Skip to main content

"Metered Access" to Cars - could this become the norm?

Imagine a future where most of us have easy access to cars whenever we want but few people have a car of their own. Does that sound horrifying or wonderful to you?

Chris Bradshaw is an imaginative thinker about urban transport. A retired planner form Ottawa in Canada, he has long been an advocate for pedestrian rights. More recently, he has made car-sharing a passion.

Bradshaw's vision for the role of carsharing is ambitious and striking. He envisages a future in which having a car of your own becomes the exception. The normal way to get access to a car would be through what he calls MASC, or 'metered access to shared cars'.

This would make car-sharing, taxis and car-rental much more central to urban transport policy making than they are now. [Note: Carsharing enterprises are sometimes called car-clubs or car co-ops but don't confuse carsharing with ride-sharing or car-pooling.]

He explains his ideas in a paper entitled, 'How Carsharing Can Reduce the ''Drive to Drive'' and Improve Walkability', which he presented at the Walk21 conference in Toronto last year.

Bradshaw doesn't exactly tell us how to get there from here (although he has some suggestions). But the benefits he paints of the MASC approach are intriguing. He contrasts it with our current One-Person, One-Car Orientation (OPOCO).

Here is part of his summary:
Since society provides shared rights-of-way but leaves car-access up to the individual, we have created a feast-or-famine proposition in which there are too many cars, the cars are poorly utilized, and they are much larger than the vast majority of trips require.

In the last 15 years carsharing has joined taxis, car-rental, and ridesharing as ways to share cars: together I call them Metered Access to Shared Cars (MASC). They jointly represent a way to not only greatly reduce peak demands for both roads and parking lots – which increases sprawl – but to make the way cars are driven more pedestrian-friendly.

MASC reduces OPOCO’s “drive to drive” by:

a) shifting costs from fixed to variable, eliminating car-owners’ efforts to do extra driving to amortize $6000-12,000/year invariable costs, while making the whole cost of each trip more readily apparent;

b) having shared cars everywhere people need to be so they don’t have to take a car around everywhere just to have one available if the need arises; and

c) increasing the “fuss” of car access by requiring a short walk and some planning. MASC also reduces the amount of car – weight, power, rigidness of its shell – used for each trip by making the vehicle choice a trip-by-trip decision, rather once-every-five-year decision.

It is striking that this perspective does not see cars themselves as the problem. Instead, it focuses attention on the problems created when our main way to get access to a car is by having one of our own. This view might seem anathema if you see car ownership as a right. It might seem heretical if you see cars as inherently evil.

Bradshaw is not the first to paint such a vision. I have seen similar ideas from John Adams, Hartmut Topp and Rolf Monheim. But this seems to me the clearest and most persuasive vision so far for turning cars into a service not a possession, and solving many urban transport problems in the process.

It certainly makes me wonder.

Would it really work as described? In what circumstances can you imagine it being adopted as policy in any real urban area? Is there a feasible and plausible pathway towards this vision? Are these ideas relevant to rapidly motorizing Asian or Latin American cities? Are they relevant to highly motorized western cities?


  1. This certainly is doable in Singapore, considering its critical mass / pop density, tech capability, top-down government, and lastly, confined island area with minimum number of vehicle coming from outside..

  2. Excellent concepts in here. Trying to see how it would work from a personal point of view. For me, fine. If public transport were good enough I could eliminate a car from most of my daily travel, and rent one when I need to go on the road around the country, and probably be financially somewhat better off. But my wife works odd times, and takes a load of equipment with her. It would be unsettling for her to rely on travelling late at night alone in a taxi. Then I look at one of my daughters, with three very young children. She rushes from place to place to various events for them 6 days a week. I cannot imagine a public transport system that would work for her. And here in Auckland NZ, where we have a ratio of almost 1:1, the financial cost of providing public transport infrastructure appears crippling for the small population too. Many of us would love to see a solution.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Save Manila's (mostly informal) public transport!

Metro Manila depends on informal, lightly-regulated public transport which now faces a catastrophe as a result of this pandemic. The Mobility Coalition, an alliance of eight Metro Manila transport advocacy groups, has ideas on what to do. I spoke with Robie Siy who is active in the Mobility Coalition and who writes the weekly Mobility Matters column for the Manila Times.   [Scroll to the end for more details on Robie, Mobility Matters and the Mobility Alliance.] Scroll down for highlights of our conversation or listen with the player below. Click here to learn how to subscribe to this podcast.

Singapore Urban Transport: The Warts-and-All Story

Singapore's National Day is this week (9 August). So I decided to share Singapore's urban transport story - or my slightly  unusual take on it .  It is   a unique city in various ways but its urban transport policies are well worth your attention even if you don't live in Singapore. This is a warts-and-all version of the story, and it is my own view, not any kind of official one. It's also a little wonkish in parts. [Hi all you policy wonks!] But I hope to keep your interest with some surprising twists, such as: Why was the bus-only public transport system in an awful state by the early 1970s? If the buses were awful in early 1974, how was Singapore able to impose drastic increases to the cost of motoring in 1975? You will have guessed that the buses must have been drastically improved in 1974/75. But how was that achieved? Singapore urban transport enjoyed success through the 1980s and 1990s but its core social bargain (cars for the rich; decent but bas

Shaping public transport

If you care about promoting public transport, you need to understand the key choices about organising and regulating it. These choices shape the industry and they really matter. This is NOT just about privatisation versus government operation. It is more interesting than that. This edition of Reinventing Transport shares the key alternatives and gives a sense of what's at stake. The focus is buses but most of the ideas also apply more widely. Click here to learn how to subscribe to the podcast. You can either read the article below or listen to the podcast episode  (use a podcast app or the player at the beginning of this article or click HERE ) . This is just the basics, not a deep dive. If you want more gory details, then follow the links right at the end of the article. It may seem dull but bus regulation is important! [1:29] The regulatory framework sets how decisions get made and who makes those choices. It makes a huge difference for things you care about