Categories
Culture Winnipeg

Car Co-op Experiment

Well, not yet. Not literally.

Winnipeg’s Peg-City Car Co-op has been on my mind recently for one reason or another. I’ve come to the conclusion that if they opened a station on my street I would probably immediately get rid of my car!

When I say “my street” I literally mean my street. There are 3 rarely used parking lots on my block (within 3 minute walk) and my street would be good location if they decided to expand their network westward (Philip Mikulec, if you’re reading this DM me).

I ran this idea passed my wife and she rightly brought up concerns about availability and cargo space. So, I thought I should step back and do something like a feasibility study.

So for the next month, I plan on logging all of my car trips in a spreadsheet.

I am going to be logging two categories of metric.

First, I’m going to log cost of using a co-op car. Cost is defined by the duration and distance of the trip. I’ll flag trips where I might be able to use their new floater service as those trips should be less expensive.

Second, I’m going to log “feasibility.” One of the biggest reasons for owing a car for me personally is being able to have a vehicle available at my beck-and-call. With two growing kids and a wife with mobility issues, it seems valuable to be able to hop into a car at any time.

To log feasibility I am going to use the following three attributes:

  • Timely: Appointments, meetings, picking people up at a specif time, that sort of thing. Since car co-ops have limited stock, I’m assuming it may be difficult to always get a car at a specific time.
  • Spontaneous: Basically, any trip that was taken without prior planning. This could be an emergency or a random drive in the evening.
  • Large: Again due to limited stock I assume we would not always be able to get a larger vehicle if needed. For this metric, I will use any load that takes up the entire floor space of our Santa Fe to signify a “large” load.

Without actually using the service it’s going to be impossible to know if a car would have been available to me during these trips. So for the sake of quantification, if any two out of these three factors are present for a given trip, I deem that trip infeasible with a car co-op.

Hypothesis

My total cost will come in under the $833/mo the average Canadian spends on car ownership. I think I am an ideal candidate for a car co-op: we are a one driver household (for now), I work from home full time, our kids are teenager (and already accustom to taking public transit) and our neighbourhood is extremely walkable.

Other factors

I understand that people who use car co-ops typically change the way they use cars. They group trips and drive less frequently. In addition to the raw calculations, I will attempt to analyze the data and come up with alternate stories for how I could have used cars over the month. There might be some interesting findings.

My data set will act as a sort of “worst case scenario.” Meaning, if I didn’t change my behaviour this is how much it would cost. As such, my data should also be able to quantify the real cost of having a car available outside your door 24/7.

I hope to have some interesting findings. See you in a month!

Categories
Culture Winnipeg

The False Dichotomy of Bikes v. Cars

I’ve been engaging with a lot of anti-bike folks on twitter over the past few months.

Observations and Thoughts.

[Note: these people are sometimes pejoratively called “carbrains” but that’s unfair, I think at lot of people share these views, even if they are not against bikes]

1. The built environment is immutable.

When someone says “Winnipeg is a car city,” they’re stating a fact, like “the sky is blue.”

It’s not right or wrong. It’s the way it is.

Whether it can or should change is beyond consideration.

2. Driving is frustrating.

Their arguments undoubtedly include an anecdote about a frustrating driving experience. Often with an accusation that I must never have experienced a similar frustration.

Drivers demand funding for road improvements as a remedy to this frustration.

3. Induced demand adds frustration.

While it’s important to inform drivers that adding more roads won’t solve their driving frustration, pointing this out only makes them more frustrated.

You’ve just told them that they live in a frustrating environment with no way out.

4. Cycling infrastructure demands that everyone bike.

This belief stems from a feeling that bike lanes are disruptive and expensive. So funding them can only be justified if most people bikes most places.

And it’s a nonstarter b/c of the how far most people would have to bike.

5. Safety isn’t a consideration.

Car violence is seen as state of nature.

Cars are so ingrained in our world that we’ve come to regard them as similar to a force of nature like weather.

Much like the built environment, it’s just the way it is. Shit happens.


Ok. So given these observations, I think we could make great strides by emphasizing the positive knock-on effects of funding bike lanes.

Namely that bike lanes actually make driving EASIER, save money and are a better use of land.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/14/why-drivers-should-support-bike-lanes

I would even go so far as to say that the tension between the two groups is false.

Bikes and cars are only at odds with each other because of 70 years of poor planning based on bad math.

Once you understand that the way forward becomes clear.