Another hidden advantage of the hybrid car

We bought a 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid in the spring of 2007, and I have blogged on my experiences with it numerous times in the past (brand new feelings, disappointing mileage,  hypermiling, tire efficiency, taxes,).

One nice advantage is that some maintenance costs are reduced due to the use of the electric motor.  For one, the gas engine runs less and more efficiently than in a regular car, so one can stretch out oil changes a little.

The one that caught my attention recently, though, is brakes.  Our car now has 66,000 miles on it.  When I took it in for regular maintenance the front brake pads, which are still original, look great.  Since many of the hybrid cars on the road use regenerative braking, the brake pads are rarely employed to slow the car.  Instead, the energy to slow the car is used to charge the battery.

So not only do we enjoy the added efficiency of harvesting the brake energy, we also almost never have to purchase new brake pads.  Sweet!

Observations at Powering the People 2.0

The Edison Foundation held their 1-day meeting, Powering the People 2.0, on Thursday, March 22.  I was able to visit for a short while, visiting the electric vehicles outside, listening to the introductory speakers and first panel, and visiting the area they called "Innovation Avenue."

My favorite moment of the entire meeting was when the President of Pepco Holdings greeted everyone by saying, "I want to take credit for the early blooming of the cherry blossoms."  I'm pretty sure he did not realize the irony of his own statement, what with the significant contribution the electricity sector makes to climate change.  (One could point out the Pepco owns no generation, but I still found his statement amusing.)

Transforming the market for electric cars: The solution to "Range Anxiety"

Building the market for electric cars presents a tricky conundrum: charging.  People are less likely to want to buy an electric car if they are uncertain about being able to get it charged, and charging stations are not likely to pop up to serve these vehicles if there are few electric cars around.  This fear of running out of charge, "range anxiety," is  a significant obstacle to more widespread adoption.  I believe a forward-looking gas company can help break this logjam while also improving their market positioning.  Here's how.

Suppose one company, let's say Shell, installed chargers in every one of their stations in the Greater Washington area (or another region where there are electric cars on the road).  The key here is to install in every station, even though many will hardly get used.  It's a marketing strategy: make your stations synonymous with electric charging.  One company getting out ahead on this could create a very long lasting market advantage.  Put a charger in every station and make that information common knowledge to everyone.  The marketing has to be comprehensive, so that everyone knows those gas stations have charging stations; it becomes common knowledge. The stations and the marketing are loss leaders; a marketing strategy that pays off in more than one way.

I-66 "Spot Improvement" now completed

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.

The project to widen I-66 westbound between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street is now completed.  This is one of several projects that VDOT calls "Spot Improvements."  In this case, the "spot" is about 1.5 miles long (map).  This is the first of these projects, and was begun in the summer of 2010.  Neither of the other two projects is currently underway nor scheduled for the immediate future.

Solving the Lynn Street/Lee Highway Bike/Car Conflict

The intersection of Lee Highway and Lynn Street in Rosslyn, where the Custis Trail crosses Lynn St., has been the subject of great scrutiny lately. (GGW reported on a recent meeting at this very intersection.)  This is one of the most dangerous intersections for cyclists in the Greater Washington area. By reconfiguring the exit ramp for the Key Bridge, this conflict can be entirely removed, dramatically improving safety while also potentially improving traffic flow.  (This post has been cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington, including a number of reader comments.)

The problem at this intersection is traffic turning right from the I-66 off-ramp onto Lynn Street traveling towards the Key Bridge.  This traffic has a green light at the same time as the pedestrians and cyclists have the cross signal. There are two lanes of right turning cars (and sometimes cars in the third lane turn right illegally). By shifting the Key Bridge traffic to the north of the Custis Trail crossing, this conflict will be eliminated.

Electricity industry executives are either delusional or math illiterate. You choose.

The consulting firm, Black & Veatch conducts a survey (pdf) of the electricity industry each year, which provides insight into what the industry itself believes is happening and will happen in the future.  (Thanks to Grist for bringing this to my attention).

One of the questions and answers in particular caught my attention, because it struck me as being totally absurd.  Upon further digging, it turns out I was right; it is absurd.

Nissan Leaf

The question asked of the executives was:

What proportion of your annual energy load do you expect electric vehicles to represent by the end of each of the following years?

Here is the graph showing how they answered.

Innovations Towards Zero. Upcoming event at House of Sweden re: electrification and safety in vehicles

 

9th of June, 2011 ∙ House of Sweden ∙ 2900 K Street, NW ∙ Washington, DC

Join us for a seminar that will focus on the latest findings on safety and electrification of 

vehicles and discuss how manufacturers, government and the public can work together to 

reduce emissions as well as reduce fatalities and injuries on our roads.

Agenda

8:30 - 9:00 a.m. Breakfast around exhibition in Anna Lindh Hall
 Exhibition will include:

Hypermiling in our Camry Hybrid

We purchased our 2007 Toyota Hybrid Camry in March of 2007 and I have previously written about it six times (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth postings).

Last week I set a personal best for mpg on a trip we made to and from Philadelphia.  Our car records the mileage continuously from the time the tank is filled until it is filled again.  On the trip back, we stopped at the Chesapeake House rest area on I-95 at Mile Marker 98 in North East MD.  From there to our house in Arlington we traveled about 94 miles.  The mileage reading shown when we parked in front of our house is shown to the left.

How Much Congestion does the Clean Fuel Exemption Cause on I-66 Inside the Beltway?

Hybrids and other clean-fuel cars are exempted from the HOV requirement on I-66.  All traffic inside the beltway on I-66 must be HOV-2, be a motorcycle or have a clean fuel exemption license plate.  Dr. Gridlock at the Washington Post has argued to remove this exemption to help the HOV lanes function better.  It has been my opinion that the problem was caused more by scofflaws--that is, single occupancy drivers illegally on the road--than the hybrid cars.

Today I had a chance to test my presumption.  I was crossing over I-66 on the pedestrian overpass near Madison Manor park (map).  I tried to notice how many cars were scofflaws but soon realized that it was difficult to tell if there was a child in the back seat or not.  Also, many of the cars had the clean-car license plates.  Then I realized I could read the license plates easily.  Traffic seemed to be traveling about 30-40 miles per hour, slower than free-flowing.  So one could argue that there was congestion, since the HOV lanes were not moving at 55 miles per hour.  So I started counting.

Plates with CF, CX, CY or CZ are exempt from the HOV requirement.  (One can have their vanity plate exempted, too, but there were few of these).  I pulled out a piece of paper and a pen.  Here's what I observed in six minutes from 8:04 to 8:10 AM.

• 333 cars: 67 with clean-car license plates; 266 without.
• 1 motorcycle
• 2 buses
• 1 18-wheeler (which are illegal on this highway)
• 1 eastbound 6-car Metro train

Of the cars, 67 had clean car license plates, approximately 20%. 

Here's some quick math extrapolating to an hour and making some assumptions:

• 2700 HOV cars with 2.2 riders = 6000 people
• 670 clean-fuel cars with 1.1 riders = 750 people
• 20 buses with 40 people = 2000 people
• 10 metro trains with 800 riders = 8000 people

So the clean-fuel cars represent less than 5% of the people being transported along this corridor but represent 20% of the cars.  Would removing that 20% increase flow enough or more than enough to make up the difference.  My intuition says yes, but perhaps a transportation planner can weigh in on the comments.

Chevy Volt spotted in my neighborhood

As I was walking to lunch today I passed a house with a brand new Chevy Volt sitting in the driveway.  It had Maryland temporary plates, so I don't know if it belonged to that house or was visiting.  Here are the two photos I took of it.

New Fairfax County Parkway Interchange Gives Peds and Bikes Short Shrift

Plans to rebuild two intersections along the Fairfax County Parkway at Fair Lakes Parkway and Monument Drive--adding ramps and interchanges--fail to make pedestrians or bicyclists welcome.

VDOT is planning to rebuild the intersections of the Fairfax County Parkway at Monument Drive and Fair Lakes Parkway (map). They will eliminate the intersections, replacing them with bridges and ramps. The detailed plan is available here (pdf, 9.3M). Robert Thompson discussed this project in an article in the Washington Post on Saturday, and details can also be found on the VDOT web site. It includes this language: "Shared-use paths and sidewalks will enhance pedestrian access at the interchange and to the Rocky Run Stream Valley Park trail system." Since I am not personally familiar with this area, it may be true that they are improving the current situation, but that would only be because it must be really bad now.

Although sidewalks and shared use paths are included in the project, this will be a dauntingly scary place to be either a cyclist or pedestrian. This is obvious from the artist's rendering of the project, in which it is virtually impossible to make out any pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. The artist's rendering nicely details traffic flows, lanes and other automobile-related details. One can make out some sidewalks, but it's not at all clear how they are supposed to connect or how one could safely use them. The buildings in the lower left in the rendering are currently a Residence Inn. There is an office building shown on the lower right that one could probably hit with a golf ball from the Residence Inn. Although one could ostensibly walk from one to the other, it seems that the Fairfax County planners have not given much thought to actually making that a feasible option.

Looking at the detailed pdf graphic, it appears that pedestrians will be required to cross at least three slip lanes (one of them an acceleration slip lane) with no signals. They will also be required to walk under a 6-lane wide bridge next to eight lanes of traffic--a rather unpleasant experience one can imagine.

It's understood that VDOT is trying to make the Fairfax County Parkway more and more of a limited-access highway, and their goal is to move more cars at higher speeds and greater capacity than before--for better or worse. However, it's large projects like these that provide an opportunity to think more creatively about accommodating all modes. Particularly as bicycling is growing in popularity, it is important to create easier and safer ways of crossing barriers like these.

(This  post originally appeared on Greater Greater Washington, including more than 30 comments)

Monday What's on the Web: Street Films

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------

Street Films is an awesome site filled with hundreds of videos related to the urban form--particularly transportation.  Based in New York, many of the films feature New York City, but one can find interesting perspectives from around the world.

They categorize their content under these topics:

• Bicycles
• Car-Free
• Cars & Parking
• Education
• Health & Safety
• Pedestrians
• Public Space
• Traffic Calming
• Transit

One of my favorites, which injects a good deal of humor and satire, is this one:

I-66 "Spot Improvement" Underway

The "spot improvement" on westbound I-66 between the George Mason Drive and Sycamore Street is underway.

These spot improvements, which are essentially short-distance widenings have been the subject of great debate for more than a decade.  VDOT has long wanted to widen I-66 to three lanes in each direction; Arlington, smart growth and environmental groups have been strongly opposed.  The original agreement to build I-66 included an agreement to not widen the highway beyond two lanes in each direction.  VDOT has instead proposed a series of "spot improvements," which widen sections of I-66 to three lanes.  This section is called "Spot 1," and it has a page on the VDOT web site.

In February of 2009, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board voted to put these projects on hold,only to reverse itself the very next month.  Since then, there has been little to stop this project from moving forward, particularly because it has received earmarked funding from Congress that can be used for nothing else.

The contract was awarded in May, and construction has begun.  Here are photos:

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.

This one shows I-66 looking westbound from Ohio Street.  Note the (semi) vegetated median between the left shoulder and the Metrorail tracks.  That is being partially removed to make room for the additional roadway width.

The photo at the top of the post shows the demolition of the median next to the Metrorail tracks.

The Custis Trail passes under I-66 along this stretch of highway.  At the point were it crosses underneath there are three bridges: one for each direction of traffic and one for the Metrorail tracks.  The westbound bridge is being widened.  To accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic during construction, VDOT has constructed this structure for protection.  There have been occasional detours while work is being done here.  The detour is well marked and only slightly longer.

Once the bridge is widened, there will be less daylight at this point.  Although there is some relatively inadequate lighting now, it may need to be upgraded as part of the improvements.

The following information was mined from the project documents of the Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2030:

Do traffic congestion conditions necessitate the proposed project?  Yes
If so, describe those conditions: Recurring congestion
Is this a capacity-increasing project on a limited access highway or other arterial highway of a functional class higher than minor arterial? Yes

Please identify any and all planning factors that are addressed by this project:
  - Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
  - Increase the safety of the transportation system for all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase the ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight.
  - Promote efficient system management and operation.
a. Is this project being proposed specifically to address a safety issue? Yes
Briefly describe the nature of the safety problem:
Existing levels of congestion is exacerbated by the intense weaving and merging movements happening over a short distance along with inadequate sight distance. The recurring congestion and associated operational/safety effects poses concerns on the corridor’s ability to serve as an efficient emergency evacuation route.

The suggestion that this will improve the road as an emergency evacuation route is just silly.  The capacity of I-66 for evacuation will not be increased by adding a lane for a mile and a half.  This language is likely a holdover from the arguments used for widening the entire length of I-66 inside the Beltway.

Many people believe that once the "spot improvements" are all in place, the argument to widen the relatively short remaining sections will grow very strong, and VDOT will eventually prevail.  It will be interesting to see how long that takes.

(Cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington)

Our Camry hybrid (sixth post)

We purchased our 2007 Toyota Hybrid Camry in March of 2007 and I have previously written about it five times (first, second, third, fourth, fifth postings). 

Now it's 3 1/2 years old, and we are still happy with it--notwithstanding the various stains that have appeared on the upholstery (not Toyota's fault).

Last winter it was time to replace the original tires.  During the Olympics there had been ads about certain tires that claimed they boosted fuel efficiency compared to standard tires.  Also, during the time I worked at EPA, I had a number of conversations about how EPA might help promote more efficient tires to the public.  So I was aware that not all tires are equal when it comes to fuel efficiency.  Tires have what is called "rolling resistance,"  a factor of friction with the road--lower rolling resistance equals less friction, which improves fuel efficiency.  Since we had to replace our tires anyway, it made good sense to look into ways we could boost the fuel efficiency of our car even more, and save some money and emissions at the same time. 


Prior to buying our new tires, the highest mileage we had ever experienced for a complete tank of gas had been about 39 mpg (no--we don't track this ourselves with pad and pencil; the car displays it for us).  Since we bought our new Michelin Energy Saver tires, on two occasions we have exceeded 40 mpg for a full tank.  I don't know for certain if it is because of the tires, since there are a lot of variables associated with driving, but not much else has changed, so it seems plausible that they are contributing to the better mileage.

I also need to brag that once, shortly after I filled up, I drove about 5 miles, and at the end of the trip, my mpg display showed this:



58.7 MPG!!!!  Okay, so it was only for a few miles, but still.

Because our car already gets pretty good mileage, our annual savings will likely be only about 10-20 gallons, saving us $25 - $60 (or more) depending on gas prices.  If they last us five years, we will probably save at least $150.  If gas prices go back up to $4 or more, then our savings will be more--perhaps as much as $350.  In the end, the savings will completely pay for one or two of the tires, and reduce greenhouse gases by 1000-2000 pounds.

Because of where we live, we have now saved almost $4000 on taxes by owning this car.  There are a variety of local and state incentives you will want to consider if you are in the market for a new car.

Climate Decade in Review - Post 13: Wind Energy in US Grows Rapidly

August 2006 - Wind energy capacity in the United States reached 10,000 Megawatts (MW), enough to power 2.5 million homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Wind energy capacity at the beginning of the decade was about 2,500 MW, meaning that installed capacity quadrupled in six years. Wind energy was the fastest growing source of new electricity supply for the decade. By the end of the decade, total US installed wind capacity was approximately 35,000 MW--showing phenomenal growth of well over 30% per year.

Wind energy is one of the more attractive renewable energy options. Electricity generation from wind is entirely carbon free, and the growth of the wind industry during the 00's has helped bring prices down to be competitive with fossil fuel generation in many cases. Each kilowatt-hour of wind energy that replaces a kWh of coal-generated electricity reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than a pound. (A typical household will use 25-40 kWh per day of electricity.)

=================
This is one in the series of "Climate Decade in Review" posts on this blog that began in January 2010. These posts present climate-change-related events that occurred during the 00's, the warmest decade in recorded history.

Used Car vs. New Car (Reprise)

A couple of weeks ago I posted my take on the environmental impact of buying new vs. used (see post here). I received a thoughtful email from a reader in Colorado:
-----------------------------

Steve:
I have been thinking about the same question. When buying/trading used cars does MPG matter to the environment?

Most people, rightfully, want to do the right thing for the environment and get more fuel efficient vehicles. But let's go in the opposite direction for the sake of argument.

Let's say that at a used car dealership I hand in my Honda Civic and purchase your Ford Behemoth (and you do the same in the opposite direction) was our transaction environmentally net-net?

I would think so since both cars are in use. Your article seems to point to the same conclusion. Does this abdicate used car buyers from considering fuel efficiency in their purchases and trades?

While I agree wholeheartedly that NEW car purchases need to be as environmentally friendly as possible, to guide manufacturers towards more fuel efficient vehicles. I think that used car purchases are just shuffling owners. The miles in each car need to be 'used up' prior to it's replacement in the U.S./Global fleet with a (hopefully) more fuel efficient model.

I might even go so far as to argue that if you maintain your Ford Guzzler you are doing the environment a favor by keeping it out of the hands of a secondary market. Many of our cars that are highly used end up auctioned and sent to Central and South America, where people may not be able to afford to keep them running as efficiently as possible - or where they would not be subject to stringent emissions monitoring. (A statement of economic inequality, not character.) Where I live near Denver you can watch them parade on Wednesdays from the Used Car Auctions down I-25 headed south towards Juarez, Mexico. Will their new owners have the means to optimally maintain the functioning of the vehicle to ensure minimal environmental impact?

Such thinking would also lead me to believe that a Cash-for-Clunkers would have a long term, net benefit by taking the guzzlers out of the total fleet faster. Obviously, such thinking then also points to the efficacy of raising CAFE standards.

Thanks - I enjoyed your article!
------------------------
And thanks for reading and commenting.
Here's one more twist to think about. I have a colleague who suggests that as long as CAFE standards are in effect and the manufacturer you purchase from is not exceeding CAFE, then by buying a fuel efficient car you are just allowing the manufacturer to sell another less efficient (and more profitable) one, because they can do so and still keep their fleet average above the limit. There's probably a bit of truth to that--CAFE regulates a fleet average, and your purchase is just part of that overall average. However, it's a pretty complicated system (details here), so I'm not confident of my opinion. And all in all, I think the economic signal sent by purchasing a more fuel efficient car is the right signal to send, so I'll stand by my original post.

Buying a New Car is More Environmental than Buying a Used One

From Hugo90 on Flickr

About a year ago I was at a conference where the keynote speaker dispensed the conventional wisdom that buying a used car is more environmental than buying a new, say, hybrid. Seems to make sense, and you can find agreement from others: Wired, Knol, Scientific American, BrakeandFrontEnd Blog.

Seems like a no-brainer, right? Manufacturing a new car requires enormous mining, manufacturing, transportation and other costs and energy inputs, while a used car doesn't need to be manufactured; it already is. Case closed.

Or is it? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the answer really lies in the frame you put around it. If you are worried only about your own personal environmental footprint, then I think the used car is likely better. But if you are concerned about the entire planet (which if you are asking environmental questions like this, you presumably are), then a larger circle has to be drawn than just around yourself, and that changes the answer.

When one goes to purchase their replacement vehicle, what happens to the one they already have? In most cases it is sold to someone else, who eventually sells it to someone else until it finally completely dies after about 17 years and several owners. In fact, every car that is manufactured will be on the road until it finally is totaled or gives up the ghost. Your particular ownership of that car is just a way station on the path from manufacturer to junkyard.

What we environmentalists want to see is manufacturers churning out more and more high mileage and hybrid cars and working desperately to design and build the next, even better generation of vehicles.

Who do the manufacturers care about? New car buyers. They claim over and over that they manufacture to meet the demand of buyers (it's why GM claims it was building so many SUVs, right?). They don't care about used-car buyers (although I concede demand for used cars may send a weak signal back up the food chain, but much weaker than a direct purchase). If I buy a new, cutting edge hybrid, then I'm sending a signal to the manufacturer to make more of those. If I buy a used car, then someone else is sending that signal, not me, the environmentalist--and they may be buying a big gas guzzler. Buying a used car is not reducing the total number of manufactured cars by one nor reducing the number of cars going to the junkyard: remember, I'm just a way station along the car's trip.

(photo by Adam Franco on Flickr)

Another way to look at the argument is to scale it up. Thought experiment: a fleet buyer is buying 100,000 vehicles. Imagine the difference between placing an order for 100,000 new hybrids vs. buying 100,000 used cars. Which is going to make the manufacturers sit up and take notice--and maybe even invest in new factories? In fact, what if that fleet owner put in an order for 100,000 every year? Oo, there's an interesting twist. Counterintuitively, by making that argument writ small we learn that buying a new efficient car every year is better than buying one and making it last. And it's true (although not practical for most people). It would send an even stronger economic signal to manufacturers.

In the end, the decision about replacing your car includes a lot of factors, not the least of which is your own personal financial situation. But if you're thinking about a new car, but have considered a used car for environmental reasons, think again.

BTW - Slate did a comparison that also comes out in favor of the new Prius even without invoking my macroeconomic and macro-environmental arguments.

Efficiency Good; Hyperbole Bad

The Monday, April 20 Washington Post included an 8-page "advertorial" insert called Environmental Leadership--presumably in anticipation of Earth Day (not available on line). It included about a dozen guest articles on a wide array of environmental topics. Great! (although one of the advertising supporters is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which promotes the oxymoron "clean coal." You can read more about my opinion of carbon capture and storage here.)

One of the guest writers is Nancy Sutley, the new Obama administation Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Her column runs the gamut, touching on a wide array of environmental issues--the normal rhetoric one would expect--but I stopped when I read this line: "We plan to put a million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road, dramatically increasing the fuel efficiency of our nation's fleet of vehicles with batteries built in the U.S."

"Dramatically increasing?" Let's do a quick back of the envelope. In 2006 there were 234 million cars and light trucks on the road representing an average fuel economy of 20.30 mpg. Let's make some optimistic assumptions:
- Plug-in hybrids are the equivalent of 100 mpg
- All 1,000,000 new hybrids replace SUVs (average 18 mpg)

If we use 2006 as a proxy, replacing 1,000,000 SUVs with plug-in hybrids, then the new fleet economy rises to 20.38 mpg, an minuscule increase of .08 miles per gallon. Or put another way, an increase of about 425 feet per gallon. Another way to achieve the exact same reduction in fuel consumption would be to reduce the distance each car drives by about 50 miles per year--a 0.4% decrease.

Now don't get me wrong: I am totally in favor of transforming our economy to more environmentally sustainable technologies and systems, but I think a hyperbolic statement like this sugarcoats the magnitude of the challenge in front of us.

Let's put those million vehicles out there, but it's just a down payment. I think it would have been much better to say, ""We plan to put a million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road, a small but important first step in transforming our nation's fleet of automobiles"

New Model for Transportation - Take 2

My post from last week: We Need a New Model for Expanding Transit received a long, thoughtful response from Paul Minett: Co-founder, CEO and President at Trip Convergence Ltd. He was responding not to my post here but to my sending similar thoughts to an industry list serve called transp-tdm (TDM stands for Transportation Demand Management, and there is a whole industry of professionals who work in this field). I have edited Paul's response slightly, but have hopefully captured his thoughts and ideas:

Well said, Steve. And since you asked, here is what I think. I think the score card you propose is all wrong. This is not (or shouldn't be) a 'cars vs transit' issue, nor should it be a 'vehicle miles per gallon' issue. Eventually we will be forced to restructure how we achieve 'accessibility', and how much 'mobility' we actually need. In the meantime switching cars for buses or trains is like the proverbial 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic': eventually they all become obsolete.

It has been suggested (by Jonathan Levine, for example) that 'accessibility' is made up of 'proximity', 'connectivity', and 'mobility'. We get what we focus on, and while the focus is on 'mobility' that is what results. A concerted effort to improve 'connectivity' could reduce the need for so much 'mobility'. On the other hand, within 'mobility' sits vehicle occupancy.

It amazes me that when some people look at a jammed freeway they see the solution being to add more vehicles (ie buses). There is enough rolling stock already out there. And it could all be getting 100 passenger miles per gallon, just by filling up the empty seats. We recently got almost 200 passenger miles per gallon on a trip from Portland to Salem: four people in a Prius. Eventually we must reduce the amount of 'mobility' we consume.

In the meantime we need to put lots of thought (and action) into strategies that increase average vehicle occupancy, and reduce total vehicle counts, and reduce the amount of 'solitary mobility' we consume. Possibly the most energy efficient transport available is the van owned by a worker who carries eight or ten co-commuters for most of its journey, and then parks up while the worker does his job, until doing the return journey.

Highly efficient buses that deadhead empty to collect the next load are only half as energy efficient on a per passenger mile basis as the same buses operating full in each direction. During peak the loadings might justify the deadhead, but outside of peak it becomes questionable.

As a starting point we could all focus on mechanisms to increase the rewards for sharing rides, increase the cost of driving alone, and simplifying the process of sharing rides. We are one of many businesses focused on finding solutions to make progress in this area, and it is not plain sailing. Many seem to be offended that private companies might make a profit in this space. But perhaps more to the point, we find a lack of discretionary time and budget in the offices of the organisations that should be interested in working with us. And when there is funding for innovation the processes to bring it about are complex and very slow. Only the most dedicated stay the course.

I think it is great that you have opened up this discussion. I hope others will find time to comment because this is a fundamentally important issue.

Thanks, Paul, for your ideas and helping to push the transformation to sustainability this blog and millions of others seek.

Going Car Free

A couple of Obama's key appointees do not own cars as reported in this article in the Washington Post, which was also picked up by some blogs, including DemConWatch and Kicking Tires. Carol Browner, President Obama's Energy and Environment Czarina and Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, were reported to not own cars at all. That's two out of the six high level appointees this article reported on. Also, one of the ten aides on the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry also reported not owning a car. That's three out of sixteen. Clearly these individuals are making a conscious choice not to own a car, since I presume they could afford one if they wanted. As we transform our transportation systems and our economy to more sustainable models, we need to move away from the concept of one car/one person. The average car sits idle 22 hours or more a day, which is an extremely inefficient use of capital. Creating a more integrated system that allows people to not have to own their cars and tie up many thousands of dollars of capital will serve us better in the long run--both economically and environmentally.

Here in Arlington, VA, we have a promotional effort called Arlington's Car-Free Diet. The article did not go into the reasons why these leaders choose not to own a car, but one might guess that they just find it more convenient and cost effective to not have one, and are able to avail themselves of the options available in the DC area, the kind of options that make the Car-Free Diet a model for other places.