[sustran] Re: "many people misunderstand car sharing and car-pooling.It is not the time."

[Zvi Leve]

Hi Chris,

Chris Bradshaw wrote:
> Carsharing transfers fixed car expenses into variable ones.  If
> car-ownership costs were increased, it would have the effect of becoming a
> barrier to ownership for people who can't afford the "admission cost," and
> also increasing the variable costs of carsharing.
>   
In order for car-sharing to work, there needs to be a certain level of 
basic mobility, something which has not yet been achieved in most 
rapidly growing cities. From my experience, car-sharing is most 
appropriate for urban dwellers who need a car for the occasional trip 
out to IKEA. I really couldn't say what most Chinese people need a car for!
> The course China is on yields to the "my car" orientation, and will create a
> great deal of transportation inequity in the short run, and will inundate
> the built (and natural) environment in the long run.
>   
I am certainly not condoning China's car-oriented growth policies! On 
the other hand, from my limited experience working with Chinese 
colleagues, I have been rather impressed with their efforts at 
'integrated planning' (ie coordinating land-use, basic infrastructure, 
and road and transit - one thing which is conspicuously absent is 
parking!). China is growing so fast and in so many different directions 
now that it is difficult to imagine what their future will look like. I 
am actually more concerned with other mega-city regions in the 
developing world which are also applying car-oriented development 
patterns, but without the same control and coordination as in China.
> The "helping the economy" argument that dictates producing as many cars as
> possible, could simply allocate those cars to a distribution model that
> serves as many people as possible.  It would also, with proper public
> support, mean that carsharing will be more practical from the get-go (a
> shared car located on every block; a full variety of vehicle types),
> allowing the Chinese to lead, not follow, in personal transportation trends,
> and ensure they don't "drown" their cities with sprawl and induced
> "getting-my-money's-worth" driving.
>
> There is a basic human yearning to share (which is mankind's oldest
> "technology," after all), not just in a country emerging from agrarian
> socialism, but in the West, where there is growing awareness that the car
> isolates us, not just from the anonymous "fellow man," but from our
> neighbours, our families, and from ourselves.
>   
I am not sure how strong the desire to 'share' really is - just look at 
how little children play together! They only share things that no one 
wants. On the other hand, there does seem to be a very strong desire to 
acquire things, and this applies everywhere in the world (except maybe 
North Korea ;-) ): consumer culture has become the driving force in our 
lives. China is going down the same path as Japan: first specialize in 
cheap consumer goods; then develop the manufacturing technologies to 
move up-scale with more value-added products (computers and 
electronics), eventually developing a large auto-industry (which has 
spin-offs in many other sectors of the economy). This economic 
development model has been applied with varying degrees of success 
throughout Asia.
> Again, I repeat: before we throw up our hands and say that we can't deny
> "developing" peoples the right to emulate our lifestyle, we might consider
> deomostrating a more thoughtful, sustainable one.
>   

All of us in this forum are well aware of the non-sustainability of 
'auto-oriented' development patterns, but the short-term success of this 
method is difficult to challenge. I think that we need to come up with 
fundamentally different ways of approaching the way that we live 
together. How can we shift our time-perspective from the near-term ("I 
want what's best for me and my family") back to a long-term historical 
perspective ("what legacy do we, as a society, want to leave for our 
future generations")? Throughout mankind's history we have built things 
in order to leave a record of our achievements; now we focus all of our 
efforts on finding more efficient ways of creating disposable products 
(even our housing) for immediate consumption! Perhaps this is a natural 
conclusion of the western mono-theistic perspective on history as a 
story which is unfolding (as opposed to a cyclical view of history where 
forces are in a perpetual struggle to achieve some sort of 'balance'). 
Whatever the case, I don't think that the "developed" countries have a 
particularly good record at proposing sustainable life-styles!

Cheers,

Zvi