Transport, Environment, Economics and Health:
Promoting an All-Win Situation
Syed Shamsul Alam
While economic gains may be sufficient in themselves¡ªassuming a
reasonably fair distribution of those gains¡ªto improve conditions
in
health and education, the opposite tends to happen with transport.
Market economies support transport investments and infrastructure
that actually lead to worsening traffic conditions, and richer
cities
tend to suffer from worse transport problems¡ªincluding more traffic
congestion, more pollution, and more injuries and deaths from road
crashes¡ªthan poorer cities.
As incomes increase, if the government does not intervene, then car
use will increase. In the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, the
governments quickly realized that a drastic increase in car use in
proportion to rising incomes would lead to an impossible situation
on
the streets, and thus instituted strict measures for car control,
such as mandating that car owners first buy parking spaces, or
charging very high fees for licenses. Where governments have not
taken such proactive steps¡ªor where such steps are taken and then
loosened under pressure of car manufacturers and others¡ªthe traffic
situation will invariably decline as incomes rise.
While we often hear of the subsidies given by government for mass
transport, few talk of the subsidies governments give for cars. Yet
such subsidies play an important role in increasing car ownership,
and can represent vast sums of money being spent providing free
parking, road space, and other infrastructure (such as elevated
expressways) for cars, or on fuel subsidies largely used by car
owners. Meanwhile, the increase in cars and government moves to
increase road space for them¡ªoften by limiting or banning other
transport¡ªresult in a decrease in fuel©\free transport (mostly
walking, cycling, and cycle rickshaws), due to danger, lack of road
space, and the unpleasantness of trying to use such modes adjacent
to
noisy and polluting motorized vehicles.
The "free" market thus fails us by resulting in more fuel-dependent
transport (FDT), with serious consequences for the environment and
health. (Of course if the market were really "free", there would not
be huge subsidies for cars, and car owners would be expected to pay
in real terms for the damage they cause, so that a very different
picture would likely result.) Damage to the environment of fuel-
dependent (motorized) transport includes air and noise pollution,
space used for roads and parking that could have been green space
(for agriculture, parks, and nature), and contribution to climate
change. Damage to health includes rising rates of respiratory and
other disease from pollution; injuries and deaths from road crashes;
lack of physical activity caused both by more time spent in cars,
and
the inability to walk or cycle due to the presence of so many cars;
increases in obesity due to lack of physical activity; and the
reduced possibility of interacting with neighbors, or of children
and
youth enjoying outdoor recreation, due to the conversion of open
spaces to parking and the danger from so many fuel-dependent
vehicles.
Other problems caused by fuel-dependent transport include economics,
poverty, and insecurity. For example, the average American spends
$6,000/year for car costs, or 20% of gross earnings for the
ʺprivilege& #698; of owning a car. Given that one main reason
to own a car
is to drive to work¡ªso that one can then pay for one's car¡ªthe
futility and wastefulness of the current system is obvious. People
become further impoverished due to high expenses on transport, which
can represent a significant portion of monthly income. For instance,
traveling by bicycle is essentially free, whereas bus fares can
prove
very costly to the low©\income. Those whose income is dependent on
fuel©\
free transport are also affected by bans on their livelihood,
including rickshaw and van pullers and handcart peddlers. Finally,
global insecurity is increased due to dependence on foreign oil and
the wars that result as countries fight for control over existing
oil
supplies.
Shifting from the "free" market focus, with its emphasis on further
enriching wealthy corporations, to a focus on transport for
development, would lead to significant changes and gains¡ªnot only
for
the poor, but for everyone. Namely, such a focus would emphasize the
need for more fuel-free transport (FFT). FFT has many benefits,
including the facts that it is inexpensive, does not cause air or
noise pollution, generates employment, provides convenient exercise
(allowing people to incorporate physical activity into their daily
routine, rather than having to make extra time and spend extra money
on it), and increases equity by giving people of different income
equal rights on the street (or prioritizing the poor over the rich,
which would make a small contribution towards balancing the great
inequalities favoring the rich).
In working to achieve change in the transport©\health© \environment©
\
economics equation, our overall goal is to create people©\friendly
cities. Given the significant role transport can play in increasing
or decreasing quality of life in a city, transport must play a
significant role in making cities more livable. Needed changes
include an increase in fuel©\free transport (walking, cycling, cycle
rickshaws), an increase in public transport, a decrease in car use
(brought about by high parking fees reflecting actual land values,
license controls, and car©\free areas), and encouragement of high-
density, mixed©\use areas, which in turn would lead to a reduction
in
traffic demand as access is emphasized over mobility.
Of course bringing about changes in transport, affected as such
changes are by economics and politics, is by no means easy.
Significant opposition arises from a number of sources, for rather
obvious reasons; such opponents include those manufacturing and
selling cars, road and highway construction companies, media
(consider the role of car advertisement in electronic and print
media), much of government, and some international agencies.
While there is no one set of working methods guaranteed to bring
success, a mix of approaches modified for one's own political
environment is likely to include at least some of the following:
signature campaigns, letter writing (to newspapers and
policymakers) ,
meetings with journalists and other ways of giving journalists
information, research and publications, meetings and other
communication with government officials, seminars, press
conferences,
and demonstrations.
Local, regional, and international alliances can also help support
the work. Such alliances can include local NGOs working on the
issues
of environment, rights of the poor, and public health; a regional
network with HealthBridge partners; and international support from
such networks or groups as the World Carfree Network (WCN) and
possibly the Institute for Transportation & Development Policies
(ITDP).
While success is difficult in this area, it is by no means
impossible. For instance, successes in Bangladesh included a major
slowing of rickshaw bans, and an expressed reversal of World Bank
policy in Dhaka regarding those bans. In the words of World Bank
Country Director, Christine Wallich: "Any future support from the
World Bank would be possible only if it can be demonstrated that
aggregate positive impacts of NMT©\free conversion on transport
users
and transport providers outweigh the aggregate negative impact."
Other countries within the
HealthBridge network and beyond have also experienced significant
successes.
There is much to learn from the work, and while the difficulty is
great, there is still much cause for optimism. Significant lessons
include the obvious¡ªthat accepting that defeat is inevitable
guarantees defeat. That is, if we believe before we start that we
will fail, and thus don't even try, we will indeed fail. Only by
trying do we at least have the possibility of success¡ªa possibility
that can, surprisingly, materialize at times! After all, as we have
also learned, policies serving only a powerful elite will,
necessarily, have limited appeal among the masses. While the rich
have access to resources that may seem overwhelming, there is
tremendous power in public opinion. Therefore, supporting the masses
can succeed¡ªif, of course, the work is done wisely.
In sum, we need to work together to guarantee a major role for fuel©\
free transport (and to reduce transport needs overall by emphasizing
proximity over mobility), and to reduce fuel©\dependent transport.
By
reducing car use, we can create an all©\win situation, in which even
car users benefit. How? By supporting jobs and inexpensive transport
for the poor; by decreasing pollution, congestion, and noise; by
increasing levels of physical activity and thus improving health; by
increasing access to convenient transport for all groups, and by
increasing availability of and access to safe outdoor play spaces
for
children. The result of all these measures is friendlier, people©\
focused cities¡ªcities in which all inhabitants will gain
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noakhaliweb/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noakhaliweb/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:noakhaliweb-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:noakhaliweb-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
noakhaliweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/