Car co-ops: was Re: [sustran] intro

[John Brooks]

In message <9704148636.AA863600603 at mail-out.un.org>,
aliani.unescap at un.org writes
>     Hi!
>     
>     I am a Human Settlements Officer at the United Nations Economic and 
>     Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) which is based in 
>     Bangkok, Thailand.
and therefore, we must assume, 'well funded'...
>     
>     I agree with Maya when she says that given the present transport 
>     system, using a car is a necessity if one wants to maintain one's 
>     mobility. 
ok so far
>
...
> I tried travelling by 
>     bus for a month and found out that it took me on average 90 minutes to 
>     get to work and about 120 minutes to return home. Usually by the time 
>     I got to work I was so tired that I needed at least another hour to 
>     recover.
yup - public transport in Bangkok must be a mess, same as most other
places...
>By car my normal commuting time was 30 minutes.
yes, but...
at present, you personally can afford to buy and operate a car and there
is still (just) sufficient road-space to use it effectively.
>     
>     They are building a mass transit system here which most likely will 
>     fail to attract motorists because the distances between residences and 
>     main roads are too great and people will not inconvenience themselves 
>     in the heat and the rain to ride public transport. 
pessimistic or realistic - I hope the former....
>     
>     I think private modes of transport are necessary 
for who?  I would have thought even the most myopic private car user
would recognise the ultimate futility of such a statement.  Unless you
and everyone else are prepared to accept severe 'population management'
so that the world's total population falls below (say) 2 billion very
quickly and stays at that level, it is obvious (at least to me :=) )
that there is no way that private motorised transport can be sustainable
long-term, given the number of potential users.
>and we have to 
>     concentrate our efforts to finding sustainable and clean energy 
>     sources for vehicular transport.
you momentarily (?) forgot the energy and other resource costs of making
the vehicles, roads, etc...
> In this connection electric or 
>     hydrogen powered vehicles are the most feasible as yet.
No, they are not 'feasible'!  Battery drives just move the source of
pollution to somewhere else.  No-one has yet found a way of storing
enough hydrogen to make it effective.  And you still have to produce and
transport the hydrogen.  I assume you are therefore arguing in favour of
continued use of nuclear energy - the only AVAILABLE technology which
meets even some of the sustainability criteria.  And why not - ignoring
the hysterical resistance from the public based largely on ignorance
about both nuclear energy and its alternatives.
>     
>     An interim measure could be to follow the Japanese example and make 
>     ownership of vehicles older than five years very difficult.
thus increasing the resource consumption creating even more new vehicles
than needed by CURRENT demand...
I suppose you are aware that one effect of the Japanese rules has been
the mass export of 'used' cars to New Zealand, followed by collapse in
the price of used cars there and further local economic consequences....
> The older 
>     the car the more it pollutes. This will also not hurt the auto 
>     industry too badly, which is specially important in Thailand as the 
>     industry employs an estimated 100,000 people directly and another 
>     500,000 indirectly.
see above.


I had hoped that this group would provide valuable insights into 'new
thinking' about transport issues from the Pacific Rim.  Maybe Europe
could learn something.  Or, judging by your proposed solutions, not.

-- 
John Brooks  - Technical Consultant, Energy, Network Systems and Data Comms
South Croydon, 7CR2 7HN, UK Tel: (44) 181 681 1595 Fax: (44) 181 649 7536
The opinions expressed here are mine but are not offered as professional advice.