Hi Niky,

I have noticed, too, the trend towards inner city redevelopment, especially in unsuccessful high-rise tenement neighborhoods. While the compact areas generally lend themselves to car-less activities, such efforts also tend to displace the previous low-income residents. In addition, being in the inner city, previous residents already tend to commute because of the convenient established mass transportation infrastructure. Thus, the net gain in carbon footprint would not be as significant.

As for our situation here in the Philippines, the creeping suburban development is as much, like most anything, a bastardized imitation of the American approach, as it is out of necessity. But you are right in that a lot of subdivisions can and are somewhat self-contained in that you can procure most daily needs right within the confines of the developments. And once the population of a new development is sustainable, tertiary transportation (i.e. tricycles) will also become available. Interestingly, this set-up can be found both in upscale communities and middle to lower-middle classes subdivisions. Fact is, it is also applicable in squatter colonies.

Currently, in the upscale communities, you can see residents drive around in electric golf-carts to go to the nearby golf/country club or to the neighborhood commercial center. If we are to look at recent historical trends, electric golf carts/utility vehicles are likely to come down in price as China continues to find ways to make them cheap and affordable, as it does with just about any popular consumer product. (Earlier this year, the Chinese government adopted a plan aimed at making the country one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and a world leader in electric cars and buses after that.) So it is likely we will see such electric vehicles in less luxurious neighborhoods in the near future.

So whether the effort is Chinese or American, the objective is obviously making electric vehicles affordable both in terms of acquisition costs and usage. Obviously there is a difference in the approaches with the Chinese aiming to leapfrog existing technology while the Americans/Japanese are doing it incrementally.

There are also other more radical suggestions – such as the linkable electrics you mentioned. However these require substantial infrastructure and hence are more difficult to implement since they will require government involvement. After all, any green solution cannot be pure dogma and is invariably tied to the existing environment (such as the aforementioned suburban sprawl) and economic structure (such as the oil industry which can potentially be severely affected).

For a poor third world (fourth?) country like ours, obviously for any proposed solution to be viable, especially in the short-term, the change has to be incremental in terms of the status quo. One possible opportunity is the one you mentioned – the so-called tertiary routes, some of which are currently served by tricycles. It is in fact an approach that I have been researching on for the past couple years. So I guess our mindsets are not too far off from each other.

Hmm. Perhaps we should really get on with that long-overdue EB with you so that we can pick your brains?