[sustran] Re: Are private cars the ideal transport?

[Chris Bradshaw]

> We would argue that since cars only transport roughly 10-20% of travelers, 
> they should only have access to 10-20% of road space, for moving and 
> parking—and should respect the rest of users, as well as the right to some 
> peace and quiet of all the people working and living next to roads.

This is a good point: equity for all travellers.  It applies not just to 
space for travel and parking, but the various forms of pollution.  Under the 
right conditions, cars produce, per passenger, less pollution and noise than 
larger public-transit vehicles.

The X-transit discussion here diverges over whether smaller vehicles should 
be visualized as large cars or small buses.  The latter tends to fail 
because the driver cost is spread over so few passengers, which government 
can justify only if it serves very small, needy populations, which in turn 
makes frequency so poor.  But if seen as the former, the service, mediated 
by cell-phone matching, means that every driver's empty seats are available, 
as long as his route coincides enough with the person needing a ride.  Such 
a scheme relieves the system of driver costs.  But cars are private, so no 
go.

The car fails by being the second-best mode for most trips, rarely the best. 
This is because it is used from destination to destination, a tool of 
mobility _and_ access (only the short walk to its parking space is 
excepted).  It needs to be driven through walk-first environments because it 
is privately owned and its owner expects it to be ready-and-willing 'acap' 
(as close as possible).

> A society in which people fail to respect the rights of others, and in 
> which the rich believe they should have special privileges on the roads as 
> well as in every other aspect of life, is a society destined to fall into 
> crime, selfishness, viciousness, and lack of the neighborly friendliness 
> that allows people to live comfortably together

With cars being private, they too often are occupied by only the owner, 
leaving the other 4-6 seats empty (except when used for storage for personal 
'effects').  The owner, rich or poor, sees this privacy as his right.  The 
car's footprint is 'amortized' only over one traveler.

The relationship to these negative social trends is not just that of car 
causing them, but reflecting the breakdown. Private cars both cause the 
breakdown of share vehicle systems, and are the beneficiaries of that 
breakdown ("I have to have my own car.  Transit is too infrequent, and 
walking and cycling are too dangerous."

We can never share the roads unless we find a way to share all the vehicles 
used on them.  This is more common in the so-called underdeveloped 
countries.  While they are trying to copy the developed countries' idea of 
'success,' the reverse should be the situation.

When people go into the public realm, it should be to mix with others. 
Being in a private car is not providing that contact, not producing the 
humility and tolerance societies need.  All governments, who are dependent 
on these attitudes, should have a bias in favour of sharing the corridors 
and the vehicles used on them.

Supporting the private-car regime is a form of societal suicide.

Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa