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

[Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg]

To remark on the note below by Chris Bradshaw (forwarded by Eric Britton) 
from the World Transport Forum discussion list -

Chris' comments comprise detailed information from the North American 
context, and are important for all interested in sustainable transport. 
And they form a cogent argument for why car-sharing will not increase 
un-sustainable transport in car-dominated societies.  On the other hand, 
Lee Schipper's original comments are attuned to the issues in developing 
countries, and are accurate for that context. 

The issue is really the huge differences in context  between car-dependent 
North America (or Europe or Australia) and the developing world.  Just for 
an example, a fundamental difference is "image" which Chris refers to in 
his Fifth point.  There is no such thing as a "reverse image" in the 
developing world - having access to a car is high prestige, period. 

So, the points Chris makes lead to an accurate conclusion for the North 
American context.  We can't however assume a similar conclusion  in the 
developing world.  My feeling, akin to Lee Schipper's, is that car-sharing 
would increase motorization in developing world cities, where sheer 
volumes of people to be moved combined with sheer lack of road space (not 
to mention hosts of social and health issues) mean even small increases in 
the use of cars have significant ramifications on 
environment/equity/health....

Best regards,
Gina Manzo

Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X 
URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X? ph +65 6321-8305 „X
Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If 
you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use 
it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please 
notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.? http://www.ura.gov.sg




<ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr>
Sent by: 
sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=ura.gov.sg at list.jca.apc.org
16/04/2004 14:48
Please respond to Eric.Britton; Please respond to Asia and the Pacific 
sustainable transport

 
        To:     "'Sustran-Discuss at Jca. Ax. Apc. Org'" <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [sustran] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities.

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. 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 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040419/f24546bb/attachment.html