Freedom Ride

Recently no less an authority than Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, stated that the issue of "energy independence" is one of the nation’s major needs. In a letter dated October 17, 2008, she called for cooperation in Congress to "promote American innovation, energy independence, green jobs, 21st century infrastructure, and cutting-edge technology throughout all sectors of the economy." But the basic thrust of most of the Congressional programs appears to be that of increasing the supply of energy (whether by way of oil drilling, nuclear power, alternative fuels, wind or solar power) or conserving energy by developing vehicles which use less fuel (hybrids, electric cars, and the like). None of political discussion appears to focus on the possibilities of coming up with ideas so that fewer cars are needed, more cars are shared, and the motor car becomes an integral part of an overall transportation system.

The solution to many of these issues may lie in Paris, France, and its recent "French revolution" of rental bicycles. The Paris mayor has turned his city into a bicycle zone, pretty much overnight. Out near the subways and elsewhere, there are 1,400 rent stations and 20,600 bikes. In Paris proper, one is never more than 400 meters from a set of cheap wheels. As NPR has reported: "Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe was vilified by motorists for widening sidewalks and replacing car lanes with bike and bus corridors. He's been accused of trying to eradicate the automobile from the French capital. But the new bike scheme has been so successful that his poll numbers are shooting up." Reviewing the program’s undeniable appeal while noting the problems of trying to bring it to New York, Mayor Bloomberg stated: "You try to see whether it fits, and some parts of it will, but it may very well give you an idea to do something totally different."

What the French experiment does suggest is an application to the automobile. The genius of the French bicycle revolution lies in two significant points. First, so many bikes are available that it’s easy to get one. Second, the entire operation is controlled through a centralized computer. It’s the computer which makes the entire system function and points the way to a similar system for motor vehicles.

While there are 1,400 rental stations throughout Paris, none of them are manned. Basically, all of the bicycles are locked, each in its own slot, with a central computer terminal located at the center of the station. After you select the bicycle located in a particular slot, you put your electronic membership card into the terminal and punch in the slot number. The computer frees the bike from its station,. You use the bike and your usage is timed until you bring it back again.

Other experiments (even businesses) exist to exploit the computer and individual transportation, all contributing ideas which might deal with the combined problems of energy cost, global warming, and economic instability. For example, Vancouver has a Co-operative Auto Network (http://www.cooperativeauto.net)">http://www.cooperativeauto.net) which has been operating since 1997. There are 228 cars in the cooperative, and the cars are shared by the members. Zipcars (which has branches in twenty-three cities in the U.S. and Canada) rents cars by the hour, with an excellent internet coordination system. There are many ridesharing websites across Canada and the U.S.

Each of these solutions has its drawbacks, of course. Co-operative Auto and Zipcars works only if you live close to where the cars are parked. Zipcar, for example, allows car reservations through its computer website, and it uses electronic cards to keep tabs on rentals, car location, and the like. But its principal drawback is that – unlike the French bike system – you cannot "take it here and leave it there." This greatly hampers flexibility. Ridesharing works, but it’s dependent on arranging the ride ahead of time and therefore really only works where the driver can be counted on. While each of these ideas potentially contributes to fuel conservation and reduces traffic congestion, the drawbacks make them seem like unlikely solutions standing alone for the major issues which face modern society.

Unlike the Zipcars or Co-operative Auto systems, under the Paris plan you don’t have to bring the bike back to the same station where you found it. Rather, you can ride it and then park it at any of the 1,400 stations. When you find a space, you slip the bike into the slot, and then you go to the computer terminal at that station. The bike is locked into place and you’re are charged for the time that you used the bike.

What happens if there’s no space at the rack where you want to deliver the bike? Should that happen, you go to the computer terminal and punch in a few numbers. The computer will tell you the closest stations where space is available. Furthermore, you’re given free rental time to take the bike to the nearby station.

One problem with bicycles is that they need to be locked up between uses. If they aren’t, there’s undoubtedly a significant risk of theft; even an isolated locked bike can be taken relatively easily (the steel racks in Paris create substantial protection for the bikes). Moreover, the computerization of the French bicycles is managed through the stations. So, even though there are a great many stations, in the end the plan only works within the system of stations. Cars, on the other hand, are large enough to have their own individual locking systems. Moreover, wireless computers are commonplace, and so is GPS tracking. Thus, one could imagine a system of rented motor vehicles which could be picked up wherever located and left off virtually anywhere, at least within a prescribed area

Suppose the government (or a private organization with strong financial backing) (call the organization "FreedomRide") bought up private cars and equipped them with GPS systems, wireless computers, and keyless entries. FreedomRide owns the cars but anyone can drive them, so long as they’re registered with FreedomRide and have an electronic FreedomRide card. The cars are parked on the side of the road and in driveways. It doesn’t matter. They are given special parking rights in cities. If the car needs gas, you take it to a service station. You use the FreedomRide electronic card like a credit card. The service station gets paid by FreedomRide, but you only pay for your use of the car.

Ridesharing could be integrated into the system. Suppose you see someone at the curb, holding up their FreedomRide card for a ride. You stop, say hello, and you swipe his card on the card’s electronic reader. (The card’s swiped when he leaves, too). So long as your rider is in the car with you, he’s sharing in the cost of the ride. You have incentive to pick up the rider, and all FreedomRide users have an incentive to find a ride (or a rider) to share the costs. To increase ridesharing, FreedomRide could charge a bit more for solo drivers but reduce the cost per person the more people share the car.

What if the car is having motor trouble? If you can still drive it, you take it to a service station. No problem; the service station operator deals with FreedomRide on the repairs, and you pick up another car in town. If the car doesn’t work, you call a tow truck. FreedomRide deals with the tow truck operator, and the operator takes you to the nearest available FreedomRide car on the way back to the repair station.

Suppose you’re in a strange part of town. You were left off by a friend and you don’t know where the nearest FreedomRide car is located. You can find a computer terminal and look up the FreedomRide website; it tells you where all the FreedomRide cars are located (that’s why they have GPS systems installed). And if for some odd reason a FreedomRide car is taken somewhere, parked, and no one uses it for awhile, FreedomRide can retrieve it easily and put it back into the system.

What if you have an accident in a FreedomRide car? FreedomRide is fully insured, and while you’re in a FreedomRide car, so are you – for any liability.

What do you get charged for using a FreedomRide car? Let’s say $12 an hour. That sounds like a lot, but it isn’t – because you can use the car only as you need it, don’t have any investment, insurance to pay, license fees, repairs, or even gas. Yet if the car is being used even seven hours a day, seven days a week, FreedomRide is generating over $580 a week on its car. And, of course, if you rideshare, you pay even less.

Think of all the community advantages besides the lower cost to the user. Fewer cars on the road means less congestion, smoother traffic, fewer parking problems. Fewer cars means less economic resources devoted to automobiles. Not to mention the need for far less fuel, and lower carbon emissions.

What about crime? If people are picking up other people on the street all the time, won’t this present more opportunities for robberies? After all, that’s one of the main arguments in the American states that ban hitchhiking (Canada doesn’t have that rule). But the FreedomRide system stops crime. To be a rider you need to have a card so that you can share in the cost of the car. The card identifies you; it has your picture on it. The minute it’s swiped by the card reader, FreedomRide’s computer system know where you are, and it knows who the driver is, too. If something happens to either of you, the police will be looking for the other person. The same thing will happen if you try to steal a car – your electronic prints are all over it if you try to drive the car, and the car won’t start without a valid FreedomRide card.

On the flip side, what about neighborliness? Having a mass system of ride sharing inevitably will throw all sorts of people into contact with one another. They’ll need to know each and understand one another. Instead of having individual drivers on the LA freeway prone to road rage, the system would create human contact and courtesy.

Would people really take care of the FreedomRide cars, or would they trash them? If you got in a FreedomRide car and there were garbage in the back seat, you could report it, using a simple text-messaging device in the car. FreedomRide could therefore easily identify the previous user. You would have an incentive to report, too, because you wouldn’t want the next rider to report you as the culprit. If one user started getting a series of complaints about him from other users, he would risk being put on probation and eventually having privileges suspended or cancelled.

Now suppose you’re the mayor of Vancouver and you want to adopt a FreedomRide type of system. You partner with an organization like Zipcar or Co-operative Auto. You offer people who already own good cars a deal: we’ll buy your car and turn it into a FreedomRide car. "We won’t pay you for the car," you say, "but we’ll give you a credit that you can use in FreedomRide. No more insurance, license fees, or gas. If you quit the system, we’ll guarantee that you can cash out your credit. And, because the city supports FreedomRide, only FreedomRide cars can park on the street in special, designated spots. There will be cameras on those spots, and if someone else uses them, their car will be immediately impounded with a heavy fine."

What a deal. Lower cost for driving, plus no parking problems. Can you believe it?

Of course, there would be opposition, particularly by automobile manufacturers and dealers, car rental companies, auto workers unions and oil companies. FreedomRide would absolutely kill the market for new cars. The U.S. has 765 cars per 1000 people. Canada has 563, France 491, and Denmark (the western European country with the lowest number) 408. A system in which four people basically shared one car (not an unlikely prospect) would bring that number down to 250 per thousand, about the number in Poland or Bulgaria. Of course, instead of selling 7,667,066 passenger cars in the U.S. (the 2006 sales figure), that number might go to three million or less. So the automobile industry might take a giant hit.

On the other hand, not building 3.667 million cars a year (at $28,400 each on average, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association) is worth over $104 billion annually, without counting the savings in gas, road construction and other ancillary costs. Any radical change in lifestyle inevitably impacts some industry. The development of the internet may have sold computers, but it sure took a chunk out of the printing industry. And the carriage and buggywhip industries suffered from the automobile.

The recent financial turmoil in the financial sector has taught us all a valuable lesson. When one sector of the economy malfunctions, it’s possible to shift resources to keep the economy stable. So if FreedomRide were to throw a monkeywrench into the automotive works, it would undoubtedly be possible to take some of the cost savings and make sure that there wasn’t too much suffering in Detroit or Ontario. Certainly, we could do better than FEMA did in New Orleans after Katrina.