the nodding donkey:
The problem with a “rent when you need it” scheme is that most people will want to use a car at relatively narrow time slots, all at the same time. Just look at the rush hours in the morning and afternoon. There will be a place for such a scheme, like taxis, but it will never replace car ownership.Likewise the call for “better public transport”. That suffers from the same problems. I used to drive busses years ago, and they are rammed full for two hours in the morning and afternoon, and virtually empty the rest of the time. Regular public transport is only possible with subsidies, because charging passengers the cost price would be crippling.
For any form of transportation to replace the car as transport, it needs to leave where you are, when you want to go, and go where you want/need to go, preferably in a directish journey.
If good public transport needs subsidies then use them! Sorted.
Public monies spent on a proper integrated transport system is of benefit to all. More people happily choosing to use frequent clean transport with no parking hassle, frees up road space for those who can’t choose that way, or who want to pay unsubsidized rates for more personal individual transport.
Big cars with one occupant are not efficient transport, pollute more, and take up space either on roads or when parked.
City dwellers and workers need better “nicer” buses for all our sakes.
Must admit I wouldn’t have said that ten years ago. And would have laughed at that before then, but here we are in a changing world, and we need to change our attitudes too.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk