[sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport

[Brendan Finn]

Eric, 

I don't disagree with the downsides, but I think you are missing the point. Car owners and wannabees don't want to know about downsides, they've already made up their minds. The auto industry has been very successful at selling an airbrushed dream. The current generation of car adverts avoid reality, and often show very little of the car itself. They present an image, an emotion, an illusion. It's the dream that people want, whether in Mumbai, Rio or Dubai. 

If you don't face up to that, your messages for public transport will fall on very deaf ears. Your targets don't want to hear what you have to say, they have ten-foot filters over their ears and eyes. Think Tommy. As Jack Nicholson put it, they can't handle the truth. And maybe we can't either.  

I think there are just two choices. 

1) Cosh them over the head and coerce them into the mobility and urban solution we (in our infinite wisdom) think is best. They won't come willingly.

2) Engage with them on their terms, see public transport through their eyes, and do what it takes to make PT what you would choose to use. Is that even possible? What are the building blocks, and how do we combine them? How do we make PT part of a lifestyle for 21st Century? Can you imagine the hero on the bus, a mobile Starbucks, docking your PC on the way to work or play?

I've been in the PT business for a quarter century and, quite frankly, much of the time I feel I'm on the side of the angels and in the clothes of a tramp. We need a makeover on our side.

Yours in friendship, 


Brendan.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
>From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd.   e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eric Bruun 
  To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport 
  Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:26 PM
  Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free publictransport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car)


  Brendon

  You are listing the positive sides of having access to a car. The negative sides can also encourage transit use, even when the transit

  is mediocre. Here is the same list with a negative spin.


  - Image and self-image          Embarassment because one can only afford a junker
  - All destinations available     Huge tolls to some places
  - Always on, 24/7                 Can't drive home after drinking
  - Quality and comfort            Horrible heat, noise, etc.
  - Personal space                  Lonely    
  - Reliability and speed           Traffic jams and accidents
  - Ownership and possession    Payments and licensiing hassles

  Eric Bruun
   

    -----Original Message----- 
    From: Brendan Finn 
    Sent: Jul 12, 2007 12:31 PM 
    To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport 
    Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) 

     
    In my opinion, cost of public transport is not a key issue for current car owners and for those who seriously aspire to become car owners. These people have the affordability to pay reasonable fares. Giving it away for free will not change their desire to own or use cars. Instead, it will place a heavy burden on the funding agencies, and put public transport entirely at the mercy of political view and expedience of whatever party or minister is in power. (If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. 

    If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : 

    - Image and self-image
    - All destinations available
    - Always on, 24/7
    - Quality and comfort
    - Personal space
    - Reliability and speed
    - Ownership and possession
      
    Public transport does not have to win on every one of these factors, but if it loses badly across the board, it has zero credibility with this target group. And if you then offer a loser service for free, it just proves to them that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. 

    Until public transport can meet the mobility and self-respect aspirations of people who travel, it is reduced to "the thing you have to use when you could not get what you want". Banning car ownership, sale or use will just make very many people very frustrated. In this, politicians are correct to guage the public mood and avoid unrest and backlash. That doesn't excuse the same politicians for poor transport policy in the first place. 

    If you take the 7 factors above (or any other list you wish to make), how many public transport systems that you know perform well across the board for an entire metropolitan area? Even if they do, are they winning mode share back from cars? What choices are teenagers and 20-30 year olds making?

    I don't intend to be defeatist here, just realistic. If we have the tools to do the job, fine, maybe we need to use them a bit smarter. If not, then we'd better channel our energies into designing some new ones and showing that they work at city-scale.

    With best wishes, 


    Brendan.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd.   e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Ashok Sreenivas 
      To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport 
      Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM
      Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car)


      IMO, a free (and of course reliable, comfortable) public transport (PT) may not shift *existing* car / motorcycle users to public transport, but it will have a significant impact on *potential* car / motorcycle users. A common phenomenon in "developing" countries like ours with easy access to 2-wheelers is the hierarchy of a PT user wanting to buy a 2-wheeler (and similarly 2-wheeler to 4-wheeler) as soon as he can afford it because the PT systems are so inconvenient and uncomfortable. I think this steady leaching of PT users as the economy grows can be arrested by not only improving PT but making it free (or very very cheap) so that the "entry barrier" to motorized transport is high.

      On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: 
        I'm not sure... People who use cars and pay gasoline and parking will not really be shifting to public transport if it's free (instead of having a low fare). Free public transport can be an instrument to improve access for the entire population, especially those who cannot afford it and go by bicycle or walking long distances. I think what would really generate mode shifts to public transport is that it is comfortable and reliable, and that it has as much access around the city as possible. We once used the word "fashionable" to describe this type of transport, but some people thought it was not an appropriate term.

        I think we all agree that car ownership and use must be charged at real costs, including all externalities, social and environmental (the 1 lakh car would be much more expensive if these costs were included). Push (from the car) and pull (to sustainable transport), and start planning from the demand side rather than supply (infrastructure).

        Best regards,

Carlos

        Lee Schipper wrote: 
Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars
to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down
town  area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free
trips around town. I think the last line below says it all — make sure
the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure
organization and technical aspects of the  collectiv system really
provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!.

  Sunny <sunny.enie at gmail.com> 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>>
        Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good
option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just
to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service
called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service
is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges.

Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its
skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT
(rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use
of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent.

Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that
people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have
affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car.

So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car
USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard
and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient
(sustainable)  public transport would be the solution. 

kind regards
Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula
Project Assistant
GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) 
Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building 
Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:  +66 (0) 2 - 288  1321
Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280  6042
Mobile: +66 (0) 84–113-0181
e-mail: santhosh.kodukula at sutp.org 
Website: www.sutp.org 
Skype: sunny_nwho



chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly
stimulating and educating for me. 

I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article
(http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting
connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What
can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning
"cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in
Mumbai? 
To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to
offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch
with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer
excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical
"touch point' with the mass. 
In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large
shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality
free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it
started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  -------------------------------------------------------- 
  IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. 

  Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.

  ================================================================
  SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/53a23894/attachment.html