<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=UTF-8> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. (<FONT face=Arial size=2>If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Image and self-image</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- All destinations available</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Always on, 24/7</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Quality and comfort</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Personal space</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Reliability and speed</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Ownership and possession</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With best wishes, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brendan.</FONT></DIV> <DIV>_____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd.   e-mail : <A href="mailto:etts@indigo.ie">etts@indigo.ie</A>   tel : +353.87.2530286</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ashok.sreenivas@gmail.com href="mailto:ashok.sreenivas@gmail.com">Ashok Sreenivas</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org href="mailto:sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org">Global 'South' Sustainable Transport</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT><BR><BR>On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid469640A9.6060006@gmail.com type="cite">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.<BR><BR>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).<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">Carlos</PRE><BR><BR>Lee Schipper wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org type="cite"><PRE wrap="">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!. </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Sunny <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="mailto:sunny.enie@gmail.com"><sunny.enie@gmail.com></A> 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap="">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: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org">santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org</A> Website: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://www.sutp.org">www.sutp.org</A> 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 (<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/">http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/</A>) 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. </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>