numbers. And the people riding them are not in the 
> same income class as those who own the cars.
>
> But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles 
> on the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets 
> look at why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are 
> increasingly far away. Yet these countries have substandard public 
> transportation, as governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto
facilities instead.
> What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle?
> Blame
> a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies.
>
> The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather 
> have merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on 
> space-conserving, low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving 
> smaller motorcycles, or in cars and trucks?  Motorcycles can have 
> their place if public policy is sensible. To the extent they displace 
> pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, motorcycles will be bad. To the 
> extent they displace autos and trucks, they will be good.
>
> We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick 
> propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace 
> cars on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is 
> displace pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity,  
> electricity consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be 
> put in role where they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will 
> support them.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K. Tsourlakis" <ktsourl at mailbox.gr>
> To: <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury 
> Prevention
>
>
>>
>> At 05:59 ðì 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>>
>> >.....................................
>> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had
>> >a considered discussion on road safety.   It would seem to me that
>> >road traffic injuries are correlated with  the increase in high 
>> >speed road networks and increased motorisation.  The 'vulnerable 
>> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps 
>> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but 
>> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and 
>> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor 
>> >people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention 
>> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed 
>> >motorisation?
>> >.....................................
>>
>>
>> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up
> motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised 
> transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And 
> motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially 
> benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always 
> as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or 
> even more
> -
> motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have 
> certainly their share too.
>>
>> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones 
>> pollute
> indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and 
> their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and 
> are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a 
> large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, 
> visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc).
>>
>> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought 
>> about
> many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list 
> like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an 
> ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely 
> populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or 
> under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. 
> But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined 
> with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) 
> for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of 
> motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of 
> the problems they present?
>>
>> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to 
>> the
> oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public 
> spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may 
> take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the 
> deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of 
> privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus 
> lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated 
> to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of
> cars)
> while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and 
> politically
> influential) part of the population and contribute according to 
> studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are 
> similar "horror stories"
> about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______
> _________
>> http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
>> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro 
>> êáé
> äþñï ôï domain óáò!
>
>