An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.
Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].
It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.
[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.
Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:52AM (1 child)
IIUC, Zipcar is not a "car sharing" service. Rather it's a "car rental" service that specializes in short-term rentals and allows pick up wherever the car has been left by the previous renter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:08PM
There is no definition of share which requires no contribution from all sharing partners.
You seem to be confusing the word Gift or Slavery with the word sharing.
The actual method of contribution doesn't enter in to it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.