Motorcycles (and more generally, motorized two-wheeled vehicles) are a serious problem in Asian cities. I know India (and within India, Delhi) best, so I will use these as examples to make my comments and argue my points.

Motorized two-wheeled vehicles are the fastest growing vehicle type, and account for 60 % of all motor vehicles nationally. Incidentally, India has the world's largest population of this type of vehicle. In Delhi, there are as many as 1.8 million motorized two-wheeled vehicles, comprising around 66 % of the city's motor vehicle fleet (I estimate this works out to approx. 150 vehicles per 1000 persons). This number is expected to rise to approx. 3 millions, or 85 % of all motor vehicles, in the not distant future. In addition to their numbers, these vehicles are used intensively, accounting for over 60 % of total motor vehicle kilometers in Delhi.

Motorization has many impacts, but in terms of human health, perhaps the most important are rapidly deteriorating air quality and road accidents. In Delhi, motor vehicles already account for 60 % of total anthropogenic air pollutant emissions. While motor vehicles are pre-dominant in terms of Delhi's air pollution, motorized two-wheeled vehicles, the majority of which are powered by highly polluting and fuel-inefficient two-stroke engines, account for 45-75 % of total carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and particulate emissions from all motor vehicles in that city. Their contribution is marginal only in terms of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, for which buses and other diesel vehicles are primarily responsible. This situation is due to their very high emissions per vehicle-kilometer, combined with the fact that they account for only 16 % of total passenger-kilometers in motor vehicles.

Thus, these vehicles represent the most serious problem in terms of emissions per passenger-kilometer. The impacts, including poor air quality, affect all but likely hit the poor the hardest. They are typically the most exposed to and affected by polluted air, accidents and loss of access and mobility (because they more often than not live in high traffic areas and are pedestrians and cyclists. They are also the least able to cope with impacts, because of poor access to quality health care. The very poor enjoy few of the benefits, while bearing the brunt of the impacts, of motorization. So, there are significant equity impacts in addition to health and welfare ones due to motorization.

It is often suggested that motorcycles can be seen as a solution. I would not call them that, if by "solution" one means a consciously chosen answer to a problem. But they certainly are a great way to get around, given the circumstances. For large numbers of the not-so-poor, for whom cars are out of reach, and public transit increasingly unavailable or inconvenient and time-consuming, they offer excellent mobility at a not unreasonable price, and thus easy access to essential services, in a situation in which that access is becoming increasingly compromised (due to motorization !). Their benefits include door-to-door capability and low parking space requirements. And though they contribute to congestion, they can cope with it as perhaps no other motorized mode can, because of their size and maneuverability. Consequently, they are likely competitive with cars and buses over considerable distances.

No wonder these vehicles account for 60 % of all registered motor vehicles in India. Ironically then, while motorized two-wheeled vehicles create impacts that affect the poor the most, large numbers of low- and middle-income people benefit from their use. And policies to address their impacts can hurt low-income groups.

In this regard, consider an emissions-reduction policy that dramatically raises vehicle purchasing and/or operating costs for low-income persons forced to live far away from their places of work (because of low rent affordability) in areas not served or poorly served by transit, and with no travel options other than their motorized two-wheeled vehicles. Thus, as Paul Barter of Sustran points out, the public policy challenge is, how to address their impacts, while minimizing policy impacts on low-income users.

Policies must also be selected for long-term effectiveness, low cost and easy administration. And because motorized two-wheeled vehicles provide significant benefits, we must, if we wish to wean users away from them, attempt to preserve their benefits by other means. Thus, restricting their ownership and use without providing viable options, such as accessible, frequent, convenient and affordable public transit service, would be to put users to considerable hardship.

Having laid the ground rules, as it were, for selecting policies to control motorized two-wheeled vehicle impacts, let us consider some that are targeted at their air pollutant emissions. a)

Four-stroke engines would significantly reduce exhaust hydrocarbon and particulate levels and improve fuel efficiency. But, compared to two-strokes, they have more moving parts, are much larger and heavier for the same power output, and are more expensive. This is precisely why two-strokes are preferred for small motorized two-wheeled vehicles such as scooters and motorcycles -- they are simple in design, have a high power/swept volume and power/weight ratio, are relatively inexpensive, and easy to own, operate and maintain. Advanced two-strokes with timed fuel injection and crankcase lubrication would have similar emissions and fuel efficiency effects as four-strokes, while sacrificing only some of the two-stroke's advantages. But both four-stroke and advanced two-stroke machines will be more complex and expensive to own and maintain than straight two-strokes. b)

Catalytic converters: if these were fitted on current two-stroke vehicles, they would likely not last very long -- the very high exhaust hydrocarbon levels would burn at very high temperatures in the converter, resulting in heat damage to the catalyst. Also, lubricating oil would coat the catalyst, rendering it ineffective. Catalytic converters on current two-stroke machines may thus end up costing a lot, with little or no benefit in terms of pollution reduction. To be truly effective, catalytic converters need precise air-fuel ratio control, crankcase lubrication, and timed fuel injection, all of which would add considerably to complexity and cost. They also require lead-free fuel, because lead is a catalytic poison. While unleaded gasoline has recently been introduced in the major metropolises including Delhi, Indian gasoline outside these areas continues to be leaded.

Now let us assume that new vehicle emission standards requiring four-stroke/advanced two-stroke/catalytic conversion are mandated, and production of two-strokes halted, from (let us say), the year 2000. Let us make the further (reasonable) assumption that vehicles with these technologies will be considerably more expensive than currently available equivalent two-strokes. Apart from the technical problems raised: only those who can afford it will scrap their existing two-strokes as planned, and replace them with new technology vehicles. But many others will likely delay scrapping their old, highly polluting vehicles even longer than they would have, had two-strokes been still around. This will likely result in increased emissions neutralizing gains due to the new technology vehicles that did get purchased. And many more who just could not afford the increased price, and large numbers who currently depend on 50 cc two-stroke mopeds would either be left high and dry without any viable alternatives, or be hit severely economically if they were forced to purchase these expensive vehicles.

On the other hand, if prices were maintained, things would be a bit better in terms of emissions reduction as well as equity (50 cc users would still be affected). But in any case, fleet-wide emissions improvements would still take a long time, given the low scrappage rates typical in India.

The purpose of the foregoing is not to suggest that improved vehicle technologies are unnecessary, only to point out potential problems. Whether we consider vehicle technology improvements or not, we need to think of cost-effective solutions that will kick in right away. One such is fuel quality improvement in terms of, for example, lead removal and volatility reduction (for evaporative emissions control). Evaporative emissions, which are rich in reactive hydrocarbons responsible for ozone formation (along with nitrogen oxides), can be as high as 20 % of total hydrocarbon emissions in vehicles without emission controls, particularly in hot climates like India's. Fuel quality improvements, and lubricating oil quality improvements (for particulate control), would not be inexpensive, and would produce lower per-vehicle emission reductions than vehicle improvements. However, unlike new vehicle emission standards which can take a long time to be effective, fuel and lubricating oil quality improvements can start reducing emissions (and improve fuel economy) in all vehicles in-use and the fuel-distribution system as soon as they are introduced.

In conclusion: motorcycles indeed are a serious problem, and their impacts should be controlled. However, as I have argued, we must consider the equity impacts of policies. Quite apart from the issues raised, technological measures to reduce per-vehicle fuel consumption and emissions can be neutralized by increases in vehicle-kilometers and trips (Delhi's population is expected to increase to around 13 millions by 2000). If we want to reduce motorized two-wheeled vehicle ownership, use and emissions while maintaining access and mobility for the masses, we should provide viable alternatives. We need to enable people to do most of their business on foot or bicycle by pro-actively planning for non-motorized modes. We must certainly augment public transit service, but the allocations required are massive, and the available funds meager. The bottom line: there are no easy solutions !

Organizers' Note: This presentation by Mr. Madhav Badami was invited not only because it offers a fine overview of one of the myriad problems of daily life that in their totality make up our present non-sustainable, high emissions world, but also because we are eager that the conference hear from younger people and those from the developing nations. All too often our preoccupations as researchers and policy makers fixate on those advanced economies that we know best. And of course one of the most important single barriers to international negotiations concerning pollution of all sorts is precisely because the 'first world' is simply neither well enough informed about Third World realties and opinions, nor sufficiently sympathetic to them. We would like also to express our thanks to the Sustran group in South-East Asia for making this author's work known to us, and for those of you with special transport interests we can strongly recommend their informative and provocative (and free) on-going discussion group (details available from Paul Barter at tkpb@barter.pc.my). We look forward to your comments on this presentation.

__ Commentary & Discussion of This Paper (Once you have registered)

__ Go to Other Podium Presentations

Back to top