US, EU, India and Public Transport

The title is funny... But yes, the difference in availability of public transport in the two places has a lot to say about the cultural differences there. I believe that this should be an interesting read.

Except in NY, there is almost no concept of public transport in the US. You walk to your office, and you are the only one walking. To go by bus means that you need to time your arrival at the bus stop precisely, or end up waiting for an hour. Mass Rapid Transport Systems are 'almost' non-existent.

There is a clear intent to make people use private means of transport. It seems very clear that this is done under the influence of automobile industry. People need private means of transport - so, they will purchase cars (profits to automobile makers). Since public transport is almost non-existent, more cars will ply on roads. This means more roads will need to be constructed (profits for infrastructure contractors). If the roads were not widened, traffic congestion would motivate people to go for small cars, but continuous intent of profits for contractor mafia motivates regular widening of expressways. As roads widen, people have no motivation to go for smaller vehicles - instead, due to high speeds enabled by wide roads, they prefer SUVs. This means, there are more fuel-guzzling machines. So, the oil dealers stand to profit through all this.

And Oil, was we all know, is a weakness of the US state. They went on a rampage in destroying countries after countries just to gain control over their oil-fields.

However, I was not supposed to harp on this industry-government nexus against the poor here. My idea was to in-fact tell that motivation of wider roads in western countries may not necessarily have been public benefit. Yes, good roads enable good communication links and therefore are important for economic growth, but India should adopt a model that is more suited to Indian needs.

And before I digress to the trans-Atlantic developed countries, I want to appreciate the extreme care with which pedestrian walkways are still maintained across different cities and rural areas in the US. These are critical to allow access to the differently abled. And they also in some sense promote healthy life-style of walking and jogging.

But before discussing further, let us discuss what happens in Europe. The expressways are absolutely great. They are wide. They do an excellent job of connecting different cities together. However, urban roads are narrow. They were not designed to be narrow. When they were designed, in those days, these were wide enough. Today, they can carry upto 1 car in each direction and many don't have curb-parking allowed along them.

The governments in Europe, however, did not eat up the pedestrian ways. They regulated traffic flow on these roads. Only one-way traffic is allowed on many streets. European governments did not spend on widening roads OR promoting private ownership of vehicles. European governments built public modes of transport. Almost every big city in Europe has a good public transport network - be it buses, rail, tram or any other MRTS.

Why did they do this? Why did they also not go the US way - and just widened the roads further? Why did they not eat away the pedestrian ways? What did they have to gain? Why did they invest heavily in public transport? What has been the impact of such decisions? Does the more social nature of European societies has something to do with this?

I will attempt to answer these questions in the Indian context and it will be easy to see the prudence in the way European countries managed their traffic flow.

There is no denying the fact that India needs better road infrastructure. What we should not forget is that India - at least Indian cities - can live without further widening of roads (if Europe can manage it well). What Indian cities most urgently need is a better public transport infrastructure. So, while highway construction and improvement is needed to connect rural areas across India - to provide better services and opportunities, the focus in urban areas should clearly be public transport infrastructure.

India would stand to gain enormously if it sets its priorities right in the public transport sector.

1. Public transport will result in lesser fuel consumption. Fuel consumed per rider is far less when people travel by bus, than when they use a private vehicle (car). Considering fuel efficiency of a small Indian car as 15km/litre of petrol, and that of a bus as 3.5km/kg of CNG (or 3.5km/lt of diesel) (source - Red Herring Prospectus of Indraprastha Gas Limited). Typical ridership in cars in Delhi is 2. Typical ridership of buses in Delhi is 50. While a car may take the shortest route, public transport will typically need to travel a bit more. Considering an example where a car would travel 30km, the bus would travel 45km (extreme exaggeration). So, fuel consumption per person in car is 1 litre of petrol. Fuel consumption per person in bus is 0.26kg of CNG (or 0.26 litres of diesel). So, this means gains of more than 70% (if we assume same cost of fuel) and much more (if actual cost of petrol / diesel/ CNG is accounted). So, if government promotes public transport, then it stands to improve the cost of Indian basket of crude imports. This will be a major "boost" to Indian economy as crude oil is one of the largest drains on pricing of Indian currency. The idea is very profitable for the country.
2. Fuel consumption in public transport is lesser (per capita) than in private transport (as shown above), and therefore, GHG emissions would reduce. Clean fuel fleets can use this reduction in GHG emissions to earn Kyoto Protocol credits and subsidize the cost of better fleet procurement. Not only do we become more environment friendly, the cost would be subsidized by selling Kyoto Protocol credits. The gains will be more if more and more cities adopt CNG as the fuel of choice for public transport.
3. Lesser fuel consumption also means lesser exhausts of poisonous gases in the air. This leads to lesser air related diseases in the general population. This has two-fold benefits, the requirements of beds in hospitals reduces (and the already stressed health-care sector in the country can get some relief). The second benefit accrues from the fact that as less people fall sick, there are more working hands in the country and the overall productivity of the country improves.
4. As more people travel by public transport, congestion on roads would reduce (space utilization is better in public transport). This would mean faster transit times. This would also mean "no need to widen roads" further - at the cost of pedestrian ways. As I said in the earlier note on "fly-overs and their role in one world" also, widening roads in response to traffic congestion is like "loosening belt when obesity arrives". But as we know for obesity, loosening the belt is not the solution. The solution is better regulation and control. Same thing holds for traffic congestion. The rate at which private vehicles are increasing in Delhi, it is only better regulation that can change the situation. Check out my earlier note here. If we follow these practices, funds would be saved while traffic congestion will simultaneously reduce. The saved funds can be utilized for increasing the speed of rural sector reforms and enhancing rural infrastructure. This will leapfrog India into the developed world trajectory faster.
5. When people travel by good public transport (and don't drive themselves), stress levels reduce (driving tension is driven away) and therefore quality of life of citizens improves.
6. Public transport is a good means to increase interaction amongst citizens. People form relationships on public transport and hence build a structure of social and emotional support. Better social structure reduces crime rates as communities become more self-reliant. While inequality is the major trigger for higher crime rate, better social fabric induces the spirit of inclusion and therefore reduces incidences of crime.
7. Lesser consumption (of oil, cement, charcoal, metals etc.) also means that all of us reduce our eco-footprint and ecology becomes more sustainable. Lesser number of mines need to be opened. Lesser people will be uprooted from their lands. More indegenous cultures will remain preserved and the huge cultural diversity of the country will be preserved.

Many a times we don't realize the "huge" impact our decisions have on this interconnected world. The world is but one. As we become more responsible for our actions and as we reduce our consumptions continuously, we will strive towards better lifestyles for more and more people. We will work towards increasing overall happiness level of the world - without compromising on our happiness.

India definitely does not need to go the US way. We can't afford to go the US way with the huge population and the large cultural diversity of the country. The costs will be flabbergasting. The impact on Earth's natural resources will be absolutely disastrous.

I sincerely hope that our Urban Renewal Mission takes a corrective recourse and the focus is shifted from simply infrastructure addition to better regulation and prudent promotion of reliable pubic transport systems in different cities across India. Not every city can afford to have a Metro system, but most of the cities would definitely do much better with better public transport network of CNG-based RTVs or three-wheelers and other energy efficient vehicles.