[sustran] Re: Are private cars the ideal transport?

[Todd Alexander Litman]

While it may be obvious to some of us that current transport planning 
results in "excessive" automobile travel, justifying policy reforms 
to reduce per capita vehicle travel, encourage shifts to more 
resource efficient modes, and encourage more accessible and 
multi-modal land use patterns, I don't think this concept is 
universally accepted. In fact, the idea that society is better off 
with less mobility seems counterintuitive to many people - they see 
it as a burden, an example of large, short-term economic sacrifices 
made for the sake of uncertain, long-term future environmental 
benefits. Even a lot of experts, such as energy policy analysts, 
assume that any reduction in vehicle travel is harmful to consumers 
and businesses. I think it is very useful to be able to show that 
there are also strong economic justifications for policy and planning 
reforms that reduce motor vehicle travel.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman

At 12:23 PM 9/7/2008, Jonathan Richmond wrote:

>My reaction to the original posting was "so what?"
>
>I have a similar reaction again now.
>
>The issue is not one primarily of economic analysis, but of 
>political and institutional constraints on many levels -- from 
>ineffective bureaucracies to political machinery that puts a lot of 
>weight on pleasing the motorist lobby.
>
>We could of course repeat the whole discussion about why people do 
>in fact obtain extraordinary value from automobility and ask why 
>public transport has not been developed to offer those sorts of 
>benefits, but I don't think that is the point here.
>
>The point is that if the current situation is to change then 
>political and institutional structures have to change, and 
>discussion should revolve increasingly around how to bring that about.
>
>                                                    --Jonathan!
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Todd Alexander Litman wrote:
>
>>
>>For more detailed analysis of the full costs of
>>different forms of transport, and the benefits of
>>shifts from automobile to alternative modes, see
>>the report "Transportation Cost and Benefit
>>Analysis" (www.vtpi.org/tca ). Under urban-peak
>>conditions, automobile use is particularly costly
>>while other modes are relatively efficient. By
>>the way, this report is currently being updated,
>>so a new version should be posted in about a month.
>>
>>Unfortunately, current transportation markets are
>>distorted in various ways that favor mobility
>>over accessibility and automobile transport over
>>other modes, resulting in economically excessive
>>automobile travel, a less diverse and efficient
>>transportation system, and more sprawl than is
>>optimal. Described more positively, there are
>>many potential economic, social and environmental
>>benefits to market and planning reforms that
>>encourage more efficient transportation. This is
>>discussed in my paper, "Socially Optimal
>>Transport Prices and Markets"
>>(www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ). My analysis indicates
>>that in a more efficient market, consumers would
>>choose to own fewer cars, drive 30-50%
>>less,  rely more on alternative modes, and be
>>better off overall as a result. This is certainly
>>true of developed countries, and is probably
>>equally true in developing countries.
>>
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>-Todd Litman
>>
>>At 01:00 AM 9/7/2008, Saiful Alam wrote:
>>>
>>>Are private cars the ideal transport?
>>>
>>>Let us return to the private car.  Whatever
>>>convenience and comfort it provides comes at
>>>various costs.  Cars are the main source of
>>>pollutants worldwide.  There is no such thing as
>>>a clean car; cars just vary in the amount they
>>>pollute.  Despite increasingly stringent
>>>emissions control standards over the decades in
>>>the US, cars pollute more than they used
>>>to?because people are driving farther.
>>>
>>>It is difficult for us to appreciate just how
>>>much cars pollute.  The air in Dhaka City, after
>>>all, improved dramatically after the banning of
>>>two-stroke baby taxis, and again with the
>>>introduction of unleaded fuel.  However, this is
>>>by no means an indication that the air in Dhaka
>>>is clean.  Any trip to the countryside is a
>>>reminder of the pleasure of breathing clean
>>>air.  Even in Dhaka, if we wake up early and
>>>take a walk, we can experience a bit of the
>>>pleasure of fresh air; as each car passes, we
>>>can also understand just how much each car
>>>pollutes the air.  As the streets fill with
>>>cars, the pollution rises.  On hartal days,
>>>despite large numbers of people moving about the
>>>city, the air is fresh and the city (violence
>>>aside) is quiet.  Cars?and the wide paved roads
>>>needed to accommodate them?also emit a great
>>>deal of heat, making Dhaka even more insufferable in the many hot months.
>>>
>>>Cars also are the main cause of noise
>>>pollution.  A full 97% of students in Dhaka in a
>>>survey on noise pollution said that their
>>>studying is disrupted by car horns; 96% of the
>>>general public interviewed mentioned car horns
>>>as the main cause of noise pollution in
>>>Dhaka.[1]  When rickshaws were on strike in
>>>October 2004, there were no rickshaws on the
>>>streets, yet the streets were as noisy as ever.
>>>
>>>We would argue that since cars only transport
>>>roughly 10-20% of travelers, they should only
>>>have access to 10-20% of road space, for moving
>>>and parking?and should respect the rest of
>>>users, as well as the right to some peace and
>>>quiet of all the people working and living next to roads.
>>>  Presumably one component of civilization is
>>>respecting the rights of others.  The attitude
>>>of drivers?who represent the wealthiest portion
>>>of society?that they alone should have full
>>>access to roads?is anti-democratic,
>>>anti-civilization, and disturbingly elitist.  A
>>>society in which people fail to respect the
>>>rights of others, and in which the rich believe
>>>they should have special privileges on the
>>>roads as well as in every other aspect of life,
>>>is a society destined to fall into crime,
>>>selfishness, viciousness, and lack of the
>>>neighborly friendliness that allows people to live comfortably together
>>>
>>>Syed Siful Alam Shovan
>>>shovan1209 at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Todd Alexander Litman
>>Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
>>litman at vtpi.org
>>Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
>>1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
>>?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS.
>>
>>Please go to 
>>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the 
>>real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The 
>>yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot 
>>post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site 
>>makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>>countries (the 'Global South').
>
>-----
>Jonathan Richmond
>Transport Adviser to the Government of Mauritius
>Ministry of Public Infrastructure, Land Transport and Shipping
>New Government Centre, Level 4
>Port Louis
>Mauritius
>
>+230 707-1134 (Mauritius mobile: most reliable way to reach me)
>
>+1 (617) 395-4360 (US phone number rings at home -- call me in
>Mauritius for the price of a call to the US).
>
>e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
>http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"