Stuck With Cars (cont.)
- Posted by ryan on February 16th, 2010 filed in Policy/Politics
Having read some of the responses to my previous post, on the need to provide a more conducive environment for innovation in personal transportation, I feel like I should probably clarify my outlook somewhat.
First, a number of people answered by post by saying that we already have things like the the vehicles I imagined — bicycles, scooters, etc. I’m a big fan of cycling, and I think cities should continue to make investments to make streets more attractive for commuting by bicycle, but I think it’s important to be realistic about what can be accomplished. Many, many Americans — probably most of the ones that currently commute to work by driving alone — will never consider cycling to be a realistic commuting possibility. I’m interested in seeing what can be done to get them into more efficient vehicles. And that is largely about providing a basic level of comfort, as in a climate-controlled, self-propelled vehicle. Those commutes could potentially involve some sort of transit, but to make that happen, one needs to effectively solve the last mile (or last few miles) problem in the suburbs– how do you quickly and easily get people from their homes to a transit node? Ideally, the solution would avoid placement of massive parking decks around transit, as that tends to reduce the land-use improving effects of a transit station.
Second, others have argued that cars are doing just fine, thank you. They’re getting ever more efficient, in some cases smaller, and so on. That’s true, but it misses the scope of the inefficiencies built into the personal automobile. Even the smallest cars on the American market weigh a ton (a Mini clocks in at around 2,500 pounds, if I’m not mistaken). Even the smallest cars are two-seaters, and even the smallest engines can deliver top speeds near 100 mph. For many typical journeys, that’s just a lot more than what a driver needs. What about the potential for something weighing just a few hundred pounds, battery-powered with a range under 40 miles, perhaps a one-seater with room for groceries, and with a typical cruising speed of between 20 and 30 mph? Something like that could eventually retail for the price of a computer, would be far cheaper to run than a car, would be much more energy efficient, and would handle the basic job of getting a lot of people where they need to be. Imagine a future in which you hop in this vehicle which takes you the four miles to the nearest Metro station, drops you off, then travels to the grocery store to pick up the order you placed on your computer before you left, and finally returns to your home and plugs itself in.
Third, some readers intimated that I was being a knee-jerk libertarian in blaming regulation for the failure of innovation in personal transportation. I was trying to make a more sophisticated argument than that, namely, that current vehicle rules block innovation by limiting the types of vehicles which can travel on the road. It’s not that safety regulations are evil, it’s that current safety regulations lock in place the use of a certain kind of vehicle — the big, heavy, gasoline-powered automobile. We need to clear a regulatory space for more and different kinds of vehicle. This will make for some uncomfortable moments; faced with a situation in which nimble little hundred-pound electric vehicles share the road with Escalades, governments will be tempted to regulate away the possibilities for additional development — to condemn a vehicle to sidewalk use and to speeds that are safe for sidewalk use, which is no good. Alternatively, governments will wait until it’s feasible to shift to a new infrastructure from the top down, which is also no good.
What you want to do is create a space where firms can experiment with new designs and compete for customers. That’s hard to do, when the rules of the road have been determined and institutionally reinforced over the course of a century. But I think it needs to be done. The reason we’re all stuck with the car is that there’s no road space available in which alternatives can operate and potentially thrive. Apple can’t sell millions of little iCars, because there’s no place for buyers to use them. They’d have to sell plain old cars, which is an old and tired business, gradual shift in propulsion notwithstanding. Create space for innovative new designs, and you’ll get innovative new designs.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:21 am
I don’t think you’ve mentioned it here, but what do you think about PRT? Safe, clean, (relatively) inexpensive, personal, close to door-to-door (so much quicker than current public transit), etc.
I agree that the problem with replacing cars is the alternative. My daily commute takes 45-55 minutes, door-to-door. It’s a 6 mile commute in one of America’s largest cities, and both my house and my work are relatively close to public transit - there are few routes that would be quicker! From my house to the airport, one of the world’s largest, the trip is again more than an hour. By car, both trips could be done in 20 minutes, 30 at the most.
Public transit has a tough enough time competing with private vehicles because of the lower comfort, safety, etc., but if we were in a PRT-style world where door-to-door commutes were 10 minutes quicker by public transit, then I would imagine many, many people are switching.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:14 am
You make a good point about the last mile problem, although for those of us in the southwest, it’s usually a last 10-mile problem and at both ends of the commute. I suppose if I had a $2,000 vehicle to get me to the train station, I could have a second one to get to get to work. But I think what you propose makes a lot of sense as part of a big reimagination of travel, transport and energy but seems fanciful on its own.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:14 am
You haven’t mentioned the factors of self-expression and status that are arguably more important than performance as a mode of transportation for most automobile consumers. People purchase cars with more horsepower or bulk than necessary because they prefer to view themselves as a person who has that kind of power. Not because they actually have a use for going 0 to 60 in whatever time. The vehicle is an extension of the self.
If it is true that vehicle providers are primarily in the fashion industry, and only secondarily in the transportation industry, than these motives certainly dictate the direction toward which market innovation will move.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am
The weird thing about the regulatory structure we have for vehicles is that cars (as we know them) and motorcycles are both street legal and have their separate regulatory regimes, but not much in between seems to be allowed.
Like Ryan says, if you could have an enclosed vehicle that took up about as much room on the road as a motorcycle, and had only as powerful an engine as needed for local transportation, then you’d have a much cheaper and more efficient vehicle for a lot of local trips, and you could fit a hell of a lot more of them on the road or in existing parking.
Of course, in my area, you’d need an engine capable of 50 mph rather than 25-30 because that’s the speed limit on the road that my neighborhood opens out into, and speed limits have effectively become a minimum safe speed. But other than that, I think such a vehicle would be a hell of a good idea, and would fill a very useful niche for a lot of people right now.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:55 am
What you’re describing is known as velomobile. Basically, a recumbent trike with an enclosed frame for aerodynamics and weather. These are available in Europe, but they’re custom made items costing between $5,000-10,000. Add an electric assist motor for climbing hills and you’re at the pricepoint of a decent used car. Economies of scale would dictate that this price would come down, but I don’t really see the demand such a transit option. Not yet anyway. And given their low profile and the way cars tend to ignor bike lanes, you’re just asking for trouble riding one of these in an urban environment.
I’m looking forward to VW bringing its V1 concept to America. It might make people more used to smaller, ultra-efficient vehicles.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Anything with less than four wheels is regulated as a motorcycle.
There are electric vehicles close to your description. Zapcars’ Xebra is a three-wheeler (thus technically a motorcycle), enclosed hatchback, seats 4, range of up to (!) 25 miles (40 miles/day with opportunity charging), top speed of 40 mph. It’s a bit heavier than your specs: gvw is 2800 lbs. Lead-acid batteries are heavy. MSRP is about $12K.
Don’t know how well it’s selling.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
What you are describing sounds a lot like what the Segway has tried to do - insofar as the legal issues are concerned (the Segway falls more between a bike and a scooter, while what you’re describing is between a motorcycle and automobile). The problem fundamentally is that these vehicles are too light-weight to travel comfortably (for most people) with the heavy traffic (which includes monster SUVs and trucks) but at the same time is too threatening to users of even lighter vehicles - witness the resistance to the Segway’s use of bike lanes or sidewalks from cyclists and pedestrians. Most of the places where Segways are sidewalk-legal are so car-centric that there are hardly any pedestrians on the sidewalks anyhow. Given the Segway’s lack of success, I wonder whether there is any hope for something like what you suggest.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Small vehicle transit fits the bill. Optimally, it might be a modular system. The basic module might be a recumbent or semi recumbent seat that may be attached to other modules which could be bicycle or tricycle wheels for traveling on traditional roads or sleeve-like pallet adapters that travel on elevated monorails. Other modules would be used for additional freight or passengers.
Ideally, one could attach the seat to the wheels and travel to and get on the elevated monorail. Traveling on the monorail using the adapter sleeve, the system provides for simple mechanical collision avoidance and hands free travel.
Hybrid human-electric powering is ideal.
Weather conditions can be addressed with clothing and on-demand faired enclosures as desired.
This is a very simple conceptual treatment.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Well, the generally-available SMART car weighs in at about 1800 lbs, a bit less than the mini you cite. But I think you’re looking for something more like the Aptera: http://www.aptera.com/ Unfortunately, it’s not yet in mass production and there’s been some recent leadership turmoil.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Just one question on these micro cars. Where do I put my kids? Not to mention my kids’ friends. Maybe the reason we have big cars is because that’s what’s meets our needs. Gone are the days when a big family could squeeze into a small vehicle, so you have to buy one that has enough seatbelts for everyone. I’ve had a compact for the last 20 years, and I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that the days of it being practical for meeting our needs are coming to an end.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I think some aspects of the limited-use car you’re describing are quite feasible, and others are not. The price is not: the cost of computers at various points in the consumer range already compares favorably to the cost of bicycles, so this is a bad place to start the comparison. It’s very hard for me to conceive of a vehicle with the attributes you describe (e.g. climate control) that costs less than several thousand dollars. At that price, people are not going to be content with one-seaters, or cars that can’t go on the highway.
And they probably shouldn’t be: it’s a waste of resources, because the gains to be had from your marginal dollars spike after that bare-bones baseline. It doesn’t cost THAT much more to make it highway-capable and able to seat a family, in other words. The outlook for competitive top speed and torque are better than you’d expect: the power-to-cost ratio of electric motors is much better than for combustion engines, they typically provide great pickup, and the drivetrain is simplified in general.
I think the real promise lies in the final sentence of your third paragraph. Tim Lee’s great series of articles on automated cars (in Ars Technica) convinced me that solving this particular software problem could do more to revolutionize transportation than any policy change. If a Zipcar could be counted on to pick you up at your door, very few people would need to own their own little-utilized auto.
Incidentally: while I’m a big fan of Zipcar, I’m pretty sorry to see them already beating out rivals in various markets, and I really want them to make intercity travel a realistic option (perhaps with dynamic pricing to balance the locations of their fleets). The example of Philly Carshare strongly implies to me that there’s a LOT of fat that could be cut from Zipcar’s rates (which are nearly twice as much as PCS within Philly).
February 17th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Ryan:
I’d really love to see you elaborate on the most compelling part of your post:
As virtually every commenter upthread has pointed out, there are a host of interesting and innovative vehicles on the market. But, as you note, there’s no safe place to use them. Some of the tackier New Urbanist communities in the sunbelt took the trouble to build special alleyways, restricted to pedestrians and vehicles resembling golf carts. Despite initial skepticism, residents have actually taken to these vehicles, using them in a host of daily tasks, despite the fact that they’re fairly miserable as vehicles - open aired, slow, lacking amenities. So the problem here isn’t vehicular design, it’s urban fabric and transportation infrastructure.
I’m not sure how you solve that in a cost-effective manner. You can probably mandate it in new construction, and that would have some impact. But we can’t even squeeze in enough bike lines in dense urban neighborhoods. Where will you put this alternative infrastructure?
February 17th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I disagree that there is no innovation. Smart ForTwo is about 1600 pounds and gets pretty good gas mileage. There are already single seater vehicles that have room for a bag or two of groceries: motorcycles & scooters. If the car was actually automated there wouldn’t be a reason to own it, just call for it when you need.
The problem with single seaters is that that they are not really appropriate for ownership as a primary vehicle for anybody that is not single.
I also disagree with the idea that bicycling cannot be adopted by Americans. Portland has already shown that a sizable percentage of people will bike when there is decent infrastructure to support it.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I’m glad that Ryan is promoting cleaner and more efficient cars, but I’m not sure why he thinks this is compatible with his preference for mass transit. In a future in which super-efficient, super-clean, fully-automated personal vehicles make inexpensive, fast, comfortable, on-demand, point-to-point urban transportation available to essentially the entire population, what market will be left for buses and trains?
February 17th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
14. Mixner,
You do have a point!
February 17th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
@Mixner:
Ah, Come the Revolution, Brother . . ..
February 17th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Lets look at your requirements:
Weight: up to a few hundred pounds,
Self-Propelled
Cruising Speed: 20-30mph
Enclosed
Range: <40 miles, reading as ~30miles
There are a lot of examples here. The issue is infrastructure. The Alleweder Velomobile is 80lbs, One of the options is electric assist and has the range you desire. Basically this is an enclosed trike that you can pedal or if it has e-assist run on battery, or use it as an assist to your pedaling. I can name eight or more models by similar companies. By slipping into the bike classification you actually get a lot more infrastructure than a PEV/NEV style vehicle as you can use bike lanes and paths.
The big issue is infrastructure and enforcement of the laws for motor vehicles so that bikes and slower vehicles can be used safely and perceived as safe as well.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I’ve lived in six cities in my life and driven frequently in a half dozen more. New York is the only city in which I could make a typical journey and never travel at highway speeds. That is 50-70mph, not 20-30. And that’s assuming never using the West Side Highway or the FDR. In every other city, intra-city highway use is routine. Your ideal vehicle doesn’t fit the profile.
Then there is the obvious problem of just how many vehicles one can afford to own since one could never do something as simple as give a friend a lift in your proposal.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
That’s true, but it misses the scope of the inefficiencies built into the personal automobile. Even the smallest cars on the American market weigh a ton (a Mini clocks in at around 2,500 pounds, if I’m not mistaken). Even the smallest cars are two-seaters, and even the smallest engines can deliver top speeds near 100 mph. For many typical journeys, that’s just a lot more than what a driver needs.
This just gets stupider and stupider. How many vehicles is a person supposed to have? Why should I buy an electric minicar - and where will I put it - when I already have a regular highway car for those times I need to drive to another state, another city, or even just on the crosstown? Commuters should be served by public transit, not by individual cars. Nobody’s going to buy one of these and a Civic, when the Civic handles both types of driving perfectly well.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Can you explain what about regulations itself you think is driving this? I work in the auto industry. I routinely work with government regulations for 2, 3 and 4 wheel vehicles. I don’t understand what regulation is keeping manufacturers from making what you want? I do understand what parts of just pure raw material costs and actual market needs are limiting these things. Especially in the economy of scale necessary to make these cost effective.
It’s funny hearing a libertarian call for this. Without the government fuel efficiency program loans that started in 2007 there would be none of these guys, no venture capitalist will give them enough money without the government funding.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
what market will be left for buses and trains?
It makes much more sense to take a scheduled train from (say) Lincoln to Omaha (and point to point PT to and from the stations) than it does to take either an automobile or the point-to-point pod. Air travel makes zero sense for that short a journey, and train stations could be located downtown.
For that matter Omaha to Chicago would be a journey more suitable for trains - with stations located in the middle of the city - than airplanes where you have to arrive at an airport well outside the city three hours before you’re supposed to even leave.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I was referring to urban transportation, not intercity transportation.
I don’t think intercity trains make more sense than road or air alternatives today, or that they will in the future. Rail just isn’t cost-effective.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Interesting thoughts.
About infrastructure. I’m assuming you think iRides or whatever should not be on the road with real cars. So to change infrastructure, you’d need to either create new pathways for the little vehicles, or repurpose parts of existing roads for them (as Bloomberg did for chairs in Times Square). Both seem to have problems. My primary fear would be: even if I didn’t drive alongside normal cars in my little iMobile, I’d still freak the f out if i needed to cross their path, at an intersection, in a parking lot, anything. My tin foil car will not stand up to even a Hyundai.
Secondly, this seems very much like why people get Vespas and motorcycles, and I see no change in function from your proposed change in form. Other than the aforementioned tin foil encasement.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:17 am
A few more thoughts about single seat cars; There are prototypes for such things. VW has built more than one for example. But even their machine, kept narrow for aerodynamic/fuel saving purpose seats two in tandem. And even motorcycles and scooters allow you to ride two up.
So in the end I don’t get it. Why would an individual spend money on a vehicle that you couldn’t take on a highway and never have a passenger in unless that person leads a life in which neither need will ever arise.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:21 am
“What about the potential for something weighing just a few hundred pounds, battery-powered with a range under 40 miles, perhaps a one-seater with room for groceries, and with a typical cruising speed of between 20 and 30 mph?”
Velomobiles? Segways? Come on, guys. It’s called a scooter.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
You asked “what market would be left for trains.” The intercity market is the market that would be left for trains. Since Incredibles-style electric pod-cars or whatever wouldn’t compete on that market, that’s how it’s possible for Ryan to square support for pod-cars with support for trains - which, if you’ll recall, was your original question.
” Rail just isn’t cost-effective.”
Neither is flying. Cars are only “cost-effective” because so much of their true cost is passed off to others, for free.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“Velomobiles? Segways? Come on, guys. It’s called a scooter.”
I love riding a bicycle when it’s not raining or too cold, and I’m considering buying a scooter for local trips where I just don’t feel like powering the trip myself, and might be carrying more than I care to tote on my bicycle.
But I’d really prefer a vehicle of similar capacity that would keep me dry when I ride it in the rain, and would keep me warm when I ride it in the winter. Otherwise, it’s still more of a toy than a working vehicle. Because I’m not going to ride either my bicycle or the scooter to the store in the rain.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
“The problem with single seaters is that that they are not really appropriate for ownership as a primary vehicle for anybody that is not single.”
Well, I’m not single, and I have a toddler, and I can see a carpoolmobile in my not-so-distant future. But that doesn’t mean I need a carpoolmobile, or even a two-person car, all the time. My wife and I commute together, and we do plenty of driving with the kid in tow, but each of us still finds ourselves making a fair number of local trips sans passengers.
Such a vehicle as Ryan describes certainly wouldn’t be our primary vehicle, but it would be a good second or third car for our family, and we’d probably find ourselves using it a lot for local errands.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Have you ever spoken to someone who actually designs cars? Ford could make one of these tomorrow if they wanted to. But try to explain to me exactly what would happen when one of these mini-cars gets in a collision with a 3 ton SUV at even 30 mph?
“Honey, was that a speed bump?”
“Beats me, I’m sure it will spin off the back wheels in a few miles.”
This is really one of the stupidest blog entries I’ve ever seen.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Quickly, I’ll just add that nobody has properly studied our ability to link the suburbs — even the so-called “last mile” — with effective public transit. Cars are both extremely resource-intensive (not just the car, but the policing of cars, the associated medical costs, and the space they require) and efficient, even the hybrid ones. We could likely serve suburban areas with regular bus and train transit if we forsook cars.
People don’t think outside the box on this issue, though. How about a taxpayer funded delivery service that runs from major grocery and retail outlets to people’s homes?
I get that people like to drive, and I’m not suggesting it’s possible to do away with cars altogether, or in all areas. But people don’t properly consider the negative impact driving has on their lives. They kill tens of thousands of people each year and injure millions, jacking up health care costs. The amount of space we could reclaim and the reduction of noise without cars would radically improve quality of life.
I’m not saying I have all the answers, but nobody’s seriously engaging in this discussion.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
29. are you serious?, is correct
“what would happen when one of these mini-cars gets in a collision with a 3 ton SUV at even 30 mph?”
“are you serious?” is correct. This is how the automobile and associated entrenched industries (insurance, finance, oil, electronics, media, and advertising) maintain local monopolies of transportation systems based on cars where it is just too dangerous for much better more sensible methods that are safe, expensive and have less than 1% the environmental footprint.
This is the total breakdown of the rule of law.
You do not need insurance when transportation is safe.
You do not need much finance when vehicles cost what they normal cost as a down payment in extremely wasteful legacy systems. The corruption of transportation systems based on cars is as corrupt as the finance system that required many hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:22 am
correction, meant:
safe, inexpensive and have less than 1% the environmental footprint.