Two or three wheeled Motorcycles are a major issue for congestion, pollution and road safety in most Asia’s cities

Figure 1 : A family riding a motorcycle in Cambodia 

Two and three wheeled motorcycles are mostly located in Asia and used for private household mobility or public transport

In 2010, the current worldwide motorcycle populaton was around 450mil, on which 77% was located in Asia Pacific, 8% in both Europe and America, 4% in Middle East & Central Asia and only 3% in Africa. 

During the past period 2002-2010, the worldwide fleet increased annually by 9.5%. As we can see in Figure 2, the biggest increases of the motorcycle stock by region were South America, Asia Pacific, while Africa, Middle East, North America and  West Europe were lagging behind.

Figure 2: Evolution of 2-3 wheeler stocks over worldwide regions 

In emerging and developing countries, 2-3 wheelers are mostly cheap mode of transport used for household mobility with low or medium power mopeds, motorcycles and scooters (<150cc).

For developed countries –especially in North America-  it is more a recreational vehicle with higher power capacity (500cc and more).

In 2010, the 10 highest worldwide 2-3 wheelers rate ownership were located mainly in Asian countries (see Figure 3): Taiwan (642 units for 1,000 people), Vietnam (362), Malaysia (332) and Indonesia/Thailand (251), the others being Uruguay, Italy, Dominican Republic and Lao (130-280).

China (77) and India (68) were ranking only the 22^nd and 26^th with Japan 27^th (65) together with 4 European countries, Brazil and Colombia. 

Figure 3: The first 2-3 wheeler stocks and ownership rates over worldwide regions (2010 figures from WHO road safety 2013)

But due to their higher populations among the 10 biggest worldwide motorcycle stocks in 2010 we find 8 Asian Pacific countries.

Among the first 5 biggest, 3 countries China, Indonesia and Vietnam have registered very high stock increases over the last 8 years around 15-30% annually ( see Figure 4).

Figure 4 : Evolution of the biggest 2-3 wheelers stocks in 2010 over worldwide regions (2002 figures from Worldmapper)

Why are 2 & 3 wheeled motorcycles so prevalent inside Asian Pacific mobility modes ?

Motor vehicles due to their low initial cost overwhelmingly dominate the market for ground mobility of passengers and freight in developing countries. Bus lines, trains and rapid transit systems in urban areas are less frequent than what exists in developed countries.

Moreover inside the developing countries’ motor vehicle market: mopeds, 2-3 wheelers or scooters have the lion's share as compared to 4 wheelers passenger cars, light and heavy trucks or bus.

There is a strong upfront advantage in term of cost....:

The basic advantage is cost efficiency and lower weight especially with two-stroke engines delivering high torque and greater power output at a very low cost.

In India during 2011, the range of prices of motorcycles of 75-125 cc category – the highest selling category – was around 48,500 Rs (850$) and for 125-250 cc around 81,500 Rs(1,300$) (see Narayan V. Iyer, August,2012).

As concerns congestion, two or three wheelers offer high maneuverability at a low speed, in narrow lanes & crowded urbazined areas, not to mention the need of smaller parking areas. 

Moreover in Taiwan, Europe and Malaysia - as we can see today in congested Penang Island- there is a surge of two wheelers among car owners as an additionally mode of mobility.

Concerning the issue of 3-wheelers reducing urban congestion maybe is it questionable. For instance in Bangkok the traffic at peak hour could really become chaotic. There is a need to rationalize organization of road and intersection designs with the ban of three wheelers from highways!

....But afterwards there are huge recurrent pollution externalities:

There are higher pollutions by excessive hydrocarbons (HC) and  particulate matter (PM)) emissions from two-stroke engines as compared to four-stroke. Why?

The two-stroke exhaust gas is forced from the cylinder by the pressure of the incoming charge. A significant part –around 20-30%- of the fresh charge escapes unburned. This coupled with the tendency to misfire at low load results with high HC emissions.

Oil lubricant in two- stroke engines needs to be mixed in the fuel to lubricate bearing and piston and this is thus a major source of smoke and PM. Many drivers add more lubricant than necessary to protect the engine. But the pollution effect of much higher emissions far outweighs the benefit to the vehicle owner! 

The drawbacks of the two-stroke engines are even made worse when used on a 3 wheelers. Such vehicles are underpowered so the engine usually operates near wide open throttle producing huge fuel consumptions and high emissions.

As a result, motorcycle emissions from a single two stroke can exceed those of a 3 passenger cars or those from a heavy duty diesel truck! Emissions from 2 & 3 wheelers represent the most serious problems for developing cities.

Three wheelers taxis are perceived as less compliant with traffic regulations and more accident prone than 4-wheels passenger vehicles. Such motorcycle’s dependency might lead to the exclusion or more adapted public transports such as bus.  In Delhi (India), Denpasar (Bali) and Hanoi (Vietnam) less than 5% of public transport are operated by bus.

Today, the general consensus is that the limits of 2-stroke technology have largely been reached in all classes, and therefore 2012 was the dawn of a technically relevant new era, with four stroke motorcycles filling all fields of the motorcycle market.

For the two wheelers, the shift from two-stroke to four-stroke engines begun around 2000 and gained further momentum in 2005- 2010. The private user’s shift was not only to meet the emission standards but also to change to more fuel efficient 4-stroke. But in India the relative share of 2-stroke engines is still around 6% of the total powered two-wheelers sales in the country (see Narayan V. Iyer, August, 2012).

For its three-wheelers, Bajaj developed a four-stroke engine with a program to stop production of the two-stroke. Unfortunately, the four-stroke rickshaw did not receive a favorable response from the market. Bajaj, therefore, had to restart the production of the popular 2-stroke. The poor market acceptance was attributed to the profiles of three-wheeler customers who need to earn a living from the vehicle and would not take the risk of investing in a new type of vehicle, with which they are not familiar, and at a higher price too (see ibid.).

Further on, as far as the vehicle stock is concerned, the low cost of repairs and the huge cost of the renewal in developing countries leads to a very low turnover of the 2-3 wheels population which means that the  two-stroke engines recurring pollution externalities might remain still present for a long time.

2010 registered vehicles breakdown over countries

If we want to assess the motorcycle’s dependency throughout the various Asian Pacific countries, it is fascinating to look at the rate of 2-3 wheelers in relation to the passenger 4-wheeled cars.

The Figure 5 below shows ( logarithmic vertical scale) that Vietnam is far ahead of all other countries and that the cars are almost completely driven out of the country!

Malaysia is the hinging point between developing and developed countries.There is an automotive car industry with Proton and Perodua and 3-wheelers are banned for public transport. 

All countries on the left hand side from Malaysia have 3-wheelers taxis, except China and Taiwan.

Figure 5: Rate of 2-3 wheelers as compared to passenger cars in Asia Pacifiic decreasing from left to right

Figure 6: Total vehicle breakdown in 2010 by countries, decreasing income from left to right (fromWHO road safety status 2013)

Figure 7 : Vehicle breakdown per 1,000 people in 2010 by countries, decreasing income from left to right (fromWHO road safety status 2013)

Unlike the pattern for passenger cars, the ownership growth pattern for motorcycles varies greatly in different countries.

The growth of motorcycles could be influenced by three sets of factors (see "Vehicle China pollution by 2050"  Huo, Hong and al.):

(a) Economical factors: in China motorcycle ownership in household with per capita income below 2,500$ rises as per capita income increases. However, when per capita income reaches 3,000 to 3,500$, the growth rate appears to slow, reaching a saturation level. Also at this income level, car purchases begin to increase rapidly, suggesting that a switch from two wheelers to passenger cars occurs in urban families as income rises.

(b) Geographical factors: ownership tends to increase as per capita GDP grows, except in several geographically unique countries and areas, such as the Philippines, which is archipelagic, and Singapore, which is a city state. In China, because geographical features vary dramatically throughout the country, two wheelers ownership in southern regions is higher than in the northern regions because the warmer southern climate makes riding motorcycles more comfortable. 


(c) Policies: Major Chinese cities thrive to limit, and even ban, the registration and use of motorcycles in urban areas. 

Figure 8 tends to show that the motorcycle ownership's relationship against per capiat GDP is more or less hyperbolic, due to the shift from two-wheelers to passenger cars when per capita income reaches 3,500$, with the notable exception of Taiwan which is in a unique position.

Figure 8: Relation of motorcycles' ownership against per capita GDP growth (all 2-3 wheelers figures from WHO road safety report 2013, except Taiwan)  

Road safety fatalities

The overall global road traffic fatality rate worldwide is 18 per 100,000 people. However, low and middle-income countries have the highest annual road traffic fatality rates, at 18.3-20.1 per 100,000, while the rate in high-income countries is the lowest, at 8.7 per 100 000.

But in Asia Pacific countries the safety achievements are better with respectively 7.1 and 8.2 rates per 100,000 people for low & middle income or high income countries.

However the worse performing countries are Malaysia and Thailand (see Figure above). 

In low and middle Asian Pacific countries 33% of the fatalities are made to motorcyclists.

The associated cost of the DGP  lost from these fatalities is estimated to be around 3%.

Figure 9: Traffic death fatalities over Asia Pacific countries ( from WHO Road Safety 2013report)

Figure 10: Traffic death fatalities over main Asia Pacific regions (from WHO Road Safety 2013report)

Motor vehicle growth policy is a key factor to rein in Asian megacities congestion and air pollution

Figure 1 : Congestion may change the direction of auto industry of China (from Want China Times). 

A more balance mobility’s footprint is a condition of a sustainable Asia Pacific increase

Mobility is composed of the various services and means available for moving persons and goods. Rail, Road, Air and Maritime are the four main mobility modes.

The dominant export-oriented development model in the Asia-Pacific region over the past 15 years allowed considerable growth while the movement of raw materials, sub-assemblies and finished products were important issues of global competition.

This is also true with the development now planned for the Asia Pacific region, where growth could become more qualitative, less polluting, internally oriented with the aim of reducing traffic congestion, improving short and medium distances transports.

As explained in our previous post dated 31 Jan 2013, Asian Pacific countries were the fastest growing worldwide areas during the past 15 years. Urbanization was both the condition and the main result of this development. But Asian mega cities development is unprecedented in history and presents a double-headed challenge: global change -global risk.

Megacity's system could easily spin out of control with major environmental problems such as power blackout, traffic congestion and air pollution. Jakarta car congestion costs 5.4 bil $ annually while increasing poor air quality. With business as usual conditions, pollution would increase 2-3 folds on 1990-2020 due to population growth, industrialization and increased vehicle use. 

Traffic congestion and transport pollution have a huge cost in terms of health hazards, lost of hours spent in transport congestion.

As we have explained in our last post outdoor particulate matter air pollution in 2010 contributed to 1,270,000 premature deaths in Asia East (China & North Korea), which is about 40% of the global worldwide total amounting to 3,220,000 deaths. The burden of mobility is huge with the pollution of motorcars and motorcycles in congested Chinese megacities

Cluster description of Asian Pacific countries

To study the 24 Asia-Pacific countries, we used-as in our last post- a grouping in 5 clusters geographically, politically and economically homogeneous (see Figure 2):

1. Asia East (China, Korea Dem. Rep.);
2. Asian Pacific high income (Brunei, Japan, Korea Rep., Singapore);
3. Asia South (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan);
4. Asia Southeast (8 other ASEAN countries + Maldives, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste);
5. Australasia (Australia, New Zealand). 

Figure 2 : The 5 clusters from the 24 Asian Pacific countries

In each cluster various countries have similar GDP per capita figures. The 5 cluster have altogether a 3,793 mil population - about 55% of the world population (6,896)- but with dissimilar land areas and population outcomes by cluster (see Figures 3 to 6 below).

In the three most populous areas – Asia East, South and Southeast- sustainability at stake is to continue rising income, while reducing ecological footprint (CO2 emissions, water and air pollution), and improved quality of life in large urban centers.

Figure 3 : Distribution of population (from World Bank Data)

Figure 4 : Distribution of population density

Each cluster has a major hub country such as China (98% of Asia East population), Japan (69% of Asia Pacific High income), India (78% of Asia South) or Australia (85% of Australasia).

But within the South East Asia, the situation is more open: Indonesia is the largest country (39%), but Malaysia and Thailand have the highest GDP per capita.

Figure 5 : Distribution of GDP per capita, high income and high middle income countries (from World Bank Data)

Figure 6 : Distribution of GDP per capita, low midle income and low income countries (from World Bank Data)

Passenger car ownership is a key factor

In many urban areas car private ownership is an important status symbol. The relationship between household and car ownership is mostly based on the income level.

We know that the relation between passenger car ownership against per capita GDP is a S-shape growth curve (see “Vehicle ChinaPollution by 2050 Huo, Hong & alia”).

Initially car ownership growth are slow while costs are high as compared to income, followed by a period of rapid uptake growth, then later by a slowing of uptake as saturation levels are reached.

The S-curve or Gompertz function is a type of mathematical model used to describe the population in a confined space, as birth rates first increase and then slow as resource limits are reached.

In the following Figures 7 & 8: the passenger car ownership per 1,000 people is plotted against per capita GDP in Asian Pacific countries (all data are from the World Bank on 2000-2011).

Figure 7 : “S” shape growth curve relation of passenger car’s ownership against per Capita GDP growth (all figures from World Bank Data)

In Asia Pacific- if we except Singapore which is a megacity country- growth patterns can be grouped into three categories:

1. The North American type pattern – scarce population and huge distance- where  saturation level is around 550 vehicles per 1,000 people when per capita GDP is higher than $20,000, is followed here by Australia and New Zealand.
2. The European type pattern- denser population and compact urban development – where saturation level is around 450 vehicles per 1,000 people, is followed here by Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand and even China.
3. The third pattern represented by Korea Rep, and some European countries, such as Denmark, and Ireland, show an even smaller rate of motor vehicle ownership, with a saturation level relatively lower—about 350 vehicles per 1,000 people. In these countries this low saturation level is caused partly by the high population density and the extensive public transportation system.

Figure 8 :Same  “S” shape growth curve relation with a zooming on low and middle development countries (all figures from WorldBank Data)

 What might be the evolution of car ownership in the coming years?

The passenger cars’ ownership saturation level is a key factor in estimating the total motor vehicle population growth. In particular, (see Figure 9) based on a continuation of the GDP per capita growth such as during 1900-2011:

Figure 9 : China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand Prevision of Fleet passenger car fleet in 2030

• China’s passenger car stock might increase seven-fold, to 380 mil

• Thailand might increase three-fold, Indonesia one 1/2- fold .

• Malaysia might increase one 1/2-fold and  might be approaching the saturated level of 450 passenger car per 1,000 people .

Dargay and Gately assumed a saturation level of 850 (all vehicles) per 1,000 people and 620 cars per 1,000 people for the 26 countries (including China) that they studied .

However, Kobos et al. believe that it was impossible for China—a highly populated country—to reach such a high saturation level. Instead they propose a saturation level of 292 passenger vehicles per 1,000 people.

Button et al. set a range of 300 to 450 cars per 1,000 people for developing countries such as China.

We think as expressed by Kobos that the saturation level of the third pattern (curve min) in the range of 290-300 passenger vehicles should be more adapted. As done by Kobos & al. we need to examine the car ownership at the provincial level (see Figure 10). 

Demand for vehicle trend to mirror the megacities pattern concentration of wealth (see Figure 10), contrary to developed countries.

Increase in passenger vehicle will place serious strain on land use, urban air pollution, and oil requirements. 

Figure 10 : Passenger vehicle per 1,000 people by Chinese province, 2015 (from Kobos & al. 2003) 

China and others Asian countries rapidly evolving taste for automobile, all point towards a more integrated transport policy where other factors such as  access to public transport, traffic limitations at peak hours, tax on fuel or vehicle to compensate traffic congestion externalities might be discussed.

Innovative mobility- new type of car and rapid transit system -new investments, more stringent transport regulations and better law enforcement conditions are the conditions of a sustainable development. Poor policies in these areas may entail growing ecological footprint with health and environmental issues. 

Asian mega cities have a global risk of unsustainability- an example with Bangkok's unpreparedness

Figure 1: In Bangkok speed boat are used to solve the traffic congestions

There has been a radical change in the number of megacities – cities which metropolitan population is bigger than 10 millions- : their number has exploded since the 80's from 9 only in 1985 to 27 in 2000.

Megacities are the result as well as the driver of globalization change, 8 out of 10 are in developing countries.

More than half megacities are located in Asia and the 5 biggest in the planet are Tokyo (34mil), Guangzhou, Seoul, Jakarta, Shanghai (all 4 topping 25 mil).  

Only 4 megacities are in developed countries, with New York, Los Angeles, London and Paris, the last two being the oldest and smallest.

From 1990 to 2025, under United Nation current projections, there will be an enormous increase of people living in developing countries’ urban areas (from 37% to 57%), while industrialized countries will increase only slightly (from 77% to 78%).

Most of these megacities will be located in tropical and equatorial areas, usually next to the coastal line and close to major rivers, such as Bangkok, Shanghai, Honk Kong, Jakarta, Yangon, Manila, Singapore, Kolkata, Dhaka and Mumbai. Megacities will be  particularly threatened by the effects of the coming global warming.

 

Megacities present a double-headed challenge: global change -global risk

This mega city development is unprecedented in history. As explained by Frauke Kraas (Asien Apr 2007) there is a risk system issue. First megacities are an engine of global change because due to their vertical concentration and their size's scale effect, they need less land and upfront investment costs per person are lower. But in the same time they present a global risk with a systematic minimization of issues arising from their huge human concentration.

We already know sprawling slums and poverty, cronyism and the growing importance of the informal sector, the problem of overburden and aging infrastructures.

Megacity's system could easily spin out of control. Major environmental problems due to the massive change of sustainability is the face of the future (cf. Southeast megacities: big challenge, biggeropportunity published in Knowledge@warton 2013). Indian blackout in summer 2012 affecting the life of 600 mil persons is an example.

Traffic congestion and air pollution are major problems of megacities. Jakarta car congestion costs 5.4 bil $ annually while increasing poor air quality. With business as usual conditions, pollution would increase 2-3 folds on 1990-2020 due to population growth, industrialization and increased vehicle use. 

Which developing country would accept to pay 5% more for expensive costs derived from LEED leadership in energy and environment design specifications, even if upfront surcharges are paid-up quickly in reduction of life cycle costs?

Who really think that Asian megacities could take the lead in shifting from car to trains, bus and rapid transit systems: when in the same time the development of car plants in China are aiming at huge domestic outputs? So there will be the high subsequent costs and health hazards:  the truth is that megacities and high rise buildings are not optimal if we include all hidden costs.

The future of megacities in China is particularly scary under the business as usual urbanization scheme proposed by MacKinsey Gobal Institute's last report “Preparing for China’s urban billion”. China’s urbanization in 2025 means a 50% increase of its urban population (more than today USA population), 220 cities with one mil + people living in them (there are only 35 today in Europe), 170 mass transit systems to be built to alleviate traffic congestion, 50 000 skyscrapers the equivalent of 10 times the city of New York...

But will these megacities be adapted tomorrow in the new context of carbon emission reduction, energy saving, easing of traffic bottleneck, build-in renewable energy and water conservation equipments?  As explained in my post dated 23 Oct 2012, maybe it would be wiser in China to develop medium size and smaller cities far from the crowded east costal ribbon in order to settle and stabilize the migrant population and have a more inward oriented development model.

Small is beautiful and big is awesome.  Dubai is proud to have the highest tower in the world but are people really more happy when they need to wait hours in the traffic before crossing Sheikh Sayed Road or when they are suffering in their home from heat resulting from excessive outdoor glass surface?

 

Asian Green City index by EIU and Siemens

Asian green cities index is a research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens which aim is to assess the environmental performance of Asia’s major cities. The Asian Green City Index is ranking the environmental situation of 22 Asian cities mostly 14 megacities and 8 smaller but quite still big (population >5 mil): Kuala Lumpur, Nanjing, Hong Kong, Taipei, Bangaluru, Hanoi, Yokohama. The only missing Asian megacity is Dhaka.   

Each city environmental achievement is assessed across the following 8 environmental parameter's categories: energy and CO2, land use and building, transport, waste, water, sanitation, air quality, environmental governance.

The overall ranking is obtained by adding-up all parameters with an equal weighting, including some fine tuning made by the evaluation comity. However these final twists and corrections by the comity are all but transparent and Bengaluru and Kokalta rankings are unclear.

It is s big improvement even if the methodology needs to be clarified and more transparent.

The risk management issue is missing along with the population awareness assessment.

Altogether there are insufficient differences in the performances and a too broad classification between various cities.  So we have applied the same methodology but without the final twists in order to increase differences between cities (see Figure 2 below).

The 8 parameters are equally weighted with the following 5 values: well above average=100; above average=75; average=50; below average=25; well below average=0.

Figure 2: Sustainable ranking obtained by addition of 8 parameters issued from EIU-Siemens research project “Asian green cities index

The biggest result from this ranking is that megacities from Asian developing countries are around 40-45% less environmental friendly and sustainable than those from Asian developed countries, the best performing country being Singapore (see Figure 3 below). 

Figure 3: Singapore's ranting issued from EIU-Siemens research project “Asian green cities index”

Bangkok is an example of sustainability unpreparedness (see Figure 4 below)

Bangkok in 1930 was named as the "Venice of the East". Hundred of canals were used to move goods and persons across the city. These canals were also the waterways of the Chao Praya River during the high waters in Sep and Oct.

Figure 4: Bangkok's rating issued from EIU-Siemens research project “Asian green cities index”

Unrestricted construction over the last 30 years when Bangkok started to modernize resulted in lots of waste and trash in the canals. Progressively they were filled and paved. Then the city was more or less blocking the flow of the river during the high waters. Flooding of some part of the city became a recurrent phenomenon. 

Bangkok lies about 2 meters above sea level. The city is particularly vulnerable to the flood during the monsoon season. Any changing condition could worsen the situation. The drainage and storm water system - after the canals disappeared - are unable to deal with so much rain in a short period of time! 

There were floods in Bangkok in 1983, 1995 and the last one in 2011 killed 815 people, not to mention the heavy economical cost for Thailand.

A research has shown that Bangkok is sinking at a rate of 10 cm a year. The Global warming effects in Bangkok need also to be assessed. There are fears that the Thailand capital will be submerged by 2030!

Traffic congestion in Bangkok is also a big headache. There have been significant improvements in the 90's by adding two mass transport systems: the sky-train opened in 1999; the underground train system in 2004.

But it seems that the underground system more or less duplicate the sky-train. So people prefer to use the sky-train, because they like to look out of the windows!

Anyway for the Thai owning a car is a statute symbol and even the lower middle class are spending all their money to buy car!

In order to remedy the two mass transport systems’ deficiencies, some old canals had been rehabilitated to be used by speedboats (see Figure 1). However, this solution seems temporary as the passengers’ comfort and safety are low, especially due to water splashing or transshipment hazards at the riverside stations for elderly or disabled . The crossing of two boats coming from opposite directions in the narrow channel is also a bit dangerous.