Evening the odds

Reducing pollution demands a more rounded approach

That the second phase of the odd-even scheme, which ended on Saturday, was not an unalloyed success was clear from several statements by Delhi Transport Minister Gopal Rai. In one, he blamed the media for suggesting that it was a failure; in another, he said serial fires in Delhi were responsible for continued pollution, and the fact that schools were open accounted for the unexpected traffic congestion; in a third, he announced that the third phase of the scheme would be contingent on an analysis by a six-member committee plus media surveys.

Given the polarised debates over the road-rationing scheme, which is being closely watched by administrators in other cities, a definitive study covering the impacts of this policy on varied stakeholders is welcome. On the one hand, a report by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) showed no significant change in absolute pollution levels over the fortnight of the scheme. On the other, a survey of over 1,000 people conducted by the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) showed wide appreciation of the scheme because of the cut in commuter time and, therefore, lower individual exposure to pollutants caused by engines idling in traffic jams and at signals. The PHDCCI's report did not specify the break-up of respondents between car owners and public transport users, so that it is difficult to tell whether a score of 5.8 out of 10 for the overall travelling experience refers to the efficacy of road rationing or the quality of the public transport system.

The partially positive response to the scheme suggests that the policy has virtues. Making the scheme permanent, however, will only encourage rich people to game the system by buying alternately numbered cars. So a more rounded approach may yield better results in controlling pollution. Since restricting car use is always desirable, augmenting the public transport system is an obvious solution, especially increasing the number of buses. Improving traffic management through better synchronised traffic signals, altering office times and limiting the timing of construction activity are others.

In this context, the state government's decision to ban peak-hour surge pricing by taxi aggregators is inexplicable and poorly judged. It protected a random set of better-off people (taxi users) as well as the notoriously unreliable auto-rickshaw services. Worst of all, absent price signals from the surge, taxi aggregators tended to vanish when they were needed most. If the Aam Aadmi Party is worried about price gouging, the suggestion made by Nandan Nilekani and Viral Shah to allow customer auctions for taxi services is worth considering. Finally, the state government should study the impact the scheme has on those who rely on car usage: parking attendants and drivers, who stand to forfeit income if the scheme is made permanent. The experiences of other Asian cities have shown that road rationing alone is an inadequate response to pollution. A more broad-based approach will be necessary.