Lower urban speed limits could speed adoption of more efficient cars.

Toronto Star: Opinion/Editorial: Sun Nov 18 2012

Environmentalists are often accused of wanting to go back to the horse and buggy. Not me. I believe we already have too many horses on our roads — or at least far too much power, counted in horses.

It’s a good time to talk about automobile horsepower (hp) — and related issues of weight and speed. Why? Because reducing greenhouse gas emissions is urgent, as this summer’s heat wave and drought reminded us. Bigger and quicker vehicles generally need more horses and therefore burn more fuel. The same vehicles make roads less attractive for walking and cycling. In fact, the discussion shouldn’t stop at regulating big or muscle-bound cars but go on to rethink what type of car best suits our communities.

In 1908 Ford’s Model T had 20 hp, a weight of just over a half tonne, and a top speed around 70 km/h.

Today’s Ford Navigator SUV uses 300 horses to get its three tonnes to 100 km/h in under 10 seconds. The Oshawa-built 2013 Camaro has up to 580 hp, weighs about two tonnes, and can exceed 250 km/h. From a standing start it can accelerate to 100 km/h in five seconds or less — an awesome feat, unless you’re a senior thinking you can make it across the road in time at midblock.

Carmakers also offer products with much less weight, lower emissions, and fewer horses. (One unit of horsepower is equal to the power needed to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second.)

The first big surge in hp came after WWII when automakers added various luxuries and lots of chrome to cars. The extra weight, along with higher performance, required more power, and more fuel — causing more emissions.

In the 1970s, rising environmental concern and the Arab oil embargo put the focus on fuel efficiency. This brought smaller cars and lower hp. One company even introduced a product called the CitiCar, an electric vehicle with a maximum speed of 70 km/h from a three hp engine. Over the next 30 years carmakers increased vehicle fuel efficiency with big improvements to engines and car design.

In the late 1980s and the 1990s when scientists raised the alarm about climate change, carmakers responded by ramping up production of gas-guzzling light trucks (SUVs and pickups) — a vehicle class with less demanding fuel efficiency standards. The increase in weight and power squandered the earlier improvements and stagnated fleet-average fuel efficiency for years.

Today electric cars are touted as the solution to polluting gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles. Electric cars do use energy more efficiently but they are hardly revolutionary. In the early 1900s electric car owners (like Henry Ford’s wife) outnumbered those of other vehicles. The main problem with electric vehicles then, and now, related to energy storage. The more important problem is our commitment to the current type of automobile — despite a century of experience with its downsides.

PDE5 InhibitorsThe prescription PDE5 inhibitors sildenafil (hop over to this davidfraymusic.com viagra without rx), vardenafil (levitra) and tadalafil (cheapest levitra) are prescription drugs which are taken orally. Most victims viagra prices canada blame themselves for the abuse and this lowers their self-worth. Sleep Well! Researchers have found a connection between erectile Dysfunction and Pollution The condition of air pollution is also among the culprits that lead to erectile dysfunction although numerous men do not know cheap super cialis that. Fantasy capsules have edge over competing brands in terms online viagra order of quality control and assurance.
Higher fleetwide fuel efficiency standards recently passed in Canada and the U.S. will move us toward lower weight and power. Increases in the number of vehicles and kilometres driven, however, will mean greenhouse-gas cuts that fall far short of what a healthy climate requires.

Another solution offers more potential: dramatically reduce emissions by adopting lighter weight electric vehicles that have low-hp, low-emissions and low-speed. These vehicles would also be friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians.

So-called Neighbourhood Electric Vehicles or Low-Speed Vehicles, approved by the U.S. and Canadian governments for certain uses, can be plugged in at home, carry a purchase price about half that of the average car, and have a maximum speed (40-50 km/h) and range that make them ideal for most local trips, including to the transit stop. These vehicles, including the now discontinued Canadian-made ZENN (“Zero Emissions No Noise”) car, would nicely complement planned and desired mass transit expansions that must anchor our transport system.

Since it’s difficult to make our roads bigger, there’s an obvious benefit to making cars smaller (and slower, allowing for shorter stopping distances).

How could a wider transition to the use of such cars be achieved? A key step would be lowering speeds on our roads. This would allow people in low-speed cars to feel safe — while making a lot of the extra horses, and weight, in other cars redundant.

A comprehensive 2004 road safety report by the World Bank and World Health Organization recommended lower speed limits to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Various European communities have reduced speeds to 30 km/h. This year both Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health and Ontario’s Chief Coroner recommended lowering speed limits, including 30 km/h limits on residential roads. Lower speeds on congested city roads will often reflect the actual pace of motor traffic but eliminate intimidating spurts of speed.

A pedestrian hit by an automobile at 30 km/h will almost certainly survive while one struck at 50 km/h will likely die. Even though lighter cars may mean reduced safety for occupants, especially in collisions with bigger cars, the safety risk should easily be offset by lower speeds. In addition, Low-Speed Vehicles would reduce the burden of car costs that now average about $9,000 annually. Many motorists will feel comfortable leaving their cars behind for the joy and economy of riding a bike. The community and the climate win.

Trips on highways could still be done with the current type of car — or better yet, by train or bus. Car-sharing arrangements for longer trips could also copy models already offered by groups like AutoShare or Zipcar for local trips.

It turns out that getting all those horses off our roads is actually be a big part of the transport and climate solution, even for environmentalists.