human-powered and solar-powered theme parks

In my discussion about shared spaces, I have talked about shared roads and shared homes. This blogpost covers another aspect of shared spaces - shared parks.

(source: http://www.travellikealocal.org/en/italy/ai-pioppi/) 

Located in the mountains outside Venice Italy, the owner Bruno built the playground as a way to attract customers into his restaurant. Built in 1969, Ai Pioppi is now home to more than 45 home-made games, consisting of slides, swinging rides and even a roller coaster. The park is free to anyone who dines at Bruno's restaurant. The main catch? It is entirely human-powered.

The Bicycle of Death (pictured above), like its name suggests, is powered by pedaling. Once the cage reaches the top of the wheel, gravity will take over, allowing a 360-degree loop. This process does not require any use of electricity, making it even more terrifying. 

Since the entire place is built by hobbyist Bruno, the park is technically not certified safe. Despite housing more than fourty rides, Ai Pioppi is still under private property. 

(source: http://www.childinthecity.eu/2016/10/18/osteria-ai-pioppi-if-you-want-to-play-you-have-to-push-and-sweat/)

Instead of destroying the environment to make space for the theme park, Bruno builds the theme park around the natural environment. In fact, Bruno draws inspiration from nature itself. 

"I look at movements in nature: a branch that is moving, a bird that is flying, and then I get an idea."

 Compared to conventional amusement parks where machines are motored, every ride in this park works manually. To get a ride to move, you would have to push, or use some form of energy powered from your own body. This promotes healthier living since we are rewarded based on how much energy we put in. With the rising obesity rates around the world, such kinetic parks presents a good alternative to the conventional amusement parks that consume significant amounts of energy.

GreenWood Forest Park, located in Wales, is another theme park that uses solar energy to power its rides. Being the first theme park in the UK to run entirely on renewable energy, solar panels supply 80% of the park's electricity and power. The SolarSplash (pictured below), is powered by a 150kW photovoltaic array that is operated by a computer system with operators at the top and bottom of the ride. 

(source: https://www.tripadvisor.com.sg/Attraction_Review-g1096504-d593534-Reviews-GreenWood_Forest_Park_Gelli_Gyffwrdd-Y_Felinheli_Gwynedd_North_Wales_Wales.html)

Their photovoltaic array generates almost double the amount of electricity the park uses. At peak capacity, the 576 panels can generate around 135kW. The system puts power into the park's facilities, and any excess would be sold off to the grid, thus ensuring no energy is wasted.

Since the park opened its doors 25 years ago, the installation of renewable energy sources have saved the park more than £1 million in energy bills. It will also prevent 1,700 tons of carbon emissions, and materials sourced are also from recyclable sources.

These environmentally-friendly parks are a good alternative to the conventional amusement parks. Human-powered rides encourage healthier lifestyles, especially among children where obesity rates have more than doubled in children in the past 30 years. Switching to renewable energy sources is also a sustainable goal that theme parks should look into attaining.

References:

http://www.childinthecity.eu/2016/10/18/osteria-ai-pioppi-if-you-want-to-play-you-have-to-push-and-sweat/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460167/Italian-man-hand-builds-entire-theme-park-spare-time-40-years.html

https://trendy-post.blogspot.sg/2015/04/facts-about-ai-pioppi-playground.html

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/osteria-ai-pioppi-ecological-park-bruno-ferrin.html

http://articles.courant.com/2008-07-22/news/ctride0721.art_1_amusement-parks-electricity-rates

http://mashable.com/2015/11/30/theme-park-solar-energy/#qau7DPcKGkqn

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/watch-what-its-like-ride-11075858

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/607679/Forest-Park-theme-solar-power

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/obesity/facts.htm

Why do people prefer shared spaces over the traditional?

People are favouring Airbnbs to traditional hotels as the unique home listings allow for a different stay each time one travels. Traditional hotel layouts are generally standardised - carpeted floors, brown curtains, white sheets, a desk for doing work, television and a sofa. The standard and minimal look of such traditional hotels differ greatly from our generally vibrant and cozy homes. When travelling, one would usually want to feel familiar in a foreign land. Airbnb homes entice users with their cozy environments, as if we are staying over at a friend's home. 

Traditional hotel rooms 

Cozier Airbnb homes

People are also increasingly seeking to stay in Airbnb homes due to their totally different living environments - even beyond our wildest imaginations!

Ever wanted to live with sharks?

Or in a castle?

Perhaps in a treehouse?

Given the wide range of places we can possibly stay, Airbnb is redefining what we traditionally call homes. Living in Airbnb homes also allows people to live truly like a local. Usually homes on Airbnb are the place of residence of actual home owners. Thus, these areas are usually where the locals reside in. This allows occupants to experience what it is like to really live in the country - not just the commercial attraction sites, but also the areas where tourists do not usually see.

Having stayed in both a traditional hotel and an Airbnb listing in Hong Kong, I dare say that staying in the Airbnb has showed me the true side of Hong Kong. In traditional hotels, taxis are readily available right when we step out of the lobby - we are then directly chauffeured to our destination with little chance to explore the places in between. Compared to staying in an Airbnb, we walked about 10 minutes to the nearest MTR and travel another hour before reaching the same destination. This allowed us to soak in the local atmosphere more than when we take a cab. Taking public transport also gives us a peek into how locals commute throughout their daily lives, adding onto the authentic Hong Kong experience.

"Ding Ding" - a traditional Hong Kong tram 

However, there are still issues regarding Airbnb - it may not be as sustainable as we think. Although it is true we tend to consume less water (washing less towels) and electricity (turning lights and air-conditioner off when not in use) when staying in an Airbnb as opposed to a hotel room, it is not to say that staying in an Airbnb automatically deems it being more environmentally friendly and sustainable. Rather, the sustainability and energy we save comes from how we use the facilities in the room.

Usually, rooms that are higher in demand tend to be those that have better facilities and services - air-conditioning in the house, bathtubs, dishwashers, dryers and heaters. These homes tend to consume higher amounts of energy. Thus, the energy usage may not be significantly less than compared to staying at a traditional hotel.

Thus, staying in an Airbnb doesnt automatically mean that we are being more environmentally friendly compared to staying in traditional hotel rooms - it is the overall amount of energy we consume, and how conscious we are when we use such energy.

References:

https://homehello.com.au/blog/20-coolest-airbnb-rentals-melbourne/

http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/airbnb-sharks-sleepover-paris

https://www.airbnb.com.sg/wishlists/stay-in-a-castle

https://www.airbnb.com.sg/wishlists/stay-in-a-treehouse

http://novotel-hongkong-nathanroad.com/hong-kong-attractions/tram-hong-kong-tramways/

what are the concerns on shared spaces?

Concerns over shared public spaces mainly include safety issues. With the removal of traditional signs, kerbs and traffic lights, motorists and pedestrians are essentially left to themselves to access the traffic situation before proceeding. The lack in traffic systems can be chaotic when there is a high volume of cars and pedestrians. 

In such cases, pedestrians can be vulnerable when crossing the roads as they might not be as visible to motorists at night when there are no traffic lights to facilitate. However, research has shown that motorists and pedestrians are more aware of traffic situations with the removal of traditional traffic signs - the absence of traffic lights have allowed motorists to rely on their instincts and awareness to navigate. 

Such shared spaces allows for flexibility in land use. However, these shared spaces also deal with drawbacks. Since pedestrians and motorists have to make eye contact to establish who has priority, this puts the blind and visually impaired at a sever disadvantage. Guide dog owners and long cane users are trained to use the kerb as a key navigation tool in the road environments. The removal of such a crucial structure creates a barrier, significantly hinder their mobility as well as increases their risk of getting into accidents. Furthermore, children have been taught to look at traffic light signals as well as zebra crossings when they cross the road. Their inexperience to such situations might also put them at great risk when traffic in such shared spaces is high.

 In terms of shared housing, there is concerns over safety. Airbnb started out by allowing people to rent rooms or entire homes from places that would have otherwise been left empty. Compared to prices in traditional hotels Since it is a relatively new economic structure, and an online one in facts, people have been relying heavily on past reviews left by previous occupants to determine whether the house lives up to their expectations. Many times when people book an entire apartment, home owners have to acknowledge that these occupants may not leave the home in the condition that it was in. The review system often proves to be rather inefficient - since both parties are able to leave reviews for each other, occupants would more likely leave positive reviews such that they would get positive reviews in return. Hence, occupants would praise home owners for their excellent service and helpfulness of the host rather than mentioning the leaking taps and dirty bathrooms.

In terms of legal issues, increasing cities are banning Airbnb. In Berlin, the new law, known as "Zweckentfremdungsverbot" is part of an attempt to safeguard affordable housing for the city's permanent residents. Authorities are increasing efforts to ban Airbnb and its rivals, those who rent out entire properties rather than single rooms. With housing shortages and increasing population in the city, it becomes an urgent need for authorities to step in to control the population of people who are profiting from purchasing more houses than they actually need. While Airbnb comments that home owners rent out their homes occasionally to pay their bills, this may not be representative of the whole population.

Having used Airbnb in search for affordable and unique deals, I have come across many hosts who have acquired several housing units specifically to rent them out on Airbnb and other short term rental sites. Especially in high density countries where housing is in shortage, potential home buyers may be faced with increasing cost of homes. The increased cost of housing can translate to greater unsatisfactory levels in society since the housing costs does not accurately reflect the increase in population of people. 

references:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141118035232-112545392-pros-and-cons-of-shared-space
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/11072664/Britains-town-centre-roads-need-more-shared-spaces-expert-says.html
http://www.localgovsharingecon.com/uploads/2/1/3/3/21333498/localgovsharingecon_sharedspaces_oct2015.pdf
http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/guide-dogs-for-the-blind-association/shared-spaces-campaign
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/germany/berlin/articles/airbnb-listings-plummet-in-berlin-as-ban-comes-into-force/

shared spaces

Shared spaces are slow speed streets where pedestrians have right of way. It usually features the removal of kerbs and the installation of a single level of paving across the full width of the street. 

The first thought that comes to mind regarding shared spaces would be the safety issue. One might think that such shared spaces are less safe due to the lack of traffic lights and signs. However, the removal of traditional distinction between the footpath and road actually encourages motorists and pedestrians to engage more carefully with their surroundings. For example, motorists instinctively slow down when they make eye contact with pedestrians. By allowing road users to pay more attention to their surroundings instead of the signs and traffic lights, it creates an overall safer environment.

In addition, vehicles accessing these shared spaces must adhere to a slower speed limit of an average of 15-20km/h. Also, accessibility zones run along the building edges to provide safe and easy movement through the space. These zones are lined with linear tactile paving strips to help guide vision impaired people.

Having a shared space allows for flexibility of land use. At periods when there are less motorists, pedestrians are given more access to use the space freely. In addition, shared space bring about significant environmental benefits. Removal of traffic lights will ensure motorists are more aware of their surroundings, thus keeping their speeds slow.  This reduces congestion, which in turn lowers vehicle emissions.

Apart from shared public spaces, other shared spaces included shared homes (Airbnb), shared retail spaces (flea markets) and shared work spaces.

An example of a shared retail space is Scape, located at Orchard Road. On weekdays, the open areas are kept empty to allow flow of people to use the space freely. However, on weekends, tenants would set up temporary stalls. The entire area can hold about 80 temporary stalls, with stalls selling clothes, novelty items electronic gadgets and accessories. More often than not, these flea markets encourage tenants to put up their preloved items for sale. Items sold at flea markets are typically a fraction of their retailed price. Such temporary stalls not only increases the economic activity, but also encourages people to reuse apparels that are in good condition. Such stalls also increase efficiency as they use space that would otherwise be empty.

Recently, there has been an introduction of shared work spaces. Examples include The Hive and ShareDesk. These collaborative work spaces provide facilities for freelancers, self-employed people or people who do not have a fixed place for work (such as social media personalities). Benefits of collaborative work spaces include networking with people of other professions and connections. Especially for new startups, renovating an office space may be extremely costly. Thus, switching to a collaborative work space saves money.

Lastly, shared homes are also increasingly popular today. Environmental benefits of Airbnbs to hotels include a lower water usage, less consumption of energy, and a higher usage of public transport. Living in a home (rather than a hotel) reduces water usage because we are responsible for reusing or washing our own towels. This would save on water usage because we are taking the activity into our own hands - where we wash these towels ourselves, rather than leaving it to housekeeping. In addition, hotels use more electricity as lights and air-conditioning are constantly on. Compared to in homes, we are usually less likely to switch on lights and air-conditioning if it was not necessary. Lastly, users of Airbnb are more likely to rely on public transport than on taxis. Compared to hotels, Airbnbs usually do not have taxis readily available outside the apartment. Thus, users of Airbnb homes are more likely to navigate around the area using public transport. This would reduce carbon emissions since there is an increased use of public transport. Hence, Airbnb tends to be more sustainable compared to traditional hotels.

references: 
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/planspoliciesprojects/councilprojects/sharedspaces/Pages/home.aspx
http://www.pps.org/reference/shared-space/
https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/schools_and_engagement/resources/_notes/5A2_44.pdf
http://greenlivingideas.com/2016/03/02/is-airbnb-more-sustainable-than-hotels/
http://blog.airbnb.com/environmental-impacts-of-home-sharing/

what are the government's views on shared mobility?

It is important not to limit shared mobility to solely on-demand car-sharing companies. Other examples of shared mobility can include bicycle sharing, scooter sharing as well as shuttle bus and feeder services. 

With the introduction of Uber and Grab, there is a steeper competition between such on-demand car-sharing companies and the traditional taxi companies. The higher competition implies that there needs to be constant diversification and improvement to remain on top. These newly introduced companies have an upperhand in terms of competition because their success mainly stems from their technological aspect - these companies are able to make hailing of vehicles almost instantaneous with a touch of a button on our mobile phones. The integrated credit payment and tracking functions also saves the time spent getting a cab. As we tend to appreciate inventions that allow us to be lazy (where we can hail for cabs in the comfort of our homes instead of walking out to flag for a cab), we are usually more drawn to these on-demand car-sharing companies.

Thus, this would imply a preferential shift from traditional taxi companies to Uber and Grab. As such, these drivers face a lower demand in consumers. To overcome the fall in demand, they would have to work longer hours to fill their quota such that they are able to make a reasonable amount of earnings for the day. Furthermore, since these taxi drivers in Singapore tend to be older. The longer working hours thus can result to a decline in health of these workers. 

Employees under Uber tend to be tech savvy, millennials are looking to earn extra pocket money in addition to their current full time jobs. Due to its flexibility in working hours, people are naturally drawn to the quick and easy money. By doing so, these employers are essentially depriving traditional taxi drivers of their business since it is their livelihood. Hence, governments tend to shun away from the introduction of Uber, Lyft and Grab into their economy as it would highly disrupt the current economy and welfare of employers in the industry.

Apart from car-sharing, there is also an issue on bicycle sharing. In countries cities like Paris, the 

Vélib' system is a sustainable way to reduce GHG emissions as well as to encourage exercise within society. Launched in July 2007, the system encompasses around 14,500 bicycles and 1,230 bicycle stations throughout Paris, with some stations in surrounding municipalities. To rent the bicycle, a credit card is required. The credit/debit card is charged a €150 deposit, to protect against bikes not being returned.

The first hour of renting the bicycle is free, whereas every hour after there would be an increment of €3. A rate of €150 would be charged to the credit card if the bicycle is not returned at any parking stations within 20 hours to prevent the bicycle from theft. Such bicycle systems are successful in cities like Paris because their road systems are narrow and are suited for bicycles. In addition, the favourable weather in Paris encourages people to ride bicycles.

Compared to a country in Singapore where roads are built for cars and not bicycles or human beings, people might feel intimidated to ride their bicycles on the roads. Furthermore, to get from one place to another, one would likely have to encounter expressways. Bicycles are prohibited on expressways, thus it is difficult for Singaporeans to pick up the habit of riding bicycles when there are many restrictions in doing so in Singapore. However, the most deterring factor that discourages us Singaporeans from riding bicycles is the hot and humid weather.

Despite this, the government is encouraging Singaporeans to cycle by increasing the cycling network. By 2015, 100 km of intra-town cycling paths will have been developed in several cycling towns. The aim is to provide all 26 HDB towns across Singapore with comprehensive intra-town cycling networks for residents to cycle to and from MRT stations and neighbourhood centres.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lib%27#Issues
https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/View-Master-Plan/master-plan-2014/master-plan/Key-focuses/transport/Transport

SkyCycle, a suspended cycle path built for people

Compared to in Asian cities, countries in Europe are more welcome to the idea of cycling. More people use cycling as primary modes of transport - in the Netherlands, more than 80% of the population cycle regularly. It is reported that 27% of people ride bicycle as their means of daily transport. The cycling culture in the Netherlands is so prominent such that there are actually more bicycles than the population; every Dutch citizen owns about 1.1 bicycles.

In countries like Singapore where there are many expressways, it would be difficult to integrate bicycle routes along such expressways due to the potential danger and safety issues that come in place. It would not be viable to have bicycles and cars to travel on the same lanes, especially during peak hours and during night time. In addition, despite the many park connectors in place that allow bicycles to seamlessly travel within neighbourhoods, commuters are still unable to ride their bicycles on large public roads. Thus, Singapore has not yet found a sustainable alternative to encourage people to permanently switch to using bicycles as their primary mode of transport.

However, project Sky Cycle was proposed in London, where a 220km network of bicycle path is suspended above railway lines.

(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/04/skycycle-london-bike-highway_n_4540860.html)

London has been faced with the issue of successfully segregating cars and cyclists given the physical constraint of London's streets. With cycling rates increasing more than 170% in the last 10 years along, the safety of cyclists is also a huge concern. Cycling-related incidents within the city has more than doubled since 2006, and it also accounts for more than 20% of deaths and serious injuries on the roads in London.

As a result, a 220km network of bicycle path was proposed to be set up high above London's roads, allowing potential bicycle communicators to cycle with beside London's skyline. More than 200 entrance points within London will provide access to more than ten different cycle paths, with each route accommodating up to 12000 cyclists at a time. The path is also said to reduce time across the city by up to half an hour. The perimeter of the area would reach up to six million people, half of whom live and work within a ten minutes of an entrance.

However, the proposed solution was met with great resistance. Cost is a huge factor in determining whether SkyCycle could begin its construction. The first phase of completion spanning 6.5km along from Liverpool Street Station to East London would cost about $362 million.

Given London's "Cycling Vision" budget to be $1125 million for the next ten years (including initiatives such as education, road safety projects, training and segregated lanes), SkyCycle would take up a significant portion of the budget, thus depriving of more important projects. Since the entire pathway would take twenty years to complete its construction, planners and the public might not think that it would be a practical solution toward the pressing issue on road safety today.

In addition, the proposed bicycle path would not be sheltered. Hence, this would suggest a low utilisation rate during rainy, windy and even colder seasons. In a temperate climate like London, this would mean that the bicycle lanes are probably being fully utilised less than half of the time. Furthermore, permanently segregating bicycle lanes and car lanes might make cyclists less aware of their surroundings. As they are so used to having an entirely lane to themselves on the elevated bicycle paths, they might subconsciously forget to check for traffic and safety when they are on the same level as cars.

Cycling is seen as a social activity, allowing people to bond over the travel journey. Cycling on ground level allows commuters to see the city, explore the little nooks and crannies of alleys and small streets. Putting bicycle paths on elevated roads above the city can potentially turn cycling into a dull and mundane mode of transport where people focus on getting to the destination rather than to enjoy the entire journey.

Hence, rather than spending millions on building an entirely new pathway for bicycles, more should be done to instead integrate bicycles and cars safely on roads. Examples can include lowering the speed limit, or introducing more speed bumps along roads. Having segregated bicycle and car lanes can also significantly reduce cycling-related accidents, implementing more bicycle racks and locks can also increase safety and security. SkyCycle is an interesting solution to promoting safer roads, however it may not be entirely sustainable in temperate climates and in countries where public funding is lacking.


References:
http://europe.hkbu.edu.hk/euap/young_europe/module6/Urban%20cycling_Lesson%20Plan.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/04/skycycle-london-bike-highway_n_4540860.html
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2016/01/skycycle-elevated-bike-paths-concept-london/
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jan/02/norman-foster-skycycle-elevated-bike-routes-london
http://www.archdaily.com/469780/why-the-skycycle-would-never-work

how can shared mobility be improved?

Car-sharing companies with profit maximisation goals may be harrmful to society if there it no government regulation. These companies can freely set prices that the public will have to follow. Thus, private car-sharing companies to function sustainability, the government should intervene such that society's welfare is maximised.

How do countries improve on the shared mobility system? In a country like Singapore where land space is limited, the government encourages the usage of shared mobility via public transport systems.  Instead of depending largely on car-sharing companies to promote sustainability, countries should instead integrate these systems together with current transportation methods such that efficiency is increased.

Countries should firstly have an effective public transport system that can deter them from purchasing private vehicles. For public transit systems to be efficient, they have to be: affordable, high in frequency, convenient and reliable.

Singapore's public transportation is successful mainly because it fulfills the aspects as mentioned above. Rides high in frequency - MRTs taking an average of 3 minutes each train and buses taking an average of 15 minutes.

Also, the system is convenient - the government is constantly increasing the number of bus services and MRT routes such that these modes of transport remain convenient to everyone. MRT systems are increasingly interconnected - with the introduction of the Circle Line, Downtown line and the upcoming Cross Island Line, the government is ensuring our public transport systems are increasingly improved such that it presents as a a good, and even better alternative to using private vehicles.

Next, the public transport system is affordable. Adults in Singapore have the option of buying concession passes for both MRTs and buses - this adds up to about $120 per month. Given the convenience and reliability (although questionable today) of our public transport systems, this sum is very affordable to majority of Singaporeans.

The graph below shoes the public transport ridership from 2005 to 2014. There is an exponentially increase in bus and MRT ridership, whereas the ridership for taxis have increased only marginally. This suggests that increasing number of people are using public transportation. The increase in taxi ridership is relatively stagnant throughout the years, suggesting that this increase comes from the growing population and workforce.



In addition to having an efficient public transport system, it is important to integrate car-sharing companies into the country seamlessly. This means that Uber, Grab and Lyft should not compete directly with the public transport systems - they should instead complement one another. For example, according to a new report from the American Public Transport Association,services like Uber and Lyft "are most frequently used for social trips between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m., times when public transit runs infrequently or is not available. As such, Uber and the public transport systems do not overlap. 

references
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-more-time-effort-needed-gain-public-transportation-buy-experts-say
http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Barter-Sg-urban-transport-sustainable-by-design-or-necessity.pdf
https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=38dc4ca3-5e70-4bf8-97bc-87f78e6303e7
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Shared-Mobility.pdf

electric car-sharing as an alternative

With the rising car ownership around the world, road congestion becomes an important issue to tackle. A higher number of cars translate to more carbon emissions (assuming majority of cars are not powered by electricity). In the U.S., cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of total emissions, emitting close to 24 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas. The entire transportation sector (cars, trucks, planes, ship) accounts for almost 30% of all U.S. global warming emissions.

Hence, it becomes important to find alternative ways of commuting that reduces total carbon emissions. Switching to a reliable public transport system or encouraging car-sharing can reduce total carbon emissions. However, to make the system even more environmentally sustainable, countries can consider adopting an electric car-sharing system to further reduce reliance on fuels.

Singapore has plans to increase its dependency on electric cars. Apart from encouraging the use of electric cars, BlueSG is jumping on the sharing economy bandwagon to integrate car-sharing into the system. BlueSG is a subsidiary under the French electric car-sharing operator, Bollore Group. 

(source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/electric-car-sharing-scheme-to-be-rolled-out-from-2017)

Ballore Group currently operates Autolib, the world's largest electric car-sharing programme implemented in Paris. Since its opening, more than 31000 conventional cars have been taken off the roads. Autolib functions with 4000 electric cars and more than 130,000 regular users.

Hoping to follow in Paris' successful footsteps, 125 fleet of BlueSG cars will hit the roads by June 2017, with more than 2000 charging points at parking spaces in more than 500 locations within Singapore. Most of these parking spaces would be within the neighourhoods, away from the Central Business District. The company aims to run a fleet of 1000 cars by the year 2020. Users can book a car as early as twenty minutes in advance, and price charged would be according to the duration as opposed to distance. With the system being implemented nationwide, this can potentially reduce people's need to own a car. 

Similar to the Velib bicycle-sharing system in Paris, this electric car-sharing system is a one-way program that allows users to return the car at their destination instead of the initial place where the car was rented. This allows for point-to-point mobility, and is good for trips where places are not fully accessible by public transport.

These electric cars help reduce pollution as they do not have tailpipe emissions. Furthermore, a study conducted by Nanyang Technological University showed that the cars can reduce primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission by up to 50% compared to the conventional internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are also quieter in comparison to normal cars, thus reducing the overall noise pollution.

Apart from increasing environmental sustainability, this system can also increase social sustainability. BlueSG's partnership with the Economic Development Board will create more than 250 jobs in the next five years of implementation. 

However, the implementation of the car-sharing system can potentially be counter-productive. Given the ease of booking, collecting and renting the car, this might actually increase the demand for such cars. It is likely that many of BlueSG's potential customers are frequent users of Singapore's current public transport system. Furthermore, since the government would take over charging points and make them available to the public after the ten-year contract, the government can provide better incentives for people to switch to car-sharing rather than taking public transport.

Hence, although adopting this electric car-sharing system is sustainable both environmentally and economically in the long run, it is also important to regulate the use of it such that people do not switch from the current reliable public transport system to the electric car-sharing system. Incentives should be targeted to current normal car owners such that they switch from cars with internal combustion engines to such electric cars. 

References:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-global-warming#.WC6tV_l942w
https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=e030e95d-a82c-49b4-953c-fc4b3fad7924
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/electric-car-sharing-scheme-to-be-rolled-out-from-2017
http://www.eco-business.com/news/singapore-unveils-its-first-ev-car-sharing-scheme/

shared mobility

Shared mobility refers to the shared usage of a vehicle (cars, bicycles, taxis, buses) that enable users to gain short term access to transportation modes on an "as needed" basis. It can also include alternative transit services, such as paratransit, shuttles, and private transit services, called microtransit, which can supplement fixed-route bus and rail services.

Although the term shared mobility can refer to traditional buses and taxis, the sharing economy focuses largely on the more 'on-demand' transport - these companies are usually largely successful due to their technological appeals that makes it convenient for the increasingly tech savvy population.

Car-sharing e-hail applications such as Uber, Lyft and Grab are increasingly popular today among millennials as the process of booking a ride is almost seamless - it saves us the trouble of physically going to main roads to hail a cab, or waiting a long time for a bus to arrive. Why would we want to go through that much trouble when all can be done with a touch of a button?

To the economy, such car-sharing companies increase economic growth. It creates new jobs for people, as well provides incentives for current car owners to fully utilise their vehicles. Also, according the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the introduction of car-sharing has actually reduced the percentage of people who have expressed interest in owning a car. When asked about changes to their finances due to shared modes, 20 percent of people reported they had postponed buying a car, 18 percent had decided not to purchase one and 21 percent of people have since sold their cars because of the convenience of these shared modes. In the long run, these car-sharing companies have the potential to reduce private ownership of cars, relieving roads of major traffic congestions and high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Countries such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have introduced high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage carpooling during peak hours. These lanes have priority whereby other lanes must wait in line to enter highways, but cars in HOV lanes can enter first, cars in these lanes also need not pay tolls.

However, car-sharing companies also do have their limitations to society. An increase in job opportunities for Uber, Grab and Lyft would suggest that employees in traditional taxi companies are at risk of being retrenched if the demand for traditional taxi companies are not met.

In addition, the increased convenience of such on-demand car-sharing economies may even result in people switching from taking public transport to taking Uber and Grab. This would mean that roads in turn get more congested, and there is higher fuel inefficiency. Furthermore, since such car-sharing companies such a relatively cheap price, customers would form the habit of taking the car over short distances instead of walking. An increase in the number of people taking cars over a short distance would suggest an inefficient road usage. Also, such habits can have long term effects on the health of society - the lack of exercise due to taking the car over short distances can have negative implications on the nation's overall health and lifestyle.

References:
http://innovativemobility.org/?project=shared-mobility-definitions-industry-developments-and-early-understanding
https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Harnessing-Shared-Mobility-1.pdf
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Shared-Mobility.pdf
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110614/taxi-industry-pros-cons-uber-and-other-ehail-apps.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane#History
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm19.htm
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/04/will-uber-make-transportation-sustainable/

Is it sustainable?

(picture: http://www.intelligenthq.com/social-business-2/fair-share-reclaiming-power-in-the-sharing-economy/)

When the topic of sustainability comes to mind, it usually refers to the environmental, economical, social and technological impacts on society.

The rise in sharing economy companies has brought about economic and social benefits such as the increase in jobs. The existence of these sharing economy companies are fueled by the increase in demand by the public. People increasingly demand for cheaper, more convenient methods to purchase goods or services. Thus, this results in the creation of job employment opportunities to fill the demands. The increase in job opportunities would naturally increase the income levels and consumption levels in a society.

However, a rise in job opportunities in such sharing economy companies can also result in retrenchment in other job-related industries. Uber has been gaining popularity because of its easy-to-use functions and its convenience among most smartphone users. Thus, a rise in demand for Uber drives may lead to a fall in demand for traditional taxi companies. This can ultimately cause retrenchment of taxi drivers and a loss of their livelihood.

In the aspect of retail and consumer goods, 78% of people agree that the sharing economy reduces waste (PWC, 2015). By sharing, swapping and trading goods around in the community, wastage of resources is significantly minimised. In Singapore, flea markets and peer-to-peer marketplaces such as Carousell are rising in popularity among millennials. Here, we can not only purchase clothes and goods at a much cheaper price (since they are pre-loved), but we can also trade clothes with people if both parties mutually agree on it. Although there is an issue of the lower quality, most people (myself included) are willing to pay less for less.

In addition to clothes, a more practical use of the sharing economy is the trading, or selling of secondhand textbooks. University textbooks can be extremely expensive, especially since we only use it for a couple of months. Thus, websites such as bookinbookout encourages people to sell or swap their textbooks around in the community. This proves sustainable in the long run as we would be consuming (and demanding) less paper products by simply trading our otherwise unused textbooks.

It is said that if sharing models are operated under most favourable conditions, it could save up to 7% of budget in households, and could reduce up to 20% of waste (Demailly & Novel, 2014). In addition to reduction of waste, sharing economy companies greatly reduces the carbon footprint. According to  a study conducted by the Cleantech Group, home sharing companies have been reported to emit 66% less carbon dioxide than hotels. The reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) means that there is less air pollutants released in the air. This directly improves the quality of air in the city. Apart from the reduction GHG, switching to home sharing companies also reduces the water usage. In just one year alone, European Airbnb guests have saved 1100 Olympic-sized pools worth of water compared to the amount of water usage in traditional hotels (Pickell, 2015).

There is no clear argument whether sharing economy companies make a city sustainable as there are simply too many areas of consideration. However, the limitations of sharing economy companies can be minimsed through government regulation (instead of being left to the free market).


references:
http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Economie-du-partage-enjeux-et-opportunites-pour-la-transition-ecologique
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-pickell/how-the-sharing-economy-h_b_8761184.html

should the government intervene?

The sharing economy emerges as a positive way to reallocate resources within a city - exchange of goods, sharing of equipment and assets. These all help to increase the efficiency of a city. However, at which point should the government allow it to operate freely without governmental intervention?

Is regulation even needed? YES!!!

In the example of Uber, peak periods allow for surge pricing - this occurs when taxi demand is high, usually during peak periods. According to Uber, surge prices occur to ensure that there are available rides for customers who are willing to pay more. This also incentives drivers to get on the road since the demand (and revenue) is higher (Shontell, 2014).

Uber currently does not have a cap on the maximum surge it charges. On New Years day in New York in 2013, Uber customers paid as much as $350 for a short ride during surge (Shontell, 2014). Is this then, an exploitation of opportunities by Uber? 

The New York state office declared that price gouging in New York is illegal when events result in an  "abnormal disruption of the market"- examples include weather events, power shortages, strikes and wars. During such events, Uber's surge cannot exceed 2.8 times the normal fare in New York (Kim, 2015).

In such cases where severity of situation is high, the government should regulate these companies to prevent them from unfairly profiting from the situation and its consumers. During common peak periods (such as lunchtimes, or after work rush hour), should there be a cap on maximum surge? I would think not.

In a city with a reliable and efficient public transport system in Singapore, people have the alternative to switch to taking public trains or buses. They can even take traditional taxi companies like Citi-Cab or Comfort if they do not want to pay exorbitant Uber prices. 

People who still choose to take Uber when given other (better) alternatives, thus know that they are paying more for the convenience. In addition, Uber ensures that consumers know that they are being charged such surge prices - the estimated cost will be made known to the customer before confirming the Uber ride. As these people would rather pay more to get the taxi quickly, I would agree that there should be no maximum cap that Uber can charge.

However, the same cannot be said for countries where there is a lack of alternatives, or when public transportation is unreliable.

In the aspect of safety, there definitely should be some form of government intervention. To become an Uber driver in Singapore, the requirement is rather easily fulfilled - one simply has to possess a manual or automatic driving licence (issued at least a year). In comparison to traditional taxi companies where employees go through stringent checks and tests to ensure that they are well qualified, the process of becoming an Uber driver is much easier and lax.

In addition, Uber has been plagued with several assault issues - in India, it has gotten so extreme such that it features an 'SOS' button to ensure the safety of its users. In worst cases, in an accident, is Uber responsible for its drivers?

Back in 2013, Uber driver Syed Muzzaffar was logged into Uber when he struck and killed six year old Sofia Liu. Another case reported an Uber driver slamming into a fire hydrant which then broke and injured a pedestrian. Uber has then consistently denied any legal responsibility for their driver's actions.

According to San Francisco Chronicle, government regulation has made it compulsory for ride-sharing companies to provide $1 million in coverage for injuries caused by a driver who accepts a ride. When a driver is logged into the app but has not picked up a customer, the law requires $300,000 in coverage. 

Some form of government regulation is needed to ensure the people of society are treated fairly and all people are taken care off. This also draws a clear line towards the responsibility of a firm such that there is less uncertainty when problems arise.


references:
http://www.businessinsider.sg/ubers-highest-surge-price-ever-may-be-50x-2014-11/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/uber-chooses-surge-price-cap-emergencies/story?id=28494303
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Uber-may-be-liable-for-accidents-even-if-drivers-7377364.php

The sharing economy and its significance

(picture: http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2014/10/08/marketing/sharing-economy/)

In recent years, people's income have been rising, so as our demand for better goods and services. Higher incomes and, credit cards and the existence of banks have greatly increased our purchasing power. However, in the past when human beings had no access to such services, they involved in barter trade.

According to New Society Publishers, when a person barters, they trade something they have for something they need. Successful bartering depends on a "double coincidence of wants" - such a system is most favourable when both parties need what the other party has, at the same time.

The concept of the sharing economy has been implemented in more recent times, usually by the community. Such examples include public libraries, parks and open spaces. Local governments put in place such spaces to encourage a sense of community among people. However, individuals today are realising the high profits to be made from undervalued assets (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2015).  Thus, the market for shared products arose - to allow people to consume products or services that would otherwise be unused.

With the boosting sharing economy today, what were people's initial reactions to this revolution?

In a survey conducted by PricewaterCoopers (PWC) in the United States (US), 86% of people agreed that the sharing economy makes life more affordable since the cost of goods are being shared by a larger group of people. 76% of people agreed it is better for the environment. However, since the sharing economy is still relatively new, 69% of people would not trust sharing economy companies until they are recommended by someone they trust.

In the aspect of shared living spaces, sharing economy companies like Airbnb allows people to open their doors to strangers. In some cases, hosts share their living space with their guests. Although there are still risks of criminal offences and misconduct in traditional business environments, these risks are exponentially higher in the sharing economy as it is "unclear who is accountable" since there is no clear boundary between the consumer and the service provider (Dang, 2016). However, users tend to prefer peer-to-peer lodging to traditional hotels as they not only usually cost less, but also because of the dynamic and difference experience from standard hotels (Folger, 2016).

Generally, people today are more open to the idea of a shared community because of the variety of services they provide and the usually low cost. It is likely that the concept of shared economy will be here to stay, given up to 85% of people agreeing that the shared economy makes life more convenient and efficient (PWC, 2015).


references:
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf
https://www.techinasia.com/talk/sharing-economy-testing-trust-people

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032814/pros-and-cons-using-airbnb.asp

What is the sharing economy?

(picture: http://meridian-180.org/sites/default/files/sharing.economy.forum_.image_.jpg)

What is a sharing economy?

A quick search online and you would notice that there is no formal definition for the concept of a “sharing economy”. However, most definitions have something in common: the share creation and consumption of goods and services. By engaging in such an economy, the amount of under-utilized assets would be greatly reduced, leading to a more efficient economy. Such “sharing activities” are conducted off digital platforms through the use of websites or applications. For example, the most famous case would be Uber, a mobile application that matches individual car drivers to consumers who need them to get around.

There are many types of goods and services that can be shared. This ranges from the most basic of consumer durables to the more rare cases of intellectual property. Other examples also include transport, accommodation and even human capital. There is no doubt that there is a huge potential for the sharing economy, seeing that it affects many functional areas of life.

Below is a simple illustration on how the sharing economy works:

(picture: http://www.sharingskills.eu/project/what-is-sharing-economy/)

What then, fuels the growth of this economy?

First, the rise of technological advances. In the digital era that we live in, the rise of social media is indeed a defining innovation. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram allows us to form communities and thus develop relationships among each other. Each individual in the community have the power to be heard and impact the community they live in, as they now have the voice and access to resources. Over time, this social network can also act as a support group as they start to share ideas and resources among each other. Thus, bringing us closer to the notion of a “sharing economy”.

Next, the changing economic conditions. The financial and economic crisis in 2008 has resulted in the suffering of households purchasing power. Households are increasingly thriftier and some even need to find additional sources of income to supplement their current levels of spending. This, coupled with the fact that consumer goods are used for only a fraction of the time, led to the idea that a more productive model could be in place. Instead of owning the resources and assets, these products can be leased and rented among the users, for a much lower cost.

Lastly, the increased environmental awareness. We have seen the emergence of many green initiatives in companies and green movements (Earth Day) in the turn of the century. This shows that consumers are more aware of the consequences of our actions on the environment that we live in. Thus, the model of sustainable development – one that respects the environment and promotes the efficient use of resources, is becoming more popular than ever before. This idea of creating a green economy is indeed in line with sharing economies, as assets and resources can be shared among many users, reducing the amount of purchases being done by an individual consumer.

The sharing economy is the most recent value that the age of technology has brought to its consumers. It will disrupt the different business, social and regulatory environment for sure, but it will bring about immense benefits.