[sustran] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities.

[ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr]

Dear Friends,

 

Just in case it might interest some of you, there is lively discussion
of this in two of our discussion groups: http://newmobility.org  and
http://worldcarshare.com <http://worldcarshare.com/> . Each of these has
a low volume moderated discussion list associated with it that I believe
makes a good companion source of contact with our wonderful SUSTRAN. 

 

The following note just in from Chris Bradshaw a long time actor in the
Sustainable Mobility sphere is a good example of the level of
thoughtfulness you will encounter there.  Both programs and lists are of
course free.

 

Let me end with a few quick word on carsharing.  A great deal of
progress has been made in recent years in making real sense out of this
concept, and today it is increasingly seen, understood and marketed as a
strategic extension of the existing public transport/human transport
range of services.  Where things become interesting for this idea which
of course is cutting its teeth in Europe and more recently in North
America, is what happens to it when it begins to mesh into the very
different transport contexts such as we have in Asia which are rich in
two wheelers (for better or worse) and a wide range of "intermediate
transport" means.  I for one think that there is a broader pattern in
all this, but first let's hear what you all have to say.

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris at ties.ottawa.on.ca] 

Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 5:58 AM

To: WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for
Third World cities. Your views?

 

Eric, 

 

Thanks for bringing this provocative question/point to our attention.
This will bring to two the # of Canadians responding. 

 

Lee Schipper has raised a point that all new technologies face.  By
offering a new choice, from what existing choices will it draw most of
its adherents? 

 

In the case of carsharing, this is very much the case, as we are
claiming that car sharing is a small-footprint alternative to driving;
while we all know that many people who join have not owned a car in many
years. 

 

I find that we are good at attracting people who have "been there, done
it, got the T-shirt" and are ready for 'car-access-lite.'  There are
people who _want_ to drive less and have organized their life
(especially finding a good walkable community to live in, and eschewing
the cottage life so popular in N. Am.) so that little driving is
required. 

 

However, Schipper poses the question about how will carsharing be used
by the great masses who are eager to get some car-access, somehow.  Will
we provide a more accessible "stepping stone"?

 

I don't think so.  

 

First, our insurers don't allow people to learn to drive in carsharing
clubs, and the minimum age also eliminates even those who get their
license with the aid of the family car and want to avoid getting their
own (and know all-too-well how informal car-sharing works). 

 

Second, we have found little interest from the poor.  We find our
members to have lower-than-average income, but above-average education
background.  These people find an owned car a dead weight around their
ankles, and want relief.  They also see driving, especially at rush
hour, to be little more liberating than being an elephant in a parade
holding the tail of the animal in front in their trunk.

 

Third, we don't offer most of what the car -- as advertised -- offers.
We only offer utilitarian driving access.  Which car-manufacturers (or
even other industry partners) advertise that?  Rather they offer power,
status, freedom, and a machine that communicates to others who they hell
they are. 

 

Fourth, we add "noise" to the access, by requiring some planning and a
walk on either end of the journey.  We kill most of the spontaneity that
constitutes a good share of 'freedom'. 

 

Fifth, while we offer little in the way of "image" (a flashy or powerful
or well-appointed vehicle), we do offer the "reverse image" of
utilitarianism, somewhat as the early VW beetles not-so-subtly mocked
the standard car image of the 50's and 60's.  And it is that reverse
image that will specifically turn off the panting masses waiting to get
their place on the ever-more-congested byways of their communities (even
though carsharing offers the only real alternative to congestion be
reducing the number of vehicles available to do the congesting). 

 

The last matter is whether someone who has joined carsharing to avoid
car costs will later move to an owned car when their income situation
improves.  We find the people who resign to buy a car usually are facing
changing personal circumstances beyond their control (a new job; getting
married; tending to an elderly parent).  Several have rejoined later. 

 

Chris Bradshaw, Vrtucar, Ottawa

 

 

 

The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice

Consult at: http://wTransport.org 

To post message to group: WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com 

To subscribe:  WorldTransport-subscribe at yahoogroups.com  

To unsubscribe:  WorldTransport-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com 

 

 

 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

Yahoo! Groups Links

. To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/

  

. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

WorldTransport-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

  

. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040416/b1da75e1/attachment.html