[sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car

[CHRIS BRADSHAW]

[I am getting into this discussion late, as I have been travelling]

I was glad to see so many others here challenge the statement, "It's about car USE, stupid."  Car ownership does a great deal to _stimulate_ use: 1) by necessitating an expenditure and on-going invariable expenses that the owner tries to amortize over as much use as possible; 2) by inducing dependency over time ("carrying" along ever more stuff, living further and further away from destinations, and by doing less and less trip planning and less and less multi-modal  information gathering); and 3) by underwriting the one-person-one-car regime that denies access not just to those without cars, but to all car owners to any vehicle but their own, necessitating them taking their car everywhere in order to ensure on-going car access for special (and often unexpected) trip segments.  

As was pointed out, it also causes use of energy and other resources for manufacture, transport to the dealer, and eventual disposal.

In the context of introducing ultra-cheap cars, the effect will be to shift a sizable part of the current population of transit-dependent, location-sensitive people to the opposite: those who stop putting pressure on transit and walking environments to be better, stop shopping locally, and stop being active in their transportation (and losing their social and health benefits).

Another factor, considering the low price, is whether the cars will last as long and be as safe at the hands of their owners as more expensive cars.  The former will affect their ultimate value (something first-time buyers don't fully appreciate) and the latter will affect other road users.  The car's pollution controls and ability to retain engine oil should also be suspected.

One internal factor that buyers will experience -- the lighter weight and lower crash protection -- is unfortunate.  Lacking carsharing, where the same amount of money will buy them more actual use (as well relieve them of the _need_ to drive), these people will be jumping into a road environment that can be characterized as "mass envy" where people buy bigger vehicles to get safety for themselves and other occupants as well as usually higher sitting position.

Widespread carsharing not only could offer dramatically less demand for road and parking spaces, but the size of vehicles in cities, since it provides the opportunity for cities to set maximum vehicle sizes, thus reducing the _size_ of parking spaces, as well as their number, and other factors, such as bumper height and weight and pollution controls, or even the power source.  The car industry is happy that these controls are national, and this is necessitated by the one-person-one-car regime that implies that people won't invest in a car unless they can drive it everywhere (and they want a car that is safe everywhere, even though it is unsafe for other users of the roads in most places it is driven).

Car ownership and the regime that supports it removes individual freedom to gain access to transportation with a smaller 'footprint' and the flexibility to mix-and-match modes and vehicles in a truly seamless way.  Ownership is a huge factor that the car industry and 99% of the environmental movement ignore, talking only about the design and use of "your car" as if the one-person-one-car regime was mandated from the heavens.

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa (visiting Calgary)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070714/95c456be/attachment.html