metro in Hanoi
- One argument that is often used against those who don't want mass car ownership
and use (or mass aviation) is that it consists of the better off, who can
afford to pay high prices for cars and flights, kicking the ladder of
opportunity so that the mass of people can't take advantage of these amenities.
It occurs to me to wonder whether a similar argument can be used against those
who object to cities like Hanoi getting metros. If the people of London and New
York can enjoy their benefits, why not those of Hanoi ?
I think that there are ample environmental reasons to counter the original use
of this argument, and I would also add that I believe that if we had a properly
run public transport system and cycling network then the extra opportunities
afforded by private cars would be negligible.
However I am in no doubt that London's transport system is immeasurably improved
by the availability of Tube trains. So can we really ask the people of Hanoi to
do without these benefits ?
The argument that the potential demand for underground travel has been
abstracted by the ubiquity of powered 2 wheelers ignores the fact that these
vehicles, like cars in industrialised countries, are causing immeasurable
environmental damage and need to be curbed by whatever means.