Future is mega, not nano

The impending success of the Tata Nano should force a rethink among urban transport planners. Not because the Nano is going to clog the roads and foul up the air — every vehicle does that, never mind how many wheels it has — but because everyone will now have to remove his blinkers. The Nano bridges the perception gap between two-wheelers and cars, and this is a good thing.

The current — unstated — assumption is that cars are bad, but not two-wheelers. This is foolish. When it comes to congestion and pollution, a two-wheeler is just another automobile with fewer wheels. Even though it looks puny when parked, it occupies more road space while moving. This is because the actual space required for a moving two-wheeler is its physical length plus the distance required for braking. In short, it does not use significantly less road space than small cars.

The Nano, by occupying the middle ground between two-and four-wheelers, will thus force a rethink on road-pricing and public transport. The latter is a no-brainer, but, surprisingly, we haven’t done much about it.

An emphasis on public transport means thinking mega, not nano. It means investing in underground metros and trains, but also buses. Lots of them. In the short-term, policy action needs to focus on natural gas-driven buses. In cities like Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and Chennai, we need buses not by the hundred, but the thousand. And by buses one means not only 50-60 seaters, but all sizes and types.
If we want to encourage people to avoid using cars in peak hours, buses must be more frequent and more comfortable. This calls for big buses in peak hours and smaller ones, including minivans, in offpeak hours. We also need buses at every price point: a base service, as well as semi-luxury, luxury and point-to-point express services. In fact, personal transport in two-wheelers and small cars has boomed precisely because public transport services are currently run like cattle carriers.

For an integrated solution to traffic congestion and pollution, however, we need to deal with both demand and supply: our roads must be priced high enough to deter excess private traffic and our public transport must be good enough to encourage usage. The reason why this doesn’t happen is because we don’t price roads at all. Sure, we do have tolls, but most of them are on the highways. It is city roads that need better pricing.

Sooner or later all cities will have to price roads like power or water: the more of it you use, the more you pay. Currently, we pay road taxes only at the time of purchasing a vehicle. This is a tax on ownership, not usage. In fact, there is a good case for making cars cheaper, and their usage costlier. To ensure fair road pricing, big road users should pay more (two-wheelers, cars) and occasional users less. If you buy a car and keep it in your garage most of the time, your monthly bill will be very low. But if you are to-ing and fro-ing between office, home and mall on weekdays and weekends, it will dent your bank balance.

London’s traffic problems have reduced because the city levies a congestion surcharge. Users get a monthly bill. It is possible to do the same in India, and we must do it better. Every year we are adding something like 10 million vehicles, and the numbers can only grow after the Nano arrives. We must also resist the tendency to treat two-wheelers with kid gloves. They can be charged less, but we should not exempt them from usage tax.

Technology offers us a simple solution: smart chips embedded in cars and other vehicles. If every vehicle is fitted with this chip, and sensors are placed at various congestion points in cities, the traffic department can send bills based on the number of sensors passed every month. There’s a bonus for ecology buffs. One can bill cars higher depending on their age and polluting potential. Older, fuel-inefficient and smoke-belching vehicles can be asked to pay more.

Usage-based road fees will have one of two consequences, both good. If people still use their cars more and pay more, the money can be used to augment roads and subsidise public transport. If they use it less, traffic problems will ease anyway. It’s win-win.
But will the automobile industry lose out in the bargain? I doubt it.
People will still buy cars, but use it sparingly since it’s their money that will get depleted. States will also buy more buses and minibuses for cheap public transport – all using cleaner natural gas. In fact, the higher revenues from congestion levies should be used to make all public transport vehicles tax-free.

If we make this fundamental shift — by taxing usage of road space instead of just ownership — I am sure we can lick the problem of traffic congestion in metros within five or 10 years. All it needs is political will.