How Golf Car-Type (GCT) Vehicles Provide a Logical Solution for the Challenges to Climate Change Goals in Transportation
Looking at things at the halfway point of 2024, what have been the key trends and takeaways? Here SVR puts together what appear to be the most outstanding aspects of 2924, so far.
Public policy in the area of climate change has focused on carbon-based emissions in the transportation sector. Consistent with the UN Paris Agreement on climate change in December 2015—to which the United States is a party—196 nations agreed to implement stringent carbon reduction policies.
For its part in conforming with the Paris Agreement, the U.S. federal government via the Federal Transportation Agency and the National Highway Transportation and Safety Agency (NHTSA), has laid out goals for transforming the nation’s transportation system from carbon-based fuels to electric power. Specifically, the broad goals are:
• 50% of on-road vehicles to be electric-powered by 2030;
• 100% electrified transportation system by 2050.
(Note: Data in the following draws on the article by Dan Zukowski, appearing in Smart Cities Dive on July 15, 2024 3 strategies to decarbonize transportation: US DOT report | Smart Cities Dive)
Street legal, golf car-type vehicle could play a major role
This article makes the case that street legal, golf car-type (GCT) could play a major role in achieving the above goals. First, we look at the DOT’s own strategy proposals. The three pivotal strategies proposed by the federal government and the Department of Transportation to achieve these goals are:
• Reducing the distance traveled for people and freight;
• Increasing options for more energy-efficient travel modes; and
• Transitioning transportation to zero-emission vehicles and fuels.
Regarding the third strategy, transportation accounts for 33% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., with light-duty vehicles, trucks and buses accounting for 70% of all U.S. transportation emissions—this, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, any feasible substitution for the use of light duty vehicles would go a long way toward effectively implementing the second strategy and thus, also, the third.
Insights from data on number of trips by miles traveled
Breaking down daily trip mileage via automobiles by the percentage of trip distances, the DOT provides the following data in the table below. This data can then be extrapolated to estimate the actual miles traveled by distance category and get a direct insight into the share of short distance driving as a share of total driving.
The first important point is that almost two-thirds of all average daily trips are five miles or less. This is virtually twice the number of longer trips. Then, if the actual number of trips by distance category is multiplied by the midpoints of the mileage ranges, the estimated distance traveled in short distance trips is just over half the total distance over all distance categories.
Thus, if the policy focus were on short distance driving, rather than full universe of daily driving experience, decarbonization goals might be more easily reached.
The further implication is that based on these numbers, almost half the total emissions generated from all sources would be eliminated; that is, if all vehicle trips five miles and under were driven by electric vehicles. (Actually, probably more than that because emissions per mile driven are likely to be higher than that generated in longer trips.)
Challenges in the market for electric vehicles (EVs)
The apparent goal of the current Biden administration is to achieve its 2030 and 2050 goals by an across the board substitution of EVs for ICE vehicles, regardless of the purpose for which they are used; i.e., long, as well as short distance driving. Thus, we use the all-purpose EV just as we have traditionally used our gasoline-powered cars.
Major issues, however, have arisen tin the development of the EV market—in particular, consumers, despite generous state and federal tax credits for the purchase, are not flocking to dealer showrooms and buying in the numbers anticipated. Moreover, EVs remain substantially more expensive to build, compared to conventional vehicles. This, the need for subsidies at taxpayers’ expense will have to continue for the foreseeable future.
Want a good high risk stock? And at the same time be a good, altruistic citizen? Here is Michael Adams’s take on EV stocks, writing in the July 2024 Forbes Advisor newsletter:
“EVs offer a direct way for citizens to reduce their carbon footprint. Allocating a portion of your portfolio to EV stocks can both aid the transition to zero-emissions vehicles and potentially boost your portfolio’s returns.
“However, as a breakthrough technology, many—but not all—of the leading EV companies are growth stocks. Some of them are years away from profitability, carrying big risks for investors. That being said, if you understand the risks, Forbes Advisor has selected what we believe to be the best EV stocks available on the market today.”
Not only must investors be aware of the risks, but even more importantly, so must prospective EV buyers. Afterall, EV buyers are the derivative risk-bearers of the lack of profitability in manufacturing the vehicles, which they are encouraged to buy. Even Elon Musk, whose Tesla division chalked-up a record level of unit sales in the last quarter, warned shareholders of headwinds in the immediate future. In particular, gains in unit sales came and will come only at the expense of price cuts.
At the same time, the federal government is pouring billions of dollars into the construction of a national highway charging system—the roads for which the fewest trips are made, and fewer miles are driven—as compared to shorter trips of five or less miles!
Street legal GCT vehicles provide a practical solution to climate change challenges, given certain regulatory and product design changes
Given the context and data as detailed above, it can be argued that street legal GCTVs could potentially provide a critical component in achieving these goals—and in a very cost-efficient and practical manner. There are, however, certain changes needed, both to government regulations and current vehicle design.
Frist, with regard to regulations, the NHTSA recommended speed limit for the street legal GCTV should be raised to 30-35 m.p.h. That would allow access to public roads of up to 45 m.p.h. This means that these vehicles could be used on virtually all non-highway public roads used in local travel.
Second, concerning vehicle design. A fully functional street legal GCT should be more than a fair weather conveyance. More design work needs to be done to give these vehicles a hard shell enclosure, one that not sacrificing the open air experience that the GCTV is noted for.
Put these changes in place, along with effective informational lobbying at all govern levels, and the outcome is a win-win for vehicle owners and government poly makers.
________
Contact the Author: Steve Metzger at smetzger@smallvehicleresource.com. Or check out our website at www.smallvehicleresource.com, where you will find an extensive database of vehicle models and can make side-by-side comparisons of vehicles based on a full set of specifications.
