Alan K. Meier

Intermediate Transport in South East Asian Cities

Homepage Manual Contents Navigation

Conclusion

These three case studies are in no way complete descriptions of the cities. Moreover, they are now rapidly becoming outdated. But several conclusions can be drawn from them. First, each city has several unique aspects due to its size, organization, social composition, climate and geography. The direct consequence of this is significantly different intermediate transport networks. Before we attempt to transplant a vehicle from one city to another, we must determine what aspects of the first city were critical to its success and whether those aspects exist in the second city.

Second, the speed with which the cities are changing their transport systems is much faster than in the developed countries. New vehicles appear, enjoy wide use, and are displaced by a more efficient competitor, often in less than a decade. This sort of transformation is occurring continually (and peacefully for the most part) as a result of changes in the economic and political climate. It is also important to note the fate of the obsolete vehicles. They are exported to the smaller cities and rural areas where sales capitalize the purchase of newer vehicles for the largest cities. Thus, the transformation of the large cities' transport systems can have substantial influence on the rest of the country.

Third, unless there are extraordinary situations there is a general tendency to shift into motorized vehicles. (From a microeconomic standpoint, motorized vehicles are almost always more efficient, especially in cities where a premium is associated with time.) This is perhaps one of the greatest crises facing the less developed countries. Transportation is the fastest growing use of (generally imported) petroleum in the less developed countries. The foreign exchange burden resulting from the oil has unquestionably crimped development. However, the individual or business does not see this cost; it only sees the cost of the petrol. Even with some of the highest petrol prices in the world. the businessmen and the upper middle class are so confident that motorized vehicles are cost-effective (i.e., profitable) that they continue buying them in record numbers. There exists, then, a conflict of private and national needs, that of microeconomic efficiency and national development. The government cannot fully suppress this shift to motorised transport because it is, in part, an essential element of economic development. Nor can it tolerate the exploding growth of petroleum demands of the transport sector. There is no simple solution to this dilemma.

What are the extraordinary conditions where the shift to motorized transport has not occurred? The first is the condition of extreme economic collapse such as occurred in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City in 1974-75.) There the shift to motorized vehicles took place in the mid-1960's and then reverted back to bicycles in the mid-1970's. This is clearly not the route to economic development, even though the end result may be enviable. A second condition is less well defined, and not fully understood. For what appears to be a complex set of circumstances, Penang found that the freight tricycle served its purposes admirably and that there was no real need to shift to motorized vehicles, This situstion is all the more remarkable given the comparable wealth of Penang's residents.

In search for appropriate transport, the less developed countries need not rely solely on the developed nations for assistance. There is a wealth of expertise and a great diversity of vehicles available from other less developed countries indeed, they are often neighbours. At the same time, the vehicle cannot be considered alone. Its function, service characteristics, and social context must all be considered in a complicated equation that determines an appropriate technology.