(a) Excludes fuel taxes, which add in the U.S. ~ 0.08 €. For EVs, low nighttime recharging rates are assumed.
® Equal to the initial cost, plus the present value of all future cost streams: insurance, maintenance and repair, fuel, registration, parking, tolls—everything. (c) The price of petrol, including taxes, at which the total lifetime cost per km of the BPEVs equals the total life cycle cost per km of the fossil fuel LLM.
the quantifiable social benefits of electric LLMs appear to be positive but relatively small compared to the total private lifetime cost. Nevertheless, on this basis it is recommended that LLMs be required to be zero-emission modes.
One aspect of dual-mode urban transportation systems that is particularly relevant to this volume is the implications of such designs for resources and sus-tainability. To explore the implications, recall that the design calls for a city of 50,000-100,000 people within an area of 33 km2, or a population density of roughly 1500-3000/km2. This generates a population density midway between high-density cities (e.g., Hong Kong and Singapore) and low-density cities (e.g., Melbourne and low density parts of Los Angeles). The anticipated rates of resource use reflect their population density to some degree.
• Land: A key element of the dual-mode design is land use per capita, which is markedly lower than occurs in some suburbs (e.g., Melbourne's population density is 265/km2; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005). This would manifest itself in lower overall land allocation for housing, thereby retaining more land for alternative uses. In addition, because land near cities is often highly fertile (Seto et al., this volume), land saved from housing could be used for agriculture.
• Energy: Table 24.1 demonstrates that energy savings for LLM vehicles relative to FHV vehicles can be more than 50% on a passenger-km basis.
Was this article helpful?