Johnson 1
Emily Johnson
Milos Mladenovic
SPT-E1020 Transport Systems Planning
4 November 2019
Assignment 3: Transport Modes
1. Modes, Roads and Routes: Technologies, Infrastructure, Functions, Energy and Interrelatedness 1
a. Text summary
Most trips are 1-5km for commuting, errands, and socializing. Where driving is typical, informing people
about their mobility options can change their behavior. Walking is simple and natural, and bicycling is the
most energy efficient. Bicycling competes with personal motor vehicles (PMVs) and transit for 1-5km trips,
making it increasingly popular, but the built environment often deters walking or bicycling. Transit is
space- and energy-efficient and facilitates compact urban development. Subsidized transit can reach the
mobility-impaired and underserved. A strong right-of-way (ROW) to enables good service. Internal
combustion PMVs are common, but electric engines are becoming more advanced and popular. PMV costs
are bundled upfront, so users experience low operational costs. In contrast, there are no upfront costs for
transit, but the usage fees are higher. Car shares compete with PMV ownership by offering a bouquet of
vehicles, bicycles, and transit passes without upfront cost.
Regional modes serve commuting and special attractions/services. Bicycling can be a small yet significant
percentage if networks are good. Regional transit (rail, bus, shuttle, and ferry) hinge on intermodal
connections. Auto-dependent regions have few mobility choices for the aging population, limited
opportunities to reduce road congestion, and physical barriers against other modes.
Long distance modes are important for business, family, and tourism. Bicycle tourism is small, but
promises growth. PMV travel is common for medium-long distances; in some regions, very long
recreational trips are also common. All long-distance transit (coaches, rails, ferries, ocean vessels,
airliners) involve governmental regulation, but not all are publicly owned. Coaches--stripped to the bare
necessities--compete with other modes, but are rarely profitable. Passenger rail networks with integrated,
international connections compete with airliners and airports, but rail competes poorly if aircraft fuel is
untaxed or if freight schedules take priority. Some tips for strengthening rail networks: (1) build where
ridership growth is expected, (2) emphasize intermodal connections, (3) design for quick passenger
loading, and (4) advertise & market. High-capacity ferries are potentially competitive, but they bear the
cost of lodging, food, and entertainment. Aircraft is more convenient than ground transportation when
the distances are great, terrain is difficult, and when airports are conveniently-located. However, airports
are massive and noisy. Short, low-capacity flights are especially wasteful.
1
Schiller, P. L., & Kenworthy, J. R. (2017). Modes, Roads and Routes: Technologies, Infrastructure,
Functions, Energy and Interrelatedness. In An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation (2nd ed.,
pp. 107–157). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644486
Johnson 2
To meet emissions goals, policies should target vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and smart growth. Tailpipe
fixes (e.g. improving fuel efficiency) are insufficient, since they can focus on the wrong pollutants, cause
counterproductive side-effects, ignore behavioral fuel efficiency issues, and are poorly enforced.
Alternative fuels or carbon sequestration are not reliable and they divert attention away from reducing
PMV use. Some alternative fuels (e.g. ethanol) have worse lifecycle emissions and occupy agricultural
land. Electric PMVs are a promising solution if coupled with sustainable energy sources and quick
adoption. Holistic policies consider energy-efficiency of the fuel, the vehicle, and the city as a whole. There
is a strong correlation between a city’s density and its per-capita PMV energy use (figure 1)
Figure 1: Total private passenger transport energy consumed decreases as the city becomes denser 2
Energy consumption per vehicle distance traveled is one measure of energy efficiency. By this measure,
average PMV efficiency is the worst, but it’s improving. In comparison, transit is 27% better (US) to 79%
better (Asia). Metros, light rails, and trams are the most efficient. Buses and ferries in US and Canada are
even less efficient than PMVs; this could improve with better fuel-efficiency, denser development, higher
occupancy, and stronger ROW. When addressing energy efficiency, consider also the role of urban
planning, modal and social inequities, and improvements to vehicles and fuel.
Also consider less-common modes. Aerial/suspended modes usually serve tourist, but can be a creative
sustainable solution (with great views!) in certain topographies. Maglev, personal rapid transit, personal
aircraft, evacuated tube technology, and drone delivery services all suffer from high infrastructural and/or
environmental cost; some are unsafe or unequitable. Experimental bicycles are also emerging, refitted to
hold different kinds of cargo and passengers.
2Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 2015. The End of Automobile Dependence: How Cities Are Moving beyond Car-
Based Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Johnson 3
b. Transport Mode Comparison
BICYCLE MOTORCYCLE COMPARED
MAX. HOURLY Thousands of pers/hr 2000 pers/lane/hr Similar
CAPACITY
TYPE OF TRIP Used for all trip types, but All trip types Motorcycle is more
longr trips require good amenable to a broader
facilities range of trip types
INFRASTRUCTURE Paths, lanes, bikeways Shares roads; needs Bicycle can require
TYPE parking more specific
infrastructural
INFRASTRUCTURE $100-700k / mile $2mil - 3.5bil / mile Roads are several
COST orders of magnitude
more expensive
AVERAGE SPEED 8-20 mph 8-70 mph Motorcycle is 3.5x
faster
AVERAGE RANGE 1-15 miles (150 for athlete) Per driver’s endurance Bicycle range is
significantly limited
ENVIRONMENT, Min. environmental impact. Exhaust and noise. Bicycle is better for the
HEALTH, & SAFETY Healthy when facilities are Extremely unsafe for environment and
CONSIDERATIONS safe users potentially safer
VEHICLE COST $100-1000 $2,000-15,000 Motorcycle is an order
of magnitude more
expensive
OPERATION COST $0.10/mile $0.15-0.25/mile Motorcycle operation
is about twice as
FOSSIL FUEL USE 0 MPG 35-65 MPG Bicycle instead uses
human power
TYP. PASSENGER 1 passenger 1 passenger Same
LOAD
MAX. PASSENGER 2 passengers 2 passengers Same
2. Trolleybus Off-Wire Advantages
An off-wire option for trolleybuses present several advantages, outlined below.
If trolleybuses weren’t dependent on overhead wires along routes:
• An operator could reroute, avoid obstacles, or overtake other buses.
• Dewiring or losing power would not be a concern.
• Minor changes to the route could occur without the infrastructural costs of new wires.
• Overhead wires could be excluded from segments of existing or planned routes for aesthetic or
functional reasons.3
3Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 25). Trolleybus. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:29,
October 30, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolleybus&oldid=917744134
Johnson 4
If overhead wires were not necessary at terminals, terminuses, or depots:
• Less infrastructure would make redesigns and relocations easier (less path-dependency).
• Facilities could be designed more aesthetically, creating a nicer environment.
• Facilities perhaps could be designed more efficiently, allowing space for more transit services or
additional functions. This assumes that overhead wires make the site layout less efficient than
otherwise possible, but I have no evidence of this.
• More efficient terminals could increase the whole system’s service capacity.
• The whole transit system runs more efficiently and reliably with a smaller number of high-capacity
terminals and garages.
• Terminals feel safer since they are higher capacity and have more human presence.
3. Rail Mode Comparison
a. Shortest car: RRT is usually the shortest at ~15m, while RGR is ~25m, and LRT is ~25-35m
b. Highest gross axle load: RGR is usually the highest at ~15-20 tons. LRT & RRT are ~10 tons.
c. Lowest power per passenger: LRT is usually the lowest at ~2-3 kW/person. RRT & RGR have greater
variation, but appear on average ~4 kW/person
4. SUA Concept Commentary4,5
In 2019, it appears that most people can walk or bike within Otaniemi. This produces no emissions
and supports a vibrant and healthy society. These modes should be the centerpiece of any
transportation system under 5km in size. But the current system poorly serves people
encumbered with cargo, not able-bodied, or facing inclement weather. The typical solutions (taxi,
ride share, personal motor vehicle) are neither green nor safe.
A Self-driving Urban Area (SUA) for electric shuttles in Otaniemi could be a safer alternative if
done right. Being a dedicated SUA, the market penetration would be sufficient. But motorways
also must be physically separated. This would be very costly, an aesthetic nightmare, and—the
deal-breaker—it would restrict the movements of bicyclists and pedestrians who frequent
Otaniemi’s streets. Instead of being physically separated, the shuttle could operate at a slow jog.
This doesn’t promise the same level of safety, but it coheres with a pedestrian- and bike-friendly
environment. Users could walk one or two minutes to the nearest stop, wait briefly, and arrive
about as quickly as a pedestrian.
4 Schiller, P. L., & Kenworthy, J. R. (2017). Modes, Roads and Routes: Technologies, Infrastructure,
Functions, Energy and Interrelatedness. In An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation (2nd ed.,
pp. 107–157). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644486
5
Finger, M., & Audouin, M. (Eds.). (2019). The Governance of Smart Transportation Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96526-0
Johnson 5
This SUA is green because it does not compete with walking, it just replaces other vehicles. It
won't add demand on the electricity supply, which may not even be emissions-free. It is also green
because it limits parking and restricts personal vehicles. This decreases car utility and reverses
the vicious cycle of driving; an indirect “win” for bicycling, walking, and transit.
The SUA is not the only “safe and green” option to serve special mobility needs. People with
cargo could use a sharing system for cargo bikes and trolleys. If the weather is inclement, people
can borrow umbrellas, ponchos, etc. If the weather is so awful, build covered walkways. An on-
demand door-to-door pedicab could serve those not able-bodied. How would the price of these
compare to the price of SUA infrastructure? Which improves health and community?
5. Upload profile picture
6. Fill extra space on the page
Source: Karl Jilg
