[sustran] Re: Reducing number of cars on the road
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)
igfr at igfr.org
Sat Apr 1 17:59:39 JST 2000
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.
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list