SAE 2009: Is mobility sustainable? Not the way we're running it today

One of the more approachable topics discussed at the SAE World Congress this week (as opposed to, say, "CAE Simulation/Test Correlation and Optimization in Automotive Engineering." Not that there's anything wrong with that) was a talk by Philip Gott, director of automotive consulting at IHS Global Insight with the title "Is mobility as we know it sustainable?" Gott used IHS' deep resources to look at how the world will deal with the potential of 3.5 billion vehicles in 2035. If that's going to happen (and, if current trends continue, then it will), then the problems we see today with 800 million vehicles will be compounded like mad. What's the solution? There are many, but carsharing and smaller urban vehicles are two. Full details - and audio - after the jump. Oh, and he talks about the AirPod, too.
Here's the Problem
We previously heard some of Gott's predictions back in 2006, when he made bold claims (later dialed back) about the number of hybrids in the overall U.S. market by 2025. Gott has studied the automotive industry since 1975, and focuses, among other things, on ways the technical advantages can be used to "achieve targeted business results." At the SAE World Congress last week, Gott said that the automobile industry has not choice but to change in the coming decades. "Clearly, the current model of mobility is not sustainable," he said.
Why is this? Well, part of his work revolves around understanding what "mobility" means. Sure, it means getting around, but it also encompasses how we get around, and current models say that once per capita GDP hits $5,000 or so, the motorization of mobility begins in earnest. That's Data Point A. Combine that with Data Point B - that by 2035, every region of the world will be above the $5,000 per capita income on a PPP basis - and you can see that demand for motorized vehicles will soon be shooting through the roof. This is where the possibility of a world with 3.5 billion cars in it comes from. Perhaps you thought that Two Billion Cars was a lot. How will we deal with billions more cars? If we have 3.5 billion vehicles in 2035, we'll need to reduce transport-related CO2 by a factor of more than 3.5 just to break even. Gott said that with the alternative powertrain technology options that people are working on today, we can cut fuel use by almost 50 percent and CO2 emissions by 40 percent. But, in Europe, for example, where diesels are common and some of the emissions numbers have already been dropped, there aren't as many options remaining to cut overall emissions. Biofuels can supply, at most, 15-30 percent of the global liquid fuel demand, and there is an assumption from some that their CO2 emissions are benign (something that is not yet decided). Fuel cells have promise, Gott said, but provide their own challenges. Also, since CO2 emissions are calculated when a vehicle is built - and many of the 800 million vehicles on the road today do not meet the emissions quality specifications that they had when they were new - we need dramatic changes in the way we get around.
Enter the PUMA
Gott said that "the future is in carsharing." Instead of having the do-everything vehicle, people will drive or ride in a car that is the right size for their need at the time. Today, Gott said, we purchase vehicles that are excessive for their most frequent missions. As roads fill up and emissions regulations tighten, more people will accept a truly small car (Tata Nano, Fiat 500, smart fortwo, GM's P.U.M.A.) as a way to drive, especially in cities. Some places - most notably the U.S., because of the long distances and the "natural evolution" of an infrastructure that supports the vehicle - will likely remain above the curve, while others - where legislation is in place to reduce the number of vehicles (Hong Kong, Singapore) will be below the curve. In many places, Gott said, there are already "weak signals" that change is coming. Have you heard someone say they are happy they've gotten rid of their cars? Then you've heard one of these weak signals.
What governments should do and people should push for, Gott said, are strong alternative mobility solutions: new bike lanes, promote buses, systems like Better Place, and "eMobiliy" (i.e., shopping from home and virtual travel) and the like. As these changes come into effect, Americans will, on average, drive one vehicle 12,000 miles a year instead of two vehicles 15,000 miles a year, he said.
With the smaller cars will come an increased worry about injury from accidents. We've certainly heard our share of this fear when we discuss the new city vehicles here on AutoblogGreen. Gott said the answer is to shift safety concerns from protecting people during and after a crash to accident avoidance. The good news is that this is already happening in some cases.
3.5 billion. Really?
If the whole idea of mobility shifts away from using an oversize car for every trip to one where many people recognize that owning a car does not define what it means to be mobile, then perhaps we won't hit 3.5 billion cars after all. In fact, Gott's 3.5 billion cars number is only going to happen if we place the same demand on vehicles in 2035 that we do today. This is unlikely to happen. Most cars sit still for 23 hours a day, for example. While, theoretically, that means that one car could replace 24 if we used car sharing in the most efficient way - the reality is that one car could probably replace 12 with reasonable carsharing methods, Gott said. This is just one way to give people the mobility they need without flooding the world with billions more vehicles.
One last thing
A vehicle Gott singled out for its unique contribution to the future automobile industry was the Airpod, coming at some point from MDI. There are a lot of things wrong the vehicle's design, he said, but did you know that the MDI plan is to produce cars regionally? Since the cars are made out of composites, the material can be shipped tightly packed in containers and built closer to the sales point, thus reducing shipping emissions and cost. This could be a, not the, model of the future, and it's just one of many changes that will define mobility for all of us in the future.
Listen to Gott's presentation by clicking play (36 min) or download the MP3 here:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 11:35PM (4/27/2009)
There are two other solutions that should be considered. The most obvious is to encourage reasonable population control, stabilizing the population solves a lot of problems, not just traffic jams.
The other is an idea called "Personal Rapid Transit" (PRT), it uses small lightweight vehicles on a network of automated guideways, elevated (or underground) to isolate it from traffic. It would handle a majority of regular city commutes, leaving the roads free for delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and the remaining cars. See:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm
Reply
Paul Allen 5:01PM (4/28/2009)
Car-sharing? No way, no how, never happen.
How about house sharing, that should make even more sense to an eco-nazi. Think of all the rooms in your house that are empty most of the time- it would be great for the environment if you shared your house with three other families, too!
Reply
Throwback 10:28AM (4/28/2009)
House sharing, now that is funny! I'm sure the government would be good at that.
Peter 12:47PM (4/28/2009)
I see no way to accurately predict what transportation will be like in 2035. Will we even need cars in our orbital life support bubbles? Will FedEx delivery cannons (see _Rainbow's End_) eliminate cargo vehicles? Will we live in VR and rent our bodies as manual laborers to stay fit?
Data Point A is based on a time before telecommuting and amazon.com. I don't pretend to know what the world will be like in 25 years but I don't see us returning to life as it was in the 80s. Automobile use patterns of the last 50 years could easily be like landline telephone use of the last 50 years: leapfrogged by new technology. (Cell phones outnumber landlines in developing countries.)
If Data Point B is accurate, the positive effects of not losing hundreds or thousands of future Einsteins and Edisons to malnutrition will be unimaginable.
Reply
theron 2:07PM (4/28/2009)
What a typically vague and rambling "thought experiment"! The problems seem to be emissions and congestion. As far as emissions why not assume that everyone will be driving electric suvs running on solar or other renewable energies like hydro, wind, tidal, etc? Regarding congestion the article even says that any car is idle 23 hours a day - how does sharing - with transfer between one user and another - help that? More likely congestion will promote pressure for telecommuting and public transport. I really don't see how the flexibility and convenience of the personal car can be acceptably replaced. Rather it can be made cleaner and used for better things than commuting.
Reply
electricnick 1:11PM (4/29/2009)
One of our writers got to talk to the MDI team and drive a prototype. Short of the technology being intriguing, in the sense it can run off of air or petroleum, all it gives off is cold air. Think AC supplement here. Think truly no pollution depending on what energy you use to compress you air; solar, hydro, etc. Think what the postal service could do with it, ice cream trucks, etc.
What was most intriguing was the founder's idea around the manufacturing component, it cuts down almost all third parties by having it all locally built with very little shelf components left. Revolutionary, it is. That's also why they have been snubbed by the automotive world. These guys scare the old school manufacturing process. And with Tata now firmly behind them, looks like they will be making headway.
Electricnick.com
http://electricnick.com/2009/04/mdi-compresses-air-to-run-vehicles/
Reply
Jason 7:35PM (5/03/2009)
I think that your idea of the "PRT" is great. This is exactly what designers are planning for the futuristic Masdar car-less city. However, what do you do when one's commute is greater than 1 square mile? Such is the case for most everyone in the U.S. The short term solution comes from hybrid and clean diesel technology(ie. Prius, Insight, VW diesel etc.). Later, we need a range of technologies that deal with problem of a commuting society. A 100+ mpg commuter is the next logical step. Check out the Aptera, or Dagne of Revolution Motors.
http://www.aptera.com/
http://www.revolutionmotors.biz/revolution/
Reply
Chris M 10:01PM (5/03/2009)
I agree that we need more than one solution, but I must point out that PRT isn't limited to just "one square mile" in a brand new pre-designed city, it can fit into any city of any size, and extended from city to city, even cover an entire country, if properly designed.
Also, it isn't designed to totally replace all road vehicles, the PRT "pods" are small and won't work for delivering large items or hauling a contractors tools and supplies, it won't be used for police patrols or garbage pickups or ambulances or tow trucks. Nope, it's designed to cover most ordinary commutes and shopping trips by 1 or 2 people, leaving the roads free for other uses. Like bicycles.
Jason 1:21AM (5/04/2009)
Again, I agree with you that this is an excellent solution for a "brand new pre-designed city". Unfortunately, none of us live in one of those. People live in cities with existing infrastructure such as roads and rail. Can you imagine the cost of putting in place an additional system. Just look at the cost of the "Big Dig" in Boston.
I also agree with you that a better solution is needed for short commutes and shopping trips by 1 or 2 people. But it needs to fit in with the way that people live.
Reply
Chris M 3:35AM (5/04/2009)
No, PRT does NOT require building a new city from scratch! To be sure, it does cost money to install any transportation system, but the per mile cost of a well designed PRT system guideway is a lot less than the per mile cost of a single conventional road lane, for several reasons.
The PRT vehicles can get their power from the guideway, meaning they don't need heavy batteries, or a heavy internal combustion engine, or a fuel tank. They are automated, running on guideways isolated from vehicle and pedestrian traffic, making them both extraordinarily safe and reducing the need for big heavy bumpers and side impact beams and other safety measures. They carry a limited number of people, all going to the same destination. All that adds up to far less vehicle weight than any road vehicle, which in turn means much lighter guideways - indeed, one PRT proposal called for the guideway to be suspended from the same types of steel poles that are now used for streetlights and traffic lights.
In most cases, the PRT guideways can be installed over existing public owned streets, sidewalks, parking and other public lands, minimizing land acquisition costs.
Automation means that the vehicles can operate with a much closer spacing than roadways or conventional rail, meaning the carrying capacity can be much higher than a single road lane - It would be unlikely to need multiple lane "guideways" even in the highest traffic density areas.
Lower cost to build, and thanks to electricity and automation, lower cost to operate, make PRT a great public transportation system.
Jason 12:35AM (5/05/2009)
Ok, so it sounds like this could be a great solution for congested urban areas. How does your plan help out someone with the average 40 mile commute? In other words, this is one solution. In your opinion, what is the logical choice for efficient commuting for people outside the range of your PRT.