Shared electric vehicles aren’t always greener

Despite the growing popularity of microelectric mobility, it is not always clear whether these modes of transportation deserve their environmental profile. To answer this question, scientists at the Institute of Transportation Planning and Systems compared different modes of transportation. Their research shows that electrical subsystems do not score well at all in terms of CO2 emissions.

Somewhat surprising, so Daniel Rick, IVT researcher. Three factors make precision mobility electrical subsystems less sustainable. Devices have a shorter life cycle than those in private property. The ratio of material to energy required for production with mileage puts it at a disadvantage in combined systems. It also requires more energy to keep working. For example, consider collecting vehicles. The third point where shared systems score less well is the mobility options they replace.

with this goalR Reck oThe choices that travelers may make in the event that a particular means of transportation is not available. This is important, because sharing systems are usually created explicitly to reduce car traffic in a city. However, they rarely do. Conversely, electric sharing systems are replacing the use of more sustainable modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling and public transportation. So they just need more energy. Privately owned electric transportation is often used as an alternative to the car.

Thus, the common electrical systems for precision mobility are not as green as thought. What does this mean for urban mobility planning? First of all, the “sharing cares” hypothesis does not apply to shared electronic transportation. Or at least not in the way it is happening now. Rick says there is room for improvement. “Cities can require sharing system operators to select devices with a longer life cycle.”

It turns out that electric sharing systems do not replace car trips. At least not at a level that makes a difference to urban mobility. He says this could be better Take care. The average distance traveled by users on a common electronic transport is short, only a few kilometers. It is not a substitute for a car. However, this can be stimulated by better integration with public transportation. Physically, but also digitally, in an application that allows the user to plan and pay for an entire trip through the various transportation systems.

Another element of the study that should definitely be on the table when planning urban mobility is the location of the systems. Now we see that electrical subsystems can be found mainly in the middle of cities. However, the heart of the city already has good public transportation. Mobility is a much bigger problem on the outskirts of cities, and this is where small, shared commutes can make a difference.

See also  Did our creativity explode because we lived in large groups?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *