[sustran] Re: Is Asia moving in the direction of restricting the use of private cars?

[Paul Minett]

Chris

 

Great responses and all relevant.  My point about valuing 'availability' was
more for the cars that people do not even use an hour and a half a day.
Many cars sit in driveways for the whole year and never get used (like the
spare room), but still people perceive value in having them there.  

 

I am not convinced that the ONLY way to reduce traffic is to constrain car
ownership, but I agree it would be one way.  Another, following a train of
thought from 'managing the commons' by Elinor Ostrom, would be to engage the
residential community/neighbourhood and get them to voluntarily reduce the
amount of traffic they emit, regardless of how many cars they own.

 

We are probably both operating at a somewhat utopian end of the scale of
reality, but hopefully our enthusiasm will help to shift the needle a small
amount from where it seems to be stuck on your OPOCO reality.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

Paul Minett

Ridesharing Institute

www.ridesharinginstitute.org 

64 21 289 8444

64 9 524 9850

 

From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 12:44 p.m.
To: Paul Minett
Cc: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Is Asia moving in the direction of restricting
the use of private cars?

 

Paul,

You have raised the point that cars used by one person at a time is
fundamentally less worthy than several people using one simultaneously.  I
agree, but point out that with a set population of cars, demand will vary,
making ridesharing more practical (and necessary if the car-population is
limited) at peak-use periods, and consecutive sharing at other times.  Yes,
in that way, ridesharing is closer to transit than to carsharing/rental.

You also raise the point that owners of cars get a value of having a car
available even though they use it only for just an hour-and-a-half a day.
But that is an expensive way to get car access.  Carsharers tend to save
$500/month over ownership;  Even those who own a car can now share it
through peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing, one of the ways of getting the
service into suburbs where use patterns of shared cars will initially, at
least, be lower.

You also mention the point that shared cars at workplaces are an important
service that would make it more practical to commute by other means than an
owned car.  I have developed a 'hybrid' model with two-station shared cars
being use for the two-way commute between a suburban neighbourhood and a
suburban workcentre, both of which are much more isolated (from 'services')
than downtown areas.  This makes it necessary to have the same vehicles used
for both rideshare and carshare trips.

In the housing field, I have been an admirer of "co-housing," which
specifically -- using your analogy -- provides in each housing unit only
those rooms that will be used daily, while providing in a "great house"
those rooms used infrequently: formal dining rooms, workshops, guest
bedrooms.  If you look at the average car, it has space, power, braking, and
many amenities that are not needed for every trip: these can be dispensed
with when carsharing, providing extras (in the form of larger, more powerful
vehicles) only for the odd trip requiring them.  Why 'carry' all that
capability everywhere on every trip?

Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa

On 03/04/2012 7:16 PM, Paul Minett wrote: 

Chris
 
I like your post, but have issue with the idea of MASC being both carsharing
(rental by the hour) and ridesharing (more people per vehicle).  I agree
that carsharing is a valuable component that supports ridesharing (a vehicle
for mid-day errands for those who did not bring a car).  If we let MASC be
about 'shared cars' (rental by the hour), then your hierarchy should have a
sixth component: ridesharing.  Alternatively, change 'transit' to 'shared
rides' being a combination of passengership on any vehicle.  I note that
transit is a catch-all for buses and trains, but since one is road-based and
the other is not, I think they should be separated in your hierarchy.
 
For your interest, here is a great story about ridesharing from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3134002.stm 
 
I also note that people get value from their investment in a car even if it
is not being used.  It represents 'bottled convenience', and could be
thought of in the same way as a spare room in the house, which is not used
every day but is there for the times it is needed.  The return on investment
is made up of a combination of the availability AND the use.
 
Just some thoughts.  Happy to discuss further and hear your reactions.
 
BTW, we are planning a 'Ridesharing Symposium' in Oakland CA for the 24th of
May.  Any chance you could come along?
 
Paul Minett
Ridesharing Institute
www.ridesharinginstitute.org 
64 21 289 8444
64 9 524 9850
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:
sustran-discuss-bounces+paulminett=tripconvergence.co.nz at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+paulminett=tripconvergence.co.nz at list.jca.ap
c.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:02 a.m.
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: Is Asia moving in the direction of restricting the
use of private cars?
 
 > Guess who was the most vocal in calling for radical solutions: "we should
not build more highways and we should control the number of cars", yes, it
was the Assistant Minister for Environment from Indonesia. Change is in the
air and we should cultivate it.
 
And part of that change is to consider a "step four" in the process of
municipalities' consciousness in getting it right re: urban transport.
 
Rather than focus on the /use/ of cars, focus on their numbers in the city's
population.  Cars are a problem, even when not on the road, especially if
each car belongs to a single person who is motivated to get  value from
his/her investment.  This suggests a different system of /access/ to cars.
 
Asian cities are already laid compactly out to support the "sustainable
transportation hierarchy": 1) walking, 2) cycling, 3) transit, 4) MASC
(metered access to shared cars*), and 5) private cars (OPOCO, one-person,
one-car orientation).  All that is needed is for access to cars that are not
private, but are part of private or public fleets.  
The charges for access can automatically build in time-of-day surcharges
that will automatically encourage their use for ridesharing at peak times,
and each minute the car is on the road or even in a parking space, fees can
be charged and collected electronically.  Ownership fees should also be
introduced (as I believe several Asian countries/cities now do).  Cities
should find it easy to look at its current infrastructure and determine what
the maximum number of cars it can handle, and then set this as a limit in
its planning documents.
 
Besides MASC's ability to tackle the issues that "green car" agendas do not
(road collisions, sprawl, congestion, obesity), it is especially good a
tackling transporation inequity, a serious issue in emerging countries.
MASC can provide measured access to cars to all members of society, rather
than allowing car-ownership to set the access bar too high.
 
Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa, Canada
 
* carsharing, taxis, car-rental, ridesharing
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
 
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').