December 2008 Archives
The Segway has been turning heads ever since it hit the main stream in 2001 with its debut on Good Morning America. Since then it has been spotted under the likes of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac (founders of Apple) playing Segway Polo and challenging the balancing abilities of George W. Bush at his family estate in Maine. Segway has long been viewed as a geek toy but slowly grown in acceptance as a security guard mount and disabled patron Rascal on steroids, it's even being sold at select Best Buy's now.
In August 2008 Toyota shared one of its newest robotics devices that is similar in design to the Segway. This personal EV fits somewhere between AI, butler and personal transport and is called the Winglet. While the newest Segways have followed a trend of being larger and more robust, offering off-road utility and rugged features like an SUV, the Winglet lineup from Toyota is smaller than any Segway and comes in three different sizes with a top speed of 3.7 mph vs. 12 mph. It can travel up three miles per charge (which is a bit less than the segway's 9 to 15) and is designed with a lower profile. The two smallest Winglets don't even have a handlebar interface, riders control the vehicle purely with their lower body as shown in the video near the end. This article first appeared on EV Authority.
You've got to admire Toyota's approach to this type of vehicle, due to the intelligent design and rider interface (as well as the future possibility of self charging, location mapping and even luggage transporting) they describe the Winglet as "a personal transport assistance robot ridden in a standing position". The description places the AI before the carriage so-to-speak and conjures thoughts of future robot vehicles that might look more like animals or other intelligent beings. Could you imagine a Toyota robot horse some day? If this description seems distantly familiar you might be having phantom memories of Sony's AIBO robot that was discontinued and severed from Sony's gadget lineup in early 2006. Sure, you couldn't ride on an AIBO but we all remember those grand ambitions that Sony set out - to beat the US professional Soccer Team with a team of intelligent robots. The AIBO was capable of finding it's own charging location and was the highest form of publicly available consumer ready AI at the time. To be honest, it hasn't always been so tough to beat the US Soccer team... but times have changed and tomorrow's robots might be better off transporting people to soccer games than competing in them. Sony sold its robotic division in late 2007 to TMC (Toyota Motor Corp.) so now Toyota is in charge and it's great to see that they have kept much of the same spirit of innovation and stewardship in their approach to AI and robots as Sony had. Toyota says its target market for the Winglet is elderly people in malls and airports but faced with the possibility of falling off and breaking a hip during transport, older people might be better off walking.
Segway's founder, Dean Kamen has suggested using his personal transporter, the Segway, to carry US Special Forces troops into Battle. Toyota's approach on the other hand, seems much more at home on a sidewalks, airports, and malls and is friendlier in its mission to "contribute to society by helping people enjoy a safe and fully mobile life". In terms of image, maybe the segway is evolving into a blackhawk while the Winglet takes over the posh appeal of a Vespa: cute, efficient, and stylish.
The biggest competitive advantage that I see for the Winglet is that the device might not be as noticeable and distracting as Segways have been. A Segway is clunky and almost impossible to pick up and move manually (the base model Segway HT weighs 95 lbs - 43 kg) the Winglet, on the other hand, weighs from 22 lbs - 9.9 kg to 27 lbs - 12.3 kg. The smallest model even folds sideways and features a handle to be carried much like a briefcase (shown in the picture above to the left of the lady). Say you need to put one of these devices in the trunk of your car or carry it up some stairs? A big part of the dork factor of the Segway is that it's wheels are stuck out on the sides making it clunky in crowds. It also elevates you way up above everyone you're walking with or around (which is belittling and distracting) and reminds me of a Roman charriot bent on the destruction of opposing jock forces at some fantasy high school football game.
It's not hard to see where the Winglet will excel and be differentiated from the Segway. Tests are already under way in Japan to move it towards mass use at a few public venues and the Winglet is currently being tested at the Central Japan International Airport (Centrair) near Nagoya. Toyota has scheduled further testing for late '09 early 2010.
In August 2008 Toyota shared one of its newest robotics devices that is similar in design to the Segway. This personal EV fits somewhere between AI, butler and personal transport and is called the Winglet. While the newest Segways have followed a trend of being larger and more robust, offering off-road utility and rugged features like an SUV, the Winglet lineup from Toyota is smaller than any Segway and comes in three different sizes with a top speed of 3.7 mph vs. 12 mph. It can travel up three miles per charge (which is a bit less than the segway's 9 to 15) and is designed with a lower profile. The two smallest Winglets don't even have a handlebar interface, riders control the vehicle purely with their lower body as shown in the video near the end. This article first appeared on EV Authority.
You've got to admire Toyota's approach to this type of vehicle, due to the intelligent design and rider interface (as well as the future possibility of self charging, location mapping and even luggage transporting) they describe the Winglet as "a personal transport assistance robot ridden in a standing position". The description places the AI before the carriage so-to-speak and conjures thoughts of future robot vehicles that might look more like animals or other intelligent beings. Could you imagine a Toyota robot horse some day? If this description seems distantly familiar you might be having phantom memories of Sony's AIBO robot that was discontinued and severed from Sony's gadget lineup in early 2006. Sure, you couldn't ride on an AIBO but we all remember those grand ambitions that Sony set out - to beat the US professional Soccer Team with a team of intelligent robots. The AIBO was capable of finding it's own charging location and was the highest form of publicly available consumer ready AI at the time. To be honest, it hasn't always been so tough to beat the US Soccer team... but times have changed and tomorrow's robots might be better off transporting people to soccer games than competing in them. Sony sold its robotic division in late 2007 to TMC (Toyota Motor Corp.) so now Toyota is in charge and it's great to see that they have kept much of the same spirit of innovation and stewardship in their approach to AI and robots as Sony had. Toyota says its target market for the Winglet is elderly people in malls and airports but faced with the possibility of falling off and breaking a hip during transport, older people might be better off walking.Segway's founder, Dean Kamen has suggested using his personal transporter, the Segway, to carry US Special Forces troops into Battle. Toyota's approach on the other hand, seems much more at home on a sidewalks, airports, and malls and is friendlier in its mission to "contribute to society by helping people enjoy a safe and fully mobile life". In terms of image, maybe the segway is evolving into a blackhawk while the Winglet takes over the posh appeal of a Vespa: cute, efficient, and stylish.
The biggest competitive advantage that I see for the Winglet is that the device might not be as noticeable and distracting as Segways have been. A Segway is clunky and almost impossible to pick up and move manually (the base model Segway HT weighs 95 lbs - 43 kg) the Winglet, on the other hand, weighs from 22 lbs - 9.9 kg to 27 lbs - 12.3 kg. The smallest model even folds sideways and features a handle to be carried much like a briefcase (shown in the picture above to the left of the lady). Say you need to put one of these devices in the trunk of your car or carry it up some stairs? A big part of the dork factor of the Segway is that it's wheels are stuck out on the sides making it clunky in crowds. It also elevates you way up above everyone you're walking with or around (which is belittling and distracting) and reminds me of a Roman charriot bent on the destruction of opposing jock forces at some fantasy high school football game.
It's not hard to see where the Winglet will excel and be differentiated from the Segway. Tests are already under way in Japan to move it towards mass use at a few public venues and the Winglet is currently being tested at the Central Japan International Airport (Centrair) near Nagoya. Toyota has scheduled further testing for late '09 early 2010.
This set of notes and thoughts comes from a sub topic by David Rogers at the 2008 Electric Drive Transportation Association conference event. Charged Up: Roadmap for an electrically powered Transportation System.
In the last year alone (2008) we've decreased emissions 5% in the US (which is the same as CAFE requirements in 2017) based primarily on recession and high fuel prices, but now oil prices have dropped again and the trend in reduced gasoline consumption may change. One option in reducing emissions is a recession and has us acting "out of need". Another option is to invest in advanced technologies while continuing to maintain a vibrant economy and avoiding need based reactionary decision making. The DOE (department of energy) is working on programs that decouple transportation from oil in the US.
Oil dependence represents a threat to America's national security and economic strength. Energy security cannot be improved without addressing dependence and cannot be reduced without addressing transportation. With the mass adoption of EV's we can draw our power from a wide variety of domestic energy resources. Oil does not have to drop to zero, we want to be more in control. Cost effective alternatives including flex fuel, advanced diesel, hybrids and other technologies that are available today. We can continue up this curve by developing biodiesel, plugin hybrids, and ethanol, fuel cell, and fuel electric vehicles.
The DOE's portfolio includes R&D on batteries, electric drive components, hydrogen fuel cell systems (including Hydrogen production and storage). It's how vehicles are used, not just individual performance that can make a real difference. Batteries that can deliver 40 mile range for example, electric drive only, would be a huge step. For example, the battery is cheaper for a 10 mile range hybrid and more would be more affordable and thus widespread, so any progress coupled with penetration will equal oil displacement. We don't have to have the perfect solution today, there is an equilibrium in adoption and affordability. Working to fund this type of development, DOE funding for PHEV's has grown $46M in 2006 to $69M in 2007 $86M in 2008 appropriation.
DOE is focused on making sure we have the right technology performance and cost performance. Many people argue that battery cost is too high. We would all like cheaper batteries but there are many innovative business models which are making money today, so progress isn't completely stopped by the battery challenge. It's not about the perfect solution, today's solutions that make business sense are leading the way to the final best products. The importance of having an agile grid (metering, flexible rates, generation and distribution). Customer acceptance relies on value proposition, information and education and warranties with battery replacement models. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, there are too many engineers tackling this problem and not enough MBA's. We need a program that can warranty a five year battery coupled with partnerships in batteries that will continue to evolve.
Supporting Battery R&D contracts awarded through USABC (US Battery Consortium) to address performance, cost and life. We can currently supply 75M hybrids in the US without generating more electricity, just using off peak charging via a smart grid. Currently a testing program in place for plugin hybrid conversions. $30M program for the demonstration of production intent of PHEV's. Contracts to Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Working on a value proposition study representing consumer, manufacture, and utility needs.
Joan Milliken driving the fuel cell
Today announcing an additional $29M in cost-shared research projects for Advanced Vehicle technology development. Battery materials and manufacturing makes up $14M to improve performance and manufacturing processes for PHEV's. $13M to accelerate HVAC development in vehicles (Ford and GM) and $3M investment in aerodynamic trailers.
Working closely with the strategic development conference in China. For more information contact vehicle Technologies program http://vehicles.energy.gov
In the last year alone (2008) we've decreased emissions 5% in the US (which is the same as CAFE requirements in 2017) based primarily on recession and high fuel prices, but now oil prices have dropped again and the trend in reduced gasoline consumption may change. One option in reducing emissions is a recession and has us acting "out of need". Another option is to invest in advanced technologies while continuing to maintain a vibrant economy and avoiding need based reactionary decision making. The DOE (department of energy) is working on programs that decouple transportation from oil in the US.
Oil dependence represents a threat to America's national security and economic strength. Energy security cannot be improved without addressing dependence and cannot be reduced without addressing transportation. With the mass adoption of EV's we can draw our power from a wide variety of domestic energy resources. Oil does not have to drop to zero, we want to be more in control. Cost effective alternatives including flex fuel, advanced diesel, hybrids and other technologies that are available today. We can continue up this curve by developing biodiesel, plugin hybrids, and ethanol, fuel cell, and fuel electric vehicles.
The DOE's portfolio includes R&D on batteries, electric drive components, hydrogen fuel cell systems (including Hydrogen production and storage). It's how vehicles are used, not just individual performance that can make a real difference. Batteries that can deliver 40 mile range for example, electric drive only, would be a huge step. For example, the battery is cheaper for a 10 mile range hybrid and more would be more affordable and thus widespread, so any progress coupled with penetration will equal oil displacement. We don't have to have the perfect solution today, there is an equilibrium in adoption and affordability. Working to fund this type of development, DOE funding for PHEV's has grown $46M in 2006 to $69M in 2007 $86M in 2008 appropriation.
DOE is focused on making sure we have the right technology performance and cost performance. Many people argue that battery cost is too high. We would all like cheaper batteries but there are many innovative business models which are making money today, so progress isn't completely stopped by the battery challenge. It's not about the perfect solution, today's solutions that make business sense are leading the way to the final best products. The importance of having an agile grid (metering, flexible rates, generation and distribution). Customer acceptance relies on value proposition, information and education and warranties with battery replacement models. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, there are too many engineers tackling this problem and not enough MBA's. We need a program that can warranty a five year battery coupled with partnerships in batteries that will continue to evolve.
Supporting Battery R&D contracts awarded through USABC (US Battery Consortium) to address performance, cost and life. We can currently supply 75M hybrids in the US without generating more electricity, just using off peak charging via a smart grid. Currently a testing program in place for plugin hybrid conversions. $30M program for the demonstration of production intent of PHEV's. Contracts to Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Working on a value proposition study representing consumer, manufacture, and utility needs.
Joan Milliken driving the fuel cell
Today announcing an additional $29M in cost-shared research projects for Advanced Vehicle technology development. Battery materials and manufacturing makes up $14M to improve performance and manufacturing processes for PHEV's. $13M to accelerate HVAC development in vehicles (Ford and GM) and $3M investment in aerodynamic trailers.
Working closely with the strategic development conference in China. For more information contact vehicle Technologies program http://vehicles.energy.gov
Perhaps no piece of EV technology is shrouded in more mystery than the Tesla battery pack. It's not the technical details that are a secret; it is its replacement cost.
The Tesla's battery pack is rated at 53 kWh which is enough to power an average U.S. home for 2 days. It is assembled from 6831 individual type 18650 batteries, which are cylindrical cells with about twice the volume of an AA-size battery. They are the same cells used inside laptop batteries. These individual cells are connected together and packaged with a charge controller to monitor and level the charge of the individual cells. Just the wholesale cost for the batteries for that pack would be about $39K assuming a cost of $.74/Wh for Li-ion cells, which I have confirmed with a few Chinese battery suppliers as the typical wholesale pricing for Li-ion cells when purchased in volume.
In addition to the raw cost of the batteries, there is the labor cost of assembling the cells and the cost of the charge controller and housing. It also has a sophisticated arrangement of sensors, microprocessors, and its own liquid cooling system. When you add the assembly labor, controller, and packaging to hold 750 lbs of batteries, my estimate is that this pack costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $50K to manufacture.
Tesla is betting on the improvement in Li-ion technology (currently estimated to be 8% per year) to continue on and eventually get the battery replacement cost down to around $12K. It's not clear if that is Tesla's projected cost, or the replacement cost; they've been very tight lipped on battery replacement costs. Provided Li-ion technology can maintain an 8% annual level of improvement, it will take about 18 years for the wholesale cost of the battery pack to approach $12K.
Automotive margins typically require twice the bill of materials cost as a price the customer ends up paying, and it's usually much higher for replacement parts. Let's just assume that Tesla can live with 50% of gross margin on the battery pack and so in order for the retail price to get to $12K, it would require yet another 9 years for the battery replacement retail pricing to get to this mythical level that some might consider a 'reasonable' price to pay for replacement batteries. And this assumes a continuous cost reduction of 8% for 27 years, which is almost unheard of except for improvements related to Moore's Law.
Battery technology, unlike semiconductor density which follows Moore's Law, does not improve at 60% per year. A 60% annual improvement is the equivalent of a doubling of the density of semiconductors every 18 months. No phenomenon has more confused the public about the rate of improvement of technology than Moore's Law. It doesn't apply to all technological progress, just semiconductor density. It doesn't even apply to the advancements in solar cell technology, even those are technically semiconductors. Increasing the density of semiconductors has the benefit of lower power consumption for computing tasks only. Moore's Law has very minor effects on the cost and efficiency of electric motors, energy controllers, and batteries. Those components are the major cost drivers in EVs.
The lead acid battery, discovered in 1859, has essentially remained unchanged in terms of its energy density for the past 150 years. It contains about .6% the amount of energy density of gasoline per pound. So 1 lb of gasoline ~ 20,000 BTU = 5.8 kWh = 156 lbs of lead acid batteries. The most amazing thing about lead acid batteries is that they still represent the best value in terms of $/Wh stored (about $.15/Wh) of any rechargeable battery. It explains why, after 150 years, lead acid batteries are still the workhorses for high energy/power applications like uninterruptible power supplies, car starter batteries, solar power storage banks, and other applications where weight isn't so much of an issue.
The lithium-ion battery, which was first used in consumer products starting in the early 1990s, has 4 times the energy density but costs about 5 times as much per watt-hour as lead-acid technology. The lower cost is why lead acid batteries are still used in golf carts and electric car conversion kits, despite the significant penalty associated with adding weight in mobility applications. But when you need 50+ kW-hours of energy storage to make an EV's range competitive with internal combustion vehicle, the weight of lead acid batteries becomes too high to consider. A Tesla's 53 kWh battery pack would weigh over 3,500 lbs. if it was made with lead-acid batteries and the extra weight it added would cut it's the Tesla's range in half. Adding heavy batteries in a mobility application becomes a vicious, self-feeding cycle. This article originally appeared here at EV Authority.
Tesla has not made any specific projections about when the car will need its first battery replacement but based on my experience with laptops and digital cameras which use the same lithium-ion battery technology, I would not be surprised if a Tesla would need a battery replacement every 4 to 5 years. At the time the first replacement is needed, even if sold at Tesla's cost, the battery would be about $34,000 based on my assumption that Tesla's current battery pack cost is in the $50,000 range. This projection also assumes that the battery costs continue to decline at about 8% per year. And for Tesla to remain profitable, the MSRP price should really be about twice that amount, or $68,000. And if lithium battery costs don't continue to drop in price, or demand for lithium ion based batteries increases beyond the industry's ability to supply it, then all bets are off as to what it might cost Tesla's owners to get a fresh battery pack when they've worn out the first one.
The Tesla's battery pack is rated at 53 kWh which is enough to power an average U.S. home for 2 days. It is assembled from 6831 individual type 18650 batteries, which are cylindrical cells with about twice the volume of an AA-size battery. They are the same cells used inside laptop batteries. These individual cells are connected together and packaged with a charge controller to monitor and level the charge of the individual cells. Just the wholesale cost for the batteries for that pack would be about $39K assuming a cost of $.74/Wh for Li-ion cells, which I have confirmed with a few Chinese battery suppliers as the typical wholesale pricing for Li-ion cells when purchased in volume.
In addition to the raw cost of the batteries, there is the labor cost of assembling the cells and the cost of the charge controller and housing. It also has a sophisticated arrangement of sensors, microprocessors, and its own liquid cooling system. When you add the assembly labor, controller, and packaging to hold 750 lbs of batteries, my estimate is that this pack costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $50K to manufacture.
Tesla is betting on the improvement in Li-ion technology (currently estimated to be 8% per year) to continue on and eventually get the battery replacement cost down to around $12K. It's not clear if that is Tesla's projected cost, or the replacement cost; they've been very tight lipped on battery replacement costs. Provided Li-ion technology can maintain an 8% annual level of improvement, it will take about 18 years for the wholesale cost of the battery pack to approach $12K.Automotive margins typically require twice the bill of materials cost as a price the customer ends up paying, and it's usually much higher for replacement parts. Let's just assume that Tesla can live with 50% of gross margin on the battery pack and so in order for the retail price to get to $12K, it would require yet another 9 years for the battery replacement retail pricing to get to this mythical level that some might consider a 'reasonable' price to pay for replacement batteries. And this assumes a continuous cost reduction of 8% for 27 years, which is almost unheard of except for improvements related to Moore's Law.
Battery technology, unlike semiconductor density which follows Moore's Law, does not improve at 60% per year. A 60% annual improvement is the equivalent of a doubling of the density of semiconductors every 18 months. No phenomenon has more confused the public about the rate of improvement of technology than Moore's Law. It doesn't apply to all technological progress, just semiconductor density. It doesn't even apply to the advancements in solar cell technology, even those are technically semiconductors. Increasing the density of semiconductors has the benefit of lower power consumption for computing tasks only. Moore's Law has very minor effects on the cost and efficiency of electric motors, energy controllers, and batteries. Those components are the major cost drivers in EVs.
The lead acid battery, discovered in 1859, has essentially remained unchanged in terms of its energy density for the past 150 years. It contains about .6% the amount of energy density of gasoline per pound. So 1 lb of gasoline ~ 20,000 BTU = 5.8 kWh = 156 lbs of lead acid batteries. The most amazing thing about lead acid batteries is that they still represent the best value in terms of $/Wh stored (about $.15/Wh) of any rechargeable battery. It explains why, after 150 years, lead acid batteries are still the workhorses for high energy/power applications like uninterruptible power supplies, car starter batteries, solar power storage banks, and other applications where weight isn't so much of an issue.
The lithium-ion battery, which was first used in consumer products starting in the early 1990s, has 4 times the energy density but costs about 5 times as much per watt-hour as lead-acid technology. The lower cost is why lead acid batteries are still used in golf carts and electric car conversion kits, despite the significant penalty associated with adding weight in mobility applications. But when you need 50+ kW-hours of energy storage to make an EV's range competitive with internal combustion vehicle, the weight of lead acid batteries becomes too high to consider. A Tesla's 53 kWh battery pack would weigh over 3,500 lbs. if it was made with lead-acid batteries and the extra weight it added would cut it's the Tesla's range in half. Adding heavy batteries in a mobility application becomes a vicious, self-feeding cycle. This article originally appeared here at EV Authority.
Tesla has not made any specific projections about when the car will need its first battery replacement but based on my experience with laptops and digital cameras which use the same lithium-ion battery technology, I would not be surprised if a Tesla would need a battery replacement every 4 to 5 years. At the time the first replacement is needed, even if sold at Tesla's cost, the battery would be about $34,000 based on my assumption that Tesla's current battery pack cost is in the $50,000 range. This projection also assumes that the battery costs continue to decline at about 8% per year. And for Tesla to remain profitable, the MSRP price should really be about twice that amount, or $68,000. And if lithium battery costs don't continue to drop in price, or demand for lithium ion based batteries increases beyond the industry's ability to supply it, then all bets are off as to what it might cost Tesla's owners to get a fresh battery pack when they've worn out the first one.
These short notes are from the opening plenary session at the Global Electric Vehicle Summit in Washington DC December 4th 2008. They are continued in subsequent articles and are tagged here at EV Authority for easy access, simply search EDTA.
The EDTA (Electric Drive Transportation Association) is focused on advocacy in Washington DC, that's why it's hosted here. The last event was in December 2006 (they occur every two years) and since the last conference took place, consumers are now able to choose from 20 models of hybrid and plugins are in production by many companies - progress is being made in the EV market. Two local TV stations were at the ride and drive on December 3rd where members of the conference could test drive vehicles and community members could catch a glimpse of next generation technology.
The conference will be focused on examining technology, policy, and investments over the next two days. Rick Casper has chaired the conference for the past three consecutive events and is visiting from Fargo North Dakota, representing Global Electric Motor cars. Sponsors of the event include PG&E, Toyota, GM, EnerDel, Honda, Edison, CPI, LG, Duke Energy, Miles, GEM.
The EDTA (Electric Drive Transportation Association) is focused on advocacy in Washington DC, that's why it's hosted here. The last event was in December 2006 (they occur every two years) and since the last conference took place, consumers are now able to choose from 20 models of hybrid and plugins are in production by many companies - progress is being made in the EV market. Two local TV stations were at the ride and drive on December 3rd where members of the conference could test drive vehicles and community members could catch a glimpse of next generation technology.
The conference will be focused on examining technology, policy, and investments over the next two days. Rick Casper has chaired the conference for the past three consecutive events and is visiting from Fargo North Dakota, representing Global Electric Motor cars. Sponsors of the event include PG&E, Toyota, GM, EnerDel, Honda, Edison, CPI, LG, Duke Energy, Miles, GEM.
I recently toured the Tesla show room in in Palo Alto California and got to check out several of the (already sold) Tesla Roadsters. In addition to the outlet in Palo Alto there is also a dealership on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. Unlike many car dealerships which have new models shipped in fully assembled, Tesla Roadsters arrive in parts from overseas and are then configured on site.
At the Palo Alto location there is a large glass window at the back of the showroom that peeks into the garage bay where several Roadsters are usually undergoing the final touches. The undercariage of a Tesla Roadster is quite different from a standard petrol powered vehicle. It is mostly aluminum and nearly flat with no pipes or other components dangling down creating empty space. The chassis weights just under 180 pounds and its unique design is both light, strong, and aeordynamic with very little drag above or below. Carbon fiber is used as trim on many parts of the vehicle and does a nice job looking cool and keeping the overall package light.
Peering into the Roadster and then getting inside I had the erie feeling of riding inside of my old Lian Li computer case, which was also aluminum... and quite fast in its own way. To be brutally honest, the Tesla is cold, dark, and it feels like a coffin. The foot area is a bit cramped and devoid of texture, the cockpit feels more like it was designed around the concept of a fast electric car than the driver. But hey, the good news is there's just enough room in the trunk for one set of golf clubs! and let's face it, if you just spent $109K on this car (which is the going rate) then you might be golfing alone for a while as your wife, girlfriend, or SO is recovering from jealousy of your new found companion. She won't keep you warm, but she will go very, very fast!
Just add a few tires and a steering wheel and she's practically a Tesla... This computer was custom designed and built by me in 2004 while attending the University of Colorado at Boulder. It was subsequently signed by the founder of Quiksilver, Rob McKnight and then auctioned off with all proceeds going to the Breast Cancer foundation. It now lives in Australia somewhere.
At the Palo Alto location there is a large glass window at the back of the showroom that peeks into the garage bay where several Roadsters are usually undergoing the final touches. The undercariage of a Tesla Roadster is quite different from a standard petrol powered vehicle. It is mostly aluminum and nearly flat with no pipes or other components dangling down creating empty space. The chassis weights just under 180 pounds and its unique design is both light, strong, and aeordynamic with very little drag above or below. Carbon fiber is used as trim on many parts of the vehicle and does a nice job looking cool and keeping the overall package light.
Peering into the Roadster and then getting inside I had the erie feeling of riding inside of my old Lian Li computer case, which was also aluminum... and quite fast in its own way. To be brutally honest, the Tesla is cold, dark, and it feels like a coffin. The foot area is a bit cramped and devoid of texture, the cockpit feels more like it was designed around the concept of a fast electric car than the driver. But hey, the good news is there's just enough room in the trunk for one set of golf clubs! and let's face it, if you just spent $109K on this car (which is the going rate) then you might be golfing alone for a while as your wife, girlfriend, or SO is recovering from jealousy of your new found companion. She won't keep you warm, but she will go very, very fast!
Just add a few tires and a steering wheel and she's practically a Tesla... This computer was custom designed and built by me in 2004 while attending the University of Colorado at Boulder. It was subsequently signed by the founder of Quiksilver, Rob McKnight and then auctioned off with all proceeds going to the Breast Cancer foundation. It now lives in Australia somewhere.
Today the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) yearly conference event began in Washington DC. Several prominent companies including Toyota and GM were present with prototype cars and electric drive systems including electric busses, neighborhood vehicles, and fuel cells. Over the coming days we will be reporting on the event right here at Electric Vehicle Authority including images and video. For more information on the conference visit www.electricdrive.org
Introduction
Whilst the personal automobile has brought with it many perceived benefits such as convenience, time saved, independence and even status, the use of this mode of transport in Australian cities has become excessive and unsustainable. This article examines the issue of Australia's dependence on cars for urban transport. It starts with a brief outline of the issue, and then goes on to explore some opportunities and barriers to addressing the problem from a variety of angles. Specifically, it looks at addressing the problem through five key approaches: individual / household, mainstream business, technocratic / design, radical, and government. The analysis is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead focuses on a few key areas for each approach. From the information presented, it can be seen that no single approach constitutes a silver bullet solution, and the development of sustainable urban transport systems in Australia will require strong initiative and action from all corners and in between.
The Need for Sustainable Urban Transport in Australia
For almost all Australians, cars have become the most favoured urban transport option, largely because they save time and are highly convenient. However, over time this has led to a dependence on cars, which is environmentally unsustainable. In terms of annual greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, the transport sector is the third largest (79.1 Million tons CO2-e or 14% of total) and second fastest growing (DCC 2008). Of all transport related greenhouse gas emissions, cars account for approximately 50% (BITRE 2008a, 24). Australia's dependence on cars is also economically unsustainable, and motorists have already seen evidence of (and felt) this: since 2003, average world oil prices have increased every year, and 2007 prices were almost double 2003 prices in real terms (EIA 2008, 1). In the absence of a global depression, this trend is set to continue as world peak oil nears. Sooner than one might expect, petrol will be unaffordable. Also, traffic congestion is becoming a serious problem in some cities, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, and these conditions are said to be responsible for a decline in productivity (ABC 2007). If current trends continue, it can be assumed that traffic congestion will become increasingly problematic, given that well over half a million new passenger cars are sold in Australia every year (BITRE 2008b). So, it is clear that Australia must take action to break the dependence on cars, and develop and implement sustainable urban transport systems now rather than later.
Individual / Household
Individuals and households are, for the most part, aware of ways to reduce the environmental impact and financial cost of their urban transportation. Moreover, this awareness can be translated into action through a powerful and universal faculty: the ability to choose.
Seyfang (2005) describes two different scenarios of 'ecological citizenship' that can develop: the 'mainstream' scenario involves a change in consumption patterns, whereas the 'alternative' scenario involves a change in lifestyle. Seyfang's concept can be applied to sustainable urban transport. For example, the mainstream scenario would see increasing use of hybrid cars and public transport. However, hybrid cars are still few and far between, and Cox (2006) points out that the use of public transport has been declining in Australia since the 1950s. The alternative scenario, on the other hand, would see more people walking and cycling instead of using motorised transport. Interestingly, bicycle sales have exceeded car sales over the last 4 years in Australia (CPF 2008), but it should also be noted that car sales are not decreasing.
So, what barriers are preventing the uptake of hybrid cars, public transport and active transport (walking and cycling)? In the case of hybrid cars, it can be assumed that uptake is largely hampered by the lack of choice. Not including luxury Lexus hybrid models that start at almost $100,000, Australian motorists have only two options: the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius, which sell for $33,000 and 38,000 respectively (HerCar 2008). These limited options obviously do not fit the budget and requirements of most car buyers today, though hybrid sales are increasing. Public transport in Australian cities lacks popularity due to poor service. In a recent survey conducted by AAMI (2007), 33% of commuters said public transport is unreliable, and 39% said they choose not to use public transport because it takes too long to reach their destination. This points to a need for improved public transport infrastructure. Time constraints are also a barrier to the uptake of active transport (particularly walking), but Garrard (2007) reveals that the uptake of cycling is also hindered by concerns about riding in traffic, aggression from motorists and inhaling exhaust fumes. In this case, there is a need to improve both cycling infrastructure and interactions between cyclists and motorists.
Despite many barriers to addressing the problem, individuals can, at the very least, make an effort to use alternative urban transport options when circumstances permit, rather than depending on a car exclusively and without thinking.
Mainstream Business
The need for sustainable urban transport presents significant opportunity for businesses and corporations. Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn (2007) point out that more businesses are finding they must now adopt sustainable practices if they are to maintain and receive increased support from shareholders, employees and customers. By implementing sustainable urban transport measures, businesses can build reputational capital and save money at the same time.
One way to do this is through so-called 'green fleets'. A number of companies have already greened their fleets (with the Toyota Prius), including Alcoa, Hertz and Australia Post (Alcoa 2004; TravelMole 2008; TMR 2008). In the United States, a number of companies are even offering payments to their employees for the purchase of hybrid cars (HybridCars 2008). There is no reason why Australian companies could not offer employee incentives like this. Green fleet contracts and employee incentives could also be facilitated to support each other. For example, where a green fleet contract exists, employees should have the ability to purchase their own hybrid car at 'fleet cost' through the supplier. In a telephone conversation with the author on November 6, 2008, Alex from Toyota Fleet confirmed that Toyota does offer such fleet price discounts. By combining fleet price discounts with employee incentives, a win-win scenario can be achieved: employers can build extra reputational capital without needing to offer massive incentives (because the supplier also provides a fleet price discount), employees can purchase hybrids for the lowest possible price, and the supplier sells more hybrids as a result.
As with the household and individual approach, the business approach is limited by a lack of choice, but there will be increasing opportunity for green fleets and employee incentives in the future, particularly as Toyota will begin manufacturing a Camry hybrid in Melbourne in 2010 (Toyota 2008). It should be pointed out that whilst the above-mentioned strategies can lead to increased environmental and economic sustainability, they do not directly address the problem of traffic congestion. Therefore, businesses should also consider offering employee incentives that encourage active transport between the home and workplace.
Technocratic / Design
A technocratic approach to sustainable urban transport involves not only technology itself, but the strategic selection and implementation of technology. The goal is to ensure the highest possible compatibility between the technology and the social / physical environment within which it is implemented, in order to achieve the desired outcome of sustainable urban transport.
In part, it is the misuse of this approach that has led to a dependence on cars in Australia. Newman (2006, 6) argues that the preferred mode of transport in any city is governed by the average travel time budget of 1 hour/person/day. He goes on to explain that since 1950, Australian cities have developed into 'auto cities', spreading more than 50km in all directions and at low density. Newman (2006, 7) states: "In Australian... cities, many people have no choice but to use a car due to land use patterns... the 1 hour travel time budget is threatened unless a car is used". Thus, it is suggested that public transport infrastructure be upgraded so that all corridors provide rapid transit (especially electric rail) systems that are faster than traffic and highly reliable. Certainly, there is a lot of room for improvement in this area, and it is an opportunity to strike a balance between environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and structural sustainability, whilst accommodating the one-hour travel time budget.
Such significant public transport infrastructure upgrades will take time, are expensive, and essentially constitute a band-aid fix (or bandage fix in this case) for poor urban design. Therefore, public transport infrastructure upgrades should not be considered without also looking at opportunities to improve urban design. This is not a simple task, and will likely involve ongoing trial and error. Curtis (2005, 175) concludes, "A review of the vast body of literature on urban form and sustainable transport shows that there is no one universal model of the ideal city form, rather a number of approaches." One thing is certain: if Australian cities do not change their structure, car dependence and congestion will continue to increase.
Radical
Radical approaches have in the past made a significant impact on urban transport systems. For example, the anti-road protests in Britain during the 1990s led to a slowing of road construction, a Road Traffic Reduction Act, and widespread media coverage. More recently in Australia, anti-road protesters have put increasing pressure on the Brumby Government to scrap the proposed extension of the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne (RPPG 2008). Granted, this kind of radical activism has proven to be successful in some cases, but more often than not it is overridden by the powers that be. Wall (1999, 8) suggests that activist movements have sometimes lacked sound political strategy, particularly with regards to mobilisation and development, thus lessening their effectiveness.
An alternative angle is that of 'Deep Ecology', as illustrated by Naess (1995). Deep Ecology relates back to Seyfang's concept of 'alternative' ecological citizenship, where one's lifestyle is based on a new perception of wellbeing and quality of life. For example, one might value personal and environmental health more than time or money, and therefore decide to walk or cycle instead of drive a car. Experience and observation indicate that this kind of behavioural change is still difficult to achieve on a wide-scale, but can be encouraged by promoting the benefits of sustainable urban transport, provided that the necessary provisions are in place.
Government
The Australian Government is one of few to adopt a sustainable transport strategy (others include the UK and NZ). The main functions of the strategy are to: inform consumer choices, work with industry to improve vehicle efficiency, and explore and develop the use of alternative fuels (DEWHA 2008). Most notably omitted from this list is a specific initiative to improve public transport. PTUA (2007, 13) explains the problem:
This imbalance needs to be addressed, as the building of more roads will only increase car usage and dependence. Clearly, there is an opportunity to redirect federal and state government funds away from new roads and toward public transport infrastructure.
The Government also has the ability to use pricing signals to encourage the uptake of sustainable urban transport, and Green Left (2007) makes a strong case for free public transport, pointing out that the loss of Government revenue from fares would be more than offset by substantial gains elsewhere. Aside from the obvious and substantial benefits of reduced car use, free public transport would also improve the quality and efficiency of the service itself e.g. faster boarding times, and removal of the need for ticket equipment and personnel. Free public transport already exists in Australia, but its provision is restricted to certain areas, certain times, and certain people. If public transport was to be made free for all people, in all areas, and at all times, then infrastructure must be able to cope with increased demand. A trial period would be useful in assessing and projecting the demand for free public transport.
Conclusion
Sustainable urban transport is an issue that demands urgent attention in Australia. Addressing the issue will require a great deal of government leadership, financial investment, structural change, technological development, forethought, behavioural change, and common sense. Such changes will take time and may be difficult, but there are many opportunities for advancement. The individual approaches discussed in this paper constitute the bigger and broader solution that is needed, and the effectiveness of each approach is dependent upon integrated action. It is this integrated action that will serve as a means for overcoming the barriers to addressing the problem through each individual approach. Opportunities should be grasped now, as delaying will only make a bad situation worse.
References
AAMI. 2007. Commuters Shun Public Transport for Cars. http://www.aami.com.au/Resources/File.aspx?id=80 (accessed November 5, 2008).
ABC. 2007. 'Get real' call on Sydney Traffic Congestion. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/04/12/1895019.htm (accessed November 4, 2008).
Alcoa. 2004. Alcoa's New Toyota Prius fleet is World's Most Eco-Friendly. http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/Prius.asp (accessed November 5, 2008).
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. 2008a. Australian Transport Statistics June 2008. http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/40/Files/ATS_2008.pdf (accessed November 4, 2008).
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. 2008b. Australian Transport Statistics Yearbook 2007. http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/files/BITRE_Yearbook.pdf (accessed November 4, 2008).
Cox, Dr John B. 2006. Less Public Transport = More Social Equity. Issues 76: 11-16.
Curtis, Carey. 2005. Network City: Retrofitting the Perth Metropolitan Region to Facilitate Sustainable Travel. Urban Policy and Research 24 (2): 159-180.
Cycling Promotion Fund. 2008. Bicycle Sales in Australia. http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/177/150 (accessed November 5, 2008). Department of Climate Change. 2008. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/2006/index.html (accessed November 4, 2008).
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2008. Sustainable Transport. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/index.html (accessed November 7, 2008).
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., and Benn, S. 2007. Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents for the Future. London: Routledge.
Energy Information Administration. 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2008).pdf (accessed October 22, 2008).
Garrard, Jan. 2007. Media Release - Large Cycling Study Finds Room for Improvement to Uptake. http://www.deakin.edu.au/news/upload/221107cyclingstudy.pdf (accessed November 5, 2008).
Green Left. 2007. The Case for Free Public Transport. http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/703/36537 (accessed November 7, 2008).
HerCar. 2008. Why Buy a Hybrid Car? http://www.hercar.com.au/articles/item/23875?gclid=CJOn5cGq3ZYCFRg6awody3Qz2g (accessed November 5, 2008).
HybridCars. 2008. Corporate Incentives for Hybrid and Alternative Cars. http://www.hybridcars.com/corporate-incentives.html (accessed November 5, 2008).
Naess, A. 1995. Deep Ecology and Lifestyle. Chapter 26 in Sessions, G. 1995. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambhala. 259-261.
Newman, Professor Peter. 2006. Sustainable Transport for Sustainable Cities. Issues 76: 6-10.
Public Transport Users Association. 2007. Moving Australians Sustainably - Transport Policy in the National Interest. http://www.ptua.org.au/federal/moving_australians-web.pdf (accessed November 7, 2008).
Royal Park Protection Group. 2008. Protest Schedules for Premier Brumby's Transport Summit. http://www.ycat.org.au/docs/Royal%20Park%20Protection%20Gr...%20Brubmy's%20Transport%20Summit.pdf (accessed November 6, 2008).
Seyfang, G. 2005. Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship. Environmental Politics 14 (2): 290-306.
The Motor Report. 2008. Australia Post Fleet Will Feature More Hybrids. http://www.themotorreport.com.au/7024/australia-post-fleet-will-feature-more-hybrids (accessed November 5, 2008).
Toyota. 2008. Hybrid Camry Benefits Fleets. http://www.toyota.com.au/toyota/fleet/ArticleDetail/0,4810,2026_722_13261,00.html (accessed November 5, 2008).
TrevelMole. 2008. Hertz to Operate 500 Toyota Prius Hybrids in Aus. http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1129757.php (accessed November 5, 2008).
Wall, D. 1999. Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement. London: Routledge.
Whilst the personal automobile has brought with it many perceived benefits such as convenience, time saved, independence and even status, the use of this mode of transport in Australian cities has become excessive and unsustainable. This article examines the issue of Australia's dependence on cars for urban transport. It starts with a brief outline of the issue, and then goes on to explore some opportunities and barriers to addressing the problem from a variety of angles. Specifically, it looks at addressing the problem through five key approaches: individual / household, mainstream business, technocratic / design, radical, and government. The analysis is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead focuses on a few key areas for each approach. From the information presented, it can be seen that no single approach constitutes a silver bullet solution, and the development of sustainable urban transport systems in Australia will require strong initiative and action from all corners and in between.
The Need for Sustainable Urban Transport in Australia
For almost all Australians, cars have become the most favoured urban transport option, largely because they save time and are highly convenient. However, over time this has led to a dependence on cars, which is environmentally unsustainable. In terms of annual greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, the transport sector is the third largest (79.1 Million tons CO2-e or 14% of total) and second fastest growing (DCC 2008). Of all transport related greenhouse gas emissions, cars account for approximately 50% (BITRE 2008a, 24). Australia's dependence on cars is also economically unsustainable, and motorists have already seen evidence of (and felt) this: since 2003, average world oil prices have increased every year, and 2007 prices were almost double 2003 prices in real terms (EIA 2008, 1). In the absence of a global depression, this trend is set to continue as world peak oil nears. Sooner than one might expect, petrol will be unaffordable. Also, traffic congestion is becoming a serious problem in some cities, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, and these conditions are said to be responsible for a decline in productivity (ABC 2007). If current trends continue, it can be assumed that traffic congestion will become increasingly problematic, given that well over half a million new passenger cars are sold in Australia every year (BITRE 2008b). So, it is clear that Australia must take action to break the dependence on cars, and develop and implement sustainable urban transport systems now rather than later.
Individual / Household
Individuals and households are, for the most part, aware of ways to reduce the environmental impact and financial cost of their urban transportation. Moreover, this awareness can be translated into action through a powerful and universal faculty: the ability to choose.
Seyfang (2005) describes two different scenarios of 'ecological citizenship' that can develop: the 'mainstream' scenario involves a change in consumption patterns, whereas the 'alternative' scenario involves a change in lifestyle. Seyfang's concept can be applied to sustainable urban transport. For example, the mainstream scenario would see increasing use of hybrid cars and public transport. However, hybrid cars are still few and far between, and Cox (2006) points out that the use of public transport has been declining in Australia since the 1950s. The alternative scenario, on the other hand, would see more people walking and cycling instead of using motorised transport. Interestingly, bicycle sales have exceeded car sales over the last 4 years in Australia (CPF 2008), but it should also be noted that car sales are not decreasing.
So, what barriers are preventing the uptake of hybrid cars, public transport and active transport (walking and cycling)? In the case of hybrid cars, it can be assumed that uptake is largely hampered by the lack of choice. Not including luxury Lexus hybrid models that start at almost $100,000, Australian motorists have only two options: the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius, which sell for $33,000 and 38,000 respectively (HerCar 2008). These limited options obviously do not fit the budget and requirements of most car buyers today, though hybrid sales are increasing. Public transport in Australian cities lacks popularity due to poor service. In a recent survey conducted by AAMI (2007), 33% of commuters said public transport is unreliable, and 39% said they choose not to use public transport because it takes too long to reach their destination. This points to a need for improved public transport infrastructure. Time constraints are also a barrier to the uptake of active transport (particularly walking), but Garrard (2007) reveals that the uptake of cycling is also hindered by concerns about riding in traffic, aggression from motorists and inhaling exhaust fumes. In this case, there is a need to improve both cycling infrastructure and interactions between cyclists and motorists.
Despite many barriers to addressing the problem, individuals can, at the very least, make an effort to use alternative urban transport options when circumstances permit, rather than depending on a car exclusively and without thinking.
Mainstream Business
The need for sustainable urban transport presents significant opportunity for businesses and corporations. Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn (2007) point out that more businesses are finding they must now adopt sustainable practices if they are to maintain and receive increased support from shareholders, employees and customers. By implementing sustainable urban transport measures, businesses can build reputational capital and save money at the same time.
One way to do this is through so-called 'green fleets'. A number of companies have already greened their fleets (with the Toyota Prius), including Alcoa, Hertz and Australia Post (Alcoa 2004; TravelMole 2008; TMR 2008). In the United States, a number of companies are even offering payments to their employees for the purchase of hybrid cars (HybridCars 2008). There is no reason why Australian companies could not offer employee incentives like this. Green fleet contracts and employee incentives could also be facilitated to support each other. For example, where a green fleet contract exists, employees should have the ability to purchase their own hybrid car at 'fleet cost' through the supplier. In a telephone conversation with the author on November 6, 2008, Alex from Toyota Fleet confirmed that Toyota does offer such fleet price discounts. By combining fleet price discounts with employee incentives, a win-win scenario can be achieved: employers can build extra reputational capital without needing to offer massive incentives (because the supplier also provides a fleet price discount), employees can purchase hybrids for the lowest possible price, and the supplier sells more hybrids as a result.
As with the household and individual approach, the business approach is limited by a lack of choice, but there will be increasing opportunity for green fleets and employee incentives in the future, particularly as Toyota will begin manufacturing a Camry hybrid in Melbourne in 2010 (Toyota 2008). It should be pointed out that whilst the above-mentioned strategies can lead to increased environmental and economic sustainability, they do not directly address the problem of traffic congestion. Therefore, businesses should also consider offering employee incentives that encourage active transport between the home and workplace.
Technocratic / Design
A technocratic approach to sustainable urban transport involves not only technology itself, but the strategic selection and implementation of technology. The goal is to ensure the highest possible compatibility between the technology and the social / physical environment within which it is implemented, in order to achieve the desired outcome of sustainable urban transport.
In part, it is the misuse of this approach that has led to a dependence on cars in Australia. Newman (2006, 6) argues that the preferred mode of transport in any city is governed by the average travel time budget of 1 hour/person/day. He goes on to explain that since 1950, Australian cities have developed into 'auto cities', spreading more than 50km in all directions and at low density. Newman (2006, 7) states: "In Australian... cities, many people have no choice but to use a car due to land use patterns... the 1 hour travel time budget is threatened unless a car is used". Thus, it is suggested that public transport infrastructure be upgraded so that all corridors provide rapid transit (especially electric rail) systems that are faster than traffic and highly reliable. Certainly, there is a lot of room for improvement in this area, and it is an opportunity to strike a balance between environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and structural sustainability, whilst accommodating the one-hour travel time budget.
Such significant public transport infrastructure upgrades will take time, are expensive, and essentially constitute a band-aid fix (or bandage fix in this case) for poor urban design. Therefore, public transport infrastructure upgrades should not be considered without also looking at opportunities to improve urban design. This is not a simple task, and will likely involve ongoing trial and error. Curtis (2005, 175) concludes, "A review of the vast body of literature on urban form and sustainable transport shows that there is no one universal model of the ideal city form, rather a number of approaches." One thing is certain: if Australian cities do not change their structure, car dependence and congestion will continue to increase.
Radical
Radical approaches have in the past made a significant impact on urban transport systems. For example, the anti-road protests in Britain during the 1990s led to a slowing of road construction, a Road Traffic Reduction Act, and widespread media coverage. More recently in Australia, anti-road protesters have put increasing pressure on the Brumby Government to scrap the proposed extension of the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne (RPPG 2008). Granted, this kind of radical activism has proven to be successful in some cases, but more often than not it is overridden by the powers that be. Wall (1999, 8) suggests that activist movements have sometimes lacked sound political strategy, particularly with regards to mobilisation and development, thus lessening their effectiveness.
An alternative angle is that of 'Deep Ecology', as illustrated by Naess (1995). Deep Ecology relates back to Seyfang's concept of 'alternative' ecological citizenship, where one's lifestyle is based on a new perception of wellbeing and quality of life. For example, one might value personal and environmental health more than time or money, and therefore decide to walk or cycle instead of drive a car. Experience and observation indicate that this kind of behavioural change is still difficult to achieve on a wide-scale, but can be encouraged by promoting the benefits of sustainable urban transport, provided that the necessary provisions are in place.
Government
The Australian Government is one of few to adopt a sustainable transport strategy (others include the UK and NZ). The main functions of the strategy are to: inform consumer choices, work with industry to improve vehicle efficiency, and explore and develop the use of alternative fuels (DEWHA 2008). Most notably omitted from this list is a specific initiative to improve public transport. PTUA (2007, 13) explains the problem:
Federal funding for road projects is generally only provided if matching funds are also provided by the state government. As a result, state governments can be required to direct a significant portion of their transport expenditure to road projects that are jointly funded by the federal government. In effect, the current federal transport funding framework not only starves public transport of federal funding, it also reduces the share of state funding that is available for improving public transport.
This imbalance needs to be addressed, as the building of more roads will only increase car usage and dependence. Clearly, there is an opportunity to redirect federal and state government funds away from new roads and toward public transport infrastructure.
The Government also has the ability to use pricing signals to encourage the uptake of sustainable urban transport, and Green Left (2007) makes a strong case for free public transport, pointing out that the loss of Government revenue from fares would be more than offset by substantial gains elsewhere. Aside from the obvious and substantial benefits of reduced car use, free public transport would also improve the quality and efficiency of the service itself e.g. faster boarding times, and removal of the need for ticket equipment and personnel. Free public transport already exists in Australia, but its provision is restricted to certain areas, certain times, and certain people. If public transport was to be made free for all people, in all areas, and at all times, then infrastructure must be able to cope with increased demand. A trial period would be useful in assessing and projecting the demand for free public transport.
Conclusion
Sustainable urban transport is an issue that demands urgent attention in Australia. Addressing the issue will require a great deal of government leadership, financial investment, structural change, technological development, forethought, behavioural change, and common sense. Such changes will take time and may be difficult, but there are many opportunities for advancement. The individual approaches discussed in this paper constitute the bigger and broader solution that is needed, and the effectiveness of each approach is dependent upon integrated action. It is this integrated action that will serve as a means for overcoming the barriers to addressing the problem through each individual approach. Opportunities should be grasped now, as delaying will only make a bad situation worse.
References
AAMI. 2007. Commuters Shun Public Transport for Cars. http://www.aami.com.au/Resources/File.aspx?id=80 (accessed November 5, 2008).
ABC. 2007. 'Get real' call on Sydney Traffic Congestion. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/04/12/1895019.htm (accessed November 4, 2008).
Alcoa. 2004. Alcoa's New Toyota Prius fleet is World's Most Eco-Friendly. http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/Prius.asp (accessed November 5, 2008).
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. 2008a. Australian Transport Statistics June 2008. http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/40/Files/ATS_2008.pdf (accessed November 4, 2008).
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. 2008b. Australian Transport Statistics Yearbook 2007. http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/files/BITRE_Yearbook.pdf (accessed November 4, 2008).
Cox, Dr John B. 2006. Less Public Transport = More Social Equity. Issues 76: 11-16.
Curtis, Carey. 2005. Network City: Retrofitting the Perth Metropolitan Region to Facilitate Sustainable Travel. Urban Policy and Research 24 (2): 159-180.
Cycling Promotion Fund. 2008. Bicycle Sales in Australia. http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/177/150 (accessed November 5, 2008). Department of Climate Change. 2008. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/2006/index.html (accessed November 4, 2008).
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2008. Sustainable Transport. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/index.html (accessed November 7, 2008).
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., and Benn, S. 2007. Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents for the Future. London: Routledge.
Energy Information Administration. 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2008).pdf (accessed October 22, 2008).
Garrard, Jan. 2007. Media Release - Large Cycling Study Finds Room for Improvement to Uptake. http://www.deakin.edu.au/news/upload/221107cyclingstudy.pdf (accessed November 5, 2008).
Green Left. 2007. The Case for Free Public Transport. http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/703/36537 (accessed November 7, 2008).
HerCar. 2008. Why Buy a Hybrid Car? http://www.hercar.com.au/articles/item/23875?gclid=CJOn5cGq3ZYCFRg6awody3Qz2g (accessed November 5, 2008).
HybridCars. 2008. Corporate Incentives for Hybrid and Alternative Cars. http://www.hybridcars.com/corporate-incentives.html (accessed November 5, 2008).
Naess, A. 1995. Deep Ecology and Lifestyle. Chapter 26 in Sessions, G. 1995. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambhala. 259-261.
Newman, Professor Peter. 2006. Sustainable Transport for Sustainable Cities. Issues 76: 6-10.
Public Transport Users Association. 2007. Moving Australians Sustainably - Transport Policy in the National Interest. http://www.ptua.org.au/federal/moving_australians-web.pdf (accessed November 7, 2008).
Royal Park Protection Group. 2008. Protest Schedules for Premier Brumby's Transport Summit. http://www.ycat.org.au/docs/Royal%20Park%20Protection%20Gr...%20Brubmy's%20Transport%20Summit.pdf (accessed November 6, 2008).
Seyfang, G. 2005. Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship. Environmental Politics 14 (2): 290-306.
The Motor Report. 2008. Australia Post Fleet Will Feature More Hybrids. http://www.themotorreport.com.au/7024/australia-post-fleet-will-feature-more-hybrids (accessed November 5, 2008).
Toyota. 2008. Hybrid Camry Benefits Fleets. http://www.toyota.com.au/toyota/fleet/ArticleDetail/0,4810,2026_722_13261,00.html (accessed November 5, 2008).
TrevelMole. 2008. Hertz to Operate 500 Toyota Prius Hybrids in Aus. http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1129757.php (accessed November 5, 2008).
Wall, D. 1999. Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement. London: Routledge.
EV Resources
EV Companies