ABSTRACT

     The problems associated with petroleum dependent transportation are only partially understood and generally ignored. Oil depletion, pollution and climate change are only the most obvious reasons to phase out the use of oil. Less obvious reasons are the impact of automobiles on communities, the economic implications of spending $1 billion a week on foreign oil, and the $100 billion a year spent on the treatment of diseases caused by poor air quality. Our survival depends on maintaining air, water and soil quality. The transition to a global economy is making transportation an ever-increasing part of everything that is purchased. This paper will suggest alternatives to oil dependent transportation.
     

1. INTRODUCTION

     The foundation of sustainable transportation lies in planning our communities for people not cars. Suburban sprawl is a product of planning for one mode of transportation - the automobile. This has created a situation where few daily tasks, like going to work, school and the store can be accomplished without the use of a car. The result is polluted air, stress, isolation and wasted time. Although there are many options for reducing an individual's use of petroleum, including carpooling, public transportation, bicycling, walking, and working at home they are often not readily available and therefore not utilized more extensively. In order to affect any significant reduction in petroleum consumption these alternatives must be made safe, convenient and attractive.

2. LIVABLE COMMUNTIES

     The primary focus of planning should be on proximity of housing to services, which would be accomplished by mixed-use zoning. Convenient, safe and attractive pedestrian and bicycle routes would connect people to stores, schools, daycare, employment, and public transportation. Designing diversity into communities will decrease the need for people to leave their neighborhoods for daily tasks.

     Examples of such communities abound in Europe where towns evolved before cars existed. There the use of a bicycle is not limited to those who want to improve their fitness, it is a common mode of transportation for people of all ages, as are people’s feet. The availability of bike paths, sidewalks and traffic calming measures makes this possible. In the United States riding a bicycle can be dangerous since people usually have to share the road with cars.

     In neighborhoods where people walk and bicycle social interaction is increased and neighbors are more likely to be friends. This is in sharp contrast to auto-centric communities where people spend wasted hours every day driving to and from work, then get in their car again to visit friends. Close proximity to services, as well as recreation would also decrease the alienation of the elderly, children, physically challenged, and the poor, all of who are at a disadvantage because they lack mobility without a car.

     Farmland, green belts and wild areas should be preserved and could form the natural borders for neighborhoods and communities. Examples can be found in Germany, where every new neighborhood must incorporate green belts. These serve the function of defining place and offering space for wild life, agriculture and recreation.

     Transportation options need to fit the individual, as well as the environment they live in. A person living in a climate where it rains 6 months out of the year would prefer an enclosed neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) or public transportation to bicycling. NEVs come in a variety of shapes, depending on the environment in which they are needed. For example, golf carts have been legalized for travel on city streets in Palm Springs. Other examples are enclosed three-wheelers legally registered as motorcycles or electric assist bicycles.

     The concept of Pedestrian Pockets is one that holds promise in this country. Defined as a balanced, mixed-use area within a ¼-mile (400 m) walking radius of a light rail station, the Pedestrian Pocket can be applied to already existing neighborhoods, as well as new developments. This planning concept does not eliminate the car but rather offers transportation alternatives, primarily walking. Its focus is on connecting people with the services they need without reliance on the automobile.
     

3. RAIL

     In the 30s and 40s oil, auto and rubber companies teamed up to buy and dismantle light rail systems in cities across the country. With few exceptions they were successful in totally eliminating light rail and forcing everyone who could afford them into cars. Sixty years later, light rail is experiencing a renaissance. Light rail reduces traffic and air pollution by taking as many as 350 to 400 cars off the streets with just one four-car light rail train. Increasing light rail transit is becoming a more and more popular alternative in many municipalities. The Sacramento Regional Transit authority, for instance, has an extensive plan for improvements and expansion of service. Sacramento, which has the seventh worst air pollution in the country and a growing population, is making mass transit a priority. Sacramento’s light rail system enjoys a daily ridership of 27,000 people. One of the planned expansions is only 6.3 miles (10 km) long but would be able to carry as many as 15,000 more riders every day.

     Heavy rail has an advantage over roads for long distance hauling or commuting because it produces fewer emissions and the right-of-way takes up less space. The new high-speed electric trains in Europe and Japan are zero emission and much faster than road travel. In the US most transportation infrastructure is funded by taxes on fuel. The most wasteful and polluting modes of transportation use the most fuel and generate the vast majority of revenue. As a result, toxic emissions are rewarded with more pavement. Public funds should be used for the public good, not to subsidize increased fuel consumption.
     

4. AIR TRAVEL

     It is easy to confuse speed with efficiency but with few exceptions, like stop and go city driving, efficiency drops as speed increases. It is the burning of literally billions of years of stored solar energy in the air and under the earth’s crust that makes speed possible. The first photosynthesis took place 3.5 billion years ago. Since that time there has been an incremental increase in the free oxygen in the air and hydrocarbons in the ground. It took 3 billion years to create the conditions that allowed animal life to exist and another 500 million years to culminate in the evolution of the human species. This length of time can be visualized by making one mile equal to one billion years. On this scale the 10,000 years of human history equals 5/8 of an inch (16 mm) and the last 100 years of automobile and air travel, which have consumed almost half of the petroleum resource is represented by the thickness of a piece of paper.

     Air travel is an unsustainable form of transportation. Air travel consumes twice as much energy per passenger mile as travel on Amtrak. But even worse, the effect of aircraft emissions on climate change is seven times greater than trains or boat per passenger mile. Planes deposit their exhaust at very high altitudes where the air is thin and more damage is done. Transportation needs to shift back to the earth. High-speed rail could replace many plane trips and boats could serve some needs. It is important to consider that just because planes are available doesn’t mean they should be used extensively.

     Telecommunications could and should replace a large amount of business travel. The energy cost of a transcontinental or international teleconference is miniscule when compared to flying across three time zones. Video conferencing even allows the participants to have eye contact. Documents can be faxed or e-mailed to reach their destination almost instantly. Telecommunication can provide everything but the handshake.
     

5. ZERO EMISSION MANDATE

     Roads and heavy rail will continue to be the primary transportation infrastructure, especially for commerce. With this in mind, the immediate priority should be to cut back and finally eliminate vehicle emissions. The California Zero Emission Mandate charted a course for accomplishing that goal. The author and many other clean air enthusiasts took up the challenge and started small companies to build zero emission vehicles to make the mandate a reality while the auto industry drug its feet and actively opposed the Mandate. In 1994 the auto and oil industry teamed up to spend a documented $40 million on a campaign to eliminate the Mandate. They were successful in pushing back the 1998 2% Mandate to 2003. In 1998 they were again successful in reducing the 2003 Mandate from 10% to 4%. It appears the auto and oil industry are now attempting to eliminate the Zero Emission Mandate altogether in favor of low emission hybrid vehicles.

     Honda has dropped its four passenger battery electric EV Plus in favor of a two-seater hybrid that gets 70 mpg (425 km/l). GM has discontinued the production of the EV1 for some mysterious reason and has come out with a prototype hybrid called the Precept. Toyota has come out with the Prius, a hybrid vehicle that gets 55 mpg (330 km/l) but is still keeping its battery electric RAV4 EV in production. Ford also expects to come out with hybrid prototypes that get as many as 80 mpg (480 km/l). In addition, Ford has purchased THINK Group, maker of urban low speed electric vehicles and electric bikes. Hybrids are a move in the right direction but at the same time the auto industry has taken advantage of a lack of fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks and through advertising made the sale of these gas-guzzling vehicles surpass that of all other automobiles.

     Hydrogen fuel cells also hold promise in the future if the hydrogen used comes from a source other than fossil fuel. A vehicle powered by a fuel cell is essentially an electric vehicle without a battery. Daimler-Chrysler is working on a fuel cell car but fuel cells will probably be mass-produced first for busses and trucks.

     Electric vehicles could already be todays’commuter car if they had been embraced by the auto industry in the early ‘90s. Most EVs now have a range of over 100 miles (160 km) per charge and the average commute is only 16 miles (25 km). The auto industry contends that the charging infrastructure is not available but most EVs have convenience chargers on board that can be plugged into any 110 Volt outlet.      This makes EV charging opportunities thousands of times more available than gas stations. Convenient parking places equipped with electrical outlets are available in places ranging from municipal parking lots to shopping malls. New battery technologies, like nickel-metal-hydride or lithium polymer would double or even triple the range of EVs making their performance competitive with gas vehicles.
     

6. ADVANTAGES OF ELECTRIC PROPULSION

     The primary advantages of electric propulsion are zero emission and the ability to use renewable energy sources for charging. But there are many other benefits.
     · Electric motors don’t have to idle.
     · Electric motors can be turned into a generator to charge batteries when slowing down and braking. This process is called regenerative braking and adds 15% to 20% to the range of an electric vehicle.
     · There is only one moving part in an electric motor and hundreds in an internal combustion engine.
     · Mass produced electric cars would be less expensive than gas cars.
     · Charging an EV from the gird costs between 2 and 3 cents a mile (3 to 5 cents per km) while gas costs from 10 to 15 cents a mile (15 to 25 cents per km).
     · Maintenance is almost non-existent in an electric motor and sealed batteries but a gas engine requires regular maintenance including changing belts, hoses, and oil, which is another major source of pollution.
     · Low cost conventional batteries are much safer than a gas tank.
     · Electric motors are more than 10 times as efficient as gas engines at converting energy into motion.
     

7. SOLAR CHARGED EVS

Fig. 1: 1963 Type 34 Karmann Ghia

     The author’s personal car is a conversion of a 1963 Type 34 Karmann Ghia. It is equipped with 24 6 Volt flooded, lead-acid golf cart batteries. It also has regenerative braking which is especially helpful in hilly terrain. The electric Ghia can produce 60 hp for acceleration that is more than the original gas version.      and has a range of 75 miles (120 km). The electric vehicle is charged from a 3 kW photovoltaic roof during the summer when more power is produced than can be used on the family homestead. The Ghia has made the 75 miles (120 km) trip to the Real Goods Trading Company in Hopland, CA, where it was charged from a 10 kW solar array and then driven home in the afternoon for a total of a 150-mile (240 km) entirely solar charged trip. As the price of photovoltaics drops and they are integrated into the south-facing roof and walls of buildings solar charging will be more commonplace.

     With the goal of over 100-mile (160 km) range the author did a search for the lightest vehicle available that could still carry a substantial amount of battery weight. The result was a fiberglass replica of a 1955 Porsche Spyder, which could be purchased as a kit without a gas tank or engine. The body and chassis weighed less than 1,000 pounds (454 kg) which is about half of the lightest car produced by the US auto industry.
     

Fig. 2: Electric Porsche Spyder

The range of an electric car is determined in large part by the ratio of battery weight to the overall weight of the vehicle. The Porsche Spyders converted by the author’s company carried about half their weight in batteries. This gave the electric Porsches ranges of over 100 miles (160 km) using off-the-shelf, inexpensive golf cart batteries. The racing model could go 0 to 60 mph (0 to 96 km) in 8 seconds and could reach speeds of over 120 mph (192 km/hr). The Spyders have either won or placed in many races and rallies across the country, including the Sun Day Challenge in Daytona Beach, FL, the DOE Clean Air Road Rally in Los Angeles, CA, and the North East Sustainable Energy Association’s Tour de Sol.
     

8. RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

     No matter how efficient a propulsion system is if a vehicle weighs from 15 to 50 times as much as the driver an absurd amount of energy is used to move the weight of the vehicle. To understand just how inefficient a car is one could compare it with the most efficient form of transportation, a bike. The average American car weighs 200 times more than a bicycle. A person consumes about 1,700 Btu of food energy a day that along with 10 cubic feet (0.28 m³) of oxygen is the only fuel necessary to ride a bike for 100 miles (160 km). Because there are 140,000 Btu in a gallon (529,000 Btu /l) of gasoline and each gallon burned consumes about 400 cubic feet (11.2m³) of oxygen it takes almost one million Btu and 2,700 cubic feet (75.6 m³) of oxygen to drive that same 100 miles (160 km) in a car that gets 15 miles to the gallon (90 l/km).

     Energy efficiency is only part of the story; riding a bike increases a person’s health. The rider exhales about 250 cubic feet (7 m³) of slightly CO2 enriched air that is used by plants to complete the cycle that allows life to exist. A car going the same 100 miles (160 km), on the other hand, creates 13,000 cubic feet (364 m³) of exhaust, which is enough to fill the cabs of more than 150 cars and kill all the occupants. There are stiff fines for littering the roadside with trash but the invisible trail of poisonous exhaust left by every oil-fueled vehicle goes unseen and unpunished.

9. ULTRA LIGHT RAIL

     An ultra light raised rail system would offer commuters many advantages over existing road travel while eliminating emissions. This rail system would not interfere with wildlife, agriculture or ground traffic because it would be raised 15 feet (4.5 m) off the ground. Carbon fiber wheels and rubber-coated rails combined with good aerodynamics would make the ultra light rail virtually silent. The two-directional rail is only 8 feet wide and would carry as many people at 60 mph (96 km/hr) as 12 lanes of freeway. It is much safer, faster, cleaner and quieter than conventional car travel and construction and environmental costs would be a tiny fraction of those for the same capacity of freeway. The long-term benefit would be cleaner air for future generations but the immediate benefit would be eliminating stress in rush hour traffic and the ability to accomplish many tasks while commuting.
     

Fig. 3: Ultra light rail

     A neighborhood vehicle with raised rail capability could be used to commute between towns or for longer trips. The vehicle would weigh less than the operator and have batteries that can be charged from any renewable energy source including an optional on board pedal generator. Ideally photovoltaics mounted along the tracks would charge the rail. The lightweight, low friction rail and electric propulsion would add up to create a hundred fold increase in efficiency over freeway travel.

     A typical commute would start from a home solar charging station. Since the vehicle is only 3 feet (1 m) wide it can travel on narrow neighborhood streets to a local ultra-light rail on ramp. Because its wheels have both road and rail capability it can drive right onto the raised rail. At this point the on board computer would take over and control the speed to mesh with other raised rail traffic. The driver would type in his destination or press the voice recognition button and tell the ultra light where he wants to go.      Now the driver’s hands, eyes and mind are free to do whatever he wants. The vehicle is linked with home, office and the rest of the world via the Internet. Detailed real time weather and traffic information are available at the touch of a button. In addition, the driver could choose to zero out his energy consumption and benefit from healthy exercise by using the pedal generator, which would pump electricity back into the on-board batteries or the electric rail hookup.
Amusement park rides across the country feature many of the technologies that would be needed for this type of light rail vehicle. The computer technology necessary is also already on the shelf.
     

10. INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

Any and all change will ultimately depend on individual action. There are many things people can do to affect a shift in local, as well as national policy.
     · Purchasing decisions - i.e. choosing a vehicle based on low or no emissions and fuel economy would     
           send a clear message to the auto industry.
     · Community involvement -- attending planning meetings to ask for, among other things,
     1. The end of suburban sprawl
     2. The creation of Livable Communities
     3. The creation of an infrastructure for alternate modes of transportation
     · Political involvement -- let elected officials know, among other things, that
     1. Public health must be the greatest priority.      This means that any product that pollutes must be phased out.
     2. Public funds should be used for the public good, i.e. support a zero emission transportation infrastructure.
     3. A reduction in oil consumption in the US would automatically result in a reduced dependence on foreign     
                     oil, which in turn would allow for a decrease in military spending and an increase in available tax dollars     
                     for clean air projects.
     4. Local governments need legislative support to change the built environment.
     

11. CONCLUSION

     Government and individual action have to go hand in hand in order to achieve any significant change in transportation policies in the near term. This also means that corporate interests have to be second to the public interest when it comes to clean air projects. After all, corporate profits will have no worth in a toxic environment. Once people understand that there really is no choice but to act immediately to protect individual health and ultimately the survival of the human species, people might show more interest in getting out of their gas-guzzling, air polluting SUVs and using alternative modes of transportation.

     It will take a tremendous public relations effort to educate the public on the health effects of their choices and it will take a commitment from government to stay the clean air course. The effort could begin by using some of the money that is now spent to protect corporate interests in oil producing regions. Taking just 2% of the military budget to educate the public through television and radio commercials on the harmful effects of car exhaust, as well as offering incentive programs for alternative modes of transportation, could have the same effect as the campaign against smoking. It would offer the public the knowledge to make informed decisions about their transportation habits. A shift toward non-oil dependent transportation technologies would eliminate the need for a large portion of the military budget. Freeing up these funds could provide much needed funding for the development of an alternative transportation infrastructure and be the catalyst for the creation of whole new industries and job opportunities.
There is more than enough non-polluting renewable energy to solve all transportation needs. Every day more solar energy strikes the earth than has been used to fuel transportation in all of human history.
     

12. REFERENCES

(1) Sperling, Daniel, "Future Drive      - Electric Vehicles and Sustainable Transportation", Island Press, Covelo, CA, 1995
(2) McCrea, Steve, "Why Wait for Detroit? Drive the Car of the Future Today!" South Florida Electric Auto Association, Ft. Lauderdale, FL., 1991
(3) Hackleman, Michael, "The New Electric Vehicles: A Clean & Quiet Revolution", A Homepower Publication, 1996
(4) Southern California Edison Electric Transportation News, "Current", Vol. 5 Issue 1, Winter 2000
(5) Brooke, Lindsey, "The Shape of Tomorrow", Automotive Industries, January 2000
(6) California Transit Association, " Transit California", February 2000
(7) Potts, Michael, "The New Independent Home: People and Houses that Harvest the Sun, Wind, and Water", Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT, 1999
(8) Walter, Bob; Arkin, Lois; Crenshaw, Richard, " sustainable Cities -- Concepts and Strategies for Eco-City Development", EHM, Los Angeles, CA, 1992