Dyna Sluyter wrote: > > Sorry, but adding more motor vehicles increases congestion and > pollution. >
I don't know about this . . . >From http://www.carsharing.net : Some Stats 1 shared car replaces 6+ individually owned cars a.. Members giving up a car when they join - 15% b.. Members not buying a new one because they joined - 25% Car Sharing increases transit usage: AutoShare Stats: a.. Members using Transit MORE - 27% b.. Members using Transit LESS - 7% S.Shaheen @ UC Berkley Stats: a.. Trips made by transit Before joining - 35% b.. Trips made by transit AFTER joining - 53% Car Sharing increases other forms of travel: a.. Members biking/blading MORE - 25% b.. Members biking/blading LESS - 8% People drive less Swiss Energy Dept. 2000 stats: a.. Ave. driving reduction, former Car owner - 72% b.. Ave. driving reduction, all car sharing members - 55%+ Misc. Stats a.. The average N.A. car is driven just 66 minutes a day b.. Household income spent on cars: a.. 1998 - 14.8% b.. 1990 - 13.2% > That $275,000 could have given thirty odd 3 year old low mileage > sedans from the GSA, state, and county motor pools to low income > families so they can get to work, school, etc.. Over put at least 10 15 > passenger vans running on biodiesel on the streets. > That would be great . . . until there are maintenance costs. Perhaps this car-sharing program could give low-income families access to affordable car usership when they need it. In San Fransisco, the state of CA provides grant money to City CarShare so they can charge lower rates to those who qualify. On a related topic to getting low income families to jobs in the suburbs, what I'd love to see this program evolve into (and I don't know if this is really workable, haven't crunched any kind of numbers) is one with lots of hubs all over the place, where you could feasibly rent from one hub and return it to another. That'd be really cheap and convenient . . . but quite possibly too difficult to manage. > > Either way they're about the most expensive car rentals in town- $120 > a day plus mileage! Even if I used HourCar only one day a month it > would cost over twice as much as my late model pickup costs. And > instead of having to transfer buses to get to an HourCar location, my > vehicle is right in my driveway any time I need it... > Actually, the only way these cars are economical to drive is for a few hours at a time, especially for something a high-intensity errands run where you're driving all over and need to carry a lot of stuff. Even at the lower rate of $4.95/hour, for most destinations in Mpls, after about 4, it would have made more sense to call a cab. Cabs are more expensive per mile, but you don't pay for them when they're just sitting there. --Jeff Rosenberg East-Isles . . . a few blocks from the future 'Uptown Pod' REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
