Car-sharing does not reduce road use

[Mustank]

http://www.mycarforum.com/blog/12/entry-3811-car-sharing-does-not-reduce-road-use/

 

 

 

Car-sharing does not reduce road use

 

By ST_Opinion on 15 Dec 2014 in Engine, Hybrid/electric cars, Motoring, Discussions, Singapore car news, Other News, Other blogs, ST Opinion

 

How would an electric car- sharing scheme further our ambition to be "car-lite"? In short, it does not.

Car-sharing schemes, electric or otherwise, will actually lead to higher utilisation of road space, not less. And as the whole purpose of going "car-lite" is to put a cap on congestion, car-sharing does not quite serve the cause.

Former Transport Minister Raymond Lim told Parliament in 2010: "From an overall transport perspective, more people sharing a car in effect increases the use of that car."

Furthermore, Singapore already has an absolute cap on its car population, via the vehicle quota system. In countries where there is no such control, a car-sharing scheme might conceivably reduce overall car demand marginally. Not so in Singapore, where the quota system has been in place since 1990.

In Singapore, car-sharing schemes will only lead to a greater demand for road space.

If the end goal is to reduce demand for road space, then we need to ramp up our public transport system, improve how our taxis are deployed, and make it easier for people to share rides. Ride-sharing - or car-pooling as it is more commonly called - reduces demand for road space.

So, why are we launching an electric car-sharing scheme?

One theory is that it is another way for us to assess the viability of electric cars here. The first $20 million "test-bed" led by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) ended with pretty watery findings. Examples include:

• Electric vehicles are "technically feasible" in Singapore, because the average distance clocked in the trial was 46km a day. This is less than the national average of 50km for a conventional passenger car, and much lower than the manufacturers' declared range of 120-160km per charge. (The average distance clocked by car owners is a long known fact, and there is no reason to doubt an electric car owner would behave differently.)

• High purchase price was the top inhibiting factor cited by consumers. (There has already been clear evidence of this in other markets.)

• Range anxiety was the next major concern. (Another well-documented fact.)

• Electric cars are expensive compared to conventional cars primarily because of their high open market value. (Yet another known fact.)

• A cost-benefit analysis showed that the health-care savings arising from the clean mode of transport would not be sufficient to offset the high cost of electric cars. (This is probably the most interesting finding, but the EMA did not elaborate despite repeated requests.)

Another $75 million in tax dollars have been set aside to put more than 1,200 green vehicles on the road. Sources say the electric car-sharing scheme would account for the bulk of the budget.

But despite having been on the drawing board for over a year, the initiative is still stuck in neutral gear. Life! understands that the Land Transport Authority and Economic Development Board - which will be spearheading the plan - have not yet called for an RFI (request for information).

As such, the scheme is unlikely to take off anytime soon. According to industry players, one of the stumbling blocks is the different charging cables used by various manufacturers from China, Europe and the United States.

This makes setting up a public charging infrastructure that can be used by one and all a costly affair. Even if Singapore were to adopt the latest European convention, the new cable is different from those used by cars involved in the first test-bed.

That might render an entire network of three-year-old charging stations obsolete.

One view is that Singapore should forget about setting up a public charging infrastructure. As the first trial showed, the average driving distance for an electric car is less than half the range of a fully charged vehicle.

The Government should just leave it to the private sector to decide how it wants to provide charging facilities to customers.
And instead of another tax-funded trial to see if electric vehicles are viable, the carbon emissions-based vehicle scheme (CEVS) should be enhanced to give due recognition to cars with substantial environmental and health contributions. Today, CEVS rebates are granted too freely.

Having said all that, car-sharing still has a role here. Not so much as a transport solution, but a social one. Car- sharing indirectly placates the person who is priced out of the car market.

But the way we have been operating car-sharing thus far is inefficient.

In Europe, car-sharing plans rely on smartphone apps that tell users at a glance the availability of cars in the vicinity. Users can then book an available car with a touch of the screen.

There is no need for designated parking spaces and other logistical requirements. In Singapore, where carpark spaces are as precious as road space, reserving lots for car-sharing schemes is just not possible.

-- PHOTO: BLOOMBERG

by Christopher Tan

 

 

 

 

how come never sexplain why car sharing will increase road use?

Edited December 15, 2014 by Mustank

[Darryn]

  On 12/15/2014 at 7:01 AM, Mustank said:

http://www.mycarforum.com/blog/12/entry-3811-car-sharing-does-not-reduce-road-use/

 

 

 

Car-sharing does not reduce road use

 

By ST_Opinion on 15 Dec 2014 in Engine, Hybrid/electric cars, Motoring, Discussions, Singapore car news, Other News, Other blogs, ST Opinion

 

How would an electric car- sharing scheme further our ambition to be "car-lite"? In short, it does not.

 

Car-sharing schemes, electric or otherwise, will actually lead to higher utilisation of road space, not less. And as the whole purpose of going "car-lite" is to put a cap on congestion, car-sharing does not quite serve the cause.

 

Former Transport Minister Raymond Lim told Parliament in 2010: "From an overall transport perspective, more people sharing a car in effect increases the use of that car."

 

Furthermore, Singapore already has an absolute cap on its car population, via the vehicle quota system. In countries where there is no such control, a car-sharing scheme might conceivably reduce overall car demand marginally. Not so in Singapore, where the quota system has been in place since 1990.

 

In Singapore, car-sharing schemes will only lead to a greater demand for road space.

 

If the end goal is to reduce demand for road space, then we need to ramp up our public transport system, improve how our taxis are deployed, and make it easier for people to share rides. Ride-sharing - or car-pooling as it is more commonly called - reduces demand for road space.

 

So, why are we launching an electric car-sharing scheme?

 

One theory is that it is another way for us to assess the viability of electric cars here. The first $20 million "test-bed" led by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) ended with pretty watery findings. Examples include:

• Electric vehicles are "technically feasible" in Singapore, because the average distance clocked in the trial was 46km a day. This is less than the national average of 50km for a conventional passenger car, and much lower than the manufacturers' declared range of 120-160km per charge. (The average distance clocked by car owners is a long known fact, and there is no reason to doubt an electric car owner would behave differently.)

• High purchase price was the top inhibiting factor cited by consumers. (There has already been clear evidence of this in other markets.)

• Range anxiety was the next major concern. (Another well-documented fact.)

• Electric cars are expensive compared to conventional cars primarily because of their high open market value. (Yet another known fact.)

• A cost-benefit analysis showed that the health-care savings arising from the clean mode of transport would not be sufficient to offset the high cost of electric cars. (This is probably the most interesting finding, but the EMA did not elaborate despite repeated requests.)

Another $75 million in tax dollars have been set aside to put more than 1,200 green vehicles on the road. Sources say the electric car-sharing scheme would account for the bulk of the budget.

 

But despite having been on the drawing board for over a year, the initiative is still stuck in neutral gear. Life! understands that the Land Transport Authority and Economic Development Board - which will be spearheading the plan - have not yet called for an RFI (request for information).

 

As such, the scheme is unlikely to take off anytime soon. According to industry players, one of the stumbling blocks is the different charging cables used by various manufacturers from China, Europe and the United States.

 

This makes setting up a public charging infrastructure that can be used by one and all a costly affair. Even if Singapore were to adopt the latest European convention, the new cable is different from those used by cars involved in the first test-bed.

 

That might render an entire network of three-year-old charging stations obsolete.

 

One view is that Singapore should forget about setting up a public charging infrastructure. As the first trial showed, the average driving distance for an electric car is less than half the range of a fully charged vehicle.

 

The Government should just leave it to the private sector to decide how it wants to provide charging facilities to customers.

And instead of another tax-funded trial to see if electric vehicles are viable, the carbon emissions-based vehicle scheme (CEVS) should be enhanced to give due recognition to cars with substantial environmental and health contributions. Today, CEVS rebates are granted too freely.

 

Having said all that, car-sharing still has a role here. Not so much as a transport solution, but a social one. Car- sharing indirectly placates the person who is priced out of the car market.

 

But the way we have been operating car-sharing thus far is inefficient.

 

In Europe, car-sharing plans rely on smartphone apps that tell users at a glance the availability of cars in the vicinity. Users can then book an available car with a touch of the screen.

 

There is no need for designated parking spaces and other logistical requirements. In Singapore, where carpark spaces are as precious as road space, reserving lots for car-sharing schemes is just not possible.

 

-- PHOTO: BLOOMBERG

 

by Christopher Tan

 

 

 

 

how come never sexplain why car sharing will increase road use?

There's a LOT to disagree with in what he has written - I think it is a lot of tripe and the solutions for Singapore are simple and straight forward - with the biggest hurdle being the govt's unwillingness to forgo tax income.

 

For a start - expensive? Just exempt electric vehicles from ARF

Inoperability of cables? Never hear of adapters before?

 

But the biggest thing - Singapore should be at the forefront of electric vehicle development - with our size, and our infrastructure development, coupled to the high level of regulatory control and expense of vehicles here, Singapore perhaps is THE most suited country in the world for implementing a comprehensive electric vehicle policy.

 

Certainly if Tesla can sell in the States, it should be orders of magnitude more popular here - if only the govt could do something about the tax. Can you imagine if Tesla could install even half a dozen fast charging stations in Singapore, plus two between here and KL and one at Sepang, then exempt Tesla from ARF just how popular the car would be?

[13177]

So car sharing good or no good here?

[Jamesc]

  On 12/15/2014 at 7:38 AM, 13177 said:

So car sharing good or no good here?

 

The report says no good

 

so please stop giving your wife

 

or colleagues a lift to work.

 

Ask them to drive their own cars.

 

Car sharing does not help ease congestion.

 

Report say one not me hor.

 

[Darryn]

Heee....

 

Actually he does make one good point though - and we should be careful with our terminology

 

Car Sharing vs Car Pooling

 

Car Sharing - many drivers share one car - of course it is on the road "more" than if only one person uses - so congestion will go up (assuming car population is fixed)

 

Car Pooling - more people in one car on any specific trip (eg - sharing a ride to work) - this will reduce car usage, as if have 4 people in one car is different to having 4 people each drive own car.

 

 

What it doesn't mention is the "social equity" factor of making driving / personal transport more accessible

[RH1667]

" If the end goal is to reduce demand for road space, then we need to ramp up our public transport system, improve how our taxis are deployed, and make it easier for people to share rides. Ride-sharing - or car-pooling as it is more commonly called - reduces demand for road space. "

Car sharing not equal to ride-sharing or car pooling .

Nowadays scholar talk very specific, have to start to study English language more to improve my " bo-cap-berly "

I agree car sharing is no good, it will reduce the demand for car and cause the COE demand to drop, and as a result the revenue collectable to reduce, it will affect our GDP, so car sharing is no good!

[Vid]

So what's the solution? Reduce COE even more so that price can be jacked up lor.

[Zxcvb]

Car sharing means the car will be on the road more frequently.

 

Car pooling means more people in 1 car.

 

Both increase efficiency on usage of cars. But car sharing means the car will spend most it's time on the road than in the carpark - which equates to road congestion and traffic jams.

 

The opposite of car sharing IMHO is OPC car - spend most of it's days in a carpark. But then (some years back) got some idiot wrote in OPC cars should pay more for car park fees since the car is park longer in car park. "facepalm"

Edited December 15, 2014 by Zxcvb

[13177]

  On 12/15/2014 at 8:23 AM, Jamesc said:

 

The report says no good

 

so please stop giving your wife

 

or colleagues a lift to work.

 

Ask them to drive their own cars.

 

Car sharing does not help ease congestion.

 

Report say one not me hor.

 

Giving wife a lift is called chauffeuring, and colleagues is called car pooling lo. Car sharing should refer to lots of people share to use one car.

[Darryn]

  On 12/15/2014 at 8:49 AM, 13177 said:

Giving wife a lift is called chauffeuring, and colleagues is called car pooling lo. Car sharing should refer to lots of people share to use one car.

Give wife a lift is chauffeuring

Pickup girlfriend from work is called foreplay

[Mustank]

wife = buying a car, usage very low, ownself use only

threesome/foursome = car pooling, high level of usage at a short period of time

gelyang = car sharing, extremely high usage at all times

 

[Kb27]

To reduce road use, there is only one solution.

Remove the people.

[Volvobrick]

Only scholars will try to make a simple issue complicated. Want more people drive without owning a car, aka car sharing? Then facilitate instead of restricting existing ar owners to rent out their cars on weekdays and weekends. There is no need to invest in another fleet, nor set aside precious parking lots for this special fleet.

 

Not that I support either scheme, but just want to point out a lack of commonsense from the policy makers.

[keanie]

I agreed with writer that car sharing will not reduce road use. On d contrary, with d addition of another fleet, it will add to congestion. Ppl who find public tpn inconvenience or unreliable n aspire to own a car but don't have d means, will not mind renting one. A reduction of few ppl taking public tpn does not lead to reduction of public fleet.

 

I agreed with fr Volvobrick tat govt should facilitate existing car owners to rent out their cars. Thus no need for another fleet n wasting resource of special parking lots.

[Qpik]

chauffeuring Boss = manadatory

 

chauffeuring Spouse = obligation

 

chauffeuring In-Law = entitlement

 

chauffeuring colleagues = bonus not to u but them. i.e give or reject depend on days whether they cover u or they sabo/stabbed you.

 

how does what i listed equate to reduction in car usage? it doesn't. it just shows why B&B family need car.

 

for those non-B&B who hv more than one car e.g. one for lao pei, one for lao bu, one for ownself, one for lao por, one for DD, one for DS, one for maid to run errands, one for SYT gfren ....govt shd consider this grp of income earner since 1 smelly smelly hv 8 cars which is = 8 B&B family hehehehehe

[1fast1]

  On 12/15/2014 at 8:31 AM, RH1667 said:

I agree car sharing is no good, it will reduce the demand for car and cause the COE demand to drop, and as a result the revenue collectable to reduce, it will affect our GDP, and that will reduce our Mini-Stars' salary, which will reduce our Mini-Stars' dignity, which should make us feel less proud as Singaporeans, so car sharing is no good!

Helped to complete the chain of logic in red for you.

[Jamesc]

  On 12/15/2014 at 8:49 AM, 13177 said:

Giving wife a lift is called chauffeuring, and colleagues is called car pooling lo. Car sharing should refer to lots of people share to use one car.

 

Haha you are absolutely right.

 

[Super7]

  On 12/15/2014 at 9:14 AM, Mustank said:

wife = buying a car, usage very low, ownself use only

threesome/foursome = car pooling, high level of usage at a short period of time

gelyang = car sharing, extremely high usage at all times

 

 

Something along this line:-

 

gf-sharing:- if every guy has one 'dedicated' gf ie not sharing the same gf, 10 guys will need 10 gfs, and these 10 gfs need 10 spaces to sleep (just like cars need spaces to park). If 10 guys share one gf, she only needs one space. <------ great saving of car park space in the gf / car analogy.

 

therefore car-sharing will save parking space. instead of 10 mscp, just 1 mscp will do.

 

as for road space ie road usage:- 10 drivers driving their own car each will result in a total of 10 car-trips. if these 10 drivers take turns to share one car, it will also result in 10 car-trips, same as the case of each driving his own car. if these 10 drivers do car-pools of say 4 persons per car, it will result in only 2.5 car-trips