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

[obwon]

aliani.unescap at un.org wrote:
> 
>      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.
> [...]

  Yes... It is very often true that personal mobility is the only answer
in today's fast paced world with the demands placed upon us.  There was
once a time when a trip of over 10 miles was considered a big trip to be
made only weekly.  Now we are required to make what would have been a
days travel 30 -- 50 miles on a bi daily basis.

  The problem is not the trips or the travel but the means we have at
our disposal to make them.  Since we are learning that these current
methods of travel are creating problems for the ecology we have some
indication that this can not be allowed to go on in perpetuity.

  As I see the current solutions configuration... we have a couple of
immediate choices that can work well to achieve some reductions until
better methods of travel are devised.  What I first propose is that
those local trips that are amenable to HPV travel be turned over to hpv
use.

  What this means is that local deliveries, local recreational trips and
some local shopping trips can be made using hpv.  There is a needed
health benefit that goes along with doing so, where sedentiary
lifestyles would be impacted by restrictions on auto use that are
designed to get people to exercise and also eliminate those trips which
can be.  No... not a draconian imposition or edict.  But a reasonable
consensus as to what can be reasonably be done and some commitment to do
it.  Not meaning that absolutely NO cars or autos will be used for such
trips, but that only the barest few we can live with be permitted to do
so.

  On the next level we have the intermediate trips, the 10 -- 50 km
trips.  Autos are undoubtedly the most efficient means of making such
trips from the travelers perspective, assuming that the traveler already
owns such a vehicle.  But in the recognition of the vast differences
between the several travelers, we see that for many, alternative
vehicles would be sufficient.  The commuter differs from the salesman in
that the commuter needs transport at fixed times to fix places.  While
the salesman has needs so variable that it would be hard to define the
optimum vehicle(s) if not a car.  

  So we might concentrate on trying to replace some of the auto trips
that the commuter must make since his travel configuration is more
stable.  

  Then we come to the industrial transportation issues.  Where it can be
seen that interlinks between far flung cities by mass transport vehicles
is much more efficient than having a vast fleet of trucks moving across
these long distances.  So the name of the game as I see it is to
separate and replace, rather than shut down completely.  Thus we can
begin to reduce auto depencency by replacements.  

  This is most easily done and to quite an immediate benefit for local
trips and in recreational and historic areas/districts.  Next step is to
reinforce the breaking of the auto/travel bond by introducing car
shareing which puts cars just beyond easy reach, except when they are
needed.  In areas where it is feasible, like urban centers, it would be
much more convienent to say hop aboard a hpv (tricycle) do some grocery
or other local shopping and return home.  

  This would free many local streets of the hazards of auto traffic,
noise and pollution.  An the additional health benefits of using hpv's
in such areas is that the level of environmental and personal stress is
reduced.  

  Get this...  I lost a friend who was an architect, simply because a
taxi cab wanted to turn a corner, probably hurriedly because he needed
fares.  What I'd like to see here in NYC, is to have Tractor pulled
trams moving up and down the avenues and pedicabs plying the side
streets and perhaps some electric vehicles.  The cabs and autos would
then be confined to the periphery of the city where people could get to
them when needed.  But all this coursing wildly through the streets in
-- at times desperate-- search of fares often costs people their lives.  

  Instead our illustrious silly council devotes it's time to laws
protecting pedestrians from bikes and the soft fleshy mooush of
rollerbladers.  While tons of hard metal charge gracelessly through the
street at many tens of miles per hour.  They kill people everyday of the
week, yet the silly council takes little or no notice! Nor do they care,
it seems, that citizens are assured of losing their lives, in parks or
malls or even in historic or recreational districts they invite the
masses to throng to.

  Must we have a parking space adjacent to each table at a sidewalk
cafe?  I've seen motorist pull wildly out of one parking space and race
down the block, only to park several dozens of feet closer to their
destination.  This is what happens when auto-centric people are given
their way.  This is the behaviour even they themselves denounce in their
fellow drivers.  But it is a problem of concept that comes with the
usage of cars.  Once people come to realize that a car is not meant to
be a symbol of status, but a tool to get a job done, then perhaps we all
might be able to breath a bit easier.

  Regards
 Obwon