[alpha1]

Originally Posted by sun_king

I would say this is an incorrect statement, at least for Bangalore. The branding is unfair, the conduct of the "high and mighty" is comparatively better than the road manners of the standard taxicabs, auto-rickshaws and two wheelers. And the city buses actually complicatse the matter with their middle of the road and next to a turn/junction stoppages.

I am talking purely about moving X number of people Y km of distance.
Public transport is insanely more efficient than private transport in this.
Even though they may "appear" slow.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Singapore has a fantastic infrastructure comprising of driverless metro and public buses along with expensive taxis. Bangalore has a new airport with a extortionist elevated flyover, a joke of a metro and sloppy taxi services filled with criminal drivers who don't hesitate to loot or rape.
Singpore housing is subsidized by the government and you basically don't decide where you live or how you live. Bangalore housing is a free for all with pretty much localities springing up using borewell water, diesel genset powerplants and dirt roads, called as a planned layout.
Singapore is a planned city. Residential areas, gardens, recreational areas, health care, schools, work places etc are planned to cater to the community that is living around the locality. Bangalore is planned to help the builder, land shark, politician mafia and one has to commute several kilometers to find a decent school, restaurant, hospital or even commute to work. Along with lax law and order and no public safety what will a normal person do apart from buying his personal car to live safely?

So a normal person should not prefer to move to Bengaluru. But they still do.
And they get their increasingly larger cars on the roads to be safe from the elements and traverse great distances.
And they sit and fume in their self created traffic jams.

I am not at all exonerating the govt machinery. No sir. But the residents (and more so the potential residents) of Bengaluru also have to share the blame.

[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by alpha1

So a normal person should not prefer to move to Bengaluru. But they still do.
And they get their increasingly larger cars on the roads to be safe from the elements and traverse great distances.
And they sit and fume in their self created traffic jams.

I am not at all exonerating the govt machinery. No sir. But the residents (and more so the potential residents) of Bengaluru also have to share the blame.

This article is old but still relevant. Link. Member apachelongbow is right in stating the differences between Singapore and Bangalore.

The residents cannot be blamed till the time infrastructure issues are sorted out by the government. And to add to the misery, government is allowing more tech parks, malls, apartments in the already congested areas of the city and encouraging traffic jams and more people (who are directly and indirectly working in those areas). And I am still wondering why we are being cruel to Bangalore by adding more problems to it ? Why is that companies, tech giants not willing to set up their offices outside Bangalore and spread everywhere, now that poor Bangalore reached the saturation point ? By spreading out are we not encouraging overall development, reducing stress on infrastructure, resources etc. ?

Also, would RTI help in understanding if relevant analysis were done by the officials & government before approving the buildings, investments etc. i.e - road capacity, humans per sq. km, facilities like hospital, school ? I am pretty sure there are provisions in the existing laws to make sure that our cities do not get congested because of growth.

[hkollar]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Gated communities, which IMO are a by product of not having sufficient infrastructure, sufficient security and cleanliness. A gated community offers a sense of civilized life which is not possible staying in localities outside the gated walls. As you rightly said, salaries have tripled, so why will a person who now affords a civilized life not want a gated community, or a luxury car? Is he not earning to live well? Or as per the great socialist one must work hard but stay cheek in jowl with the slum dwelling migrant next door?

Comparing with Singapore lets do a whole comparison.

Singapore has a fantastic infrastructure comprising of driverless metro and public buses along with expensive taxis. Bangalore has a new airport with a extortionist elevated flyover, a joke of a metro and sloppy taxi services filled with criminal drivers who don't hesitate to loot or rape.
Singpore housing is subsidized by the government and you basically don't decide where you live or how you live. Bangalore housing is a free for all with pretty much localities springing up using borewell water, diesel genset powerplants and dirt roads, called as a planned layout.
Singapore is a planned city. Residential areas, gardens, recreational areas, health care, schools, work places etc are planned to cater to the community that is living around the locality. Bangalore is planned to help the builder, land shark, politician mafia and one has to commute several kilometers to find a decent school, restaurant, hospital or even commute to work. Along with lax law and order and no public safety what will a normal person do apart from buying his personal car to live safely?

I did not say private vehicles should be banned. My point is just that they shouldn't be cheap.


Singapore is the most expensive place to live, so we can't compare ourselves in other aspects to Singapore. I have visited Singapore frequently in past decade and has seen it become a very expensive place for locals. Singapore must be the only developed nation in the world, where percentage of poor grew to 28% from just 16% in 2002. There are many wrong policies followed by Singapore govt. The biggest problem in Singapore is lack of land, thus housing is very expensive. This slide has happened because Singapore became a tax haven inviting world's rich to bring their money in, without taxing it heavily. Thus, everything has become expensive, and natives are hurting.

Check these - http://thehearttruths.com/2013/10/28...to-28-in-2013/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26349689


But, their city Transportation policy is good. We should certainly strive for their transport infrastructure, while not emulating other mistakes of Singapore.

I don't live in a gated community. I use public transport frequently (inspite of having 3 cars at home).

Why? Because of convenience. I feel gated communities aren't really convenient, because they are invariably very far from city centers and transport infrastructure.

I have never been mugged, my house has never been broken in to. And I don't live in fear.

Do bad things happen? Yes they do, but we let fear psychosis get to us. While we may not be as safe as in Singapore, we aren't a crime riddled city either. But, people live in GC houses for not convinience - it is largely for status, snobbery & exclusivity.

Same goes for cars. People don't buy Audi/BMW for transport purpose. It is a fancy, a way of making a statement.

So, there is no reason why such 'statements' have to be cheap. Especially when a person occupies precious public space & pollutes air?

[sun_king]

Originally Posted by hkollar

I did not say private vehicles should be banned. My point is just that they shouldn't be cheap.
<snip>
So, there is no reason why such 'statements' have to be cheap. Especially when a person occupies precious public space & pollutes air?

The logic evades me. Let us take the case of a tax paying citizen, a significant portion of his income is taken by the government in the form of Income Tax and a gamut of others in various guises. Assuming that it is a rich person, his taxes are significantly higher. At this point, why should this person be penalized further for actually paying more for the same precious public space?

Is taxing more a viable solution?

[itwasntme]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/n.../1/563983.html

NGT has issued notices to multiple state governments including KA to explain what they are doing w.r.t. pollution. Replies expected by 9 February.

God knows what are elected jokers will think of writing in their reply!

[sgiitk]

As far as pollution goes it is a NO GO. Bangalore's gridlock can be helped by taking cars off the road (not just 6% as in Delhi).

[Chetan_Rao]

Though accurate numbers are hard to come by, I'm inclined to believe Bangalore has enough vehicles (and not enough roads) to negate any benefits the odd-even rule can bring. It would pretty much be the automotive version of taking a tumbler out of an ocean.

We need a drastic removal of vehicles off our roads, even barring heavy vehicles during peak hours would be a good start. Oh wait, they tried that, didn't they? No prizes for guessing what happened.

[Fortuner71]

The problem with Bangalore is there is no efficient public transport system , last mile connectivity . If this is done god knows when , then we can have cars off road for sure

[hybridpetrol]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

We need a drastic removal of vehicles off our roads, even barring heavy vehicles during peak hours would be a good start.

This is what everybody wants, but nobody knows how that will happen!
Majority of population seems to think that if somehow all these vehicles are kept out of roads, they can drive easily and quickly. However, since this is what everyone thinks, and a very less number of people actually trying to oblige (looking foolish in front of colleagues & family members), the hurdles of traffic never ends just because of awareness drives. That is the reason any previous attempts failed. Till date, I do not remember any rule forcing the cars out of roads in Bangalore.
Seeing the situation, and lack of roads, to see any reduction in traffic, they need to say 1 out of 5 cars only can drive per day, and all the rest should be kept parked.
But due to the growth of the city in all possible direction, narrow roads, and a huge population, it is next to impossible to improve the public transport to a level that is attractive to all and can be easily accessed by all.
Just one thought - If majority of us shift to a place within 5 km distance of the work places, pollution levels and traffic would come down drastically, and it would be also comparatively easier to provide public transport. But cities are so ill planned that residential areas with all necessities are located far off from such commercial establishments. I am simply referring the distances between the Special economic zones, which are completely not supported by any planned residential area development. Examples: Whitefield area, Electronics City.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by hybridpetrol

This is what everybody wants, but nobody knows how that will happen!.......

Lack of political will is a major contributor for all our ills. Transport lobbies, black market operators and other such goons everywhere else are the real drivers of our system, the bureaucracy are just figure heads. I'll stop this line of argument right here lest we're both picked up for breaking the 'no political arguments' rule.

But the biggest problem is US (us common folk, I mean). We're so enamored by our wants and spooked by the temporary inconveniences a transport strike or similar outcomes (the obvious result of restricting said traffic/practices) will bring - lack of everyday goods, price hikes, similar stuff - that we're willing to let them destroy our long-term well-being by holding us hostage, while all the inconveniences are loaded onto us anyway under other guises.

The only real solution - painful but doable - is to formulate and implement long-term citizen-friendly policies and make the shady parts of our economy fall in line. If that means temporary pain and hardship, well, so be it. The reason there's so much opposition to the experiment in Delhi (and elsewhere in future) is the common people see it for what it is, a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that requires a protracted, long-term solution. If the govt. actually engages the citizenry it's claiming to protect by these measures in planning and implementation instead of foisting half-baked nonsense under the guise of pretending to do 'something', I'm sure a lot more would be willing to step in and provide help, expertise and/or participation.

I'm a firm believer in the philosophy: 'If an issue was easy to fix, it wouldn't be an issue at all'. A bush-fire can't be put out with a squirt gun, it's time we pulled out the hoses.

Will any of this actually happen? I'm hopeful but not very optimistic. India (most of it) doesn't think beyond the next meal and our rulers don't think beyond the next election, unfortunately.

[hkollar]

Originally Posted by sun_king

The logic evades me. Let us take the case of a tax paying citizen, a significant portion of his income is taken by the government in the form of Income Tax and a gamut of others in various guises. Assuming that it is a rich person, his taxes are significantly higher. At this point, why should this person be penalized further for actually paying more for the same precious public space?

Is taxing more a viable solution?

Tax is a hated thing.

But, here is harsh universal truth about being 'rich'.

1. Very small percentage of people are rich because they worked hard.

- You could've inherited it
- You could've had privileged upbringing which let you earn it(education)
- You could've stumbled on it (lottery/windfall gain)
- You could've earned it through illegal means (blackmoney/corruption)

Wall Street journal says only 5% of India's super wealthy are self-made!
And that includes folks who are corrupt & robber barons.

2. Rich Pay higher tax, because they benefit most from system.

A Market is a creation of the govt. Govt. creates currency, a legal system for trade, a enforcement system for security. We haven't even come to infrastructure, which is poor in India, but what ever it is - it is created by govt.

So, in that system if someone is doing well, he needs to pay a share to the government. That's been the concept for time immemorial.

So, when someone pays tax, they are giving a 'commission' to the man who created the 'system'.

Yes, we do wish we get even more facility/infrastructure for the same 'commission' that we pay. But, concept of taxing those who benefit is the right one.

4. The capacity of the rich to bear the tax is higher than poor. There is something called social equity, which makes human race what it is - humane. We are 'civil'ization, because the civility demands that folks who can contribute more, contribute more. It may not always look fair, because in India many hide from taxation. But, that is not to say - poor don't have equity.

For eg. Many european countries (especially Scandinavian) have a traffic fines that are indexed to their income! Last year in Finland a Business man ended up paying over US$100,000 as traffic fine, for doing 65miles in a 50mile zone, because the police use the tax database to determine the fine.

Fine is a 'percentage' of his income. This is the case in many other european countries too!

The logic? Why a rich man is being targeted you ask?

Simple - Look at what happens in India. We have a pathetic Rs.100 fine for double parking in commercial street. For a jaguar owner, with a driver, Rs.100 won't even be the tip amount he'd pay the driver to go get lunch.

But, for an auto driver the same amount would perhaps be 20% of his daily earnings!

So, for something being equitable, it should impact a person's capacity. Thus rich man's fine should be more. Otherwise it'll be a joke.

---
Now consider another logic, for taxing cars/road usage heavily.

You are paying tax, but you still pay rent for your house (or buy your own house). Why should you - didn't you already pay your due?

The same logic extends to creation of private assets/comforts. A car occupies public road, and you are creating a private zone within public real-estate. The man walking on street is not. Shouldn't you be paying the real cost of that public asset? A small car takes (including space around it) approximately 110-120sq.ft. The rentals in prime areas of Bangalore, for such real-estate is upto Rs.300-400/sq.ft per month.

Just because you have paid income tax, can you go and put up a tent in MG road for free? If not, why occupy road with a car?



Legally - Tax system is very sound. So, is charging people for what they use.

[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by hkollar

Tax is a hated thing.

2. Rich Pay higher tax, because they benefit most from system.
---
Now consider another logic, for taxing cars/road usage heavily.

You are paying tax, but you still pay rent for your house (or buy your own house). Why should you - didn't you already pay your due?

The same logic extends to creation of private assets/comforts. A car occupies public road, and you are creating a private zone within public real-estate. The man walking on street is not. Shouldn't you be paying the real cost of that public asset? A small car takes (including space around it) approximately 110-120sq.ft. The rentals in prime areas of Bangalore, for such real-estate is upto Rs.300-400/sq.ft per month.

Just because you have paid income tax, can you go and put up a tent in MG road for free? If not, why occupy road with a car?



Legally - Tax system is very sound. So, is charging people for what they use.

Let me quote an example (prices of Bangalore, from online sites)

A guy buying a Jaguar XF 2.2 D pays the amount as follows:


Jaguar XF 2.2 D

EX showroom price - 48,51,419
RTO - 10,09,314 (21% of ex showroom)
Inusrance - 2,47,358

Total - 6108091

whereas someone buying a Swift LXi


Maruti Suzuki Swift LXi

Ex-Showroom Price - 4,84,473
RTO - 69,909 (14%)
Insurance - 14,816

Total - 569198

The Jaguar guy is already paying more tax than the swift guy. 14.4 times more than Swift and using same road, slightly larger space than a swift.

Look at the numbers on this t-bhp thread and here

The volume sales are in the "budget-middle class" segment, so now who is the culprit ? Rich or the middle class or the poor ? Or the rich disguising as poor by buying the smaller cars for their own convenience and hogging up the road increasing congestion and pollution ? Or anyone who can afford a car above 3 lakhs is considered rich so they should all be taxed further high ? Do we ever think why so many buying the budget segment cars ? Because they do not have alternatives or they can "afford" ? We are talking about pollution and grid lock caused by everyone not just the handful of Jaguar's or Mercedes on the road, isnt it ?

And if taxation is the only way to go, then let's target the volume segment cars, tax them much higher than what they are so that they do not get sold in huge numbers, adding to the pollution and traffic. The guy who can afford Jaguar or higher would still buy them. Anyways the numbers are low there so i'd not really worry much.

Let's all get together for a better solution. Plant more trees, work with political parties and force them to add infra development, policies on public transport, utilities to their manifesto. And tell them that we would not vote otherwise. If people could boycott movies because an actor made a statement, then why can't we boycott parties and policies that do not offer solution for our infrastructure problems? Please do not support solutions that are jugaad's - like odd/even, ask everyone to use buses when there are not enough buses on road.

[rahulsnh]

All sensationalized bad ideas have a way of spreading like forest fire. Odd/even rule is knee jerk reaction based on zero research and substantiation. Governments should decide public policy based on, at least, a survey on whether a rule will lead to a desired outcome. Isn't it? Karnataka government has highest road tax and highest number of potholes; the proportionality is hard to miss. The white elephant project of metro rail that sometimes simply stop working, making people take dangerous walk on a thin passage next to track is just an example of how badly it is planned and managed.

[hkollar]

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

The Jaguar guy is already paying more tax than the swift guy. 14.4 times more than Swift and using same road, slightly larger space than a swift.

Which is why I said, the tax should reflect the space consumed & power of the car (pollution capacity).

However, For a swift guy, the swift is the jaguar! (Purchase power parity). Thus, govt is right in making people pay more for luxury separately (other than space/pollution).

The volume sales are in the "budget-middle class" segment, so now who is the culprit ?

Any car buyer in India is not 'middle' class!!

Rich, of any society, is defined as top 1% of population. Upper class is defined as top 10% of that society. After these two comes middle-class, and then the lower middle (or lower) and then poor.

In India only 4.7% people own vehicles (census 2011). That puts anyone who owns a car beyond 'middle-class' category. CAR OWNERSHIP IS UPPER CLASS RIGHT NOW. Our taxman also follows this rule. Owning a car and not filing returns, you can bet you are on his radar.

Rich or the middle class or the poor ? Or the rich disguising as poor by buying the smaller cars for their own convenience and hogging up the road increasing congestion and pollution ? Or anyone who can afford a car above 3 lakhs is considered rich so they should all be taxed further high ? Do we ever think why so many buying the budget segment cars ? Because they do not have alternatives or they can "afford" ? We are talking about pollution and grid lock caused by everyone not just the handful of Jaguar's or Mercedes on the road, isnt it ?

Jaguar/Mercs are toys of 0.1%. So, they are the 'super/filthy rich'. Anything above basic car (above 5-6Lakhs) is for rich, and all cars are for 'upper class'.

Middle class doesn't come in to the equation here. Indian middle class runs on two wheelers.

DON'T BE SHY TO ADMIT IT - YOU/ME ARE UPPER CLASS.

And if taxation is the only way to go, then let's target the volume segment cars, tax them much higher than what they are so that they do not get sold in huge numbers, adding to the pollution and traffic. The guy who can afford Jaguar or higher would still buy them. Anyways the numbers are low there so i'd not really worry much.

EXACTLY! This is what I have been advocating!

It is bad for car industry in short term, but it may nudge them to move towards, smaller, less polluting cars (Electric/Hybrid). We need transport that takes less real-estate (on road/parking), and gives mileages that are effectively 50km/liter Or 5km/Kwh of electricity. Currently, Only two wheelers and EVs manage this. They can be taxed cheaper. Thus promoting job creation in a new industry (in liu of old). Overtime, we will have small, safe, highly efficient cars for cities.

Long distance will be thru rentals/public transport or very expensive hybrid/fossil cars.

Let's all get together for a better solution. Plant more trees, work with political parties and force them to add infra development, policies on public transport, utilities to their manifesto. And tell them that we would not vote otherwise.

If people could boycott movies because an actor made a statement, then why can't we boycott parties and policies that do not offer solution for our infrastructure problems? Please do not support solutions that are jugaad's - like odd/even, ask everyone to use buses when there are not enough buses on road.

All excellent ideas. But, sadly urban areas don't control election results to influence decision making. Siddharamaiah slashed Bangalore budget by 2/3rd this year! Because his vote banks are rural. And pollution problem is urban, so he can make harsh policy and get away, instead of long term sensible policy.

I welcome Odd-Even only as an eye opener - It starts a debate. Not as an end solution, because it's not practical or effective.

Practical solution needs revamp & reimagining of transport in massive scale. May take up to a decade, if we work sincerely.

My best hope - SUPREME COURT WILL PUSH GOVT.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by hkollar

Which is why I said, the tax should reflect the space consumed & power of the car (pollution capacity).


Any car buyer in India is not 'middle' class!!

Rich, of any society, is defined as top 1% of population. Upper class is defined as top 10% of that society. After these two comes middle-class, and then the lower middle (or lower) and then poor.

In India only 4.7% people own vehicles (census 2011). That puts anyone who owns a car beyond 'middle-class' category. CAR OWNERSHIP IS UPPER CLASS RIGHT NOW. Our taxman also follows this rule. Owning a car and not filing returns, you can bet you are on his radar.



Jaguar/Mercs are toys of 0.1%. So, they are the 'super/filthy rich'. Anything above basic car (above 5-6Lakhs) is for rich, and all cars are for 'upper class'.

Middle class doesn't come in to the equation here. Indian middle class runs on two wheelers.

DON'T BE SHY TO ADMIT IT - YOU/ME ARE UPPER CLASS.



EXACTLY! This is what I have been advocating!

It is bad for car industry in short term, but it may nudge them to move towards, smaller, less polluting cars (Electric/Hybrid). We need transport that takes less real-estate (on road/parking), and gives mileages that are effectively 50km/liter Or 5km/Kwh of electricity. Currently, Only two wheelers and EVs manage this. They can be taxed cheaper. Thus promoting job creation in a new industry (in liu of old). Overtime, we will have small, safe, highly efficient cars for cities.

Long distance will be thru rentals/public transport or very expensive hybrid/fossil cars.



All excellent ideas. But, sadly urban areas don't control election results to influence decision making. Siddharamaiah slashed Bangalore budget by 2/3rd this year! Because his vote banks are rural. And pollution problem is urban, so he can make harsh policy and get away, instead of long term sensible policy.

I welcome Odd-Even only as an eye opener - It starts a debate. Not as an end solution, because it's not practical or effective.

Practical solution needs revamp & reimagining of transport in massive scale. May take up to a decade, if we work sincerely.

My best hope - SUPREME COURT WILL PUSH GOVT.

Revamping transport is the need of the hour. As in the Singapore example, give the people a world class comfortable transport system,which has high connectivity, ensures one doesn't have to walk too many miles from door to door, and more importantly is clean and safe, and people will automatically shun cars/bikes. This important bit everyone knows, but no government wants to implement. After revamp and renewal of a tottering public transport system is serious work and which government wants to 'work' at all? What all governments in India want is to tax and tax more and eat all the 'malai' in the ensuring corruption mess.

Supreme court IMHO is one more frivolous body whose actual job is to finish off the lakhs of pending cases with itself and lower courts, yet wastes time in deciding if cars > x cc are more polluting or not, which is the job of scientists. As far as I know this add hoc panchayat type decisions by the honorable court have no scientific basis but on whim and fancies of the said judge. The only rational decision they feel they can take is ban x,y,z and everything which catches their fancy. Had they used an iota of intellegence, or gathered data they would have found out that Delhi pollution is mainly due to
crop burning in Punjab and Haryana
illegal mining and dumping
ad hoc construction resulting in high spm and dust residue
umpteen transport vehicles older than 15 years spewing out dangerous smoke
Too many diesel gen sets being used in NCR because the government cannot produce and safely distribute enough power

But the court as usual went after the weakest boy in class, making the ridiculous even/odd scheme do a test run and banning 'rich' cars > 2000 cc even if the 'rich' car is a humble Bolero!!!

So lets not kid ourselves that the court, some agenda minded NGO or our great government are going to do something sensible about pollution, nor will every working man/woman shunning cars and riding bycles solve this issue. If this issue needs to be solved, we need to get rid of the corrupt quagmire we are in, before looking at sensible alternatives.