[sustran] Re: Reducing number of cars on the road

[Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)]

I agree with Mohsin Sarker  'that automobile is such a transportation 
mode that no other mode can provide such utility/convenience to user'.

Particularly in an era of 'demassification'  to borrow a term from 
Toffler, where journey patterns are probably becoming more irregular.

Reducing the number of cars on the road might be more successful 
through incentives (eg fun mass bike-riding days) than disincentives, 
(even-odd days, fuel taxes, tolls etc) which as people have pointed out, 
favour the wealthy.

We should look to reduce people's need to commute (also already 
mentioned).

Also, of course, we must plan for concentrated nodes of pedestrian-based 
urban development so the majority of services are available within walking 
distance (also often mentioned).

Another approach that does not seem to have been discussed is to reverse 
the trend (in wealthy countries at least) toward huge 4WDs, in favor of  
small light vehicles.

Ultra Light Vehicles
Suppose we had a system of Ultra Light Vehicles (ULVs) with protective 
roll bars etc, maximum speed 30km/hr.  The vehicles could 
be so light you could pick them (eg 80kg compared to 1000kg).  Each ULV, 
only 1.3m long, 1.4m high, 900mm wide (wheel base 1.3m wide) could take 
only one person but several could be linked together to take a family, or
goods.  

They would be electric-powered, noiseless, pollution-free, and 
could be plugged into recharge points at parking spaces all over the city.
The ULVs could have a relatively wide wheel base so they would very 
difficult to roll.  They would be painted irridescent colours so easily seen.

They would use special lanes until they became the norm when heavier  
vehicles would have to use special lanes.  Roads could then have up to 
double the number of lanes for the same width of road.

They could be made mostly out of recyclable plastic and rubber.  The 
wheels could be narrow and hard (more efficient).

On main routes, ULVs could hook into tracks that provide both power 
and steerage.

Tunnels for such a small, slower, non-polluting vehicle could be constructed 
at a fraction of the cost of conventional tunnels.  Standards on 
maximum height of ULVs could mean passovers need only be 2m high.
Thus the ease of traffic flow could more than make up for the slower 
traveling speed.  

Energy consumption could be reduced by factor 10, as could materials use 
in both vehicles and roads.

The modular approach would also reduce excess capacity wastage for 
single-person journeys.

Relatively ubiquitous rental stops would allow people to pick up a 
ULV and drop it off at another rental stop.  The cost to rent a ULV 
might be approx $4 per hour.  The cost to buy a ULV new might be 
approx $2,000.

Commuters might be able to lease out their vehicle to rental companies 
while they are working.

Seats may have a telescoped base which allows elevation for easier entry 
and exit.

Types of ULVs already exist such as lambrettas, motorised tri-shaws, 
golf-buggies, and a new range of vehicles now found in holiday resorts 
designed for localised sightseeing.

Perhaps what we need is a range of inducements to get more people 
using ULVs.

A high proportion of people in developing countries use motorbikes, and 
thus there is already a very efficient transport system.  The main 
problems that remain here are safety, air-pollution and noise pollution.

Does anyone know what the latest is on the Tulip Project in Paris ?

'However, a system which is expected to be introduced into Paris by 
the year 2000, known as Tulip, will provide tiny 2-seater electric 
vehicles which are publicly-owned and maintained and available for 
subscribers of the system.  The Tulipmobiles will be available from 
numerous stations around the city where their batteries can also be 
recharged while waiting for the next user.  The system is being 
developed by PSA Peugeot Citroen.'

I'd be interested in any feedback.

Geoff Holland.