The Tata Nano creates buzz in India and around the world. Photo credit: flickr / code_martial.The world’s cities should aspire to a sustainable future that is not necessarily dependent on cars.
India experienced an automotive breakthrough last week: the release of the Tata Nano, the most economic vehicle in the Indian market, and arguably, in the world.
The so-called “people’s car” has received praise from many sources, such as The Economist:
Despite the Nano’s size (it is a bit over ten feet, or three metres long) its interior is surprisingly spacious. This is no accident. The car is the pet project of Ratan Tata, the Tata group’s revered chairman, who is over six feet tall. Accordingly, the Nano is optimised for the 95th percentile of American men. In South Asia, this makes the car downright cavernous. When it comes to performance, the Nano goes from zero to 100kph (60mph) in a languid 30 seconds, but it is surprisingly enjoyable to drive. And with a petrol consumption of 67mpg, few cars can match its fuel-efficiency.
And the San Francisco Chronicle:
Don’t dismiss the Nano as a small, poor man’s car that will cause a mere ripple on the world market. The Nano is a radical innovation, with the potential to revolutionize automobile manufacturing and distribution.
The tiny Nano incorporates three innovations, which together make it huge. First, the Nano uses a modular design that enables a knowledgeable mechanic to assemble the car in a workshop. Thus, Tata can outsource assembly to independent workshops that can then assemble the car on buyers’ orders. This innovation not only removes costly labor from the manufacturer’s side but also allows for distributed entrepreneurship on the dealer’s side.
Second, the low cost of the Nano comes from a combination of its no-frills design and its use of numerous lighter components, from simple door handles and bulbs to the transmission and engine parts. The lighter vehicle enables a more energy-efficient engine that gets 67 miles to the gallon.
From the perspective of the automotive industry, the release of the Tata Nano is remarkable indeed—a success of Indian ingenuity and, hopefully, a business hit.
The Nano, and vehicles like it, will help in reducing energy consumption in India and decreasing local and global emissions, compared to the “business as usual” scenario, due to the car’s high efficiency. Cars like the Nano will also improve the quality of life for those able to afford it. (It is important to note that the privileged few who can afford the Nano still comprise a minority in India and the rest of the developing world.)
But the Nano is not enough to solve mobility and urban development problems of cities in a sustainable way. Much more is needed.
The problem is that more cars — no matter their size or propulsion — bring more congestion, accidents, sprawl, and, if they rely on fossil fuels, more local and global pollution.
Cities should aspire to a sustainable future that is not necessarily dependent on cars (and the highways and parking spaces that come along with them.) This argument is very well expressed by organizations like India’s Center for Science and the Enviroment, which recently issued a press release that says they are “against all cars, and not just the Nano. Our cities don’t need more cars; they need better public transport.”
Cities can be more successful and livable if they pursue some of the following types of strategies:
- “active transport” (i.e. bicycling, walking)
- mixed-use and denser development with better public spaces
- integrated mass transit
- innovative infrastructure and manufacturing that includes nice ideas like the Nano
- car-use demand management, for example:
- downtown parking and driving restrictions
- congestion and pollution charges
- equitable taxes that cover externalities of these restrictions, not the subsidies in fuel
I recommend implementing the above strategies as a baseline response, even if the individual Nano car releases less emissions than the two-stroke motorcycle or the heavy vehicles used in the U.S.
Supporting better vehicles is not enough—and is even wrong—for society, as a whole.
This post originally appeared on TheCityFix.com.
Dario Hidalgo, Director for Research and Practicedhidalgo@wri.org+1 (202) 729-7794Dr. Hidalgo guides the EMBARQ Network’s international team of transport engineers, urban planning specialists and environmental scientists.
6 Comments
The solution to
The solution to transportation problems requires many approaches, but the following are the two most important:
1) Reduce the need to travel by making use of advanced IT to remove the need to travel in order to hold face to face meetings or to commute to get to work.
2) Allow public transport to be utilised more efficiently by removing temporal and spatial transportation peaks (a.k.a. rush hour) so that public transportation can be fully utilised throughout the day and in all directions. This can be achieved by changing working hours so that they are much more widely scattered throughout the day, and removing or changing land use zoning so that all parts of the public transport get trafficed in all directions throughout the day. Such a setup will increase public transport operating efficiency by allowing it to be better utilised, which will increase public transport profits, and reduce public transport costs. This in itself will attract more public transport investment and greater use of public transport.
In a typical move from car
In a typical move from car manufacturers, they can produce cars but ignore the impact their product has on their social surroundings. Car manufacturers will continue to live in their silos and assume that their only responsibility is to produce cars. They can't think beyond their own silos and develop technology that integrates as opposed to alienates people.
Cars do not integrate people, just look at the congested highways in major cities all over the world. People are living in their cars half of their life just to get from home to work. As if the GM virtual collapse is not a wake-up call to do something bold, car manufacturers like TATA make things cheaper! There will be more people on the streets in the car burning fossil fuels. Fuel efficiency only increases people's behavior to travel more and further distances.
This company is just carving out another slice of the same market-share pie that has already lost its flavor.
While I agree with the
While I agree with the thought that cities need to be engineered to be more "livable", to my mind the Nano addresses a key issue in India at the moment, that of safety. One only has to see the families on motorbikes, without helmets, weaving in and out of traffic to realize that there is a marginal good here, for a fairly low marginal cost. The medical costs and economic costs of dealing with injury, particularly of the primary breadwinner must be factored into all this as well. It is not a trade-off against bikes, but against motorbikes.
I thik the Nano is not
I thik the Nano is not enough to solve mobility and urban development problems of cities in a sustainable way. Much more is needed.
Just where do they plan to
Just where do they plan to park and drive?
The National Highway 47, a main artery of Coimbatore, TamilNadu was widened only a year back at the expense of more than 1000 old trees to accommodate the current traffic. Gone with the trees are the bird, insect and fruit vendor populations nestled under their shade. Shopping is a nightmare if you own a car, you need to walk more than a kilometer from where you park. So where do all the future Nano owners plan to park and drive?
I would be happier if we had more buses, trains and bicycle pathways. I hope they dont cut more trees to widen roads and take away arable lands to build car factories.
This is a very apt article
This is a very apt article especially in Indian perspective. As it is mentioned the base line should be "sustainable cities" not matter how fuel efficient is a car. When I was a kid and especially in college, I used to hear on how good is US in terms of the automotive market and had always heard from various people that India must move a head in that aspect.
But now, when I see the congestion due to private vehicles, and added factors like more demand for fuel and various other environmental factors added - I don't feel like "India should have cheaper cars".
Instead India needs is better modes of transportation as considered under the concept of "land use transportation". And I heard some positive signs this weekend, when I was discussing this at home with my friend, who fortunately is a 'Transportation Planner'.
And the positive side is (also mentioned here under types of strategies)
1. The new transportation projects in urban areas must compulsorily consider providing bicycle ways
2. The public transport aspect is being given prime importance by the ministry, and very recently around 3000 (if i remember the numbers correctly) new buses - High capacity, low floor along with regular ones have been issued all over India
3. Mass transit is also on the agenda
There may be many other aspects, but as a common man and as a non-transport expert, I have the above mentioned points.
And if you ask me, so are you taking public transport next time - I will have to say, let me see, as we have to go a long way, but the future is brighter.