Microsoft Word - Urban Scale Vehicles Final PaperMaking the Case for Small Cars in the United States
CEE 6602 Urban Transportation Planning
December 15, 2010
The Current American Minicar Market ..................................................................................................... 6
Deterrents to Minicar Sales in the U.S. Market ........................................................................................ 7
Factors Contributing to Successful USV Integration ................................................................................. 8
Case Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Location & Density .................................................................................................................................. 10
Modes of Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 12
Classifications of USV Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 15
Dedicated Infrastructure Design Standards ............................................................................................ 17
Parking .................................................................................................................................................... 22
Consumer Expenditure ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2: GM & Segway P.U.M.A. [6]………………………………………………………………………………………………….. .... 2
Figure 3: Myers NmG [7] ............................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 4: CityCar shown beside Ford Explorer and Toyota Prius [3] ............................................................. 3
Figure 5: Emission reduction findings from Lincoln, CA NEV study [17] ....................................................... 5
Figure 6: U.S. Regular Gasoline Prices 1991-2009 ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 7: City of Lincoln[28] ........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 8: Peachtree City, GA ....................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: Bikeway miles have a positive correlation with number of cyclists. Source [33] ........................ 14
Figure 10: Complete streetscape including a shared USV and bicycle lane[1] ........................................... 14
Figure 11: Example of how a protected USV and bike lane might look ...................................................... 16
Figure 12: Example of how an unprotected USV and bike lane might look ............................................... 16
Figure 13: Example of how a dedicated path for USVs and bicycles might look ........................................ 16
Figure 14: A left-turning USV conflicts with a car traveling straight. .......................................................... 18
Figure 15: A right-turning car conflicts with a USV traveling straight. ....................................................... 18
Figure 16: a. Portland’s Green Box gives bicycles priority access to the intersection. ............................... 19
Figure 17: Launch pad intersection configuration ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 18: Road Side Dedicated Lane.......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 19: Sidewalk Side Dedicated Lane.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 20: Integrated parking lot charging stations. Source: [34] .............................................................. 23
Figure 21: Car-sharing allows for reduced parking space requirements. Source: Vairaini 2010 ................ 24
Figure 22: An entire block of parking can be converted to green space using car-sharing designs. [35] .. 24
Figure 23: Legal Use of Low Speed Vehicles by State (IIHS) ....................................................................... 26
Figure 24: NHTSA Crash Test Results for the smart Fortwo ....................................................................... 28
Figure 25: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crash Test Results for smart Fortwo ........................... 28
List of Tables
Table 2: Comparison of the Fortwo, Nano, and 800 ..................................................................................... 7
Table 3: Comparison of the Fortwo and Aveo .............................................................................................. 8
Table 4: World Petrol Prices ......................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5: Mode Share of Journeys to Work from the 2000 Census Data ..................................................... 12
Table 6: NEV User Preferred Facilities ........................................................................................................ 17
1
Introduction
Urban Scale Vehicles (USVs) have constituted a significant portion of the transportation modal share in
much of Europe, India, and Japan for decades, but have never been popular vehicles in the United
States. The reasons for this unpopularity in the U.S. are plentiful, ranging from safety issues to gasoline
and vehicle prices; however, climbing fuel prices, rampant traffic congestion in every major city, and
growing concerns over the environmental impact of automobiles make USVs a viable alternative to
traditional vehicles in the 21st century. This paper will motivate the adoption of USVs in the United
States and provide analysis and suggestions on how USVs can successfully be adopted.
The typical automobile in use in the United States is designed for long distance, inter-city travel. Most
automobiles are capable of reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, traveling distances of 300
miles without the need to refuel, and carrying five or more people and their luggage[1]. Typical
automobiles are designed to these specifications despite the fact that 82% of residents in the United
States live and work in urban areas and do not require vehicles designed for inter-city travel on a daily
basis [2].
Using traditional vehicles in cities has created negative side effects. Designing vehicles for high
occupancy and long range travel requires vehicles to be large and operate on gasoline or bio-fuels. The
large size further contributes to increased congestion on metropolitan roadways. In 2007, motorists in
the U.S. were delayed an average of 36 hours per year due to peak-period traffic congestion and wasted
a total of 2.8 billion gallons of fuel [3]. Air quality has also been affected as internal combustion engines
emit volatile hydrocarbons, CO, CO2, NOx, and particulate matter into their immediate surroundings [4].
To mitigate the negative effects of automobiles in urban areas, many agencies have promoted the use of
transit and carpooling programs in most large cities. While the impact of carpooling and transit use has
been positive, the amount of commuters using these options is relatively small with 10.7% of
commuters carpooling and 5% of commuters using transit nationally [5]. One reason that people are
reluctant to carpool or use transit is that these options do not provide the flexibility and access offered
by a personal vehicle.
Because traditional cars are not designed for urban use and transit and carpooling have had only limited
success, it is recommended that the use of urban scale vehicles be encouraged in the United States. A
USV is broadly defined as a personal vehicle that is designed to take advantage of urban driving habits
and demands. They provide the flexibility of a personal automobile while reducing congestion and
2
pollution compared to traditional automobiles. Figures 1-3 show three USVs that are available or are in
the planning stages in the United States.
Figure 1: M.I.T. CityCar [1]
Figure 2: GM & Segway P.U.M.A. [6] Figure 3: Myers NmG [7]
USVs are designed to meet a different set of vehicle demands than traditional automobiles. For
instance, Americans in urban and suburban areas tend to drive alone or with low occupancy; the
average vehicle occupancy rate during commuting hours is only 1.14 persons per vehicle [8]. Commuting
does not require the 300 mile range a typical car is capable of achieving, as the average commute in the
United States is 11.8 miles with 29% of commutes being less than five miles in length. In fact, 48% of all
trips, regardless of time or purpose, are shorter than three miles [9-10]; furthermore, vehicles in urban
settings are traveling at speeds much slower than traditional cars are designed to achieve, with typical
city streets having speed limits of 20-45 mph.
3
Size and Weight
Recognizing that motorists tend to travel alone and at relatively low speeds, USVs can be much smaller
than traditional automobiles. After researching the various sizes of USVs available in other nations and
compariing other countries’ size standards, it is recommended that USVs in the United States have a
width no larger than 55 inches and a length no larger than 110 inches. This number represents a
tradeoff between the sizes of USVs currently available and right of way constraints that may impede the
development of USV specific infrastructure. This design standard is similar to standards for quadricycles
and micro-vehicles used in in other coutrires, such as the Japanese Kei-Car [11].
Designing vehicles a fraction of the size of traditional automobiles can have a tremendous impact on
congestion. Assuming a single driver, the smaller size of the vehicle would reduce the amount of space
necessary to move one person, offsetting the need to expand roadways in order to increase capacity.
The size of the MIT CityCar, a standard USV, is compared to common vehicles such as the Ford Explorer
and Toyota Prius in Figure 4.
Figure 4: CityCar shown beside Ford Explorer and Toyota Prius [3]
As Table 1 shows, small cars such as the Honda Civic occupy 85 square feet, while large SUVs such as the
Ford Explorer can occupy more than 120 square feet [12]. Comparing these footprints to USVs such as
the CityCar and P.U.M.A., we see that USVs occupy approximately one third to one fifth of the space of a
typical car [1, 13].
Impact on Energy Efficiency and Emissions
In addition to space savings, decreasing vehicle size leads to significant savings in weight, whi
leads to increased energy efficiency. Defining energy efficiency as the percentage of motive force
moving one vehicle occupant, heavier vehicles prove to be wasteful. For instance, the average American
weighs 177 lbs and a Ford Explorer weight
in motion, 96% of the motive force is moving the vehicle. Only 4% of the motive force goes towards
moving the passenger [13], compared to a small USV like the P.U.M.A. where 17% of the motive force
goes towards moving the passenger. Simply by reducing the weight, a significant increase in energy
efficiency is achieved.
In addition to increased energy efficiency due to weight reduc
opens new possibilities for fuel sources. Designing a vehicle to travel 300 miles without refueling
necessitates the use of fossil fuels or bio
any other technology. For instance, a gallon of gasoline is approximately 30
dense than a lithium-ion battery [1]
impractical for storing enough energy to move a car long distances; however, with the knowledge that
city trips and commutes are generall
electric energy.
Although it is not necessary for a USV to be electrically powered, doing so leads to improvements in
vehicle emissions. These emissions improvements come from removing the “co
“cold start” problem refers to the period of time after engine ignition, generally a few minutes, when
the engine runs very inefficiently due to having not yet achieved optimal operating temperature.
According to a 2002 report by the California Energy Commission
“It is well documented that cold
Due to cold-start fuel enrichment, subsequent
4
Impact on Energy Efficiency and Emissions
In addition to space savings, decreasing vehicle size leads to significant savings in weight, whi
leads to increased energy efficiency. Defining energy efficiency as the percentage of motive force
moving one vehicle occupant, heavier vehicles prove to be wasteful. For instance, the average American
weighs 177 lbs and a Ford Explorer weights 3950 lbs [14-15]; this means that when the Ford Explorer is
in motion, 96% of the motive force is moving the vehicle. Only 4% of the motive force goes towards
pared to a small USV like the P.U.M.A. where 17% of the motive force
goes towards moving the passenger. Simply by reducing the weight, a significant increase in energy
In addition to increased energy efficiency due to weight reduction, easing constraints on vehicle range
opens new possibilities for fuel sources. Designing a vehicle to travel 300 miles without refueling
necessitates the use of fossil fuels or bio-fuels since the energy density of these fuels is unmatched by
er technology. For instance, a gallon of gasoline is approximately 30-40 times more energy
[1]. The low energy density of electric batteries makes them
impractical for storing enough energy to move a car long distances; however, with the knowledge that
city trips and commutes are generally short, it becomes possible to power light-weight USVs with
Although it is not necessary for a USV to be electrically powered, doing so leads to improvements in
vehicle emissions. These emissions improvements come from removing the “cold start” problem. The
“cold start” problem refers to the period of time after engine ignition, generally a few minutes, when
the engine runs very inefficiently due to having not yet achieved optimal operating temperature.
he California Energy Commission [16]:
It is well documented that cold-start emissions have significant impact on air quality.
start fuel enrichment, subsequent quenching of hydrocarbons in a cold
In addition to space savings, decreasing vehicle size leads to significant savings in weight, which in turn
leads to increased energy efficiency. Defining energy efficiency as the percentage of motive force
moving one vehicle occupant, heavier vehicles prove to be wasteful. For instance, the average American
; this means that when the Ford Explorer is
in motion, 96% of the motive force is moving the vehicle. Only 4% of the motive force goes towards
pared to a small USV like the P.U.M.A. where 17% of the motive force
goes towards moving the passenger. Simply by reducing the weight, a significant increase in energy
tion, easing constraints on vehicle range
opens new possibilities for fuel sources. Designing a vehicle to travel 300 miles without refueling
fuels since the energy density of these fuels is unmatched by
40 times more energy
. The low energy density of electric batteries makes them
impractical for storing enough energy to move a car long distances; however, with the knowledge that
weight USVs with
Although it is not necessary for a USV to be electrically powered, doing so leads to improvements in
ld start” problem. The
“cold start” problem refers to the period of time after engine ignition, generally a few minutes, when
the engine runs very inefficiently due to having not yet achieved optimal operating temperature.
impact on air quality.
5
engine, and the delayed attainment of proper operating temperatures of the catalytic
converter, between 60 and 80% of the toxic air emissions from automobiles occur
during the cold-start period.”
The potential environmental benefits of removing these cold-starts are demonstrated in Figure 5, which
shows the results of a study in Lincoln, CA where 5000 neighborhood electric vehicles were introduced
into the modal share. It was assumed that each vehicle would travel 1000 miles per year with an
average trip of 2.78 miles. The results of the study showed a significant reduction in total emissions,
with the most striking reduction coming from a 60 ton per year decrease in carbon monoxide emissions
[16].
Figure 5: Emission reduction findings from Lincoln, CA NEV study [17]
The adoption of USVs in American cities by will lead to decreased congestion on urban and suburban
streets due to the reduced footprint of USVs compared to traditional vehicles, create a more energy
efficient fleet of vehicles by decreasing vehicle weight, and reduce vehicle emissions by enabling the use
of electric powertrains. The remaining portion of this paper provides a detailed treatment of the issues
that must be tackled before USVs are introduced into the United States on a large scale. These issues
include ensuring that USVs are financially practical, determining how towns can foster USV growth in
their communities, designing infrastructure for safe operation of USVs on roadways, and creating a
hospitable state and federal regulation environment to encourage USV adoption.
6
Market Share of Urban Scale Vehicles
In order to accurately predict the market integration of USVs in America, current market trends in the
U.S. and worldwide should be taken into consideration. Although vehicles of these specifications are
not currently in mass production in the United States, their potential advantages coupled with current
market trends indicate that conditions are becoming favorable for their inclusion in the future vehicle
fleet.
Minicars are currently the most similar in specification and utility to the urban scale vehicle, and thus its
market share is the one that USVs will hope to encompass. Worldwide, smaller vehicles with higher fuel
efficiency are gradually capturing a larger market share of personal automobiles – most notably in
Europe, Japan, and India. From 2008 to 2009, the European market share of small vehicles increased
from 38.8% to 44.9%, while overall average engine size and power of vehicles sold both decreased by
5% [18]. Currently, approximately one-third of annual new car sales in Japan are minicars [19]. India
has also experienced similar growth in their auto sales patterns; their largest auto-manufacturer, Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd., controls nearly half of India’s car market, with over 65% of this share dealing in the
small and mini auto segment [20-21]. With such a growing worldwide trend of minicar sales, it would
seem that the U.S. would be soon to follow suit; however, certain market factors present in other
countries are not currently found in the U.S.
The Current American Minicar Market
First introduced to the U.S. in January of 2008, the smart Fortwo is most representative of America’s
current minicar segment. The Fortwo debuted in the U.S. after a decade of worldwide sales and hoped
to revolutionize the minicar segment in the U.S. by riding on the coattails of the trending “green”
movement. This potential success, however, was short-lived. Over the next few years, the Fortwo’s
popularity in the U.S. experienced a steep decline, resulting in a total aggregate sales figure of around
40,000 vehicles. By 2010, year-to-year sales were down by nearly 70% within the first seven months and
total 2010 sales are expected to comprise only a third of total 2008 sales [22]. Based on these numbers
and American vehicle purchasing trends, CSM Worldwide’s seven-year forecast predicts that fewer than
100,000 minicars will be sold annually in the U.S. through 2013 [23].
7
Deterrents to Minicar Sales in the U.S. Market
In light of this discrepancy between the U.S. and world markets, the determination of market variants
and deterrents are important in predicting whether or not the minicar segment will fail or succeed.
Market factors do not account for all of the sales differences, however, as there is a substantial
difference between the types of minicars in the U.S. and in India. This is very noticeable when
comparing the specifications of two of India’s bestselling cars of this segment, the Tata Nano and the
Maruti (Suzuki) 800, side by side with the smart Fortwo, as seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of the Fortwo, Nano, and 800
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/, http://www.maruti800.com/, http://tatanano.inservices.tatamotors.com/tatamotors/index.php
When comparing the three vehicles, the Fortwo is substantially more expensive and powerful than the
other two, and has marginally better fuel efficiency than the 800. Another important factor is that the
Fortwo is a two-door, two-seater, while both Indian vehicles have a more convenient four-door, four-
seat layout.
Differences in average income and vehicle standards between India and the United States also
contribute to differences in vehicles – India is a relatively poorer country, while many of the standard
safety features of American vehicles account for the increased weight and price; however, even
comparing the Fortwo with a Chevy Aveo subcompact, we can see that a larger vehicle with more
practicality and utility can be purchased at a similar cost with only a minor sacrifice in fuel efficiency, as
seen in Table 3.
Seats 2 4 4
Doors 2 4 5
Dimensions (LxWxH inches) 106.1 x 61.38 x 60.71 122 x 58.9 x 65 131.5 x 56.7 x 55.3
Fuel Economy (combined) 36 mpg 55.5 mpg 33.4 mpg
Avg Travel Distance 313.2 miles 438.5 miles 247.2 miles
Fuel Tank Size 8.7 gal 7.9 gal 7.4 gal
Weight 1,808 - 1,852 lbs 1,300 - 1,400 lbs 1,433 lbs
Engine Spec 3 cyl / 1 liter 2 cyl / 624 cc 2 cyl / 800 cc
Power 70 hp @ 5800 rpm 35 hp @ 5250 rpm 37 hp @ 5000 rpm
Acceleration 12.8 sec (0-60 mph) 8 sec (0-37 mph) 19.8 sec (0-62 mph)
Top Speed 90 mph 65 mph 87 mph
8
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/
The affordability of minicars makes these vehicles more popular in poorer countries, as owners balance
personal mobility with capital cost. In the U.S., however, the cost difference of the Fortwo when
compared to other subcompacts is negligible, which allows owners to purchase larger vehicles.
Additionally, the rising cost of gasoline impacts other parts of the world more greatly than in the U.S.
Comparing average petrol prices in the U.S. to other nations, Indians pay almost twice as much at $4.92
compared to $2.72 per gallon, while people in Europe pay up to 250% more at nearly $7 per gallon as
seen in Table 4.
www.kshitij.com/research/petrols.html, www.eia.doe.gov, www.theaa.com
Factors Contributing to Successful USV Integration
Given the current state of minicar sales in the U.S., the prediction given by CSM Worldwide that fewer
than 100,000 minicars will be sold annually through 2013 seems on par, as there is relatively little to no
incentive to own a USV by today’s standards. However, even though today’s market may not favor USV
integration, current market trends do indicate that it may do so in the future. Gasoline prices are likely
to be a major factor in USV integration, and as shown in Figure 6, they have been steadily on the rise.
Smart ForTwo Chevy Aveo
Seats 2 5
Power 70 hp @ 5800 rpm 108 hp @ 6400 rpm
Acceleration 12.8 sec (0-60 mph) 9.3 sec (0-60 mph)
Cargo Space 7.8 cu ft 37.2 cu ft
World Petrol $ per Gal. $ per Gal. $ per Gal. $ per Gal.
Prices (2005) (2008) (2009) (2010)
USA 2.24 3.21 2.32 2.72
India 4.63 5.77 4.59 4.92
UK 5.19 6.41 5.95 6.96
9
Figure 6: U.S. Regular Gasoline Prices 1991-2009
Rising fuel costs coupled with rising congestion in urban areas has contributed to a decrease in large car
sales by 1.4% during the past year [24]. If fuel prices increase even further to prices comparable with
those in other countries, a shift in personal travel patterns will likely occur.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have also become more stringent over the years
in an effort to reduce nationwide fuel consumption and decrease emissions. As of May 2009, the target
fuel efficiency rating was raised to a fleet average of 35.5 mpg (39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for trucks)
to be achieved by the year 2016, replacing the original goal of 35 mpg by 2020 [25]. Though this
standard still trails Europe’s current 40 mpg average fuel economy (that will soon rise to 49 miles per
gallon) and Japan’s expected 47 mpg 2015 standard [26], more stringent CAFE standards can lead to
improved vehicle performance and technological advancements. These trends can help spark the
production and increase the demand of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Case Studies
The City of Lincoln, California and Peachtree City, Georgia are good examples of how to implement USVs
on a larger scale. These communities in the United States have made substantial progress with the
implementation of NEVs and golf carts, respectively. Since the size and design of NEVs and golf carts are
10
similar to that of a USV, some features of these cities can provide insight on how to design for USVs
throughout the country. Some important features of these communities are density, transportation
system use, and local incentives used to promote use of these vehicles. USVs could mitigate many
critical problems such as congestion, air and noise pollution, and urban sprawl within the community;
however, the effectiveness of doing so depends on the compatibility of facilities in the community with
the vehicles. After reviewing studies of these cities, which have systems of infrastructure and incentives
designed to encourage the use of non-traditional, smaller vehicles, there are certain criteria which
indicate that a community may be compatible with USVs, namely location, density, travel patterns, and
incentives.
Location & Density
Both Lincoln and Peachtree City are classified as suburban areas and are located outside of Sacramento,
CA and Atlanta, GA respectively. According to the 2000 Census, the population of both cities is very
similar in numbers, 33,000 in Lincoln and 37,000 in Peachtree City; however, Peachtree City is twice as
dense as Lincoln [27].
11
Use of Small Vehicles
Lincoln and Peachtree City both have high rates of use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and golf
carts, thanks to a well established physical infrastructure system. Reports show that in both cities more
than 60% of people who own an NEV or golf cart use it at least five days a week [27, 29]. In a survey of
NEV users conducted in Lincoln, 70% of NEV owners use them to travel more than 500 miles per year
and 23% of owners travel more than 1,000 miles per year by NEV [27]. Since USVs are a completely new
concept in urban transportation planning, a large amount of risk is involved. Surprisingly, 24% of NEV
owners sold one of their traditional gasoline powered vehicles after purchasing an NEV [27].
Furthermore, 38% of survey respondents said they would drive at least 50 additional miles per week if it
were safe and legal to do so within the city limits. This demonstrates that individuals are willing to use
smaller, more efficient vehicles when if it is safe and convenient.
12
Modes of Transportation
The 2000 Census data shows that almost 80% of the people in the City of Lincoln used personal
automobiles as their primary mode of transportation for commuting and no residents commuted by
transit, as shown in Table 5. Also, contrary to initial projections, NEV implementation in Lincoln did not
increase transit ridership [27-28]. The Lincoln Short Range Transit Plan states that a connection
between the NEV and transit networks must be considered in order to reduce congestion. Such
connections could be established through a “Park and Ride” program, which designates priority spaces
at transit stops specifically for users of NEVs [30]; therefore, communities that have adequate public
transportation systems in place will be able to establish connections with USVs in order to enhance the
level of service of the entire transportation network.
Table 5: Mode Share of Journeys to Work from the 2000 Census Data
City Drive
Means
Subtotal
Recreational Use
Increasing cohesion of the community is another important goal of implementing USVs. The size of
urban scale vehicles limits the ability of drivers to make large shopping trips, encouraging shorter, single
purpose trips to local stores. Furthermore, from a survey conducted by California State University, 94%
of NEV users use their NEV to participate in social events [27], which shows that these vehicles are
useful for more than just commuting. In the City of Lincoln, one potential goal of NEVs was to create a
more social and interactive society within a community [31]. In addition, the economy of the
community could also be boosted by implementing USVs in city planning in an effort to encourage use
of local businesses [31].
13
Incentives
Due to today’s advanced technology, some vehicles and USVs are solely powered by electricity. Placing
electric vehicle charging stations in parking decks or by on-street parking could appeal to people who
are interested in USVs but may be concerned with their limited range. In addition to the extra
designated parking spaces and lanes for NEV owners, free charging stations were built to attract more
people to buy NEV in Lincoln, CA [31]. According to General Electric, charging stations are powerful
enough to fully charge a standard sized vehicle in three to four hours [32]. Due to the smaller batteries
used in USVs, these smaller vehicles could be charged much faster. Users of USVs could find it
convenient to work or shop while charging their USVs in parking lots. However, extra caution is needed
throughout the implementation of the charging stations; engineers need to be careful on specification
of the power outlet because the outlet could create social and safety issues. For example, outlets may
be used for purposes other than charging, or may create a risk of electrocution.
Infrastructure for Urban Scale Vehicles
In order for urban scale vehicles to gain a significant transportation mode share, the USV driver must
feel safe and be able to travel easily and conveniently throughout his or her city. Many of the same
concerns that arise with USV use (for example safety when used alongside larger automobiles and
access to right of way) also arise with the use of bicycles. Worldwide, the cities which boast the highest
percentages of bicycle use (Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and in the United States Portland, OR and Davis,
CA) all have achieved significant mode share through investment in bicycle specific infrastructure. Data
from the City of Portland shown in Figure 9, demonstrates that as the number of miles of bicycle
infrastructure increases so does the number of cyclists using the bikeways. Similarly, as roadways are
built or widened, drivers change their patterns to make use of the new infrastructure. The same “if you
build, they will follow” concept is expected to apply to urban scale vehicles as well.
14
Figure 9: Bikeway miles have a positive correlation with number of cyclists. Source [33]
The infrastructure options for urban scale vehicles include separated lanes and paths as well as
dedicated traffic signals. Bicycle lanes can be expanded to accommodate USVs with shared space, as
shown in Figure 10. This image of a “complete street” integrating USVs with bicycles, pedestrians, and
other vehicles is the vision of the designers of the CityCar at MIT.
Figure 10: Complete streetscape including a shared USV and bicycle lane[1]
The following sections illustrate the various types of infrastructure available for USVs, where and how
this infrastructure should be implemented, and who should have access to this infrastructure.
15
Classifications of USV Infrastructure
As with bicycle lanes, USV lanes are designed to accommodate vehicles moving more slowly than the
average speed of traffic along a corridor. For USVs, this means speeds of less than 35 mph; therefore,
even if a USV is capable of achieving speeds higher than 35 mph, they should be forbidden from doing so
while utilizing USV-specific infrastructure. This maximum speed can be enforced by utilizing USV and
bicycle speed limit signs. Due to their similar design requirements, USV lanes can also double as bicycle
lanes; however, not all bicycle lanes will meet the width requirements to accommodate USVs.
For the purposes of this study, USV lanes are placed into three broad categories: protected lanes,
unprotected lanes, and dedicated paths. A protected lane is a dedicated lane that is protected by a
barrier for the exclusive use of USVs and bicycles. Protected lanes have the advantage of having a
physical barrier protecting USVs and bicycle users from other traffic, but include the disadvantage of not
allowing the USVs and bicycles to merge out of the lane. Figure 11 shows a protected lane filled with
bicycles that is also wide enough to accommodate USVs.
An unprotected lane is a lane that is separated from the standard roadway by a solid or dashed line for
the exclusive use of USVs and bicycles. Unprotected lanes lack the physical safety barrier separating
bicycles and USVs from other traffic, but make it easier for USVs and bicycles to merge in and out of the
lane. Shown in Figure 12 is an unprotected bicycle lane that is wide enough to accommodate USVs and
could easily be converted to a USV/bicycle lane by including appropriate signage.
16
The third classification of USV infrastructure is the dedicated path, shown in Figure 13. A dedicated path
is a path that does not closely follow alongside a road or street. A typical path is wide enough to
accommodate two or more USVs traveling in opposite directions, however single lane paths are also an
option. Dedicated paths provide the most protection from vehicles since they do not share road space
with moving traffic and parked cars are not present, however dedicated paths may not provide the same
level of access as the other types of dedicated infrastructure.
Figure 13: Example of how a dedicated path for USVs and bicycles might look
A survey conducted in the City of Lincoln, where neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) are widely used,
showed that separated lanes were preferred by 76.9% of NEV users who responded to the survey. The
separated NEV lanes around Lincoln are unprotected lanes. A surprisingly low percentage of
respondents prefer NEV-only paths, at only 8.97%. The full results of the survey question are shown in
Figure 12: Example of how an
unprotected USV and bike lane might look
Figure 11: Example of how a protected
USV and bike lane might look
17
Table 6 and demonstrate that drivers want the accessibility and convenience provided by the existing
major road network rather than dedicated pathways that may not provide the same level of access as
the roadways. As USVs are very similar to NEVs except smaller and meeting NHTSA safety standards, the
preference for separate lanes would most likely apply to USVs as well.
Table 6: NEV User Preferred Facilities
Facility Type Response
Separated NEV lanes 76.9%
Dedicated Infrastructure Design Standards
Creating infrastructure is not as straightforward as drawing a line along a street and declaring it a USV
lane. Issues arise when creating separate vehicle infrastructure and these issues must be addressed
before separate USV infrastructure becomes a safe and viable option. These issues include:
• How do USVs and other traffic interact at intersections?
• How large should USV lanes be?
• How do USVs share space with bicycles?
• How do USVs share space with parked cars?
• Who has access to USV lanes?
• Who has priority in USV lanes?
Proposed solutions to these problems are illustrated below.
How do USVs and other traffic interact at intersections?
When implementing vehicle-specific infrastructure, a troublesome problem to address is handling
conflicts that arise at intersections. In Figure 1414 and Figure 15 two of the most common conflicts are
illustrated. In Figure 14, a USV is attempting to make a left turn from the USV lane while a car traveling
in the normal traffic lane is continuing straight, and in Figure 15 a car traveling in the normal traffic lane
is attempting to turn right while the USV is continuing straight.
The simplest way to avoid these conflicts is to allow USVs to merge into the regular left
however on high speed or multi-lane roadways, this move
are common for bicycle-specific infrastructure and solutions have been created that USVs may adapt in
order to increase safety at intersections.
One way to work around these conflicts is to incorporate a specific
intersection signal timing. In addition, at locations where there is a large volume of USV traffic, a USV
left turn bay could be added to allow through and right turning vehicles to proceed
location for left turning USVs to wait until they are signaled through the intersection.
Cities such as Portland have implemented novel bicycle infrastructure called green boxes, which can be
adapted for USV use as well. The green box shown in Figure
waiting traffic at a red light and gives them a head start to turn left when the light turns green. Figure
16b shows how this infrastructure can be implemented for USVs at a signalized intersection to give them
priority access to the intersection for the purpose of making left turns.
Figure 14: A left-turning USV conflicts with
a car traveling straight.
18
The simplest way to avoid these conflicts is to allow USVs to merge into the regular left
lane roadways, this move may be dangerous. These types of conflicts
specific infrastructure and solutions have been created that USVs may adapt in
order to increase safety at intersections.
One way to work around these conflicts is to incorporate a specific USV and bicycle only phase in the
intersection signal timing. In addition, at locations where there is a large volume of USV traffic, a USV
be added to allow through and right turning vehicles to proceed while providing a
eft turning USVs to wait until they are signaled through the intersection.
Cities such as Portland have implemented novel bicycle infrastructure called green boxes, which can be
adapted for USV use as well. The green box shown in Figure 16a, allows bicycles to move ahead of
waiting traffic at a red light and gives them a head start to turn left when the light turns green. Figure
shows how this infrastructure can be implemented for USVs at a signalized intersection to give them
ntersection for the purpose of making left turns.
Figure 15: A right-turning car conflicts with a
USV traveling straight. turning USV conflicts with
The simplest way to avoid these conflicts is to allow USVs to merge into the regular left-turn lane;
may be dangerous. These types of conflicts
specific infrastructure and solutions have been created that USVs may adapt in
USV and bicycle only phase in the
intersection signal timing. In addition, at locations where there is a large volume of USV traffic, a USV
while providing a
Cities such as Portland have implemented novel bicycle infrastructure called green boxes, which can be
es to move ahead of
waiting traffic at a red light and gives them a head start to turn left when the light turns green. Figure
shows how this infrastructure can be implemented for USVs at a signalized intersection to give them
turning car conflicts with a
19
Finally, launch pads provide an option for left turning USVs and bicycles when on-street parking is
located between the standard lanes and the USV lane. A launch pad allows a USV to proceed straight
through the intersection and stop on the launch pad until the signal changes, allowing the driver to
complete the left turn movement. For example, a driver using the launch pad shown in Figure 17 would
proceed northbound on the through green, wait on the launch pad, then proceed westbound once the
signal phase changes to allow east-west through movement.
Figure 17: Launch pad intersection configuration
Figure 16: a. Portland’s Green Box gives bicycles priority access to the intersection.
(Photo of PDX bike box via itdp@flickr) b. Sketch of a full intersection with USV boxes.
N
20
How large should USV lanes be?
Based on the maximum width of roughly 4.7’ for a USV, the minimum striping width should be 7’ wide
for single lanes and 11’ for shared bicycle and USV passing areas. The 11’ foot recommendation is based
on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ recommended bicycle lane
width of 4-5 feet. These wider passing areas would allow faster USV drivers to pass slower bicyclists
who travel well below the speed limit.
How do USVs share space with bicycles?
Since dedicated infrastructure for USVs can also easily accommodate bicycle traffic and it is impractical
to build separate facilities for both USVs and bicycles, it is expected that the two vehicles should share
the same infrastructure. This may lead to conflicts as USVs may wish to pass slower moving bicycles.
When a USV is passing a bicycle, or vice versa, the passing vehicle should give an audible signal such as a
bell to alert the vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle should then proceed to pass on the left.
It should be noted that it is not required that all USV lanes be wide enough to accommodate bicycles
and USVs to ride abreast. In the scenario that these two vehicles do not have room to pass, passing will
not be permitted and this information will be communicated to the vehicles with proper signage.
How do USVs share space with parked cars?
On many streets, parallel parking for traditional automobiles is present. In this scenario, careful
consideration must be paid to ensure that the USVs are not within the “door zone” of the parked
vehicles. When roadside parking is present, AASHTO recommends that the total width of a bicycle lane
and the space set aside for parking be no less than 12 feet. This width needs to be increased in order to
accommodate USVs. It is recommended that the total width of a USV lane and space set aside for
parking be no less than 15 feet.
Another decision to make regarding parked cars is whether to place the USV lane on road side or
sidewalk side of the parked cars. The most common practice for bicycle infrastructure is to place the
dedicated lane on the road side of the parked cars, as seen in Figure 18. However since the driver’s door
is the door most likely to open, it is becoming more common to place the bicycle lane on the sidewalk
side of the parked cars, as seen in New York in Figure 19. Placing the lanes closer the sidewalk has the
added benefit of creating the opportunity to utilize USV launch pads. One drawback to placing the USV
and bicycle lane closer to the sidewalk is that, due to the small height of USVs, USV drivers and standard
21
automobile drivers may not be able to see one another through the line of parked cars. This may cause
conflicts at intersections. Choosing the appropriate location for the lanes will be a situation-specific
decision.
Who has access to USV lanes?
USV lanes are created to provide safe access to convenient locations for low-speed urban scale vehicle
users. Therefore, all USVs, regardless of achievable speed, are permitted to utilize the infrastructure.
Faster USVs, capable of reaching speeds greater than 35 mph, are permitted to utilize USV lanes
provided that they do not exceed the 35 mph limit. Bicycles are also permitted to utilize USV lanes since
they share many of the same safety and speed limitations of USVs, and it is largely impractical to
construct separate bicycle and USV lanes. Creating separate bicycle and USV infrastructures would lead
to very complicated intersection signaling and very wide avenues. It may also be acceptable to allow
low speed scooters (with less than 50cc engines) to access these lanes, as including this set of users will
likely increase the base of support for USV infrastructure construction.
Who has priority in USV lanes?
Priority in USV lanes goes to the faster moving vehicle. Slower moving vehicles should keep to the right
side of the lane to allow for faster moving vehicles to pass on the left. Just as in regular traffic, all
passing should be signaled to avoid collisions.
Figure 19: Sidewalk Side Dedicated Lane. Figure 18: Road Side Dedicated Lane.
22
Parking
Developing parking infrastructure for urban scale vehicles will be a challenge that cities will need to face
if implementation of these vehicles is to be successful. There are multiple options available, including
on-street parking, dedicated parking lot spaces, standard spaces used by other vehicles, and car-sharing
areas. The timing of installing parking infrastructure to accommodate USVs will be an important part of
the process as well, as regulations will need to be developed in order to avoid wasted space while USVs
are not abundant but becoming increasingly present in the vehicle mix.
On-Street Parking
On-street spaces are a cost-effective method of providing parking for USVs. The small size of the vehicle
allows for a USV to park either parallel or perpendicular to the curb using less right-of-way than
traditional vehicles would need. On-street parallel parking could be permitted on low speed boulevards
in locations where there is insufficient space for larger vehicles to park parallel to the travel lane. In
addition, two or three USVs could park perpendicularly in one standard size parallel parking space on
low speed boulevards that do provide standard parallel parking spaces.
On dedicated USV paths on-street parking would take up little additional space. Standard dimensions
will need to be developed to accommodate the majority of the vehicles without using an unnecessary
amount of additional pavement. Although cities usually create their own standard parking space sizes,
the MUTCD shows parallel parking space dimensions of 8’ wide by 22’-26’ long, or 20’ long for an end
space. Based on the maximum size of current USV’s of around 4.7’x9’, a standard minimum USV parking
space size of 6.5’x11’ is recommended.
Parking Lots
Sections of parking lots dedicated to urban scale vehicles can be incorporated into new and existing lots.
Because the spaces will be much smaller than existing ones, extensive re-striping of existing lots will be
necessary in order to make the best use of the available space. Converting rows of standard 8’x22’
spaces with 24’ distance in the aisles between rows into USV rows of 6.5’x11’ spaces with 12’ in the
aisles would allow for more than 2.5 times the number of vehicles to park in the same size lot.
Alternatively, if larger spaces are replaced with USV parking at a one to one vehicle ratio, existing
impervious land could be converted to green space or developed for other purposes.
Additionally, parking spaces are a prime location for potential recharging of electric USVs. Figure 20
shows an example of possible inductive charging stations integrated into a parking lot, with sidewalks in
23
between rows of vehicles. Built-in curb and parking space charging stations can be integrated into the
parking infrastructure for a more aesthetically pleasing environment and to reduce the need for
recharging structures.
Parking Transition
While transitioning from a society with almost no urban scales vehicles to a society where urban scale
vehicles are a considerable percentage of the vehicle fleet, parking requirements for the few USVs in use
must be considered. Parking infrastructure should be implemented no later than when roadway
infrastructure construction is completed. Based off of bicycle and standard sized vehicular
infrastructure, the saying “when you build, they will come” holds true. Thus, once USV lanes or
dedicated USV paths are constructed, the number of USVs on the roads will increase.
Discounted parking is also a good incentive for drivers to switch to urban scale vehicles. For areas that
charge for parking, USVs could be charged half or a third of the price of a regular sized vehicle. A
selection for “Type of Vehicle” could be programmed into the newer electronic parking meters, allowing
a USV driver to pay for only a portion of a numbered parking spot. With the varying sizes of USVs, it will
be a challenge to predetermine what percentage of a spot a USV driver should pay for, as it could range
from fifty percent to much less if three or four vehicles were parked in one spot. The decision would rest
with the city; however, a standard recommendation would be one third of the regular price.
Enforcement could also be difficult, as a parking officer would not know which USV to ticket when the
meter shows payment for only one USV but two are parked in the spot. A solution would be to have
smaller striped spaces within the original parking spot that are designated a, b, and c. While this limits
the flexibility that USV drivers have in fitting as many vehicles in one space as possible, it would allow for
24
better enforcement and fixed rates of one third of the regular parking price. Public outreach would also
be needed in order to ensure that the public knows what a USV is, what the new striping within the
spaces represents, and that a larger vehicle can still park in the full spot if no USVs are present.
Car-Sharing
Using vehicles such as the CityCar, parking requirements could be significantly reduced if urban scales
vehicles were implemented as a car-sharing program. Fewer vehicles would be necessary, reducing the
number of required spaces; furthermore, using concepts such as MIT’s CityCar [33], vehicles could be
parked more closely together or “stacked” without the need to provide accessibility to all vehicles.
Similar to a row of shopping carts, as long as one is accessible the rest can be stacked as shown in Figure
21. Using this type of design, an entire city block could be converted from a parking lot into green space,
as demonstrated in Figure 22 [33]. Other benefits and types of car-sharing programs are discussed in
further detail in the Implementation section.
Figure 21: Car-sharing allows for reduced parking space requirements. Source: Vairaini 2010
Figure 22: An entire block of parking can be converted to green space using stacking car-sharing designs. [35]
25
Regulation
If the benefits of urban scale vehicles are to be realized, the regulatory environment must be hospitable
to their adoption. Because of the environmental, congestion mitigation, and cost benefits that arise
from the use of USVs, it would behoove the government, both at the local and federal levels, to
encourage the purchase and use of these vehicles in place of existing automobiles and to provide
uniform standards for their use. These goals can be accomplished in three ways: providing tax
incentives for the purchase of USVs, mandating lower registration and insurance costs, and adding a
definition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) list of vehicle size classes, clearly defining a
USV as a class of automobile.
Tax incentives can lower the real cost of a vehicle purchase by several thousand dollars, depending on
the size and type of incentive. Currently, the federal government offers a $2500 - $7500 tax credit (a
reduction by that amount in an individual’s total annual tax bill) for plug-in electric vehicles, depending
on battery size [34]. Urban scale vehicles would likely qualify for the $2500 credit, and for a vehicle
costing around $10,000, the credit would lower the cost of the vehicle purchase by around 25%. This
tax credit currently expires in 2013, but could easily be replaced by a new tax credit using a similar
framework.
The registration of automobiles and a minimum amount of liability insurance are both mandatory in all
states, although the particular costs and requirements vary from state to state. While USVs could be
implemented using the existing regulations for automobiles without any changes, lowering registration
costs, lowering insurance costs, and removing the requirements for emissions inspections would further
incentivize their use. For these incentives, the U.S. could use Japan’s “kei cars” as an example. The kei
cars (short for “,” “keijidösha,” which translates as “light automobile”) are limited by vehicle
size, engine size, and power output. As a trade-off, the registration fee is lower than it would be for a
passenger car, and the insurance premiums are also lower [11]. The vehicles are still given a license
plate, however, and look like other vehicles on the road, only smaller. These plates reinforce the idea
that USVs have the same access to the roadway as other vehicles, despite their unusual appearance.
This would allow for an easier transition into more innovative urban scale vehicle design. The separate
registration fee would be codified at the state level, as would the mandate from state government that
insurance premiums be scaled to cost less than premiums for general automobiles. Specifics would be
set either through state regulatory agencies or by the democratic process in state legislatures.
26
The tax incentives, registration discount, and insurance reductions could all be implemented under
current state regulations, but the size requirements ultimately selected could vary from state to state
unless codified by the federal government. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) defines an automobile by saying, “An automobile is any 4-wheeled vehicle that
is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and
highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.” [35] Several exceptions are made
for large vehicles, but not for smaller vehicles. As no special requirements need to be made for urban
scale vehicles at the federal level, we recommend that the EPA, rather than the NHTSA, create a
subclass of the automobile called “urban scale vehicles” that are limited by size. Creating a subclass of
the automobile rather than a new type of vehicle means that while the vehicles must comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, they also would be allowed on all public streets and highways
across the United States. The issue of access to public roads is non-trivial; when the NHTSA created a
separate class of vehicle for Low Speed Vehicles, their legal use and regulation varied greatly among
states, as seen in Figure 23. Having USVs be a special type of automobile rather than a special class of
vehicle makes them compatible with existing legal structures for roadway use and allows individual
states to cite the EPA regulations when defining registration and insurance incentives.
Figure 23: Legal Use of Low Speed Vehicles by State (IIHS)
27
Safety
Every year, thousands of Americans are injured or killed on the highway. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration is charged with ensuring that the vehicle fleet is reasonably well equipped to
protect road users both through safety equipment requirements and crashworthiness standards. For
issues of safety and legal road use, it is recommended that the NHTSA hold urban scale vehicles to the
same standards as automobiles.
While it is reasonable to consider exempting USVs from certain safety standards, the consequences can
be further reaching than just the trade-off between cost and safety. Consider the low speed vehicle
category, a vehicle type that the NHTSA defined in the 1990s as having a maximum speed greater than
20 mph and less than 25 mph. NHTSA required stricter safety equipment with the intent that the
vehicles would be used in low speed settings only; these vehicles were not legally automobiles and
would not require registration and insurance. However, NHTSA does not dictate where vehicles can be
used, and many states set regulations allowing these vehicles on roads with speed limits up to 45 miles
per hour. When vehicle manufacturers requested a “Medium Speed Vehicle” category, the NHTSA
denied the request, saying that vehicles traveling up to 35 mph are essentially automobiles, as that is
the speed of the frontal crash test [36]. Specifically, the NHTSA wrote that, “We believe it is neither
necessary nor appropriate to significantly increase the risk of deaths and serious injuries to save fuel.”
Having urban scale vehicles comply with the same Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as
automobiles aligns with the NHTSA’s belief that all vehicles on public road should be crashworthy and
properly equipped. Further, making urban scale vehicles compliant with the FMVSS allows them instant
access to the existing road and street network as automobiles, so states that are slow to adopt
incentives and separate infrastructure for USVs will not be excluding them from their highways. This
helps avoid the patchwork of regulations about legal use that low speed vehicles experience (and
instead replaces it with a much less hostile patchwork of incentives).
Some urban scale vehicles currently in development, such as the GM Puma, use only two or three
wheels. This creates an interesting situation because NHTSA definition states that two or three wheeled
USVs are legally motorcycles [37]. While the regulations vary by state and municipality, many locations
require that motorcycle users wear a DOT approved helmet when operating or riding a motorcycle. This
should remain the case if the vehicle cannot comply with the FMVSS for automobiles; however, an
28
exemption could be applied by adding language to the effect of, “Where a motorcycle is enclosed and
also complies with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the operator and passengers are exempt
from helmet requirements.” It is reasonable to assume, however, that these regulations will be slow to
change, and as such the desire to not have drivers wear a helmet will dictate that most USV designs will
at least initially have four wheels.
Urban scale vehicles can conform to the same standards of safety that do full sized automobiles. While
meeting these standards will certainly increase the cost of an urban scale vehicle, the standards also
increase the cost of a full sized automobile, but the savings in lives and injuries is generally considered
worth the trade-off; since federal safety standards have been implemented, they are estimated to have
saved over 340,000 lives in the United States alone [38]. Microcars have already complied with these
regulations. The smart Fortwo met the NHTSA’s crashworthiness standards and ranked well on the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (an independent crash testing agency) crash tests, as seen in
Figures 24 and 25. Using innovative safety measures such as composite materials and using the
suspension system to absorb crash energy, automakers can meet these safety standards for even
smaller cars.
Figure 24: NHTSA Crash Test Results for the smart Fortwo
Figure 25: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crash Test Results for smart Fortwo
29
Implementation
The cost of implementing USV programs in existing transportation infrastructure consists of several
elements: the capital cost and maintenance cost of infrastructure improvements, the cost associated
with expanding current utility and public services, and consumer expenditure in purchasing USVs.
Capital and Maintenance Cost
Compared to the cost of constructing a conventional suburban road network, the cost for providing two
completely separate infrastructures for light-weighted vehicles and heavy vehicles does not vary much,
as demonstrated by the study of Delucchi and Kurani [39]. Several factors contribute to the reduction in
capital investment for USV infrastructure, such as lower requirements for road capacity because of their
lower weight, less roadside material installations (traffic signals, signs, barriers, or medians), and
reduced costs for water runoff treatment due to narrower road width.
Federal funding sources that may be available for the construction of USV infrastructure are Federal
Highway Administration funds, as well as the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement
program which finances efforts to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. State matching funds may
come from a state general fund, a state Department of Economic Development, or state transportation
infrastructure banks. The possibility of receiving matching funds largely depends upon existing funds and
existing needs, with special emphasis on congestion relief and combining investments in existing road,
sidewalk, and streetscape improvement projects.
At the local level, long-term reallocation of existing millage or collecting additional millage from
community improvement districts has the potential to generate bonding capacity to cover the capital
cost of new infrastructure through taxing commercial property owners who are the major beneficiaries.
The revenues from creation of tax allocation districts can either support bond issuance for capital cost or
be directly spent on covering operating costs for the USV infrastructure. In addition, the operation and
maintenance cost for USV infrastructure can be funded through collecting fuel taxes (even in states
where motor fuel taxes are constitutionally limited to roads and bridges), property taxes, and sales
taxes, as well as the issuance of city bonds backed by future tax revenues.
30
Utility and Public Service
Though the USV lane is separated from the high-speed heavy vehicles, the light, water, sewer, fire and
communication infrastructure can still be either shared between the two or supplied at a smaller scale
for USVs. Because of the designated speed limits on light-weight vehicle roadways, there could be less
demand for police services which lowers the enforcement cost. Electrically-driven light vehicles raise the
cost of offering recharging infrastructure for the public sector; however, merchants and private parking
facilities possess the incentives to invest in public recharging stations in order to attract more customers
and generate extra revenue. From the perspective of electric utility providers, automatic recharging
stations introduce the advantage of expanding the battery storage capacity of existing grids [40]. In
consequence, the cost for providing utility and public service for USVs should not require special
financing strategies.
Consumer Expenditure
For households, the cost of owning and operating USVs is much less compared to that of traditional fast-
moving heavy vehicles. According to the estimation of Delucchi and Kurani [39], employing the
Advanced Vehicle Cost and Energy Use Model, low-speed, lightweight vehicles will induce lower costs in
energy (either electric or combustion engine fuel), maintenance, repair, and inspection. Owners of USVs
will enjoy lower insurance costs because of enhanced safety measures, lower registration costs because
of lower value, and lower fuel taxes because of increased energy efficiency.
As previously mentioned, the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 authorized a
ten percent federal tax credit not exceeding $2,500 for electrically-driven light vehicles, including four-
wheeled, battery-powered neighborhood electric cars as long as certain requirements are met regarding
battery capacity, further bringing down the upfront cost of purchasing electrical USVs [41]. For
households who are unable to afford owning private USVs, the provision of USV infrastructure in
conjunction with car sharing programs in the urban setting will reduce the cost of personal mobility.
Car Sharing Programs
Owning private automobiles not only places the cost burden of the vehicle purchase, licensure, taxes,
registration, insurance, maintenance, fuel, and parking on their owners, but also imposes external costs
on the society by creating congestion and pollution problems. While the cars owned by private
individuals are sitting idle for most of the day, they occupy valuable space in cities which could
otherwise be developed.
31
The shared ownership of USVs provides users with fractional costs of ownership as well as on-demand
mobility and accessibility. If USVs are located at the major urban origin and destination points, such as
transit stations, airports, hotels, grocery stores, universities, etc., users will be able to pick up and return
the vehicles from USV parking lots that are even closer to their final destination than private parking
lots. By integrating USV sharing into a citywide, intelligently coordinated, shared-use mobility system,
the distance between transit stations and real origins or final destinations is bridged, which promotes
transit ridership while reducing the traffic congestion and fuel consumption which result from drivers
looking for parking spaces in cities [42]. Studies on car sharing programs implemented in Europe and
North America have observed reduction in private automobile ownership, gasoline consumption and
emissions, and a growth of transit ridership [43-44].
The Atlanta BeltLine redevelopment project is an integrated approach to address land use,
transportation, greenspace, and sustainable development issues for the future growth of the Atlanta
region. Providing a network of combined multi-use trails, transit, and public parks along a historic 22-
mile railroad corridor, the project connects major urban activity centers and attractions in 45
neighborhoods surrounding Atlanta’s urban core [45].
The complete separation between the two infrastructures designed for public transit and for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic has created a safer environment for the operation of USVs. Options for transit on the
BeltLine have been narrowed down to a streetcar or light rail. The right of way for streetcars can be
easily shared with USVs, and allowing USVs to use the lane when streetcars are not present helps take
full advantage of the infrastructure without added construction. If the authority favors light rail instead
of a streetcar, a new technology called “rubber highway,” invented and tested in the U.K., has the
potential to provide another solution. Made entirely from recycled tires, the rubber highway can be
rapidly installed on existing or new track beds. The width of rail track can easily accommodate two-lane
traffic of USVs. The cost for constructing 1.6 kilometers (about 1 mile) of rubber highway is estimated to
be less than £1.4 million (US $2.2 million), which is less than 10% of the construction cost of £20 million
(US $31.6 million) for a new road at the same length [46].
The 22-mile loop rail will also connect to existing MARTA heavy rail at five locations and future transit
projects such as the Peachtree Streetcar and Atlanta-Macon commuter rail. If USV parking lots installed
with recharging facilities are provided at the major transit stations along the BeltLine corridor, USV
owners and users of car sharing program will have access to MARTA heavy rail and bus service, urban
32
activity centers, and residential neighborhoods at a much lower cost compared to heavy vehicle owners.
On the other hand, designating USV lanes and operating car sharing programs on the BeltLine opens
another option to individuals who prefer the convenience and privacy of driving their own vehicles or
occasional users who are only utilizing USVs when running urgent errands.
Zipcar is currently the world’s largest car sharing system. In 2006, Zipcar teamed up with the Midtown
Transportation Solution and the Downtown Transportation Management Association to offer car sharing
service at a reduced price for Atlanta-based companies and organizations [47]. It suggests an alternative
means of commuting which promotes the use of transit, biking, walking, carpooling, without sacrificing
the convenience and flexibility of having personal access to vehicles whenever in need. Since Zipcar
parking is already available at the major transit stations and activity centers throughout the city, car
sharing programs for USVs will be less likely to encounter major difficulties and obstacles by cooperating
with Zipcar.
Overcoming Stakeholder Opposition
Various stakeholders are involved in the implementation process of creating USV infrastructure.
Manufacturers, business owners, developers, private parking companies, transportation departments,
transit agencies, EPA, and potential USV users will most likely be proponents of USVs. Potential
opponents will be users of other modes of transportation, especially heavy vehicle users. Oil and energy
companies will oppose USV implementation due to their reduced energy consumption. Stakeholders
whose attitude toward USV implementation will be implicit but whose support should be sought due to
their strong potential influence on the issue are state and local governments, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, public parking agencies, and insurance companies.
Private commercial stakeholders will support USV due to the economic benefits that they will be able to
harvest through enhanced accessibility and increased traffic flow. Transit agencies and EPA will be
advocates for USV for its reduction in congestion and air pollution, as well as fuel efficiency. The
opposition coming from heavy vehicle users can be mitigated through public outreach efforts. Adopting
Lloyd and Meyer’s rightness-of-cause approach, advocates will be able to convince opponents that USVs
are the most effective transportation solution in the existing context. The public outreach effort should
convey the information about the safety measures that are applied in the design of USVs and the
strategies for infrastructure improvement. Through these measures advocates will gain support from
other road users, NHTSA, public parking agencies, and insurance companies.
33
Lloyd and Meyer’s trusted emissary approach will be best suited for obtaining the support from state
and local governments. Through inviting persuasive and authoritative officials from other municipalities
where USV programs have been successfully implemented, such as the mayors of Peachtree City and
Lincoln, state and local officials will be more likely to recognize the benefits of implementing similar USV
programs. A more radical approach may be sought if opponents from decisive stakeholders still persist,
and such an approach could include quid pro quo, promise for future trade, and even exerting top-down
pressure from the most influential allies [48].
Conclusion
Urban scale vehicles are specifically designed to meet the demands of urban and suburban driving
environments. Urban driving demands allow USVs to be built smaller, more fuel efficient, and more
environmentally friendly. Large scale adoption of these vehicles in the United States would decrease
congestion, improve air quality, and help reduce the cost of transportation.
In order for USVs to be adopted on a large scale, the market forces must be appropriate. In locations
where market forces are suitable, specifically countries with high fuel prices like India and Japan, small
vehicles are very popular. With fuel prices trending upward in the United States, the adoption of USVs
seems probable. A few cities such as Peachtree City, GA and Lincoln, CA have already recognized this
trend have thriving communities of NEV users.
As Peachtree City and Lincoln have illustrated, a network of safe and convenient dedicated
infrastructure and a supportive regulatory environment are necessary to foster the mass adoption of
USVs. Cities across the United States can follow the lead of these communities to encourage USV use.
By utilizing state and federal funding to build USV infrastructure, adopting progressive USV regulation,
and providing other incentives for USV use, vehicles designed for urban use can begin to replace
traditional cars in American towns and cities.
34
Works Cited 1. Mitchell, W.J., Christopher E. Borroni-Bird, and Lawrence D. Burns, Reinventing the Automobile:
Personal Mobility for the 21st Century. 2010, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. CIA. CIA World Factbook. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/index.html.
TX.
4. EPA, Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks. 2000, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
5. United States Fast Facts. 2008; Available from:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics
_2009/html/fast_facts.html.
6. Segway. Segway Advanced Development. December 1, 2010; Available from:
http://www.segway.com/en-v/.
7. Keegan, M. Myers Motors NmG: Solo Vehicles Have Arrived. The Auto Writer 2010; Available
from: http://thearticlewriter.com/autowriter/myers-nmg-solo-vehicles-have-arrived/.
8. 2007/2008 Vehicle Occupancy and Classification Study. 2008, Richmond Planning Commission:
Richmond, VA.
9. Gotschi, T., and Kevin Mills, Active Transport for America: The Case for Increased Federal
Investment in Bicycling and Walking. 2008, Rails to Trails Conservancy.
10. Gordon, P., Bumsoo Lee, and Harry W. Richardson, Travel Trends in U.S. Cities: Explaining the
2000 Census Commuting Results. 2004, Lusk Center for Real Estate, University of Southern
Califronia: Los Angeles, CA.
11. "The More You Know the Better: Kei-Cars" (Translation), J.M.V. Association, Editor. 2010.
12. Honda Civic Sedan Complete Specifications. 2010 December 14, 2010]; Available from:
automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/specifications.aspx.
http://media.gm.com/content/autoshows/Shanghai/2010/public/cn/en/env/news.detail.html/c
ontent/Pages/news/cn/en/2010/March/env02.
14. Ford 2011 Explorer Specifications 2010 December 14, 2010]; Available from:
www.ford.com/suvs/explorer/specifications/.
15. Ogden, e.a., Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960-2002. Vital
and Health Statistics, 2004(347).
16. Little, A., Demonstration of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). 2002, California Energy
Commission
17. Cosgrove, T., J. E. Pedri, R. O. Watkins, G. Capik, L. Rubio, and S. Ainsworth, Thriving with
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, in Transportation Land Use Planning, and Air Quality Congress.
2007, ASCE. p. 382-394.
18. Lucas, P. Small cars increase market share in Europe. 2010; Available from:
http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/05/small-cars-increase-market-
share-in-europe/.
19. Nodell, B., Mini cars make their mark... outisde the U.S., in MSNBC. 2010.
20. Gulati, N. (2010) Maruti Suzuki Profit Rises 5%. The Wall Street Journal.
21. Maruti Suzuki sales in November 2010. 2010; Maruti Suzuki sales report]. Available from:
http://www.marutisuzuki.com/monthly-sales.aspx.
35
22. McVeigh, P. Smart hit hard by plunging U.S. demand, report says. Automotive News Europe
2010 8/30/2010; Available from:
23. Kranz, R. Small Cars, Small Profits. 2007; Available from:
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20070424/FREE/70423008.
24. What's Hot Off the Lots, in The Wall Street Journal – Market Data Center. 2010.
25. Montague, D.a.B.M. (2010) New CAFE promises lower emissions and higher costs.
26. Fairley, P. (2008) The New CAFE Standards. Technology Review.
27. Shafizadeh, K., and Kimberly Fox, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan, P. Works,
Editor. 2008: Lincoln, CA.
28. MHM Engineers & Surveyors, NEV Transportation Plan. 2006, City of Lincoln, CA: Linclon, CA.
29. Georgia City Has Success in Developing Multimodal Pathway, in Urban Transportation Monitor.
2002, Lawley Publications. p. 1, 15.
30. Ferguson, G., Characteristics of Successful Downtown. Let's Talk Business, 2005(112).
31. Moore & Associates, Short Range Transportation Plan. 2009, City of Lincoln, CA.
32. General Electric. Watt Station. 2010; Available from:
http://www.geindustrial.com/products/static/ecomagination-electric-vehicles/ge-
wattstation.html.
33. Vairani, F. Bit Car: Concept for a Stackable City Car. 2010 [cited 2010 November 29]; Available
from: http://web.mit.edu/francov/www/citycar/.
34. Plug-In Electric Vehicel Credit (IRC 30 and IRC 30D). Federal Tax Code 2010 03/29/10; Available
from: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=214841,00.html.
35. NHTSA, Vehicle Classification, in 49 CFR 523.3, D.o. Transportation, Editor.
36. NHTSA, Denial of request for rulemaking, in NHTSA-2008-0154, N.H.T.S. Administration, Editor.
2008.
37. NHTSA, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in 49 CFR 571.3, D.o. Transportation, Editor.
38. Kahane, C.J., Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other Vehicle Safety
Technologies, 1960-2002, D.o. Transportation, Editor. 2004. p. xv.
39. Delucchi, M. and K. Kurani, How We Can Have Safe, Clean, Convenient, Affordable, Pleasnt
Transportation without Making People Drive Less or Give Up Suburban Living. 2010, Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California: Davis.
40. Mitchell, W.J., Going the Extra Mile to Make Mass Transit More Personal in Architectural Record.
2007.
41. EV World. Electric Car, Scooter Buyers Get Immediate Tax Break. 2009 [cited 2010 November
25]; Available from: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1647.
42. Chin, R., Sustainable Urban Mobility in 2020, in The Futurist. 2010.
43. Katzev, R., Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 2003. 3(1): p. 65-86.
44. Cervero, R. and Y. Tsai, San Francisco City CarShare: Second-Year Travel Demand and Car
Ownership Imkpacts, in TRB 2004 Annual Meeting. 2003.
45. BeltLine, I., Development Around the Beltline, in Beltline Planning Area. 2009.
46. HoldFast, Holdfast Rubber Highways.
47. Zipcar, City of Atlanta Joins with Zipcar to Promote Car-Sharing and Transportation Alternatives
for City Employees. 2008, PR Newswire.
48. Lloyd, E. and M. Meyer, Strategic Approach to Transportation Project Implementation: The