The following is from a report on the future of transportation, which I will present tomorrow, i.e. The Digital Nexus of Post-Automobility, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Authors are K. Dennis and J. Urry.
Today, a foretaste with an extensive excerpt on the emergence of sharing schemes for cars and bicycles.
Dennis and Urry:
1.
“New ‘smart’ technologies are enabling how people can flexibly share, schedule, and access de-privatised cars being offered by the rise in car-sharing car clubs. The offer of flexibility within the increasing need for sustainable practices encourages the demand for urban car-sharing schemes. Already there are significant moves to de-privatise cars through car-sharing, cooperative car clubs and smart car-hire schemes (see inter alia Hawken, Lovins and Lovins 2002; Motavalli 2000). Even by 2001 six hundred cities in Europe had developed car-sharing schemes involving 50,000 people (Cervero 2001); prototype examples developed in La Rochelle (Liselec), in northern California, Berlin, and Japan (Motavalli 2000: 233). In Oxford there is the UK’s first hire by the hour car club scheme named Avis CARvenience. There are various other car clubs such as CityCarClub, Car Plus and Carshare. Two US car sharing companies are Flexcar and Zipcar, yet in the United States it is estimated that there are just over 1,000 shared cars in all (Rosenthal, 2007). One of the largest single companies, Mobility, is well-placed within Switzerland, and currently has 60,000 members and 2,400 cars, whilst in the Netherlands Greenwheels is experiencing increasing popularity. Car-sharing clubs usually involve smart-card technology to book and pay, with flat monthly fees and a pay-as-you-drive costing. The ease and flexibility to book a car on the (mobile) Internet will be attractive to many potential users.
In the past few years car-sharing has also become more significant in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, where it has been commercialized by a small number of companies (Rosenthal, 2007). As urbanised centres face increasing residential parking problems, as well as congestion, cities in Europe, North America, and Asia – from Singapore to Turin to Minneapolis – are turning to car-sharing practices on a commercial scale. In January 2007 the European Union held a conference in Brussels to promote car sharing. The Report stated that ‘We see a big potential for European cities’, estimating that ‘at least 500,000 private vehicles could be replaced in Europe by car sharing’ (Rosenthal, 2007).
More unique and customised forms of participatory car services are also appearing due to the use of Internet capabilities. One of these in the UK is ‘Peasy – Car Parking Made Easy’ which is an online site for people to book – or offer – car parking space within the United Kingdom. Peasy’s mission statement is ‘to provide a platform to enable people to travel to locations more efficiently and easily through enabling the spread of information and utilising underused resources’ . This type of scheme works similar to an online marketplace where people can also offer their own parking spaces for strangers to use and can enter negotiations over price based on short-medium-long term requirements. Peasy also advertise that ‘Homeowners can also sign up and offer their underused driveway, garage or secure parking space for rent, thereby earning a significant additional monthly income’ . Such services make it easy for people to participate in distributed schemes and certainly make for an attractive financial incentive.
A similar online service is currently being offered for residents of New York City (soon to be expanded to Brooklyn and Boston) through Hitchsters . Hitchsters.com is an online service that connects travellers so they can share taxis and split the cost to and from a local airport. The site claims that ‘In many places taxis are the most convenient form of transportation between metropolitan centers and airports, but they are expensive, too. The hitchsters.com matching system (patent pending) makes riding in a taxi more affordable, more environmentally friendly and more fun’ . Hitchsters allows prospective taxi-sharers to look-up a co-rider on an online notice board or to leave their information. As soon as a share becomes available the person is contacted by both a text message to their mobile phone as well as an email giving first name and mobile number of the co-rider to contact. As an added security the company states that it preserves the phone number of all successful matches in case of disagreements. Gender specific co-riders can also be specified.
It is developments in these areas of innovative de-privatisation schemes and organisational technologies that, we argue, may likely form a more visible addition to car mobilities and which will be significant for how auto-networks are constructed within a post-automobility scenario. Also, such schemes are not only restricted to urban areas. For example, in the UK in rural areas car-club schemes have been initiated by The Countryside Agency in order to mobilise community members whilst reducing private car use and ownership (Countryside-Agency, 2004). Such car-clubs have been established in Cornwall, Devon, Wiltshire, West/North Yorkshire between 2002 and 2004.
These developments reflect the general shift in contemporary economies from what Rifkin terms ‘ownership to access’ as reflected by the delivery of many services on the Internet (2000). This could potentially favour the increasing payment for ‘access’ to travel/mobility services rather than the owning of vehicles outright. One important consequence is that if cars are not domestically owned then the coops or corporations providing ‘car services’ would undertake both the short-term parking and especially the long term disposal of ‘dead’ vehicles. The former would significantly reduce the scale of car parking needed since vehicles would be more ‘on the road’, while the latter would radically improve recycling rates (as demonstrated in Hawken, Lovins and Lovins 2002). Overall with improved digital management and securities it is possible to propose within post-automobilities a notable shift from cars as owned and driven by individuals, to de-privatised vehicles owned either by cooperatives or corporations and ‘leased’. This change may itself be reflected within newly emerging transport policies. Car drivers who retain the use of their private car for urban journeys are likely to be impacted by how digital systems will individualise their movements and costs.
There is little doubt that transformations in the transport sector are seen as being urgently required. A constant flow of governmental reports in most societies demonstrates this. Re-structuring future mobility forms are high on various policy agendas and are part of a potential post-car assemblage.”
Sources for part one:
* 1. http://www.peasy.com/Home.aspx; http://www.peasy.com/About-Us.aspx
* 2. http://www.hitchsters.com/; http://www.hitchsters.com/allabout.htm#about
2.
“The development in car-sharing and car-clubs, as previously discussed, has aimed to initiate the shift from private car to car-access as part of travel-sharing schemes. Ongoing urban and rural travel management organisation and strategies are needed to be introduced in order to prepare for the re-configuring of car regulations as envisioned for post-automobilities. As well as changes to urban physical/digital infrastructures, social policies should also take into account how residents can manage sustainable travel arrangements. This would need to include more detailed arrangements such as residential parking; whether houses are built without parking spaces; and relative distances to strategic travel points/centres. The shift to a potential digital nexus of post-automobility entails that changes be made to expand the availability, flexibility, and convenience of public transport, and that action be taken in order to provide better amenities to encourage changes to travel habits as well as increased public amiability towards forms of shared and public transport.
Some cities in Europe and North America have been experimenting with bicycle ride-share schemes for localised journeys as well as to facilitate the movement between different city public transports. Cities such as Lyon, Stockholm, and Portland, have taken influence from Amsterdam and have introduced bike kiosks around the city for members to pick-up and use. Generally the cycle-club member pays a minimal annual fee (around 10 euros/$15) for a smart-card that they can swipe at a bike kiosk. Bikes are then rented for up to 2 hours at a time with the first 30 minutes free, then paying for each subsequent 30 minute use (Karni, 2007). A similar scheme is soon to be introduced into areas of New York, with 100 bikes to be placed in each designated neighbourhood. In the summer of 2007 Paris is introducing 1,450 new kiosks which will provide an extra 20,000 bicycles to be scattered throughout the city (Karni, 2007).
A similar new service – termed ‘Bicing’ – has just been introduced in March 2007 to Barcelona. The ‘Bicing’ scheme entitles subscribed users to use any of the 1500 available bicycles located across the city’s subway and train stations . This service also has a yearly membership fee (6 euros) and provides a smart-card to enable users free use for the first 30 minutes, charging 30 cents per subsequent 30 minutes. This service is used in combination with a network of city public transports that includes energy-saving trams and environmentally friendly subways. The Bicing homepage online provides real time information on bicycle availability by station, city maps, pick-up and drop-off points, bicycle friendly roads and membership information. Since it began operating in March 2007 Bicing has already attracted over 3000 users and provides residents with alternative travel facilities for short-distance localised urban journeys. Alternative mobility schemes such as this and overall improvements to residential travel will be important for shifting towards forms of future networked mobilities.”