My questions are underlined.
-An American Communities Survey suggested 49% of Seattlites still commute by driving alone, and Seattle is like 1 of only 5 cities in the nation where less than half get around this way. If rideshare-like services were to expand over time and become more easily useable and legitimate for everyone, would this shrink the the number of cars on the road? By how much, in the next 5 years? And what is the magnitude of it's effects?
The probable benefits of an increase in carpooling:
-Using a car on a personal level is a significant expense, with maintenance, insurance, when insurance ultimately doesn't cover everything in the event of an accident, parking or storage, licensing, license tabs, gas, fines, loan payments, tolls, and all the kinds of taxes to pay for the infrastructure, parking spaces, and the enforcement and litigation of a certain driving behavior. All of these personal car expenses could be spent in other parts of the economy, maybe essential yet currently inadequately funded businesses and services, or help those seek employment because of the time and money they can save with carpooling. There are many questions in quantifying these values.
-There could certainly be a better use of space than the accomodation of the huge quantity of cars in the country today.
-Sally Bagshaw said King County Metro could lose 600,000 hours of service (over what timeframe?) without cooperation from the state. Who would this effect? How many would be effected? Would those that need these hours be able to afford a cab, and what economic sacrifices would they make?
-Sound Transit noted the reigon's population is projected to increase by 30% by 2035
-Seattle's heavily car and truck dependent transportation system probably should be downscaled if it's to be more affordable, or easily transitioned to a more sustainable way of getting around on four wheels (from the City of Portland: almost six years old, but still relevant today, esp page 12 of the final report). Natural gas and petroleum are two substances that fuel maintain in various ways, the vast majority of this transportation system, from the fuels, to the asphalt, and the manufacturing and material composition of the cars and trucks on the road (table 2.2, table 6). These energy prices will continue to increase due to geological limitations, political, and public health reasons (pages 35 and 39 for the US EIA monetary price projections, pages 37, 77, 110, and 119 for other prices, also notes from the Pembina Institute, and Banerjee, Neela. "In Canada's Alberta province, oil sands boom is a two-edged sword" Los Angeles Times 10/13/2013, the last three paragraphs of the first online page as of 11/1/2013). How many Seattlites, on a personal level, are not getting on a bike or leasing an electric car to commute, because they can't make the proactive monetary or temporal investment for the transition from their status quo transportation expenses? The federal Department of Energy advisor Robert Hirsch noted in Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Litigation, and Risk Management those that would start to make a transition may not have enough time to complete it before prices prohibitively rise and they go back to status quo habits. Would an easier way to share a formerly personal car be the way to support these transportation method transitions and downscaling?
-Listening to the public comments at City Hall, some don't want to drive a car, but they need to given their living situation, even if they acknowledge they're a bad driver. Washington State Health Department Death Certificate Data suggested 2 years ago motor vehicle collisions were the leading cause of death for those ages 5 to 24. SDOT stated from its "Road Safety Summit" there have been 32,000 to 45,000 traffic deaths annually in this country since 1986, so like 1/100 Americans die this way every year. How much would it help to praise those more beneficial drivers and further account for those that aren't as much, when other enforcement isn't around, and get drivers who don't feel safe behind the wheel to be a car passenger instead, like what some rideshare services are able to do?
-It has been projected the climate will change by human influence to commonly be like past weather events, which have decreased food production by 20 to 30 percent, in 70 years (in Science, Vol. 323).
The 2013 National Climate Assessment draft from 9 months ago, with the organization Climate Central, gave Maggie Caldwell the assumption the chance of a 9 foot storm surge in somewhere like lower Manhattan could be 50% in a given year a century from now. Brad Plumer notes the estimate of the average annual losses from flooding in the world's biggest coastal cities being $63 Billion, even if levees, pumps, and moveable barriers were implemented, and mean sea levels could rise by 3 feet by the end of the century. In the US alone, about 100 million people live within 3 feet of mean sea level. The National Climate Assessment draft has also stated water flow rates from rivers like Yakima could decrease by 80% in the summer (p. 724ish), Columbia River hydropower will decrease by 20% if the targeted amount of fish in-stream is kept (p. 725), the median annual forest area burned in the Northwest will quadruple (p.731), and almost all subalpine forests in the area will be gone (p. 721), all by 2080.
On a national scale, the same report stated a heavy precipitation event that's happened once in 20 years could happen every 5 years by late this century (p. 109) and flood damage can be expensnive. In the summer, throughout most of the southwest half of the 48 states, including western Washington, average precipitation could decrease by 12 to 24% in like 30 years (p. 175).
To the fishing economies, such climate change could dissolve an essential part of salmon and other fish diets, cod and silverside themselves, clams, and local oysters by the end of the century (in more concise words).
This changing climate comes in a substantial part from burning the energy to power current US passenger car transportation (carbon dioxide's effect, looking at every scenario from pages 85-88, Tables 2-12 and 2-15).
Other circumstances to probably consider for a solution:
-There are many situations where one carpooling industry could serve one part of the market that none of the other three could have just because of government regulations. I'd assume it's the business structure that effects a driver's behavior more than a lot of things, no matter who they are.
-Again with the public comments at City Hall, a driver of the rideshare services, flat-rate, for hire services, and cab services can all make a substantial profit doing it, although some need to work much harder for the same benefits with current regulations.
-Some can't afford smartphones, nor do they have a permanent address to get a library card, a public service which is already very limited. Some don't have cash, a credit/debit card, physically functional legs, eyes, or ears, but have seizures, epillepsy, etc.
-Has there ever been a correlation with paid carpool drivers to outlyingly dangerous or illegal activity, across different cultures? There could be bad people and cars out there, but would their behavior have anything to do with their job, and would regulating their work be the way to keep their behavior in check? So if they're a commercial driver, they'll be on the street more often, and they're more likely to get in an accident. But by how much? They'd be gaining way more driving experience, and if more drivers were able to enter the market without prohibitive regulations, in the long run, there would probably be less cars on the road, and the market would expose and differentiate the more reliable drivers from the less reliable ones. If insurance companies already won't cover Lyft drivers, where's the information to substantiate their formulas?
-Every hitchhiker and user of craigslist rideshare, a system without an easy way to check from another perspective the reliability of the rides offered, has, I guess, been somewhat concerned of their safety. This audience would prefer those with a decent legitimate driving record, criminal background check, insurance, and vehicle safety check, over those without it. If there was a way to practically and affordably do that when they needed a ride, they'd probably use it. Technology has changed, and it's been getting easier.
-Given all the above circumstances, does this really need to be complicated with more regulation because some passenger didn't understand what deal they were getting into before they accepted the service, or vice versa? Or if they're too complacent to back out of a deal once they're both in the car but they haven't gone anywhere? Or if the driver is late? Or if it's not wheelchair accessible? It's the passenger's and the driver's responsibility to do these, and it's their risk. Passenger service reviews could help mitigate this situation
How about this:
Maybe each of the four existing industries would be given all the same options and limitations from the government and the same abilities to sell their services, because they naturally all have the same huge market? Maybe a bunch of the former rules don't need to be enforced. Just the criminal record and driving record of certain drivers and vehicles could be registered, which could be easily checked by any potential passenger if they have a phone or the internet, through a standard government reporting service at a tri-county or state level, with the driver's state ID and license plate number, 24 hours a day, in an instant, at the driver's consent and with their money. If the driver doesn't request to make this information public by this route, they legally won't have to if they want to make a living transporting people, but they'd be at a big marketing disadvantage. Doesn't San Juan county already do something like this?
AND
If there are already standard credentials required among vehicle mechanics, those in existing private vehicle insurance, and those who work with certain human disabilities, they can be the ones that could include information on the quality and the driver and vehicle in those ways, if paid for voluntarily by the driver directly to those conducting the review in that trade. This information could be presented in the same avenue of the criminal record and driving record in the gorvernment reporting service, though answers of very specific, objective, and thorough standard questions. If inspectors in these trades get paid at an appropriate time by the driver for including this information for those seeking a ride, and it's legally well defined what constitutes adequate service, I don't figure a dangerous bias form the inspector will form. The driver doesn't need to include this information to make a living transporting people, but they'd be at a huge marketing disadvantage.
Could that be all there would be to it with the special government regulation of these industries? No required GPS, security cameras, special license plates and ID's, caps on the number of paid carpool drivers on the road, standard meters, wheelchair accessibilities, luxury vehicle qualifications, enforcement and litigation of flagging down for-hire vehicles, English tests, additional driving training courses, physical exams, fines of where the trip started and ended, etc. Other cities from Tacoma to Bellevue to Everett wouldn't have to go through the same processes this way, right?
I guess it would be a tragedy for those that have made the previous investment in cab, for-hire, and limo services, going from full time work to part time work or something, but how do the economic and health benefits of an increase in simpler carpooling compare?
PS: Ed Murray won as Mayor, and he wants to just enforce the law against rideshare services.
