But if it's on my drive, what then? Property is theft?
In places where demand on land is at a premium, most cars aren't parked on drives; they are parked on public streets. And most cars are parked on tarmac of some kind and the more tarmac there is, the more problems we have with flooding.
These issues are hardly cornerstones of my scheme though.
Again you have halved the individual mileages in order to do this, I assume through supposed increased use of PT. How is that reduced use compatible with reduced cost per person and overall lowering of the barriers to car access?
It's all about the relative costs at the point of making a decision about a journey though.
Let's say, for average use, the cost per mile of using a car is 10p upfront costs plus 12p per-mile costs
At present,
at the point of making a decision about how to travel, a car owner would have a choice of 12p per mile by car versus 15p per mile by bus. So other things being equal they will go by car.
A non-car owner will have a choice of 15p per mile by bus vs. 15p per mile by bus and has to go by bus.
Under my scheme, the cost per mile for anyone to go by car is 2p upfront costs (10p shared between 5 people) plus 12p per-mile costs, so a total of 14p at the point of decision.
Because the scheme would result in public transport becoming better used and more efficient, the cost of going by bus would reduce to 12p per mile.
So, it would still be cheaper to go by bus, but for journeys where there was not an alternative, using a car would be an option available to anyone, not just those who had forked out the thousands of pounds a year to own one as at present.
It all works out perfectly, see?
