Who can dispute the commissioning of an anti-pollution means of transport? The electric car, especially in its shared version, is certainly one of the keys to reducing this unbearable concentration of often unnecessary vehicles, a legacy of the 1960s culture of the car as a status symbol.
Considering the European studies that show us a daily distance of 7.5 km for urban travel, it becomes clear that the calculation no longer adds up.
Too many individual cars, too many parking spaces blocked all day, too many infractions…
However, a good idea (the electric car in open rental) should not become a profitable business for the dealer but should remain an “honest” business!
During the presentation of the annual report on concession activities by the Metropolis at the last public session, the independent right-wing councilor Gaël Nofri expressed his reservations and concerns on this subject.
During the metropolitan council, you criticized the auto-bleue report. Why?
The presentation of the activity report by the delegate of this service allows us to draw conclusions about the implementation and development of this shared and ecological car service in our area. It is important to assess such a good idea, as it allows for reflection on its adaptation to realities.
What are the problems with auto-bleue in Nice?
Firstly, a relatively low usage considering the large number of parking spaces it occupies. This raises questions about its scaling and the choice of station locations.
But, in my opinion, the most significant issue is financial: the auto-bleue receives too much public funding. The Metropolis gives an operating subsidy, an investment subsidy, a quality bonus, participation in risk-taking when revenues are too low, and another participation in risk-taking regarding potential damage to vehicles made available to the public. In the end, the Metropolis pays 58 euros per auto-bleue use, which amounts to over 2 euros per kilometer—double the per-kilometer rate of a local taxi—and this does not even include the fare charged to the user.
On the flip side, not all aspects are negative. The implementation of the FLEX system has helped to reduce the system’s costs. Last year, the public funding per use averaged 80 euros, so we have reduced this figure by 25%. This is primarily due to an increase in the number of subscribers (+180 per month) and the success of the FLEX system, which allows vehicles to be returned to different stations. However, it’s clearly not enough; the current level of public funding is unsustainable.
We need to rethink the economic model and deployment of this system. The delegate is aware of this need and has expressed a desire for change in their report. Christian Estrosi responded to me, saying he wishes to see such reflection take place… it’s a great thing that everyone wants to move forward together, as we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So, you are not asking for the service to be stopped?
No, because I believe the service can be useful. But not necessarily in the way we initially thought it would be. I see two main uses that should be explored and implemented.
The first is at the airport. Considering the parking charges when you’re away for two or three days, or even a week, traveling home-airport with a car that isn’t ours and doesn’t need parking in the interim is appealing.
The second is in hilly areas and for all the couples who live there, not all of whom necessarily need two cars or even have a car at all. To reach major public transport routes, and in the future to reach the east-west tramway line, I think the car-sharing service can be of useful service to these households while offering an economically interesting solution.
The key will be to define the economic model and the portion the community will contribute.
