noksss
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,950
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
The proposal from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government to try the odd-even scheme for private car usage in Delhi, from January 1-15, has been a topic of intense debate. The scheme has been projected as a measure for controlling environmental pollution in the capital; however, as the details emerge, it appears to be ‘odd-even scheming’ to gain control over Delhi Police. Several indicators point to the rotten plank and contaminated building blocks used for developing the scheme.
First, many expert studies have concluded that vehicles account for only about 25% of air pollution in the capital. Further, within the pollution attributable to vehicles, the share of commercial vehicles and two-wheelers is fairly large, and private cars may be responsible for merely a tenth of the total air pollution. After allowing for various exclusions from the proposed odd-even scheme, cars of non-VIP males may be causing only around 7% of Delhi’s air pollution.
In such a scenario—excluding the fraudsters who may switch their number plates ending with an odd number to even or vice-versa or fix a fake CNG sticker on their vehicles—if half the target cars have to be off the roads from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, it is only natural that owners of those cars would increase their car usage outside the restricted hours and increase pollution during that period. Others may use taxis or three-wheelers and add to the pollution due to additional running of those vehicles. Thus, the net effect of the odd-even car scheme on city’s air pollution is likely to be less than 3%. Why spend so much time and energy on a scheme that is may have a marginal impact on air pollution?
Second, if pollution is indeed a concern, why not target those who run their vehicles without valid PUC (pollution under control) certificates? If the data of all PUC vehicles is centrally available, why not develop an app for the police to check PUC status of cars in all parking lots and slap a fine of, say, R2,000 on defaulters or impound those vehicles? If the pollution checking apparatus at PUC centres is not functional, not calibrated or if the centres are issuing bogus certificates, why not punish those involved? Why not nab fuel adulterators for harmful emissions and worsening effects of pollution? Why not get rid of road encroachments and work on better traffic management to reduce vehicle idling at jams and reduce pollution? Well, none of these measures may provide any political mileage.
Third, the AAP seems to strongly believe in George Bernard Shaw’s quote: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Therefore, the odd-even scheme only targets car owners. It aims to free the road space from non-VIP males and make it available to those who don’t own cars. The AAP appears to think that car owners fall outside their constituency. Further, auto/taxi drivers seem dearer to the AAP than those working as drivers of private cars. What will the drivers of even numbered cars do on odd dates? Will they get paid for those days?
Fourth, the scheme is being run when all the schools are closed. In fact, school holidays have been extended to cover the trial period. This may allow the AAP to make misleading claims for reduction in pollution as a result of the odd-even scheme, just the way they have done for car-free days on October 22 and November 22, which were both holidays.
Fifth, a scheme that may reduce pollution marginally has been given a lot of publicity and it has been deliberately made difficult for implementation by putting a steep fine of R2,000. The quantum of fine has been designed to induce negotiations on the roadside so that the AAP can start sounding the trumpets and beating the drums of corruption.
Finally the ulterior motive. The AAP perhaps thinks that it benefits much more from failure of the odd-even scheme than from its success. When the scheme fails, the AAP may entirely blame it on the lack of implementation support from the police and try to make a case for gaining control of Delhi Police. Isn’t that odd-even scheming?
Odd-even bluff? - Yahoo India Finance
First, many expert studies have concluded that vehicles account for only about 25% of air pollution in the capital. Further, within the pollution attributable to vehicles, the share of commercial vehicles and two-wheelers is fairly large, and private cars may be responsible for merely a tenth of the total air pollution. After allowing for various exclusions from the proposed odd-even scheme, cars of non-VIP males may be causing only around 7% of Delhi’s air pollution.
In such a scenario—excluding the fraudsters who may switch their number plates ending with an odd number to even or vice-versa or fix a fake CNG sticker on their vehicles—if half the target cars have to be off the roads from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, it is only natural that owners of those cars would increase their car usage outside the restricted hours and increase pollution during that period. Others may use taxis or three-wheelers and add to the pollution due to additional running of those vehicles. Thus, the net effect of the odd-even car scheme on city’s air pollution is likely to be less than 3%. Why spend so much time and energy on a scheme that is may have a marginal impact on air pollution?
Second, if pollution is indeed a concern, why not target those who run their vehicles without valid PUC (pollution under control) certificates? If the data of all PUC vehicles is centrally available, why not develop an app for the police to check PUC status of cars in all parking lots and slap a fine of, say, R2,000 on defaulters or impound those vehicles? If the pollution checking apparatus at PUC centres is not functional, not calibrated or if the centres are issuing bogus certificates, why not punish those involved? Why not nab fuel adulterators for harmful emissions and worsening effects of pollution? Why not get rid of road encroachments and work on better traffic management to reduce vehicle idling at jams and reduce pollution? Well, none of these measures may provide any political mileage.
Third, the AAP seems to strongly believe in George Bernard Shaw’s quote: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Therefore, the odd-even scheme only targets car owners. It aims to free the road space from non-VIP males and make it available to those who don’t own cars. The AAP appears to think that car owners fall outside their constituency. Further, auto/taxi drivers seem dearer to the AAP than those working as drivers of private cars. What will the drivers of even numbered cars do on odd dates? Will they get paid for those days?
Fourth, the scheme is being run when all the schools are closed. In fact, school holidays have been extended to cover the trial period. This may allow the AAP to make misleading claims for reduction in pollution as a result of the odd-even scheme, just the way they have done for car-free days on October 22 and November 22, which were both holidays.
Fifth, a scheme that may reduce pollution marginally has been given a lot of publicity and it has been deliberately made difficult for implementation by putting a steep fine of R2,000. The quantum of fine has been designed to induce negotiations on the roadside so that the AAP can start sounding the trumpets and beating the drums of corruption.
Finally the ulterior motive. The AAP perhaps thinks that it benefits much more from failure of the odd-even scheme than from its success. When the scheme fails, the AAP may entirely blame it on the lack of implementation support from the police and try to make a case for gaining control of Delhi Police. Isn’t that odd-even scheming?
Odd-even bluff? - Yahoo India Finance
