Transport policy needs updated theory – a reply to Ahmad Hilmy
 |
I’m glad that my previous article on public transport policy has invited the response from Ahmad Hilmy, a transport expert from Universiti Sains Malaysia. He has marshalled a list of other transport experts to support his point that the construction of roads is the cause of increasing private vehicle usage.
However, the expertise that Ahmad has cited is a misapplication as those experts are dealing with different subject matter of a different era. For instance, they did not study the present Hong Kong like I did.
In fact, it is impossible for them to include the present Hong Kong in their study as some of them were writing their observation more than half a century ago.
The experts such as R. J. Smeed and J. G. Wardrop, whom Phil Goodwin relied on and cited approvingly by Ahmad, wrote their study in the early 1960s, before Hong Kong even started building their Mass Transit Railway.
These experts whom Ahmad referred to are limited by their era to incorporate the present Hong Kong into their study. Ahmad has access to Hong Kong’s public mobility scenario today, yet the USM expert prefers to stick to the obsolete observation. A disclaimer, a theory is not obsolete by the virtue of its age but by the emergence of new data that does not fit the theory.
Likewise, the studies by Petter Næss, Martin J. H. Mogridge, Synnøve Lyssand Sandberg, Adam Mann, Matthew Beck, Michiel Bliemer, and Susan Handy, cited by Ahmad – not a single one of them examined Hong Kong.
The point I’m arguing is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.
This is most obvious in the case of Hong Kong, a city with 90% of public transport usage, and yet they are still building more roads to improve the dispersal network.
This ranks Hong Kong among the least car-dependent cities in the world. And Hong Kong has been building new roads, spending RM45.5 billion on roads construction recently. A robust theory must be able to explain this.
If building roads will lead to more private vehicle usage, then why is Hong Kong’s public transport still so high despite the fact that they have been building new roads all these years? The fact that it did means that the supply of new roads was not the determinant factor, and there were other factors involved.
If supply of roads will increase private vehicle usage and reduce public transport usage, then Hong Kong’s 90% public transport usage should not have happened – but it has. And the theory that Ahmad holds so dear cannot explain this.
And, let’s assume for argument’s sake, that the supply of roads will indeed increase private car usage, then we have to ask, why would Hong Kong want that? It does not make policy sense for Hong Kong to do that, unless of course the theory is wrong, which it is.
The most probable explanation is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.
When people who can afford private cars move into the city, and people in the city become more able to afford private cars, that’s when there is an increase in private car usage and an increase in traffic jams despite the availability of good public transport.
Hong Kong was able to increase public transport usage without being affected by the supply of new roads because of capital control (for e.g. reduce affordability of private vehicle ownership and usage, while increase affordability of public transport) and employing an effective multidimensional approach to transport policy that simultaneously improves traffic dispersal network and public transport infrastructure to cater to the growing population.
This is why the city continues to build new roads while still able to maintain high public transport usage.
However, the expertise that Ahmad has cited is a misapplication as those experts are dealing with different subject matter of a different era. For instance, they did not study the present Hong Kong like I did.
In fact, it is impossible for them to include the present Hong Kong in their study as some of them were writing their observation more than half a century ago.
The experts such as R. J. Smeed and J. G. Wardrop, whom Phil Goodwin relied on and cited approvingly by Ahmad, wrote their study in the early 1960s, before Hong Kong even started building their Mass Transit Railway.
These experts whom Ahmad referred to are limited by their era to incorporate the present Hong Kong into their study. Ahmad has access to Hong Kong’s public mobility scenario today, yet the USM expert prefers to stick to the obsolete observation. A disclaimer, a theory is not obsolete by the virtue of its age but by the emergence of new data that does not fit the theory.
Likewise, the studies by Petter Næss, Martin J. H. Mogridge, Synnøve Lyssand Sandberg, Adam Mann, Matthew Beck, Michiel Bliemer, and Susan Handy, cited by Ahmad – not a single one of them examined Hong Kong.
The point I’m arguing is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.
This is most obvious in the case of Hong Kong, a city with 90% of public transport usage, and yet they are still building more roads to improve the dispersal network.
This ranks Hong Kong among the least car-dependent cities in the world. And Hong Kong has been building new roads, spending RM45.5 billion on roads construction recently. A robust theory must be able to explain this.
If building roads will lead to more private vehicle usage, then why is Hong Kong’s public transport still so high despite the fact that they have been building new roads all these years? The fact that it did means that the supply of new roads was not the determinant factor, and there were other factors involved.
If supply of roads will increase private vehicle usage and reduce public transport usage, then Hong Kong’s 90% public transport usage should not have happened – but it has. And the theory that Ahmad holds so dear cannot explain this.
And, let’s assume for argument’s sake, that the supply of roads will indeed increase private car usage, then we have to ask, why would Hong Kong want that? It does not make policy sense for Hong Kong to do that, unless of course the theory is wrong, which it is.
The most probable explanation is that the cause of increasing private vehicle usage in a city is not due to construction of new roads, but the growth of population and capital flow.
When people who can afford private cars move into the city, and people in the city become more able to afford private cars, that’s when there is an increase in private car usage and an increase in traffic jams despite the availability of good public transport.
Hong Kong was able to increase public transport usage without being affected by the supply of new roads because of capital control (for e.g. reduce affordability of private vehicle ownership and usage, while increase affordability of public transport) and employing an effective multidimensional approach to transport policy that simultaneously improves traffic dispersal network and public transport infrastructure to cater to the growing population.
This is why the city continues to build new roads while still able to maintain high public transport usage.
