Modern planners in Auckland, and elsewhere, have been educated to believe in what is called 'transit-oriented development'. Basically, the idea is to build the city to conform to the transport system (buses and trains), rather than letting the transport system conform to the city - the latter of which being incomparably cheaper.
Ignoring the fact that transit-oriented development has long been a demonstrated failure, as it has worsened congestion and ruined affordable housing, we can nonetheless see an infinitely better solution to a better Auckland coming down the pipe, in the form of rapidly advancing transport technology.
Performance and demand:
The model case I want to look at is the Toyota i-Road, as I believe it has the most promise.
The i-Road provides a brilliant example of what innovative transport solutions can achieve today, using modern tools. It's being tested in Tokyo now and I understand it's due for mass-release in about a year.
The i-Road is a unique development because it provides a qualitatively superior 'experiential' service to cars, for general commutes and errands. This is because the format offers all the comfort of a car, yet actively tilts so as to make it extremely comfortable for cornering. It's also very easy to drive and can park as a motorcycle.
Now imagine if most people chose to buy the i-Road, because they liked using it and it pays for itself in savings, and only used their conventional car for when they specifically needed something bigger. The result would be a huge reduction in transport costs to the consumer yet for a superior transport service. The i-Road could presumably absorb over 50% of passenger transport demand today.
Energy:
The i-Road, with some basic modifications, could consume about 10% of the energy of an average car or bus. If it was built with platooning capability (easily done) then it could ride in the wind-shadow of a leading car, dramatically reducing aerodynamic drag at high speeds.
Make it a hybrid by employing a range-extender (small petrol-electric generator) and your i-Road might burn as little as 1% or 2% of the carbon of a conventional petrol-driven car, in total.
So please don't talk about the need to kill the car, and force people into trains, in terms of reducing CO2 or dealing with so-called peak-oil. Our capacity to adapt without forcing people into unworkable public transport systems is great, and the i-Road is indeed only one interesting example.
Congestion:
The i-Road can reduce congestion by platooning. But there is also another possibility.
If there is enough demand for the i-Road, then we can look at building under or over passes that accommodate the i-Road exclusively. Imagine how much cheaper it would be to build an over-pass designed to accommodate 300kg vehicles only - and not truck conveys.
We do not need to go broke reproducing heavy transport infrastructure in the air. All we want is effective capacity relief to by-pass and relieve the bottlenecks. So why not?
If we employed this strategy, and also adopted strategic congestion-charging as required, then we could rapidly build Auckland out of its gridlock. The far-reaching savings from achieving this are, needless to say, enormous.
Driverless technology:
Here is an interesting thought. How hard (and dangerous) would it be to put some of Google's driver-less car technology in the i-Road, and give it the capability of driving itself to the next customer?
This would mean that anyone could order up an i-Road on their cellphone, with one button, and have a car come to them in just a couple of minutes. Wait for the text-alert to tell you it has arrived. Once you're in, you actively drive it yourself.
The technology exists to do this already - or very nearly. A driver-less revolution is a car-sharing revolution; providing cheap transport, convenience, and no parking hassles at all. It's curious that Toyota is trialing their i-Road as a car-sharing scheme, today. Maybe they're already thinking along these lines?
Conclusion:
Now what would you prefer, dear reader? Do you want transit-oriented development which forces people (in effect) to use trains because the congestion is left so bad, and drives crazy unaffordable housing via artificial land rationing; or do you want to see price pressures and relentless technological advancement drive an inevitable transport revolution like it is happening today?
Nearly no-one wants to sit in a train or bus, in preference to a far more private, economical, energy efficient, and rapid transport service as provided by modern transport technology.
Transit-oriented development is a silly fantasy dreamed up by rail enthusiasts decades ago, and it's totally out of sync with where transport technology has gone and is going.
The future will continue to be a revolution in cars - not a revolution away from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment