Faster, Smarter, Greener: The Future of the Car and Urban Mobility (The MIT Press)

by Venkat Sumantran

Urban society will look beyond cars to a broader range of options. This shift will require mobility users to be open to multiple modes. Walking, bicycling, ride sharing, and taking public transit such as buses, subways, and trains are all valuable complements to individual driving, each with its own merits and purpose. We can expect a blurring of the divide among public, personal, and shared modes of transit.

To Ed Glaeser, “Transportation technologies have always determined urban form.”53 However, we believe that transportation policy and infrastructure investment also play strong roles in the evolution of cities. Roughly two-thirds of all travel is undertaken in urban environments, and the quantum of urban travel is expected to triple by 2050.54 It’s little wonder that in many surveys, mobility heads the list of priorities for city administrations. Fluid mobility systems boost economic productivity and enhance residents’ quality of life.

Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, later became president of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in New York. An ardent supporter of urban mobility solutions, he feels that “urban mobility is peculiar and is different from other urban challenges like education or housing—it tends to get worse as societies become richer.”62 Going forward, it will be imperative to manage the evolution of urban mobility trajectories for large and fast-growing economies like those of China and India. They will see a phase of rapid per capita income growth leading to improved affordability, hence favoring personal motorized mobility. The results of poor urban planning, delayed infrastructure, or flawed investment can be extremely wasteful and significantly slow down economic growth.

In the eagerness to find solutions, there has been a tendency to accept one or more technologies as the answer to the problem. Unfortunately, this complex issue cannot be managed with any single breakthrough. A sound and mature analysis and a framework of solutions are needed to chart a course for the future.

In 2000, the European Parliament issued a directive that the rate of reuse and recovery was to reach 95 percent (measured by weight of scrappage) by 2015. Ensuring the effectiveness of such a policy required a range of actions that were not easy to implement. To start with, some accountability had to be established to be sure that cars to be scrapped got to designated processing centers. Auto design and manufacture had to be conducive to recovery of materials for secondary use. For example, if metal parts are bonded with adhesives to plastic parts, it is not easy to separate them so that the metal and the plastic can be separately processed for recycling. Cars may employ exotic materials, and this means that the recycling center must have adequate information on the inventory of materials in each car so that they may be meaningfully extracted. This has required extensive documentation and follow-up, both for the automaker and for the recycler.

New technologies and mandates often involve additional costs and impose additional burdens on users. Enthusiasm for undertaking the extra costs and burdens varies. A sustainable mobility framework for the future must include the customer’s perspective. In addition to using incentives and fees as tools, governments and industry will need to engage in customer education about the true impact of various mobility choices and options to truly make a difference. The food and nutrition industry has taken positive steps toward educating customers about the choices they can make to achieve a healthier lifestyle. A similar effort is necessary to guide people toward mobility choices that are faster, smarter, and greener.

The winds of optimism that wafted through the auto industry during the 1950s and into the 1960s started to peter out by mid-decade. In the U.S., the sense of optimism and prosperity was pierced by the Vietnam War, which was brought directly into living rooms by that new invention, the television. Many young people began to question what they were fighting for. As surely as the crew-cut GI morphed into the long-haired hippie, the 1960s gave birth to willingness to debate authority and government policy.

At the same time, driving went from being a source of fun to a chore during which the driver’s attention had to be focused on mundane duties, often for a large fraction of a commuter’s free time. To many, this was valuable time robbed from more productive uses or entertaining engagements with a smartphone. Familiarity with the automobile had eroded its novelty. When every household could have a car, a certain dilution of the aspirational motive to car ownership set in. According to Michael Sivak, a researcher at the University of Michigan, “Young adults of this generation appear less enamored by the automobile than their parent’s generation”—this may be a consequence of the fact that car ownership had become commonplace, and hence the car has waned in its image as a prime possession that was a top priority to their parents.14

In 2011, a study in Europe concluded that a bicyclist’s use of energy was measured at 16 grams per kilometer (g/km) of CO2, after analysis of the energy expended and the calorific content of food intake.1 In 2015, Volkswagen’s high-efficiency experimental plug-in hybrid prototype car, the XL1, was unveiled. Its parsimonious efficiency meant it could stretch a gallon of diesel to travel 310 miles, a figure equivalent to 21 g/km of CO2 emissions.2 In other words, the two occupants of an XL1 would produce lower carbon emissions than if they had traveled on bicycles. Granted, for the sake of this experiment, they would be asked to refrain from exhaling over that distance! When traveling by car produces lower carbon emissions than cycling, we can truly celebrate the innovation in mobility technology.

As Bernard Shaw had prophesied, “Virtue is insufficient temptation.”3 For many, the attraction of green credentials paled in the face of an extra 100 horsepower or a more luxurious ride that one could affordably indulge in. Fuel-efficient subcompacts were replaced by bigger and more powerful sedans. Minivans made way for heavier SUVs. Since trucks and SUVs were governed by different standards than cars, their renewed popularity contributed to lowering the fuel efficiency of the total fleet.

The combustion chamber, the metaphorical heart of the engine, is a finely engineered piece of sculpture. Within it, pistons accelerate from rest to a speed of 50 mph in 2.5 milliseconds. Valves are choreographed to open and close over 100 times within 1 second, their timing dictated by complex valve control mechanisms. The airflow that rushes into the combustion chamber is designed to swirl and tumble like a gymnast in precise trajectory. In gasoline engines, the spark is accurately timed to occur within a window of 20 microseconds. In modern engines, each cylinder firing is like a mini-explosion within which every infinitesimal characteristic is carefully controlled. It takes all of this to get the kind of fuel efficiency and exhaust emission to meet current standards.

Through history we have observed that adding technology is not the same as achieving desired results. In 1997, a report examined the effect of addition of ABS brakes on traffic accidents.31 The study involved the same models of cars and compared those fitted with ABS with those that did not have the system. It observed no difference in the rates of accidents. In fact, cars fitted with ABS actually had a slightly higher rate of fatalities for its occupants than cars without ABS. Many researchers have postulated that human psychology often compensates for the additional margin of safety provided by these systems.32 They have observed that drivers of cars with ABS brakes actually drive faster on slippery roads, placing their faith in the ABS system to save them from harm. There appears to be a subconscious human correction factor at play that defines and accepts a tolerable level of risk. As technologies reduce risk, it appears that behavior compensates perversely, to assume additional risk. Driver education and training, not only at the stage of licensing but also with the rollout of any new technology, are important to manage this dynamic and sustain measurable improvements in safety.

Standardization worked well for economics but offered limited market appeal. Product differentiation worked wonders in the market but could ruin economics. Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan had advanced theories that occupied opposite ends of the pendulum’s course. Many automakers found that the golden mean was elusive. Often the large automakers oscillated between phases. For some, economics dictated that cars shared so much commonality that all the sister brands looked alike. For others, cost savings were squandered on excessive differentiation. The bottom line, however, was simple: customers wanted variety so that their cars were different from the ones their neighbors owned, but customers also wanted affordable cars. Variety and economy were both important.

To deepen engagement with customers, Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler often invite their customers to the factory on the day that “their” car is due to be built. This walk along the assembly line as one’s car takes shape seems to create a stronger bond between customer and automaker. Customers feel a sense of involvement as the car is put together. Chevrolet has gone a step further, inviting some customers to actually help assemble the engine that will go in their Corvette sportscar, under the supervision of an authorized inspector. New owners are likely to feel a special bond with the car they have helped build, and such customer intimacy is priceless.

As new systems and protocols are being planned for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, ground rules are emerging. A user may not be identified or tracked along his or her journey without specific authorization. In the U.S., both domestic and import automakers have compiled a list of privacy principles that serve as guidelines for the industry. These principles are in turn based on landmark privacy frameworks.22 NHTSA has also codified rules on transparency and what may be offered to customers. It prescribes what data may be gathered and how it may be used, limiting data use to context and mandating compliance with deidentification standards. Similarly, in Europe, Article 8 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights safeguards one’s rights to personal data protection. Anticipating much wider use and collection of data in a world of connected cars and things, the EU has rolled out data protection reforms with both regulations and directives to ensure compliance. These include the “right to be forgotten” and provisions for stronger enforcement by member states.

The critical decoupling of car from driver is the aspect that can also have very profound impact on shared mobility. As autonomous cars become part of car-sharing fleets, there may be further ramifications for housing. Autonomous shared cars mean fewer garages and parking lots, and cities will have the opportunity to convert many spaces to local parks and greenery. Global ride-sharing fleets like Uber, Lyft, and Didi Chuxing are aggressively investing in this technology. Uber has conducted pilot runs for Uber taxis to evaluate driverless operation. In the longer term they hope to trigger a revolution to catalyze a world where cars are no longer owned but are available on demand.

Consider this scenario of a new mobility ecosystem. Mornings are non-negotiable. You have your cadence, your rituals. And your life is programmed accordingly. 5:49 a.m.: The sleep app on your phone senses your emergence from REM sleep and launches your wake-up soundtrack. You hit “OK,” and your morning playlist fades in. Downstairs, on cue, a coffee maker starts. A connected health app checks your pulse and blood pressure. An alert blinks. You’re not surprised. The end of the fiscal year is always a crunch time. 6:23 a.m.: You take a quick sip of espresso and head out to the garage. As you close the door behind you, you swipe the autostart app on your phone. Your car practically salutes: the motor boots on, the doors unlock, your apps light up the dashboard. It’s all there: your email, your calendar, your call list. The seat glides back to your settings; your morning playlist pumps through the speakers. 6:28 a.m.: As you slide behind the wheel and buckle up, you see that your connected health app has already ratted you out. The dashboard displays your current vitals: 5.3 hours of sleep at less than 60 percent efficiency, blood pressure 139 over 90, resting pulse 72. You’re keen to drive; last night your operating system updated itself and you downloaded a new “travel docent” app that narrates the social and architectural history of the routes you take. But the connected health alert blinks yellow and flashes a message, “Medication alert: please take one Diruil and one mult...

Strikingly, bicycle commuting works even through the snowy Scandinavian winters. There is an old Viking saying that keeps them motivated: “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing.” In Copenhagen, when it snows, bike paths are cleared first, before the roads. As a result, three out of four Copenhagen residents continue to use their bikes in winter. In that city, the administrators estimate that the community saves 23 cents for every bike-kilometer traveled and loses 16 cents for every car-kilometer.

Adding smart to small should make mobility options even more attractive. Tracing the imagination of science fiction writers who dreamed of future travel, in which people would step into pods that would whisk them away to distant destinations, innovators have been experimenting with adding autonomous driving capability to microcars to further expand the envelope of personal travel.

But it is one thing to add technology to the product. It is equally important to employ modern tools and technologies in the system they operate in. Bogotá has been the poster city for demonstrating the effectiveness of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. BRT systems can be thought of as low-investment metros suitable for medium-density routes where infrastructure funding is capped or route flexibility is necessary. Like a metro system, they have turnstiles that control access, and payment is made with smart cards or is contactless and is typically shared with other modes in the cities. Bus stops have platforms aligned with the bus floor, allowing faster ingress and egress of passengers and higher throughput. Dedicated lanes keep these buses flowing even on highly congested thoroughfares. This mode can be an important option for many cities where population densities are not high enough or where the city cannot afford the high capital costs of underground metros.

Developers of future city master plans cannot afford to exclude an important role for buses. A host of developments and innovations can render investment in BRT systems very productive. a. Innovations in propulsion technology. Across the world, buses are shifting to a range of cleaner propulsion options such as electric, hybrid electric, or biogas. They can make significant contributions to lowering carbon emissions. b. Innovations in pricing. Most cities in the U.S. and Europe offer subsidized fares to promote ridership on public transport, justifying the move through demonstration of cost avoidance in other areas such as road maintenance, city pollution mitigation, and parking capacity increases. Pricing is increasingly employed to influence modal shifts. c. Innovations in electronics. In parallel, many cities are also upgrading their mass transit fleets and investing in their physical and digital infrastructure. Buses and trams are being equipped with Wi-Fi to allow users to be productive or be entertained during travel. Timetables are dynamically updated, allowing online access for up-to-date information. User apps are rapidly gaining popularity, further increasing ease of use, adding flexibility, and lowering travel costs for commuters. d. Innovations in infrastructure. Many cities are making their BRT corridors intelligent. These buses can communicate with traffic lights for priority and, in platooned convoys, travel faster through crowded thoroughfares. For example,...

Personal car ownership is an anachronism to many millennial digital natives living in a world where one can lease, rent, or share anything.

In other words, if the gap between actual use and potential use can be bridged by quickly configurable solutions, it is possible to operate closer to actual needs and significantly eliminate waste.

Walter Hook of the Institute for Transport Development and Policy adds, “If every additional trip had to be taken with a shared car, one is compelled to pay, for that trip, the incremental cost of that rental, which embodies not only the variable cost but also a fraction of the capital cost of the asset. In that sense, it motivates a user to combine chores to gain maximum value from that rental.”24 On the other hand, in a scenario in which the car is owned and available for use all the time (and the investment is viewed by the car owner as a sunk cost), the perceived cost of every incremental trip is limited to the incremental variable cost. In other words, one never thinks of the fixed cost element in an idling asset, and so every additional trip is judged to be relatively inexpensive. This leads to more trips being undertaken. Drivers dependent on car sharing actually drive less than drivers who own their own vehicles. This behavior helps lower carbon emissions.

For many urban residents, especially in developed economies, car ownership is no longer necessary for expression of status. Ownership-free mobility on demand may actually fit a desired lifestyle better. Furthermore, collectively, the businesses discussed in this chapter help assure users of round-the-clock access to a car or suitable mobility. Assured of such easy access to desired forms of mobility whenever needed, customers may be able to purchase mobility to fit their actual needs and not necessarily their contingent needs. Two-car families may downsize to one car in this scenario. As options like those discussed in this chapter facilitate opportunities to vary one’s vehicle and transport mode at will, can we really expect anything but the decline of long-term vehicular investments by individual buyers?

As these cities are discovering, curbs on cars can be successful only if the city has prepared itself with a host of alternative public and shared modes to compensate for capacity.

Smart cities rely on sensors and data to measure everything from traffic flow, rainfall, and water and sewer functions to health care intervention needs and even crime. Smart streetlights turn themselves on based on ambient lighting and even get their bulbs changed when necessary. Sensors in water pipes and sewage lines optimally manage supply and flow. Garbage bins broadcast a signal when they need to be emptied.

The influence of cultural change is also accelerating changes in mobility. The seemingly contradictory philosophies implicit in a sharing economy and seeking personalized solutions and services will co-exist. One can seek to be a car user and not necessarily a car owner. A world where mobility is shared with others and can be approached as a service is liberating to many.