25598847
News item: Shanghai plans to ban bicycles from its major roads next year, banishing China’s most popular form of transportation from its congested streets to make more room for cars, official newspapers said recently.
Now isn’t that great: One of the world’s most polluted countries is bound and determined to make things much worse by putting millions of cars on its roads. Shanghai has 9 million bicycles and only 142,000 cars, but guess which have more political clout these days?
Priorities in the West aren’t much different, but at least we’re beginning to realize that public transportation (and bicycles) have their place. In 2001, some 23 metropolitan regions had operating light rail lines, and many more were promised.
In answer to its persistent critics, no, light rail is not "cost effective" if the bottom line is all you care about. According to federal statistics, transit agencies took in $203 million in passenger fares in 2001, but had $682 million in operating expenses. But their value in reducing sprawl and congestion, saving lost work time and easing stress is incalculable. Passengers traveled 1.4 billion miles on light rail in 2001, and without that option they’d have been inching forward in their cars.
The problem is we’re still driving too much, and this eats up any gain in new rail lines. Between 1977 and 2001, total per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the U.S. grew by 151 percent, versus population growth of approximately 30 percent. In the Puget Sound area of Washington state, the population increased 19 percent from 1981 to 1991, but VMT increased a whopping 73 percent — explaining some of the region’s worst traffic jams. Rapid rises in VMT also explain why the number of highway fatalities has stayed flat (see last week’s column) while the rate for fatal injuries per miles traveled has declined dramatically.
I’m a big part of the problem, of course, driving at least 200 miles per week. And sometimes I compound the problem by traveling in gas-guzzlers like the moonshot Nissan Murano I had last week.
New for 2003, the Murano certainly stands out in a crowd. It looks like an armor-plated Baghdad taxi. There are no fewer than two of them in my office parking lot, and they often sit alongside each other facing out, like some kind of Phillip K. Dick motor pool. It may be named after delicate Italian glass sculptures, but it suggests Minority Report.
The Murano is a "crossover" SUV, meaning it looks like a truck but is based on a car platform, in this case the Nissan Altima. That’s a good thing, because the Altima is generally excellent, but in this case a nearly 4,000-pound body has been larded on top. While you get the benefits of all-wheel drive and plenty of storage space, you lose out in lousy fuel economy, heavy handling and poor visibility (especially to the rear).
Expect 20 miles per gallon of premium fuel in the city, and 24 on the highway from the 245-horsepower, 3.5-liter V-6. One reason it’s not worse is the Murano’s single-speed Xtronic continuously variable transmission, which comes as standard equipment.
While carrying cargo was never a problem, the lack of visibility was. Thick rear pillars impede the view to the rear, and it’s hard to see where the Murano ends. Reviewer Ann Job, nicely documenting the problem when small woman meets big car, must have parked by feel. "I could scarcely figure out where the front bumper of the Murano was when I parked," she said. "All I could see, even with the driver seat up as high as it would go, was the hood closest to the windshield and a bit of the center of the hood."
With all-wheel drive, the Murano goes for $30,000. Consider the excellent Altima ($16,850) instead, or better yet a bicycle. I hear they’re selling them cheap in Shanghai.
