Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday February 13 2018, @11:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the right-tool-for-the-job dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:10AM

    by pipedwho (2032) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:10AM (#637449)

    Wait, you're not that kid in pre-school that always insisted you really do share things with other kids? He always 'shared' his crayons (for an upfront fee of 5c per crayon per day). And it's true, he let the other kids play with the shitty broken matchbox car from the toy box, but for the low fee of 20c per car he was happy to share some of those other shiny cars he'd hoarded earlier!

    I suppose you're right, technically every transaction is 'sharing', "I'm sharing my money with the supplier of the service."

    I'm currently sharing my house with my house sharer. I pay them money periodically, and they let me keep sharing it with them.

    I also pay for internet connection sharing. I don't mean with just the other people in the house, I mean with all the other people using my ISP (and technically everybody else on the internet).

    Tomorrow, I'll even pay to share the train with a few hundred other people. "Public transport" my arse, lets call that ride sharing too. Technically, there's way more 'sharing' going on between train passengers than in a car of 2 people. Unless your Uber driver also has the flu. And technically I even get to 'pay' for that later too.

    Since my snarky reply ended up in the top level of the thread below due to some fat fingering of the mouse, I thought I'd repost it here where it belongs in the interest of thread sharing and all.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5